Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone [Archive]

nismaratwork

Mar11-11, 09:53 PM

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/11/gadhafi-thugs-grab-cnn-crew/?hpt=T2

CNN Senior International Correspondent Nic Robertson and his crew were detained Friday in Tajura, Libya, east of Tripoli by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. This is his account.

For a few moments today, for us personally, Libya’s lies and deceit were swept aside and the real deal was brutally exposed.

“Itla, itla” – "Get in the car, get in the car!" – he was screaming. My cameraman, Khalil Abdallah, and I hesitated for a split-second. But that's all it was.

We were staring down the barrel of an AK-47, the weapon was jumping in his hands. He was cocking it, wrenching the handle back, a bullet being slammed into the firing chamber.

It was only a split-second.

Video of Qaddafi forces routing rebels.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/11/exp.tsr.libya.rebels.reatreat.cnn?hpt=T2

And...

GRAPHIC VIDEO:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/11/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: Gadhafi's government suspends diplomatic relations with France, a minister says
NEW: The U.S. broadens its sanctions, freezing assets of Gadhafi's relatives and officials
The EU council calls for Gadhafi's departure
Pro-Gadhafi forces steadily bombarded the oil port city of Ras Lanuf

I know that the world is busy place, and Japan is in trouble, WI is drawing attention, but these people are being slaughtered, the evidence of that slaughter is being systematically hidden.

If we'll do nothing, we should at least watch. We've failed the Libyan people in every possible way, but Europe has truly shown their disregard for former colonies unless the USA is footing the bill.

tiny-tim

Mar12-11, 07:46 AM

… Europe has truly shown their disregard for former colonies unless the USA is footing the bill.

Libya was always a colony, from Roman times until 1951, see eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#History.

"Europe" (only Italy, actually :wink:) only took over in 1911.

Libyans kill Libyans, and somehow that's Europe's fault?

Come off it, the Arab League countries bear a far greater political responsibility, and will be the first to complain if Europe intervenes. :redface:

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 08:05 AM

Libya was always a colony, from Roman times until 1951, see eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#History.

"Europe" (only Italy, actually :wink:) only took over in 1911.

Libyans kill Libyans, and somehow that's Europe's fault?

Come off it, the Arab League countries bear a far greater political responsibility, and will be the first to complain if Europe intervenes. :redface:

The Arab League is joke, otherwise I would turn to them in this case, along with the African Union... it's not going to happen. We can either stand on formalities, or France can send in the Charles De Gaulle, and NATO (aka the USA in this case) the Enterprise. Two carrier groups should be enough to begin operations over Libya.

Beyond the colonial aspect, this was a pretty horrific and internationally criminal regime... yet we have the Italy buying 38% of their oil, funding what's happening now. We have Spain Dependant on them, and France who sold them the weapons used to kill rebels now.

It wasn't a prouder moment when Saddam turned his weaponry and money from us on the Kurds, and then the Shiite population. I'm not making a global point about colonialism, but it's a kinder thing to lead with than, "You blanks sold a guy developing WMD openly, Lockerbie and Berlin man... Mirage Jets and worse." Don't you think?

tiny-tim

Mar12-11, 10:11 AM

… this was a pretty horrific and internationally criminal regime...

I don't remember you complaining earlier. :confused:

Are you saying that we should have attempted regime change a long time ago?

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 11:06 AM

I don't remember you complaining earlier. :confused:

Are you saying that we should have attempted regime change a long time ago?

Yes, and I've complained a lot, I just haven't been alive so long, eh? As much as I think Reagan was a fool and nearly a lunatic, his only mistake in his dealings with Ghaddafi is that he missed his tent when we bombed Al-Aziziyah.

I'm saying that the Mossad/KGB model is best here... kill him, kill his insane children, then let the rest be the civil war that it always would have been. Neutralize the weapons we so kindly sold him, and the money we so kindly gave him for oil.

You kill innocent people, but it beats what's happening now. If you've paid attention at all to my posts, now and... previously... you know damned well that this is my view, and has been for quite a while.

hypatia

Mar12-11, 11:25 AM

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 11:43 AM

I'm all set to hear about Arab's killing their own, isn't that what we have been doing for several thousand years now? I guess I would be more excited if the entire Middle-East decided that a human life has value.

That would be nice (the latter part), but these regimes clearly do not care if their people live or die, Libya especially. In the meantime, I don't know that we can stand this one on the sidelines with anything approachign a clear conscience. Obama said he has to go, and now we're sitting here with our... things... in the wind. It's terrible optics, bad policy, and too much like Gulf I when we abandoned the Kurds and Shiites to Saddam's "mercy".

tiny-tim

Mar12-11, 11:55 AM

… If you've paid attention at all to my posts, now and... previously... you know damned well that this is my view, and has been for quite a while.

i haven't actually :redface:

but i've just done a forum search for posts by you with "Libya" or "Gadhafi", and although you've been posting in general discussion for 9 months, i can find nothing earlier than 3 weeks ago :confused:

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 12:02 PM

i haven't actually :redface:

but i've just done a forum search for posts by you with "Libya" or "Gadhafi", and although you've been posting in general discussion for 9 months, i can find nothing earlier than 3 weeks ago :confused:

true, but then, Libya hasn't been on the radar as a possibly fluid situation until about three weeks ago. The nature of the regime alone isn't enough to sweep in and start killing, but these war crimes and crimes against humanity are.

I certainly didn't see Egypt coming, or Tunisia... did you? I wouldn't have bothered to discus a completely static situation, especially when Russia, China, Italy, France, and Spain all had much to lose from any movement there.

Times are changing it seems, and I'm afraid that the example being set in Libya will have a chilling effect on future attempts to overthrow repressive regimes. We encourage this, then leave people to their fate at the hands of our money and weapons. This is not a way to conduct international affairs, in any country, on any continent.

cobalt124

Mar12-11, 12:02 PM

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 12:04 PM

Just heard on BBC Radio News that the Arab League have agreed to a no fly zone, but have batted it back to the U.N. to set the thing up. If this is true, chances are much improved for foreign intervention to boot Gadaffi out. Sorry, don't have time to reinforce with a link. Will look shortly.

If that's true, then it really is on the rest of us now... the Arab League can't institue an NFZ... they lack the airpower and logistics... now lets see if the UN, NATO, and EU can handle this, or if the buck just keeps being passed.

cobalt124

Mar12-11, 12:08 PM

If that's true, then it really is on the rest of us now... the Arab League can't institue an NFZ... they lack the airpower and logistics... now lets see if the UN, NATO, and EU can handle this, or if the buck just keeps being passed.

They'd better. It would be a disgrace to let a totally isolated Gadaffi carry on like this.

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 12:08 PM

Secondary link to support Cobalt:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/12/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 12:09 PM

They'd better. It would be a disgrace to let a totally isolated Gadaffi carry on like this.

Agreed... and given the casualties already being incurred, and the way they're hunting down rebels... killing some civilians to stop this is a terrible, but worthwhile trade IMO.

cobalt124

Mar12-11, 12:15 PM

Agreed... and given the casualties already being incurred, and the way they're hunting down rebels... killing some civilians to stop this is a terrible, but worthwhile trade IMO.

Reading the CNN link, Obama talks of "not taking the decision lightly", and "costs and benefits", and seems hesitant? As do other nations.

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 12:18 PM

Reading the CNN link, Obama talks of "not taking the decision lightly", and "costs and benefits", and seems hesitant? As do other nations.

It's an enormous commitment, morally and legally, but at this point we're only cultivating a different kind of blowback if we don't. We can't afford to allow this to continue, then try to deal with an even more unstable Libyan regime; tribalism woud be preferable... Somalia would be preferable to an organized slaughter from the air, and from armor.

cobalt124

Mar12-11, 12:21 PM

I guess as usual morality won't come into it. From the BBC link U.K. and France pro, E.U. and N.A.T.O. not keen, and Russia may wield a veto at the U.N.

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 12:23 PM

I guess as usual morality won't come into it. From the BBC link U.K. and France pro, E.U. and N.A.T.O. not keen, and Russia may wield a veto at the U.N.

Not surprising... yet very depressing.

tiny-tim

Mar12-11, 12:38 PM

… this was a pretty horrific and internationally criminal regime...

changing your tune, aren't you? :redface: …
… The nature of the regime alone isn't enough to sweep in and start killing, but these war crimes and crimes against humanity are.

so you don't think "horrific and internationally criminal" acts constitute "crimes against humanity"? :frown:

Libyans have been tortured, and have been just disappearing, for years …

how is the present situation any worse? :confused:
We can't afford to allow this to continue, then try to deal with an even more unstable Libyan regime; tribalism woud be preferable... Somalia would be preferable to an organized slaughter from the air, and from armor.

So no need to go in with a plan, then? :redface:

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 01:37 PM

changing your tune, aren't you? :redface: …

How so?

so you don't think "horrific and internationally criminal" acts constitute "crimes against humanity"? :frown:

Libyans have been tortured, and have been just disappearing, for years …

True, but until now there was no legal basis to intervene, contrasted wtih an ongoing massacre. Many people are tortured and killed, it's not every day a government uses AM weaponry, heavy armor, and air assets against civilians.

how is the present situation any worse? :confused:

Really? I've read too many of your posts to bite at such obvious bait. Why don't you explain how open warfare and bombardment of civilians and infrastructure ISN'T a change in the wrong direction.

So no need to go in with a plan, then? :redface:

No need to go in, the plan is not pleasant, but it doesn't involve going in. You're being reductionist to the point of absurdity here tim, please do better.

Proton Soup

Mar12-11, 02:03 PM

That would be nice (the latter part), but these regimes clearly do not care if their people live or die, Libya especially. In the meantime, I don't know that we can stand this one on the sidelines with anything approachign a clear conscience. Obama said he has to go, and now we're sitting here with our... things... in the wind. It's terrible optics, bad policy, and too much like Gulf I when we abandoned the Kurds and Shiites to Saddam's "mercy".

we still abandon the kurds to the mercy of the turks, but no one cares about that. or about speaking the truth of the armenian genocide. because turkey is a route for petroleum pipelines to the west. why not send troops to turkey?

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 02:07 PM

we still abandon the kurds to the mercy of the turks, but no one cares about that. or about speaking the truth of the armenian genocide. because turkey is a route for petroleum pipelines to the west. why not send troops to turkey?

I'm not justifying the actions of the Turkish regimes of the past or present. The reality is that they're a key ally, and Libya is not, one is experiencing a countrywide revolt, and the other is a regional and cultural conflict.

Beyond that, we'd be at war with Turkey, and probably begin WWIII. There are no such practical considerations in Libya at the moment, especially with the statement from the Arab League.

I may be an idealist at heart, but it's surrounded by leather and spite. To be blunt, again... as we had to clean up Iraq (the first time only), it falls to those who armed and funded Libya to do the same.

I'm aware fo the realpolitik; it doesn't curb my outrage in this specific instance where intervention could be minimal, yet have a maximum impact.

edit: So let me see if I understand you... we can't help everyone, so we shouldn't help anyone?

@Tim: Do you have anything constructive to add, or merely superficial critique?

Proton Soup

Mar12-11, 02:11 PM

edit: So let me see if I understand you... we can't help everyone, so we shouldn't help anyone?

let's help Japan.

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 02:13 PM

let's help Japan.

We are helping Japan, is there a reason that the EU, and NATO can't do two things at once? You can throw out endless problems, but the reality is the same... it's no excuse.

Proton Soup

Mar12-11, 02:27 PM

We are helping Japan, is there a reason that the EU, and NATO can't do two things at once? You can throw out endless problems, but the reality is the same... it's no excuse.

we're also helping Iraq and Afghanistan, we're helping the Sauds maintain their Thiefdom, and it's unclear what we're helping the Egyptians do.

it's also unclear to me that if the rebels win, things will be any different for the "people".

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 02:34 PM

we're also helping Iraq and Afghanistan, we're helping the Sauds maintain their Thiefdom, and it's unclear what we're helping the Egyptians do.

I must have marbles in my mouth... EU... NATO... not just or even the USA. It's unfortunate that the rest of the world is long on talk and short on intervention, but that's Russia and China for you. As for Iraq and Afghanistan, you have a view of "help" that isn't what I consider help. For one, neither asked for help or revolted on their own... in each case we invaded for our own interests. Pity too... maybe we'd have more resources to help people who want it if we weren't out adventuring in the 'Graveyard of Empires"

it's also unclear to me that if the rebels win, things will be any different for the "people".

I think you underestimate the Ghaddafi regime's brutality compared to the usual war and strife.

nismaratwork

Mar12-11, 02:38 PM

tiny-tim

Mar13-11, 05:22 AM

I'm curious Tim, now that the Arab League has done the opposite of what you predicted, do you in any way wish to change your view on the matter?

My expressed view was that the fault was not of Europe, as you were saying, but of the Arab league countries.

That is still my view. The only difference is that, having been at fault for decades, they are now doing something about it asking others to do something about it.

nismaratwork

Mar13-11, 10:30 AM

My expressed view was that the fault was not of Europe, as you were saying, but of the Arab league countries.

That is still my view. The only difference is that, having been at fault for decades, they are now doing something about it asking others to do something about it.

Ahhhh... I still disagree, I don't believe that fault is so easily apportioned, nor do I see it as the primary issue. This is more about spheres of influence, and the local history in regards not only to past colonialism, but ongoing patronage of a sick regime. Is there any clearer example than Al Megrahi, or two French multi-roles being tasked to bomb?

Now that the Arab League has unanimously asked for help... what now? What would you have the Arab League do beyond ask for help? Should Europe be ignored the next time it asks for, or needs help because it's 'their problem'?

There's a reason I mention NATO, and that means at least half of any force sent will be USA, not a "mix"... and that assumes the French would use the Charles De Gaulle for something other than a national phallic symbol.

So, I get it, you've made your point... do you have anything to add beyond a defense of the homeland's lack of perceived responsibility, moral or practical, in the region?

edit: I'll take continued silence as answer enough. :rolleyes:

nismaratwork

Mar13-11, 09:25 PM

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/03/13/wedeman.libya.sunday.cnn

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/13/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2

NEW: Foreign ministry denounces Arab League's call for no-fly zone, state TV says
The opposition says its forces pulled out of Al-Brega in a "tactical retreat"
The town is "cleansed from criminal gangs and mercenaries," state TV says
Gadhafi's forces have been fighting to regain towns from the opposition

For those who can keep an eye on the road while they chew gum.

Zryn

Mar13-11, 11:38 PM

Agreed... and given the casualties already being incurred, and the way they're hunting down rebels... killing some civilians to stop this is a terrible, but worthwhile trade IMO.

If only some of your family and friends could be swapped with these nameless civilians before such a trade could be made.

nismaratwork

Mar13-11, 11:59 PM

If only some of your family and friends could be swapped with these nameless civilians before such a trade could be made.

It would be worth the trade, and I have an aunt I can spare.

And no, I'm not joking.

russ_watters

Mar14-11, 09:36 PM

On March 3, I said: Until we see WMDs and/or death tolls with a couple of extra zeroes on them, we shouldn't be responding to the killing of a few Libyans by killing a lot of Libyans. Right now it appears the people who we want to win are winning so for at least the time-being, we should let them win. What we did in Kosovo was a good thing, but it was a much bigger humanitarian problem and we were prepared (and did) back it up with ground troops. Are we really ready for ground troops in Libya?

A no-fly-zone here is not a simple thing. Once you do it, you're all in and we're not ready to be all-in. It's not big enough yet for that to be worth it. What has changed since then is that the rebels are now losing and more of them are dying. But information still seems sketchy to me:
1. How many are dying?
2. Are they acually civilians or are they armed rebels?

The answer to those questions determines whether there is a moral/humanitarian mandate to help and without a clear answer it is tough to decide. But that may be irrelevant: The other thing that has changed is international support for action even from African nations is increasing.

So I'm not opposed to going in, but I think if we do it has to be with the goal of removing Gadhafi regardless of what is required to do it. That means:

1. A month of a "no fly zone" with the associated SEAD. That alone may envigorate the rebels and help them win. If it doesn't:
2. Airstrikes against the Libyan government a la Yugoslavia. If that doesn't do it after about a month:
3. Ground troops to capture Tripoli followed by a peacekeeping force. That's a commitment of several tens of thousands of troops and a virtual guarantee of dead Americans, but I don't think we can do step 1 without acceping that we may need to do 2 and 3. To stop at step 1 after a month if it doesn't work just makes things worse.

A CNN op ed on this issue that troll title aside makes a few good points...while I think being wrong in its overall thesis: Has the Obama administration decided it wants the Gadhafi regime to survive?

That hypothesis is the only way to make sense of the administration's actions toward Libya.

On March 3, President Obama announced that Col. Moammar Gadhafi "must go."

Gadhafi did not listen. Instead, the Libyan dictator has brutally quelled the uprising with rockets, air strikes and attacks on civilian population centers.

And the U.S. reaction? The more brutally Gadhafi acts, the more slowly the U.S. responds. France and the United Kingdom are pressing for a no-fly zone inside Libya. Some military experts in U.S. have suggested arming the insurgents. The administration has said it is considering all these options, but that any final decision must await a NATO meeting on Tuesday. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/14/frum.obama.libya/index.html?hpt=T2

My opinion is probably predictable: It isn't that Obama wants Gadhafi to stay (I believe him when he says he wants him to go), it's that Obama is a staunch liberal and therefore by nature a staunch pacifist. He isn't capable of making a decision that takes us into a war. We may eventually get there, but only after international bodies like the UN or NATO make the decision for him and he follows them.

The writer considers a similar hypothesis but rejects it, instead opting to believe that Obama believes Gadhafi isn't that bad of a dictator and so would prefer he win and continue the status quo. Much as I would love to believe that Obama's moral cowardace runs that deep, I don't.

nismaratwork

Mar14-11, 09:37 PM

On March 3, I said: What has changed since then is that the rebels are now losing and more of them are dying. But information still seems sketchy to me:
1. How many are dying?
2. Are they acually civilians or are they armed rebels?

The answer to those questions determines whether there is a moral/humanitarian mandate to help and without a clear answer it is tough to decide. But that may be irrelevant: The other thing that has changed is international support for action even from African nations is increasing.

So I'm not opposed to going in, but I think if we do it has to be with the goal of removing Ghadaffi regardless of what is required to do it. That means:

1. A month of a "no fly zone" with the associated SEAD. That alone may envigorate the rebels and help them win. If it doesn't:
2. Airstrikes against the Libyan government a la Yugoslavia. If that doesn't do it after about a month:
3. Ground troops to capture Tripoli followed by a peacekeeping force. That's a commitment of several tens of thousands of troops and a virtual guarantee of dead Americans, but I don't think we can do step 1 without acceping that we may need to do 2 and 3. To stop at step 1 after a month if it doesn't work just makes things worse.

Now that sounds like a sane plan that could actually work.

Evo

Mar15-11, 11:40 AM

Al Qaeda Targets Libya

The terror cell sees Gaddafi’s bloody civil conflict as the perfect chance to swoop in and turn the war-torn country into an Islamic state. By Ron Moreau and Sami Yousafzai.

Exiled Libyans with connections to Al Qaeda are racing to find ways to send people home, in hope of steering the anti-Gaddafi revolt in a radical Islamist direction, according to several senior Afghan Taliban sources in contact with Al-Qaeda.

“This rebellion is the fresh breeze they’ve been waiting years for,” says an Afghan Taliban operative who helps facilitate the movement of Al Qaeda militants between the tribal area and Pakistani cities. “Some say they are ready to go back at this critical moment.” The operative, who has just returned from Pakistan’s lawless tribal area on the Afghanistan border, adds: “They realize that if they don’t use this opportunity, it could be the end of their chances to turn Libya toward a real Islamic state, as Afghanistan once was.”continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110315/ts_dailybeast/12919_alqaedaslibyaplans

If true, what a mess.

nismaratwork

Mar15-11, 11:42 AM

continued...

If true, what a mess.

Well, if they can't turn to international bodies for help, their growing anger (misplaced or not,it hardly matters) and the predicament they find themselves in would tend to lead to easy radicalization. I'd add, it's not as though the Libyan people were in love with the west to begin with.

mugaliens

Mar15-11, 10:07 PM

We've failed the Libyan people in every possible way...

I'm sorry, but I do not accept responsibility for another country's mess. I don't mind my tax dollars being spent to help other countries begin their recovery from natural disasters from time to time, and that includes Haiti and the Tsunami disaster a few years back. It's the humanitarian thing to do.

I strongly object to a single penny being spent on bailing out a country that's destroying itself, particularly if the people of that nation had the opportunity to overthrow their oppressors at an earlier date, but did not, instead accepting a mantle of dictatorship. If Godaffy is doing the unthinkable by murdering rebels with a legitimate grip, take him out. If that's against U.S. policy, it's time for a change in policy. If their gripe isn't legitimate, then do nothing.

nismaratwork

Mar16-11, 01:11 AM

I'm sorry, but I do not accept responsibility for another country's mess. I don't mind my tax dollars being spent to help other countries begin their recovery from natural disasters from time to time, and that includes Haiti and the Tsunami disaster a few years back. It's the humanitarian thing to do.

We're not responsible, but we've still failed them.

I strongly object to a single penny being spent on bailing out a country that's destroying itself, particularly if the people of that nation had the opportunity to overthrow their oppressors at an earlier date, but did not, instead accepting a mantle of dictatorship. If Godaffy is doing the unthinkable by murdering rebels with a legitimate grip, take him out. If that's against U.S. policy, it's time for a change in policy. If their gripe isn't legitimate, then do nothing.

I agree on the policy change, but at this point it's probably worth considering that we're watching a new Somalia or Afghanistan form before our eyes. Is it wise to leave matters be, only to come back in a decade out of necessity? I'm also finding it hard to believe that we can exert so little international pressure that we can't have an NFZ under NATO/EU.

cobalt124

Mar16-11, 07:17 AM

I'm also finding it hard to believe that we can exert so little international pressure that we can't have an NFZ under NATO/EU.

Chances don't look good to get a no fly zone up and running.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12755896

nismaratwork

Mar16-11, 08:22 AM

Chances don't look good to get a no fly zone up and running.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12755896

I'd have to agree with that assessment.

nismaratwork

Mar17-11, 02:47 PM

Now this could be an interesting development...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/17/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2

cobalt124

Mar17-11, 06:47 PM

Now this could be an interesting development...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/17/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2

Wow, I didn't think they would. I hope they are not too late.

Astronuc

Mar17-11, 07:15 PM

Wow, I didn't think they would. I hope they are not too late. France will apparently take action within hours. Apparently the resolution allows any action necessary to protect civilians, which sounds like Ghadafi's army (particularly tanks and artillery) is fair game.

Ivan Seeking

Mar17-11, 07:21 PM

First, I would suspect, Cruise Missiles to take out the air defenses.

AlephZero

Mar17-11, 07:34 PM

First, I would suspect, Cruise Missiles to take out the air defenses.
If the air defenses are mobile, it doesn't take much strategic wit to put half of them in the suburbs of the biggest government-held towns, and the the other half in the oil refineries. Let's hope the cruise missiles can shoot straight.

But if the French are involved, they might want to use the Foreign Legion Camel Corps instead. Camel dung can really mess up anti-aircraft guns :devil:

cobalt124

Mar17-11, 07:39 PM

France will apparently take action within hours. Apparently the resolution allows any action necessary to protect civilians, which sounds like Ghadafi's army (particularly tanks and artillery) is fair game.

They are going to have to take this path, as it seems a "pure no fly zone" would be pretty useless to the rebels now.

mugaliens

Mar17-11, 08:22 PM

Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/libya_diplomacy).

