Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone

[nismaratwork]

continued...

If true, what a mess.

Well, if they can't turn to international bodies for help, their growing anger (misplaced or not,it hardly matters) and the predicament they find themselves in would tend to lead to easy radicalization. I'd add, it's not as though the Libyan people were in love with the west to begin with.

 

[mugaliens]

We've failed the Libyan people in every possible way...

I'm sorry, but I do not accept responsibility for another country's mess. I don't mind my tax dollars being spent to help other countries begin their recovery from natural disasters from time to time, and that includes Haiti and the Tsunami disaster a few years back. It's the humanitarian thing to do.

I strongly object to a single penny being spent on bailing out a country that's destroying itself, particularly if the people of that nation had the opportunity to overthrow their oppressors at an earlier date, but did not, instead accepting a mantle of dictatorship. If Godaffy is doing the unthinkable by murdering rebels with a legitimate grip, take him out. If that's against U.S. policy, it's time for a change in policy. If their gripe isn't legitimate, then do nothing.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm sorry, but I do not accept responsibility for another country's mess. I don't mind my tax dollars being spent to help other countries begin their recovery from natural disasters from time to time, and that includes Haiti and the Tsunami disaster a few years back. It's the humanitarian thing to do.

We're not responsible, but we've still failed them.

I strongly object to a single penny being spent on bailing out a country that's destroying itself, particularly if the people of that nation had the opportunity to overthrow their oppressors at an earlier date, but did not, instead accepting a mantle of dictatorship. If Godaffy is doing the unthinkable by murdering rebels with a legitimate grip, take him out. If that's against U.S. policy, it's time for a change in policy. If their gripe isn't legitimate, then do nothing.

I agree on the policy change, but at this point it's probably worth considering that we're watching a new Somalia or Afghanistan form before our eyes. Is it wise to leave matters be, only to come back in a decade out of necessity? I'm also finding it hard to believe that we can exert so little international pressure that we can't have an NFZ under NATO/EU.

 

[cobalt124]

I'm also finding it hard to believe that we can exert so little international pressure that we can't have an NFZ under NATO/EU.

Chances don't look good to get a no fly zone up and running.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12755896

 

[nismaratwork]

Chances don't look good to get a no fly zone up and running.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12755896

I'd have to agree with that assessment.

 

[nismaratwork]

Now this could be an interesting development...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/17/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[cobalt124]

Now this could be an interesting development...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/17/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2

Wow, I didn't think they would. I hope they are not too late.

 

[Astronuc]

Wow, I didn't think they would. I hope they are not too late.

France will apparently take action within hours. Apparently the resolution allows any action necessary to protect civilians, which sounds like Ghadafi's army (particularly tanks and artillery) is fair game.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

First, I would suspect, Cruise Missiles to take out the air defenses.

 

[AlephZero]

First, I would suspect, Cruise Missiles to take out the air defenses.

If the air defenses are mobile, it doesn't take much strategic wit to put half of them in the suburbs of the biggest government-held towns, and the the other half in the oil refineries. Let's hope the cruise missiles can shoot straight.

But if the French are involved, they might want to use the Foreign Legion Camel Corps instead. Camel dung can really mess up anti-aircraft guns

 

[cobalt124]

France will apparently take action within hours. Apparently the resolution allows any action necessary to protect civilians, which sounds like Ghadafi's army (particularly tanks and artillery) is fair game.

They are going to have to take this path, as it seems a "pure no fly zone" would be pretty useless to the rebels now.

 

[mugaliens]

U.N. Approves No-Fly over Libya 10-0, with 5 abstaining

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/libya_diplomacy" .

I would like to point out that the U.N. Security Counsel "added a paragraph in the resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire "and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians," thereby giving Gadhafi an out, but only if he takes immediate and appropriate action.

Unfortunately, Gadhafi's responses, both before and after the resolution, are not those of a leader maintaining rational control, but that of a despot, a person exercising power tyrannically. In street jargon it's known as "suicide by cop."

Personally, I'd rather we left them alone, but Gadhafi's escalation of the of slaughter of his own countrymen has crossed the line to the point where no one who considers himself a friend of the common man can idly sit by and look away.

