Boy, I sure do hope that the threat of a no-fly zone forces Qaddafi to step down because if not it looks like we've got us another shooting war in the Middle East, once again based on the trope that we are good guys racing in to save the people from the bad guys. If only we could actually achieve such things, or were really interested in doing that.posted by gerryblog at 6:48 PM on March 17, 2011 [38 favorites]
This is not a war to save people. If we cared about that we would be intervening in Cote D'Ivoire, where there has been horrible violence on the same level as that in Libya. There is human misery all over the planet that we can't even be bothered to look at, much less intervene. So let's not kid ourselves about what this is about:Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels (6.60×10^9 m3) as of 2007. Oil production was 1.8 million barrels per day (290×10^3 m3/d) as of 2006, giving Libya 63 years of reserves at current production rates if no new reserves were to be found. Libya is considered a highly attractive oil area due to its low cost of oil production (as low as $1 per barrel at some fields), and proximity to European markets. Libya would like to increase production from 1.8 Mbbl/d (290×10^3 m3/d) in 2006 to 3 Mbbl/d (480×10^3 m3/d) by 2010–13 but with existing oil fields undergoing a 7–8% decline rate, Libya's challenge is maintaining production at mature fields, while finding and developing new oil fields. Most of Libya remains unexplored as a result of past sanctions and disagreements with foreign oil companies.
What happens if Gadhafi pulls back? Do we continue to try and press the advantage of the rebels until his government falls? Do we have the authorization to do that? Do we expect a civil war in Libya to drag out, and if so, how will we take sides? If Gadhafi falls, what comes next? What will the new Libyan government look like? Will they be friendly to U.S. interests? Someone please tell me how this ends.posted by lullaby at 7:06 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
What are you people talking about? Why would Obama need congressional approval for the French army to move in under UN authority?So... is the Obama administration going to get a rubber stamp from Congress at some point...?This is one of the good wars. Obama doesn't need the approval of Congress for those.
why are commando teams or snipers never an option with these things? i don't understand why we didn't assassinate Saddam. we know who Gaddafi is. he has very little support among his people. he just needs to be removed, right?I don't understand why you think this is logistically possible. Just because you have some 'elite commandos' sitting around doesn't mean you can magically get them into the country, locate Gadaffi, kill him, and escape unharmed. That's just magical thinking.
...
we know who the bad guy is. that's the hard bit. all that high tech tech and we can't just kill him?
...
maybe we can post a bounty? or kill him and make it look like an accident?
In foreign policy, though, there is a fairly discernible pendulum. A period of nervousness or isolationism tends to lead to an atrocity going ahead unhindered, which then inspires a period of more muscular interventionism – until a foreign adventure becomes a painful blunder, at which point the pendulum swings back...But so did the Daily Mash with Fingers crossed Libyan rebels aren't insane.
I fear that we’re seeing the results of this pendulum yet again in Libya today. The severe problems suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the vast unpopularity of both ventures at home, has made the international community either wary or downright hostile to the idea of risking any sort of intervention – particularly in the Middle East.
Then why isn't Sarkozy doing it instead of the United States, reallyBecause they are?
Les frappes militaires interviendront "rapidement", "dans quelques heures", et les Français y "participeront", a déclaré le porte-parole du gouvernement François Baroin. Il a dit ne pas vouloir préciser pour l'instant exactement "quand, comment, sur quelles cibles, sous quelles formes".Quick-n-dirty translation: "Military strikes will occur 'very soon, in a few hours', and French forces 'will participate', declared François Baroin, spokesperson for the French government. He said he did not yet want to give details on exactly 'when, how, which targets, and by which means'."
The war against Nazi Germany was a war of choice.?
The Libyan announcement of a unilateral ceasefire made by foreign minister Moussa Koussa leaves several important questions unanswered. Is it simply a ploy to divide the UN after the approval of the security council resolution? And how will a ceasefire be monitored and verified? Will the UN be allowed in? Fighting was reported from the port of Misrata shortly before his press conference in Tripoli. His offer of dialogue has already been rejected by the Benghazi-based rebels. The Gaddafi regime is pretty low on credibility so there will be plenty of scepticism about this statement. And Koussa pointedly refused to answer any questions after dropping his bombshell.posted by memebake at 6:31 AM on March 18, 2011
Yeah, Hillary Clinton's an "abrasive" woman with a "strong personality" (i.e., shorthand for something else that I won't mention). So was Janet Reno, so was Madeleine Albright. I don't hear any male political figures being called "abrasive," ever.Rumsfeild was described that way. Not a good comparison. But anyway, Obama didn't call Clinton "Abrasive", he just said she was passionate. It was a joke, and a pretty bland one.