I would like to point out that the U.N. Security Counsel "added a paragraph in the resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire "and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians," thereby giving Gadhafi an out, but only if he takes immediate and appropriate action.

Unfortunately, Gadhafi's responses, both before and after the resolution, are not those of a leader maintaining rational control, but that of a despot, a person exercising power tyrannically. In street jargon it's known as "suicide by cop."

Personally, I'd rather we left them alone, but Gadhafi's escalation of the of slaughter of his own countrymen has crossed the line to the point where no one who considers himself a friend of the common man can idly sit by and look away.

Of the multi-national force who will soon be enforcing the no-fly zone."May their arrows fly true, and their swords cut deep." Good luck, and Godspeed.

mugaliens

Mar17-11, 09:07 PM

I agree on the policy change, but at this point it's probably worth considering that we're watching a new Somalia or Afghanistan form before our eyes. Is it wise to leave matters be, only to come back in a decade out of necessity? I'm also finding it hard to believe that we can exert so little international pressure that we can't have an NFZ under NATO/EU.

In light of Gadhafi's further slaughters and ramblings, I no longer believe we should do nothing, and it appears a NFZ is what the doctor ordered. More in another thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=481988). Not trying to hijack this one. Just built one to concentrate on the NFZ as it unfolds.

In the meantime, the answer to "Who is Watching?" has been answered. At least 10 of the 15 nations on the U.N. Security Counsel.

Gokul43201

Mar17-11, 09:56 PM

In the meantime, the answer to "Who is Watching?" has been answered. At least 10 of the 15 nations on the U.N. Security Counsel.That sucks! I'm disappointed that more of the key member nations didn't raise the "no" flag as a check on UN aspirations. [/facetious]

cobalt124

Mar18-11, 02:58 AM

Just heard on BBC Radio News that the French have stated that military action will take place "within hours". Can't find a link for this yet though.

EDIT: here it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12779628

"Reports suggest air strikes may begin within hours of it passing."

mugaliens

Mar18-11, 09:48 AM

Cease Fire (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42145571/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001).

This is a good thing.

AlephZero

Mar18-11, 10:13 AM

Cease Fire (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42145571/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001).

This is a good thing.

Hmm... I would take "cease fire" = "good opportunity for Gadaffi to regroup and redeploy forces without being shot at".

A nice cartoon in a UK national newpaper today. An arab in a command-and-control center answering the phone. "Which emergency service you do require: fire, police, ambulance, or foreign intervention?"

russ_watters

Mar18-11, 12:17 PM

Cease Fire (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42145571/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001).

This is a good thing. Why is it good? The article title is "Fighting rages on despite Libya Cease-Fire Declaration"....

This is a very smart (impressively smart) move by Ghadaffi. It means several things:
1. Military intervention by the UN would be an act of aggression against a foreign government that isn't at war with anyone (if they stop their advances -- or maybe they can just blame the continued fighting on non-government loyalists).
2. Rebels can't attack Ghadaffi's forces without being the aggressors (they may still want to).
3. A cease-fire means stopping the revolution and that's not what the US/UN/Rebels want. The best the rebels can hope for if the cease-fire holds and hostilities end is that if they lay down their weapons, Ghadaffi won't round them up and execute them and that things just go back to the way they were before the revolution started. There is no upside for them here, only several different downsides.

Ghadaffi is calling our bluff, laying his cards on the table and making it our move. If we want him out, we have to go knock him out in an aggressive war.

nismaratwork

Mar18-11, 12:23 PM

Why is it good? The article title is "Fighting rages on despite Libya Cease-Fire Declaration"....

This is a very smart (impressively smart) move by Ghadaffi. It means several things:
1. Military intervention by the UN would be an act of aggression against a foreign government that isn't at war with anyone (if they stop their advances -- or maybe they can just blame the continued fighting on non-government loyalists).
2. Rebels can't attack Ghadaffi's forces without being the aggressors (they may still want to).
3. A cease-fire means stopping the revolution and that's not what the US/UN/Rebels want. The best the rebels can hope for if the cease-fire holds and hostilities end is that if they lay down their weapons, Ghadaffi won't round them up and execute them and that things just go back to the way they were before the revolution started. There is no upside for them here, only several different downsides.

Ghadaffi is calling our bluff, laying his cards on the table and making it our move. If we want him out, we have to go knock him out in an aggressive war.

'All necessary means'....

I say targeted attacks and all necessary prep for an NFZ first, ask for diplomatic clarification later. The only thing explicity out was invasion, and who wants that? I hope the rebels don't 'cease-fire', which makes it impossible to withdraw without cover. If the rebels want, they can force Ghaddafi's hand, and we can take any excuse with such broad language.

Ivan Seeking

Mar18-11, 12:24 PM

Re Russ:

Our bluff? Who says anyone is bluffing?

I see nothing unexpected here. Ghadaffi is acting exactly as we would expect.

It seems to me that he got smart with Reagan as well... We all know how that one ended.

nismaratwork

Mar18-11, 12:26 PM

Re Russ:

Our bluff? Who says anyone is bluffing?

I see nothing unexpected here. Ghadaffi is acting exactly as we would expect.

Reports would seem to support that this isn't a bluff, I suspect that there won't be a working AA RADAR installation in Libya within 6-12 hours, and if we're smart we'll target armor that's on its way back to Tripoli before it can be stowed again.

Edit: The only thing Reagan did wrong there, is not send another wing over to clean up after we missed Ghaddafi.

Ivan Seeking

Mar18-11, 12:34 PM

Edit: The only thing Reagan did wrong there, is not send another wing over to clean up after we missed Ghaddafi.

Yes, but Gh sure did get quiet for the next twenty years or so. :biggrin: He was never the same after that.

I always felt badly for his kid, who paid for the sins of the father.

nismaratwork

Mar18-11, 12:37 PM

Yes, but Gh sure did get quiet for the next twenty years or so. :biggrin: He was never the same after that.

Well, the first thing he did after that was to blow Pan Am out of the sky... then he got quiet.

Remember:

Berlin Disco(Gh)
Al Aziziyah (Reagan)
Pan Am (Gh)

Truly, if he'd died, I can't imagine how much suffering would have been avoided.

What I want to know is that now we've backed him into a corner, are we going to secure or bomb/incinerate his cache of mustard agent? We don't want that being sold off, or worse, put into a crop-duster. :bugeye:

Ivan Seeking

Mar18-11, 12:41 PM

Well, the first thing he did after that was to blow Pan Am out of the sky... then he got quiet.

Remember:

Berlin Disco(Gh)
Al Aziziyah (Reagan)
Pan Am (Gh)

Whoops, you sayin I'm gettin old? :biggrin:

Yeah, I was thinking Pan Am came before the [Reagan's] bombing. I do distinctly remember his virtually disappearing from the face of the earth after something we did... I thought it was the bombing.

nismaratwork

Mar18-11, 12:45 PM

Whoops, you sayin I'm gettin old? :biggrin:

Yeah, I was thinking Pan Am came before the bombing. I do distinctly remember his virtually disappearing from the face of the earth after something we did... I thought it was the bombing.

Hey, I would never sass my elders. :rofl:

Kidding aside, most people seem hazy on the time-line... I think because the bombing in Berlin is often forgotten. Certainly the man changed after we bombed him... he was a sociopath before, but he became erratic and... different after. Trauma.... anger... or some kind of TBI... it's a testament to a need to finish what we begin, swiftly.

Heh, figures you'd find one of the few major actions of Reagan's I agree with.

Ivan Seeking

Mar18-11, 01:00 PM

Heh, figures you'd find one of the few major actions of Reagan's I agree with.

You mean, dad?

nismaratwork

Mar18-11, 01:12 PM

You mean, dad?

Yeah yeah... keep it up wise guy. :tongue:

russ_watters

Mar18-11, 02:24 PM

Re Russ:

Our bluff? Who says anyone is bluffing? The world community wants Ghadaffi gone, but the UN resolution just demands a cease fire and an end to the abuse of civilians. So if Ghadaffi really ceases-fire, then he's fulfilled the resolution's key demands and the military response in the resolution shouldn't happen. In other words, by immediately complying with the resolution, he's forcing us to violate it in order to get what we want.

The "bluff" is that we're want to remove him/help the rebels remove him. He's called us on it, saying essentially: 'you want me gone? now you have to violate your own force-authorizing resolution in order to do it.'

You don't think Bush really wanted Saddam to comply with the UN's resolutions against him, do you...?I see nothing unexpected here. Ghadaffi is acting exactly as we would expect. Murderous dictators almost never back down. Their arrogance almost always overrules their brains. He said he'd fight to the death to keep his rule and I expected him to do so. See: Saddam, Hitler.

nismaratwork

Mar18-11, 02:28 PM

The world community wants Ghadaffi gone, but the UN resolution just demands a cease fire and an end to the abuse of civilians. So if Ghadaffi really ceases-fire, then he's fulfilled the resolution's key demands and the military response in the resolution shouldn't happen. In other words, by immediately complying with the resolution, he's forcing us to violate it in order to get what we want.

You don't think Bush really wanted Saddam to comply with the UN's resolutions against him, do you...? Murderous dictators almost never back down. He said he'd fight to the death to keep his rule and I expected him to do so. See: Saddam.

I think one element is a saving grace here: the rebels are going to move and they're not subject to a DMZ, and have no air assets. Ghaddafi can't really afford to lose all of the ground he's lost, and "all means" includes strikes on his armor if he tries to use it, or shelling/mortars.

There is also the possiblity that with the international community looming, and no real hope for his regime, Ghaddafi will be largely abandoned, and (I hope) killed.

Ivan Seeking

Mar18-11, 03:34 PM

He said he'd fight to the death to keep his rule and I expected him to do so. See: Saddam, Hitler.

More likely I think, one of his own people will take him out.

In either case, I think the practical goal [though not the best outcome] is to neuter him, not kill him. This may allow time for the revolution to regain momentum.

Obama is demanding that the Arabs take the lead so this isn't just another US invasion.

cobalt124

Mar18-11, 03:46 PM

jreelawg

Mar18-11, 04:06 PM

What it seamed to me was that the UN resolution authorizes the use of force to protect civilians. Does it authorize the use of force to protect the rebels? There is a difference between peaceful protesters and armed rebels.

Has Gadaffi been indicted?

I think a strong message to send would be, to demand that Gadaffi loyalists hand him over to be arrested and tried. Make it clear that those who help Gadaffi will be also charged and tried when his regime inevitably falls.

nismaratwork

Mar18-11, 10:08 PM

More likely I think, one of his own people will take him out.

In either case, I think the practical goal [though not the best outcome] is to neuter him, not kill him. This may allow time for the revolution to regain momentum.

Obama is demanding that the Arabs take the lead so this isn't just another US invasion.

I would generally agree that he'd be killed by his own, but with is sons and daughter likely in control, a decapitating action would have to go well beyond Ghaddafi himself.

I would tend towards a limited scorched earth policy for armor not held by rebels (assuming intel can be provided), and using the hellfire missiles that are very effective and kill that family to the last.

I look at Baby Doc, now Aristide... some people need killing, banishment and neutering as you say, is not enough. The point about the AL, I am in complete agreement with.

russ_watters

Mar19-11, 12:13 AM

President Barack Obama is trying to limit the United States' role in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to support aircraft only and is very reluctant to commit any offensive U.S. firepower, a senior U.S. official familiar with the military planning discussions said Friday. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/index.html?hpt=T1

Obama's lack of leadership is glaring yet again. He's taken heat throughout this event for being wishy-washy and not leading, but this is just too much. In a brief, token show of leadership, he asked for and got a UN resolution for a no-fly zone, but now he's not going to lead that effort? What the hell?!

This UN resolution has a very real chance of doing more harm than good. It gave Ghadaffi an internationally-sanctioned way out of the crisis that preserves his rule.

Criticism from Gingrich: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich launched another zinger at President Obama on Thursday by channeling President Theodore Roosevelt who famously said "Walk softly and carry a big stick."

Of the president, Gingrich said "Theodore Roosevelt said you have to walk softly and carry a big stick. This is a guy who talks loudly and has no stick." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/17/gingrich-obama-talks-loudly-has-no-stick/?iref=allsearch&hpt=Sbin

Note: Gingrich said that before Obama gave his speech this afternoon saying he wasn't going to support the NFZ with weapons.

I disagree with him on the first part, though: Obama talks eloquently when discussing vague generalities and idealistic principles, but when it comes to leadership, he talks mumblingly, not loudly. From downplaying terrorist attacks to giving confusing and contradictory messages to Egypt and Libya, he's proving what I always believed and often said: being a great public speaker is not the same as being a great leader. Much to my shock, he was able to convince people the earth was flat with a few of his campaign promises, but I expected that when forced to start dealing with realities that require leadership, he'd start fumbling.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 04:05 AM

I would generally agree that he'd be killed by his own, but with is sons and daughter likely in control, a decapitating action would have to go well beyond Ghaddafi himself.

Yes, I thought at first removing Gadaffi would be sufficient, but it seems that his family and those close to it would need removing as well, root and branch.

This UN resolution has a very real chance of doing more harm than good. It gave Ghadaffi an internationally-sanctioned way out of the crisis that preserves his rule.

I share that fear too. I can't comment on Obamas performance in this, but the problem he has is that he cannot be seen to be taking the lead on this, lest it brings to the fore anti-U.S. opinion in the Arab League, so in that sense I believe he is doing the right thing by letting other nations take the lead. That does show good leadership IMO.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 10:07 AM

It looks like Gadaffis carried on fighting the rebels and the French have gone into action:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971

EDIT: French and possibly Italian fighters in operation, Gadaffi troops attempting to surround Benghazi.

Greg Bernhardt

Mar19-11, 11:54 AM

CNN Headline: "French jets flying over Libya"

Ivan Seeking

Mar19-11, 11:55 AM

I share that fear too. I can't comment on Obamas performance in this, but the problem he has is that he cannot be seen to be taking the lead on this, lest it brings to the fore anti-U.S. opinion in the Arab League, so in that sense I believe he is doing the right thing by letting other nations take the lead. That does show good leadership IMO.

Indeed, it beats running off half-cocked and starting war without the support of the Arab and other nations, which would surely be viewed as an abuse of US power in the region. That would be playing right into the hands of Ghadafi and other terrorists. We've fallen for that one before. Luckily Obama is too smart for that.

Discretion is the better part of valor - a lesson lost on our leadership in the past.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 12:00 PM

A French plane has opened fire on a truck in Benghazi. Its started.

EDIT: About 20 planes involved at the moment.

Ivan Seeking

Mar19-11, 12:23 PM

CNN reports that about 20 French fighter jets are now patrolling the skies over Libya. [Whoops, I see that you just added that part]

Having the French take the offensive is a very good move, imo.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 12:39 PM

Ivan Seeking

Mar19-11, 12:44 PM

Sorry, snuck an edit in! It's going to be interesting how this unfolds, not having the U.S. take the lead, and having the Arab League on board. It could bode well for future international relations, potentially.

Yes, and help to position us as liberators [our true intent] and partners, and not as invaders.

petergreat

Mar19-11, 12:49 PM

It looks like that the allied force won't attack unless Gaddafi refuses ceasefire, which raises the question, what if Gaddafi decides to accept ceasefire? If ceasefire becomes permanent, will Lybia be split into two countries?

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 12:52 PM

From BBC Live News:

French aircraft have destroyed four Libyan tanks in air strikes to the south-west of Benghazi, Al-Jazeera television has reported

Ivan Seeking

Mar19-11, 12:56 PM

It seems clear to me that he can only maintain power through the use of force and intimidation. Take that away and he's just another paper tiger.

My hope is that the freedom fevor, along with international support for the rebel government, will eventually assure his fate as a bad memory.

nismaratwork

Mar19-11, 12:59 PM

Very good... and about damned time. It seems that the european powers have taken the responsibility they have to... now the AL needs to step up and provide air support and targeting/battlespace intel.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 01:05 PM

nismaratwork

Mar19-11, 01:08 PM

Hopefully that will happen and the Libyan people and the Arab League and the world will be rid of a power wielding Gadaffi. The pessimist in me can't quite see how the stalemate will be avoided, though, along with Gadaffi being a slippery, cunning <words fail me> who will stop at nothing to get his own way.

This is why I think either Ivan's result will occur (one of MG's own killing him), or that the force in place will have to seriously bomb Al Aziziyah and Tripoli, or 'send in the boys'. I really am all for assasination in this case...

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 01:09 PM

BBC Live:

Activist group Liberty4Libya tweets: "#Libya #Zintan, heavy shelling into the city of #Zintan, #Gaddafi troops' tanks advancing under the fire cover

Zintan is 160 miles southwest of Tripoli.

nismaratwork

Mar19-11, 01:11 PM

Activist group Liberty4Libya tweets: "#Libya #Zintan, heavy shelling into the city of #Zintan, #Gaddafi troops' tanks advancing under the fire cover

Zintan is 160 miles southwest of Tripoli.

This is why the language allows for targeting armor and supply lines, not just air assets.

Yes, civilians and the oppositon WILL die, it's part of war, but it's not going to be ANYTHING compared to doing nothing. The only way to ensure that this is not the tactic of the next century, is to show that human shields are not shields at all.

Libya asked for help; I hope they knew what it was they were getting.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 01:59 PM

From what I've read the operation is over Benghazi and the surrounding area. Zintan is at the other end of the country. Presumably the U.N. resolution operates all over Libya and hopefully Gadaffis forces can be stopped there as well. Human shielding is a desperate and evil tactic, and it is so easy to sit here and type, but for the sake of the long run Nismar, I would say that you are right.

EDIT: BBC - A US defence official tells Reuters that the US Navy has three submarines in the Mediterranean preparing for operations in Libya.

AlephZero

Mar19-11, 02:34 PM

Obama is demanding that the Arabs take the lead so this isn't just another US invasion.
I assume the US is supporting the Saudis invading Bahrain as well. But I guess it's important not to give people the idea you are taking sides...

I see a news report that Gaza is taking another pop at Israel with some rockets. Now isn't that just a truly amazing coincidence....

Ivan Seeking

Mar19-11, 03:10 PM

I assume the US is supporting the Saudis invading Bahrain as well. But I guess it's important not to give people the idea you are taking sides...

I see a news report that Gaza is taking another pop at Israel with some rockets. Now isn't that just a truly amazing coincidence....

Was there something on-topic here?

Astronuc

Mar19-11, 03:58 PM

Clinton: Fears of Libyan Clinton: Fears of Libyan 'unspeakable atrocities'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_us_libya_clinton

The world will not "sit idly by," she said at a news conference, amid fears that Gadhafi will commit "unspeakable atrocities" against his people.

"We have every reason to fear that left unchecked Gadhafi would commit unspeakable atrocities," she told reporters after an international conference at which world powers launched enforcement of the no-fly zone.
. . . . I suspect that Gadhafi's forces have been committing murder (and other atrocities) from the beginning. The world should have acted before his troops rolled out of Tripoli.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 04:00 PM

I assume the US is supporting the Saudis invading Bahrain as well. But I guess it's important not to give people the idea you are taking sides...

All they are doing is supporting U.N. Resolution 1973. For once (it seems) they are supporting the U.N. rather than using it to force their own agenda.

I see a news report that Gaza is taking another pop at Israel with some rockets. Now isn't that just a truly amazing coincidence....

I don't see the point you are making here.

Ivan Seeking

Mar19-11, 04:05 PM

CNN reports that 110 US cruise missiles [some from a British sub] have been fired into Libya.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 04:06 PM

I suspect that Gadhafi's forces have been committing murder (and other atrocities) from the beginning. The world should have acted before his troops rolled out of Tripoli.

Once the Arab League announced their support, the U.N. did respond quickly to France, the U.K. and The Lebanon. Hopefully it's not too late.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 04:14 PM

CNN reports that 110 US cruise missiles [some from a British sub] have been fired into Libya.

BBC:

The Pentagon says 20 sites were targeted in the initial missile attacks, and these were "just the first phase of what will likely be a multi-phased, military operation designed to enforce the United Nations' resolution and deny the Libyan regime the ability to use force against its own people

russ_watters

Mar19-11, 04:29 PM

CNN reports that 110 US cruise missiles [some from a British sub] have been fired into Libya. Well now I'm thoroughly confused. I wasn't terribly surprised when Ghadaffi said he was ceasing-fire and then didn't, but Obama said he wasn't going to use any offensive weapons, but he has. It's not that I disagree with the action, but did he change his mind in the past few hours or did he lie? Heck, I'm not even against him lying as a diversion, but I don't see the point of this one.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 04:34 PM

but Obama said he wasn't going to use any offensive weapons, but he has.

The U.N. resolution states (paraphrasing here) any action necessary to protect cvilian people. I heard Obama say he backed the resolution, if he said he wasn't going to use offensive weapons, that does seem odd. But I don't see anything happening that is outsde the U.N. resolution 1973. I don't see how he could not use offensive weapons to see throught he resolution.

EDIT: found a better quote on the wording of the resolution:

resolution 1973 mandates "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.

klusener

Mar19-11, 05:25 PM

edward

Mar19-11, 05:30 PM

The strikes were aimed at Libyan air defense targets which had to be taken out in order to set up the no-fly zone. I don't recall Obama, or any other government official, stating that such offensive strikes would be not be used in the process of enforcing the provisions of the UN mandate, a key element of which is the no-fly zone.

Here is a link for that:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/over-110-tomahawk-missiles-fired-at-libya-20110320-1c1sq.html

nismaratwork

Mar19-11, 05:31 PM

Well now I'm thoroughly confused. I wasn't terribly surprised when Ghadaffi said he was ceasing-fire and then didn't, but Obama said he wasn't going to use any offensive weapons, but he has. It's not that I disagree with the action, but did he change his mind in the past few hours or did he lie? Heck, I'm not even against him lying as a diversion, but I don't see the point of this one.

Here I'm confused, he said that we'd act in a support role... the French mapped the area, and we fired using our GPS network on the designated targets (presumably). We always said this would be the first step; neutralizing AA/RADAR capability.

I'd add, all I heard promised was no American combat troops on the ground... nothing saying we couldn't fire on targets mapped or otherwise designated by the French and British. We're not 'in the lead'... and that's precisely what this kind of strike establishes.

edit: This would be a nice time for the AL and Israel to get along... HaMossad could hunt down and kill the Ghaddafis while they were still in Tripoli... maybe save some lives before this protracts.

russ_watters

Mar19-11, 05:47 PM

I discussed and linked it in post #69, guys, and it comes from the speech he made yesterday: Obama trying to limit military involvement in Libya

President Barack Obama is trying to limit the United States' role in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to support aircraft only and is very reluctant to commit any offensive U.S. firepower, a senior U.S. official familiar with the military planning discussions said Friday.

"We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone," the president said in a nationally televised statement about U.S. military action.

"The president chose his words deliberately and carefully, and you should be guided by them," the official said. "He is very sensitive that this not be a U.S. operation....

Asked about the "unique capabilities" the president talked about contributing, the official said that at least for now, they would not involve combat fighters or bombers but instead would include AWACS, intelligence-gathering drones and other intelligence assets, and refueling and air traffic control. [emphasis added] http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/index.html?hpt=T1

[edit] Er.... I must not have read the whole article, because it also says: The U.S. official said that the U.S. might use cruise missiles and that although the president was very reluctant to commit to any offensive U.S. weapons, he understands that it is likely the U.S. will be called on to do so. It is a little contradictory, though.

