Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone

[rootX]

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.

I am not sure why US is involved in this .. when it is none of its business. But without going into too much of skepticism (going into specific details) at best I can say US intentions are murky and unclear.

Europe will certainly have a big headache if it does not put down the rebels soon. Immigration/refugees are quite popular political topics all over the Europe.

 

[nismaratwork]

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?

They could be the nail in the coffin of an airline for one... where is Pan Am? For another, there is the blowback of doing nothing, which could have been profound in this case. by striking a middle ground where we don't support and train the opposition, but rather "level" the playing field, everyone is happy... sort of.

Rather, everyone is equally miserable, and as a bonus we have the French, AL, and UN tied up in this so tightly they can't escape... quite the diplomatic coup after 8 years of bumbling idiocy and unilateral action.

Sometimes the self-interest isn't oil or land or people, it can be opinion and compromising others. I don't dispute that ulterior motives exist beyond "humanitarian" missile strikes, but the ones you've picked just don't fit this situation.

Then again, we're also posititoning ourselves to be the friends of these emerging governments, who are rapdily overthrowing rulers who were our business partners. There is a lot going on here, and I think it's many things adding up to impetus, rather than one major subterfuge.

 

[nismaratwork]

I am not sure why US is involved in this .. when it is none of its business. But without going into too much of skepticism (going into specific details) at best I can say US intentions are murky and unclear.

Europe will certainly have a big headache if it does not put down the rebels soon. Immigration/refugees are quite popular political topics all over the Europe.

I think the moment Mirage jets were ordered to fire on civilians, and Italian, French, German, and other EU money was hiring mercenaries, the die was cast. The USA has a lot to gain from forcing the European hand here, and tying it to the UN and AL.

 

[apeiron]

They could be the nail in the coffin of an airline for one... where is Pan Am?

Well, that's no biggie.

For another, there is the blowback of doing nothing,

Which has to be weighed against the blowback of doing something. Going in and throwing your weight around is a good way of radicalising the undecided.

Terrorism has political aims, so you have to tackle the cause rather than the symptoms.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, that's no biggie.



Which has to be weighed against the blowback of doing something. Going in and throwing your weight around is a good way of radicalising the undecided.

Terrorism has political aims, so you have to tackle the cause rather than the symptoms.

The cause in this case is simple: maintain power and influence for the Ghaddafis. Libya is not about to become a US ally, and without arming or training them they can be radicalized all they want, and be limited to PETN panty-raids.

The concern is government sponsored terrorism, which Ghaddafi has been the leader of since the 80's... probably second only to the Iranian regime with Imad Mugniyeh. Still, I don't think terrorism is the main concern, only one which emerges once we've engaged with Ghaddafi. Now that we have, it is a very real concern, but again not the primary one.

 

[apeiron]

The concern is government sponsored terrorism, which Ghaddafi has been the leader of since the 80's...

But that's the point. What was a good selling point for Ghaddafi in his early days has long since ceased to be a major issue.

As a ‘revolutionary state', Libya under the rule of Qadhafi supported a great number of national liberation and guerrilla movements, as well as dedicated terrorist organizations.

In recent years, Tripoli has taken many steps to correct its past misdeeds, settle international claims, and disassociate itself from its terrorist past. In the process Libya has benefited greatly, as evidenced by Gadafi's recent rehabilitation in the west.

The US State Department had claimed until early last year that there have been no cases of Libyan state-sponsored terrorism since 1994...

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=30149

So you are responding to ancient history, talking about settling ancient scores. Political decisions being made now will be about future outcomes. Why would a broken, poor and oil-dispossed Ghaddafi be a threat that couldn't be handled as the need arises?

The number one goal has to be political stability in an oil-rich nation. Whatever that looks like. Everything else seems like window-dressing concerns (except the refugees as rootx points out).

 

[Al68]

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

What is with the all too common obsession with talking about the peripheral, and IMO irrelevant, issue of oil supply in this type of context? How many pages of this thread will be devoted to derailing it over such an irrelevancy?

