Of course they didn't orchestrate it, but without Sarkozy's calls for an air intervention,which America and Britain then went along with, the war likely would have fizzled or resolved in a way in which there wouldn't be a massive power vacuum. Along with Iraq it stands as one of this century's greatest follies as it resulted in Libya having very factionalized governance, and furthermore then led towards arms being spread across the Sahel, which led towards trouble in Mali and in Northern Nigeria the rise of Boko Haram.
Furthermore it backfired on the EU as Gaddafi was instrumental towards regulating migratory flows, even during the protests and the civil war.
A power vacuum was certainly created as a result of the Gaddaffi regime collapse, yes.
But Boko Haram started its big rise already ca.1-2 years before the protests in Libya even begun, therefore the Libya situation did not directly create the rise of Boko Haram.
Also, it is not clear if things would have fizzled out without an intervention. The Syria war happened in parallel, and whoever was left to rule Libya (in whole or in parts) would have had to face the Battar Brigade, and then eventually the ISIL in Libya. Given that those actors obviously received clandestine backing (money, equipment, training) from "somewhere", thus greatly increasing their strength against any more organic movement(s), and given highly possible political reluctance to arm/support the opposite side, it is conceivable that the entire Libya could have eventually become an ISIL stronghold.
The whole Arab Spring was strategically bad news for the EU, including France. They had nothing to gain from orchestrating such a thing. But without any intervention (read: attempts to control) the Libya situation could have turned into something much worse, given that the likes of AQIM existed already in the neighbourhood before the Libya protests started, and this can explain the eagerness to try to clean up the mess as quickly as possible.
As someone who doesn't consider themself to be a bot - if that is your inference - I upvoted because i found the post particularly well-written and informative from someone 'on the ground' so to speak.
- ed
(also somewhat contrary to my preferred Euro-friendly narrative)
No, I did not infer that he/she got upvoted by an army of bots or some such.
I just thought, like I wrote, that the mass of karma per time unit was (for lack of a better word, in all friendliness) impressive.
The posts are certainly informative. However, some details are not factual. To claim that the "provocations of the French" somehow made the migrant influx to Europe happen is wrong, the influx was due to the Libyan civil war collapsing the Gaddafi regime. The French did not start the Libyan protests and neither the civil war. Of course, one could argue that the French and NATO method of weakening Gaddafi's troops did not play out so well in the end, since it did not succeed in creating a stable new government, but this was mainly due to the effects of the Syrian war spilling out to Libya.
Also, claiming that the rise of Boko Haram was due to the Libyan civil war (and by some, perhaps imagined extensions, the French "provocations") is wrong, Boko Haram were already on the rise before the protests in Libya even started.
As for the Chinese building infrastructure left and right: the roads and rails can transport people or resources. I think it is mainly to do the latter towards harbors and mainland China, but supports the former as well. Is it good for the African nations? Certainly, more infrastructure that works will be a boost to the economies of the continent. However, to be a realist: building roads, rails, harbors, airports and such is not done as a gesture of goodwill or some kind of a gift or a form of help. Thinking so is very naïve. There is always some catch, with everything. Some catches are win-win, some are not. Time will tell what this will be.
Furthermore it backfired on the EU as Gaddafi was instrumental towards regulating migratory flows, even during the protests and the civil war.