Jimmy Snyder

Mar19-11, 05:48 PM

David Cameron, British PM, assures us that Libya will not be another Iraq. Libyan leader Khadafy (aka Qaddafi) has expressed concern that Libya will be another Viet Nam. This is a real posibility since, according to American officials, Iraq is not another Viet Nam. Calls to Viet Nam asking for comment have not been returned. Afghanistan has warned that they will not accept being another Libya. However, Libya has assured Kabul that Korea will take precedence for being another Libya. Meanwhile, Canada (another USA) has indicated that they will welcome to their shores, people objecting to any country becoming another Viet Nam. The UN passed another resolution against Israel to the satisfaction of all.

nismaratwork

Mar19-11, 05:52 PM

I discussed and linked it in post #69, guys, and it comes from the speech he made yesterday: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/index.html?hpt=T1

Russ, I think that our extremely finely targeted system for anti-radar/AA is just that, along with C&C support through AWACS, Aegis systems, and more.

I don't think there's a contradiction, and less so when you consider that the targets were just that; RADAR/AA, the destruction of which has only one benefit: the support of european and other allied efforts.

We're going to have to wait and see if this is a trend, or if this is truly what I described.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 06:05 PM

"trying to limit", "very reluctant", "We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone",

Picking out parts of Russes link, Obama isn't directly saying he won't use firepower. My reading of it is he will, but that he is ultra sensitive to being seen as leading this, so is wording it as he does.

nismaratwork

Mar19-11, 06:10 PM

By definition, we also have to be the first to strike... we're best at removing AA assets. It's a very flashy media-friendly event, but it could be misconstrued as us leading. It's harder to explain that France took the brunt of the risk by flying recon over active air defenses, we just provided the ammo and a bit more.

From here I hope our major presence is psy-ops and C&C for air... I'd hope the AL would do more, but I don't expect it.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 06:13 PM

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 06:23 PM

BBC:

2304: LibyanYouthMovement tweets: "ALL, yes ALL Gaddafi forces in ZINTAN have joined the #Feb17 revolution, Zintan now fully armed and ready #Libya #gaddaficrimes"

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 06:32 PM

An AL contribution:

An un-named French official tells the AFP news agency that the United Arab Emirates has pledged 24 aircraft to the coalition and Qatar between four and six.

nismaratwork

Mar19-11, 06:34 PM

An AL contribution:

An un-named French official tells the AFP news agency that the United Arab Emirates has pledged 24 aircraft to the coalition and Qatar between four and six.

Hmmm... I'll offer congrats when I see them fly and use munitions.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 06:41 PM

Hmmm... I'll offer congrats when I see them fly and use munitions.

Yes, thinking about it, that may be a giant step to take, and may just be a token gesture.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 07:17 PM

BBC:

Reports from Benghazi say rebels have regained control of the city after driving out forces loyal to Col Gaddafi. The rebels say roads to the east are clogged with car loads of people fleeing

Proton Soup

Mar19-11, 07:45 PM

BBC (earlier today):

The coalition's long-term aim of the military action in Libya is to overthrow Col Gaddafi, Oliver Miles, the former British ambassador to the country, tells the BBC. He adds: "I'm not against that, but as a war aim it's not adequate. What is going to come in Gaddafi's place?"

If this is true, it certainly isn't part of the U.N. mandate, but, practically speaking, must be the best outcome for all concerned, save one, and those who cling to him.

the really interesting thing is, france no longer recognizes gaddafi as the legitimate head of state of libya. this happened several days ago in fact. they've already chosen the next government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12699183

this has a lot of interesting implications, doesn't it? it's generally recognized that governments don't go out to assassinate heads of state. even the US outlawed it a while back.

also, there's a lot of oil contracts on the line here. spain and italy were the old regime profiteers, and stand to lose quite a lot. why so much silence from them? are the brits and french about to come in and take it from them? or at least the lion's share? it's all very fascinating.

cobalt124

Mar19-11, 08:02 PM

the really interesting thing is, france no longer recognizes gaddafi as the legitimate head of state of libya. this happened several days ago in fact. they've already chosen the next government.

Yes, I'm left wondering why France did that, it was a very courageous? move.

this has a lot of interesting implications, doesn't it? it's generally recognized that governments don't go out to assassinate heads of state. even the US outlawed it a while back.

Gadaffi doesn't have to be assassinated, though he may insist that will happen. He has the choice of stepping down (fat chance), then the problem is who would have him. Antarctica?

also, there's a lot of oil contracts on the line here. spain and italy were the old regime profiteers, and stand to lose quite a lot. why so much silence from them? are the brits and french about to come in and take it from them? or at least the lion's share? it's all very fascinating.

Forgive me, I'm very naive, and I hope this isn't primarily to do with oil. It's a miracle there is actually a consensus to do something about Gadaffi.

Proton Soup

Mar19-11, 08:36 PM

Yes, I'm left wondering why France did that, it was a very courageous? move.

Gadaffi doesn't have to be assassinated, though he may insist that will happen. He has the choice of stepping down (fat chance), then the problem is who would have him. Antarctica?

if you think back to iraq, then you may remember that we were careful not to target Saddam Hussein directly. or at least that is what we said. and then we captured him and he was tried, convicted, and executed.

Forgive me, I'm very naive, and I hope this isn't primarily to do with oil. It's a miracle there is actually a consensus to do something about Gadaffi.

it's no more a miracle than doing something about Hussein. in both cases, there are assets at stake. and cutting off an irreplaceable source of prime petroleum at a time when the world economy is already shaky may be giving arab governments pause, as well. the last thing they want is even higher food prices. that would mean more citizens protesting in the streets for government reforms.

mugaliens

Mar19-11, 08:50 PM

Gadaffi doesn't have to be assassinated, though he may insist that will happen. He has the choice of stepping down (fat chance), then the problem is who would have him. Antarctica?

I'm thinking it's high time they send another man to the moon... Spacesuit not required.

nismaratwork

Mar19-11, 08:58 PM

I'm thinking it's high time they send another man to the moon... Spacesuit not required.

I have to say, I truly believe that Ghaddafi has to die before this can end, whether it's assasination by his own people, exposure through mass defections, or direct action from outside of Libya, he needs to die, and his children.

@Proton: Remember that Iraq and Hussein were US allies, and a means to buffer the Arab world from Iran. We had an interest in him... ghaddafi is only a hinderance. He's no longer a recognized head of state, and his children even less so; he's a dead man walking. I'd add, he's not Hussein, he won't hide, he'll die first and in doing so he's the type to take as many with him as possible. This is a textbook example of needing to decapitate the leadership completely, and allow some kind of natural order to return. We can't hope to guide Libya's diverse tribes, only free them, and the quickest way to that is to remove all semblance of central leadership.

You destroy a cult of personality by killing its head, and then removing the limbs that would otherwise function without the head. In this case, Ghaddafi is the figurehead at this point, and his children the limbs; they need to die, unless by some miracle they surrender, in which case they die in a few years.

lisab

Mar19-11, 10:47 PM

Ivan Seeking

Mar20-11, 12:18 AM

By definition, we also have to be the first to strike...

But we weren't! The first to make a strike were the French; and not an arbitrary choice I would bet.

cobalt124

Mar20-11, 02:38 AM

I'm thinking it's high time they send another man to the moon... Spacesuit not required.

I'm being far too kind. I thought about a manned mission to Mars, and there was that plan for the one way "heroic" mission, and it did include the spacesuit.

cobalt124

Mar20-11, 03:29 AM

BBC:

0138: Clovis Maksoud, a former Arab League representative to the UN, tells the BBC that Arab states will soon join the operation in Libya: "They will do it within the framework of the United Nations. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, perhaps Jordan, will join in one form or another in whatever the leadership of the UN operation requires. There is a willingness to participate in whatever capacity they can. Already they have deployed some of their aircraft to help the coalition."

The Pentagon says it will transfer command of Operation Odyssey Dawn in the coming days, almost certainly to Nato. But that will happen only after the Americans have established that the first wave of attacks has done sufficient damage to Libya's air defences for a no fly zone to be safely patrolled."

cobalt124

Mar20-11, 05:14 AM

My turn to be confused:

0929: UK Chancellor George Osborne, who attended a meeting of the government's emergency Cobra committee before the first mission on Saturday - says the UN mandate authorising action in Libya is "very clear" - adding there are no plans for putting troops on the ground "at the moment".

There's being two or three comments on deploying of ground troops, I'm wondering "Whose?", as I have only heard national leaders say they would specifically not deploy ground troops. French? Arab League? U.S. and U.K. and the rebels themselves have said no to ground troops, which would be difficult anyway due to ongoing commitments elsewhere.

cobalt124

Mar20-11, 05:21 AM

Shami Chakrabarti, director of UK human rights organisation Liberty said the current action was justified. But she added: "There seems to be a lack of clarity about the difference between any ground forces at all, and an occupying force.

cobalt124

Mar20-11, 05:25 AM

1008: Libyan rebel spokesman Mustafa Gheriani in Tobruk tells the BBC that Benghazi is "fairly safe", having taken a heavy pounding from pro-Gaddafi forces on Saturday. "There's a few remnants of Gaddafi's embedded cells operating but for the most part they've been eliminated." He says that, so far, the intervention of western powers has been very effective. "We want to change a tyrant - this guy is a criminal and has to be judged as one," he adds

cobalt124

Mar20-11, 06:04 AM

1101: A spokesman for the American military - Col Franklin Childress - has confirmed to the BBC reports that B-2 stealth bombers have dropped around 40 conventional bombs on Libyan targets. Col Childress said he could not specify which targets had been attacked. He said that Tomahawk missiles might continue to be used in the campaign

nismaratwork

Mar20-11, 06:34 AM

But we weren't! The first to make a strike were the French; and not an arbitrary choice I would bet.

True... I'd also guess it's no coincidence. For all that this is a joint 'French-British' venture, the French are all over it, and the UK is providing... 4 jets.

nismaratwork

Mar20-11, 06:35 AM

cobalt124

Mar20-11, 06:48 AM

Understand that troops might include special operations to gather intel and target on the ground, but it's not the same as dropping an invasion force. Still, people hate even a technical lie, so this is butt-covering, and I suppose, honesty.

My reading of their words implies "invasion force". The wording seems to keep many options open, or is creating grey areas. Maybe it's just the nature of the beast.

nismaratwork

Mar20-11, 06:52 AM

My reading of their words implies "invasion force". The wording seems to keep many options open, or is creating grey areas. Maybe it's just the nature of the beast.

I'd agree, except that an invasion force is the one thing explicitly forbidden by UN-1973... if that's ingored then all of this diplo-cover was for nothing.

cobalt124

Mar20-11, 07:20 AM

BBC:

1219: Arab countries will be moving "military assets" to the region in the next few days, Dr Fox adds. He says this is vital to demonstrating that this is an international effort, not the west imposing its will.

cobalt124

Mar20-11, 08:45 AM

It seems that William Hague, U.K. Foreign Secretary doesn't have much to say about all of this, he's possibly being kept out of it to some extent because of the recent farce with the helicopter he sent into Libya.

Astronuc

Mar20-11, 09:22 AM

nismaratwork

Mar20-11, 09:30 AM

I think that it's safe to say Tripoli will be leveled before the USA commits Vietnam-type troops counts.

cobalt124

Mar20-11, 10:39 AM

BBC:

1450: More from US military chief Adm Mullen, who says planes from Qatar are now moving into position near Libya

Gokul43201

Mar20-11, 06:46 PM

nismaratwork

Mar20-11, 06:48 PM

Al Aziziyah was hit by 2 cruise missiles, according to Nic Robertson on the scene (CNN), but not independently verified. As that is Tripoli-ish... I'm feeling good about post #130.

cobalt124

Mar20-11, 07:17 PM

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 08:03 AM

0011: An apparent missile strike has caused extensive damage to Col Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli. Journalists who were taken to the Bab al-Aziziya complex said a four-storey administrative building had been flattened. There has been no word of any casualties. The Pentagon has denied that Col Gaddafi is a target.

This is the place to hit.

Indeed... that should give the Libyan C&C something to think about, and maybe impetus to kill Ghaddafi et al rather than let the next missile land on THEM.

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 08:04 AM

Did those Tomahawks fired into Al Aziziyah have a low-yield warhead?... there seems to be more left of the compound and missile body than I would have expected...

Al68

Mar21-11, 09:55 AM

The Pentagon has denied that Col Gaddafi is a target.Why not? He's the problem, he should be the primary target.

On another note, why is it that the Colonel is still a Colonel after 30 years? He should have made General by now.

FlexGunship

Mar21-11, 10:25 AM

Why not? He's the problem, he should be the primary target.

On another note, why is it that the Colonel is still a Colonel after 30 years? He should have made General by now.

You think he deserves a promotion? He has the tactical and strategic mind of a kumquat.

There's no perma-link to this image, so it might go AWOL in a little while. But I wanted to share this. It's a coalition air-strike on Libyan ground vehicles. New York Times reports there were "government vehicles" targeted. I'm not sure that I've heard of this yet. I understood all air operations to be in an effort to preserve the no-fly zone plus reconnaissance.

Prelude to ground war?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/03/21/world/libya/libya-sfSpan-v2.jpg

Ivan Seeking

Mar21-11, 01:12 PM

Interesting fact: The attack on Libya began eight years to the day after the invasion of Iraq began - March 19, 2003.

FlexGunship

Mar21-11, 01:20 PM

Interesting fact: The attack on Libya began eight years to the day after the invasion of Iraq began - March 19, 2003.

Everyone gets restless after a long winter.

Ivan Seeking

Mar21-11, 01:24 PM

Everyone gets restless after a long winter.

Because Obama has proceeded with the war in Afghanistan, and because I support Obama, my left of left friend calls it MY war. He will NEVER forgive me for Libya. I might has well have dropped the bombs myself! :biggrin:

At least I can default to "George started it!", when he complains about Aghanistan.

FlexGunship

Mar21-11, 01:27 PM

Because Obama has proceeded with the war in Afghanistan, and because I support Obama, my left of left friend calls it MY war. He will NEVER forgive me for Libya. I might has well have dropped the bombs myself! :biggrin:

I was wondering where to point the finger on this one! I'm actually kind of glad to see that Obama has the "guts" to stand-up in an international forum like this and show a bellicose side.

Ivan Seeking

Mar21-11, 01:29 PM

I was wondering where to point the finger on this one! I'm actually kind of glad to see that Obama has the "guts" to stand-up in an international forum like this and show a bellicose side.

Once I felt that I had begun to understand the man, I never had any doubts he would do what was needed when needed. But he is far more sensitive to the perceptions and concerns of our friends in the Middle East [and the surrounding area] than we have been in the past. This makes him look weak to some, but I think Libya shows that is not the case.

In this case, his caution caused delays. Unfortunate but wise, imo. He wanted to shore up support first.

cobalt124

Mar21-11, 01:33 PM

Why not? He's the problem, he should be the primary target.

Taking this view, it seems Resolution 1973 (and resolutions in general) are vaguely worded to gain consensus, and hence have wriggle room to justify targetting Gadaffi.

FlexGunship

Mar21-11, 01:33 PM

Once I felt that I began to understand the man, I never had any doubts he would do what was needed when needed.

Heh, I'm still not sure I understand him. He's slowly becoming more and more like former President Clinton which isn't fundamentally bad, but I feel like he ran on a lot of platforms that should've distanced himself from that. Surprised to see his handling of Guantanamo recently (not that I agree or disagree with it).

I'm curious, now, to see if Libya ever evolves into a real land war (involving the U.S. among other possible partners). This is what I'm waiting for:

http://www.bobsviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obama-mission-accomplished.jpg

(Note: It's funny how easy it was to find this image.)

cobalt124

Mar21-11, 01:34 PM

Once I felt that I began to understand the man, I never had any doubts he would do what was needed when needed. But he is far more sensitive to the perceptions and concerns of our friends in the Middle East than we have been in the past. This makes him look weak to some, but I think Libya shows that is not the case.

He doesn't look weak to me, he looks like he's doing the right thing. Perceptions in the U.S. are totally different though, I suspect.

cobalt124

Mar21-11, 01:39 PM

Ivan Seeking

Mar21-11, 01:46 PM

BBC:

0833: The Guardian is running a piece entitled "Libya crisis may save Nicolas Sarkozy from electoral humiliation". Jonathan Freedland, the newspaper's correspondent in Paris, says the French president certainly needs something to prevent him coming third in next year's election.

Would Sarkozy start this to enhance his reputation domestically? What reason did he have for making a stand? Oil? Principle?

Also read that the UAE have "downgraded" from military involvement to humanitarian aid.

I would bet that we insisted that the French strike first. France has a long history of straddling the line or opposing US actions. On the face of things at least, it appeared to be a clear statement to the international community that we are all in this one together.

It wouldn't at all surprise me if this idea came directly from Obama.

Ivan Seeking

Mar21-11, 01:55 PM

I'm curious, now, to see if Libya ever evolves into a real land war (involving the U.S. among other possible partners). This is what I'm waiting for:

No doubt we will do everything possible to avoid that one. I am reminded of the quote that first really grabbed my attention. This situation may play out as a chance to see if he was 100% correct. We already know that he got most of it right.

I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

Emphasis mine.

Skrew

Mar21-11, 02:09 PM

Ehm, I proabbly shouldn't post this but I can't resist.

1. Is there proof that the rebels aren't largely Islamic radicals, and that islamic radicals won't be able to take over the movement.

2. Is there proof that the post Gaddafi government will be able to better manage the country and won't become a muslim theocracy.

We all know how the last two middle-east "liberations" went, it's highly amusing to me that anyone thinks this one will go better.

Proton Soup

Mar21-11, 02:22 PM

You think he deserves a promotion? He has the tactical and strategic mind of a kumquat.

There's no perma-link to this image, so it might go AWOL in a little while. But I wanted to share this. It's a coalition air-strike on Libyan ground vehicles. New York Times reports there were "government vehicles" targeted. I'm not sure that I've heard of this yet. I understood all air operations to be in an effort to preserve the no-fly zone plus reconnaissance.

Prelude to ground war?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/03/21/world/libya/libya-sfSpan-v2.jpg

vehicle? not everything that looks like a tank is a tank. the Bradley troop carrier is what people in the military call a vehicle. video of damaged APCs i linked to earlier were vehicles.

it sort of looks like we have been leveling the playing field so to speak in Libya. i haven't checked news today, but what i'm expecting is for this thing to turn into a small arms fire civil war. it could end quickly, or go on for who knows how long. or will the french and brits storm the place and fight alongside their new allies? it seems the colonial powers have given the rebels a fighting chance. i think they need to back off now and let them settle this themselves. if the "libyan people" are to prevail here, i think they need to do it with a bit of dignity and pride. that will mean a bit of blood, but a successful state is something that people have some sense of being their own. complete failure is still an option of course, but you simply have to let things happen if you are to have anything at all.

cobalt124

Mar21-11, 04:28 PM

russ_watters

Mar21-11, 05:34 PM

I'm still confused by what I see as mixed and unclear messages from Obama about what we're doing, but setting that aside, I'd like to analyze the current situation as a whole and where it might go from here:

1. Obama (and much of the world community) wants Gadhaffi gone.
2. The NFZ is not designed to remove him.
3. The NFZ is designed to prevent Libyan air assets from attacking civilians. But:
4. No distinction is actually made between air assets attacking civilians and air assets attacking rebels. In other words, we're providing the rebels with clear skies.
5. The NFZ also includes preventing Libyan ground forces from attacking civilians. But again:
6. No distinction is actually made between civilians and rebels, so the NFZ is providing rebels safety from all kinds of attacks in Benghazi. So:
7. The current situation is a stalemate, with civilians and rebels provided safety in Benghazi by the UN and Ghadaffi's forces unharrassed as long as they don't venture into the air or out toward Benghazi on land. What can break this stalemate?
8. Presumably, the coalition is hoping the rebels leave Benghazi to attack Tripoli. What if they don't? How long are we willing to maintain the current stalemate? If they do:
9. Presumably, we will provide them clear skies as per the NFZ. Will we allow rebel air assets to attack Tripoli? Will we attack Ghadaffi's land assets as they defend Tripoli against the rebels?

Very interesting predicament, this is.

cobalt124

Mar21-11, 05:59 PM

@Russ: post #144 may give a broad answer to your (my) confusion. The U.S. perspective is going to be totally different to a European, or Arab one say. I think Americans will be the most confused in all of this, as the question Why? will be much more troublesome in the U.S., I suspect.

Point 8: The rebels in Benghazi have stated their intent to take Tripoli and the whole of Libya, and from what I've seen so far, it's looking more like stalemate than anything else.

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 06:07 PM

You think he deserves a promotion? He has the tactical and strategic mind of a kumquat.

There's no perma-link to this image, so it might go AWOL in a little while. But I wanted to share this. It's a coalition air-strike on Libyan ground vehicles. New York Times reports there were "government vehicles" targeted. I'm not sure that I've heard of this yet. I understood all air operations to be in an effort to preserve the no-fly zone plus reconnaissance.

Prelude to ground war?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/03/21/world/libya/libya-sfSpan-v2.jpg

I'd say it's just destroying C&C, which of course happens to be the existing government and the Ghaddafis. I think everyone understands that killing the symbolic and practical leaders of Ghaddafi's regime would end our need for involvement.

@Russ: UN-1973 is more than an NFZ, it's all means to protect civilians... I could interpret that to mean leveling Tripoli.

@Proton: I agree, and leave them to their civil war, the issues here are preventing a government from using internationally provided arms to slaughter its own citizens, and killing or removing the Ghaddafis to prevent reprisals.

russ_watters

Mar21-11, 06:17 PM

@Russ: post #144 may give a broad answer to your (my) confusion. Obama's stance on this issue is perhaps the most clear of any: President Obama said today that the goal of United Nations-sanctioned military action in Libya is to protect citizens, not regime change -- but the goal of U.S. policy is that Moammar Gadhafi "has to go." http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-speaks-in-chile/1

So: We want him to go, but we won't attack him directly. Though that doesn't mean we might lie or that we might see military value in a place he might be hiding....

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 06:19 PM

Obama's stance on this issue is perhaps the most clear of any: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-speaks-in-chile/1

So: We want him to go, but we won't attack him directly. Though that doesn't mean we might lie or that we might see military value in a place he might be hiding....

Hey, I'd say his family IS the C&C of Libya... we're not attacking him, just the C&C. :biggrin:

russ_watters

Mar21-11, 06:24 PM

@Russ: UN-1973 is more than an NFZ, it's all means to protect civilians... I could interpret that to mean leveling Tripoli. I'm not sure to which of my points you are responding.

russ_watters

Mar21-11, 06:25 PM

Hey, I'd say his family IS the C&C of Libya... we're not attacking him, just the C&C. :biggrin: Diplospeak demands we say that we won't attack him because he's a head of state, but the reality of the military situation is that you are correct.

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 06:30 PM

I'm not sure to which of my points you are responding.

#153, re all questions about the NFZ. As you say in your last post, diplo-speak is one thing, the reality another. We're not there for an NFZ, we're there to "protect civilians"... a really sadistic person could take that so far as to protect them from Ghaddafi by leveling Tripoli.

Beyond that, I would Prefer Obama simply step up and, "send in the boys," and kill the Ghaddafis... it needs to happen. I understand that the Libyan people want him, but it's not their weaponry making this happen... kill him, keep the NFZ, and get out.

edit: We can cease to recognize him as a head of state.

apeiron

Mar21-11, 06:34 PM

I agree, and leave them to their civil war, the issues here are preventing a government from using internationally provided arms to slaughter its own citizens, and killing or removing the Ghaddafis to prevent reprisals.

The international issue here is surely "how best do we ensure the oil continues to ship?".

If supporting a despot no longer works, people will be planning the smoothest transition to anything else which achieves the prime objective.

