The number of deaths caused by the Libyan civil war is reason enough to undertake everything imaginable to avoid the war in the first place. Governments must ruled out this option from the beginning on. The rules of engagement have not been respected, when they should have been based strictly on principles of self-defense as provided in gw's terms and Jerry Lee's War Doctrine. The promises made to protesters that they would die as martyrs is a fraud that cannot be forgiven - no God would want to be living next door to violent people. Meanwhile, lunatics who believe in these promises don't even understand the basics of life. How would they integrate a peaceful society? They are part of this world's problem: the thirst for destruction - for devolution. In this world's discord of values, a class defined as the "One Percent" emerges from among the 'masses' with no solutions at hand but to consolidate their own self-interests. After three revolutions, people in Africa are not better off today than they were before. The truth is, it's not about the political rights. If after more than two centuries of democracy the French keep being dissatisfied with their rulers and living condition, what can be expected of democracies elsewhere in the world? People's ultimate dream is not politically motivated, but economic. If democracies are not up to the task to provide for people's basic needs, then the system should be reinvented. Read Jerry Lee's special project in PopCo and IPF on how to achieve that dream and see how the world can avoid or limit the destructive effects of civil wars in Irrational Exuberance 2011 - Plan and Civil Wars (Libya) 2011 - Plan. Also, feel free to participate in reutersglobpolicies to make your own propositions for a safer and fairer world for the 'other 99 percent'.

Jerry Lee's philosophy is summarized in GlobDemons and PolitiMagni.

Look at Jerry Lee's comments in 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008

NATO's push against Gaddafi shows three reasoning mistakes: first, that some leaders have an omnipotent right to mingle into others' affairs; second, that the use of air power - more than dialog - can prevent human tragedies; and third, that you can force isolated tyrannies to be non-violent by banging the drums of war. While Jerry Lee favors unilateralism as a form of leadership, this should not go at the cost of national independence, or it would risk turning unilateralism into that tyrant the world aims at destroying. Ill-placed political statements packaged with emotions in support of protests in countries that find themselves at crossing points in history risk animating irrational exuberance and a confrontation between people and states. They are far too perilous to be dared in practice. Leaders, more than maintaining relations with people, must choose exclusively state-to-state relationships to warrant stability and security as their primary values - particularly when states are cooperative. In the scope of these relations, political and/or economic sanctions either internationally or individually-imposed should not be interpreted as a form of punishment, rather a sufficient and adequate mean of disagreement with state policies. Demanding that a foreign country's leader quits is not useful in diplomacy. It can accelerate or slow down a country's development process without regard to people's needs for stability and security, risking that street revolutions affect people's well-being over the long run. Street revolutions cannot offset state violence in areas of human rights and freedoms without causing more sufferings. Likewise, NATO's bombings and resulting collateral damages cannot stop state violations of human rights as the means employed far exceed these violations and contribute to intensify a cycle of violence which logical aim is total destruction (bbc). When Gaddafi proposed in mid-March a ceasefire to be monitored by international observers, nothing was undertaken to seize that opportunity and talk with the regime. NATO members were too determined to use force instead of dialog. When another ceasefire proposal by the African Union was rejected by rebels and NATO on April 11, all means to avoid more violence were not exploited to impeach violence, which made a military engagement in the country more illegitimate than it would have been otherwise. NATO's interpretation of the UN's mandate that required protecting civilians only far exceeded the spirit of the UNSC's vote. It seems, the no-fly zone turned into an excuse to wage an all-out war to defend not civilians, but egopolitics with all the consequences that it would entail. Namely, a perception that the Libyan civilian population was disloyal to the regime and deserved to be dealt with as brutally as the rebellion (reuters). While all conflicting parties share an equal responsibility in the war, Jerry Lee is particularly disappointed with NATO's leadership including a UN's disinterest in avoiding an escalation of violence by allowing a loose interpretation of the UN's no-fly zone resolution and not following suite on Libya's demand for a monitored ceasefire. It seems, western leaders have misjudged the consequences of turning people against the State, and certainly disregarded the fundamental principles of international relations, namely, that no state should mingle in others' affairs. Let's remind, that our behavior towards rogue states will determine their response in the future. And so, to avoid a repeat of such mistakes, the following points must be acknowledged:

Anticipate the Need for Political and Economic Reforms

Since Libya returned on the stage of international politics in 2003, democratic leaders had done little to demand or promote political and/or economic change there, too happy to see Libya complying with their anti-terrorist and nuclear non-proliferation policies. Instead, they took advantage of Libyan oil (economist) while knowing how inequitable resources were redistributed. Better still, Gaddafi was a regular guest of the Hunger Summit in Rome. He was known to have very good diplomatic relations with Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi. Said Al-Gaddafi, probably known as Gaddafi's most moderate son, steadily met with world leaders at the Economic Forum of Davos, Switzerland. Despite its pity human rights records, Libya even managed to be a member of the UN Human Right Council. That was just last year (reuters)! This overall friendly relationship lasted until the country's oil resources shifted in the hands of rebels in February after rebels attempted to overthrow the regime. Suddenly, Gaddafi was accused of all the evils. Of course, it was about egopolitics - you stupid! And so, if developed states are to progress in the future, they will have to think more thoroughly their duties towards developing countries, and ask themselves to what extent they can assist to help non-democratic states progress towards political and economic reforms - why not a peaceful transition to democracy and market economy - before the change happens at the expense of instability and violence.

