As the saying goes, "the rabbit dies and the fox is sad". Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein are originally the same kind of people, and the two of them have too many similarities. For example, they are all dictators in their respective countries and political strongmen in their respective regions, they are just as arrogant, the same solipsism, and the same extravagance. Therefore, after Saddam Hussein was overthrown and destroyed by the United States, it is inevitable that he will be touched by Gaddafi. However, due to the unwillingness to give up vested interests, the inability to put down face and other human weaknesses, as well as the psychology of "gambling", Gaddafi could not completely compromise and eventually embarked on the road of no return.
Realistically speaking, after Saddam's accident, Gaddafi has changed. In particular, there has been an almost 180-degree turn in attitude towards the United States. For example, after seeing Saddam Hussein overthrown, Gaddafi did two things. One is to write to the United Nations, willing to take responsibility for the Lockerbie air disaster and to compensate $2.7 billion. The second is the destruction of weapons of mass destruction and the promise to accept United Nations verification. In addition, it has intentionally or unintentionally released its goodwill toward the United States and resumed diplomatic relations with the United States in 2006. However, it was too late. Because subjective and objective factors are doomed to Gaddafi's ultimate fate.
The reason why Qaddafi is doomed to the fate of "no return" is both the external reasons of the United States and NATO, as well as Gaddafi's own personal factors. According to Mansour Dao, the captain of Gaddafi's vanguard, during the escape, Gaddafi's situation was very difficult, and he did not dare to open his mobile phone, but could only hide in a hidden place with no electricity and no water, often without hot meals, and had to be transferred once a few days.
In addition, most of the 350 soldiers who withdrew from Tripoli and fled with them fled during the transfer. Therefore, many people advised him to surrender, but he refused. In the end, he ended up with a tragic tragedy of pre-death abuse, the body being exhibited, and the burial site being kept secret. And the most infuriating thing is that he actually died at the hands of the people who usually shouted him "great political mentor".
In fact, people like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein are not "national heroes", or even "heroes". Because a national hero will not be so arrogant, not so extravagant. If it is a "generation of tyrants", it knows how to advance and retreat, and will not go to the black in that way.
To tell the truth, Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein were, at best, political strongmen who seized the opportunity of history. Most of these political power actors have multiple personalities and complex psychology. I want to save my life, but I don't want to give up vested interests. Knowing that there is a glimmer of life in giving up power, he always holds unrealistic "illusions" and fantasies about being able to survive. Therefore, their so-called "persistence" is not for the sake of national interests, but for the so-called "face" of individuals. In the end, their respective countries were beaten to pieces, and their personal "dignity" was lost.
In fact, the ultimate fate of "political strongmen" like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein has long been predestined, and can even be said to be irreversible. In a way, there are many striking similarities in the political careers and life trajectories of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.
Both Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein came to power in less traditional ways, in 1969 through a military coup, and Saddam Hussein won the presidency in 1979 by "forcing the palace". When they came to power, they all benefited from oil resources, and all of them increased their personal prestige because of the wealth they brought, and they were supplemented by coercion and coercion to stabilize their positions in power. Gaddafi was in power for 42 years and Saddam Hussein was in power for 24 years.
Both Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein are self-centered people, and most people with this type of personality are arrogant. As the saying goes, "There is rain in the yellow sky, and there is disaster in people's madness." For example, saddam Hussein fought the Iran-Iraq War for 8 years after coming to power, and soon after the end of the Iran-Iraq War, he launched a war of invasion of Kuwait, resulting in being beaten in the Gulf War. The result of this military campaign was to take one of the richest countries in the Middle East into the abyss, so that before the United States launched the Iraq War in 2003, Iraq's per capita GDP was less than $600, where is the richest man in the Middle East with a per capita GDP of $10,297? Compared with Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi's madness is even worse.
It has to be said that Qaddafi did bring a period of glory to Libya. Libya, for example, was the first country in North Africa and the entire African region to lift itself out of poverty, and education and health care in Libya were free, food and necessities were subsidized, housing was a symbolic contribution, and domestic landlines were free. As early as 2009, Libya's mobile phone ownership rate reached 103%.
Having money can be said to be a weakness in human nature, and Gaddafi's "work" has obviously reached a "new realm". For Gaddafi, as long as money can do it, it is not a thing. Therefore, he used money to smash out the title of "African Lion", he used money to win the status of "spokesperson" of Arab countries, and he once used money to gain the right to speak in the internal affairs of Arab countries, which led to many Arab countries later becoming disgusted with it. And "the most important thing" is that Qaddafi has almost offended several of the world's most powerful powers. This is his craziest point, and it is also his most regrettable mistake.