A prolonged civil war would clearly be bad. The international community would want one or either side to win fast. But a civil war that rapidly divides the country in two might be acceptable. So let Ghaddafi run the oil-less half, and deal with the new rebel state.

Libyan rebels in Benghazi said they have created a new national oil company to replace the corporation controlled by leader Muammar Qaddafi and whose assets were frozen by the United Nations Security Council.

The Transitional National Council released a statement announcing the decision taken in a March 19 meeting to establish the “Libyan Oil Company as supervisory authority on oil production and policies in the country, based temporarily in Benghazi, and the appointment of an interim director general” of the company.

The Council also said it “designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/libyan-rebel-council-sets-up-oil-company-to-replace-qaddafi-s.html

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 06:35 PM

The international issue here is surely "how best do we ensure the oil continues to ship?".

If supporting a despot no longer works, people will be planning the smoothest transition to anything else which achieves the prime objective.

A prolonged civil war would clearly be bad. The international community would want one or either side to win fast. But a civil war that rapidly divides the country in two might be acceptable. So let Ghaddafi run the oil-less half, and deal with the new rebel state.

I would agree if the last time Ghaddafi had HE dropped on him didn't result in Pan Am over Lockerbie. He needs to die while the political will to oppose such a move can't be mustered.

apeiron

Mar21-11, 06:48 PM

I would agree if the last time Ghaddafi had HE dropped on him didn't result in Pan Am over Lockerbie. He needs to die while the political will to oppose such a move can't be mustered.

On that score, you would be right. Depends where his true motivations lie - self-preservation or going out with a bang.

But the history post-Lockerbie show just how much s*** oil-hungry nations are willing to swallow to keep the black stuff pumping.

People are muttering about Obama's dilly-dallying responses. I'd love to be in the situation room as his advisors try to work out how to keep the whole middle east from melting down this year. Yemen, Saudi, Bahrain, etc. Talk about a multidimensional chess game going on.

One too hasty step in this minefield and kaboom to the economy. The oil futures market is probably the best asssement of Obama's handling so far.

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 06:50 PM

On that score, you would be right. Depends where his true motivations lie - self-preservation or going out with a bang.

But the history post-Lockerbie show just how much s*** oil-hungry nations are willing to swallow to keep the black stuff pumping.

People are muttering about Obama's dilly-dallying responses. I'd love to be in the situation room as his advisors try to work out how to keep the whole middle east from melting down this year. Yemen, Saudi, Bahrain, etc. Talk about a multidimensional chess game going on.

One too hasty step in this minefield and kaboom to the economy. The oil futures market is probably the best asssement of Obama's handling so far.

Possibly, but again we buy so little oil from Libya that I still find oil a hard one to swallow. Iraq sure, but Libya?... I'm not sure that it matters so much for us, but it's hell for France, Spain and Italy. If it were just oil, I think you'd see the USA telling the EU to sit and spin.

apeiron

Mar21-11, 07:04 PM

Possibly, but again we buy so little oil from Libya that I still find oil a hard one to swallow. Iraq sure, but Libya?... I'm not sure that it matters so much for us, but it's hell for France, Spain and Italy. If it were just oil, I think you'd see the USA telling the EU to sit and spin.

It's Italy, France and Germany who are the main buyers. And if they can't buy from Libya, they have to go elsewhere in the market. So the outcome is the same.

Iraq is pumping more (mission accomplished!). And Saudi is struggling to as well. But it seems plain it does not have the reserve capacity that people were banking on.

So no, Libya is critical to the global oil supply picture even if it has its particular customers.

What are the economic implications for the United States?
The United States buys less than 3 percent of Libya’s oil, so supply disruptions are not a front-burner issue. Italy and France account for over 40 percent, while China, Germany and Spain account for 30 percent. These countries will be affected most directly and must do much more to bring about a speedy and equitable resolution to the crisis.
This does not mean that the United States is not vulnerable. As the world’s largest oil consumer the U.S. is particularly susceptible to price volatility. Fallout from the Libyan crisis has nudged the price of crude above $100/barrel; this increase has already been reflected at the pumps --- imposing additional financial burdens on U.S. businesses and households as the economy struggles to recover from the recent financial crisis.

http://www.usip.org/publications/oil-and-turmoil-in-libya

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 07:35 PM

It's Italy, France and Germany who are the main buyers. And if they can't buy from Libya, they have to go elsewhere in the market. So the outcome is the same.

Iraq is pumping more (mission accomplished!). And Saudi is struggling to as well. But it seems plain it does not have the reserve capacity that people were banking on.

So no, Libya is critical to the global oil supply picture even if it has its particular customers.

Still, it's not the same result for the USA... in fact it could have been a useful squeeze to put on europe to cause it to act alone. The action in tandem doesn't smell like oil to me, anymore than Kosovo did, I think it's more to do with having been complicit in mass murder down to the ammo.

apeiron

Mar21-11, 08:08 PM

Still, it's not the same result for the USA... in fact it could have been a useful squeeze to put on europe to cause it to act alone. The action in tandem doesn't smell like oil to me, anymore than Kosovo did, I think it's more to do with having been complicit in mass murder down to the ammo.

So how do you know that your views haven't been shaped by subtle government spin? Here is another interesting view where the parallels with Iraq are being pointed out. Suddenly all the talk about Ghaddafi's chemical weapons, etc. Something simply has to be done this time!

If US appears to be dragged into this for puzzling reasons as you say, maybe that's just how people want it to look?

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/03/libya-operation-foreign-oil-interests-prompt-invasion

Nazemroaya is saying that the prize in US terms would be access to not just current Libyan production (because there would be a new regime the US could legitimately deal with...although note US oil firms have been back in there the past five years) but its much larger reserves that mean production has been under-exploited in international eyes.

rootX

Mar21-11, 08:20 PM

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 08:26 PM

So how do you know that your views haven't been shaped by subtle government spin? Here is another interesting view where the parallels with Iraq are being pointed out. Suddenly all the talk about Ghaddafi's chemical weapons, etc. Something simply has to be done this time!

It's possible, but I've wanted Ghaddafi dead for longer than this has been an issue. I'm quite liberal in my desire to see people likehis family removed, and a great fan of assasination. Ghaddafi's mustard agent is a concern for his people, not for the international community beyond possible proliferation. Everything I've heard on the news has generally been to point out that it's not coupled with the proper delivery mechanism. Before the NFZ, he could in theory have loaded some cropdusters, but who's going to fly them now if they even exist?

No, I'm far less interested in occupation than I am in simply lopping off "the head" until one emerges that is more pleasing. I know, it's not a very nice view, but it's been mine for decades. I would be shocked if there weren't numerous parallels between two conflicts in the same region, but without a far greater build-up of forces, nobody is taking Libya. The practical challenges would be enormous, the public will nonexistant, and the military capacity hasn't been moved at all. You need landing craft, airlifts, armor in place... that's just not there.

If US appears to be dragged into this for puzzling reasons as you say, maybe that's just how people want it to look?

What's so puzzling? Libya has been second only to Saudi Arabia and Iran in their production and proliferation of terrorism, the real deal not kids with fiery undies. I don't think anyone is foolish enough to believe that we won't have more Pan Ams and worse... unlike Hussein he has proven to be an international threat on multiple occasions.

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/03/libya-operation-foreign-oil-interests-prompt-invasion

Nazemroaya is saying that the prize in US terms would be access to not just current Libyan production (because there would be a new regime the US could legitimately deal with...although note US oil firms have been back in there the past five years) but its much larger reserves that mean production has been under-exploited in international eyes.

Meh, a passing conflict isn't going to change that, if anything this is threatening the short-term production. I think this is largely a concession to our EU partners who on their own, would probably incur losses in this kind of operation. We have France initiating hostilities, a huge diplomatic fronting for this... it's breaking an old precedent. China and Russia abstained, rather than exercising their veto, which is an another excellent precedent for the region, especially if we have a realistic view of Iran in the coming decades.

I think oil is a very comfortable and easy reason, but it doesn't fit here well, if at all.

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 08:27 PM

That's bit too much of a stretch, yes they can try to secure oil but everyone understands uncertain future of Libya and that things can go worse off than turning out in the interests of Western nations. The western nations seem clueless at best to me at least the president Obama. Europeans are involved to limit the migrants coming from Libya IMO.

I don't know what they bringing by interfering in other nation's internal affairs but only time can tell. Meanwhile, I support China and Russia stance.

You mean you support abstentions from veto-weilding countries, which is as good as a green light?

rootX

Mar21-11, 08:36 PM

You mean you support abstentions from veto-weilding countries, which is as good as a green light?

Yes.

For clarification, I didn't know what you meant by green light (green light to Qaddafi or green light to western nations). But both Putin and Medvedev are unsure what will be the consequences.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12810566

Putin put it rather bluntly: "medieval calls for crusades".

China: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china_after_abstaining_in_un_vote_criticizes_airst rikes_on_gaddafi_forces/2011/03/21/ABwL4M7_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 08:37 PM

Yes.

Ok, but why is that somehow better or worse than a 'yea' vote, except that it leaves them out of having to fund or participate in an action they tacitly support?

apeiron

Mar21-11, 08:55 PM

Europeans are involved to limit the migrants coming from Libya IMO.

Excellent point. There does otherwise seem a strong self-interest in letting Ghaddafi put down the rebels and going back to dealing with his regime.

The motives behind what is happening are murky. Oil is the big game in the middle east. Terrorism, humanitarianism, public opinion, have all tended to come a distant second in the past. Just consider Saudi. So I say follow the money and see what that says.

But immigration/refugees is also an issue that catches a politician's attention.

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 09:05 PM

Excellent point. There does otherwise seem a strong self-interest in letting Ghaddafi put down the rebels and going back to dealing with his regime.

The motives behind what is happening are murky. Oil is the big game in the middle east. Terrorism, humanitarianism, public opinion, have all tended to come a distant second in the past. Just consider Saudi. So I say follow the money and see what that says.

But immigration/refugees is also an issue that catches a politician's attention.

You think that France, Italy, Germany, the UK and the USA care if Tunisia and Egypt become home to a diaspora formed from a population of about 5 million? That's pretty flimsy...

apeiron

Mar21-11, 09:18 PM

What's so puzzling? Libya has been second only to Saudi Arabia and Iran in their production and proliferation of terrorism, the real deal not kids with fiery undies. I don't think anyone is foolish enough to believe that we won't have more Pan Ams and worse... unlike Hussein he has proven to be an international threat on multiple occasions.

From my perspective, having lived with several decades of the IRA threat, the US concern with terrorism seems over-blown - or rather a fear whipped up to achieve political ends.

You have to remember that the IRA managed to blow Maggie and her loyal crew out of their hotel beds in 1984. And the US was letting Noraid and others raise US dollars to pay for the bombs.

So if you want to understand international relations, follow the self-interest. Terrorism is a fine excuse, but is it really an over-riding concern?

What damage could terrorists actually do in the long run - compared to a good earthquake for example?

rootX

Mar21-11, 09:22 PM

Excellent point. There does otherwise seem a strong self-interest in letting Ghaddafi put down the rebels and going back to dealing with his regime.

The motives behind what is happening are murky. Oil is the big game in the middle east. Terrorism, humanitarianism, public opinion, have all tended to come a distant second in the past. Just consider Saudi. So I say follow the money and see what that says.

But immigration/refugees is also an issue that catches a politician's attention.

I am not sure why US is involved in this .. when it is none of its business. But without going into too much of skepticism (going into specific details) at best I can say US intentions are murky and unclear.

Europe will certainly have a big headache if it does not put down the rebels soon. Immigration/refugees are quite popular political topics all over the Europe.

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 09:23 PM

From my perspective, having lived with several decades of the IRA threat, the US concern with terrorism seems over-blown - or rather a fear whipped up to achieve political ends.

You have to remember that the IRA managed to blow Maggie and her loyal crew out of their hotel beds in 1984. And the US was letting Noraid and others raise US dollars to pay for the bombs.

So if you want to understand international relations, follow the self-interest. Terrorism is a fine excuse, but is it really an over-riding concern?

What damage could terrorists actually do in the long run - compared to a good earthquake for example?

They could be the nail in the coffin of an airline for one... where is Pan Am? For another, there is the blowback of doing nothing, which could have been profound in this case. by striking a middle ground where we don't support and train the opposition, but rather "level" the playing field, everyone is happy... sort of.

Rather, everyone is equally miserable, and as a bonus we have the French, AL, and UN tied up in this so tightly they can't escape... quite the diplomatic coup after 8 years of bumbling idiocy and unilateral action.

Sometimes the self-interest isn't oil or land or people, it can be opinion and compromising others. I don't dispute that ulterior motives exist beyond "humanitarian" missile strikes, but the ones you've picked just don't fit this situation.

Then again, we're also posititoning ourselves to be the friends of these emerging governments, who are rapdily overthrowing rulers who were our business partners. There is a lot going on here, and I think it's many things adding up to impetus, rather than one major subterfuge.

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 09:24 PM

I am not sure why US is involved in this .. when it is none of its business. But without going into too much of skepticism (going into specific details) at best I can say US intentions are murky and unclear.

Europe will certainly have a big headache if it does not put down the rebels soon. Immigration/refugees are quite popular political topics all over the Europe.

I think the moment Mirage jets were ordered to fire on civilians, and Italian, French, German, and other EU money was hiring mercenaries, the die was cast. The USA has a lot to gain from forcing the European hand here, and tying it to the UN and AL.

apeiron

Mar21-11, 09:32 PM

They could be the nail in the coffin of an airline for one... where is Pan Am?

Well, that's no biggie.

For another, there is the blowback of doing nothing,

Which has to be weighed against the blowback of doing something. Going in and throwing your weight around is a good way of radicalising the undecided.

Terrorism has political aims, so you have to tackle the cause rather than the symptoms.

nismaratwork

Mar21-11, 09:38 PM

Well, that's no biggie.

Which has to be weighed against the blowback of doing something. Going in and throwing your weight around is a good way of radicalising the undecided.

Terrorism has political aims, so you have to tackle the cause rather than the symptoms.

The cause in this case is simple: maintain power and influence for the Ghaddafis. Libya is not about to become a US ally, and without arming or training them they can be radicalized all they want, and be limited to PETN panty-raids.

The concern is government sponsored terrorism, which Ghaddafi has been the leader of since the 80's... probably second only to the Iranian regime with Imad Mugniyeh. Still, I don't think terrorism is the main concern, only one which emerges once we've engaged with Ghaddafi. Now that we have, it is a very real concern, but again not the primary one.

apeiron

Mar21-11, 09:56 PM

The concern is government sponsored terrorism, which Ghaddafi has been the leader of since the 80's...

But that's the point. What was a good selling point for Ghaddafi in his early days has long since ceased to be a major issue.

As a ‘revolutionary state', Libya under the rule of Qadhafi supported a great number of national liberation and guerrilla movements, as well as dedicated terrorist organizations.

In recent years, Tripoli has taken many steps to correct its past misdeeds, settle international claims, and disassociate itself from its terrorist past. In the process Libya has benefited greatly, as evidenced by Gadafi's recent rehabilitation in the west.

The US State Department had claimed until early last year that there have been no cases of Libyan state-sponsored terrorism since 1994...

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=30149

So you are responding to ancient history, talking about settling ancient scores. Political decisions being made now will be about future outcomes. Why would a broken, poor and oil-dispossed Ghaddafi be a threat that couldn't be handled as the need arises?

The number one goal has to be political stability in an oil-rich nation. Whatever that looks like. Everything else seems like window-dressing concerns (except the refugees as rootx points out).

Al68

Mar21-11, 10:39 PM

But the history post-Lockerbie show just how much s*** oil-hungry nations are willing to swallow to keep the black stuff pumping.What is with the all too common obsession with talking about the peripheral, and IMO irrelevant, issue of oil supply in this type of context? How many pages of this thread will be devoted to derailing it over such an irrelevancy?

Oil supply is irrelevant, and so is the fact that some people think oil supply is the "real" motive of other people. Unless this thread is about esp or mind-reading, nobody knows the motives of another, and such speculation only hinders legitimate debate.

apeiron

Mar21-11, 11:03 PM

Oil supply is irrelevant, and so is the fact that some people think oil supply is the "real" motive of other people. Unless this thread is about esp or mind-reading, nobody knows the motives of another, and such speculation only hinders legitimate debate.

Can you support your claim of irrelevancy with some sources? And does it make sense that nations would act except out of their strategic interests?

If what you say is true, then why has the US gone so easy on Saudi? Why did it care so little about Zimbabwe? Why did it permit Noraid?

And when you say speculation hinders legitimate debate, I really have to scratch my head here. Until I realise you only mean the difference between opinions you agree or disagree with.

I would suggest legitimate debate is reading current affairs according to known strategic objectives of the parties concerned (US admin has gone on record often enough over oil and pipelines).

But if you don't want your threads derailed, better not start asking for the back story on this I guess.

Ivan Seeking

Mar21-11, 11:16 PM

What damage could terrorists actually do in the long run - compared to a good earthquake for example?

Well let's see. After 911, we started two wars that have cost well over a trillion dollars; our country was changed forever, our freedoms were threatened, our rights were challenged, we started torturing people thus violating a most sacred trust with the American people and the rest of the world, and we even considered the use of nuclear weapons. How many people died when we attacked Iraq; 200,000 or so?

As for motive, of course Libya is of strategic interest. But if your point is valid, why didn't we invade Libya long ago? Opportunity. The people of Libya are asking for help. Also, a land invasion - a sure way to gain control of the country - is the last thing we want.

Are you suggesting that we could attack Saudi Arabia and not start a wider conflict? Are the Arab nations begging us to intervene in Saudi? Have we seen the Saudi government launch military attacks on its own cities?

apeiron

Mar21-11, 11:39 PM

Well let's see. After 911, we started two wars that have cost well over a trillion dollars; our country was changed forever, our freedoms were threatened, our rights were challenged, we started torturing people thus violating a most sacred trust with the American people and the rest of the world, and we even considered the use of nuclear weapons. How many people died when we attacked Iraq; 200,000 or so?

As for motive, of course Libya is of strategic interest. But if your point is valid, why didn't we invade Libya long ago? Opportunity. The people of Libya are asking for help.

Are you suggesting that we could attack Saudi Arabia and not start a wider conflict? Are the Arab nations begging us to intervene in Saudi? Have we seen the Saudi government launch military attacks on its own cities?

Are you being cleverly ironic here or having a go at me? Very hard to tell.

My point was that other countries put up with worse all the time. The US had choices about how to respond to 9/11. I am not endorsing its choices. And neither it appears do you.

So perhaps you simply misunderstood me?

Al68

Mar21-11, 11:59 PM

And when you say speculation hinders legitimate debate, I really have to scratch my head here.I was referring to the speculation about the motives of others, a classical logical fallacy (ad hominem argument). Plus there is simply no way to substantiate such claims in any objective way.

Maybe others are interested in such speculation, but it's irrelevant to me. I like to stick to verifiable facts.

Ivan Seeking

Mar22-11, 12:04 AM

Are you being cleverly ironic here or having a go at me? Very hard to tell.

My point was that other countries put up with worse all the time. The US had choices about how to respond to 9/11. I am not endorsing its choices. And neither it appears do you.

So perhaps you simply misunderstood me?

I am talking about reality, not how things should be. True, the reaction of my own country frightened me more than any act of terror. But it DID change us. And it did finally result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people - many of whom had no choice but to fight. I also have little doubt that a successful attack of significant consequence, on the US, will result with the launch of nuclear weapons.

I also reject the premise that we are now acting purely out of self-interest. We can't go around bombing every petty dictator, but there are times when action is appropriate and possible.

petergreat

Mar22-11, 02:23 AM

Obama could you please remove Gaddaffi as soon as possible? You could've stayed the hell out of Lybia, but since you did intervene, could you be more quick and lethal? The current indecision is potentially splitting a sovereign country into two. That's the nastiest part! It's not even funny.

apeiron

Mar22-11, 02:39 AM

I am talking about reality, not how things should be. True, the reaction of my own country frightened me more than any act of terror. But it DID change us. And it did finally result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people - many of whom had no choice but to fight. I also have little doubt that a successful attack of significant consequence, on the US, will result with the launch of nuclear weapons.

I also reject the premise that we are now acting purely out of self-interest. We can't go around bombing every petty dictator, but there are times when action is appropriate and possible.

Err, well, OK. So you think that next time a nuclear retaliation would be justified? Or are you just saying that hysteria has reached new hights over there?

apeiron

Mar22-11, 02:40 AM

Maybe others are interested in such speculation, but it's irrelevant to me. I like to stick to verifiable facts.

So not a fan of Fox News then?

nismaratwork

Mar22-11, 09:10 AM

But that's the point. What was a good selling point for Ghaddafi in his early days has long since ceased to be a major issue.

So you are responding to ancient history, talking about settling ancient scores. Political decisions being made now will be about future outcomes. Why would a broken, poor and oil-dispossed Ghaddafi be a threat that couldn't be handled as the need arises?

The number one goal has to be political stability in an oil-rich nation. Whatever that looks like. Everything else seems like window-dressing concerns (except the refugees as rootx points out).

We've never managed to create a poor Qaddafi, despite decades of sanctions, never mind a broken one. His children are rather monstrous, and frankly the state has only ever changed in response to threats.

I think you also don't appreciate how bad it's getting now, and how bad it was about to become. Qaddafi would have been thrilled to take the chance to wipe out a few hundred thousand or more rival tribe members and install cronies. Remember, all of this took time, it took Qaddafi relentlessly shelling and street-sweeping his own people.

Why not Sudan? Why not the Congo? Why not X, Y, or Z? As Ivan said, opportunity. There is nothing for a nation to apologize for, it MUST act in its own interests, but to always look for the same ulterior motive is blinding you.

Now personally, I think the solution here is more direct and violent than we generally have the stomach for, but that's beside the point. Libya is a recent creation in its current form, utterly funded by western powers, China, and Russia. It's one thing to step between people riding each other down with old guns and machetes, and another to let them use air assets you sold them to slaughter.

Remember, we didn't start these revolts in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya... and we're losing allies as a result. The idea that the international community would stand by in such a case is madness; new lines will be drawn in a vital part of the world.

There is also a very real humanitarian interest, because however many are killed in these limited strikes, worse has already happened in Al Zawiya and Misrata. The mistake was not killing Hussen in Gulf 1.. we can live with broken states that are bound to end that way; artificial creations of a recently fallen empire.

We cannot live with slaughter in a strategically important area, nor can we pass the chance to recover international standing and bind the EU, UN, and AL to this action. It's not a nice thing, but it's a more realistic set of motives that pure love of life, or oil.

nismaratwork

Mar22-11, 09:12 AM

Err, well, OK. So you think that next time a nuclear retaliation would be justified? Or are you just saying that hysteria has reached new hights over there?

It depends... I think you could argue that a high altitude, low explosive, high radiation yield strike would have killed fewer than 10 years of sanctions in Iraq, never mind the second war.

Life isn't fair, and the only reason nuclear weapons are NOT used, is simply that they're standoff weapons right now. If we had kinetic weapons of similar yield, you don't think we'd fail to use them do you?

Again, sometimes you leave things alone, but sometimes you need to level a city to make a point, and save more lives. It's not right, it's not good, it just IS, and has been for millenia; only the coverage and weapons have changed.

apeiron

Mar22-11, 03:54 PM

sometimes you need to level a city to make a point.

Containing terrorism by levelling cities full of civilians? Sorry, makes no sense at all.

Police action and political pressure are the way it works in the real world. Invading countries is either civilian hysteria or shock doctrine at work.

nismaratwork

Mar22-11, 04:05 PM

Containing terrorism by levelling cities full of civilians? Sorry, makes no sense at all.