Oil supply is irrelevant, and so is the fact that some people think oil supply is the "real" motive of other people. Unless this thread is about esp or mind-reading, nobody knows the motives of another, and such speculation only hinders legitimate debate.

 

[apeiron]

Oil supply is irrelevant, and so is the fact that some people think oil supply is the "real" motive of other people. Unless this thread is about esp or mind-reading, nobody knows the motives of another, and such speculation only hinders legitimate debate.

Can you support your claim of irrelevancy with some sources? And does it make sense that nations would act except out of their strategic interests?

If what you say is true, then why has the US gone so easy on Saudi? Why did it care so little about Zimbabwe? Why did it permit Noraid?

And when you say speculation hinders legitimate debate, I really have to scratch my head here. Until I realize you only mean the difference between opinions you agree or disagree with.

I would suggest legitimate debate is reading current affairs according to known strategic objectives of the parties concerned (US admin has gone on record often enough over oil and pipelines).

But if you don't want your threads derailed, better not start asking for the back story on this I guess.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

Well let's see. After 911, we started two wars that have cost well over a trillion dollars; our country was changed forever, our freedoms were threatened, our rights were challenged, we started torturing people thus violating a most sacred trust with the American people and the rest of the world, and we even considered the use of nuclear weapons. How many people died when we attacked Iraq; 200,000 or so?

As for motive, of course Libya is of strategic interest. But if your point is valid, why didn't we invade Libya long ago? Opportunity. The people of Libya are asking for help. Also, a land invasion - a sure way to gain control of the country - is the last thing we want.

Are you suggesting that we could attack Saudi Arabia and not start a wider conflict? Are the Arab nations begging us to intervene in Saudi? Have we seen the Saudi government launch military attacks on its own cities?

 

[apeiron]

Well let's see. After 911, we started two wars that have cost well over a trillion dollars; our country was changed forever, our freedoms were threatened, our rights were challenged, we started torturing people thus violating a most sacred trust with the American people and the rest of the world, and we even considered the use of nuclear weapons. How many people died when we attacked Iraq; 200,000 or so?

As for motive, of course Libya is of strategic interest. But if your point is valid, why didn't we invade Libya long ago? Opportunity. The people of Libya are asking for help.

Are you suggesting that we could attack Saudi Arabia and not start a wider conflict? Are the Arab nations begging us to intervene in Saudi? Have we seen the Saudi government launch military attacks on its own cities?

Are you being cleverly ironic here or having a go at me? Very hard to tell.

My point was that other countries put up with worse all the time. The US had choices about how to respond to 9/11. I am not endorsing its choices. And neither it appears do you.

So perhaps you simply misunderstood me?

 

[Al68]

And when you say speculation hinders legitimate debate, I really have to scratch my head here.

I was referring to the speculation about the motives of others, a classical logical fallacy (ad hominem argument). Plus there is simply no way to substantiate such claims in any objective way.

Maybe others are interested in such speculation, but it's irrelevant to me. I like to stick to verifiable facts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are you being cleverly ironic here or having a go at me? Very hard to tell.

My point was that other countries put up with worse all the time. The US had choices about how to respond to 9/11. I am not endorsing its choices. And neither it appears do you.

So perhaps you simply misunderstood me?

I am talking about reality, not how things should be. True, the reaction of my own country frightened me more than any act of terror. But it DID change us. And it did finally result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people - many of whom had no choice but to fight. I also have little doubt that a successful attack of significant consequence, on the US, will result with the launch of nuclear weapons.

I also reject the premise that we are now acting purely out of self-interest. We can't go around bombing every petty dictator, but there are times when action is appropriate and possible.

 

[petergreat]

Obama could you please remove Gaddaffi as soon as possible? You could've stayed the hell out of Lybia, but since you did intervene, could you be more quick and lethal? The current indecision is potentially splitting a sovereign country into two. That's the nastiest part! It's not even funny.

