The Libyan uprising

Jonny7

Here's some chilling reading -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12770318


Gaddafi, and his family and his thugs within the military, and interior, and secret police are going to absolutely brutalise any Libyan that stands in their way. They will manufacture this Al Qaeda thing beyond belief, massacre anyone who protests, disappear anyone based on the slightest suspicion, the usual, etc, etc

I work in a financial instution, I know the assets are being frozen, but he can just stripmine the oil, economy and people to pay the mercenaries to keep everyone in fear. Ah the simplicities of being a modern despot.

Those people who are up against him are the bravest souls, but they better keep a bullet for themselves if he takes that town.

opinion guy

Overheal wrote: »

More accurately a UN Security Council resolution.

Which is never going to happen when human rights abusers such as China and Russia are on the council.

I was very against the Iraq war. But in this case, I think there is a clear moral duty to do something, UN resolution or not.

OS119

opinion guy wrote: »

....I was very against the Iraq war. But in this case, I think there is a clear moral duty to do something, UN resolution or not.

lots of interventions have taken place without UN sanction - i don't see Bill Clinton, Tony Blair or Wesley Clark in the Hague over Kosovo for instance - this talk that only the UN can sanction foriegn intervention, and that any intervention without a specific UNSC resolution is illegal and an act of war, is just crap.

personally i think its a bit late to acheive anything now - three weeks ago a NFZ would have done the job, two weeks ago a couple of decapition/C3 strikes would have done it at greater cost, a week ago a sustained interdiction campaign would have been required, but now you'd need a full NFZ, C3 denial, Interdiction and CAS operation with significant arming of the opposition ground forces with ATGW and MANPADS, as well as having people on the ground doing the co-ordination annd training.

its always the same, the later you get involved, the worse the problem is and the less attractive the options you're left with are.

FTA69

opinion guy wrote: »

Which is never going to happen when human rights abusers such as China and Russia are on the council.

I was very against the Iraq war. But in this case, I think there is a clear moral duty to do something, UN resolution or not.

Every country on the security council is a human rights abuser, they only differ on the context of the abuse.

Overheal

opinion guy wrote: »

Which is never going to happen when human rights abusers such as China and Russia are on the council.

I would think a lot more goes into their decisions than how they feel about dictatorship and civil war. The balance of powers and such.

opinion guy

OS119 wrote: »

full NFZ, C3 denial, Interdiction and CAS operation with significant arming of the opposition ground forces with ATGW and MANPADS,

Apart from NFZ, I have no idea what any of these terms mean.

Jonny7

OS119 wrote: »

lots of interventions have taken place without UN sanction - i don't see Bill Clinton, Tony Blair or Wesley Clark in the Hague over Kosovo for instance - this talk that only the UN can sanction foriegn intervention, and that any intervention without a specific UNSC resolution is illegal and an act of war, is just crap.

personally i think its a bit late to acheive anything now - three weeks ago a NFZ would have done the job, two weeks ago a couple of decapition/C3 strikes would have done it at greater cost, a week ago a sustained interdiction campaign would have been required, but now you'd need a full NFZ, C3 denial, Interdiction and CAS operation with significant arming of the opposition ground forces with ATGW and MANPADS, as well as having people on the ground doing the co-ordination annd training.

its always the same, the later you get involved, the worse the problem is and the less attractive the options you're left with are.

- its called killing human beings to stop them from killing other human beings, the methods aren't scientific equations with mathmatical answers .. tack on all the military abbreviations you want, a no fly zone is a no fly zone and the effectiveness/results of it is OFTEN as much voodoo and guesswork as it is military foresight and knowledge.

You are very right about the time though. Getting too late now.

Manic Moran

opinion guy wrote: »

Apart from NFZ, I have no idea what any of these terms mean.

C3: Command, Control and Communications. (i.e. hitting command posts, signals facilities and equipment, conducting radio jamming)

Interdiction: An action to divert, disrupt, delay, or destroy the enemy's surface military potential before it can be used effectively against friendly forces

CAS: Close Air Support. Conducting air operations against targets currently engaged in direct fire combat against friendly troops.