Police action and political pressure are the way it works in the real world. Invading countries is either civilian hysteria or shock doctrine at work.

History disagrees; police actions become quagmires, decimation made an empire.

apeiron

Mar22-11, 04:29 PM

History disagrees; police actions become quagmires, decimation made an empire.

Alternatively....

By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory.

These findings suggest that the U.S. approach to countering al Qa'ida has focused far too much on the use of military force. Instead, policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

nismaratwork

Mar22-11, 04:34 PM

Alternatively....

I disagree for the reasons stated, but I don't claim to be right... if ever there was an "IMO" moment, it's contrasting history with a dynamic and uncertain present. I don't claim to know anything special, I just don't believe that our hesitance is a good idea. In my view, it's either total engagement, or total disengagement when it comes to combat. It's a very binary kind of event anyway, and these middle grounds just don't sit well with me.

The only exception would have to be Kosovo...

Proton Soup

Mar22-11, 06:43 PM

History disagrees; police actions become quagmires, decimation made an empire.

razing cities may be how it was once done, but today it would be a war crime. in fact, building empires by capturing foreign lands is now illegal. much of your frustration with the lack of expediency in Libya is a result of having to obey the law.

now, i can see us doing it again. certainly in matters of survival you take desperate measures, like the ones we took in japan. but taking such measures as a matter of course simply legitimates the downing of skyscrapers with civilian aircraft.

personally, i'd prefer we avoid that as much as possible. especially when you consider that we are provoking much of it to begin with maintaining our little unofficial empires.

nismaratwork

Mar22-11, 07:10 PM

razing cities may be how it was once done, but today it would be a war crime. in fact, building empires by capturing foreign lands is now illegal. much of your frustration with the lack of expediency in Libya is a result of having to obey the law.

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

now, i can see us doing it again. certainly in matters of survival you take desperate measures, like the ones we took in japan. but taking such measures as a matter of course simply legitimates the downing of skyscrapers with civilian aircraft.

personally, i'd prefer we avoid that as much as possible. especially when you consider that we are provoking much of it to begin with maintaining our little unofficial empires.

I think we should avoid wars that are not wars, but still end with countless deaths and destruction. No surgeon would ever spend an hours slooooowwwly making cut after cut for an initial incision; you either cut, or do not cut.

For war, it's the same: commit to total war, or don't go to war.

apeiron

Mar22-11, 07:37 PM

I think we should avoid wars that are not wars, but still end with countless deaths and destruction. No surgeon would ever spend an hours slooooowwwly making cut after cut for an initial incision; you either cut, or do not cut.

For war, it's the same: commit to total war, or don't go to war.

Or do what surgeons do wherever possible and go for key-hole surgery.

If you see a mosquito biting your leg, do you pull out a .45 and blast it? You have to evaluate any "terrorist threat" the same way.

nismaratwork

Mar22-11, 07:42 PM

Or do what surgeons do wherever possible and go for key-hole surgery.

If you see a mosquito biting your leg, do you pull out a .45 and blast it? You have to evaluate any "terrorist threat" the same way.

When I see an example of that kind of warfare ending in something other than protracted misery and death, I'll "bite". If you're bitten by a mosquito, you don't go to war against insects as a group; war is a major commitment.

My response would be either learn to live with the occasional welt, or get busy killing mosquitos the way we do, root and branch. There isn't a meaningful middle ground. I'm not saying we SHOULD go to war, only that when we do this half-****** stuff is not helping us, or the people on the sharp end of our stick.

Did you see what a decade of sanctions did to Iraq?! You either go ahead and kill, or you don't... you certainly don't wound and then hope that they "learn their lesson".

Al68

Mar22-11, 08:49 PM

So not a fan of Fox News then?No, I don't currently have cable or satellite TV, so I don't have much first hand knowledge. But from what left-wingers say about it, I can only assume it's the most reliable, fact based news station around.

apeiron

Mar22-11, 09:02 PM

No, I don't currently have cable or satellite TV, so I don't have much first hand knowledge. But from what left-wingers say about it, I can only assume it's the most reliable, fact based news station around.

In a nutshell! Yes, who needs facts in this life when prejudice will tell you all you could possibly want to know?

Al68

Mar22-11, 09:41 PM

No, I don't currently have cable or satellite TV, so I don't have much first hand knowledge. But from what left-wingers say about it, I can only assume it's the most reliable, fact based news station around.In a nutshell! Yes, who needs facts in this life when prejudice will tell you all you could possibly want to know?LOL. I'm not sure if you are joking, or if you're serious because you didn't realize I was joking. :rofl:

apeiron

Mar22-11, 10:38 PM

LOL. I'm not sure if you are joking, or if you're serious because you didn't realize I was joking. :rofl:

I truly believe you were only joking. As you say :rofl:

alt

Mar23-11, 08:35 AM

razing cities may be how it was once done, but today it would be a war crime. in fact, building empires by capturing foreign lands is now illegal. much of your frustration with the lack of expediency in Libya is a result of having to obey the law.

now, i can see us doing it again. certainly in matters of survival you take desperate measures, like the ones we took in japan. but taking such measures as a matter of course simply legitimates the downing of skyscrapers with civilian aircraft.

personally, i'd prefer we avoid that as much as possible. especially when you consider that we are provoking much of it to begin with maintaining our little unofficial empires.

Your post is poignant. This following is very interesting IMO.

Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde

I often wonder what the end game is in Libya. A despot is going to be removed, for a bunch of crazies ?

You know, like in Afghanistan we backed the Northen Alliance ? What a bunch of crazy self serving thugs they turned out to be !

How sure are we that the Libyan people are going to be better of ? Those rebels look crazier than Gadafi - in a radical Islamist kinda way.

nismaratwork

Mar23-11, 08:39 AM

Your post is poignant. This following is very interesting IMO.

Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde

I often wonder what the end game is in Libya. A despot is going to be removed, for a bunch of crazies ?

I believe that's precisely the aim; end any chance of an assymetric slaughter using AM rounds and airstrikes, and leave the rest to Libya. Not pretty, but it's effecient.

You know, like in Afghanistan we backed the Northen Alliance ? What a bunch of crazy self serving thugs they turned out to be !

How sure are we that the Libyan people are going to be better of ? Those rebels look crazier than Gadafi - in a radical Islamist kinda way.

I think we can assume they won't be, but they're going to be otherwise involved in a protracted civil war and therefore internally directed for a while. Beyond that, having destroyed so much of Ghaddafi's armament, that civil war can last for a looooooong time.

Proton Soup

Mar23-11, 10:29 AM

Your post is poignant. This following is very interesting IMO.

Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde

I often wonder what the end game is in Libya. A despot is going to be removed, for a bunch of crazies ?

You know, like in Afghanistan we backed the Northen Alliance ? What a bunch of crazy self serving thugs they turned out to be !

How sure are we that the Libyan people are going to be better of ? Those rebels look crazier than Gadafi - in a radical Islamist kinda way.

yeah, i don't think they will get anywhere with challenging presidental authority here. i'm fairly confident the supreme court has already addressed and dismissed the idea.

i'm not sure the people in afghanistan are any more self-serving than we are.

i don't know if the libyans will be any better off in general. they could end up worse overall. i'm not sure they are any less crazy than our guys, just less military discipline, less uniformity of dress, generally poor, etc.

nismaratwork

Mar23-11, 11:11 AM

I'm not sure that even a protracted civil war with small arms would be worse than shelling, tanks, bombardment from navel and from air assets, followed by a round-up and slaughter.

cobalt124

Mar23-11, 01:30 PM

I would bet that we insisted that the French strike first. France has a long history of straddling the line or opposing US actions. On the face of things at least, it appeared to be a clear statement to the international community that we are all in this one together.

It wouldn't at all surprise me if this idea came directly from Obama.

I'm having niggling doubts, BBC quoting the Guardian and a blog:

1108: France's push for international action against Col Gaddafi has been "bold, dramatic and sometimes startling," writes Julian Borger in the Guardian. But he says it is still "too early to say how much this embrace of 'humanitarian intervention' represents a new departure for France and its global role, or simply political theatre for Sarkozy's domestic audience".

0403: Arthur Goldhammer, writing on the Foreign Policy blog, says: "Cameron sought a vote of confidence from the House of Commons before going to war. Sarkozy didn't need to bother with such niceties - he controls his National Assembly. He simply acted, like the Bourbon kings of old, de son bon plaisir - at his own pleasure....Sovereignty, it has been said, is the power to declare an emergency. If so, then the Libyan intervention has been a striking demonstration of Sarkozy's sovereignty over la Grande Nation....

rootX

Mar23-11, 06:45 PM

I was reading an analysis today that Libya unrest can cause more harm to the global economy than the Japan tsunami. Japan is capable of absorbing the damage but no one can absorb damage arising from middle east unrest. It is in the interest of everyone to stabilize Middle east as soon as possible.

russ_watters

Mar23-11, 07:58 PM

Your post is poignant. This following is very interesting IMO.

Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde
While that's a popular view, particularly with those in Congress, it isn't universally agreed to be true and more to the point, Congress has never chosen to challenge a President under the War Powers Resolution. My view is that Congress(es) knows or is afraid that if they challenge the President, the War Powers Resolution will be struck down. And at the very least, it's nice to keep around so they can beat a President over the head with it without ever actually invoking it.

Still, I believe the President at least owes the public an explanation for invoking military force, which he hasn't done do the satisfaction of many including the Speaker: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/boehner-asks-obama-for-better-explanation-of-libya/1

This probably also helps explain why support for this action is lower than for our last four military actions (Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Somalia): http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/most-americans-back-obama-on-libya-but-not-a-majority-/1

I'm sure the continued nebulosity over who is in charge and what level of force we will be committing doesn't help either.

Gokul43201

Mar23-11, 10:45 PM

While that's a popular view, particularly with those in Congress, it isn't universally agreed to be true and more to the point, Congress has never chosen to challenge a President under the War Powers Resolution. I wish they would challenge the scope of the resolution itself. From some combination of personal taste and limited knowledge, I've grown to not be a big fan of the broad powers given to the Executive by the WPA. Virtually any military action - the Iraq War, and the present effort in Libya included - may now be justified as being a part of the war on terror. And Congress can not realistically expect to not fund chosen military action without committing political suicide in most parts of the country.

Still, I believe the President at least owes the public an explanation for invoking military force, which he hasn't done do the satisfaction of many including the Speaker: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/boehner-asks-obama-for-better-explanation-of-libya/1Would the Speaker be satisfied if Obama kluged a speech out of words spoken by McCain, Graham, Bolton, and such others who had, until a couple days ago, been pretty clear in calling for US military involvement? I doubt it. <citations upon request - I think some have already been posted in this or one of the other threads on this general topic>

This probably also helps explain why support for this action is lower than for our last four military actions (Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Somalia): http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/most-americans-back-obama-on-libya-but-not-a-majority-/1My own opinion, is nearly the same, but with a change in wording: that the difference was the lack of an effective propaganda campaign. A handful of mushroom cloud - terrorist - evil dictator - Megrahi - Pan-Am speeches should have done the trick. Of course, I wouldn't consider that an explanation, but who realistically expects an explanation, when they can have a marketing campaign.

lisab

Mar23-11, 10:49 PM

My own opinion, is nearly the same, but with a change in wording: that the difference was the lack of an effective propaganda campaign. A handful of mushroom cloud - terrorist - evil dictator - Megrahi - Pan-Am speeches should have done the trick. Of course, I wouldn't consider that an explanation, but who realistically expects an explanation, when they can have a marketing campaign.

Well you know, budget cuts and all...the marketing campaign got nixed.

alt

Mar24-11, 01:51 AM

While that's a popular view, particularly with those in Congress, it isn't universally agreed to be true and more to the point, Congress has never chosen to challenge a President under the War Powers Resolution. My view is that Congress(es) knows or is afraid that if they challenge the President, the War Powers Resolution will be struck down. And at the very least, it's nice to keep around so they can beat a President over the head with it without ever actually invoking it.

Still, I believe the President at least owes the public an explanation for invoking military force, which he hasn't done do the satisfaction of many including the Speaker: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/boehner-asks-obama-for-better-explanation-of-libya/1

This probably also helps explain why support for this action is lower than for our last four military actions (Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Somalia): http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/most-americans-back-obama-on-libya-but-not-a-majority-/1

I'm sure the continued nebulosity over who is in charge and what level of force we will be committing doesn't help either.

Very informative - thank you. I would know less than most folk 'round here about this. I posted the link because I thought it was very interesting.

Will follow up your additional links.

russ_watters

Mar24-11, 06:10 AM

Would the Speaker be satisfied if Obama kluged a speech out of words spoken by McCain, Graham, Bolton, and such others who had, until a couple days ago, been pretty clear in calling for US military involvement? I doubt it. Probably not, but mainly because I didn't list everything he was looking for (I should have): "the scope, objective, and purpose of our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved," Boehner wrote.

And just because some people wanted military action, that doesn't necessarily mean they wanted this military action or that they know where Obama is going with it.

russ_watters

Mar24-11, 06:26 AM

My own opinion, is nearly the same, but with a change in wording: that the difference was the lack of an effective propaganda campaign. It got him this far, but unless the rebels bail him out soon, he'll really need to step it up.

nismaratwork

Mar24-11, 06:55 AM

I didn't realize that so many members of congress, R and D were such incredible military scholars that they can predict the outcome and nature of a military operation from its opening salvos. Truly we're blessed with an overly talented legislative branch. :rolleyes:

Ivan Seeking

Mar24-11, 11:21 AM

CNN has been reporting that Gahdafi's people, including his brother-in-law, have been reaching out to the US government - calling daily.

I had to laugh when I heard that report. It may be true, but we may be playing games with the good Colonel's head.

russ_watters

Mar24-11, 11:27 AM

It got him this far, but unless the rebels bail him out soon, he'll really need to step it up.I was driving to work when I wrote that, so let me expand:

Neither Obama nor the media did a very good job of discussing the goals and limitations of a no fly zone pretty much until yesterday when 'uh oh, what do we do now?' stories started popping up (it's now the top CNN story and second-down on USA Today). But we discussed the conflicting goals and the potential for exactly the stalemate we are now seeing several times including a couple of pages into this very thread. Obama is a smart guy and he has a lot of smart advisors, so I can't believe he didn't see this corner before he backed himself into it (caveat: Bush expected the Iraq aftermath to be easy....).

My analysis/theory/opinion:
Obama wants Ghadaffi gone (he said so and I believe him) and that is the real goal of the inaccurately labeled "no fly zone". But he's not a unilateralist so he wanted approval from, among others, the African Union before doing anything. So he sold the general idea of a humanitarian-motivated "no fly zone" while being sketchy on the details (Gokul: i.e. "propaganda"). The African Union may have woken up to the fact that 'protecting civilians with a no fly zone' really means providing full-fledged close air support for the rebel forces. We're now an active combatant in the civil war and that idea makes them uncomfortable. No doubt Obama wants the rebels to bail him out by taking Ghadaffi down (as do I - and I think most others here), but I would be very surprised if Obama hadn't already considered the potential for the stalemate we are now seeing when he got this ball rolling. Above Bush caveat notwithstanding, I believe Obama has at least thought about what comes next, even if he doesn't want to tip his hand and tell us what it is. The subterfuge was necessary in order to get the "no fly zone" going, but unfortunately for him, he's the President of a democracy where people have the right to demand an explanation of what he is doing.

Ivan Seeking

Mar24-11, 11:32 AM

This probably also helps explain why support for this action is lower than for our last four military actions (Iraq...

Consider the irony of that one given that the Iraq war was justified on a false pretense [bad information].

In this case, the Arab League was asking for help and the Europeans were onboard, including the French!

Ivan Seeking

Mar24-11, 11:39 AM

The French just took out a Libyan jet. Splash!

Ivan Seeking

Mar24-11, 12:00 PM

My analysis/theory/opinion:
Obama wants Ghadaffi gone (he said so and I believe him) and that is the real goal of the inaccurately labeled "no fly zone". But he's not a unilateralist so he wanted approval from, among others, the African Union before doing anything. So he sold the general idea of a humanitarian-motivated "no fly zone" while being sketchy on the details (Gokul: i.e. "propaganda"). The African Union may have woken up to the fact that 'protecting civilians with a no fly zone' really means providing full-fledged close air support for the rebel forces. We're now an active combatant in the civil war and that idea makes them uncomfortable. No doubt Obama wants the rebels to bail him out by taking Ghadaffi down (as do I - and I think most others here), but I would be very surprised if Obama hadn't already considered the potential for the stalemate we are now seeing when he got this ball rolling. Above Bush caveat notwithstanding, I believe Obama has at least thought about what comes next, even if he doesn't want to tip his hand and tell us what it is. The subterfuge was necessary in order to get the "no fly zone" going, but unfortunately for him, he's the President of a democracy where people have the right to demand an explanation of what he is doing.

Obama resisted getting in. How did HE sell the no-fly zone? This is what people like McCain were calling for. This is what the Arab League wanted. This is what the Europeans wanted. Last week he was inexperienced because he didn't jump, now he operates with alterior motives because he did? Our policy is that Gahdafi has to go. But this is not a part of the UN resolution or our immediate declared objectives.

I do agree that he must be looking for some sort of end game. And I doubt he wants to show his cards to Gahdafi.

nismaratwork

Mar24-11, 12:20 PM

Guys... this is NOT a no fly zone:
UN-1973 calls for ALL means to protect civilians, calling this an NFZ is both factually innacurate, and if not unintential, its a deception.

Try to get this through your heads: we could raze Tripoli in the name of protecting civilians, not a popular thing to do, but doable.

The AL endorsed an NFZ, but he UN passed something far broader. End. Of. Story.

That anyone expects tons of information about ongoing military operations is absurd, and the notion that this is a war is equally absurd. The strategy has always been rather clear: degrade Ghaddafi's military capacity, and then hope he's killed or otherwise deposed. If not, therre's a civil war and we simply level the playing field a bit.

This is not a difficult concept; this is PF, get your facts straight.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures

ANYTHING short of occupation, and war-crimes.

Ivan Seeking

Mar24-11, 12:29 PM

Guys... this is NOT a no fly zone:
UN-1973 calls for ALL means to protect civilians, calling this an NFZ is both factually innacurate, and if not unintential, its a deception.

Ack, you are correct. There IS a no fly zone in effect, but this is not only a no fly zone action.

My point still stands that Obama was not the one driving this.

nismaratwork

Mar24-11, 12:30 PM

Ack, you are correct. There IS a no fly zone in effect, but this is not only a no fly zone action.

Bingo, this is a broad action that really only acts to EXCLUDE invasion and occupation.

russ_watters

Mar24-11, 09:34 PM

Obama resisted getting in. How did HE sell the no-fly zone? This is what people like McCain were calling for. This is what the Arab League wanted. This is what the Europeans wanted. Obama answers to us. He doesn't answer to Europe or the Arab League and he only answers to McCain as a proxy/advocate for us.

When Obama makes a speech or has Clinton make a speech discussing the NFZ, he's selling it to the only people he actually answers to: us. He's being raked over the coals right now because he didn't do a good enough job of that. Last week he was inexperienced because he didn't jump... Not sure what you are referring to there - no one has used that word in this thread. .....now he operates with alterior motives because he did? Well as you say: And I doubt he wants to show his cards to Gahdafi. And as I said, the problem with that is that in not showing them to Ghadaffi, he's also not showing them to us. Our policy is that Gahdafi has to go. But this is not a part of the UN resolution or our immediate declared objectives. Yes, I understand that. Do you understand the flaw in that mandate that rapidly led us to the current stalemate? The one I discussed in previous posts?

nismaratwork

Mar24-11, 09:36 PM

Meanwhile NATO has taken over, we've had no casualties, and the French are bound to us in a way they never have been before.

You're putting his speechs above his material success... :frown:

russ_watters

Mar24-11, 09:38 PM

Guys... this is NOT a no fly zone:[separate post]

Bingo, this is a broad action that really only acts to EXCLUDE invasion and occupation. In related news, when NATO takes over, they apparently will scale the effort back to just being a no fly zone as a result of Turkey's veto of the current action:
NATO members agreed Thursday to take over enforcement of the no-fly zone over Libya, but stopped short of interpreting that mandate as a license to attack government troops who may be threatening unarmed civilians.
"What we have decided today is that NATO will enforce the no-fly zone," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told CNN's Wolf Blitzer from the organization's headquarters in Brussels.
Under Thursday's agreement, NATO forces will be able to close air space to all flights except for humanitarian ones and will be able to use force in self-defense.
NATO also has sent a directive to its military chain of command asking for a plan on how to execute an expanded role for enforcement of U.N. Resolution 1973, according to NATO sources. Under what some officials were calling "no-fly plus," NATO would be given more robust rules of engagement to ensure that civilians are protected, the sources said.
And, in an effort to ease concerns from Turkey -- the organization's sole Muslim country -- coalition forces would be allowed to withdraw from certain missions, such as those involving attacking Libyan soldiers, the sources said.
As for the prospect of a more robust mandate, one that the U.S.-led coalition has followed so far, "That decision has not been made yet," Rasmussen said.http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/24/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T1

nismaratwork

Mar24-11, 09:38 PM

In related news, when NATO takes over, they apparently will scale the effort back to just being a no fly zone as a result of Turkey's veto of the current action:

Good for them, it's their problem now.

russ_watters

Mar24-11, 09:40 PM

Meanwhile NATO has taken over, we've had no casualties, and the French are bound to us in a way they never have been before.

You're putting his speechs above his material success... :frown: You're putting secondary issues above the mission: I'm trying to figure out what the mission is!

nismaratwork

Mar24-11, 09:48 PM

You're putting secondary issues above the mission: I'm trying to figure out what the mission is!

Level the playing field, allow a civil war to flourish, ideally kill the Ghaddafis.

russ_watters

Mar24-11, 11:52 PM

So now that the "no fly plus" is going to be scaled-back, the playing field will tilt back in the other direction again. So how can we expect the odds of a favorable exit from the stalemate to increase after giving control to NATO?

As I said two weeks ago: So I'm not opposed to going in, but I think if we do it has to be with the goal of removing Gadhafi regardless of what is required to do it. Much more important than the safety of the Libyan civilians that is now back in jeopardy, if this goes badly because Obama has chosen not to be strong and lead the world to achieve his favored goal, this can damage our standing in the world and invigorate our enemies and enemies of freedom in general. It will definitely not be a good thing if dictators the world over see that even if we badly want them removed, we won't actually remove them and battered rebels and caught-in-the-crossfire civilians see that even if we decide to help them, our intestinal fortitude only lasts a week. It is much worse to step up and then back down than it is to never step up - at least if you never step up, you can spin a good excuse for inaction. Stepping up and then quickly backing down is a spectacular show of weakness.

Fortunately, every new administration gets to remake our image to some extent.

nismaratwork

Mar24-11, 11:56 PM

So now that the "no fly plus" is going to be scaled-back, the playing field will tilt back in the other direction again. So how can we expect the odds of a favorable exit from the stalemate to increase after giving control to NATO?

Much more importantly, if this goes badly because Obama has chosen not to be strong and lead the world to achieve his favored goal, this can damage our standing in the world and invigorate our enemies and enemies of freedom in general. It will definitely not be a good thing if dictators the world over see that even if we badly want them removed, we won't actually remove them and battered rebels and caught-in-the-crossfire civilians see that even if we decide to help them, our intestinal fortitude only lasts a week.

Fortunately, every new administration gets to remake our image to some extent.

How can this go badly? Given time this will be a civil war with nobody to root for, and the eyes of other nations will turn away from a percieved lost cause. Ghaddafi is not going to magc up some new tanks or airpower, and frankly its not our job to be removing dictators... usually we set them up instead.