Promote Integration

Locals must integrate the political system of the country of residence. This means, they must respect the system, if they want to have some respect in return. If the system conflicts with their values and expectations, they will be better off leaving the country than waging a street revolution (huffingtonpost). Protests that aim at toppling regimes and governments are not innocent. By definition, they cannot be peaceful, as their fight for power equals in determination that of the established regime to retain it. Protests aim at destroying the old system to rebuild a new order on its ashes, ignoring the consequences that this implies - also for members of the old system. More than political change, economic reforms can bring about real freedom. Street revolutions are like nuclear wars. We think of them in theory, but dare not imagine them in practice, so damaging the expression of irrational exuberance can be. Therefore, street revolutions must never go beyond the level of threat unless the subsistence of the nation is at stake, because of the regime's gross and imminent mishandling of the nation's or state's affairs. Read gw's policy on Immigration, his own experience of integration in State of the World 2011.

Reward Good Faith

Western leaders have demanded that Gaddafi goes. They have put the weight of their influence to prosecute Gaddafi's clan for crimes against humanity. They voted in favor of a resolution that imposed a no-fly zone over Libya. That resolution was voted through the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), an undemocratically-elected organ supposed to represent the view of the world. They imposed the resolution, but illegally extended its interpretation to include the ousting of Gaddafi. While they insisted that bombings would avoid a "massacre of civilians" in Benghazi, the use of military force in this situation did not comply with the legal conditions for a case of self-defense, as western leaders closed their eyes on a regime's appeal for dialog before the bombings. While the conflict was making victims among the civilian population, another ceasefire proposal was rejected by rebels and NATO members on April 11. It really comes as a surprise, that after the Libyan regime had cooperated against international terrorism and had agreed to abandon its program on nuclear development, in a matter of weeks, from cordial diplomacy, Libya and the international community became enemies. The weakness of the state of international relations with rogue states is reaching a new depth each time we interfere in internal affairs of countries that find themselves confronted to existential issues. However attached we are to our values, if we want tyrannies to be cooperating with the West on a relationship of loyalty and trust in the future, we should not give up on helping and assisting them overcoming their evils, even if with a measure of disagreement.

Use Force in Cases of Self-Defense Only

Decisions must not be driven by emotions. When states pose a regional threat, military intervention should only occur when all other means have been exploited to avoid the use of force. The use of indiscriminate air power including drones against Gaddafi's troops is disproportionate and not conform to the arts of war. It brings the cycle of violence to a higher level as it incites the adversary to use other disproportionate means against the opposing party. This dirty war is not only unworthy of modern states, it is first and foremost terribly unfair for civilians - those who've never made any political claim (bbc). Read gw's War Doctrine and cases of self-defense in People of Honor.

Read Jerry Lee's GlobDemons and PolitiMagni. To understand how we can solve the Libyan conflict, consult gw's Civil Wars (Libya) 2011 - Plan. For people who believe freedom is worthwhile dying for, look at gw's Irrational Exuberance 2011 - Plan.

Look at Jerry Lee's comments in 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008

As one of History's most emblematic sample of social metamorphosis, the French Revolution (1789) surely ended an antiquated monarchical system, but the chaotic period that followed raises fundamental questions as to its purpose and contribution to modern history. Sparing the details of the causes, facts are that in 1791 a constitutional monarchy failed disastrously. The Royalists - a relevant share of the electorate - were persecuted as an ideological minority. Wars broke out against neighboring countries, loyal to the old system - or simply because plundering these States would finance the Revolution. Then followed a Reign of Terror (1793-1794) lead by Robespierre, the 'illuminated'. 16'000 citizens judged as 'enemies of the Revolution' were executed under his mandate. They called it 'Equality, Fraternity and Justice'. No one knew what that meant. Obviously, some were more equal than others - as always in revolutions. Until that fanatic brought the Revolution to its culmination: a dictatorship. Shortly, the Law - his law - simplified his case. State assassinations were now possible under a presumption of political dissent. They soon doubled in frequency. However, in an irony of events, the man was arrested and guillotined in 1794 under his own enactment. Then came the Directory. While chosen by the Parliament, it ruled like another dictatorship. Brutal means of oppression were used to keep opponents at bay (Wikipedia). Meanwhile, a civil war raged in the province of Vendee. It lasted until 1799. Some historians estimate, it killed up to 450'000 people (Wikipedia). Eventually, the Napoleonic Wars. A cascade of meaningless battles that caused endless sufferances to Europeans. And so, when masses plot against States without a case of self defense, because not their life is threatened but their standard of living, revolutions are populist. They express irrational exuberance while not justified by any means. When people demand that peaceful - even if strict and unfair - leaders quit, they only express their incapacity to handle situations rationally; to take decisions that aim at reaching compromises and constructive objectives while avoiding life-threatening political standpoints.

