News Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone

[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.

 

[russ_watters]

British, French and Italian military "advisors" are being sent to Libya to help train the rebels to be a more effective military force, while being quick to point out that they are not "ground troops":

France and Italy announced Wednesday that they will send military officers to advise rebels fighting for the ouster of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's regime.
Following a similar announcement by the British government Tuesday, French government spokesman Francois Baroin said a "small number" of French troops were being sent to advise the rebels' Transitional National Council.
French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet again ruled out sending ground troops to fight alongside the rebels.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/20/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T1

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

 

[rootX]

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

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

I think they should stop engaging in these silly games instead should just kill Gadhaffi. British, French and Italian are only fueling a civil war and contributing to more causalities than there would have been without their intervention IMO.

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

 

[mugaliens]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Office_Shredder]

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

 

[rootX]

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

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

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

See post#https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3216126&postcount=241".

Tunisia:

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

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

http://www.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/iaiwp1102.pdf

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

 

[lisab]

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

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

Me too, Congressmen or celebrities. Of course I hold Congressmen to a higher standard, though.

 

[russ_watters]

NATO just attempted to kill him:

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

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

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

Moammar Gadhafi and his wife were in the Tripoli house of his 29-year-old son when it was hit by at least one bomb dropped from a NATO warplane, according to Libyan spokesman Moussa Ibrahim.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-04-30-libya-gadhafi_n.htm

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

 

[Ryumast3r]

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

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

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



until now that is...

 

[mugaliens]

NATO just attempted to kill him...

You are incorrect, Sir.

They tried it back 20 years ago...

You are incorrect, as well.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

On the other hand, if a country's leader chooses to remain at a decidedly military target, they're taking a significant risk upon themselves.

Sorry, it's you that is incorrect. The leader of a country is the head of the military and as such is always a military target, just like any other military leader. His presence at the house of a civilian can turn that house into a military target. While it's possible there was a military facility in/under it (we don't actually have information either way), I don't believe in coincidences. The timing of the attack points to an attempt to kill Ghadaffi.

Furthermore, if a country's leader drags their family with them to military targets, they're putting their family in harm's way, as well.

It was his son's house! The only one "dragged" there was his wife! His son died in his own house.

Khadafi and other leaders in the broader region have repeatedly resorted to the practice of hiding military operations behind civilians (or other non-combatants) in the mistaken hope that the military targets would be protected.

While that's true, that does not appear to be the case here.

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

 

[rootX]

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

Good analysis in that article, including of the issue of legality of an assassination attempt:

Assassination of a head of state is illegal under international law, and forbidden by various US presidential orders. On the other hand, the targeted killing of those woven into the enemy chain of command is shrouded in legal ambiguity.

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

Nothing.

...except perhaps the level of impatience:

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

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

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

House members rejected a separate resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the NATO-led military operation. Kucinich's measure was defeated in a 148-265 vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/03/house.libya/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

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

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

And for the first time, NATO (but not the US) is using attack helicopters: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-06-04-libya-bombing_n.htm

So here's my issue: We discussed right from the start that this would likely become an insta-quagmire and it did. So what did Obama and NATO think would happen? How did they misplay this so badly? Did they launch an air campaign based on wishful thinking? What is their plan now?

 

[rootX]

1)
Just some fancy (and stupid) stuff:

In Benghazi, Ms Obeidi's home city, Marwa al-Obeidi said a human rights group helped by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had organised for Eman and their father to travel in a private plane to Washington, via Malta and Austria.

"We just want a chance for her to be treated psychologically and to rest," she told the Associated Press news agency. "My sister has just been through so much."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13663266

I don't know why they always have the tendency to turn everything so hollywood ...

reminds of recent mine workers accident - people went so crazy over that stuff and you will see same sensationalism here.2)
Libya: Benghazi rebel visit for senior US official

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13501251

 

[Proton Soup]

seems there is some effort afoot to get fuel and euros to the rebels.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576357294173075536.html

meanwhile, libyan rebel leaders deny that any of this talk with Eni involves scrapping/renegotiating of old contracts
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/02/us-energy-libya-deals-idUSTRE75154220110602

so there's a lot of talk, rumors, and denials about meetings with people over money. hard to not think there's something up. and just now, the libyan top oil guy defects. that probably means he knows what is up, and that the old regime is about to get cut off.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/me_libya0682_06_05.asp

so what now? well, there was a NATO attack on gadafi just yesterday before the defection. probably to soften things up a bit for the rebels to go in and seize the oil port of Brega.
http://tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=6119

anyhoo, looks like things might be heating back up again, russ. assuming their ducks are all rowed now.

 

[Proton Soup]

so NATO has no UN authorization to go in and occupy Libya. but what they seem to be doing at them moment is fighting the battles so that rebels can move into occupy the deserted positions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13665963title is deceiving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZKGpsunkTA

how much fighting will the rebels actually do? maybe one last battle at tripoli? then we hand them the economic keys and leave them to it?

 

[Proton Soup]

i don't get it. what's the holdup with the finances?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375593529584086.html

 

[russ_watters]

Obama was sued today (again) over potential War Powers resolution violation wrt our involvement in Libya. Also today, Obama says the Libya involvement is too small for the War Powers resolution to be relevant:

"The president is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of 'hostilities' contemplated by the resolution's 60-day termination provision."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/15/war.powers.libya/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[rootX]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13820727

Barack Obama overruled the advice of administration lawyers in deciding the US could continue participating in the Libya conflict without congressional approval, The New York Times reports.