 

[apeiron]

I am talking about reality, not how things should be. True, the reaction of my own country frightened me more than any act of terror. But it DID change us. And it did finally result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people - many of whom had no choice but to fight. I also have little doubt that a successful attack of significant consequence, on the US, will result with the launch of nuclear weapons.

I also reject the premise that we are now acting purely out of self-interest. We can't go around bombing every petty dictator, but there are times when action is appropriate and possible.

Err, well, OK. So you think that next time a nuclear retaliation would be justified? Or are you just saying that hysteria has reached new hights over there?

 

[apeiron]

Maybe others are interested in such speculation, but it's irrelevant to me. I like to stick to verifiable facts.

So not a fan of Fox News then?

 

[nismaratwork]

But that's the point. What was a good selling point for Ghaddafi in his early days has long since ceased to be a major issue.



So you are responding to ancient history, talking about settling ancient scores. Political decisions being made now will be about future outcomes. Why would a broken, poor and oil-dispossed Ghaddafi be a threat that couldn't be handled as the need arises?

The number one goal has to be political stability in an oil-rich nation. Whatever that looks like. Everything else seems like window-dressing concerns (except the refugees as rootx points out).

We've never managed to create a poor Qaddafi, despite decades of sanctions, never mind a broken one. His children are rather monstrous, and frankly the state has only ever changed in response to threats.

I think you also don't appreciate how bad it's getting now, and how bad it was about to become. Qaddafi would have been thrilled to take the chance to wipe out a few hundred thousand or more rival tribe members and install cronies. Remember, all of this took time, it took Qaddafi relentlessly shelling and street-sweeping his own people.

Why not Sudan? Why not the Congo? Why not X, Y, or Z? As Ivan said, opportunity. There is nothing for a nation to apologize for, it MUST act in its own interests, but to always look for the same ulterior motive is blinding you.

Now personally, I think the solution here is more direct and violent than we generally have the stomach for, but that's beside the point. Libya is a recent creation in its current form, utterly funded by western powers, China, and Russia. It's one thing to step between people riding each other down with old guns and machetes, and another to let them use air assets you sold them to slaughter.

Remember, we didn't start these revolts in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya... and we're losing allies as a result. The idea that the international community would stand by in such a case is madness; new lines will be drawn in a vital part of the world.

There is also a very real humanitarian interest, because however many are killed in these limited strikes, worse has already happened in Al Zawiya and Misrata. The mistake was not killing Hussen in Gulf 1.. we can live with broken states that are bound to end that way; artificial creations of a recently fallen empire.

We cannot live with slaughter in a strategically important area, nor can we pass the chance to recover international standing and bind the EU, UN, and AL to this action. It's not a nice thing, but it's a more realistic set of motives that pure love of life, or oil.

 

[nismaratwork]

Err, well, OK. So you think that next time a nuclear retaliation would be justified? Or are you just saying that hysteria has reached new hights over there?

It depends... I think you could argue that a high altitude, low explosive, high radiation yield strike would have killed fewer than 10 years of sanctions in Iraq, never mind the second war.

Life isn't fair, and the only reason nuclear weapons are NOT used, is simply that they're standoff weapons right now. If we had kinetic weapons of similar yield, you don't think we'd fail to use them do you?

Again, sometimes you leave things alone, but sometimes you need to level a city to make a point, and save more lives. It's not right, it's not good, it just IS, and has been for millenia; only the coverage and weapons have changed.

 

[apeiron]

sometimes you need to level a city to make a point.

Containing terrorism by levelling cities full of civilians? Sorry, makes no sense at all.

Police action and political pressure are the way it works in the real world. Invading countries is either civilian hysteria or shock doctrine at work.

 

[nismaratwork]

Containing terrorism by levelling cities full of civilians? Sorry, makes no sense at all.

Police action and political pressure are the way it works in the real world. Invading countries is either civilian hysteria or shock doctrine at work.

History disagrees; police actions become quagmires, decimation made an empire.

