Ding, Dong, the Mad Dog's Dead...

In which the longest-serving dictator in the world lives up to his promise of never leaving Libya, unless he does so in a body bag.

Moammar Gadhafi is dead at the ripe old age of 69, compliments of what appears to be a shot to the head and one to the chest. The New York Times' Neil McFarquhar offers an exhaustive obituary of the "Mad Dog of Libya," from his humble beginnings as the child of illiterate Bedouin nomads to joining the army to the end of his reign today, when he left Libya with "no parliament, no unified military command, no political parties, no unions, no civil society and no nongovernmental organizations. His ministries were hollow, with the notable exception of the state oil company."

As for what Gadhafi's death means for Libya, The Globe and Mail's Doug Saunders says that all we really know is that "it is abundantly clear that his ideas will not outlive him. His was the first, and will be the last, Socialist People’s Arab Jamahiriya." His concept of "utopian pseudo-Maoist socialism" has no champions left, and regarding those that did support him, "we don't know how many of Col. Gadhafi’s loyalists stayed at his side because they felt loyal to him, how many because they feared the revenge of the rebels, and how many because they knew Col. Gadhafi would kill their families if they defected." This uncertainty, of course, extends to the unstable government that usurped him. Just yesterday, Mahmud Jabril, the head of Libya's National Transitional Council, said he intended to quit soon amid the political chaos that's developed since the fall of Tripoli in August. Granted, Gadhafi's death could change Jabril's mind, but as Saunders notes, "as they cheer the richly deserved death of their abusive father, Libyans are slowly realizing just how little he left them."

Jonathan Kay of the National Post figures there are three lessons for Canada and the rest of the West to learn from their little adventure into North Africa. First, "NATO pilots need partners on the ground" if they're going to be successful in preventing massacres and ousting unwanted dictators. Second, "we don’t really care that much about foreign affairs." Kay notes that both the Libyan war (and Afghanistan) were a nonissue during the federal election campaign, and south of the border, Barack Obama, "who not only has won the war in Libya, but also killed Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, secretly sold bunker busters to Israel, expanded a successful drone campaign in Pakistan, sent military advisors to Uganda, humiliated Iran with the disclosure of a Washington assassination plot, presided over numerous successful terrorism trials, and otherwise conducted what is arguably a more hawkish and successful foreign policy than is Republican predecessor," still has to fend off criticisms that he's not up to the task of being commander-in-chief. Third, echoing Saunders, Kay remarks "we have no idea how any of this will turn out," which is pretty self-explanatory. For all we know, in five years, Libya could be a "thriving democracy, a neo-Gaddafyite dictatorship, an ungoverned Somalia-style Mad Max wasteland, or a jihadi-dominated North African Waziristan." We're going to split the difference and call ... an Islamist-tinged, sclerotic pseudo-democracy.

Over at Al Jazeera, Mahmood Mamdani supposes NATO's intervention in Libya and the rebellion's subsequent success means "the conditions for external intervention in Africa are growing, not diminishing." Increased interest in Africa's economic potential, combined with the United Nations Security Council somewhat legitimizing foreign intervention, could lead to opposition parties in African countries actively seeking out international partners to remove their despotic rulers. Governments could also seek out more foreign support to weed out insurgent militias, as proven by Obama's decision to send in military advisers to Uganda to help them deal with the brutal Lord's Resistance Army once and for all. Notes Mamdani: "One thing should be clear: those interested in keeping external intervention at bay need to concentrate their attention and energies on internal reform." Otherwise, they, too could end up brandishing a golden gun in a drain pipe before getting to meet their maker.

And finally, Alaa al-Almeri, the pen name of a Libyan-British economist, calls in The Guardian for his countrymen "to forget [Gadhafi] ... to expunge his influence from every aspect of our lives." Today would be much better served by remembering "those who resisted him throughout the decades and gave their lives for us to have this opportunity. Those who were publicly hanged on makeshift gallows or snatched from their homes, murdered and dumped in mass graves. Those who were driven into exile, only to be followed there by death squads. Most fittingly of all, it is time to remember the ordinary men and women who stood up in February 2011 against unspeakable odds to make their voices heard and tell Muammar that his time was up." Hear hear.