Similarly to the effect produced by the Wikileaks website through the series of leaks that primarily focused on the Arab world, it seems that the opening of the “black box” of the Libyan intelligence services will draw the attention of the world and Libya's neighboring countries to some facts – some aspects of which had been hidden – that were behind the persistence of the regime of Col. Gaddafi for a longer than necessary period of time. Gaddafi was apparently playing the part of the opponent of the western countries. He was attacking them through fiery speeches. But behind the scenes, he was spreading red carpets under the feet of their officials and he was acting all friendly, never refusing any of their requests in order to gain their approval. Perhaps the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was the first to realize the dualism of the Libyan position when he said that it actually serves the western interests more than those who openly declare their allegiance to the western camp. He used to assess the deeds of Col. Gaddafi through the resulting outcomes, while taking into account the role-playing plans and the scenario plots. The issue is not just about whether Gaddafi did this in order to offer some required services with the aim of preserving his regime. It is rather about whether these services actually helped him in preventing the inevitable fall. The Libyan land shook under his feet. He had imagined the danger coming from the north but the danger took him by surprise from every direction, mainly from an angry Street. He used to look down on that Street with indescribable and provocative insults. Gaddafi will not be the last one to offer the West the required services. Before him, Saddam Hussein only realized the “treachery” of the Americans who failed to reward him for the war against Iran when he had to take shelter against the fire of Baghdad under the bombardment of the international alliance. Gaddafi failed to benefit from his own predictions of a similar fate to other Arab leaders as these were striving to imagine that the rope around Saddam's neck was just a bad dream. This was also the state of the Iranian Shah as he was leaving the Tehran Airport in tears and looking for a safe haven. He kept hoping until the last minute that the United States would not encourage the ousting of his regime. The high level of cooperation [with the Americans] caused former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to lie on his prisoner's bed in a trial that he almost couldn't believe he was going through. But the experiences of the West in protecting the regimes allied to it against the anger of their populaces have turned into protecting the populaces from the oppression of the regimes. It is no longer acceptable to trade loyalty with silence, although the concept of protecting the citizens is not to be separated from the protection of the interests that motivate the countries. There is nothing left from the characteristics of tyranny and oppression of the totalitarian regimes except for running to underground shelters. This is similar to the scenes of the opponents of those regimes as they used to hide from the oppressive apparatuses that had eyes everywhere. The difference is that the escape is now happening out of fear from the intuitive eyes of the populaces. Col. Gaddafi sacrificed several generations in order to create a populace with an absolute loyalty to him. He encouraged people to grow their hair in order to resemble the Bolivian rebels. He turned militias into voters under the slogan of the authority of the popular committees. He dismantled the state and produced something similar to camps where the sound of weapons prevails along with the chants of the Green Book. However, he recently discovered that the revolution has only one name, and that it overthrows the dictator regimes instead of protecting them. No regime, no matter how many security apparatuses and intelligence services it has, can protect itself and its constituents from the anger of the street. The populaces are the ones that protect their regimes, which draw their legitimacy from listening to the movement of the populaces and to their feelings and aspirations. If this rule is disregarded, the dependence on the external world turns into mere desperate adventures. Surprisingly, the events taking place under the justifications of the so-called regional and strategic balances that call for an external support, are the same events that often used to blame the external world for interfering with the others' internal affairs. At the same time, they did not mind making room for some forms of this interference in case of security measures transcending every border. The standards for interfering or failing to interfere consisted of the interest of the regimes rather than the future of the populaces. The regular citizens ask for nothing more than the protection of the law. Indeed, a viable security is not the one created by the apparatuses. It rather consists of the consolidation of the feeling of complete and flawless citizenship, i.e. freedom, dignity and the rule of law. The problem is that when the security apparatuses revert to the excessive use of oppression and think that they have extinguished the popular awareness, they will actually be digging the first hole for the regimes that only see through the eyes of the apparatuses. Had these apparatuses been able to protect the regimes, we wouldn't have seen the collapse of some regimes where the apparatuses were in control of everything such as in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. But the problem of some regimes that have never been used to hearing an opposition voice is that they believe that calling for one's rights is illegal. It was no strange thing that the ousted rulers were repeating the same descriptions that accused some parts of the populace of terrorism, radicalism and disobedience. A lesson is like medicine. Some sides keep on repeating the mistakes that actually consist of hypotheses that always lead to the same results.
