Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone

[Ivan Seeking]

Everyone gets restless after a long winter.

Because Obama has proceeded with the war in Afghanistan, and because I support Obama, my left of left friend calls it MY war. He will NEVER forgive me for Libya. I might has well have dropped the bombs myself!

At least I can default to "George started it!", when he complains about Aghanistan.

 

[FlexGunship]

Because Obama has proceeded with the war in Afghanistan, and because I support Obama, my left of left friend calls it MY war. He will NEVER forgive me for Libya. I might has well have dropped the bombs myself!

I was wondering where to point the finger on this one! I'm actually kind of glad to see that Obama has the "guts" to stand-up in an international forum like this and show a bellicose side.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was wondering where to point the finger on this one! I'm actually kind of glad to see that Obama has the "guts" to stand-up in an international forum like this and show a bellicose side.

Once I felt that I had begun to understand the man, I never had any doubts he would do what was needed when needed. But he is far more sensitive to the perceptions and concerns of our friends in the Middle East [and the surrounding area] than we have been in the past. This makes him look weak to some, but I think Libya shows that is not the case.

In this case, his caution caused delays. Unfortunate but wise, imo. He wanted to shore up support first.

 

[cobalt124]

Why not? He's the problem, he should be the primary target.

Taking this view, it seems Resolution 1973 (and resolutions in general) are vaguely worded to gain consensus, and hence have wriggle room to justify targetting Gadaffi.

 

[FlexGunship]

Once I felt that I began to understand the man, I never had any doubts he would do what was needed when needed.

Heh, I'm still not sure I understand him. He's slowly becoming more and more like former President Clinton which isn't fundamentally bad, but I feel like he ran on a lot of platforms that should've distanced himself from that. Surprised to see his handling of Guantanamo recently (not that I agree or disagree with it).

I'm curious, now, to see if Libya ever evolves into a real land war (involving the U.S. among other possible partners). This is what I'm waiting for:

http://www.bobsviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obama-mission-accomplished.jpg

(Note: It's funny how easy it was to find this image.)

 

[cobalt124]

Once I felt that I began to understand the man, I never had any doubts he would do what was needed when needed. But he is far more sensitive to the perceptions and concerns of our friends in the Middle East than we have been in the past. This makes him look weak to some, but I think Libya shows that is not the case.

He doesn't look weak to me, he looks like he's doing the right thing. Perceptions in the U.S. are totally different though, I suspect.

 

[cobalt124]

BBC:

0833: The Guardian is running a piece entitled "Libya crisis may save Nicolas Sarkozy from electoral humiliation". Jonathan Freedland, the newspaper's correspondent in Paris, says the French president certainly needs something to prevent him coming third in next year's election.

Would Sarkozy start this to enhance his reputation domestically? What reason did he have for making a stand? Oil? Principle?

Also read that the UAE have "downgraded" from military involvement to humanitarian aid.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

BBC:

0833: The Guardian is running a piece entitled "Libya crisis may save Nicolas Sarkozy from electoral humiliation". Jonathan Freedland, the newspaper's correspondent in Paris, says the French president certainly needs something to prevent him coming third in next year's election.

Would Sarkozy start this to enhance his reputation domestically? What reason did he have for making a stand? Oil? Principle?

Also read that the UAE have "downgraded" from military involvement to humanitarian aid.

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm curious, now, to see if Libya ever evolves into a real land war (involving the U.S. among other possible partners). This is what I'm waiting for:

No doubt we will do everything possible to avoid that one. I am reminded of the quote that first really grabbed my attention. This situation may play out as a chance to see if he was 100% correct. We already know that he got most of it right.

I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

Emphasis mine.

 

[Skrew]

Ehm, I proabbly shouldn't post this but I can't resist.

1. Is there proof that the rebels aren't largely Islamic radicals, and that islamic radicals won't be able to take over the movement.

2. Is there proof that the post Gaddafi government will be able to better manage the country and won't become a muslim theocracy.

We all know how the last two middle-east "liberations" went, it's highly amusing to me that anyone thinks this one will go better.

 

[Proton Soup]

You think he deserves a promotion? He has the tactical and strategic mind of a kumquat.

There's no perma-link to this image, so it might go AWOL in a little while. But I wanted to share this. It's a coalition air-strike on Libyan ground vehicles. New York Times reports there were "government vehicles" targeted. I'm not sure that I've heard of this yet. I understood all air operations to be in an effort to preserve the no-fly zone plus reconnaissance.