 

[apeiron]

History disagrees; police actions become quagmires, decimation made an empire.

Alternatively...

By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory.

These findings suggest that the U.S. approach to countering al Qa'ida has focused far too much on the use of military force. Instead, policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

 

[nismaratwork]

Alternatively...

I disagree for the reasons stated, but I don't claim to be right... if ever there was an "IMO" moment, it's contrasting history with a dynamic and uncertain present. I don't claim to know anything special, I just don't believe that our hesitance is a good idea. In my view, it's either total engagement, or total disengagement when it comes to combat. It's a very binary kind of event anyway, and these middle grounds just don't sit well with me.

The only exception would have to be Kosovo...

 

[Proton Soup]

History disagrees; police actions become quagmires, decimation made an empire.

razing cities may be how it was once done, but today it would be a war crime. in fact, building empires by capturing foreign lands is now illegal. much of your frustration with the lack of expediency in Libya is a result of having to obey the law.

now, i can see us doing it again. certainly in matters of survival you take desperate measures, like the ones we took in japan. but taking such measures as a matter of course simply legitimates the downing of skyscrapers with civilian aircraft.

personally, i'd prefer we avoid that as much as possible. especially when you consider that we are provoking much of it to begin with maintaining our little unofficial empires.

 

[nismaratwork]

razing cities may be how it was once done, but today it would be a war crime. in fact, building empires by capturing foreign lands is now illegal. much of your frustration with the lack of expediency in Libya is a result of having to obey the law.

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

now, i can see us doing it again. certainly in matters of survival you take desperate measures, like the ones we took in japan. but taking such measures as a matter of course simply legitimates the downing of skyscrapers with civilian aircraft.

personally, i'd prefer we avoid that as much as possible. especially when you consider that we are provoking much of it to begin with maintaining our little unofficial empires.

I think we should avoid wars that are not wars, but still end with countless deaths and destruction. No surgeon would ever spend an hours slooooowwwly making cut after cut for an initial incision; you either cut, or do not cut.

For war, it's the same: commit to total war, or don't go to war.

 

[apeiron]

I think we should avoid wars that are not wars, but still end with countless deaths and destruction. No surgeon would ever spend an hours slooooowwwly making cut after cut for an initial incision; you either cut, or do not cut.

For war, it's the same: commit to total war, or don't go to war.

Or do what surgeons do wherever possible and go for key-hole surgery.

If you see a mosquito biting your leg, do you pull out a .45 and blast it? You have to evaluate any "terrorist threat" the same way.

 

[nismaratwork]

Or do what surgeons do wherever possible and go for key-hole surgery.

If you see a mosquito biting your leg, do you pull out a .45 and blast it? You have to evaluate any "terrorist threat" the same way.

When I see an example of that kind of warfare ending in something other than protracted misery and death, I'll "bite". If you're bitten by a mosquito, you don't go to war against insects as a group; war is a major commitment.

My response would be either learn to live with the occasional welt, or get busy killing mosquitos the way we do, root and branch. There isn't a meaningful middle ground. I'm not saying we SHOULD go to war, only that when we do this half-****** stuff is not helping us, or the people on the sharp end of our stick.

Did you see what a decade of sanctions did to Iraq?! You either go ahead and kill, or you don't... you certainly don't wound and then hope that they "learn their lesson".

 

[Al68]

So not a fan of Fox News then?

No, I don't currently have cable or satellite TV, so I don't have much first hand knowledge. But from what left-wingers say about it, I can only assume it's the most reliable, fact based news station around.

 

[apeiron]

No, I don't currently have cable or satellite TV, so I don't have much first hand knowledge. But from what left-wingers say about it, I can only assume it's the most reliable, fact based news station around.

In a nutshell! Yes, who needs facts in this life when prejudice will tell you all you could possibly want to know?

 

[Al68]

No, I don't currently have cable or satellite TV, so I don't have much first hand knowledge. But from what left-wingers say about it, I can only assume it's the most reliable, fact based news station around.

