Short history of Syria, Chapter 1: Until 1946.

The essential prerequisite to civilization is agriculture. This was invented in Syria around 10,000 BC. In Roman times Antioch (1938 annexed into Southern Turkey) was the capital of Syria, and was one of the largest cities in the ancient world. Later Saint Paul after his conversion on the road to Damascus, became an important figure in the early Christian Church based in Antioch. With the rise of Islam in the 7th Century Damascus became the capital of the mighty Umayyad Empire, that stretched from what is now Spain to Pakistan. This lasted until the 10th century when Syria was taken over by the Islamic Abbasid dynasty based in Baghdad. Then the Christian Byzantine Empire, then the Crusaders and by the 13th Century it was on the western edge of the Mongol Empire. Then from the 16th to the 20th centuries Syria became part of the huge Turkish Ottoman Empire.



A map is needed to understand what has happened to Ottoman Syria since the end of the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Syria was an area bordered to the west by the Mediterranean and to the east the Syrian Desert (a continuation northwards of the Arabian Desert). It ended in the south with the Sinai desert and the Red Sea, and in the north with the slopes of the Tauras Mountains. The fertile areas of this region are shown in green above. This area forms the western arm of the "Fertile Crescent". The eastern arm "Mesopotamia" follows the Euphrates and Tigris rivers as they flow south east from the Tauras Mountains to the Persian Gulf.

Britain and France cheated the Arabs out of independence after the First World War, with the creation by the League of Nations of the British and French Mandates. King Faisal's brief reign in Syria (1918–1920) was ended by the French deposing him. He had wanted to unite Syria and Mesopotamia into one nation, and bridge the divisions between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

Control of Southern Syria (Palestine and Transjordon) was given to the British. After the Second World War this area became Israel and Jordon. The map above shows the Israeli Occupied Territories as part of Israel (going north to south .... Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza) because unfortunately the chance of anyone forcing Israel to give any of them up is about nil. It should be noted that water supply is a key strategic asset in this semi arid region, and not sharing this resource fairly from the Golan Heights, Jordan River and the aquifers of the West Bank are seen by the Israeli establishment as essential.

In addition the British were given control of the Ottoman Mesopotamian provinces (now modern day Iraq). Kuwait (a semi independent emirate on Iraq's Persian Gulf coastline) had been under British protection since 1899. In the late nineteenth century the Ottomans were attempting to consolidate the outer reaches of their Empire, which threatened British interests and the autonomy of local rulers. The deposed King Faisal was installed by the British as King of Iraq in 1921, although they kept effective control. The King had enough authority among the diverse tribes of Iraq to help keep control, while still being vulnerable enough to be dependent [the classic definition of a good proxy colonial ruler or "satrap"]. The British also sowed the seeds of tragedy after independence by encouraging Sunnis to become the officer class of the new Iraqi army they formed. It should be noted that Faisal and his descendants failed to rule Iraq effectively, due to their feudal beliefs leading to a failure to distribute wealth to the majority of the poverty stricken population.

From 1920 France ruled the Northern part of Syria. They controlled their area by favoring minorities over the majority Sunni population. The country was divided into a number of statelets, such that in many cases minorities gained more local autonomy. After the Second world War this area became modern day "Syria" and "Lebanon".

The country of "Lebanon" (like the other fragments of Ottoman Syria) was created by foreign interests. In 1860 the French under Napolean III had already intervened in Ottoman Syria when fighting broke out between Shia Druzes and Catholic Maronites, resulting in a very large massacre of  Maronites. The Sultan was forced to change the administration of the area and provide an enclave "Mount Lebanon" for the Maronites. In 1920 France created the Statelet of "Greater Lebanon" by expanding on the enclave, which eventually became modern day "Lebanon". This new state incorporated many Muslims and Orthodox Christians, creating the tensions which together with external influences from the Israel-Palestine conflict lead to the disastrous 1975-1990 civil war.

In modern "Syria" the Aliwi are now a powerful minority, from which has come the current ruling Assad dynasty. Before the French Mandate they were seen as heretics and often discriminated against, by the Sunni majority and their religious leaders. The Aliwite promotion of the fourth caliph Ali into a deity, went beyond mainstream Shia Islam, into something that contradicted the orthodox Islamic idea that Mohammed was the “last” messenger from God. [Personally I do not hold with any Jewish, Christian or Islamic religious ideas that seek to limit God to how many messengers, prophets, saviors etc…. he can send to show us the way. We should only be interested in knowing and following the way.]