Prelude to ground war?

vehicle? not everything that looks like a tank is a tank. the Bradley troop carrier is what people in the military call a vehicle. video of damaged APCs i linked to earlier were vehicles.


it sort of looks like we have been leveling the playing field so to speak in Libya. i haven't checked news today, but what I'm expecting is for this thing to turn into a small arms fire civil war. it could end quickly, or go on for who knows how long. or will the french and brits storm the place and fight alongside their new allies? it seems the colonial powers have given the rebels a fighting chance. i think they need to back off now and let them settle this themselves. if the "libyan people" are to prevail here, i think they need to do it with a bit of dignity and pride. that will mean a bit of blood, but a successful state is something that people have some sense of being their own. complete failure is still an option of course, but you simply have to let things happen if you are to have anything at all.

 

[cobalt124]

I would bet that we insisted that the French strike first. France has a long history of straddling the line or opposing US actions. On the face of things at least, it appeared to be a clear statement to the international community that we are all in this one together.

It wouldn't at all surprise me if this idea came directly from Obama.

Ah. Forgotten that. Falling for the spin.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm still confused by what I see as mixed and unclear messages from Obama about what we're doing, but setting that aside, I'd like to analyze the current situation as a whole and where it might go from here:

1. Obama (and much of the world community) wants Gadhaffi gone.
2. The NFZ is not designed to remove him.
3. The NFZ is designed to prevent Libyan air assets from attacking civilians. But:
4. No distinction is actually made between air assets attacking civilians and air assets attacking rebels. In other words, we're providing the rebels with clear skies.
5. The NFZ also includes preventing Libyan ground forces from attacking civilians. But again:
6. No distinction is actually made between civilians and rebels, so the NFZ is providing rebels safety from all kinds of attacks in Benghazi. So:
7. The current situation is a stalemate, with civilians and rebels provided safety in Benghazi by the UN and Ghadaffi's forces unharrassed as long as they don't venture into the air or out toward Benghazi on land. What can break this stalemate?
8. Presumably, the coalition is hoping the rebels leave Benghazi to attack Tripoli. What if they don't? How long are we willing to maintain the current stalemate? If they do:
9. Presumably, we will provide them clear skies as per the NFZ. Will we allow rebel air assets to attack Tripoli? Will we attack Ghadaffi's land assets as they defend Tripoli against the rebels?

Very interesting predicament, this is.

 

[cobalt124]

@Russ: post #144 may give a broad answer to your (my) confusion. The U.S. perspective is going to be totally different to a European, or Arab one say. I think Americans will be the most confused in all of this, as the question Why? will be much more troublesome in the U.S., I suspect.

Point 8: The rebels in Benghazi have stated their intent to take Tripoli and the whole of Libya, and from what I've seen so far, it's looking more like stalemate than anything else.

 

[nismaratwork]

You think he deserves a promotion? He has the tactical and strategic mind of a kumquat.

There's no perma-link to this image, so it might go AWOL in a little while. But I wanted to share this. It's a coalition air-strike on Libyan ground vehicles. New York Times reports there were "government vehicles" targeted. I'm not sure that I've heard of this yet. I understood all air operations to be in an effort to preserve the no-fly zone plus reconnaissance.

Prelude to ground war?

I'd say it's just destroying C&C, which of course happens to be the existing government and the Ghaddafis. I think everyone understands that killing the symbolic and practical leaders of Ghaddafi's regime would end our need for involvement.

@Russ: UN-1973 is more than an NFZ, it's all means to protect civilians... I could interpret that to mean leveling Tripoli.

@Proton: I agree, and leave them to their civil war, the issues here are preventing a government from using internationally provided arms to slaughter its own citizens, and killing or removing the Ghaddafis to prevent reprisals.

 

[russ_watters]

@Russ: post #144 may give a broad answer to your (my) confusion.

Obama's stance on this issue is perhaps the most clear of any:

President Obama said today that the goal of United Nations-sanctioned military action in Libya is to protect citizens, not regime change -- but the goal of U.S. policy is that Moammar Gadhafi "has to go."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-speaks-in-chile/1

So: We want him to go, but we won't attack him directly. Though that doesn't mean we might lie or that we might see military value in a place he might be hiding...

 

[nismaratwork]

Obama's stance on this issue is perhaps the most clear of any: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-speaks-in-chile/1

So: We want him to go, but we won't attack him directly. Though that doesn't mean we might lie or that we might see military value in a place he might be hiding...