ATGW: Anti-Tank Guided Weapons

MANPADS: MAN-Portable Air Defence System. (Shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles)

NTM

opinion guy

Thanks Manic Moran

BBC scrolling news banner wa saying a while ago that Gadaffi has threatened to target civilian ships in the Med if there is military action against him !!!!

OS119

opinion guy wrote: »

Thanks Manic Moran

BBC scrolling news banner wa saying a while ago that Gadaffi has threatened to target civilian ships in the Med if there is military action against him !!!!

he can threaten, and he technically has the capability to attack merchant and military shipping in the Med, but whether he has the ability to attack merchant and military shipping in the Med while there's a NATO combat air patrol with AWACS and tanker support sat 12 miles off the Libyan coast is perhaps a somewhat different matter.

whats so offensive is that had this stuff - the UNSCR and the military assets - been in place 2 weeks ago this would all be over. his initial losses were caused by his security and military apparatus either supporting the rebels or sitting on the fence - now they see that he's going to win they need to get onside to ensure they don't spend their last days sucking on the inside of a plastic bag with their balls cut off.

once again we face a situation where had the the prompt, convincing threat of force been made while Gaddafi was on his arse we wouldn't actually of had to use that force - but because we've buggered about and sat on the fence we will actually have to kill people, and the whole thing will be vastly more messy, more expensive, more bloody, longer running and with a less attractive outcome than it otherwise could have been.

gurramok

According to The Guardian, international military action is going to happen within hours.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/libya-no-fly-zone-united-nations

Guardian wrote:

Britain, France and the US, along with several Arab countries, are to join forces to throw a protective ring around the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi as soon as a UN security council vote on military action is authorised, according to security council sources.

A source at UN headquarters in New York said military forces could be deployed "within hours" of a new security council resolution calling for states to protect civilians by halting attacks by Muammar Gaddafi's forces by air, land and sea.

The resolution would impose a no-fly zone over Libya – but a no-fly zone was no longer enough, the source said. "The resolution authorises air strikes against tank columns advancing on Benghazi or engaging naval ships bombarding Benghazi," he said.

Britain, France and Lebanon sponsored the new resolution, which provides the moral and legal basis for military action.

British and French forces are understood to have been placed on standby after the US said it was prepared to support the measure if Arab countries agreed to take an active role.

If true, looks like we will not see another Rwanda(state forces slaughtering its population) which is to be welcomed by anyone who espouses democracy.

Jonny7

I am actually getting chills reading that, good chills

Britain France and Lebanon.. incredible.. I know its a bit late, but they could get a ring up around Benghazi, if anything just to save people from the Saddam/Nazi round up and slaughter that is about to happen

gurramok

Think it was last week but on TV they showed a US warship on the coast of Benghazi just sitting there a few hundred yards off the city beach. Me thinks it is quite easy for any naval landing/attacks on Gadaffi forces on the outskirts of the city.

The importance of "Arab allies" is necessary, it brings a non exclusive Western feeling to any action.

jmayo

Dave! wrote: »

That's all well and good, but the current situation is that the oil supply from Libya is already being disrupted because of the uprising. After it is over, Libya will either have an even more oppressive, stable dictatorship than before, or it will have whatever the rebels produce, hopefully a democracy.

Personally I don't know a single person who, when asked, would say that they'd be happy with Gaddafi staying in power if it meant petrol prices would go down. Do you? Maybe my friends and family have just been infected by my youthful idealism/naiveté. They'd probably think twice about supporting an invasion of the whole Middle East because it would lead to an oil crisis, but that's why I'm saying Libya is a more black and white issue. The oil supply is already disrupted, and the uprising is already occuring, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

My post ws primarily aimed at your pinion on Saudi Arabia and you mneitoning evening the odds between the governmnet regime forces and those of possible protesters or rebels.

Yes Libya would be lot easier to quantify, but as someone mentioned the West did not want ot be seen interferring without Arab support.
Supposedly the US tried to get their best friends in the area, the Saudis to fund the delviery of arms to the rebels.
Suddenly the Saudis it appears discovered they did not want to fund rebels in another country, even if the leader of that coutnry had tried to have them knocked off in the past.
It was much more clear cut to do it with rebels in Afghanistan. :rolleyes:

opinion guy

gurramok wrote: »

Think it was last week but on TV they showed a US warship on the coast of Benghazi just sitting there a few hundred yards off the city beach. Me thinks it is quite easy for any naval landing/attacks on Gadaffi forces on the outskirts of the city.

The importance of "Arab allies" is necessary, it brings a non exclusive Western feeling to any action.

Oh I reckon the Brits, the Yanks and maybe the French have been ready to go on this one for a while.

jmayo wrote: »

My post ws primarily aimed at your pinion on Saudi Arabia and you mneitoning evening the odds between the governmnet regime forces and those of possible protesters or rebels.

Yes Libya would be lot easier to quantify, but as someone mentioned the West did not want ot be seen interferring without Arab support.
Supposedly the US tried to get their best friends in the area, the Saudis to fund the delviery of arms to the rebels.
Suddenly the Saudis it appears discovered they did not want to fund rebels in another country, even if the leader of that coutnry had tried to have them knocked off in the past.
It was much more clear cut to do it with rebels in Afghanistan. :rolleyes:

Saudis only care about themselves really. They can't afford to get dragged into Libya with their own troubles at home. Bahrain is a different case since its so small and right on their doorstep and in that case they are backing the regime not the people. And the Bahrain issue might yet provoke Iran into doing something crazy. If you ask me everyone is better off if the Saudi's are not involved in Libya.

gurramok

Its happening. The UN resolution to 'protect civilians in Lbya' is passed http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009

BBC wrote:

The UN Security Council has backed a resolution on Libya that supports a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.

Meeting in New York, the 15-member body agreed "to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack".

It also supported a no-fly zone to help halt the advance of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi's forces.

Reports suggest air strikes may begin within hours of the resolution passing.

The US, UK and France proposed the council resolution, backing action short of an invasion. It passed 10-0 with five abstentions.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, introducing the resolution, said: "In Libya, for a number of weeks the people's will has been shot down... by Colonel Gaddafi who is attacking his own people.

"We cannot let these warmongers do this, we cannot abandon civilians."

He added: "We should not arrive too late."

Russia and China - which often oppose the use of force against a sovereign country as they believe it sets a dangerous precedent - abstained rather than using their power of veto.

gurramok

Will we wake up in the morning reading about airstrikes on Libya? Somehow i'm sceptical.

hmmm

gurramok wrote: »

Will we wake up in the morning reading about airstrikes on Libya? Somehow i'm sceptical.

If we don't I'll be shocked. Gadaffi's army is only 120km from Benghazi.

From a political point of view France's role is interesting. The previous foreign minister alliot marie made a hash of the uprisings in Tunisia & Egypt. France sees this as their backyard and she made several wrong calls, most of all appearing to support Ben Ali. Juppe is only in the door and already France is taking a forceful lead on Libya - and seeing crowds in Benghazi on Al Jazeera cheering for Sarkozy tonight is doing it a world of good.

mike65

Once again everyone has to wait until uncle Sam deems somthing worth their while. Still better late then never. Interesting that China and Russia decided to sit this vote out. Thats basicly code for "go ahead anyway".

LondonIrish90

Very interesting developments.

The phrase "all necessary measures to protect civilians" is the most intriguing of them all, suggesting we (or the UK/France) may have been pushing for more than just the suggested no fly zone.

gurramok

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/libya-united-nations-air-strikes-live

From the Guardian blog..

blog wrote:

Italy announces it is opening its air force and naval bases in Sicily for operations against Libya – the obvious spot to base US and British jets.

The Berlusconi government may have had relatively warm relations with Libya, but Italy's Nato obligations gave it little choice but to allow other members to use its bases.