The Ismaili Shia sect and it’s esoteric offshoot the Druzes were also discriminated against, but the Alawis were singled out because of their perceived total lack of orthodoxy and their obsessive secrecy which encouraged the creation of myths about them. I find it difficult not to see the comments of previous writers on the Alawi and their religious believes, as being motivated mainly by prejudice and rumour rather than truth. It should also be noted that since the French Mandate and particularly since the1970s the religious position of the Aliwites has moved significantly towards mainstream Shia Islam.

The French created the “State of Latakia” for the Alawi in July 1922. This statelet was then granted low taxation and a generous French subsidy. In return Alawites formed about half of the French controlled colonial “Troupes Spéciales du Levant” army units , as well as serving in the colonial police. Nearly all Alawites lived in the countryside, and they were used by the French to control uprisings and strikes by Sunnis in the cities.

It is true in 1921 that the Alawis under the leadership of Salih al-‘Ali did revolt against the French. This stopped as soon as the French gave them autonomy in their own statelet, and from then on they supported the continuation of French colonialism. In truth it is difficult to blame them given their previous conditions.

The French continued the process of division of "Ottoman Syria" started with the creation of French and British Mandates. The French Mandate was further divided into a number of "statelets". This created new minorities within these statelets, which encouraged sectarian strife. Obviously colonial powers need to dominate colonies by encouraging divisions between indigenous groups, which in theory prevents them making common cause against the colonialists. This also creates a number of local elites with limited powers, who can be held responsible for disobedience of the people in their areas, and if necessary threatened with replacement.

Having created this corrupt colonial system the French, also sought to then improve Syrian society by weakening the power of feudalism. Clearly a noble aim in other circumstances. The humiliation of the Druze nobility backfired with a revolt in 1925 in the "Jabal Druze" statelet led by Sultan Pasha el Atrash. The Syrians overcame sectarian differences, and the revolt spread to many other statelets. After many victories against the French, they sent in thousands of colonial troops from Morocco and Senegal. Modern weapons eventually overcame the less well equipped rebels.

Even after the rebellion was crushed the French had the common sense to realize they had underestimated their Syrian subjects, and the harsh tactics of the early years were softened. On 27th September 1941 Syria was granted token independence. However the French were reluctant to leave. On 29th May 1945 they bombed Damascus from the air, and tried to arrest its new democratically elected leaders. Only pressure from Syrian Nationalists and the British lead to the last French troops leaving on April 17th 1946.

Anders Breivik, Oslo, Utoeya and Far Right Christian Fundamentalism.

Aljazeera was yesterday interviewing a security export from London, who said the terrorist atrocities in Norway were almost certainly the work of Islamists. He claimed they had targeted Norway partly because security there was comparatively lax. It has since emerged that the bombing in Oslo and the mass shooting on the island of Utoeya were the work of a 32 year old far right Christian fundamentalist Anders Behring Breivik. We do not know at the moment whose his accomplices were.

Today Professor Paul Rogers (Peace Studies, Bradford University) on the BBC was claiming that Breivik was a political freak with no popular support. Later it emerged that Breivik had posted many comments of forums praising Geert Wilders. I hope Professor Rogers intention was to calm public fear, as he is wrong.

Geert Wilders ironically named Dutch "Party For Freedom" won 15.5% in parliamentary elections in 2010. The equally right wing Islamophobic "Freedom Party of Austria" won 17.5% of the vote in 2008 parliamentary elections. In Sweden the far right wing and certainly Islamophobic "Swedish Democrats" have broken into national politics with 5.7% of the votes in 2010. Rather than Breivik being an isolated incident he is on the rising edge of a dark political tide, which is set to expand rapidly as economic stagnation grips Europe.

Breivik’s Christian fundamentalism is also far from unique. How can a grown man walk around an island shooting unarmed teenagers and not feel deep shame? How can he believe that Jesus Christ could possibly approve of car bombs on crowded city streets?