This isn't a matter of guts, it's a matter of bland, faceless, and soulless international policy. A civil war in Libya in which small arms are the primary weapons fades into the background of African/ME violence. Is it nice? No. Is it right? No. Is it a decent strategy to mitigate blowback? Yep.

As for an exit, we never entered... the Libyans just got... a boost... a bit of a save, and some time. Now the rest is going to probably be handled by the brits and french, and good luck to them.

russ_watters

Mar25-11, 12:11 AM

How can this go badly? Stating a goal and then failing to achieve it is a bad thing. Saying you will protect civilians and then turning away from them (after a week!) is a bad thing - for us and for the dead civilians. Given time this will be a civil war with nobody to root for, and the eyes of other nations will turn away from a percieved lost cause. Wow, that's a fatalistic view. Why even bother going in if that's the expected result? Ghaddafi is not going to magc up some new tanks or airpower, and frankly its not our job to be removing dictators... That's all well and good, but when we say we want to remove a dictator, then it becomes part of our job description. This isn't a matter of guts, it's a matter of bland, faceless, and soulless international policy. What's the difference? A civil war in Libya in which small arms are the primary weapons fades into the background of African/ME violence. Is it nice? No. Is it right? No. Is it a decent strategy to mitigate blowback? Yep. I disagree. I see it as being much worse than if we had let Ghadaffi quickly put down the rebellion. Ultimately it is bloodier to let it go longer and you don't need tanks to kill a lot of people. Rwanda saw half a million killed, mostly with machetes. As for an exit, we never entered.... You expressed quite strong agreement with the post where I said "Once you do it, we're all in..." three weeks ago and you were very adamant that this was a humanitarian crisis that we needed to be putting a stop to. Clearly while it has been mitigated somewhat it hasn't stopped and is almost certainly about to get worse again. So what has changed for you? Do you no longer think this is a problem worth fixing?

nismaratwork

Mar25-11, 12:23 AM

Stating a goal and then failing to achieve it is a bad thing. Saying you will protect civilians and then turning away from them (after a week!) is a bad thing - for us and for the dead civilians. Wow, that's a fatalistic view. Why even bother going in if that's the expected result? That's all well and good, but when we say we want to remove a dictator, then it becomes part of our job description. What's the difference? I disagree. I see it as being much worse than if we had let Ghadaffi quickly put down the rebellion. Ultimately it is bloodier to let it go longer and you don't need tanks to kill a lot of people. Rwanda saw half a million killed, mostly with machetes. You expressed quite strong agreement with the post where I said "Once you do it, we're all in..." three weeks ago and you were very adamant that this was a humanitarian crisis that we needed to be putting a stop to. Clearly while it has been mitigated somewhat it hasn't stopped and is almost certainly about to get worse again. So what has changed for you? Do you no longer think this is a problem worth fixing?

Yeah, this isn't a nice situation, no need to convince me of that. On the other hand, the alternative was to allow Ghaddafi to slaughter using advanced weaponry from UN and EU member nations. Surely you see how that couldn't be allowed, especially the French Mirages?

As for why to go in, that's been discussed, and while it doesn't match my own view of what war should be, it's more in line with Apeiron's "Police Action". As for fatalistic, yeah, you've known me a while, is that really surprising? Besides, I'm in a mood to chew nails.

We never said we'd remove the dictator, we commited to protecting civilians and, "allowing the libyans to choose for themselves." Presumably they'll choose (if able) to kill the Ghaddafis and their loyalists.

Ghaddafi was never going to quickly put down anything, he was going to go house to house and "cleanse" (his words) areas the way he's trying in Misrata. Moreover, he was going to do it with European money and weapons, hence the rapid action when he surrounded Benghazi with armour; he was preparing to slaughter, then hunt.

Oh, and I DO think that this is a humanitarian crisis, and I think we've already failed the Libyans horribly. Clearly the USA, EU, AL, Russia and China don't care enough to stop it however, only mitigate the optics; I know a lost cause when I see it. As you say, we didn't budge for Rwanda... only Kosovo, where nice white christians were being killed by meeeaaaan Muslims *sadface* *sarcasm*... then we cared. Otherwise, brown, black, muslim on muslim... the general attitude seems to be that classic Dick Cheney quote: "Go BLEEP yourselves."

We set up dictators, and occasionaly remove them... mostly we just arm all sides of a conflict. I can be horrified, miserable, and still recognize the objective reality at the same time... it hurts, but it can be done.

nismaratwork

Mar25-11, 12:36 AM

Then again, it appears I'm wrong again... getting to be a real habit.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/24/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T1

Ivan Seeking

Mar25-11, 12:53 AM

Obama answers to us. He doesn't answer to Europe or the Arab League and he only answers to McCain as a proxy/advocate for us.

When Obama makes a speech or has Clinton make a speech discussing the NFZ, he's selling it to the only people he actually answers to: us. He's being raked over the coals right now because he didn't do a good enough job of that.

He gets raked over the coals no matter what he does. That doesn't mean it matters worth a hoot. The Republicans will by definition complain, and the hard left will opppose any military action. This surprises you?

Not sure what you are referring to there - no one has used that word in this thread.

I was talking about the Republican objections before he took action.

Well as you say: And as I said, the problem with that is that in not showing them to Ghadaffi, he's also not showing them to us.

So he should reveal his plans to make you happy?

Yes, I understand that. Do you understand the flaw in that mandate that rapidly led us to the current stalemate? The one I discussed in previous posts?

I understand that you are jumping to conclusions before we have any idea how this will turn out or the internal planning. Your position is illogical. Beyond that, the almight warrior nonsense is what has caused so much hatred towards us in the ME. What you want is the same mistake we have made time and again for 50 years. You do know the definition of insanity, right; doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results? Would you have us commit ground troops for ten years to the tune of another $trillion?

Proton Soup

Mar25-11, 01:17 PM

nismaratwork

Mar25-11, 01:52 PM

this is europe's war to win, and it's europe's war to lose. i don't want obama to "step up to the plate" on this, because what they will do is leave us hanging, sit back and wait for us to clean it up, blaming us for everything that goes wrong. we gave them over a 100 cruise missiles, what else can they ask for?

so, enough. this doesn't make us look bad if it fails. it only makes us look bad if we get more involved and it fails.

Agreed 100%, and damned well said.

@Ivan: Seriously, I heard less whining in MA from hardcore left-wingers about Bush... there is something maddeningly relentless about the propoganda machine of Fox News-Talk Radio-Shills-Rinse/Repeat

nismaratwork

Mar26-11, 09:33 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/26/libya.beaten.woman/index.html?hpt=T1

This is also happening in Libya, in the heart of Tripoli. Anyone familiar with the Arab world will realize what it is for this woman to speak out, and anyone familiar with Libya wil realize she's in for torture, and probably more rape before she's dissapeared. Maybe she'll get "lucky" and be produced to satisfy media, but I wouldn't bet on it.

oV-qG3BQkaw

Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- Breakfast at a Tripoli hotel housing international journalists took a decidedly grim turn Saturday when a desperate Libyan woman burst into the building frantic to let the world know she had been raped and beaten by Moammar Gadhafi's militia.

Her face was heavily bruised. So were her legs. She displayed blood on her right inner thigh.

She said her name was Eman al-Obeidy. She was well-dressed and appeared to be a well-to-do middle-aged woman. She spoke in English and said she was from the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and had been picked up by Gadhafi's men at a checkpoint east of Tripoli.

She sobbed and said she was held against her will for two days and raped by 15 men. She showed the journalists how she had been tied at her wrists and ankles. She had visible rope burns.

CNN could not independently verify al-Obeidy's story but her injuries appeared consistent with what she said.

Government officials quickly closed in to stifle her. But she persisted, wanting the journalists, staying at the Rixos Hotel, to see Gadhafi's brutality firsthand.

International journalists, including CNN's staff, are not allowed to move freely in the Libyan capital and are escorted out of the hotel only on organized outings by government minders. This was the first time a Libyan opposed to Gadhafi attempted to independently approach the journalists here.

What followed was a disturbing scene of how Gadhafi's government operates.

Security forces moved to subdue the woman. Even a member of the hotel's kitchen staff drew a knife. "Traitor!" he shouted at her in contempt. Another staffer tried to put a dark tablecloth over her head.

One government official, who was there to facilitate access for journalists, pulled a pistol from his belt. Others scuffled with the journalists, manhandling them to the ground in an attempt to wrestle away their equipment. Some journalists were beaten and kicked. CNN's camera was confiscated and deliberately smashed beyond repair.

Security men said al-Obeidy was "mentally ill" and was being taken to a "hospital." They dragged her unceremoniously to a waiting white car.

She kicked and screamed. She insisted she was being carted off to prison.

So... this happens in other places, but so the hell what? We're involved here, and I ask you, if you were there, would you have been hot on the camera, or would you have done whatever it took to at least TRY to save that woman, by any means?

rootX

Mar28-11, 08:04 PM

On that score, you would be right. Depends where his true motivations lie - self-preservation or going out with a bang.

But the history post-Lockerbie show just how much s*** oil-hungry nations are willing to swallow to keep the black stuff pumping.

...

One too hasty step in this minefield and kaboom to the economy. The oil futures market is probably the best asssement of Obama's handling so far.

This articles provides interesting perspective:
Libyans are well aware of their long and largely painful history with Western powers - even if many in the West are not.

It's a national holiday in Libya today. One of several declared by Col Muammar Gaddafi, but with an ironic twist this year, with British warplanes currently bombing from the skies above.

In Libya, 28 March is British Evacuation Day, to mark the final departure of British forces in 1970.

Later the same year, the Americans packed up their own airbase too - hoping to stay on good terms with the newly-installed Col Gaddafi to protect their oil interests in Libya.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12882213

nismaratwork

Mar28-11, 08:50 PM

This articles provides interesting perspective:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12882213

"To reign over the kingdom of the world. To make its peace and write its laws. To be generous to the obedient and merciless to all those who would stand against you. Nothing ever changes. 2000 years and you still act as if the world is yours." (Alucard from Hellsing)

Has the West ever seen the world in other terms? I don't think so.

tiny-tim

Mar29-11, 04:40 AM

"To reign over the kingdom of the world. To make its peace and write its laws. To be generous to the obedient and merciless to all those who would stand against you. Nothing ever changes. 2000 years and you still act as if the world is yours." (Alucard from Hellsing)

Has the West ever seen the world in other terms? I don't think so.

erm :redface: …

Alucard from Hellsing is a manga character, so this is presumably a japanese world-view, not a western one! :rofl:

DaleSpam

Mar29-11, 07:20 AM

Whenever America gets involved people blame and hate us for getting involved, whenever America doesn't get involved people blame and hate us for not getting involved. As far as I can tell there is no way to win. We get blamed and hated no matter what.

rootX

Mar30-11, 07:26 PM

Proton Soup

Mar30-11, 08:54 PM

something that's been a bit of a buzz in online discussion recently is that a couple of years ago, gadaffi was making some noise about nationalization of petroleum assets to better manage price disparity in imports vs exports.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/daf1303c-eb1a-11dd-bb6e-0000779fd2ac.html

Mr Gaddafi told King Juan Carlos of Spain and a Spanish business delegation at the weekend that by taking full control of its energy assets, Libya could better adjust production and influence prices. He described as “very dangerous” the fact that oil prices had fallen so sharply last year, while the cost of Libyan imports had barely changed.

“If we end up taking this decision, it will be because we didn’t have any choice,” he was quoted as saying in the Spanish press on Sunday.

seven months later, Megrahi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelbaset_Ali_Mohmet_al-Megrahi) is released from prison

alt

Mar30-11, 09:05 PM

I have lost complete confidence in UN after its attempts to resolve this ongoing Libya crisis. I wouldn't even call "resolve" but more like creating more troubles. It was the least intellectual thing to interfere in Libya's internal affair IMO.

Few are considering arming unorganized rebels now which would only result in more casualties.

(Underlining is mine)

Makes you wonder doesn't it ?

And there's been plenty of suggestion in the past - and some confirmation presently - that those rebels are riddled with AQ.

cobalt124

Mar31-11, 06:01 AM

I still think it was the right thing to do. There is a sense of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" to it, but given that the Arab League and the U.S. and Europe agree for once, action would seem better than inaction, as you have a more influence over the outcome. No one can state the outcome of any choice made in this. Saying that, I can't get over the feeling that arming the rebels may be a dangerous thing to do.

russ_watters

Apr4-11, 07:16 PM

This, I think, helps inform as to why the US is having so much difficulty giving up a role it wasn't supposed to have in the first place: The NATO request for the United States to continue flying its planes capable of striking at Libyan troops on the ground has raised concern that coalition forces do not have the military equipment needed for the type of strikes necessary to continue degrading Libya's military.

The United States was expected to stop flying its A-10s and AC-130s this weekend as NATO took over leadership of the entire mission. The planes are equipped to fly lower and slower than fighter jets, which improves accuracy in targeting of troops and tanks that are in and around cities....

But a NATO official said that, weather aside, only the United States has the ability from the air to strike at mobile troops and equipment.

NATO needed that from the United States, the NATO official said.

"Specifically the A10s and the AC-130s nobody else but the U.S. has," the official noted.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/04/libya.us.nato/index.html?hpt=T2

While the article is imprecise in its wording as to what exactly we still have there and what has recently left, it makes sense that a large air force would have special purpose aircraft while a smaller one would not. Everyone has multi-role fighter-bombers and the basic support aircraft such as tankers, but when you're on a limited budget you have less room for weapons with a more specialized role. A-10s and AC-130s fulfill a role in between attack helicopters (vunerable to small arms fire and RPGs) and multirole fighters (fly too high and too fast to be optimal for close air support) that others just don't have.

DaleSpam

Apr5-11, 12:33 PM

I have been reading up on Bayesian analysis and thought this would be a good (guesstimation) problem:

So the rebels need help that only the US can provide. Estimate the prior probability that the rebels are anti-American, then estimate the posterior probability that the rebels are anti-American (a) given that the US provides the support and (b) given that the US does not provide the support.

russ_watters

Apr20-11, 03:44 PM

British, French and Italian military "advisors" are being sent to Libya to help train the rebels to be a more effective military force, while being quick to point out that they are not "ground troops": France and Italy announced Wednesday that they will send military officers to advise rebels fighting for the ouster of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's regime.
Following a similar announcement by the British government Tuesday, French government spokesman Francois Baroin said a "small number" of French troops were being sent to advise the rebels' Transitional National Council.
French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet again ruled out sending ground troops to fight alongside the rebels. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/20/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T1

While these small numbers won't be engaging in autonomous combat, they are, nevertheless, armed foreign military personnel, on the ground, in Libya.

rootX

Apr20-11, 03:50 PM

British, French and Italian military "advisors" are being sent to Libya to help train the rebels to be a more effective military force, while being quick to point out that they are not "ground troops": http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/20/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T1

While these small numbers won't be engaging in autonomous combat, they are, nevertheless, armed foreign military personnel, on the ground, in Libya.
I think they should stop engaging in these silly games instead should just kill Gadhaffi. British, French and Italian are only fueling a civil war and contributing to more causalities than there would have been without their intervention IMO.

One thing I find most disturbing that no one saw these revolutions coming (I read a BBC article in Feb that it was surprise for US). They could have been prevented if everyone including west acted responsibly (promoting economic reforms in these countries).

mugaliens

Apr21-11, 07:38 AM

I think they should stop engaging in these silly games instead should just kill Gadhaffi.

Can't. That's called assassination and was outlawed in 1976 by President Ford. However, executive order 12333 relaxed that, somewhat.

British, French and Italian are only fueling a civil war and contributing to more causalities than there would have been without their intervention IMO.

Last time I checked, the Libyan's started it. Not the British, French, or Italians.

One thing I find most disturbing that no one saw these revolutions coming (I read a BBC article in Feb that it was surprise for US). They could have been prevented if everyone including west acted responsibly (promoting economic reforms in these countries).

I doubt it. Things have been on edge throughout the Middle East for decades, complete with riots, rebellions, uprisings, and tons of murderous oppression. Things have been on a hair-trigger for a long time. All it took was the spark of Tunisia's successful ousting of their dictator, combined with viral Internet action, and the rest spread like wildfire.

As for the West promoting economic reforms, we meddle enough as it is. They're sovereign countries. It's no more our responsibility to stick our fingers in their pots than we'd allow them to dictate how we should run our own country.

Office_Shredder

Apr21-11, 11:19 AM

I think they should stop engaging in these silly games instead should just kill Gadhaffi.

I think it's far from obvious that this would make he situation better. Someone could easily step into his role and continue his regime, except they might need to be even more brutal to assert their legitimacy

russ_watters

Apr22-11, 05:33 PM

John McCain flew to Libya to talk to the rebels and push for an expansion of our involvement: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/22/mccain.libya/index.html?hpt=T1

At least he is talking to the side that we support, unlike the last guy, but he's still undermining the power of the President by being there. I really hate it when Congressmen do this type of thing.

rootX

Apr23-11, 10:06 AM

Last time I checked, the Libyan's started it. Not the British, French, or Italians.

I doubt it. Things have been on edge throughout the Middle East for decades, complete with riots, rebellions, uprisings, and tons of murderous oppression. Things have been on a hair-trigger for a long time. All it took was the spark of Tunisia's successful ousting of their dictator, combined with viral Internet action, and the rest spread like wildfire.

As for the West promoting economic reforms, we meddle enough as it is. They're sovereign countries. It's no more our responsibility to stick our fingers in their pots than we'd allow them to dictate how we should run our own country.

See post#241 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3216126&postcount=241).

Tunisia:
The
European Union and external actors supported Ben Ali’s regime almost unconditionally,
swayed by the former president’s pursuit of neo-liberal economic liberalization, as well
as his cooperation in securing other EU objectives, notably the fight against terrorism
and illegal migration.

The events in Tunisia of the last few weeks have brought to the fore the fundamental
difference between apparent stability and long-term sustainability, revealing how the
point at which an unsustainable status quo tips towards political and social instability is
often closer than expected.
http://www.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/iaiwp1102.pdf

While it's not West's responsibility to promote long term sustainability in those countries but it is in the interest of West not to rely on knee-jerk unthoughtful policies.

lisab

Apr23-11, 10:59 AM

russ_watters

Apr30-11, 10:39 PM

NATO just attempted to kill him: Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi escaped a NATO missile strike in Tripoli, but his youngest son and three grandchildren under the age of 12 were killed, a government spokesman said....

The attack struck the house of Gadhafi's youngest son, Seif al-Arab, when the Libyan leader and his wife were inside....

Seif al-Arab Gadhafi, 29, was the youngest son of Gadhafi and brother of the better known Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, who had been touted as a reformist before the uprising began in mid-February. The younger Gadhafi had spent much of his time in Germany in recent years.

Moammar Gadhafi and his wife were in the Tripoli house of his 29-year-old son when it was hit by at least one bomb dropped from a NATO warplane, according to Libyan spokesman Moussa Ibrahim.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-04-30-libya-gadhafi_n.htm

I'm very surprised. I didn't think anyone in the west had the stones to do something like that. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, though.

Ryumast3r

Apr30-11, 11:13 PM

NATO just attempted to kill him:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-04-30-libya-gadhafi_n.htm

I'm very surprised. I didn't think anyone in the west had the stones to do something like that. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, though.

They tried it back 20 years ago... That's when he stopped being such a douche to the west

until now that is...

mugaliens

May1-11, 12:52 AM

NATO just attempted to kill him...

You are incorrect, Sir.

They tried it back 20 years ago...

You are incorrect, as well.

Folks, we do not target the leaders of countries. Our targets are military in nature, and the mere presence of a country's leader does NOT in and of itself qualify a target to be labled as "military."

On the other hand, if a country's leader chooses to remain at a decidedly military target, they're taking a significant risk upon themselves. Furthermore, if a country's leader drags their family with them to military targets, they're putting their family in harm's way, as well.

Khadafi and other leaders in the broader region have repeatedly resorted to the practice of hiding military operations behind civilians (or other non-combatants) in the mistaken hope that the military targets would be protected. This practice was common during both the initial and second invasions of Iraq in the early 90s and early 00s, both by dragging civilians to military targets, as well as moving military targets into civilian (non-combatant) facilities, such as hospitals. Under International Law, the first action holds the leader liable for any civilian deaths (such as the death of his daughter years ago, and his son and grandchildren today), and the second action is subject to a war crimes tribunal.

Khadafi appears intent on choosing courses of action which have and will continue to wind up badly for himself and his family.

Meanwhile, British, French, NATO, and other forces have, and will continue to abide by well-established international law governing the warfare.

russ_watters

May1-11, 09:19 AM

Folks, we do not target the leaders of countries. Our targets are military in nature, and the mere presence of a country's leader does NOT in and of itself qualify a target to be labled as "military."

On the other hand, if a country's leader chooses to remain at a decidedly military target, they're taking a significant risk upon themselves. Sorry, it's you that is incorrect. The leader of a country is the head of the military and as such is always a military target, just like any other military leader. His presence at the house of a civilian can turn that house into a military target. While it's possible there was a military facility in/under it (we don't actually have information either way), I don't believe in coincidences. The timing of the attack points to an attempt to kill Ghadaffi. Furthermore, if a country's leader drags their family with them to military targets, they're putting their family in harm's way, as well. It was his son's house! The only one "dragged" there was his wife! His son died in his own house. Khadafi and other leaders in the broader region have repeatedly resorted to the practice of hiding military operations behind civilians (or other non-combatants) in the mistaken hope that the military targets would be protected. While that's true, that does not appear to be the case here.

And frankly, I think it is naive to believe that we (or in this case NATO, possibly without our input) wouldn't go after him specifically, regardless of Carter's executive order.

rootX

May1-11, 09:31 AM

NATO just attempted to kill him:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-04-30-libya-gadhafi_n.htm

I'm very surprised. I didn't think anyone in the west had the stones to do something like that. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, though.

BBC analysis suggests that this might not be a good for NATA from diplomatic perspective.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13252192

russ_watters

May1-11, 09:46 AM

Good analysis in that article, including of the issue of legality of an assassination attempt: Assassination of a head of state is illegal under international law, and forbidden by various US presidential orders. On the other hand, the targeted killing of those woven into the enemy chain of command is shrouded in legal ambiguity.

Given the personalistic nature of the regime, and the "all means necessary" clause in UN Resolution 1973, it might be argued that killing Col Muammar Gaddafi and certain members of his family - such as his son Khamis, commander of an elite military brigade - would be permissible, even if it posed a risk to those non-combatants around the regime.

Legality, though, indicates neither legitimacy nor prudence. This strike, and the death of Saif al-Arab, have produced little military result at the greatest diplomatic and symbolic cost to Nato.

russ_watters

Jun4-11, 10:59 AM

A month has passed since my last post here. What has changed?

Nothing.

....except perhaps the level of impatience: The Republican-controlled House of Representatives issued a rebuke of President Barack Obama's Libya policy Friday, passing a measure declaring that the president has failed to provide a "compelling rationale" for military involvement in the North African country.

The non-binding resolution criticizes the president for insufficiently consulting Congress before launching air strikes in Libya and urges the administration not to put any ground troops in the country, something Obama has already promised not to do.

The measure, reflecting what GOP leaders consider a lack of presidential deference to the legislative branch, passed in a 268-145 vote. Most Republicans supported it, while most Democrats were opposed.

House members rejected a separate resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the NATO-led military operation. Kucinich's measure was defeated in a 148-265 vote. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/03/house.libya/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

That's potential ammunition for a War Powers Act fight, but so far it is just rhetoric.

