This article basically condemns the intentions of US intervention in Libya. Larison conveys that the assumption that US intervention was crucial in Libya to oust Gaddafi was based on attributing "values" that Americans wanted to believe that they had, putting far more significance on the conflict than it truly possessed. US intervention was unpopular in the region because of distrust in the US and resentment to interference regardless of the side Washington chooses to take. The author says this tells us that the US is far too quick to take sides in foreign conflict, and far too eager to throw their weight behind their side to make sure it wins. The US ought to serve as a neutral mediator resolving conflict rather than initiating further bloodshed through their impulse to "do something" immediately. 

The Voice of America reported President Sissi's call to the US and Europe to aid the Libyan army in their fight against ISIS, saving the country from requiring intervention on the scale of Iraq and Syria. Egypt has been training anti-Islamist forced on its own soil and sending them out to fight in Libya, but they have yet to intervene directly. He calls on the international community to help prevent further Islamic insurgency for the sake of stability throughout the region as a whole. 

This article basically lays out the faults in US intervention in Libya during the fall of Gaddafi and condemns the US officials for their lack of hindsight in their agenda. The US claimed that they could not "turn a blind eye" to atrocities and human right violations in other countries and to intervene in Libya was a matter of upholding "universal values." After the successful ousting of Gaddafi, the US hypocritically turned their back on the country as a whole, leaving them to pick up the pieces and re-build themselves in the midst of socio-political and economic chaos. The US claims that military intervention is sometimes necessary to address human right violations, but in the case of Libya more violations have occurred as a result of a fallen regime rather than because of its reign. The author basically says that the US should have predicted that short-term intervention strategies achieves nothing without years of sustained support for rebuilding the civil institutions. 

The internationally recognized parliament of Libya was ruled invalid by the supreme court. The parliament reacted by dismissing the ruling, claiming that its verdict was coerced by the threat of arms. The polarization of these 2 ruling governments continues without negotiations.

Conflict broke out in the Libyan capital Tripoli forcing Mitiga airport, primary airport since Tripoli International was closed due to damages, to close down worsening the bloody proxy war thus escalating the crisis. Egypt and UAE have been aiding the Islamic opposition, helping to fight against the Islamic militants backed by Turkey and Qatar. Apparently Qatar's involvement in Libya goes back to the revolution that ousted Gaddafi, contributing $2 billion in support of the Islamic movements as a part of its vision to establish an Arab regime ruling through Sharia Law. As of now, no players are willing to compromise in this "state of war." 

This article touches on an array of ideas but for the sake of my research I focused on the "Thirty Years War" section. Douglass Murray from The Spectator conveys the perspective that the Middle East is likely to be going through a similar 17th century European 30 years war, when Protestant and Catholics launched a full fledged war against one another. This means that religious war in the Middle East is so much bigger than just al-Qaeda and similar groups. The conflict will re-align the region, but also the entire religion of Islam. Douglass says the outcome would call for a Treaty of Westphalia-style solution, redrawing boundaries of a region where they've been bursting for decades.  For the time being the drivers of the conflict is a standoff between the two regional powers and their affiliated proxies, Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

This article accentuates the "Age of Proxy Wars" in the Middle East. While Syria and Libya are the 2 most known proxy situations, the article illuminates other states involved as well. We know already about UAE, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, which this article also brings up, but new information suggests that Bahrain and Kuwait are supporting sides of the regional war as well. While these nations think they're doing their part to support their values, these proxy wars are actually fostering further extremism since people supporting each side do not directly suffer the consequences. The article states that the metastasizing of these jihadist groups is grave threat to US national security, and the US must intervene in order to solve this crisis. The author says the US needs to improve their performance in donor cordination, funding the right groups, as well as be more aggressive in working directly with elections, uncovering networks of money and influence. He says rather than the conduction of elections, we must focus on the nature of politics in general, curbing corruption and embedding sectarian democratic values in their political sphere.

This article basically states that since the US's withdrawal from Middle Eastern affairs, regional actors were left to fight over who will lead the region's future. The fight is baiscally a run off between Turkey, Qatar, Saudi, and the UAE, each country doing their part intervening in conflicts aiding their supported side. Rather than achieving goals, these proxy wars have fueled the violence, chaos, and polarization deepening the problems they originally sought to mend. While the US has succeeded in abstaining from Mid East affairs, the question now is whether or not they should continue this resignation or step in to urge for order and peace. 

This article conveys that AS has claimed Benghazi as an Islamic Emirate. While Haftar argues that only certain positions are under Islamic occupation, but the fact that they control the whole city is something he denies. 

This article basically accentuates the driving factors to the ongoing insurgency of ISIL in Libya and how the threat is even more extreme than that of Iraq and Syria. One is the Islamist ideology in itself, rejecting any form of a modern state and the institutions that accompany its success. For example in Libya the leader of the AS branch declares that his militants will not disarm or demobilize until sharia law is imposed. Second, during Gaddafi's rule he unleashed a crackdown on all Islamic expression. The brutality shown towards Islamic groups during this time has fueled their resentment towards sectarian rule and has urged them to push for the rejection of state institutions even more so. The article explains how Islamic groups have claimed power in both Benghazi and Derna, the latter being the historic recruiting ground for Jihad fighters to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. The author makes it clear that both military and diplomatic force from the international community is crucial for the reconciliation of security.

This article basically highlights the significance of Libyan oil fields in terms of the international community. Chaos in Libya not only affects the eastern region, but all OPEC members and importers of crude oil across the globe. After the recent attacks on Sharara, the biggest field in Libya, production has significantly slowed down. Libya's elected parliament assures the global community that they will resume normal outputs soon, but as the country deepens further into civil war, international actors remain skeptical.

As their sole source of income the control over oil policy and revenue proves to be a huge factor in which government will gain control over the greater Libya. Thinni, the prime minister recognized by the international community, has assured OPEC members that oil revenues are deposited into the Libyan Bank, which then transfers them to the central bank. While this may be true, OPEC members are worried that the continuation of Islamist militant aims for political autonomy through the occupation and attacks on oil ports. BPD have already become a fifth of what they maintained just one year ago. 

Any doubts that Libya has pivoted to a proxy war have been eliminated with the recent bombings outside UAE and Egyptian embassies as a backlash against their role in the regional "tug of war" on Thursday. Each side of the conflict has its own government as well as city headquarters. Islamists have occupied Tripoli and Haftar's forces Tobruk. The actions of regional players are escalating the civil war to the utmost extent.

The UN is pushing for sanctions to put pressure on Libyan factions and militias to take part in political negotiations. These sanctions would target individual groups rather than the foreign backers involved in the proxy war and would freeze their assets and impose travel bans. US officials have introduced the possibility of using their own sanctions separate from the UN for a few reasons: UN sanctions move slowly if not at all, Washington could impose them whenever they wish. The US places more emphasis on the importance on external actors in the conflict than domestic groups, explaining that these countries are actually intensifying the conflict. 

Any doubts that Libya has pivoted to a proxy war have been eliminated with the recent bombings outside UAE and Egyptian embassies as a backlash against their role in the regional "tug of war" on Thursday.  

After the fall of Gaddafi a power vacuum allowed rival militias to thrive. Now, Libya has become a proxy war for other Arab nations. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and Algeria on one side and Qatar and Turkey on the other. 

This article illuminates the aftermath of Gaddafi's reign from a first person perspective of a citizen fleeing the country due to its devastating chaos. He offers a short version of the conflict and the rise in militant groups. The root of the issue is the fact that when the GNC took power, the factions funded the militant groups for their own insurance rather than working towards their disbandment. The Islamist coalition dominated parliament, and as chaos deepened when they realized they would loose the election so they just delayed having one. This is where General Khalifa Haftar chimed in, launching his offense against islamic insurgency by storming the capitol in Tripoli leading the country to slip into civil war. The Author says "We are like a class of kids where the bad teacher is suddenly dead," he said. "Now we all fight each other." When the light finally comes to a country that was for so long in the dark, its blinding. 

After the ousting of the Gaddafi regime the country pivoted into civil chaos. Because of the deficiency of structure and state autonomy, armed militias have become the dominant force in determining Libya's future governmental system. While the UN has internationally recognized the NTC as the interim government to ultimately turn the country into a democratic one, militias have taken things into their own hands tipping the country towards the brink of civil war. General Khalifa Haftar launched his Operation Dignity campaign accusing congress of allowing terrorists flourish in Libya and vowed to wipe them out, gaining much support from the regular armed forces and nationalist militias. The opposition to Haftar insist that his attacks are aiming for a military coup. This article was helpful in highlighting the armed groups and dividing them by Pro-Haftar and Pro-Congress sections. 

This article from News Week basically paints a picture of Libyan history and how Gaddafi's reign devastated the state economically, socially, and politically. Author Dirk Vandewalle uses the phrase "a political tabula rasa" which in Latin means a blank slate, to describe the fate of Libya after Gaddafi's rule and convey the extent to which the country has to literally reconstruct every component that makes up a society and its government. He highlights major events that led to the downfall of both the Gaddafi regime and the Libyan state as a whole such as Arab nationalism, Jamahiriya, the Green Book, security apparatuses snuffing all opposition, terrorist incidents, isolation and international sanctions, the Lockerbie bombing, weapons of mass destruction, human right violations, divide and rule policies, and his use of oil revenue to fuel his insurgency. Vandewalle concludes the article with uncertain ideas thoughts towards Libya's future and the way the state is going to literally rebuild themselves from this "blank slate" that Gaddafi left behind.