Well, no: Hitler declared war on you three days after the start of the war with Japan. You didn't declare war on anybody.
Add someone saying something about Palin and I agree. I was very proud when you guys managed to go many hundred comments in the old Libya thread before someone mentioned her.And yet, you actually managed to mention Palin. Interestingly, she came up in the original japan nuke thread, as a quantity of comments (since her appearance on the national stage was greeted with a 5000+ comment thread here on metafitler)
And if you think Obama is new to this sort of sexist dog whistle, well, he is the one who said "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal" of Clinton during the primaries. Which, you know, us women and our hormones!OBVIOUSLY.
Despite the ceasefire announcement, Gaddafi forces are not only attacking in Misrata but also in Ajdabiya, according to al-Jazeera, which reports "gunfire and heavy artillery clashes" at the southern entrance to the eastern city.posted by EndsOfInvention at 7:25 AM on March 18, 2011
That's a shitty argument. Never intervene, because some interventions didn't turn out to quite so well?No, the point is that people are making the same arguments for engagement in Libya that they did for engagement in Iraq.
In the long run Iraq is better off without a murderous lunatic in charge.Well, I'm sure all the Iraqis with dead family members totally agree with you. In the "Long Run" Saddam would have died anyway.
This strikes me as not being a careful statement, and potentially misleading as a direct result of its carelessness.No, the point is that people are making the same arguments for engagement in Libya that they did for engagement in Iraq.Just like Saddam Hussein, eh? Dictator? check. Slaughtered and oppressed own people? check.That's a shitty argument. Never intervene, because some interventions didn't turn out to quite so well?
How'd that work out?
Libya is burning. Its people rose, and the tyrant gunned them down. Unless something changes, Muammar Gaddafi and his sons will be able to reassert control over the country amid a mass slaughter of its civilians. This would be a terrible outcome... To have him survive would be a humiliation for Washington at a moment and in a region where its words still have great impact. It would also send a disastrous signal to the other rulers of the region — in Syria, Algeria, Iran — that Mubarak made a mistake and that the way to stay in office is to engage in mass slaughter, scare the U.S. away and wait out the sanctions and isolation. America would lose its opportunity to align with the rising forces of the Arab world. So the U.S. must follow through in its efforts to get Gaddafi out of office, pushing all diplomatic levers and seeking maximum multilateral support. It should ask the Libyan opposition for a public set of requests, so that Washington is seen as responding to Libyans, not imposing its will. If the Libyans request military assistance, Washington should move in that direction. I don't believe that a no-fly zone is a magic bullet... Gaddafi's main advantage is not in the air but on the ground... Giving arms, food, logistical help, intelligence and other such tools to the Libyan opposition would boost its strength and give it staying power.he was, admittedly, wrong about iraq, but i think in this case it makes a lot of sense here, viz.
I would say the American position is that it will support NATO action if [the Arab League, the African Union or the U.N.] agrees to take the lead. I suspect that the American position may "stiffen," as Churchill would say, if Qaddafi's forces start slaughtering people. That would be a change in the "demonsrable need" meter. Sound legal basis is easy to handle. So that leaves the regional support for action as the major variable.and playing realpolitik for a moment:
You should be applauding the way Barack Obama is handling the Libya situation. It is realpolitik in a most self-aware, calculating, interest-driven, human rights driven, cold-blooded form. It's something you claim to want in our foreign policy.apparently, that is coming at the expense of bahrain[*] to get the arab league/GCC (and china and russia, for the UNSC) on board; the question for me now then is US-saudi relations... i would hope, and expect, that translates into ongoing reform of 'our allies' in the region.
The US is not leading this, and probably won't, ever. That is why Barack Obama is not making a public drive for support. In fact, we were moved toward a no-fly zone by Arab countries largely, and Europe, decisively. When was the last time that happened? Ask yourself why Obama is acting this way.
He does not want to be in front, because he isn't, and he shouldn't be. That is a lesson America has learned, painfully, and which Obama is heeding...
You should be applauding the way Barack Obama is handling the Libya situation. It is realpolitik in a most self-aware, calculating, interest-driven, human rights driven, cold-blooded form. It's something you claim to want in our foreign policy.Because "human rights driven, cold-blooded form" makes so much sense, right? I saw that comment earlier and it's a perfect example of what I hate about political debate, it's just some barely coherent nonsense about incredibly vague concepts like "interest-driven". It's stupid people pretending to be smart because they know a lot of words.