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

 

[russ_watters]

@Russ: UN-1973 is more than an NFZ, it's all means to protect civilians... I could interpret that to mean leveling Tripoli.

I'm not sure to which of my points you are responding.

 

[russ_watters]

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

Diplospeak demands we say that we won't attack him because he's a head of state, but the reality of the military situation is that you are correct.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not sure to which of my points you are responding.

#153, re all questions about the NFZ. As you say in your last post, diplo-speak is one thing, the reality another. We're not there for an NFZ, we're there to "protect civilians"... a really sadistic person could take that so far as to protect them from Ghaddafi by leveling Tripoli.

Beyond that, I would Prefer Obama simply step up and, "send in the boys," and kill the Ghaddafis... it needs to happen. I understand that the Libyan people want him, but it's not their weaponry making this happen... kill him, keep the NFZ, and get out.

edit: We can cease to recognize him as a head of state.

 

[apeiron]

I agree, and leave them to their civil war, the issues here are preventing a government from using internationally provided arms to slaughter its own citizens, and killing or removing the Ghaddafis to prevent reprisals.

The international issue here is surely "how best do we ensure the oil continues to ship?".

If supporting a despot no longer works, people will be planning the smoothest transition to anything else which achieves the prime objective.

A prolonged civil war would clearly be bad. The international community would want one or either side to win fast. But a civil war that rapidly divides the country in two might be acceptable. So let Ghaddafi run the oil-less half, and deal with the new rebel state.

Libyan rebels in Benghazi said they have created a new national oil company to replace the corporation controlled by leader Muammar Qaddafi and whose assets were frozen by the United Nations Security Council.

The Transitional National Council released a statement announcing the decision taken in a March 19 meeting to establish the “Libyan Oil Company as supervisory authority on oil production and policies in the country, based temporarily in Benghazi, and the appointment of an interim director general” of the company.

The Council also said it “designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/libyan-rebel-council-sets-up-oil-company-to-replace-qaddafi-s.html

 

[nismaratwork]

The international issue here is surely "how best do we ensure the oil continues to ship?".

If supporting a despot no longer works, people will be planning the smoothest transition to anything else which achieves the prime objective.

A prolonged civil war would clearly be bad. The international community would want one or either side to win fast. But a civil war that rapidly divides the country in two might be acceptable. So let Ghaddafi run the oil-less half, and deal with the new rebel state.

I would agree if the last time Ghaddafi had HE dropped on him didn't result in Pan Am over Lockerbie. He needs to die while the political will to oppose such a move can't be mustered.

 

[apeiron]

I would agree if the last time Ghaddafi had HE dropped on him didn't result in Pan Am over Lockerbie. He needs to die while the political will to oppose such a move can't be mustered.

On that score, you would be right. Depends where his true motivations lie - self-preservation or going out with a bang.

But the history post-Lockerbie show just how much s*** oil-hungry nations are willing to swallow to keep the black stuff pumping.

People are muttering about Obama's dilly-dallying responses. I'd love to be in the situation room as his advisors try to work out how to keep the whole middle east from melting down this year. Yemen, Saudi, Bahrain, etc. Talk about a multidimensional chess game going on.

One too hasty step in this minefield and kaboom to the economy. The oil futures market is probably the best asssement of Obama's handling so far.

 

[nismaratwork]

On that score, you would be right. Depends where his true motivations lie - self-preservation or going out with a bang.

But the history post-Lockerbie show just how much s*** oil-hungry nations are willing to swallow to keep the black stuff pumping.

People are muttering about Obama's dilly-dallying responses. I'd love to be in the situation room as his advisors try to work out how to keep the whole middle east from melting down this year. Yemen, Saudi, Bahrain, etc. Talk about a multidimensional chess game going on.

One too hasty step in this minefield and kaboom to the economy. The oil futures market is probably the best asssement of Obama's handling so far.

Possibly, but again we buy so little oil from Libya that I still find oil a hard one to swallow. Iraq sure, but Libya?... I'm not sure that it matters so much for us, but it's hell for France, Spain and Italy. If it were just oil, I think you'd see the USA telling the EU to sit and spin.

 

[apeiron]

Possibly, but again we buy so little oil from Libya that I still find oil a hard one to swallow. Iraq sure, but Libya?... I'm not sure that it matters so much for us, but it's hell for France, Spain and Italy. If it were just oil, I think you'd see the USA telling the EU to sit and spin.