A sarcastic joke defines a Christian fundamentalist as an evangelical who is angry. There is some truth to this. Evangelicals believe in the absolute truth of every word of the Bible (inerrancy in the jargon). This standpoint allows the human inspired content of the Bible to dilute the content inspired by God. In order to claim to be taking every word literally an artificial balancing act of interpretation is required, which has the result of allowing the human content of the Bible to diminish the divine view of God it contains. Normally enough of the good content survives to temper the temptation to go too far with the bad. Except in anger, hence the barb in the joke. How many evangelicals are there? Therefore how many people have been converted to Breivik's extreme religious views?

If you think I am being unfair to evangelicals, then I should also say that liberal Christianity seems to lack positive strong beliefs. As if they are following the obsession with "good character" that evangelicals promote, but simply reacting to the right wing version with a left wing version. It should also be said that the same criticism could be made of Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism.

Go beyond character, we are out to change the world with prayer and action. We are certain to fail, but we are going to try, because God belongs to all and everything.

Let us pray for Anders Breivik to see the absolutely terrible mistake he has made, and put all his energy for the rest of his life into trying to refute what he did yesterday and the false ideas that lead him there.

Justice, Respect and Dignity .... Israel Plus Palestine = Hope.

I imagine Alice Walker, well known American Activist and Novelist never did get to Gaza this year on the freedom flotilla. Today the last surviving small boat "Dignite al-Karama" (dignity in French and Arabic) was forced to sail to the Israeli port of Ashdod. The rest of the flotilla have been prevented by sabotage, or diplomatic pressure on Greece (economy in crisis) and Turkey (struggling with regime change in neighboring Syria). This at least prevents the violence of last year when nine activists were killed ( I should probably say murdered ) by Israeli soldiers on the "Mavi Marmara".

In Alice Walker's article in the British "Guardian" Newspaper called "This is why I sail" she explains the reasons for her proposed voyage ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/25/alice-walker-gaza-freedom-flotilla ). One of these is Melvyn Roseman Leventhal, her ex-husband's, answer to why he had become involved with the civil rights struggle in sixties America :

"   I thought he might say it was the speeches, the marches, the example of Martin Luther King Jr, or of others in the movement who exhibited impactful courage and grace. But no. Thinking back, he recounted an episode from his childhood that led him, inevitably to our struggle.
   He was a little boy on his way home from yeshiva, the Jewish school he attended after school let out. His mother a bookkeeper, was still at work; he was alone. He was frequently harassed by older boys from regular school, and one day two of these boys snatched his yarmulke (skull cap), and, taunting him, ran off with it, eventually throwing it over a fence.
   Two black boys appeared, saw his tears, assessed the situation, and took off after the boys who had taken his yarmulke. Chasing the boys down and catching them, they made them climb the fence, retrieve and dust off the yarmulke, and place it respectfully back on his head."

She then goes on to say "It is justice and respect that I want the world to dust off and put - without delay, and with tenderness - back on the head of the Palestinian child."

The claim of the Zionist propagandists is that Palestinians have the rest of the Arab world to move to. They are fond of the map with the sea of the Arab world set against the small island of Israel. In reality this Arab world is impoverished, deliberately fragmented by foreign powers, (until recently) almost entirely ruled by dictators propped up by powerful foreign governments and even in it's geography largely inhospitable and arid. The propagandists retort falsely that it is the "evil" religion of Islam that is responsible, often claiming that fragmentation and dictatorship is the only way to constrain it. There has even been the absurd notion that Arab backwardness had made the land arid and infertile. Really this is racism. The experience of the Palestinian refugees is that often there has been nowhere else to go. The struggle for freedom for Palestine has been going on for nearly 90 years since the 1917 Balfour agreement.

We pray that one day a Jewish Israeli, a person with the rare gift of inspiring humanity, will look with fresh eyes on the experience of the Jewish people, and say "I am a Palestinian".

A Poem and a Prayer: One day in Jerusalem

A Poem and a Prayer: One day in Jerusalem

We are born close to God’s thoughts, seeing the unity of all behind the reality of now. So much time adults waste on religious doctrine that tries to capture God within comprehensions that he could not make for himself. We are close to God; every move to give ourselves for peace, every attempt to walk in another’s shoes, every act to cooperate to clothe and feed ourselves and others in all that body and soul needs, every word that plans for a future with space for all people strong and weak as well as God’s vast natural creation,  every prayer for unity in the face of the disjointed essence of reality that always surprises us …. All these and much more have a multiplicity of explanations, the least of all these is that every thought or feeling or soul or bending figure strung out over years and over unreadable bundles of cells all touch at one point. None can flinch in mind or body without touching this point, the least and the most utterly existential. You know what this is called, and where our true allegiance and reality lies.