The sectarian framing in Bahrain is a deliberate regime strategy, not an obvious "reality." The Bahraini protest movement, which emerged out of years of online and offline activism and campaigns, explicitly rejected sectarianism and sought to emphasize instead calls for democratic reform and national unity. While a majority of the protestors were Shi'a, like the population of the Kingdom itself, they insisted firmly that they represented the discontent of both Sunnis and Shi'ites, and framed the events as part of the Arab uprisings seen from Tunisia to Libya. Their slogans were about democracy and human rights, not Shi'a particularism, and there is virtually no evidence to support the oft-repeated claim that their efforts were inspired or led by Iran.posted by kliuless at 8:48 AM on March 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
The Bahraini regime responded not only with violent force, but also by encouraging a nasty sectarianism in order to divide the popular movement and to build domestic and regional support for a crackdown.
The U.S. should stop comparing Libya to past conflicts and consider the crisis on its own terms.posted by Herodios at 9:55 AM on March 18, 2011 [19 favorites]
[. . .]
Meanwhile, the historical analogy industry went into high gear. Was Libya Bosnia or was it Iraq, was it Kosovo or was it Somalia? [or Munich or Vietnam?] Since the putative “lessons” of history continue to be stupidly confined to these two events, once the loop got underway, everyone knew their cues. In this atmosphere of slow-motion capitulation to mass murder, subliterate commentators and slippery politicians erased any hope of engaging in a disinterested search of the past in order to find something that might illuminate the present.
[. . . ]
“The many uses of analogy,” the historian David Hackett Fischer writes in his splendid Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, “are balanced by the mischief which arises from its abuse.” . . . the chief culprit being . . . the insinuation that because two events resemble each other in some respects they must therefore be alike in all respects. . . What makes today’s Libya analogies so plainly false is not the one thing that two episodes possess in common, but the many more that they do not.
But the ghost of Vietnam follows us everywhere—Beirut, Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq, and now Libya. (I miss Richard Holbrooke, who constantly argued that “Bosnia was not Vietnam, the Serbs were not the Vietcong, and Belgrade was not Hanoi.”) In its revised version, the Vietnam Syndrome, now called the Iraq Syndrome, has generated “lessons,” too.
Is it really necessary to point out that, lessons notwithstanding, Libya is not Iraq? (It is not Bosnia or Rwanda, either, but, given the administration’s modest definition of American purpose, its members won’t be summoning these precedents any time soon.) The Obama team ought to respond to the Libya crisis on its own terms, if it intends to respond at all.
That means acknowledging:Most of all, paying due respect to reality means acknowledging this distinction between Iraq and Libya: In the former, the population was passive, bulldozed into silence, or it reflexively bucked outside intervention; in Libya, voices from one side of the argument have been roaring Solzhenitsyn’s 30-year-old admonition to “interfere as much as you can. We beg you to come and interfere.” But we have not interfered.
- the disparity between Saddam Hussein’s 500,000-man army and Muammar Qaddafi’s 50,000-man (and shrinking) army.
- the distinction between the size of Iraq’s population and Libya’s population, which adds up to about 20 percent of Iraq’s and mostly inhabits a thin slice of coastline.
- the difference between an essentially American enterprise and an undertaking that has the sanction of the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
- the difference between a dictator whose crimes (presumably) belonged to the past and one who vows to “cleanse Libya house by house” and, by all accounts, has proved himself keen to do so.
- the difference between Iraq, with no viable opposition movement, and Libya, which boasts an active and well-armed rebel force.
- the difference between a country frozen in the amber of authoritarianism a decade ago and an entire region awash in a wave of successful popular uprisings today.
Thus another difference from Iraq: President Bush was bent on going to Baghdad; Obama may find himself in command of a juggernaut, but he clearly has a distaste for things military. Bush enshrined preemption in official policy; Obama simply has eliminated any obligation to link punishment to offense.
No, it's a dumb metaphor. Standing up to a bully puts yourself at risk, the bully isn't going to grab a few innocent nerds to use as human shields.Right, and the bigger problem is that we are not 'standing up to a bully'. We are talking about killing a murderer. As well as, potentially, a lot of other people who are neither killers nor bullies, but simply random people who live nearby.
1730: The BBC's Mike Cartwright, at RAF Marham in Norfolk, says he's getting unconfirmed reports that two Tornado squadrons will be heading out to enforce the no-fly zone. Squadron 9 specialises in taking out surface-to-air missiles, while Squadron 31 specialises in launching the Storm Shadow cruise missile, which is used to target artillery and tanks.posted by proj at 10:32 AM on March 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
But. But. You said. When the. Oh gee holy fuck. Not worth it.You seem confused. "Do you not differentiate between rebels and terrorists?" Seems like the kind of thing someone would say as a joke. One mans terrorists are another man's freedom fighters. Quaddaffi claimed everyone who was fighting against him was "al-Quaeda" too. How do you tell the difference?