Of the multi-national force who will soon be enforcing the no-fly zone."May their arrows fly true, and their swords cut deep." Good luck, and Godspeed.

 

[mugaliens]

I agree on the policy change, but at this point it's probably worth considering that we're watching a new Somalia or Afghanistan form before our eyes. Is it wise to leave matters be, only to come back in a decade out of necessity? I'm also finding it hard to believe that we can exert so little international pressure that we can't have an NFZ under NATO/EU.

In light of Gadhafi's further slaughters and ramblings, I no longer believe we should do nothing, and it appears a NFZ is what the doctor ordered. More in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=481988". Not trying to hijack this one. Just built one to concentrate on the NFZ as it unfolds.

In the meantime, the answer to "Who is Watching?" has been answered. At least 10 of the 15 nations on the U.N. Security Counsel.

 

[Gokul43201]

In the meantime, the answer to "Who is Watching?" has been answered. At least 10 of the 15 nations on the U.N. Security Counsel.

That sucks! I'm disappointed that more of the key member nations didn't raise the "no" flag as a check on UN aspirations. [/facetious]

 

[cobalt124]

Just heard on BBC Radio News that the French have stated that military action will take place "within hours". Can't find a link for this yet though.

EDIT: here it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12779628

"Reports suggest air strikes may begin within hours of it passing."

 

[mugaliens]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42145571/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001".

This is a good thing.

 

[AlephZero]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42145571/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001".

This is a good thing.

Hmm... I would take "cease fire" = "good opportunity for Gadaffi to regroup and redeploy forces without being shot at".

A nice cartoon in a UK national newpaper today. An arab in a command-and-control center answering the phone. "Which emergency service you do require: fire, police, ambulance, or foreign intervention?"

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42145571/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001".

This is a good thing.

Why is it good? The article title is "Fighting rages on despite Libya Cease-Fire Declaration"...

This is a very smart (impressively smart) move by Ghadaffi. It means several things:
1. Military intervention by the UN would be an act of aggression against a foreign government that isn't at war with anyone (if they stop their advances -- or maybe they can just blame the continued fighting on non-government loyalists).
2. Rebels can't attack Ghadaffi's forces without being the aggressors (they may still want to).
3. A cease-fire means stopping the revolution and that's not what the US/UN/Rebels want. The best the rebels can hope for if the cease-fire holds and hostilities end is that if they lay down their weapons, Ghadaffi won't round them up and execute them and that things just go back to the way they were before the revolution started. There is no upside for them here, only several different downsides.

Ghadaffi is calling our bluff, laying his cards on the table and making it our move. If we want him out, we have to go knock him out in an aggressive war.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why is it good? The article title is "Fighting rages on despite Libya Cease-Fire Declaration"...

This is a very smart (impressively smart) move by Ghadaffi. It means several things:
1. Military intervention by the UN would be an act of aggression against a foreign government that isn't at war with anyone (if they stop their advances -- or maybe they can just blame the continued fighting on non-government loyalists).
2. Rebels can't attack Ghadaffi's forces without being the aggressors (they may still want to).
3. A cease-fire means stopping the revolution and that's not what the US/UN/Rebels want. The best the rebels can hope for if the cease-fire holds and hostilities end is that if they lay down their weapons, Ghadaffi won't round them up and execute them and that things just go back to the way they were before the revolution started. There is no upside for them here, only several different downsides.

Ghadaffi is calling our bluff, laying his cards on the table and making it our move. If we want him out, we have to go knock him out in an aggressive war.

'All necessary means'...


I say targeted attacks and all necessary prep for an NFZ first, ask for diplomatic clarification later. The only thing explicity out was invasion, and who wants that? I hope the rebels don't 'cease-fire', which makes it impossible to withdraw without cover. If the rebels want, they can force Ghaddafi's hand, and we can take any excuse with such broad language.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Re Russ:

Our bluff? Who says anyone is bluffing?

I see nothing unexpected here. Ghadaffi is acting exactly as we would expect.

It seems to me that he got smart with Reagan as well... We all know how that one ended.

 

[nismaratwork]

Re Russ:

Our bluff? Who says anyone is bluffing?

I see nothing unexpected here. Ghadaffi is acting exactly as we would expect.