Why Assad's Regime Is Over.

Look at this face carefully and remember it, because he is one of thousands of reasons why Bashar al-Assad's regime is over, and why "Russia, China and India" must allow the UN to take action. This is an extract from an Aljazeera article of the 31st May 2011....

" Hamza al-Khateeb used to love it when the rains came to his small corner of southern Syria, filling up the farmers' irrigation channels enough so that he and the other children could jump in and swim. But the drought of the last few years had left the 13-year-old without the fun of his favourite pool.

Instead, he'd taken to raising homing pigeons, standing on the roof of his family's simple breeze-block home, craning his neck back to see the birds circling above the wide horizon of fields, where wheat and tomatoes were grown from the tough, scrubby soils. "

He was arrested during a protest near Daraa on the 29th April. The scars on his body showed that the Syrian "security" forces attacked this thirteen year old boy during the month he was in their care, with electric shocks and by whipping him with wire cables. Even in his death they degraded themselves by shooting him through the arms into his stomach, breaking his neck, and cutting off his genitals. His mother was only allowed to see his face, while his father looked on his son's body and fainted.

According to Ricken Patel of Avaaz (the international rights and advocacy group) " This is a campaign of mass terrorism and intimidation: Horribly tortured people sent back to communities by a regime not trying to cover up its crimes, but to advertise them. "

The treatment of Hamza al-Khateeb is not an isolated incident but part of a campaign. The aim is to intimidate some of the Syrian population. While others will be driven to such rage that they will try to take revenge against the armed forces, the security forces or the Alawite minority. This would then allow Assad to claim he was fighting a civil war.

The unrest started in Deraa on the 6th March, when 15 boys between the ages of 10 and 15 were arrested by the security forces for painting "The people want to topple the regime!" on the walls. They were beaten, burned with cigarette ends and then had their fingernails removed. Only after two weeks of protests were the boys released. By this time three people had been shot dead by the security forces, and many others wounded. After this there was a spiral of violence with each protest by the people of Deraa being met with increasing violence by the security forces. The city has now been under siege by the army since the 25th April.

According to the Humans Rights Watch report “We’ve Never Seen Such Horror, Crimes against Humanity by Syrian Security Forces." published on the 1st June 2011. " The security forces have killed at least 418 people in the Daraa governorate alone, and more than 887 across Syria.... "

There have also been around 10,000 people arrested in Syria by the security forces since the protests began, with all the terrible suffering that this involves.

See: "We are all Hamza al-Khateeb."  https://www.facebook.com/hamza.alshaheed?sk=wall

Saudi Arabia a badge of shame for the Arab world.

Saudi Arabia has little to do with Islam, apart from custodianship of the holy sites at Mecca and Medina. Indeed Saudi Arabia is a symptom of the defeat of Islam.

The Saud monarchy have wasted billions of dollars of oil wealth, to fund the lavish and often decadent lifestyles of thousands belonging to the extended royal family, while the hypocritical Wahhabi (or Salafi if you prefer this name) religious establishment supports the monarchy by imposing a fundamentalist puritanical version of Islam on everyone apart from the royals cocooned in their countless palaces. They then have the gall to invert Islam and claim obedience to royal authority as an Islamic virtue.

The huge wealth of the country comes from beneath the Earth and therefore in Islam belongs to no one, and should be used for God's purposes. It should have been used to develop the Arab world. Instead it has mostly funded hypocrisy at home, and the export of fundamentalist versions of Sunni Islam abroad. This is partly responsible for conflict with Shia Islam, and giving an excuse to racists in the West to indulge in Islamophobia.

The country was only founded in 1932 after tribal wars, that received foreign backing! It would have been part of a larger pan-Arab country long ago, without the support of the US. I am sickened to hear apologists for Saudi Arabia in the West describing it as a proud desert kingdom, while obviously indulging their own private interests, while claiming to be doing so in the name of the pubic in western democracies. It is time to describe Saudi Arabia for what it is, a badge of shame for the Arab world.

