News Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone

[Al68]

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]

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]

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.

 

[apeiron]

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

I truly believe you were only joking. As you say

 

[alt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/communi...-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/communi...ans-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]

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/communi...-asks-obama-for-better-explanation-of-libya/1

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. <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/communi...ans-back-obama-on-libya-but-not-a-majority-/1

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.

 

[lisab]

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]

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/communi...-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/communi...ans-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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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]

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]

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]

The French just took out a Libyan jet. Splash!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

 

[russ_watters]

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]

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]

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...

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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]

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]

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 perceived 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]

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 perceived 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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]

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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 into 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]

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]

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]

"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 …

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

 

[Dale]

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]

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.

 

[Proton Soup]

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, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelbaset_Ali_Mohmet_al-Megrahi" is released from prison

 

[alt]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Dale]

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.