In a nutshell! Yes, who needs facts in this life when prejudice will tell you all you could possibly want to know?

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

 

[apeiron]

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

I truly believe you were only joking. As you say

 

[alt]

razing cities may be how it was once done, but today it would be a war crime. in fact, building empires by capturing foreign lands is now illegal. much of your frustration with the lack of expediency in Libya is a result of having to obey the law.

now, i can see us doing it again. certainly in matters of survival you take desperate measures, like the ones we took in japan. but taking such measures as a matter of course simply legitimates the downing of skyscrapers with civilian aircraft.

personally, i'd prefer we avoid that as much as possible. especially when you consider that we are provoking much of it to begin with maintaining our little unofficial empires.

Your post is poignant. This following is very interesting IMO.

Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde

I often wonder what the end game is in Libya. A despot is going to be removed, for a bunch of crazies ?

You know, like in Afghanistan we backed the Northen Alliance ? What a bunch of crazy self serving thugs they turned out to be !

How sure are we that the Libyan people are going to be better of ? Those rebels look crazier than Gadafi - in a radical Islamist kinda way.

 

[nismaratwork]

Your post is poignant. This following is very interesting IMO.

Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde

I often wonder what the end game is in Libya. A despot is going to be removed, for a bunch of crazies ?

I believe that's precisely the aim; end any chance of an assymetric slaughter using AM rounds and airstrikes, and leave the rest to Libya. Not pretty, but it's effecient.

You know, like in Afghanistan we backed the Northen Alliance ? What a bunch of crazy self serving thugs they turned out to be !

How sure are we that the Libyan people are going to be better of ? Those rebels look crazier than Gadafi - in a radical Islamist kinda way.

I think we can assume they won't be, but they're going to be otherwise involved in a protracted civil war and therefore internally directed for a while. Beyond that, having destroyed so much of Ghaddafi's armament, that civil war can last for a looooooong time.

 

[Proton Soup]

Your post is poignant. This following is very interesting IMO.

Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde

I often wonder what the end game is in Libya. A despot is going to be removed, for a bunch of crazies ?

You know, like in Afghanistan we backed the Northen Alliance ? What a bunch of crazy self serving thugs they turned out to be !

How sure are we that the Libyan people are going to be better of ? Those rebels look crazier than Gadafi - in a radical Islamist kinda way.

yeah, i don't think they will get anywhere with challenging presidental authority here. I'm fairly confident the supreme court has already addressed and dismissed the idea.

i'm not sure the people in afghanistan are any more self-serving than we are.

i don't know if the libyans will be any better off in general. they could end up worse overall. I'm not sure they are any less crazy than our guys, just less military discipline, less uniformity of dress, generally poor, etc.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not sure that even a protracted civil war with small arms would be worse than shelling, tanks, bombardment from navel and from air assets, followed by a round-up and slaughter.

 

[cobalt124]

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

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

I'm having niggling doubts, BBC quoting the Guardian and a blog:

1108: France's push for international action against Col Gaddafi has been "bold, dramatic and sometimes startling," writes Julian Borger in the Guardian. But he says it is still "too early to say how much this embrace of 'humanitarian intervention' represents a new departure for France and its global role, or simply political theatre for Sarkozy's domestic audience".

0403: Arthur Goldhammer, writing on the Foreign Policy blog, says: "Cameron sought a vote of confidence from the House of Commons before going to war. Sarkozy didn't need to bother with such niceties - he controls his National Assembly. He simply acted, like the Bourbon kings of old, de son bon plaisir - at his own pleasure...Sovereignty, it has been said, is the power to declare an emergency. If so, then the Libyan intervention has been a striking demonstration of Sarkozy's sovereignty over la Grande Nation...

 

[rootX]

I was reading an analysis today that Libya unrest can cause more harm to the global economy than the Japan tsunami. Japan is capable of absorbing the damage but no one can absorb damage arising from middle east unrest. It is in the interest of everyone to stabilize Middle east as soon as possible.