Obama doesn't have to do anything for Congress to take a vote, does he? Can't they put up their own resolution concerning the war? (Or does he have to initiate? )Yeah, congress can declare war on it's own, I suppose but it's really unlikely that they would do that without presidential cooperation.
To Qaddafi, everything that is not murder is theatre, and having scared us into joining his war he is now calling our bluff, saying, in effect, that the West once again pretends to be acting in the name of humanitarianism when the real motive is regime change.posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:19 AM on March 19, 2011
"Air force units from a host of countries began military actions in Libya on March 19," Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement. "Moscow regrets this military action."posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:26 AM on March 19, 2011
Update 8:07 p.m. Three U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean are preparing for operations in Libya, according to an anonymous U.S. official. (Reuters)posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:12 PM on March 19, 2011
Update 8:02 p.m. The United States will conduct missile strikes on Libyan anti-aircraft sites later today, diplomats say. (AP)
That news [of French air strikes] came even before the Paris summit meeting adjourned, with President Nicolas Sarkozy announcing that French warplanes had begun reconnaissance missions around Benghazi, and the French military saying that a Rafale jet fighter had destroyed a government tank near there.posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:10 PM on March 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
Even though the leaders at the Paris summit meeting were united in supporting military action, there were signs of disagreement over how it would proceed.
Two senior Western diplomats said the Paris meeting, which was organized by Mr. Sarkozy, may actually have delayed allied operations to stop Colonel Qaddafi's troops as they were approaching Benghazi. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the matter.
The initial French air sorties, which were not coordinated with other countries, angered some of the countries gathered at the summit meeting, according to a senior NATO-country diplomat. Information about the movement of Qaddafi troops toward Benghazi had been clear on Friday, but France blocked any Nato agreement on airstrikes until the Paris meeting, the diplomat said, suggesting that overflights could have begun Friday night before Mr. Qaddafi's troops reached the city.
And as for those who cry "then why aren't we in Bahrain", if there are ten houses on fire in different parts of town, isn't it better to send one fire truck to one fire than no fire trucks to no fires?Ridiculous. There is no way in hell that the Saudis, armed with American weapons, would march into a neighbouring country - which happens to be one of the most important American military bases in the world - in order to crush a democratic uprising there, if the USA hadn't given them the green light to do so.
"Qatar will participate in military action. Arab countries must take this action because the situation is intolerable. [...] The protest is not the cause of the massacre. [...] It has become open warfare involving mercenaries."Also, the Arab League called for a no-fly zone well before the UNSC vote.
The Paris summit [...] is marred by the besetting fault of such negotiations: it has taken too long for the world community to come to this point. Nato could have declared a no-fly zone at the emergency meeting of the North Atlantic Council on 25 February.posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:41 PM on March 19, 2011
[...]
It was significant that China and Russia allowed the UN to authorise the use of military measures, abstaining in the critical vote. That means that the doctrine of liberal interventionism is still alive. It is an idea that this newspaper supports: our contention has always been that it requires the legitimacy conferred by the UN or by collective action to avert crimes against humanity. That is why The Independent on Sunday supported British military involvement in Kosovo and in Afghanistan – although in Afghanistan we argue that our mission is now unclear and that our troops should now be withdrawn more quickly than the Government plans. And that is why we opposed the invasion of Iraq: it lacked explicit UN authorisation, and was certain to unleash terrible destructive forces.
Of course, a no-fly zone is an imperfect sanction. [...] All it might do is constrain Gaddafi's ability to wreak revenge on his own people, much as the no-fly zones did in northern and southern Iraq between 1991 and 2003. Yet that is much better than nothing, because there was no repeat of the mass killings of Kurds or Marsh Arabs in Iraq after the no-fly zones were established.
empath, I've asked you what your preferred alternative to this intervention would be. Is it the status quo?My preferred alternative would have been for the Arab League to resolve it without getting us involved.
I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying.Do I understand correctly then that you would support some kind of military intervention? And that you would consider a 30-ish strong fleet of Qatar/UAE fighters to be sufficient to neutralize Gaddafi's ability to harm civilian Libyans?Ultimately, I'm not willing to order soldiers into battle to intervene in a civil war.
Democrats - 47% - 43%All leaning to "stability."
Independents 52% - 38%
Republicans - 58% - 33%
The newest fad in foreign intervention is the slim-line approach. I swear, it really is like fashion news. A few years ago, the neocons were pushing a full-figured style of intervention, which ended up with us wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives in Iraq. Since that went so badly, the fashion has swung the other way, and the same idiots who brought you Iraq are pushing for a smaller, smarter style of intervention that leans on small groups of special-forces troops and covert operations.posted by scalefree at 11:20 AM on March 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Watch this play out with Libya: it starts with Sen. John McCain saying we should just impose a no-fly zone. Before you know it, there’s talk about a few airstrikes, providing logistical help to the rebels, maybe sending some troops with NATO or the UN—you know, to keep the “peace.”