Winning the battle of Libya After Gaddafi.

Now at the start of June the chances of the survival of Gaddafi's regime appear to be close to zero. The rebels are holding the line at Brega in the East, while the perimeter around Misrata has been extended to 30km. In the Western mountains there is still fierce fighting based around Zintan, although the rebels here are now in dire needs of Nato air support. Meanwhile the oil minister and three more generals have recently joined the stream of top people abandoning Gaddafi. The rebels now await the arrival of Nato Apache ground attack helicopters which can give close aerial support. They may well be the decisive factor that tips the balance and allows the rebels to roll up Gaddafi's army.

Clearly Libyans have a natural interest in ending forty years of dictatorship by Gaddafi. The success of this revolution is also important to the whole of the Arab Democratic Uprising. It shows that Tunisia and Egypt are not special cases, and democracy can succeed even against large scale state violence.

Indeed UN war crimes investigator Cherif Bassiouni of Egypt, has recently produced a report accusing Gaddafi of "crimes against humanity". Although he also found the rebels guilty of far fewer incidences of "war crimes" against government loyalists and suspected mercenaries.

The ordinary people in Western countries (not their self interested elites) have an interest in the Libyan revolution succeeding, because democracy abroad is crucial to democracy at home. The ultimate success of the Arab Democratic Uprising and the Libyan revolution in particular, is for ordinary people in Western countries, in our direct interest.

So we have a right to ask what will happen after Gaddafi is gone.

Back in March the National Transitional Council released "A vision of a democratic Libya" statement. The contents can be summarized as:

1. Create a constitution, balancing legislative, executive and judicial powers.
2. Form political parties and civil society.
3. Peaceful transfer of power, to allow political participation without
    discrimination.
4. Right to vote in free elections, and run for office for all citizens.
5. Freedom of media and for peaceful protest.
6. State based on strong religious beliefs in peace, truth, justice and equality.
7. (a) Prosperous economy to get rid of poverty and unemployment.
    (b) Strong public and private sectors, without corruption.
    (c) Invest in education and science. Guarantee rights of women.
    (d) Get rid of religious and ethnic intolerance and discrimination.
8. (a) Respect neighbouring nations and join the international community.
    (b) Condemn authoritarian and despotic regimes. Respect foreign companies.
    (c) State will strongly support peace, democracy and freedom.

Also on the 7th May a road map was produced, whose contents can be summarized as follows:

1. Declare Interim Government within 2 days of withdrawal by Gaddafi forces.
    Agree members of this government in advance.
    Interim Government to maintain security and order.
    Members of government from National Transition Council,
    technocrats, military and security (not involved in past crimes),
    judge and civil and religious society.
    Also three members from Gaddafi's government.
2. National Conference within two weeks of Gaddafi regime going.
    Members from all over the country. Representation
    depending on population size of regions or cities.
3. National Conference and National Transitional Council join together.
    Committee creates draft constitution within 45 days.
4. Draft constitution shown to Libyan people, who vote in referendum
    under UN supervision.
5. Parliamentary elections four months after constitution adopted,
    voting under UN supervision.
6. Presidential elections two months after first Parliament created.
7. President selects Prime Minister, who then selects cabinet.
8. If Parliament approves, the Interim Government is dissolved.
9. As a "dry run" the UN will oversee municipal elections in rebel
    held areas as soon as possible.

Will the road map lead to the fulfillment of the vision? So far the experience of the Transitional National Council gives genuine reasons for concern, inspite of the incredible odds that it has overcome. It is a purely practical body, that has tried to be inclusive, whose purpose is to bring to an end more than 40 years of brutal dictatorship.

Radek Sikorski the foreign minister of Poland after a trip in May to Benghazi said:

"Poland learned the hard way that demanding change and defying oppression are much less difficult than formulating and delivering a clear, reasonable programme for a better future. Not all popular demands for freedom succeed: in the confusion, reactionary forces can make their move."

He then cited Belarus as an example, of what can go wrong.

The well known disputes between General Abdul Fatah Younis and General Khalifa Hifter in the rebel army are worrying. This is an army which is not well trained or equipped. It's members could well have stronger ties to individuals within the ruling council (or later on the government), than they do to the nation. The danger is then of real civil war, if tensions within the newly liberated country are not dealt with, when the unifying opposition to the tyrant Gaddafi has gone. In addition a poorly equipped army will not be able to provide protection against break away groups. Foreign governments should have been quicker to help develop the professionalism of the rebel army with training and equipment, especially after the terrible disaster of the security vacuum in Iraq.