Reports would seem to support that this isn't a bluff, I suspect that there won't be a working AA RADAR installation in Libya within 6-12 hours, and if we're smart we'll target armor that's on its way back to Tripoli before it can be stowed again.

Edit: The only thing Reagan did wrong there, is not send another wing over to clean up after we missed Ghaddafi.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Edit: The only thing Reagan did wrong there, is not send another wing over to clean up after we missed Ghaddafi.

Yes, but Gh sure did get quiet for the next twenty years or so. He was never the same after that.

I always felt badly for his kid, who paid for the sins of the father.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, but Gh sure did get quiet for the next twenty years or so. He was never the same after that.

Well, the first thing he did after that was to blow Pan Am out of the sky... then he got quiet.

Remember:

Berlin Disco(Gh)
Al Aziziyah (Reagan)
Pan Am (Gh)

Truly, if he'd died, I can't imagine how much suffering would have been avoided.

What I want to know is that now we've backed him into a corner, are we going to secure or bomb/incinerate his cache of mustard agent? We don't want that being sold off, or worse, put into a crop-duster.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, the first thing he did after that was to blow Pan Am out of the sky... then he got quiet.

Remember:

Berlin Disco(Gh)
Al Aziziyah (Reagan)
Pan Am (Gh)

Whoops, you sayin I'm gettin old?

Yeah, I was thinking Pan Am came before the [Reagan's] bombing. I do distinctly remember his virtually disappearing from the face of the Earth after something we did... I thought it was the bombing.

 

[nismaratwork]

Whoops, you sayin I'm gettin old?

Yeah, I was thinking Pan Am came before the bombing. I do distinctly remember his virtually disappearing from the face of the Earth after something we did... I thought it was the bombing.

Hey, I would never sass my elders.


Kidding aside, most people seem hazy on the time-line... I think because the bombing in Berlin is often forgotten. Certainly the man changed after we bombed him... he was a sociopath before, but he became erratic and... different after. Trauma... anger... or some kind of TBI... it's a testament to a need to finish what we begin, swiftly.

Heh, figures you'd find one of the few major actions of Reagan's I agree with.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Heh, figures you'd find one of the few major actions of Reagan's I agree with.

You mean, dad?

 

[nismaratwork]

You mean, dad?

Yeah yeah... keep it up wise guy.

 

[russ_watters]

Re Russ:

Our bluff? Who says anyone is bluffing?

The world community wants Ghadaffi gone, but the UN resolution just demands a cease fire and an end to the abuse of civilians. So if Ghadaffi really ceases-fire, then he's fulfilled the resolution's key demands and the military response in the resolution shouldn't happen. In other words, by immediately complying with the resolution, he's forcing us to violate it in order to get what we want.

The "bluff" is that we're want to remove him/help the rebels remove him. He's called us on it, saying essentially: 'you want me gone? now you have to violate your own force-authorizing resolution in order to do it.'

You don't think Bush really wanted Saddam to comply with the UN's resolutions against him, do you...?

I see nothing unexpected here. Ghadaffi is acting exactly as we would expect.

Murderous dictators almost never back down. Their arrogance almost always overrules their brains. He said he'd fight to the death to keep his rule and I expected him to do so. See: Saddam, Hitler.

 

[nismaratwork]

The world community wants Ghadaffi gone, but the UN resolution just demands a cease fire and an end to the abuse of civilians. So if Ghadaffi really ceases-fire, then he's fulfilled the resolution's key demands and the military response in the resolution shouldn't happen. In other words, by immediately complying with the resolution, he's forcing us to violate it in order to get what we want.

You don't think Bush really wanted Saddam to comply with the UN's resolutions against him, do you...? Murderous dictators almost never back down. He said he'd fight to the death to keep his rule and I expected him to do so. See: Saddam.

I think one element is a saving grace here: the rebels are going to move and they're not subject to a DMZ, and have no air assets. Ghaddafi can't really afford to lose all of the ground he's lost, and "all means" includes strikes on his armor if he tries to use it, or shelling/mortars.

There is also the possiblity that with the international community looming, and no real hope for his regime, Ghaddafi will be largely abandoned, and (I hope) killed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He said he'd fight to the death to keep his rule and I expected him to do so. See: Saddam, Hitler.

More likely I think, one of his own people will take him out.