The notion of not intervening, period, never enters the neocons’ heads. I got the shock of my life going through the Weekly Standard a couple of years ago when I saw the headline, “The Case Against Intervention.” But it turned out to be about the American economy. I should’ve realized, the only place these people don’t want us to pour money into is the USA.
Peggy Noonan: The biggest takeaway, the biggest foreign-policy fact, of the past decade is this: America has to be very careful where it goes in the world, because the minute it’s there—the minute there are boots on the ground, the minute we leave a footprint—there will spring up, immediately, 15 reasons America cannot leave....Okay... Seems like republicans suddenly turn anti-war as soon as a democrat becomes president.
Just got an update from 2 spokesmen for the Libyan transitional council. The following tweets will be from them. The revolutionaries reject Amr Moussa's statement today criticizing Western airstrikes; they say he's running his presidential campaign. Majdi al-Henaid, of the Tobruk opposition council, says, "The Libyan people appreciate the intervention by the West. If we lose this war we're going to end, there's nothing. The Libyan people are standing up for Western values. We appreciate this bombardment; there is no way we can win without it. No civilians were killed, and even if [the West] killed some civilians by mistake, we can accept it, because Qaddafi kills thousands." The world will soon see, al-Henaid said, "In Ajdabiya it is disaster." They expect to liberate the city tonight or tomorrow. The revolutionaries are also seeking to understand the U.S. position; they are confused by Mullen's statements today. What is the goal? The Libyan reps also say Qaddafi is forcing people from Gargaresh, Busleem, Salahadeen, and Bengasheer areas to demonstrate in Green Square. The Libyan reps also reiterated their claims that Qaddafi's men are bringing corpses from the hospitals to parade as civilian casualties. According to them, several of Qaddafi's ministers are hold up in Bab al-Azizia. The ministers are there along with their families, they said. They gave me three names: Baghdadi, the PM, Abdul Kabir education minister, Mohamed Hijazi, health minister. One thing the rebels are very clear on is that they want the airstrikes to continue; say that if Qaddafi's power is halved they will advance.posted by lullaby at 11:41 AM on March 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
But after this spectacular first stage of air war, what happens then? If the airstrikes persuade Qaddafi and his forces just to quit, great! But what if they don't? What happens when a bomb lands in the "wrong" place? As one inevitably will. When Arab League supporters of the effort see emerging "flaws" and "abuses" in its execution? As they will. When the fighting goes on and the casualties mount up and a commitment meant to be "days, not weeks" cannot "decently" be abandoned, after mere days, with so many lives newly at stake? When the French, the Brits, and other allies reach the end of their military resources -- or their domestic support -- and more of the work naturally shifts to the country with more weapons than the rest of the world combined?posted by empath at 12:02 PM on March 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
10:39 21 MAR 2011 (AGI) Tripoli - Khamis, Gaddafi's sixth son, was reportedly killed by the injuries suffered in a suicide bombing on Saturday. A Libyan pilot deliberately crashed his jet against the Bab al-Azizia barracks. Hospitalized in the intensive care unit of a Tripoli hospital, he reportedly died a few hours later. The news was disclosed by the Algerian newspaper Shuruk, which echoes the Al-Manara Libyan opposition's Website.posted by scalefree at 8:56 AM on March 21, 2011
However, the news has not been confirmed by the regime's media.
