Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

alright, so given the fact I think I'm generally the smartest person in the room, I often don't know where to look for answers. Also, I think this question generally is one that the common media narratives fail to incorporate, including in this case AJE, which I feel is extremely biased in their coverage of the Arab spring (this is in line with the general populous bias of AJE)

In nations like Libya, Syria, Bahrain, etc, we see soldiers, generally common folk, who are willing to support leaders who are almost unquestionably evil and who oppress their people in terrible ways.

However, at the same time, we see scores of people who feel that it is worth killing others to keep these leaders in place. I'm not talking about hired mercenaries, their motivation is obvious (ie: they are psychopaths who don't care who they are killing, so long as there is a paycheque).

My question is about the common soldier. How does Qaddafi still have military forces that support him? what is the psychological motivation of his forces? are they doing it because they are afraid of the repercussions, are they just good soldiers who are following orders (similar to the Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo abuses)? or is there a deeper motivation that aligns these individuals to their leaders?

I know Qaddafi has, for years, fostered support based on his anti-colonial resistance, but is that really the simplest explanation for why people follow him?

my apologies also, I think I have asked such questions in other threads, but I'm generally curious as to other's opinions on this questions, as really, I have no idea.

Don't many of these countries have strong tribal ties? Like to the extent that being a country is just a formality to simplify things for the rest of us. If Gadaffi promises to increase the prestige of a person's clan/family/tribe they might very well kill people from the other groups without hesitation (as they don't identify with those people).

Barring that I've always thought that was supports many of these regimes is a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma. Gadaffi will have you or your family killed if you defy him (I assume). If no one stands up to him their families live and they get money. If everyone stands up to him they all go free. If only some of the people stand up to him then their families and lives are at risk.
Look at 1984 for a great example of how this works. Part of being in the group is an outward appearance of fanatical support so that when you look around that's what you see, everyone is fanatically pro-Gadaffi. Now they might be acting just like you are but if you broach the subject and they're genuinely pro-Gadaffi you and your family are dead.

Finally there's the issue of chaos. People really fear chaos. Even if they don't like Gadaffi its easy to rationalize that he's better than nothing. I imagine that in Lybia this is less of an issue now that the rebels already have a government of their own.

the vast majority of libyan people support gaddafi because he has done great things for the country and people

the western politicians like to spin a web of bullshit propaganda

i have seen what the libyan rebels do to people, they are vicious scum

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Don't many of these countries have strong tribal ties? Like to the extent that being a country is just a formality to simplify things for the rest of us. If Gadaffi promises to increase the prestige of a person's clan/family/tribe they might very well kill people from the other groups without hesitation (as they don't identify with those people).

interesting... I'll admit I don't understand tribal culture at all...

but didn't Qaddafi's own tribe recently turn against him (to be fair, this could be different in Yemen, Syria, etc)

I remember seeing more serious news reports, but here are a couple:

http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=25512
http://mg.co.za/article/2011-04-27-libyan-tribes-call-on-gaddafi-to-go

I can almost clearly remember an AJE brief where they showed the tribal leaders saying they would support a rebel gvt over that of Qaddafi

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Barring that I've always thought that was supports many of these regimes is a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma. Gadaffi will have you or your family killed if you defy him (I assume). If no one stands up to him their families live and they get money. If everyone stands up to him they all go free. If only some of the people stand up to him then their families and lives are at risk.
Look at 1984 for a great example of how this works. Part of being in the group is an outward appearance of fanatical support so that when you look around that's what you see, everyone is fanatically pro-Gadaffi. Now they might be acting just like you are but if you broach the subject and they're genuinely pro-Gadaffi you and your family are dead.

I guess my problem is that I don't see this as enough... sure, in Yemen and in Libya we see military veterans and generals going to the side of the rebels... but can we really explain the behaviour of other soldiers as being motivated strictly through this kind of calculus?

I mean, consider yourself as a soldier... at what point do you consider your own actions as being more reprehensible than the need to save your family...

I guess, not having a family of my own and not understanding tribal society, I could be totally wrong on this, but I can only think of myself put in that situation (of course, filled with Western bias...), how could I end the life of someone who is simply calling for democratic rights, versus living with the pain of knowing I killed someone who didn't deserve it.

I can't believe such moral axioms are overridden by tribal/other types of alliances, but again, I'm admitting my ignorance.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Finally there's the issue of chaos. People really fear chaos. Even if they don't like Gadaffi its easy to rationalize that he's better than nothing. I imagine that in Lybia this is less of an issue now that the rebels already have a government of their own.

fair enough... I suppose if you don't classify living under a brutal dictator as chaos, than the specter of not having such a strongman as leader may be threatening... but idk, not that I'm trying to be critical, that just seems like such a simple answer to a position I think must be more nuanced than that...

