News Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone

[Proton Soup]

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?

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]

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.

Ah. Forgotten that. Falling for the spin.

 

[russ_watters]

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]

@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]

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?

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]

@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]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

@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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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]

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]

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...1/03/21/ABwL4M7_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

 

[nismaratwork]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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[tt_news]=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]

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]

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 realize 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".