In the case of the Libyan war, the presidential power grab is even more blatant, because weak, poor countries on the Security Council have acted as ventriloquists’ puppets for the U.S., Britain and France.Ross Douthat, NYT: A Very Liberal Intervention
This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton’s 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration’s more unilateralist methods. There are no “coalitions of the willing” here, no dismissive references to “Old Europe,” no “you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.Jackie Ashley, Guardian: To do their job on Libya, scepticism is MPs' best weapon
Gaddafi cannot easily be forced out of Tripoli. Just now he has nowhere to run to. He seems to have many vocal, indeed hysterical, supporters, particularly among his own tribal group and paramilitaries; after 42 years of incessant propaganda, that is hardly surprising. So even if he cannot get into Benghazi, he can unleash horrifying attacks on his enemies in other parts of Libya. Using human shields, hiding his killers in cities, he can wreak terrible damage of a kind that cannot be dealt with by Tomahawk missiles or jets.Tomas Avenarius, Süddeutsche Zeitung: Trapped in Gadaffi's small world [German]
But the Libyan rebels have asked for help. On their own they stand no chance against the war machine of the Gaddafi regime. Unlike the now deposed presidents of Egypt and Tunisia, the despot of Tripoli uses bombers, artillery and rockets against his own people. Unlike both its neighbours, Libya has no independent institutions. In Libya there is no functioning army that could help put the authorities in their place, as Tunisian and Egyptian officers have.Isabelle Lasserre, Le Figaro: Libya: the air strake strategy is started to pay off [French]
If the objective, currently only half acknowledged, is to depose Col. Gadaffi, the coalition nations, led by Britain and France and supported by its Arab allies, must then consider a ground intervention to "finish the job". Remember the 2006 Lebanon War, which started with air strikes and ended on the ground.posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 9:48 AM on March 21, 2011 [5 favorites]
Yglesias should really think more carefully about whether his policy of highly-charged moralistic language is helpful to his side of the debate. The situation is that ordinary Libyans grew tired of being governed by a borderline-insane kleptocratic dictator and started peacefully demonstrating against him. Then portions of the military defected. Then the borderline-insane dictator started using his vast store of plundered oil wealth to hire foreign mercenaries to kill his people. Then the people started pleading for foreign governments to help through arms shipments and a no-fly zone, while the borderline-insane dictator broadcast threats to commit mass slaughter.I've been reading Samantha Power's "A Problem From Hell" to see if I could get any insight into some of the thinking behind the U.S. involvement in Libya. It's kind of interesting to see a lot of the political discourse playing out in the same manner she wrote about in the book, which is to say the same ways that prohibited intervention before. But more thoughts about this latter. I've only gotten through the chapter on the Armenian genocide.
There are various levels of commitment foreign governments might offer to these rebels -- a no-fly zone, a no-drive zone, arms shipments, or even (though nobody is advocating this) ground troops. Yglesias argues for watching them die, on the grounds that any help for the rebels could lead to a quagmire. I don't agree, though he does have good reasons for his position. But surely he understands that the emotional, moralistic pull of the arguments on my side are at least as strong. My side of the argument would probably lead to the killing of Qaddafi's mercenaries and loyal armed forces. His side would almost certainly lead to the massive slaughter of civilians and the ignoring of their pleas for even minimal support. I think he would do well to keep the argument focused on cold-blooded strategic grounds.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.-- Eisenhower.
...the British, French and Americans, who are leading the attacks, all have strong reasons for seeing an end to Col Gaddafi's rule now that the sword has finally been drawn...this sounds sensible to me, altho i'm admittedly biased (and willing to be swayed by argument, facts and outcomes of course) but if this lady's attitude is any indication, we were right to assist the rebels in benghazi.
This temptation must, however, be resisted. The coalition's most priceless asset is the sanction it has received not only from the UN, but from the Arab League also. It is both possible and strongly desirable that, as a result of the League's backing, Arab states could become directly involved in the policing of the no-fly zone – something that would surely frustrate any attempt by Col Gaddafi to portray military action as a colonial assault on a Muslim nation. This support would not survive an effort by the western powers to weigh in directly to topple Col Gaddafi. They should not jeopardise it by extending the mandate without explicit UN support.
The job of bringing down Col Gaddafi should be left to the Libyans themselves. It is to be hoped that once his military momentum is decisively punctured, as it surely will be, his hold over his own people will be similarly weakened. His armed forces are not formidable. They have performed poorly in the revolt, taking surprisingly heavy casualties when attacking relatively small rebel-held towns.
True, there is inevitably the possibility that the uprising may now descend into civil or tribal conflict. And Col Gaddafi's best hope is perhaps to play the Libyans off against one another. But there is no certainty that he would be successful. Although resistance has been firmest in the east, there were demonstrations against the regime all across the country in the early days of the uprising.
The coalition can help the rebels by protecting those parts of Libya that are free and by putting pressure on those doing Col Gaddafi's bidding. That means not only attacking his military, but also by making it crystal clear to the regime’s servants that they will be held accountable for their actions when it is finally toppled.
The first few days of the campaign have been dramatic. The progress on to its conclusion will almost certainly be slower and more difficult. Western leaders must show patience. While they cannot do the Libyans’ fighting for them, they can and should contain Col Gaddafi. Once his military capacities are drained, the coalition should pull back to a vigilant posture from which it would be able to intervene were further violence to be threatened by the regime.
It will almost certainly be a messy process, but one that is surely preferable to deeper western military involvement with all its perils and uncertainties. As T.E. Lawrence observed of warfare in Arab lands almost a century ago: "It is better that the Arabs do it tolerably than you do it perfectly."
If they are to put Col Gaddafi's regime firmly behind them, the Libyan people should liberate themselves. The coalition should assist. It must not run the show.