Also recently, NATO extended the air campaign by another 90 days (past the first 90 days): http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/01/nato-extends-libya-military-campaign/

And for the first time, NATO (but not the US) is using attack helicopters: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-06-04-libya-bombing_n.htm

So here's my issue: We discussed right from the start that this would likely become an insta-quagmire and it did. So what did Obama and NATO think would happen? How did they misplay this so badly? Did they launch an air campaign based on wishful thinking? What is their plan now?

rootX

Jun5-11, 07:28 PM

1)
Just some fancy (and stupid) stuff:

In Benghazi, Ms Obeidi's home city, Marwa al-Obeidi said a human rights group helped by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had organised for Eman and their father to travel in a private plane to Washington, via Malta and Austria.

"We just want a chance for her to be treated psychologically and to rest," she told the Associated Press news agency. "My sister has just been through so much."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13663266

I don't know why they always have the tendency to turn everything so hollywood ...

reminds of recent mine workers accident - people went so crazy over that stuff and you will see same sensationalism here.

2)
Libya: Benghazi rebel visit for senior US official

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13501251

Proton Soup

Jun5-11, 10:06 PM

seems there is some effort afoot to get fuel and euros to the rebels.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576357294173075536.html

meanwhile, libyan rebel leaders deny that any of this talk with Eni involves scrapping/renegotiating of old contracts
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/02/us-energy-libya-deals-idUSTRE75154220110602

so there's a lot of talk, rumors, and denials about meetings with people over money. hard to not think there's something up. and just now, the libyan top oil guy defects. that probably means he knows what is up, and that the old regime is about to get cut off.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/me_libya0682_06_05.asp

so what now? well, there was a NATO attack on gadafi just yesterday before the defection. probably to soften things up a bit for the rebels to go in and seize the oil port of Brega.
http://tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=6119

anyhoo, looks like things might be heating back up again, russ. assuming their ducks are all rowed now.

Proton Soup

Jun6-11, 01:30 PM

so NATO has no UN authorization to go in and occupy Libya. but what they seem to be doing at them moment is fighting the battles so that rebels can move in to occupy the deserted positions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13665963

title is deceiving:
UZKGpsunkTA

how much fighting will the rebels actually do? maybe one last battle at tripoli? then we hand them the economic keys and leave them to it?

Proton Soup

Jun9-11, 02:12 PM

i don't get it. what's the holdup with the finances?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375593529584086.html

russ_watters

Jun15-11, 09:03 PM

Obama was sued today (again) over potential War Powers resolution violation wrt our involvement in Libya. Also today, Obama says the Libya involvement is too small for the War Powers resolution to be relevant: "The president is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of 'hostilities' contemplated by the resolution's 60-day termination provision." http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/15/war.powers.libya/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

rootX

Jun18-11, 12:15 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13820727

Barack Obama overruled the advice of administration lawyers in deciding the US could continue participating in the Libya conflict without congressional approval, The New York Times reports.

Proton Soup

Jun18-11, 12:54 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13820727

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp
The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities” as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles.

The administration has also emphasized that there are no troops on the ground, that Libyan forces are unable to fire at them meaningfully and that the military mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

great. so it's just a video game now. and we're completely numb and immune to the effects of violence if we feel safe from any retribution.
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_and_video_games_playing_with_violence

even if our being there is justified, i'm finding the reasoning used to justify avoiding congressional approval totally psychopathic.

russ_watters

Jun18-11, 03:11 PM

It's definitely going to be interesting if that lawsuit goes forward. He could be fighting two meaty lawsuits while campaigning for re-election!

Jack21222

Jun18-11, 08:59 PM

While I hesitantly support the actions in Libya, I strongly support getting congressional approval for continued action. If congress does not vote for continued support, we need to back out until they do. I support Obama on many things, but he's dead wrong here.

Proton Soup

Jun20-11, 12:53 PM

south carolina senator Lindsey Graham was on Meet the Press sunday. he said that if we didn't get gadaffi, that oil prices were going to double. in fact, he spoke it twice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43441440/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, you know, one, I would take the course that conservatives have been taking for the last 30 years. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, not worth the paper it's written on. It requires congressional approval before the commander in chief can commit troops after a certain period of time, and it would allow troops to be withdrawn based on the passage of a concurrent resolution never presented to the president. So I think it's an infringement on the, the, the power of the commander in chief. The president's done a lousy job of communicating and managing our involvement in Libya, but I will be no part of an effort to defund Libya or to try to cut off our efforts to bring Khaddafy down. If we fail against Khaddafy, that's the end of NATO. Egypt's going to be overrun and the "Mad Dog of the Mideast," what Ronald Reagan called Khaddafy, if he survives this, you're going to have double the price of oil that you have today because he will take the whole region and put it in, into chaos. And I will be--I won't be any part of that. So from my Republican point of view, the president needs to step up his game in Libya, but Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Khaddafy. Because he wrote a letter to the Congressional leadership basically thanking them for their involvement in trying to end this conflict.

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, we do. We had an opportunity to end this very quickly. The day you took American air power out of--off the table, NATO became a weakened organization. But we are making progress. Khaddafy is on his last leg. The rebels are getting stronger. They've taken the fight to Tripoli. I said about four weeks ago, "Go after Khaddafy's inner circle, break their will." We're pounding Tripoli. But the big mistake was to take American air power off the table. What I would like to see is for America to rejoin NATO when it comes to an aerial bombardment. We don't need ground troops. And if you don't think Khaddafy surviving affects America's national security interests. We're just on different planets. If this guy survives, it's the end of NATO, our standing in the world goes down, Egypt gets overrun by refugees and the Mad Dog of the Mideast, Khaddafy, is out of his cage, and you're going to see oil prices double.

and apparently, the price of oil is a national security interest.

i can see NATO being a national security interest, but much of that is the fault of the rest of the NATO countries cutting their own defense budgets and losing former capabilities. how else to get europe to change its behavior and fund their own militaries? if we "step up to the plate" now (more than we have), they will have no incentive to do so.

middle east chaos? we're pretty selective about that, eh? things have only gotten worse in bahrain, our home base for the navy there.

and i'm not sure our standing goes down. it's been pretty clear from the beginning that we don't want to own this war, we're just supporting our allies. maybe Graham should be the one to "shut up" about libya.

vici10

Jun20-11, 07:37 PM

It seems that Qaddafi has some support from Libiyan people. On Friday June 17, thousands of people went to demonstration in Tripoli to support Qaddafi.
One can find this information in reuters' website http://in.reuters.com/video/2011/06/18/thousands-march-in-pro-gaddafi-rally-in?videoId=216060503&videoChannel=-9994

Unfortunately, I could not find any information on this demonstration in NY tymes or BBC. If someone can please let me know.
The demonstration and speach of Qaddafi one can find on youtube

Rt3l_dm0zhE

apeiron

Jun20-11, 10:06 PM

and apparently, the price of oil is a national security interest.

I'm confused. Are you saying the middle east is ever really about anything but the oil? Count the number of US bases in the region, let alone the number of military interventions over the past few decades.

I'm not sure on what grounds the senator is claiming that Gaddafi has intentions to take over Egypt or anyone else, so the quotes sound off-beam. But he is speaking realpolitik in saying that US believes it has the "national security right" to ensure oil prices stay low.

It's not about democratic principles or human rights or any other namby-pamby issue.

Proton Soup

Jun21-11, 12:21 PM

I'm confused. Are you saying the middle east is ever really about anything but the oil? Count the number of US bases in the region, let alone the number of military interventions over the past few decades.

I'm not sure on what grounds the senator is claiming that Gaddafi has intentions to take over Egypt or anyone else, so the quotes sound off-beam. But he is speaking realpolitik in saying that US believes it has the "national security right" to ensure oil prices stay low.

It's not about democratic principles or human rights or any other namby-pamby issue.

yes, i know, but there are some here who do not believe in realpolitik, they believe we are engaging in wars for much higher purposes, like preventing rebels from being slaughtered (have you seen the vids of refugees being slaughted escaping syria?). and so it becomes necessary, whenever evidence presents itself, to present it. and that is all that i am doing here.

you can find some other posts i've made on the topic if you dig for them. if you ask me, much of this goes back to prior mumblings from gadaffi about not getting enough money for libya's oil, and talking openly about nationalizing the oil to set the price. ~1 year after saying that, britain releases the Lockerbie terrorist under suspicious testimony from a couple of doctors. the Arab Spring then leads to demonstrations and crackdowns in various arab nations, leaving a convenient opportunity to get rid of him.

apeiron

Jun21-11, 03:47 PM

yes, i know, but there are some here who do not believe in realpolitik,

OK, I'm less confused now. I misread the reason for your quoting. :smile:

As for US policy in the Middle East, that still is confusing as, for realpolitik, it seems to have lost touch with reality.

It definitely used to be just about the oil. With Carter Doctrine, Reagan corollary, and senior official statements up to 2000, there was no doubt that repressive regimes were fine so long as the oil flowed.

But with Bush junior and neo-con organisations like the Project for a New American Century, the US did switch to a public declaration that it was about re-engineering the politics of the region, believing democratisation would be a pancea for the problems of the area.

This was so shockingly naive as foreign policy, and appallingly handled in practice, that most outsiders believed it must be just a front for the latest version of the oil game.

Perhaps there was a "clever" motive in the recognition that nationalised oil companies in the area would be difficult to deal with, and inefficient in their oil extraction, as oil peaked. Forcing democratisation and free markets would allow outside oil companies to move in and do a better job from a consumers point of view.

Yet this seemed a lot of immediate pain (in terms of the various wars) for an uncertain gain in 20 years time.

But what could else could explain US policy as rational rather than naive dreaming?

Yes, there had to be some kind of "war on terrorism", but everyone knew it ought to have been a police action, not a US invasion of random countries.

Some other unlikely sounding reasons have been advance, like the claim it is all about protecting the petro-dollar (people seem to get invaded every time they switch their oil transactions to euros).

Perhaps the reasons were irrational but quite human - the US had built up such a weight of military and flash new military gear in the area that there grew an uncontrollable urge to use it on someone. There was a belief that the US could knock over anyone with minimal losses to self.

And this was a true belief of course. But the disconnect was that after the quick military success would come the inevitable nation-building morasse. Again, the pain would outweigh the gain in any sane longterm rational choice.

Libya is the same set of questions all over again. The realpolitik shows in that very different choices are being made over Libya and Syria, for instance. The West has scores to settle with Libya, it is also more strategic with its oil reserves and under Gaddafi always a dangerous wild card in the area.

So what is the bottom-line diagnosis? That the US has built up such a might of military muscle to police the world's key oil reserves that it has become politically impossible to resist using it for irrational fantasies like defeating terrorism and engineering democracy?

Proton Soup

Jun21-11, 08:50 PM

there is certainly always a desire to upgrade military capabilities and try out new toys. this goes back to Eisenhower and his military-industrial(-academia)-complex speech. Rumsfeld was rather obvious about his part in this. that fulfilled the defense industry interests. as for the rest of it, the major players and motivators seem to be oil, averting further retaliation on US soil, and israel. maybe banking.

it's not just the middle east, tho. oil nationalization is not appreciated in venezuela and bolivia, either.

vici10

Jun21-11, 11:17 PM

But what could else could explain US policy as rational rather than naive dreaming?

apeiron,

There is an interesting interpretation of wars in the Middle East by professors Nitzan from York University and Bichler from Israel. They have a complex argument, therefore it is difficult to give it justice in several lines. You can find their article here Dominant Capital and the New Wars (http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/1/)
Article is published in Journal of World-Systems Research and titled “Dominant Capital and the New Wars”. It is 37 pages long, so if you do not have time I recommend to read chapter 12. ‘Energy conflicts’ and section “The New Wars” in chapter 14.

Briefly, if one compares performance of Fortune 500 companies against performance of major oil companies, one will notice that since late 1960s all major Middle-East conflicts followed by a period in which major oil companies beat Fortune 500 average.
Except year of 1996-1997, major oil company performed worse then Fortune 500 average before the wars and beat the average during the war. It seems that major oil companies need a war to beat Fortune 500 average.

These are bothering facts. Of course, the reasons for war are more complicated than profits of oil companies. And authors do not think that oil companies control US government. They put these wars in broader context of global accumulation. They say roughly that there are two ways of accumulation. One is through breadth that includes merges and acquisitions and green field investments.
This needs peace. And we see it in 1990s with hi-tech boom. But then the cycle comes to end.
Another way is through inflation that goes together with stagnation. During inflation prices do not rise homogeneously, therefore one can accumulate more relatively to others if his prices rises faster than the average. Inflation correlates with high prices of oil. High prices of oil means more profit for oil companies. And as we saw in the previous paragraph, this means war in the Middle-East. Because war creates perception of risk that drives prices up. It seems that this process we see now.

This is very brief summary of the article. I thought it has an interesting perspective.

Perhaps the reasons were irrational but quite human - the US had built up such a weight of military and flash new military gear in the area that there grew an uncontrollable urge to use it on someone. There was a belief that the US could knock over anyone with minimal losses to self.

This is also maybe true. The other beneficiaries of wars in the middle-east are sellers of arms. This is also mentioned in the article.

The West has scores to settle with Libya, it is also more strategic with its oil reserves and under Gaddafi always a dangerous wild card in the area.

it's not just the middle east, tho. oil nationalization is not appreciated in venezuela and bolivia, either.

Nationalization is an interesting point that may have contributed to the wars.

apeiron

Jun21-11, 11:53 PM

There is an interesting interpretation of wars in the Middle East by professors Nitzan from York University and Bichler from Israel.

Thanks, I'll check that out.

I've been looking for credible research on this question and these two articles were worth reading.

http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/programs/courses/mini-courses/pdf/democracy.pdf

http://www.ifri.org/files/politique_etrangere/Article_Noel.pdf

They take the Bush Jr democratisation doctrine at face value and try to make sense of things.

But I think it is telling that we can be so torn between the view that either US foreign policy in ME has been rationally self-interested (and humanitarian stuff is the usual smokescreen) or it has been emotionally-driven and really believes its own propaganda.

Both are bad alternatives. Yet I'm not sure which I think is worse! Is a psychopath worse than a psychotic?! Both can be pretty dangerous. But it would be nice to know the real diagnosis.

vici10

Jun22-11, 07:39 PM

I've been looking for credible research on this question and these two articles were worth reading.

Thank you for the articles, I will look into them.

But I think it is telling that we can be so torn between the view that either US foreign policy in ME has been rationally self-interested (and humanitarian stuff is the usual smokescreen) or it has been emotionally-driven and really believes its own propaganda.

I believe it was both, rational self-interest and belief that they “bring democracy” to these countries.
But before to explain why I think so, I should do more clarification.

First, what does it mean US self-interest? US is a big country, so whose self-interest? I doubt that wars in the Middle East improved lives of ordinary Americans. Another matter is business class, that becomes increasingly international. By business class, I mean major corporations that can be approximated by Fortune500.

We know that oil companies, military contractors definitely benefited from these wars. (There are more military contractors in Iraq than there is US Army personnel there.) But the rest of major corporations benefited too, indirectly.
In the beginning of 2000s, there was a fear of deflation. It is telling that even Greenspan warned of “unwelcome substantial fall in inflation”.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20030506meeting.pdf
Deflation in US in the roughly last hundred years only happened during Great Depression. Business class fears deflation more than it fears inflation. Sometimes inflation is good for business, but deflation is always bad. Historically, inflation correlates with high prices of oil, and historically, conflicts in the Middle East drive prices of oil up. Hence the conclusion, in order to prevent deflation and start inflation, one needs to start a conflict in the Middle East. Of course, these things are not deterministic, these are not laws of nature. But simply because these things happened in the past it was expected to happen in the future as well. So in some sense wars in the Middle east benefited the rest of big business.

Second, when one speaks about democracy, and bringing democracy to other countries, one should clarify what does one mean by democracy. Democracy can be in different forms, for example democracy in workplace or direct democracy like in ancient Athens among citizens of Athens. It seems clear to me that not this kind of democracy was meant by people who plan to invade middle-eastern countries. It is anathema in US to talk about democracy in workplace. The regime in most corporations is dictatorial and hierarchical. And it seems common sense to many people, since they do not know any different. It seems to me that by democracy, business class means the regime that is open for business.
Also, members of business class are also human beings. It is very beguiling to believe in something that profits you and it is a sedative trap to think that what is good for you should be good for a world at large. As Bernard Show once sad in his play “The Man of Destiny”:

But every Englishman is born with a certain miraculous power that makes him master of the world. When he wants a thing, he never tells himself that he wants it. He waits patiently until there comes into his mind, no one knows how, a burning conviction that it is his moral and religious duty to conquer those who have got the thing he wants.

Regarding ordinary Americans, who do not benefit from these wars, the “Red Scare” exists in America already for more than 80 years and it would be strange that they would be completely immune to it.

Evo

Jun22-11, 07:49 PM

Second, when one speaks about democracy, and bringing democracy to other countries, one should clarify what does one mean by democracy. Democracy can be in different forms, for example democracy in workplace or direct democracy like in ancient Athens among citizens of Athens. It seems clear to me that not this kind of democracy was meant by people who plan to invade middle-eastern countries.I have no idea what you are rambling on about. It is apparent you are not an American and English is not your first language, but please explain what you are trying to say.

It is anathema in US to talk about democracy in workplace.Again, you are not in the US and not an American, so I need to point out that you are wrong. You seem to have come to this forum to spread propaganda.

The regime in most corporations is dictatorial and hierarchical. And it seems common sense to many people, since they do not know any different. It seems to me that by democracy, business class means the regime that is open for business.What the heck are you talking about?

rootX

Jun22-11, 08:21 PM

Going back to Libya,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13853210
The top foreign affairs official in Libya's opposition has arrived in China for talks with the Beijing government.
China has oil interests in the north African state and evacuated 30,000 of its workers at the start of the conflict in February.

As for NATO,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13826976
Libya has accused Nato of killing at least five people in an air strike that hit a house in the capital Tripoli.
The Libya government accused NATO for targeting civilians. Later, I believe NATO accepted that it was a mistake.

So far, I have seen anything positive for NATO.

rootX

Jun22-11, 08:33 PM

http://www.carim.org/public/migrationprofiles/MP_Libya_EN.pdf

Some migration statistics since the unrest.

Al68

Jun23-11, 02:41 AM

It is anathema in US to talk about democracy in workplace. The regime in most corporations is dictatorial and hierarchical. And it seems common sense to many people, since they do not know any different.The reason it's common sense is that most realize that the term "democracy" refers to how government is controlled, not how private decisions are made by private citizens. Most corporations in the U.S. are privately owned, not owned by or a part of government, so the term "regime" is completely inapplicable. The relationships within a private corporation are private and voluntary.

The word democracy does not (necessarily) mean that every person is attached to puppet strings under majority control, it means only that government is attached to such puppet strings.

Proton Soup

Jun23-11, 01:20 PM

Going back to Libya,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13853210

Beijing may be asked to consider giving financial assistance to the rebels; Italy, France, Kuwait and Qatar have pledged money so far.

i'm guessing this won't go over well at NATO. there was a lot of talks with the rebels about funding, but nothing seems to have shaken loose. so instead, it seems they are seeking hard currency from other sources.

as for what is up with NATO's attitude here, i'm not sure. but it seems a bit as if NATO wants to conduct the war on its own and leave the rebels out of it except for photo ops. and once they assassinate Gadaffi, they may want to choose their own leadership.

no doubt China would enjoy throwing a monkey wrench into all this and perhaps securing more of Libya's reserves for itself.

rootX

Jun23-11, 08:05 PM

i'm guessing this won't go over well at NATO. there was a lot of talks with the rebels about funding, but nothing seems to have shaken loose. so instead, it seems they are seeking hard currency from other sources.

as for what is up with NATO's attitude here, i'm not sure. but it seems a bit as if NATO wants to conduct the war on its own and leave the rebels out of it except for photo ops. and once they assassinate Gadaffi, they may want to choose their own leadership.

no doubt China would enjoy throwing a monkey wrench into all this and perhaps securing more of Libya's reserves for itself.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/13/so_which_countries_now_officially_recognize_the_li byan_rebels
lists countries that have recognized Libya rebels group.

Canada was recent one:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110615/ap_on_re_ca/cn_canada_libya_2

I am not sure about the position of China and Russia. Blog states:
"Russia and China. Both countries abstained in the Security Council vote authorizing a no-fly zone in Libya and have yet to cut off ties with Qaddafi. A Russian envoy might meet with him again this week in Tripoli. "

However, recognization is not equivalent to funding rebels.

Ryumast3r

Jun24-11, 12:17 AM

Anyone know where a relatively up-to-date map/list of control over libya is? I've looked and can only seem to find reports into like march/april/early may with a list.

russ_watters

Jun24-11, 08:23 PM

Interesting comment Obama made while a candidate with implications here: Savage asked Obama, "In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"

While the specific context of Savage’s question concerned Iranian nuclear plants, we think Obama’s answer raised some points that are relevant for assessing the justification for the Libyan operation three years later.

Obama said, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."...

Kal Raustiala, a University of California at Los Angeles law professor, said that, "on the merits, he is right now and was wrong then." Legal commentator Stuart Taylor Jr. said he sees "no plausible loophole. He may possibly be right now ... but if so, he was wrong then."

So where does this leave us? In 2007, Obama was adamant that the president did not have the power to authorize an attack if there was no imminent threat to the U.S. But now he has authorized just such an action. Full Flop. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/23/barack-obama/barack-obamas-libya-intervention-flip-flop-what-he/

Now the War Powers implications of this are that he went much further than the War Powers Resolution with his statement: not even the WPR requires Congressional approval before a military engagement, only after.

Proton Soup

Jun25-11, 10:39 PM

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/24/exclusive_top_us_admiral_admits_we_are_trying_to_k ill_qaddafi

...
House Armed Services Committee member Mike Turner (R-OH) told The Cable that U.S. Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of the NATO Joint Operations Command in Naples, Italy, told him last month that NATO forces are actively targeting and trying to kill Qaddafi, despite the fact that the Obama administration continues to insist that "regime change" is not the goal and is not authorized by the U.N. mandate authorizing the war.

"The U.N. authorization had three components: blockade, no fly zone, and civil protection. And Admiral Locklear explained that the scope of civil protection was being interpreted to permit the removal of the chain of command of Qaddafi's military, which includes Qaddafi," Turner said. "He said that currently is the mission as NATO has defined."
...

russ_watters

Jul16-11, 05:54 PM

Wow, this story was on the front section of CNN.com for less than a day...guess it wasn't all that important! The United States now recognizes the main opposition group in Libya "as the legitimate governing authority" in a country that Moammar Gadhafi has long ruled with an iron first, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday.
U.S. recognition of the Transitional National Council is a major diplomatic policy shift that could give the rebels access to Libyan regime assets that have been frozen by the United States. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/07/15/libya.us.recognition/index.html?iref=storysearch

Frankly, I just don't see the relevance of this move. Sure it means we can Robin-hood some of Muamar's money to the rebels, but is that really going to accomplish anything?

Proton Soup

Jul16-11, 08:13 PM

Wow, this story was on the front section of CNN.com for less than a day...guess it wasn't all that important! http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/07/15/libya.us.recognition/index.html?iref=storysearch

Frankly, I just don't see the relevance of this move. Sure it means we can Robin-hood some of Muamar's money to the rebels, but is that really going to accomplish anything?

hmm, not sure. i remember reading something a few days ago about france being ready to negotiate with the old regime. whether it's about putting pressure on france or putting pressure on ghadafi, i can't tell.

"So I am announcing today that, until an interim authority is in place, the United States will recognize the TNC as the legitimate governing authority for Libya, and we will deal with it on that basis."