In either case, I think the practical goal [though not the best outcome] is to neuter him, not kill him. This may allow time for the revolution to regain momentum.

Obama is demanding that the Arabs take the lead so this isn't just another US invasion.

 

[cobalt124]

The world community wants Ghadaffi gone, but the UN resolution just demands a cease fire and an end to the abuse of civilians. So if Ghadaffi really ceases-fire, then he's fulfilled the resolution's key demands and the military response in the resolution shouldn't happen. In other words, by immediately complying with the resolution, he's forcing us to violate it in order to get what we want.

This is exactly what I thought Gadaffi would do, as he could afford to play a waiting game, but from what the rebels say, fighting continues and if true he is bluffing. Either way, he is an example of unaccountable wickedness and he needs to be removed from power.

 

[jreelawg]

What it seamed to me was that the UN resolution authorizes the use of force to protect civilians. Does it authorize the use of force to protect the rebels? There is a difference between peaceful protesters and armed rebels.

Has Gadaffi been indicted?

I think a strong message to send would be, to demand that Gadaffi loyalists hand him over to be arrested and tried. Make it clear that those who help Gadaffi will be also charged and tried when his regime inevitably falls.

 

[nismaratwork]

More likely I think, one of his own people will take him out.

In either case, I think the practical goal [though not the best outcome] is to neuter him, not kill him. This may allow time for the revolution to regain momentum.

Obama is demanding that the Arabs take the lead so this isn't just another US invasion.

I would generally agree that he'd be killed by his own, but with is sons and daughter likely in control, a decapitating action would have to go well beyond Ghaddafi himself.

I would tend towards a limited scorched Earth policy for armor not held by rebels (assuming intel can be provided), and using the hellfire missiles that are very effective and kill that family to the last.

I look at Baby Doc, now Aristide... some people need killing, banishment and neutering as you say, is not enough. The point about the AL, I am in complete agreement with.

 

[russ_watters]

President Barack Obama is trying to limit the United States' role in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to support aircraft only and is very reluctant to commit any offensive U.S. firepower, a senior U.S. official familiar with the military planning discussions said Friday.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/index.html?hpt=T1

Obama's lack of leadership is glaring yet again. He's taken heat throughout this event for being wishy-washy and not leading, but this is just too much. In a brief, token show of leadership, he asked for and got a UN resolution for a no-fly zone, but now he's not going to lead that effort? What the hell?!

This UN resolution has a very real chance of doing more harm than good. It gave Ghadaffi an internationally-sanctioned way out of the crisis that preserves his rule.

Criticism from Gingrich:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich launched another zinger at President Obama on Thursday by channeling President Theodore Roosevelt who famously said "Walk softly and carry a big stick."

Of the president, Gingrich said "Theodore Roosevelt said you have to walk softly and carry a big stick. This is a guy who talks loudly and has no stick."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-loudly-has-no-stick/?iref=allsearch&hpt=Sbin

Note: Gingrich said that before Obama gave his speech this afternoon saying he wasn't going to support the NFZ with weapons.

I disagree with him on the first part, though: Obama talks eloquently when discussing vague generalities and idealistic principles, but when it comes to leadership, he talks mumblingly, not loudly. From downplaying terrorist attacks to giving confusing and contradictory messages to Egypt and Libya, he's proving what I always believed and often said: being a great public speaker is not the same as being a great leader. Much to my shock, he was able to convince people the Earth was flat with a few of his campaign promises, but I expected that when forced to start dealing with realities that require leadership, he'd start fumbling.

 

[cobalt124]

I would generally agree that he'd be killed by his own, but with is sons and daughter likely in control, a decapitating action would have to go well beyond Ghaddafi himself.

Yes, I thought at first removing Gadaffi would be sufficient, but it seems that his family and those close to it would need removing as well, root and branch.

This UN resolution has a very real chance of doing more harm than good. It gave Ghadaffi an internationally-sanctioned way out of the crisis that preserves his rule.

I share that fear too. I can't comment on Obamas performance in this, but the problem he has is that he cannot be seen to be taking the lead on this, lest it brings to the fore anti-U.S. opinion in the Arab League, so in that sense I believe he is doing the right thing by letting other nations take the lead. That does show good leadership IMO.