Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone

[nismaratwork]

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]

… 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 ) 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. ​

 

[nismaratwork]

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

"Europe" (only Italy, actually ) 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. ​

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]

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

I don't remember you complaining earlier.

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

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't remember you complaining earlier.

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]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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]

… 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

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

 

[nismaratwork]

i haven't actually

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

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]

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.

EDIT: found it http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12723554

 

[nismaratwork]

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 let's see if the UN, NATO, and EU can handle this, or if the buck just keeps being passed.

 

[cobalt124]

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 let's 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]

Secondary link to support Cobalt:

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

changing your tune, aren't you? …

… 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"?

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

how is the present situation any worse? ​

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?

 

[nismaratwork]

changing your tune, aren't you? …

How so?

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

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? ​

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

"Europe" (only Italy, actually ) 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. ​

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?

 

[tiny-tim]

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 [STRIKE]doing something about it[/STRIKE] asking others to do something about it.

 

[nismaratwork]

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 [STRIKE]doing something about it[/STRIKE] 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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.