I suppose that could be it: protect Libya in any form, promote the tribe, protect my family, and ya, putting it in 3 simple terms like that actually makes it seem really simple.... idk, I'm just really skeptical of those positions... are we to believe there are really no people who support Qaddafi? like, when he said al qaeda was feeding people hallucinogenic drugs on the streets, there are no people who supported that? is the power base of these leaders really only motivated by the survival instinct or tribal ambitions of the soldiers following them? Do we even have any evidence that the soldiers in the Libyan army are comprised of those who are from Qaddafi's clan?

lol, not that I can really argue with what you said, it is way more coherent than anything I can come up with...

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
the vast majority of libyan people support gaddafi because he has done great things for the country and people

what sort of great things do you mean?

I know about the huge irrigation projects, but does Qaddafi really provide material support for his subjects?

you are saying he has bought the loyalties of the common man?

$$$

Possibly?

Tribal Mentality isnt that hard to understand, it is a small community of people that are closely tied to familial bonds. It is like asking would you kill your own cousin b/c he killed a member of someone elses whom you dont like?

These tribes/clans are often at odds with each other like a gang each wanting more power or expansion and killing others to get it. The children in these types of family are raised with certain ideals and beliefs that makes it easier to justify their behavior.

The blind loyalty thing i never understood and i dont know anyone in the military community who would call the Abu Ghraib soldiers, good soldiers. My time as a Marine I have seen men and women stand down from orders that were less appalling then those soldiers in Abu Ghraib. I should probably mention that the military has an evaluation and background check for obedient soldiers/Marines for certain job post, which I honestly think it boarders on blind obedience and being psychotic.

A lot of the soldiers I have seen tend to obey out of fear of financial and military repercussions, as well as familial obligations. I have spoken to an AirForce guy who once told me he routinely and knowingly obeyed illegal orders and stated that if he were caught he would just shift the blame up stairs and just following orders because he has a family to support. I of course found him to be a sh**bag airmen for his statement but you can see how selfish an individual can be when one has to decide who to hurt themselves or others.

It get's worse when you see it in 3rd world countries where people are tortured or killed for disobedience and not just getting fired or put in the hole for a week or a couple of months.


Aside from all this some people genuinely want strict order in their society and they can and do support it. I myself would prefer a military government b/c I know i can thrive in it and those who cannot, I probably could care less about them to begin with.

people are afraid, people are branwashed, people are stupid

all of these traits are used to make them become nationalists, to fear mutiny, to hate other groups in the country and divide and rule, and to threaten them with conspiracies of foriegn enslavement and attacks on islam. furthermore, when the "perceived" economic interest of one part of the country is contrary to another's, what happens?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
people are afraid, people are branwashed, people are stupid Best succinct answer there is.



Also high in bran fiber.

Originally posted by inimalist
alright, so given the fact I think I'm generally the smartest person in the room, I often don't know where to look for answers. Also, I think this question generally is one that the common media narratives fail to incorporate, including in this case AJE, which I feel is extremely biased in their coverage of the Arab spring (this is in line with the general populous bias of AJE)

In nations like Libya, Syria, Bahrain, etc, we see soldiers, generally common folk, who are willing to support leaders who are almost unquestionably evil and who oppress their people in terrible ways.

However, at the same time, we see scores of people who feel that it is worth killing others to keep these leaders in place. I'm not talking about hired mercenaries, their motivation is obvious (ie: they are psychopaths who don't care who they are killing, so long as there is a paycheque).

My question is about the common soldier. How does Qaddafi still have military forces that support him? what is the psychological motivation of his forces? are they doing it because they are afraid of the repercussions, are they just good soldiers who are following orders (similar to the Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo abuses)? or is there a deeper motivation that aligns these individuals to their leaders?

I know Qaddafi has, for years, fostered support based on his anti-colonial resistance, but is that really the simplest explanation for why people follow him?

my apologies also, I think I have asked such questions in other threads, but I'm generally curious as to other's opinions on this questions, as really, I have no idea.
From what I saw on BBC news early in the conflict most of the Libyans in Quadaffi's stronghold in Tripolitana have grown up knowing nothing but Quadaffi. Only middle aged and elderly people actually remember Libya before the revolution and unlike in Cyrenaica where the rebels are strong there was never significant loyalty for the royal government that came before him.

As has been stated before in this thread a lack of education plays a role in it, but I don't think it's the main factor.

I think the main issue is that most of these soldiers are just ordinary people caught up in extraordinary and terrifying circumstances. In such situations its much easier to roll with the punches and do what you must to survive. These soldiers are motivated by a perceived lack of choice. Rebels in Misrata captured some loyalists and the loyalists seemed to suggest that many of Quadaffi's soldiers wanted to defect but were afraid that the rebels would just kill or torture them if they tried (or that they'd be shot in the back by their former comrades as happened in Syria).

At this point by not immediately turning on Quadaffi the loyalists have for better or worse thrown their lot in with him, and they may not even consider defection a possibility.

To add to all this, I've heard it said many times that while atrocities are masterminded by evil men they are usually carried out by people who are either indifferent or ignorant of the evil of their actions.

very interesting guys