The United States had previously stopped short of giving this recognition to the council, but Clinton said the body, based in Benghazi, Libya, "has offered important assurances today."

They include "the promise to pursue a process of democratic reform that is inclusive both geographically and politically, to uphold Libya's international obligations and to disburse funds in a transparent manner to address the humanitarian and other needs of the Libyan people."

it's not exactly an enthusiastic endorsement, terms may change, and conditions apply. how to interpret those "international obligations"? providing oil under previous terms in previously agreed currencies?

rootX

Jul16-11, 10:07 PM

I also read on BBC about attempts to seek a diplomatic solution, it was very unclear how.

Ivan Seeking

Aug24-11, 11:53 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/index.html?hpt=T1

Obama's lack of leadership is glaring yet again. He's taken heat throughout this event for being wishy-washy and not leading, but this is just too much. In a brief, token show of leadership, he asked for and got a UN resolution for a no-fly zone, but now he's not going to lead that effort? What the hell?!

This UN resolution has a very real chance of doing more harm than good. It gave Ghadaffi an internationally-sanctioned way out of the crisis that preserves his rule.

Criticism from Gingrich: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/17/gingrich-obama-talks-loudly-has-no-stick/?iref=allsearch&hpt=Sbin

Note: Gingrich said that before Obama gave his speech this afternoon saying he wasn't going to support the NFZ with weapons.

I disagree with him on the first part, though: Obama talks eloquently when discussing vague generalities and idealistic principles, but when it comes to leadership, he talks mumblingly, not loudly. From downplaying terrorist attacks to giving confusing and contradictory messages to Egypt and Libya, he's proving what I always believed and often said: being a great public speaker is not the same as being a great leader. Much to my shock, he was able to convince people the earth was flat with a few of his campaign promises, but I expected that when forced to start dealing with realities that require leadership, he'd start fumbling.

What have you said about Obama and his policies that hasn't proven to be wrong?

FlexGunship

Aug25-11, 09:07 AM

What have you said about Obama and his policies that hasn't proven to be wrong?

To be fair, just because his prediction wasn't correct doesn't mean his assessment was wrong. In fact, most of what Russ said is/was true. It's just that it happened to work out well in this case. It isn't untrue to say that Obama was the one to spearheaded the push for civil war in Libya, and it isn't untrue to say that he then took a background role. Was civil war brewing? Yup. Would it have been this successful without international aid? Nope?

If the illustrious former-President Bush had done the exact same thing, people would be accusing him of trying to topple the Libyan government at the expensive of Libyan civilians for the purpose of driving oil prices down... or up (I can never remember what those war-based oil conspiracies are accused of trying to do).

Just playing devil's advocate.

cobalt124

Aug25-11, 11:17 AM

vici10

Aug28-11, 09:36 AM

Do Islamists take over in Libya?
The commander of the Libyan rebel Tripoli Military Council is Abdel Hakim Belhadj, former Emir of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was banned internationally as a terrorist organization following the 9/11 attacks.

From Sunday Telegraph:

The man now emerging as the rebels' main military commander, and in charge of the newly-unified military operations in Tripoli, may present problems of a different sort. Abdel Hakim Belhadj is a former commander in the now defunct Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, once loosely allied to al-Qaeda. He was praised by Osama bin Laden's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as an "emir of the mujahideen" as recently as 2007.
Mr Belhadj spent time in Afghanistan and has been interrogated by the CIA.
In the 1990s, as LIFG commander, he stated that the group opposed all who advocate democracy or believed that Islam's victory could be achieved by any means other than jihad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8727426/Why-the-fall-of-Tripoli-will-not-be-another-Baghdad.html

rootX

Aug28-11, 01:58 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14703372

The leaders of the forces which deposed Col Gaddafi in Libya have said they do not intend to allow the extradition of the Lockerbie bomber.

"We will not hand over any Libyan nationals, it's Gaddafi who hands over Libyan nationals."

I find that tone bit troubling.

rootX

Aug28-11, 02:04 PM

I've just reread some of the earlier posts in this thread, and I'm still optimistic for the future of Libya. The rebels are talking about restraint and reconciliation, the Arab League, the West and emerging economies may all talk about assisting in reconstruction, the right sounds are being made, does the world have the will to make it happen? Don't know, it could all turn to cow dung yet. This does seem to be playing out differently in many ways than previous conflicts, hope things play out for the better. Obama did the right thing to step back and let other nations take responsibility.

So far, the rebels have been united by the common enemy, Gaddafi. I think bringing Libya back to the track (and better than it was under Gaddafi) will be much more difficult than getting rid of Gaddafi.

I hope they stay united under centralized government once Gaddafi is killed.

rootX

Aug29-11, 06:59 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14709896

The wife and three children of fugitive Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi are in Algeria, Algerian officials say.

While, whereabouts of Gaddafi remains unknown.

lisab

Aug29-11, 07:54 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14709896

While, whereabouts of Gaddafi remains unknown.

Looks like Sirte might be the last holdout. It's Gaddafi's hometown; I wonder if he's there.

Rebels consolidate gains and await reinforcements from Tripoli ahead of push towards Gaddafi's hometown. (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/08/2011829134327176660.html)

Dotini

Aug30-11, 08:16 AM

Ron Paul's statement on Libya and Syria, with which I wholly concur:

http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2011/08/29/mission-accomplished-in-libya/

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

MarcoD

Aug30-11, 11:27 AM

Ron Paul's statement on Libya and Syria, with which I wholly concur:

http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2011/08/29/mission-accomplished-in-libya/

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Ah bit too gloomy for my taste.

Despite the fact that there was no US formal government backing; the fact that the US and allies acted within a UN mandate I think actually falls better internationally than if they would have acted more or less completely on their own account.

The support in the Libyan civil war was done mostly by France and the UK, some other NATO members. I doubt many will feel this is a US enterprise. For a change, it was quiet nice to see Arabs cheering for French air support. (Though I have doubts about the UK/French position too, I think they overstretched far beyond their legal UN mandate, but for the moment it looks like their gamble worked out.)

I don't think the US came out any worse in this conflict. I am pretty sure Arabs care more about Israel, Iraq/Afghanistan and drones in Somalia and Yemen than anything else.

Of course the western world wants their oil. But they, Libya, also want our iPhones and German cars. Some will explain it as a big conspiracy for resources, but, in general, there were hardly NATO ground forces present and I think Libyans will respect that we didn't mess too much into internal affairs.

Was Gaddafi that bad? I have no idea. He seems to have a lousy track record of allies (Lockerbie and trying to ally -at some point- with fundamentalist pan-Arab islamic parties come to mind). But he also seems to have a rather good track record of emancipating the OPEC world to get the right value for their oil, repressing Islam fundamentalism, working somewhat towards women's emancipation, letting the people of Libya live within relative wealth, working towards an African emancipated continent (he was an admirer of Mandela), and not gassing part of its population like -for instance- Saddam Hussein did to Kurdish villages. After the Iraq war he was mostly pacified internationally. (Though no doubt he made local victims, but it seems to be in the range of hundreds, not tens of thousands.)

Gaddafi was a dictator and therefor a criminal and therefor the Libyan people are better off without him. They can do better than live under the ruling of a money-grabbing revolutionary. But as a 'cultural phenomenon,' I think I'll actually miss his to me 'amusing' anachronistic speeches and some of his, probably opportunistic, naive political ideas. (For instance, he believed the 'people' can do without political parties since the 'will of the people' will emerge anyway and parties can only be corrupt. It makes me laugh and even sympathize a bit with that.)

It seems to me that the guy just outstayed his visit; they grew tired of him. The only way, for better or worse, is forward.

The first victim of war is the truth - we just don't know what is going on in Libya. I don't like the fact that atrocities seem to be (have been) committed by both parties. There seems to be some, though little, ethnic cleansing of black African people by the rebel side, for example.

Fortunately, it looks that the 'rebel' forces are rather small. I have hardly seen more than fifteen cars at the same place. This makes me wonder whether there are more than 5-10k rebels involved in the whole effort, that's less than 1% of the population. Looks to me that most of the people are just staying at home until the whole storm blows over. I hope that also means that Libya will not deflate into another Somalia, or Iran.

Time will tell.

MarcoD

Aug30-11, 06:38 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14703372

I find that tone bit troubling.

Who do you expect to be the front runners in a civil war against a dictatorship? Given what they had I expect opportunists, Islamic fundamentalists, some business people, some intellectuals hoping for reform, but, mostly, a bunch of (mostly conservative) ultranationalists.

It doesn't surprise me. I am more worried about that they want to impose a form of Sharia law.

rootX

Aug30-11, 11:26 PM

Who do you expect to be the front runners in a civil war against a dictatorship? Given what they had I expect opportunists, Islamic fundamentalists, some business people, some intellectuals hoping for reform, but, mostly, a bunch of (mostly conservative) ultranationalists.

It doesn't surprise me. I am more worried about that they want to impose a form of Sharia law.

I believe it will take some years to see who is the winner among opportunists, Islamic fundamentalists, business people, intellectuals*, ultranationalists, or unemployed youths.

*It seems like intellectuals grouped together to form NTC:
http://www.ntclibya.com/InnerPage.aspx?SSID=8&ParentID=3&LangID=1

cobalt124

Aug31-11, 12:41 PM

So far, the rebels have been united by the common enemy, Gaddafi. I think bringing Libya back to the track (and better than it was under Gaddafi) will be much more difficult than getting rid of Gaddafi.

I hope they stay united under centralized government once Gaddafi is killed.

Hopefully the common aim is an open democratic free Libya, if thats the case there is reason to still be optimistic, though that outcome in recent conflicts hasn't beeen the form.

I find that tone bit troubling.

Maybe, but its just words at the moment, the situation may change. I think its positive that they feel they can assert this (and other things) rather than tow the western line.

MarcoD

Aug31-11, 02:16 PM

I believe it will take some years to see who is the winner among opportunists, Islamic fundamentalists, business people, intellectuals*, ultranationalists, or unemployed youths.

*It seems like intellectuals grouped together to form NTC:
http://www.ntclibya.com/InnerPage.aspx?SSID=8&ParentID=3&LangID=1

The thing is that I have absolutely no idea how Libya works. From what was quoted from the Green Book on Dutch radio, the doctrine was a hodge podge of socialism, marxism, anarchy, and romantic renaissance ideas which has its root in a (strong) conservative form of the bedouin (muslim) life style.

The society itself seems to be ruled as an anarchy with (dictatorial) revolutionary councils which make sure that everything 'runs' right.

To me, from the little I know, that feels like a odd mixture between the Wild West, anarchy, socialist capitalism and Islam Arab culture. If you take some of the culture and the revolutionary part out, I think most people in the US would feel right at home. (No government, no debt, free education.) Given how people are dressed, I think Gadaffi even didn't do very bad there (except for the murdering and repression of course).

The thing is that intellectuals can be conservative religious people, I think the head member studied Sharia law.

The fact that the majority of Libya is young, and for North-Africa, well-educated, doesn't mean a lot. A (humanist) democracy is the result of centuries of work. I don't expect a lot from young people who were educated under a revolutionary dictatorship (and look at other Arab nations, and get a lot wrong about western worlds).

As I stated in another thread, I am an empathic humanist. Try to explain that to a Libyan.

Of course, I will defend the right of everyone to be religious, or have their own life style, but I do find the Sharia sexist, gender discriminatory, and overly punative. (With all respect, the recognition that it has pretty normal, advanced, and morally right parts, and the acknowledgement that I know little about it.) Anyway, basing a law system on religion [where you can't opt out] to me doesn't feels like a step forward for a young population.

We can't do it, but in my heart I wouldn't mind freezing foreign Libyan accounts to press them to have no referral to Sharia in the constitution as a manner of protecting the public.

EDIT: To me it looks like the population just got fed up with the dictatorship, the revolutionary rhetoric, the fact that Gadaffi was grabbing money, and the fact that he was spending billions in Africa [instead of solving unemployment].

cobalt124

Sep1-11, 07:24 AM

Ron Paul's statement on Libya and Syria, with which I wholly concur: http://original.antiwar.com/paul/201...shed-in-libya/

U.S. internal politics aside, for once the world decided, for whatever reason(s), and (IMO) did the right thing. Obama was neither isolationist or imperialist, but (again IMO) did the right thing. I don't see ground troops going into Libya, they are not even wanted by the Libyans. Syria is a totally different issue, I don't see how the U.S. could, even if they wanted too, bomb or invade Syria.

Despite the fact that there was no US formal government backing; the fact that the US and allies acted within a UN mandate I think actually falls better internationally than if they would have acted more or less completely on their own account.

I don't think the US came out any worse in this conflict.

Agreed

...But he also seems to have a rather good track record of emancipating the OPEC world to get the right value for their oil...working towards an African emancipated continent...

This would be good for the Middle East and Africa and hopefully they will continue to do this.

...repressing Islam fundamentalism...

He had his uses to the West.

...working somewhat towards women's emancipation...letting the people of Libya live within relative wealth...he was an admirer of Mandela...

I wouldn't give him credit for these myself, any real good would have been purely incidental, and his motives elsewhere.

...and not gassing part of its population...Though no doubt he made local victims, but it seems to be in the range of hundreds, not tens of thousands...

I suspect we may find otherwise what has happened over forty years.

Time will tell.

I'm still optimistic.

MarcoD

Sep1-11, 08:31 AM

I agree with everything, except for this:

I wouldn't give him credit for these myself, any real good would have been purely incidental, and his motives elsewhere.

The actions of Gadaffi are mostly explained in western media as opportunistic. Obviously, the murders [, terrorism] and repression are easily condemnable, and I agree with that. But I just don't know about the 'opportunistic' rest, or whether it is even valid to explain his action in 'opportunistic' terms (we can just as easily do that for all actions of the west).

Given the murders and terrorist attacks, it is easy to condemn him on all of his other actions, but I prefer to believe that we just don't know, and that the best way of viewing him is as a revolutionary, and that on an international scale, the man is a criminal, but not as big a criminal as he could have been, or other repressive regimes are, or were.

For instance, he could also have led his people into a military march of the people, and pull of a massive genocide on intellectuals (China), or against a part of the population (Kosovo/Iraq/Rwanda). As far as we know, he didn't do that.

I'm still optimistic.

Me too. But there are also large obstacles to be overtaken.

Iraq democracy seems to have failed (which was explained in Dutch media) as that the people just don't know what democracy is, see it as an opportunistic/nepotistic enterprise, and just vote for the people who will allow them the maximal number of favors.
[How to avoid this from happening in a country which has virtually no democratic legacy?]

USSR's overturn to capitalism seems to have brought forth another one party state where individuals just seized control of privatized parts of the state, and now there are multi-billionairs without having to show anything for it.
[How to avoid individual council members from just seizing parts of the oil production rights or machinery?]

Iran's overturn brought forth a repressive fundamentalist Islam state.
[How to avoid a fundamentalist scenario when there is no alternative in a democratic 'void' except for conservative Islamism?]

Somalia degraded into total anarchy.
[How to avoid this in a country without an army, government, but with lots of armed individuals?]

All these scenarios are there. I hope for the best too.

Proton Soup

Sep2-11, 09:17 AM

MarcoD

Sep2-11, 12:55 PM

which ones are the intellectuals? from the only two with bios there, the theme seems to be privatization. which to me simply means business.

I doubt this is true. A substantial part of the Arab attributes the 'moral degradation' of the western world to secularization and capitalism. I doubt privatization will be the theme.

rootX

Sep3-11, 06:47 PM

which ones are the intellectuals? from the only two with bios there, the theme seems to be privatization. which to me simply means business.

Most of the members, including the chairman, are doctorate holders, which I took to be equivalent of intellectuals.

Today's update:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533
US and UK spy agencies built close ties with their Libyan counterparts during the so-called War on Terror, according to documents discovered at the office of Col Gaddafi's former spy chief.

There was also one news about NTC attempting to control young rebels.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14770357
Libya's new civilian leaders are beginning the process of restoring order in Tripoli after the revolution.

But there are large numbers of armed young rebel soldiers on the streets of Tripoli who have moved into the power vacuum created by Col Gaddafi overthrow, says our correspondent, and the NTC is now gradually persuading them to go home.
NTC is claiming that most rebels are doctors/engineers/lawyers who can return to their normal lives. This is contrary to what Gaddafi called these rebels in his early speeches, "young people duped with drugs and alcohol".

leontd

Sep4-11, 05:24 AM

Unbelievable, why doesn't the UN do something about it?

Dotini

Sep4-11, 08:17 AM

I find it amusing that we are now reported to be supporting some of the very same people we used to torture and kill. On the surface this might seem inconsistent.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/09/03/cia-cooperated-with-gadhafi-on-torture-and-renditions/
The Central Intelligence Agency rendered terrorism suspects to Muammar Gadhafi’s Libya, knowing they would be tortured, according to documents uncovered in Tripoli.

The documents were found by the Human Rights Watch in the abandoned offices of Libya’s former spy chief and foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, a notorious figure known for repressing Libyan dissidents.

One of those rendered and tortured, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, is now the military commander in Tripoli for the rebels’ Transitional National Council. ”He was captured by the CIA in Asia and put on a secret flight back to Libya where he was interrogated and tortured by the Libyan security services,” Human Rights Watch’s Peter Bouckaert told Reuters.

Belhadji claims he was tortured by the CIA, and then tortured again at Tripoli’s notorious Abu Salim prison after rendition. He is also reportedly a former member of al Qaeda. That he is now part of a provisional government supported by the US indicates a stark inconsistency in American foreign policy.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Proton Soup

Sep4-11, 01:50 PM

MarcoD

Sep4-11, 02:24 PM

we also rendered people to libya's next-door neighbor, egypt. so it's hardly surprising to me.

of course, the interesting thing is how the propaganda machine spins up so easily every time the government picks a new target.

The thing is whether, for instance, a TV is a

a box into the world,
a box of hedonism,
or a box of quality sold products.

One of the criticism to the US in its dealing with 9/11 was that TV (or newspaper) is too much a mix of 1 and 3, and therefor the media took too much of a national war-pushing spin since wars sell better. (Not that our media is that better, we have a mix between 1 and 2.)

It's not a propaganda machine I think. IMO, it's an effect of telling people what they want to hear, and a majority just wants the 'easy' story.

cobalt124

Sep5-11, 06:16 AM

...But there are also large obstacles to be overtaken...

The arab Spring is an opportunity to wipe the slate and do things differently. Let's hope we take it. Think I'll also take a look at Al Jazeera English for a different perspective on Gadaffi.

rootX

Sep11-11, 06:24 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14876028

While Algeria accepted Qaddafi's wife, Niger accepted the convey which had his son, Saadi Gaddafi

Niger's government spokesman and Justice Minister Marou Amadou said Saadi Gaddafi was in a convoy along with eight others. Mr Amadou said the convoy was on its way to Agadez in northern Niger and that Saadi and his companions were being allowed in on humanitarian grounds.

The US has urged Niger to detain any individuals who may be sought fro prosecution by the new authorities in Tripoli and confiscate their weapons and money.

Currently, NTC seems to have some troubles with its these two neighbors.

rootX

Sep13-11, 06:44 PM

The thing is that intellectuals can be conservative religious people, I think the head member studied Sharia law.

The fact that the majority of Libya is young, and for North-Africa, well-educated, doesn't mean a lot. A (humanist) democracy is the result of centuries of work. I don't expect a lot from young people who were educated under a revolutionary dictatorship (and look at other Arab nations, and get a lot wrong about western worlds).

As I stated in another thread, I am an empathic humanist. Try to explain that to a Libyan.

Of course, I will defend the right of everyone to be religious, or have their own life style, but I do find the Sharia sexist, gender discriminatory, and overly punative. (With all respect, the recognition that it has pretty normal, advanced, and morally right parts, and the acknowledgement that I know little about it.) Anyway, basing a law system on religion [where you can't opt out] to me doesn't feels like a step forward for a young population.

We can't do it, but in my heart I wouldn't mind freezing foreign Libyan accounts to press them to have no referral to Sharia in the constitution as a manner of protecting the public.

EDIT: To me it looks like the population just got fed up with the dictatorship, the revolutionary rhetoric, the fact that Gadaffi was grabbing money, and the fact that he was spending billions in Africa [instead of solving unemployment].

Jalil said it clear in his latest speech: "We are a Muslim people for a moderate Islam"

"We are a Muslim nation, with a moderate Islam, and we will maintain that. You are with us and support us - you are our weapon against whoever tries to hijack the revolution," he said.

But he also warned against secularism, envisaging a state "where sharia [Islamic law] is the main source for legislation".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14894264

cobalt124

Sep15-11, 06:17 AM

Jalil said it clear in his latest speech: "We are a Muslim people for a moderate Islam"

From what I have read they seem to be making the right sounds and doing the right things, inviting all including enemies to take part and have a say in Libyas future. A democratic, moderate Islamic state sounds positive, I could even see an implementation of Shariah Law as acceptable, as Libyans are already used to good education and equality for women relative to the rest of Africa, I don't see them going back on that. They seem genuine.

rootX

Oct21-11, 05:31 PM

I thought it would more appropriate to discuss this here.

yeah, i'm pretty convinced at this point that the "crossfire" story is just a cover. (who knows the weapon caliber in a crossfire?) you're right, it is quite problematic to be claiming you want a less tribal, more democratic future, only to keep on doing business as usual.

I doubt "Libya" is claiming for a more democratic future. There is NTC but then I have never come across any source determining how much influence NTC has over rebels and tribes.

Proton Soup

Oct21-11, 05:40 PM

I thought it would more appropriate to discuss this here.

I doubt "Libya" is claiming for a more democratic future. There is NTC but then I have never come across any source determining how much influence NTC has over rebels and tribes.

i haven't paid that much attention to the NTC, to be honest. it was mentioned earlier in this thread, and the thing that caught my eye right away was the top two guys being privatization experts. and, well, there was a new bank formed, but i can't remember if it was affiliated directly with NTC or just a mechanism for rebels to receive funds seized from Gaddafi (something that never happened during the time we were discussing this).

i was a lot more interested in just who was fighting this war. there was never serious effort to finance the rebels. NATO fought this war, and rebels got photo ops.

it's worth discussing, but i'd have to dig around first.

Dotini

Oct21-11, 06:23 PM

- A year ago Libya was a member in good standing of the UN. It had a head of state, in place for 40 years.

- A portion of the population rose up in revolt. If a portion of the population of the US, Britain, Russia or China rose up in revolt, it would be instantly suppressed by the constituted and recognized government. But anyway, the UN saw fit to issue a mandate to protect civilians in Libya from harm while the Libyan government attempted to suppress the rebellion.

- NATO took it upon itself to go beyond the mandate, and decided to support and enforce regime change.

- NATO strafed the convoy, and the ex-head of state was killed and dragged through the streets by parties unknown. His body is currently on display in a meat locker for all to see.

- Okay, a bad guy is gone, but what about the rule of law and order, and the presumptive right of a sovereign state to protect itself from violent revolution?

- Is it now okay for unhappy populations anywhere to revolt against their government, and maybe receive protection from the UN and help from NATO?

- Is it now okay for any rejected head of state anywhere to be shot and dragged through the streets and put on display for all to ogle?

- I wonder if a poor example has been set which may come back to haunt us should the shoe be on the other foot?

- If the US and her closest friends are one day no longer the mightiest force on Earth, would it be reasonable to expect outside nations to assist rebels here with weapons, air-cover and intelligence operations to support a revolution, and maybe drag a dead US President around on a rope behind a pick-up?

- Would it be fair to conclude that "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means"? The strong do as they will and the weak do as they must?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve