The Libyan uprising

Manic Moran

So let me try to recap how many ways to screwed up this whole situation is.

Fighting kicks off, we take the side of the rebels. We then dither away at high warp factors doing nothing when the rebels had momentum and chance for a relatively easy win, and decide it's in our national interests to intervene after many rebels have been killed and they're about to get rolled.

Then, when it comes time to do something, there is no particular consensus on what we're actually trying to do except bomb someone, and there is little consensus between various countries (and even between the militaries and civilian leadership of some of them) over just what and who we're supposed to be bombing anyway. What we are bombing so far seems too be of little practical effect to rebels on the ground who are fighting the tanks which are some of the hardest targets to hit. In the meantime, the US president has reversed his position of a couple of years ago that the US Constitution does not permit the President to attack a country which isn't proving a threat to the US.

But we're not done yet. The French are getting the kudos from the Libyans for actually doing something, the Americans who are supposedly running the show right now aren't getting much credit and thus missed out on a good PR opportunity. But that's OK because the US wants to ditch the lead role and hand it to someone else. The Turks are adamant that it won't be NATO, as they want to have nothing to do with attacking Libyans, but the Italians are saying that if it isn't a NATO operation then they will not make the airfields available to the attacking forces. The Norwegians don't much care who's in charge, but they've grounded the aircraft they've sent until someone makes a decision (but obviously not them). And the Brits are doing re-enactments of El Dorado Canyon whilst thinking "Gee. Ark Royal and a few Harriers would be pretty damned useful about now. Maybe those Navy types had a point when they were bitching last year when we retired them."
Oh, and the American military officer running the show right now has pointed out the blindingly obvious that under the current military taskings, Gaddafi is quite likely to stay in charge, only very annoyed with a lot of countries

If this ends well, it won't be because anyone did anything right outside of Libya.

NTM

whiteonion

I hope Obama gets thrown into prison for this the rest of his life but it won't happen. Barack O'Bama is above the law.

The law only applies to peons like us.

opinion guy

whiteonion wrote: »

I hope Obama gets thrown into prison for this the rest of his life but it won't happen. Barack O'Bama is above the law.

The law only applies to peons like us.

Why would he go to prison for enacting a lawful UN resolution ? Barrack Obama hasn't broken any laws. On the flipside Gadaffi has broken....well, all the laws.

metrovelvet

opinion guy wrote: »

Why would he go to prison for enacting a lawful UN resolution ? Barrack Obama hasn't broken any laws. On the flipside Gadaffi has broken....well, all the laws.

There are questions over whether he broke US laws by not informing Congress.

nacho libre

Deleted User wrote: »

Zimbabwe would require a ground invasion and would be counter productive.
10's of thousands would be killed in the guerilla warfare that ensued.

.

Notice how this was not a concern for those advocating the Iraq War on the grounds that it was for the greater good because a vile dictator was being removed from power. It seems to me the concern for civilians in danger is amplified in countries where the west has geopolitical interests. Outright indifference, talking shops and semantic dicussions in the UN about whether something is genocide or not seem to apply in countries that don't have a vital resource for the west. How else could the west stand by when millions were killed in other parts of Africa, yet suddenly the civilians in Benghazi must be saved from Gadaffi because it's the morally right thing to do.

Also speaking of Iraq, it seems at least some of the rebels, the west are protecting from Gadaffi forces, were fighting against them in Iraq.


http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/libyan-rebellion-has-radical-islamist-fervor-benghazi-link-islamic-militancyus-milit

Poccington

Euroland wrote: »

You (US) are shooting, but we (Ireland) are not, and never would be.

Oh please.

We were shooting in the Congo, the Leb, Somalia and Timor.

Let's not act like armed intervention is something that Ireland would never take part in.

Overheal

And in fact, they were on the Security Council when they voted in resolutions regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.

whiteonion wrote: »

I hope Obama gets thrown into prison for this the rest of his life but it won't happen. Barack O'Bama is above the law.

The law only applies to peons like us.

It didn't happen to Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, etc. and I'm sure that if you checked I'll bet you a christmas goose they've all done something you can describe as Illegal. And not just smoking pot or getting smoked by your secretary.

karma_

Overheal wrote: »

It didn't happen to Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, etc. and I'm sure that if you checked I'll bet you a christmas goose they've all done something you can describe as Illegal. And not just smoking pot or getting smoked by your secretary.

And your forgetting one of the worst, Truman, war criminal that he was.

Overheal

karma_ wrote: »

And your forgetting one of the worst, Truman, war criminal that he was.

Mmm, the Bomb. Not an intentional omission, I was just working backwards and lost my train of thought.

Manic Moran

karma_ wrote: »

And your forgetting one of the worst, Truman, war criminal that he was.

What law did he break? Cite the actual legislation that was in force at the time, please. Using modern standards doesn't apply, there's a general prohibiton on ex-post-facto laws. Note that there was no convictions or controversy by any side on the bombing of enemy-held cities.

NTM

nacho libre

nacho libre wrote: »

Notice how this was not a concern for those advocating the Iraq War on the grounds that it was for the greater good because a vile dictator was being removed from power. It seems to me the concern for civilians in danger is amplified in countries where the west has geopolitical interests. Outright indifference, talking shops and semantic dicussions in the UN about whether something is genocide or not seem to apply in countries that don't have a vital resource for the west. How else could the west stand by when millions were killed in other parts of Africa, yet suddenly the civilians in Benghazi must be saved from Gadaffi because it's the morally right thing to do.

Also speaking of Iraq, it seems at least some of the rebels, the west are protecting from Gadaffi forces, were fighting against them in Iraq.


http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/libyan-rebellion-has-radical-islamist-fervor-benghazi-link-islamic-militancyus-milit

Invading Iraq is history.
Lessons learnt.
No need to keep bringing it up.

In the here and now we are now.

AlekSmart

Deleted User wrote: »

Invading Iraq is history.
Lessons learnt.
No need to keep bringing it up.

In the here and now we are now.

HMmmm..I thought the quoted article was relatively,no,very definitely,in the now.....

Virtually all of the News Reportage appears to support the view that Ghadaffi=Bad whilst Rebels=Good.

Now I`d be far from an admirer of the Colonel or his administration,but neither am I a Libyan,so I temper my dislike with an acceptance that a great many Libyans supported and may still support the fellow.

On the other hand,there is a peculiar lacuna (I knew John O Donoghue would deliver) in the collective rush to heap admiration and support on "the rebels" without us knowing a whole lot about their consistency or constitution...

It`s just an uneasy feeling that somebody,somewhere,is selling us,and the Libyan people,a pup......:(

WakeUp

Deleted User wrote: »

Invading Iraq is history.
Lessons learnt.
No need to keep bringing it up.

In the here and now we are now.

Illegally invading and occupying Iraq isn't history.
Go tell the families of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who lost their lives that you are sorry and "lessons" have been learnt. With all due respect that is a ridiculous statement in my opinion.
Every reason to keep bringing it up to ensure something like this never happens again and the people responsible brought to justice for their crimes.

Im most certainly in the here and now, I believe the West are investigating Gaddafi with a view to hauling him before a court ( if they dont kill him first) for his crimes against his people rightly so if what is being claimed is true. While they are at they can pick up Bush and Blair and try them for their crimes against humanity. War criminals one and all.

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote: »

Depends on where you think things started going pear-shaped. Once it was obvious that Gaddaffi was not using any restraint at all, it would have been a good idea to start the planning process. Waiting until after the rebels started getting their asses kicked back to the gates of Benghazi is too late to start coming up with contingency plans, even if they could not be enacted for whatever reason until all the politicians happened to sit down over tea at the conference long ago scheduled for the middle of the following week. Which is daft. They have airplanes. They have telephones. They could have sorted this all out much faster than they really did.

I agree somewhat. It went pear shaped because Obama didn't act quickly. why not? He didn't want to be seen as a warmonger like Bush. Ironically, ther are some times one should act. It is very difficult to justify Military action however. Especially when oil is involved. So he dithered and nobody else was capable in terms of hardware or had the
Military management structure to react rapidly.

A good plan executed violently now is far better than a perfect plan executed tomorrow.

I agree. But superpowers don't usually do what is "good" although they say they do. they do what is in their interest.

I am reminded of the Yes Minister episode which discusses Standard Foreign Office Response in a Time of Crisis:

Say that nothing is going to happen;
Say something maybe going to happen, but we should do nothing about it;
Say maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do;
Say maybe there was something we could have done, but it is too late now.

Great! A Victory for Democracy the four stage Strategy of the foreign Office
I like this form the same episode:
Sir Richard Wharton: If the PM gets into one of his ghastly patriotic Churchillian moods, he may intervene. All that pro-British, defending democracy nonsense.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Oh, I know, I know.
Sir Richard Wharton: He must understand that once you start interfering in the internal squabbles of other countries, you're on a very slippery slope. Even the Foreign Secretary's grasped that.

With regards to Libya, we hit the first three, and very nearly came to the fourth. Committees take time, and the opposition can get inside the decision cycle very easily.

But in the big game the opposition are not Libyan civilians but other world powers bent on getting the oil.

Right, and you're (presumably) not a member of Dail Eireann, and not all TDs are a member of the Cabinet, yet they all make decisions on behalf of the larger organisations. Even if humble punters disagree with them.

Yes and Edmund Burke was elected for his judgement and made a big deal of saying just that when elected as MP in Bristol. He was of course correct that MPs can go against their constituents. But what happened in the next election? He lost his seat.

Never said it was. But if you're going to go about invading people for whatever justification you may have in mind, it's probably a good idea to have a notion as to what you're actually trying to achieve at the end of it.

And my point again is "bringing freedom and democracy" are not usually on anyones mind. Bringing gold oil diamonds etc. usually are.

Manic Moran wrote: »

So let me try to recap how many ways to screwed up this whole situation is.

Fighting kicks off, we take the side of the rebels. We then dither away at high warp factors doing nothing when the rebels had momentum and chance for a relatively easy win, and decide it's in our national interests to intervene after many rebels have been killed and they're about to get rolled.

Like Bush senior did in Iraq I? But as I pointed out above Obama does not want to be viewed like Bush senior Junior or Regan. At the same time things have changed and action is needed. Sadly the EU don't have Rapid Reaction Forces in place.

In the meantime, the US president has reversed his position of a couple of years ago that the US Constitution does not permit the President to attack a country which isn't proving a threat to the US.

Come on we all know the WMD thing was cooked up and stovepiped! the threat - and the consent - was manufactured.

Gaddafi is quite likely to stay in charge, only very annoyed with a lot of countries

maybe. Of a much smaller country. And the rest of it will have oil and then the rest of us will be interested in them.

If this ends well, it won't be because anyone did anything right outside of Libya.

Did we ever? when it was not in our economic interest?

Poccington wrote: »

Oh please.

We were shooting in the Congo, the Leb, Somalia and Timor.

Let's not act like armed intervention is something that Ireland would never take part in.

Not for Irish economic gain. the Us have been involved in over a hundred military actions over the last century outside of WWI WWII and Korea and mainly for economic reasons.

Manic Moran wrote: »

What law did he break? Cite the actual legislation that was in force at the time, please. Using modern standards doesn't apply, there's a general prohibiton on ex-post-facto laws.

Really? On what basis did Jackson the US prosecutor at Nuremberg make his case? In many cases the Nazis dint break their own laws since they passed anti Jew laws before the war. the US made the case that the Nazis did wrong even though ther was no specific law against it. I refer here to discrimination and not just genocide ( which also was not a law then by the way).
My point is one cant get all "positive law" and say "what law did I break?" and also say that we should "do the right thing" or "fight evil" in Libya without defining "right" or "evil". One can't have it both ways.

Deleted User wrote: »

Invading Iraq is history.
Lessons learnt.
No need to keep bringing it up.

In the here and now we are now.

Banks collapsing are history. Regulating banks is history. The Holocaust is history. Should we stop bringing up the past and forgetting about it or should we learn from it?

metrovelvet

^ It was Hilary who pushed for action. With the sceptre of Iraq, the US wanted to wait for UN approval and also appear on the backburner of all of this. BUt the UN, like Europe, likes to sit around and talk while the world burns. The UN might still be sitting around talking about it if Hillary hadn't muscled in and pushed them for a vote.

America does not get much oil for Libya. France gets about 17% and Italy 25% of their oil from Libya, so Im not buying economics as the motivator for the US, historical memory possibly.

I don't understand what their plan is. Who is in charge? They say they are not taking sides, and its not a war, but they went for G's home? It looks like they want to take out G which makes it look like a little more than police action.

Who is going to fill the power vacuum if they are successful?

As for Nuremburg, it always was curious that there were Americans on that trial, after all they were not Neutral in that war and in the US you are entitled to be tried by a 'jury of your peers.'

Jonny7

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ It was Hilary who pushed for action. With the sceptre of Iraq, the US wanted to wait for UN approval and also appear on the backburner of all of this. BUt the UN, like Europe, likes to sit around and talk while the world burns. The UN might still be sitting around talking about it if Hillary hadn't muscled in and pushed them for a vote.

America does not get much oil for Libya. France gets about 17% and Italy 25% of their oil from Libya, so Im not buying economics as the motivator for the US, historical memory possibly.

I don't understand what their plan is. Who is in charge? They say they are not taking sides, and its not a war, but they went for G's home? It looks like they want to take out G which makes it look like a little more than police action.

Who is going to fill the power vacuum if they are successful?

As for Nuremburg, it always was curious that there were Americans on that trial, after all they were not Neutral in that war and in the US you are entitled to be tried by a 'jury of your peers.'

In work not much time to articulate

-Hilary pushed, Cameron and Sarkowzy equally - oil not really a motivator in this situation at all - mainly humanitarian

-There are no US imperialistic intentions, people are so obsessed with Iraq which was a diff situation in 91 and again a diff sit in 03 - mainly humanitarian, akin to Yugoslav intervention, or Somalia - madmen slaughtering people - the world crying that nothing gets done, plus close proximity, plus conditions/logitistics so much easier than Africa/Korea

-Who is in charge? was orig coop between France, UK, US, Lebanon + others - whole thing has been rushed, had to be. Events were fluid and happening, rebels were winning, NO ONE wanted to intervene, I cannot emphasis this enough - intervention appeared on the table as soon as it became clear Gaddafi was going to pull a Saddam on his own people or worse. The leadership/responsibility of this has not been hammered out into fine detail as of yet, highly complex, as of now appears a rough allied joint command

Timeframe -
Gaddafi started attacking protestors - was mildly alarming, due to other events
Became clear that this wasn't like Egypt or Tunis at all - was much more severe, massacres were taking place
Again people waving hands but no serious intervention on the table - who the hell would want to?
East and far West of country, military defections, rough rebel militias formed and they start very successfully to take and hold towns, evict the local Gaddafi officials and power
Definitely no sense for intervention..
Then, about 1 week after this - Gaddafi steps into gear, gets **** together, utilises large army, starts fighting rebels and 'crushing' them - methods are Saddam-like, very nasty
This is really when the rhetoric from Cameron and Sarkowzy rose - same with Clinton - very frantic diplomactic activity starts behind the scenes
They have a choice - abandon the whole thing or rush it (a few days later, all rebels and towns would be crushed and held by Gaddafi)

They choose to rush it - hence so much confusion from people about why all this isnt so perfectly planned

Bombing of G's home - comms centre, also a message, not in ANY WAY a decap strike, they aren't that stupid - they want people to DEFECT from Gaddaf, as most of his support is sons, and their paramilitaries and many mercs - mainly psychological

All other strikes are far away military sites - I believe zero civ casualties, no evidence produced as of yet of ANY - allies obv extremely paranoid of this

Allies also hitting tanks/ground vehicles with varied success.

Rebels -
Have a transitional council already recognised by several countries, believed legit, want freedom, democracy
Lightly armed but v high morale
With no fly zone support can start to push back/counterattack - most of this 'conflict' is psychological - as soon as Gaddafi is ON THE BACK FOOT, then a lot of the men who fight under him, based on cash/fear will generally defect - he does not have much genuine loyalty

Many people, quite rightly, believe that anyone (allies, UN) are incapable of acting on humanitarian grounds - that it is ALWAYS oil/imperialism/whatever

If Gaddafi holds strong - then there is the unknown - the no fly zone means things are reversable.

The people of Libya clearly do not want this man, but, as you can see, if they rebel, they get slaughtered - Gadd has been in power for 40 years, his sons all have military control, he has very good control - the rebels are the only chance of breaking that - him and his sons will be there another eternity if this doesn't work

I've been following this story obsessively from start to date - as a very heavy cynic, i have seen nothing to doubt it is humanitarian - but with the rush and speed and fluidity of situation, the allies/rebels have their work cut out for them

Euroland

mike65 wrote: »

Amazing how most precious carbon and mineral resources are in the worst countries.

Or maybe they became “the worst” because they didn’t want to gift those resources to the US?

Euroland

Black Swan wrote: »

My guess is that the USA will not put any troops into Libya

They are already bringing over 4 thousand troops

Euroland

Macha wrote: »

It's pretty clear that the majority of Libyans want Ghadaffi gone but he has control of the weapons store.

Nonsense, no more then 25-30% are against Gaddafi, many of whom are foreigners from Egypt, Tunisia, and Palestine (mainly living in Bengazi-Tibruk area and beside the Tunisian border).

Euroland

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

Can anyone back up their beliefs that Gaddafi is carrying out atrocities, massacres or killing civilians?

There is little evidence of it as 95% of it is fabricated by the Western mass media propaganda machine.

Euroland

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

So even though Gaddafi hasn't flown any airplanes in the last few days (according to US military) there still attacking him to enforce a no fly zone.

Americans and the rest came to Libya with idea of changing power, electing a puppet and steal the Oil.

Jonny7

Euroland wrote: »

Americans and the rest came to Libya with idea of changing power, electing a puppet and steal the Oil.

Gaddafi? is that you?

Euroland

Macha wrote: »

And the rebels are ordinary citizens - teachers, mechanics, pharmacists - who want democracy.

Nonsense, most of “the rebels” are well-trained young men coming from Egypt, Tunisia, Palestine, this is why on TV you always hear from them “Allahu Akbar”, similar to Al Qaeda fanatics, whereas real Libyans are grown up in the socialist and less religious environment.

Euroland

Macha wrote: »

The rebels initiated the conflict?

Yes

Euroland

Macha wrote: »

There were peaceful protests that Ghadaffi brutally put down

Libyan police force was framed and later many of them were killed by the so called “rebels”, everything was prepared in advance.

Euroland

Macha wrote: »

he has also captured, tortured and killed foreign journalists as well as targeting paramedics.

Nonsense, a lot of Eastern-European paramedics/doctors (several thousands), who still remain in Libya, report the opposite, they get great support from pro-Gaddafi forces and were abused and forced to work without their will by the so called “rebels”.

Euroland

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

I understand they have been condemned by all and sundry and I agree Gadaffi in unstable. I'm not bias towards him but there needs to be good reason for an attack. You link highlights a concern, again no facts. This is the same Arab League that is condoning the brutal put down of the peaceful protests in Bahrain.

It doesn't matter if your a dentist, doctor etc., if you are branding a weapon and planning to use it you got to be ready for the consequences. Your not an ordinary civilian then, you've made yourself a target.

My point is in Yemen & Bahrain there is non violent protesters being killed yet no one in the west seems to care but everyone is up in arms about a conflict where both side are heavily armed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/protesters-killed-in-yemens-capital-by-/2011/03/18/ABFd2hp_story.html

Yes, if tomorrow Polish, Nigerian, or Chinese immigrants, backed by the US and EU, decide to overthrow Enda Kenny and establish a new state in Ireland, under their own control and will use the weapons against the state, Enda Kenny unwillingly would have to order Garda and Army to crash “the rebels” with all the consequences.

Euroland

Macha wrote: »

there is no open intent from the leader that he is willing to massacre his people

There wasn’t anything like that in Libya either. The opposite, Kaddafi gave a couple of weeks for “the rebels” to calm down, but “the rebels” didn’t calm and escalated the violence, killing many policemen and soldiers, so he, finally, had to retaliate.

Euroland

Macha wrote: »

I think it's time for you to state what sort of evidence you're looking for. Every time I post a fact or reference you claim I haven't provided any "evidence". The expulsion of Libya from the UN's Human Rights Council, condemnations by HRW and the Arab League - none of these seem to be enough and at this stage it's a game of changing the goal posts.

So tell me what exact evidence you're willing to accept before I spend any more time debating this.

All these organizations are under the US command

Euroland

Jonny7 wrote: »

The rebels using tanks and planes and anything salvaged from the army is 100% understandable from their side - but it doesn't 'play' well for the international backing needed for this kinda of intervention.

They also use the weapons supplied to them in advance, before “the uprising”.