In 1982, a few years after coming to power, Gaddafi abrogated many oil and trade agreements with the United States, which offended the United States. After establishing an "anti-American" image, Qaddafi found the soviet backer and imported a large number of advanced weapons from the Soviet Union, thus forming a military system that was indispensable in North Africa. The "Lockerbie Air Disaster" on December 12, 1988, completely offended the United States, as well as Britain.
On December 12, 1988, Pan Am's PA103 exploded and disintegrated over the British town of Lockerbie, killing not only 259 people on board, but also killing 11 people on the ground. The vast majority of them were Americans, and there were 13 British. After more than 2 years of investigation, the United States and Britain determined that it was related to Libya. This undoubtedly laid the groundwork for the subsequent bombing.
In fact, Gaddafi is not a very backbone person. For example, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, when Russia was still in a period of respite and its strength was out of control, Gaddafi turned to the United States. In 1993, Gaddafi went so far as to call Clinton "the savior of the new world." And when he saw Saddam Hussein being picked up by the United States, the terrified Gaddafi actually insincerely called then US Secretary of State Rice "my dear African woman". Gaddafi's "downwind" style naturally upset Russia.
Truth be told, Gaddafi's "poor and rich" style of arrogance is naturally not acceptable to the land of etiquette. Secondly, during the war between the civilized state and the Soviet Union, Qaddafi did not support the Soviet Union less. Moreover, Gaddafi has also challenged the bottom line on the Bay issue.
Gaddafi did not directly offend France, but his suspicion of intervening in France with money was more unacceptable to France than directly offending France. The then French president, Sarkozy, was only launched to investigate because of the East Window incident.
It was revealed that in the 2007 French election, Libya used 42 million euros as political cash to help Sarkozy run. After the victory, Sarkozy and Gaddafi became brothers and sisters. During Gaddafi's visit to France, Sarkozy not only gave Gaddafi super high treatment, but also called Gaddafi a "brother leader". Gaddafi is cool! However, Gaddafi forgot that there is a saying that "a companion is like a companion of a tiger." Gaddafi's big mouth of "sea and sky" naturally did not reassure Sarkozy.
After France first proposed the plan to form a European army, in order to mock France's military capabilities, NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg slipped up when he gave examples of the details of the bombing of Libya that year. Stoltenberg's implication is that before the United States and Britain and other allies have coordinated on the overthrow of Gaddafi, France will be eager to take the lead in bombing! And NATO countries such as the United States and Britain have to follow suit. Why is Sarkozy in such a hurry? I think it is also the heart of Sima Zhao that everyone knows. Therefore, for some small countries, the best duty is the best, do not be crazy to "play the heartbeat" with several large countries. In that case, you can only suffer losses from yourself.
Philosophically, the trajectory of the fate of people like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein is difficult to change. Because they are not "great" enough, nor can they be called "tyrants". Xiang Yu, the overlord of a generation of tyrants, still knows that "there is no face to see Jiangdong's father and elder". However, if you look at the performance of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein in the face of aggression against the country, it is obvious that they are making superficial remarks. Moreover, they are doing almost the same.
When the United States launched the Iraq war and NATO bombed Libya, Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi swore to resist, but when Iraq's propaganda minister, Sahaf, was a fierce invader, Saddam Hussein had long since taken refuge in the tunnels of his hometown of Tikrit. While Libya's press spokesman, Ibrahim, was still doing his duty amid NATO bombing, Qaddafi hid in an underground drain in his hometown of Sirte. See that? At the critical moment, they still believe in their hometown, and their hearts are obviously not filled with the whole country.
But, to some extent, even with Saddam's lessons, Gaddafi's treatment seems to be worse than Saddam's. First, Saddam Hussein fell into the hands of the aggressor, the Americans, and although he was eventually hanged, Saddam Hussein had complained about the impassionment of the United States in court, which can also be regarded as a relief of the hatred in his heart. Gaddafi, on the other hand, fell into the hands of his own people, who not long ago chanted Gaddafi's "greatness." This is Gaddafi's greatest sorrow and great irony.
To sum up, it is not that Gaddafi does not learn saddam's lessons, but that he cannot, because the always crazy Gaddafi cannot put down too many "things". Moreover, the evolution of the situation is beyond his control.