It's Italy, France and Germany who are the main buyers. And if they can't buy from Libya, they have to go elsewhere in the market. So the outcome is the same.

Iraq is pumping more (mission accomplished!). And Saudi is struggling to as well. But it seems plain it does not have the reserve capacity that people were banking on.

So no, Libya is critical to the global oil supply picture even if it has its particular customers.

What are the economic implications for the United States?
The United States buys less than 3 percent of Libya’s oil, so supply disruptions are not a front-burner issue. Italy and France account for over 40 percent, while China, Germany and Spain account for 30 percent. These countries will be affected most directly and must do much more to bring about a speedy and equitable resolution to the crisis.
This does not mean that the United States is not vulnerable. As the world’s largest oil consumer the U.S. is particularly susceptible to price volatility. Fallout from the Libyan crisis has nudged the price of crude above $100/barrel; this increase has already been reflected at the pumps --- imposing additional financial burdens on U.S. businesses and households as the economy struggles to recover from the recent financial crisis.

http://www.usip.org/publications/oil-and-turmoil-in-libya

 

[nismaratwork]

It's Italy, France and Germany who are the main buyers. And if they can't buy from Libya, they have to go elsewhere in the market. So the outcome is the same.

Iraq is pumping more (mission accomplished!). And Saudi is struggling to as well. But it seems plain it does not have the reserve capacity that people were banking on.

So no, Libya is critical to the global oil supply picture even if it has its particular customers.

Still, it's not the same result for the USA... in fact it could have been a useful squeeze to put on europe to cause it to act alone. The action in tandem doesn't smell like oil to me, anymore than Kosovo did, I think it's more to do with having been complicit in mass murder down to the ammo.

 

[apeiron]

Still, it's not the same result for the USA... in fact it could have been a useful squeeze to put on europe to cause it to act alone. The action in tandem doesn't smell like oil to me, anymore than Kosovo did, I think it's more to do with having been complicit in mass murder down to the ammo.

So how do you know that your views haven't been shaped by subtle government spin? Here is another interesting view where the parallels with Iraq are being pointed out. Suddenly all the talk about Ghaddafi's chemical weapons, etc. Something simply has to be done this time!

If US appears to be dragged into this for puzzling reasons as you say, maybe that's just how people want it to look?

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/03/libya-operation-foreign-oil-interests-prompt-invasion

Nazemroaya is saying that the prize in US terms would be access to not just current Libyan production (because there would be a new regime the US could legitimately deal with...although note US oil firms have been back in there the past five years) but its much larger reserves that mean production has been under-exploited in international eyes.

 

[rootX]

So how do you know that your views haven't been shaped by subtle government spin? Here is another interesting view where the parallels with Iraq are being pointed out. Suddenly all the talk about Ghaddafi's chemical weapons, etc. Something simply has to be done this time!

If US appears to be dragged into this for puzzling reasons as you say, maybe that's just how people want it to look?

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/03/libya-operation-foreign-oil-interests-prompt-invasion

Nazemroaya is saying that the prize in US terms would be access to not just current Libyan production (because there would be a new regime the US could legitimately deal with...although note US oil firms have been back in there the past five years) but its much larger reserves that mean production has been under-exploited in international eyes.

That's bit too much of a stretch, yes they can try to secure oil but everyone understands uncertain future of Libya and that things can go worse off than turning out in the interests of Western nations. The western nations seem clueless at best to me at least the president Obama. Europeans are involved to limit the migrants coming from Libya IMO.

I don't know what they bringing by interfering in other nation's internal affairs but only time can tell. Meanwhile, I support China and Russia stance.

 

[nismaratwork]

So how do you know that your views haven't been shaped by subtle government spin? Here is another interesting view where the parallels with Iraq are being pointed out. Suddenly all the talk about Ghaddafi's chemical weapons, etc. Something simply has to be done this time!

It's possible, but I've wanted Ghaddafi dead for longer than this has been an issue. I'm quite liberal in my desire to see people likehis family removed, and a great fan of assasination. Ghaddafi's mustard agent is a concern for his people, not for the international community beyond possible proliferation. Everything I've heard on the news has generally been to point out that it's not coupled with the proper delivery mechanism. Before the NFZ, he could in theory have loaded some cropdusters, but who's going to fly them now if they even exist?