Interestingly, network revolutions seem to feed on technology, but also on what international economist Marcus Noland describes as a 'demographic bulge'. A point, where two to three percent of the total population joins the labor force - at least, attempts to (Wikipedia). In Egypt, that's about one million people looking for a job each year, a third of which just in Cairo. Could any political system balance that sort of job market without going throught popular discontent? In that country, Noland explains, the share of educated unemployed is far higher than that of the uneducated. This likely means that some jobs are not good enough. This uncompromising view of the local job market calls for a closer look at the reality in the US or Switzerland - so-called 'full democracies' (Wikipedia) -. When people lose jobs there, they no longer choose, or risk loosing their home.

The point is, social-network revolutions bolster irrational exuberance making people believe they want political freedom and jobs. When all they want is money. Money, that buys freedom. The trouble is, 'network revolutions' only achieve misery, as only stability and economic policies - not political systems or leadership - determine people's standard of living and perspectives. They are the pilars of freedom. Protesters cite corruption as a cause for rebellion - even as it is widely practiced by the unprivileged. Fact is, corruption only disappears with old establishments to reappear with new governments, as if intimately bound to social evolution - or devolution, depending on everyone's understanding of the word. But looking at the performance of democracies in the field of transparency - if indeed this word is synonym of virtue - it may be illusory to expect any meaningful change in Egypt, even after a bloody revolution. Have a glance at the degree of transparency in other countries (Transparency). As in France, these revolutions are likely going to rely on wars to fund their institutions, if calls for financial help remain unanswered (Bloomberg). A nation's resources, whatever system there is, most probably will remain what they are after an exuberant revolution: limited.

But let it be known. Jerry Lee will never endorse network revolutions that exacerbates the irrational exuberance of the Masses; revolutions of people who are ready to give their life for freedom without understanding its value; revolutions that don't understand the true meaning of freedom - not marginal political freedom. Jerry Lee will never endorse people who fight against their leaders, who create a mess and export their conflicting neurons in search for money (BBC) without dignity or honor - see gw's meaning of dignity and honor -. He will never support the mass media in its quest for scoops - and higher profit margins - to seduce the masses without any understanding of fundamental values and will never recognize the value of leaders who support populists by profiling themselves, or the systems that brought them into power, as the best alternatives to other systems of governments. Jerry Lee will never support opponents to established regimes that have showed good will by fighting terrorism and maintaining international peace - though in their self interest. These opponents are psychopathic. By risking their life for an idea of freedom, they show irresponsibility. Their endeavor will never achieve a system that promotes the human spirit as represented in Globwatch's Awards by exceptional people in their own ways and manners. But whatever the wrong decisions taken around the world, neither will Jerry Lee ever criticize anything without proposing solutions to stop human tragedies caused by tyranny. To those who are desperate, be patient, as a Magni Revolution is under way. It is not about the People and the streets, but about the Poor and his spirit - the one who draws the masses - because only he holds the keys to survival - the Primaries. Read Jerry Lee's GlobDemons and PolitiMagni and be part of that new political generation.

Look at Jerry Lee's comments in 2010, 2009 and 2008

If Milton Friedman's view is correct, that drug-related violence diminishes as people take advantage of their freedoms, in this case, open access to drugs at much cheaper prices, then how could the share of drug consumers stimulated by a liberalization of drug policies be controlled or even reduced? The answer to that question may well be to liberalize the drug market on the principle of Non-Shared Freedom (NSF) - or freedom to destroy one-self - while keeping the market for drugs illegal and promoting incidental denunciation of misbehavior in drug-related cases. Attached to individual freedoms, Jerry Lee recognizes people's right to be irresponsible, to destroy one's own health and future. This right, however, must be conditioned to having no impact on public health, which means, that the exercise of NSF must be exercised in private - not in public. The fulfillment of the condition of privacy protects public health and order for healthy-minded individuals. While NSF is a fundamental right, Society must encourage people to turn to non-addictive products by changing the image of drugs. Today, drugs are mostly seen as recreational to the extent that they are taken during parties without any regard to their impact on mental and body health. Changing the image of the product to one of necessity would realign drugs with what they really are: addictive products. Meanwhile, alcohol or tobacco must be classified as hard-drugs. Public denunciation with a rewarding scheeme for whistleblowers - when offenses are discovered incidentally - should help reduce the number of offenses substantially. These measures may not only eliminate drug trafficking and drug- related violence, it may as well lower drug consumption over time. See gw's policy on Drug and Prostitution and IPD August 25, 2010.

Look at Jerry Lee's comments in 2010, 2009 and 2008