The historic importance of Europeans and Americans being on the same side as those Arabs who have started the long climb out of the deep pit of autocracy that has stunted and disfigured their world cannot be overstated...posted by kliuless at 6:48 PM on March 21, 2011 [3 favorites]
If Europe and America, hitherto wedded to a network of strongmen in the interests of stability, cheap oil and the security of Israel, now stay realigned with Arabs intent on reclaiming their destiny, that will open the widest, most sunlit avenues towards democratic change in the region for more than half a century.
Nothing in the Middle East, of course, is ever quite that simple. For a start, Washington's de facto willingness to back rebels in Libya but just rap the knuckles of allied Bahrain – headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet – while it brutalises unarmed protesters is incoherent. By contrast, Saudi Arabia's support for Libyan rebels demanding freedom but its suppression of reformist calls for constitutional monarchy at home and in neighbouring Bahrain is contradictory – but entirely coherent with the interests of the ruling families in both countries.
Which way should the US, with little strategic interest in north Africa but a lot at stake in the Gulf, jump? Indeed, how much democracy do both Europeans and Americans really want in the Arab world?
These are the sort of questions posed by geopolitical "realists", never more unrealistically than now, in their blithe assumption the status quo can be indefinitely prolonged.
Just as the republican dynasties of the Arabs are having to confront revolution and regime change, their absolute monarchies will need to contemplate constitutional monarchy and power-sharing if they are to survive much beyond the short term.
Saudi Arabia, Washington's main ally in the Gulf, is moving decisively the other way. Its intervention in Bahrain guarantees radicalisation when reform is all most Gulf citizens want. King Abdullah is offering his people carrots, in the form of tens of billions of dollars in hand-outs, and sticks, in the persons of tens of thousands more policemen.
He wishes to reinforce the House of Saud's historic alliance with the Wahhabi clerical establishment, the main obstacle to change, as well as the nearly seven-decades-old alliance with the US. The kingdom's rulers will eventually have to choose. With mixed messaging from the west over Libya and Bahrain, that message is not getting through.
For now, the United States continues to lead operations, although U.S. military leaders insist that control will soon be transferred to an as-yet unnamed coalition leader.posted by scalefree at 8:26 PM on March 21, 2011
Army Gen. Carter Ham, the Odyssey Dawn operational commander, told reporters on Monday that allies are stepping up to shoulder much of the mission. There were 60 sorties flown on Sunday, about half by U.S. aircraft. But on Monday, coalition allies were expected to fly more than half of the day’s 70 to 80 sorties.
Complicating matters, however, is the fact that most of the coalition nations’ militaries, which operate on a fraction of the Pentagon’s yearly allowance, are grappling with budget pressures of their own. While the Defense Department hopes to transfer control to coalition partners in the coming days, the longer the operations over Libya continue, the more difficult it will be for allies to take the lead.
“If it goes on more than a month, we’re going to be in the forefront [of operations] or we’re going to let Qaddafi stick around,” predicted former Defense comptroller Zakheim, who served under President George W. Bush. “The choices aren’t very pleasant.”
Matthews: What is going on in the war? Are we going after Qaddafi? What are we doing in this war, do we know?Oh yeah, this is going to go swimmingly. What could possibly go wrong?
Richard Engle: The rebels here think we have given them unconditional military support. Their only strategy seems to be allow the US and other military powers to scorch the earth and destroy Qaddafi's military so that they can make a very slow advance toward Tripoli.
They do see a humanitarian element to this because if Qaddafi's forces had been allowed to enter Benghazi or Tobruk there very likely would have been massacres, but now they think this rebel movement which has been leaderless and disorganized believes it has has been recognized and given the full support of the United States military.
Matthews: Are we giving arms of any kind? Small arms, artillery, armor, what are we giving to the rebels. Anything?
Engle: I have seen no evidence that we are giving the rebels anything. They seem to be holding the weapons that they seized from the units of Qaddafi that were destroyed by the Americans. Sometimes they're armed with just pocket knives...
The rebels are in two groups. There are the volunteers, they seem to be a little bit braver, they're the ones heading out to the front lines. They're not having a lot of success. That's one group. The other are the divisions of the army, formerly Qaddafi's army, that defected. And they are not really doing much of anything.
In Tobruk today, we went to the main army command to talk to one of the top generals here who had supposedly joined the rebellion. He was at home today and had taken the day off.
Matthews: My question is is there a sense that those people believe that we're going for the kill, Qaddafi?
Engle: they hope so and that's what they want. They seem to think there could be a few ways to end this conflict. The US could continue to trailblaze for them and scorch the earth so they can move forward. They think they can reach Tripoli in a short amount of time, perhaps weeks or a few months. Or if there's enough pressure, there could be some sort of coup in Tripoli and someone could come out and assassinate Qaddafi. Or the third option would be that one of these missiles comes and actually kills Qaddafi. If none of those things happen there could be a long stalemate.