The wiki leak US cables about Libya display an almost racist attitude that ordinary Libyans are not really interested in democracy, and are wholly concerned with money. This inspite of the existence of the "National Conference of the Libyan Opposition" ( www.libya-nclo.com ), and the thirty year history of the "National Front For The Salvation Of Libya" ( www.libyanfsl.com ). What the wiki leak cables say about the Gaddafi regime may still be true "....country where personalities and relationships often play more important roles than official titles".

There has been criticism that within the National Transitional Council "there is little transparency about the process or criteria of portfolio allocation". However it has to be understood that security concerns mean that some people cannot be even named, and there is a natural tendency to depend on people you know and trust.

It seems unlikely that a new government that is democratic and stable is just going to appear in Libya. Will political parties be formed around regions, who will then make alliances in Parliament to secure a disproportionate percentage of the country's resources for their regions? Given a weak army that has a tendency to fragment, the resulting frustrations could then lead to uncontrollable armed conflicts within the country. How can this be resolved in advance? Surely waiting till after the constitution has been adopted will be too late.

A centralized federal structure for the country could be adopted in the constitution, which would give people freedom to organize their own local activities.

More importantly there has to be a way to guarantee, within the constitution and so at the very core of the national government , that both regions and groups within the country are not discriminated against in wealth distribution or in any other way. Especially as this technique was used by Gaddafi and other dictators, to punish rebellious regions.

Obviously since 95% of exports and 40% of GDP depend on the one source, that is oil, the problem of wealth distribution is critical. If there were guarantees in the constitution of economic equality for regions and ethnic or religious groups within society, then people could take their grievances to court rather than having to resort to violence. It would also discourage political parties from forming on regional lines, and trying to win elections by promising to obtain unfair economic advantage for their voters, as this technique could not succeed in the long run.

Given the possibility critical nature of the constitution for the future of Libyan democracy, is four or six months really long enough to discuss the options, and allow people to arrive at a considered decision in a referendum? Holland for example has a very clear guarantee of equality within it's constitution, which gives the concept of equality a power that normal legislation cannot give it.

Surely given the experiences in the region there needs to be detailed discussions about the length that any president can serve, and the limit of his powers.

Note that many of the problems of US democracy stem from representatives going to Washington to secure unfair economic advantages for their state. Although this process can be contained as America now has a strong central government, and regional identities are relatively weak with a very mobile population. In the nineteenth century it was economic conflicts between regions, that discriminated between North and South, that eventually led to the American Civil War. The factor of slavery was really of subsidiary importance.
(See: "The Roots Of The Modern American Empire" by William Appleman Williams, Anthony Blond Ltd, 1969 )

Just as importantly and aside from the constitution, there needs to be agreement on how loyalists to Gaddafi are to be treated in the new Libya. There needs to a South African style truth and reconciliation process.

Given that Qatar and the excellent Aljazeera have been so supportive of the revolution, where is the new vibrant free Libyan media? Surely it is needed to contrast with the absurd propaganda of the Gaddafi era, to hold the rebel administration to account by communicating successes and failures to the public and to provide a central space for discussion about rebuilding Libya and the options for a new constitution. Surely the resources and expertise exist to make this happen now.

Success in Libya would have a big effect on democratic uprisings elsewhere in the region. This could be the crucial link to bridge the gap between success in Tunisia and Egypt, to success in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Iran and even Bahrain. Leaving Saudi Arabia isolated and ready to negotiate and adopt a progressive role.

There are many countries and regimes that cling to the old style of doing things, which has impoverished and humiliated the people of the region for so long. Activists in Yemen have said that Saudi Arabia have been undermining their attempts to create a successful federal structure for Yemen after Saleh. In the same way Israel has recently been signaling that a new conflict with Hezbollah, that would indirectly aid the Syrian Assad regime, is in the pipeline. The Libyan revolution has many enemies, from Tehran to Riyadh To Washington, who are looking for weaknesses to exploit. So in mechanical terms, this is a time for an over engineered solution to rebuilding Libya with large margins for safety.