No, I'm far less interested in occupation than I am in simply lopping off "the head" until one emerges that is more pleasing. I know, it's not a very nice view, but it's been mine for decades. I would be shocked if there weren't numerous parallels between two conflicts in the same region, but without a far greater build-up of forces, nobody is taking Libya. The practical challenges would be enormous, the public will nonexistant, and the military capacity hasn't been moved at all. You need landing craft, airlifts, armor in place... that's just not there.

If US appears to be dragged into this for puzzling reasons as you say, maybe that's just how people want it to look?

What's so puzzling? Libya has been second only to Saudi Arabia and Iran in their production and proliferation of terrorism, the real deal not kids with fiery undies. I don't think anyone is foolish enough to believe that we won't have more Pan Ams and worse... unlike Hussein he has proven to be an international threat on multiple occasions.

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/03/libya-operation-foreign-oil-interests-prompt-invasion

Nazemroaya is saying that the prize in US terms would be access to not just current Libyan production (because there would be a new regime the US could legitimately deal with...although note US oil firms have been back in there the past five years) but its much larger reserves that mean production has been under-exploited in international eyes.

Meh, a passing conflict isn't going to change that, if anything this is threatening the short-term production. I think this is largely a concession to our EU partners who on their own, would probably incur losses in this kind of operation. We have France initiating hostilities, a huge diplomatic fronting for this... it's breaking an old precedent. China and Russia abstained, rather than exercising their veto, which is an another excellent precedent for the region, especially if we have a realistic view of Iran in the coming decades.

I think oil is a very comfortable and easy reason, but it doesn't fit here well, if at all.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's bit too much of a stretch, yes they can try to secure oil but everyone understands uncertain future of Libya and that things can go worse off than turning out in the interests of Western nations. The western nations seem clueless at best to me at least the president Obama. Europeans are involved to limit the migrants coming from Libya IMO.

I don't know what they bringing by interfering in other nation's internal affairs but only time can tell. Meanwhile, I support China and Russia stance.

You mean you support abstentions from veto-weilding countries, which is as good as a green light?

 

[rootX]

You mean you support abstentions from veto-weilding countries, which is as good as a green light?

Yes.

For clarification, I didn't know what you meant by green light (green light to Qaddafi or green light to western nations). But both Putin and Medvedev are unsure what will be the consequences.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12810566

Putin put it rather bluntly: "medieval calls for crusades".

China: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...1/03/21/ABwL4M7_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes.

Ok, but why is that somehow better or worse than a 'yea' vote, except that it leaves them out of having to fund or participate in an action they tacitly support?

 

[apeiron]

Europeans are involved to limit the migrants coming from Libya IMO.

Excellent point. There does otherwise seem a strong self-interest in letting Ghaddafi put down the rebels and going back to dealing with his regime.

The motives behind what is happening are murky. Oil is the big game in the middle east. Terrorism, humanitarianism, public opinion, have all tended to come a distant second in the past. Just consider Saudi. So I say follow the money and see what that says.

But immigration/refugees is also an issue that catches a politician's attention.

 

[nismaratwork]

Excellent point. There does otherwise seem a strong self-interest in letting Ghaddafi put down the rebels and going back to dealing with his regime.

The motives behind what is happening are murky. Oil is the big game in the middle east. Terrorism, humanitarianism, public opinion, have all tended to come a distant second in the past. Just consider Saudi. So I say follow the money and see what that says.

But immigration/refugees is also an issue that catches a politician's attention.

You think that France, Italy, Germany, the UK and the USA care if Tunisia and Egypt become home to a diaspora formed from a population of about 5 million? That's pretty flimsy...

 

[apeiron]

What's so puzzling? Libya has been second only to Saudi Arabia and Iran in their production and proliferation of terrorism, the real deal not kids with fiery undies. I don't think anyone is foolish enough to believe that we won't have more Pan Ams and worse... unlike Hussein he has proven to be an international threat on multiple occasions.

From my perspective, having lived with several decades of the IRA threat, the US concern with terrorism seems over-blown - or rather a fear whipped up to achieve political ends.

You have to remember that the IRA managed to blow Maggie and her loyal crew out of their hotel beds in 1984. And the US was letting Noraid and others raise US dollars to pay for the bombs.

So if you want to understand international relations, follow the self-interest. Terrorism is a fine excuse, but is it really an over-riding concern?

What damage could terrorists actually do in the long run - compared to a good earthquake for example?