Once the US starts this, once the US and other powers begin to provide the rebels with a safe haven and air cover it's very hard to take that away. Because if you're offering your protection and they try to advance, they will advance, and you take that air cover away, the rebels are very likely to start losing again and we're back to the situation where we were and the main cities being threatened with being overrun.
Day 3 of Operation Odyssey Dawn showed how the air campaign in Libya has entered the “mobile SAMs hunt” phase. This is what the increasing number of sorties by SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence) assets show. Given that the majority of the fixed SAM launchers and radar sites was clearly identified and selected ahead of the start of the operations and (most probably) attacked and destroyed during Day 1, what remains on the ground is a bunch of mobile launchers that can pose a risk to the aircraft that are (and will be) involved in the enforcement of the No-Fly Zone.
[US Navy VAQ-132 EA-18G Growlers] are particularly important since they can both identify the emitters, updating the EOB (Electronic Order of Battle) of the Libyan forces, and jam the operating frequencies of the SAM radar sites, blinding those that although capable of engaging coalition aircraft can’t be attacked because of the strict RoE (Rules of Engagement) placed to prevent collateral damages.
For sure the French intervention (claiming 4 Libyan tanks destroyed) stopped (or at least helped to stop) the loyalists forces’ advance to Benghazi but many saw this action as an attempt by President Sarkozy, that was criticised in the past for being too cautious, to give France a leading role in the North Africa crisis; others saw the warmongering behaviour as also a means to raise the profile of the Rafale by giving it visibility as a combat proven weapon system…posted by Marlinspike at 6:52 AM on March 22, 2011
Total Libyan casualties are estimated at 60, including casualties at the bombed airbases. However, the regime created a propaganda campaign with varying stories about killed civilians. For example, the regime's media claimed that Gaddafi's "adopted daughter" had been killed. The name "Hanna" was given to the press. Nobody had ever heard of such daughter. Information about her was also conflicting, for example, her age varied from 12 months to 6 years. Despite absurdity and variations of the stories, the campaign was so successful that a large proportion of the Western press reported the regime's stories as facts.posted by electroboy at 7:19 AM on March 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
One Libyan who came across the crashed jet told Britain's Daily Telegraph that one pilot held his hands in the air and said "OK, OK", but was quickly thanked by locals for his participation in the air strikes.
Younis Amruni told the Telegraph: "I hugged him and said 'don't be scared, we are your friends'."
From the BBC
A US military spokesman has denied reports that US Marines rescuing a downed pilot in Libya on Monday night shot and injured six civilians.posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:50 AM on March 22, 2011
"It didn't happen, I can deny this 100%," said Captain Richard Ulsh, a spokesman for the US Marines.
Misrata was in a desperate state yesterday, we almost lost all hope, but the strikes came at a good time with good intensity and frequency. They even managed to take out some convoys inside the city which was very impressive. Gaddafi’s forces have been hiding in a hospital… I can tell you that there’ve been zero casualties from international strikes… There are snipers on top of buildings; Gaddafi’s forces are still stationed on the main street – Tripoli street – but there’s no random shelling anymore… I’ve been able to go out, I’ve seen bakeries and groceries open for the first time in many days. The strikes made such a difference – Gaddafi’s forces are scared of them. I want to express our gratitude and appreciation for these actions, we will never ever forget!posted by metaplectic at 3:01 PM on March 23, 2011 [3 favorites]
In 2005, the United Nations approved a new doctrine called the “responsibility to protect,” nicknamed R2P, declaring that world powers have the right and obligation to intervene when a dictator devours his people. The Libyan intervention is putting teeth into that fledgling concept, and here’s one definition of progress: The world took three-and-a-half years to respond forcefully to the slaughter in Bosnia, and about three-and-a-half weeks to respond in Libya.posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 1:00 PM on March 24, 2011 [1 favorite]
Granted, intervention will be inconsistent. We’re more likely to intervene where there are also oil or security interests at stake. But just as it’s worthwhile to feed some starving children even if we can’t reach them all, it’s worth preventing some massacres or genocides even if we can’t intervene every time.
[...]
Critics of the intervention make valid arguments. It’s true that there are enormous uncertainties: Can the rebels now topple Colonel Qaddafi? What’s the exit strategy? How much will this cost?
But weighed against those uncertainties are a few certainties: If not for this intervention, Libyan civilians would be dying on a huge scale; Colonel Qaddafi’s family would be locked in place for years; and the message would have gone out to all dictators that ruthlessness works.
« Older We are IE - Comparing every version of Internet Ex... | The melodica has all the irrit... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Justinian at 6:35 PM on March 17, 2011 [10 favorites]