I can understand that the rebels, not only in Libya but all over the Arab world and in the so-called Arab-spring - are suspect to most eyes in BR. Many have found it surprising that I have seen the "rebels" in a positive light given my perhaps perceived attitude towards Islamism.
But I think we need to be aware of the following points about the "Arab world":
(1) It is not really a "Arab" world. The only "Arab" commonality is the language of the "Arabs" proper as corrupting and influencing or replacing large chunks of pre-existing languages, and the theological prestige enjoyed by KSA as the birth place of Islam.
(2) There has always been racial, ethnic, linguistic and other cultural tensions between the various regions and Islamic imperialism that has sought to soothe or negate this tension by the claims of "ummah".
(3) There has always been a struggle between the majority and the ruling elite [which is mostly formed out of various degrees of compromises between regional pre-Islamic and invading Islamic armies] over scarce biological resources - productive land, water, and trade routes.
(4) In the pre-modern period, Islam succeeded in transforming this struggle into theological and Islamic terms only, because alternative ideologies were held by those who were also imperialist and hostile [christians].
(5) In the modern period, socialism/leftism/Marxism provided an escape route for this constrained ideological horizon - since it was not associated with any of the archetypes. This therefore became the vehicle of those seeking to capitalize on the ancient and popular discontent from subject producers over land and water with the feudal elite.
(6) As in India or elsewhere - where Leftism has been able to make its political presence felt, it was led by disgruntled or disillusioned intellectual sections of the elite of respective societies, who one way or the other felt frustrated or obstructed in their search for power. In the "Arab" world, a similar process happened. But the problem was that in societies where Islam had replaced all other ideologies/theologies violently and ruthlessly, "leftists" did not have any natural societal corner or "shelter" in non-Islamic sections. So it was easier for imperialists to play around and mobilize the mullahcracy by scratching the mullahcracy's itch about the threat of alternative popular discontent which could lead to alternative sources of political power. Ironically, "leftism" achieved success only where the two proselytizing branches of the Abrahamic were either weakened already or non-Abrahamic ideologies were entrenched too and not replaced. In India, leftism succeeded because of the very existence of "Hinduism" that they are so much vocal against.
(7) But the basic struggle between elite/feudals [whose adoption of Islam was more about being on the good books of armies that controlled trade routes and finding Islamism a good model of social control that works hand in glove with feudal structures] and the producers on land in the Arab world has not gone. It periodically flares up in every generation. It was used by the elite in the colonial period to move against "foreign imperialism" [Egypt, Turkey]. But subsequently they clamped down on it when it struck closer to home.
(8) The uprisings happen with unfailing regularity - roughly every 30 years. The story of these uprisings so far has not been blown about a lot in the media - because of western interest in keeping such news suppressed. At the time the mullahcracy, or even the Baathist pretenders of "socialism" were essentially serving western purpose - and they all moved against more "Marxist" attempts.
(9) The reason now this is gaining access in the media and coming before the mainstream - is because of several different factors, not all of which are under western control. First, Islamism is no longer seen as a trusted and reliable ally of the West. Second, no obvious danger of communism, as the three bastions of "communism" have switched over to controlled private enterprise and state capitalism. Third, all three of these bastions now hobnob or toy with the idea of supporting or using Islamism against western interests. Fourth, at least one Islamic country is willing to play the game in supporting such attempts at uprisings ideologically as part of its own larger geo-political game. So it is partially impossible to entirely suppress the news of these uprisings, and actually beneficial to join in by the west. [What may not remain under your control better be infiltrated and pose as friends].
(10) I feel that any liberal or even illiberal attempt by the Arab "lower orders" against their own dynastic or single-person based regimes is a first beneficial step towards unraveling of the mullahcracy. It makes the people conscious of their own power which is a first important step that undermines the mullahcracy's supra-human authority. Second, once you topple an autocrat, it becomes progressively difficult for autocracies to be tolerated beyond limits. This may seem contradictory to historical experience, but every uprising against autocracy has over the long term compromised the powers of autocracy and ideology/theology that sustained such autocrats- even if people sort of swing back and forth in pendulum moves for some time looking for stability.
(11) The Iranian revolution that was hijacked by the Ayatollahs possibly with American covert help, was an important first step, even if Ayatollahs appear to rule an Islamist society for the next 30 years. But the seeds of eventual demise of the Ayatollahcracy were sown in that very revolution that brought Khameini to power. In two-three cycles of this churning - 60 -90 years, each generation will still be fueled by the ancient struggle and come up against the real obstacles in their way. This time around the mullahcracy itself has made the blunder of being in the forefront of power - so the frustration of the Iranian youth will see them as the obstacle. When they mature they will be less resistant to their younger population gunning for the high-priests of Islamism.
(12) The Libyan rebels should be encouraged - for they remove individual dictatorial regimes which are much more amenable to foreign and especially western manipulations. We know of examples much closer to home don't we? Over the longer term, that will translate into lesser support for mullahcracy. It was a blunder to target Najibullah in AFG. If I was an advisor for the Amir Khans I would have suggested letting him continue and even support him a bit, so that the communists and the mullahs fought it out in a war of attrition. Through that gap some degree of modernization could have been achieved, and ultimately when the society would be tired of both forms of social control, a chance would have been created for an alternative and broader base for modernization. With the blind short term gain tactics of the US, we are now saddled with the Taleban.