7.11pm ET: US enforcement of a no-fly zone in Libya could begin by Sunday or Monday, according to anonymous US officials quoted by AP, and would involve "jet fighters, bombers and surveillance aircraft".

7.05pm ET: There's some very impressive singing in central Benghazi, accompanied by celebratory gunfire, right now, based on al-Jazeera's footage.

7pm ET: Here's the Guardian's first take on tonight's UN security council vote and what it means:

British, French and US military aircraft are preparing to protect the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi after the United Nations security council voted in favour of a no-fly zone and air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's forces.

With Gaddafi's troops closing in on Benghazi, the French prime minister, Francois Fillon, said "time is of the essence" and that France would support military action set to take place within hours.

Jets could take off from French military bases along the Mediterranean coast, about 750 miles from Libya. Several Arab countries would join the operation.

Quite a serious escalation but seems to be within a couple of days rather than hours. As Russia/China abstain, its the go ahead to attack Gadaffi.

A Dub in Glasgo

This should have been done a long time ago. I am surprised it passed though and it looks as if Russia and China have effectively supported the action without publically saying so.

Nodin

The tragi-comedy continues.....

Muammar Gaddafi has already made his feelings known, telling the Portuguese TV channel RTP that the UN resolution was an act of "flagrant colonization" for which it had no legal mandate:

'This is craziness, madness, arrogance. If the world gets crazy with us we will get crazy too. We will respond. We will make their lives hell because they are making our lives hell. They will never have peace.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/libya-united-nations-air-strikes-live

hmmm

The Libyan foreign minister has just been praising Germany. I'm sure the optics of this will go down well in Germany

OS119

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Very interesting developments.

The phrase "all necessary measures to protect civilians" is the most intriguing of them all, suggesting we (or the UK/France) may have been pushing for more than just the suggested no fly zone.

its been on the cards for a while - the US ambassador to the UN was talking in this language a couple of days ago. a pure NFZ might have done the trick two weeks ago, but now the opposition have been beaten into a position where they need NATO to act as their flying artillery or its game over.

Manic Moran

I don't know. I'm as hawkish as the next guy, but I don't have the greatest feeling about this one. At least Iraq had a desired end-state that was easy to understand. (They may have made poor efforts at planning on how to get there, but the goal was obvious enough). I do not think that anyone has expressed where this ship is even supposed to go, it seems that the purpose of this UNSC Resolution is to do something, but not necessarily something to achieve anything in particular. This seems to be a simple trinary problem: 1) Aid rebels in overthrowing Gaddaffi (or at least achieving independence), 2) Aid Gadaffi in defeating rebels, or 3) Stay the hell out of it. But 3 ain't happening unless you're Chinese, German or Russian, nobody seems particularly interested in 2), and the UNSCR doesn't seem to really go as far as 1). What are we actually trying to achieve here?

NTM

Predator_

Anglo-French meddling in another country's business again, when will they learn. Lets hope the Libyans can repel their evil.

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't know. I'm as hawkish as the next guy, but I don't have the greatest feeling about this one. At least Iraq had a desired end-state that was easy to understand.

NTM

Maybe in the US it was clear, but in the UK it seem to go from 'Destorying Iraq'a WMD's stockpile' before the start of the war to 'getting rid of Saddam' after the war.

But I also feel this is a bit of a fudge factor going on again, but maybe things will turn out for the best.

opinion guy

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't know. I'm as hawkish as the next guy, but I don't have the greatest feeling about this one. At least Iraq had a desired end-state that was easy to understand. (They may have made poor efforts at planning on how to get there, but the goal was obvious enough). I do not think that anyone has expressed where this ship is even supposed to go, it seems that the purpose of this UNSC Resolution is to do something, but not necessarily something to achieve anything in particular. This seems to be a simple trinary problem: 1) Aid rebels in overthrowing Gaddaffi (or at least achieving independence), 2) Aid Gadaffi in defeating rebels, or 3) Stay the hell out of it. But 3 ain't happening unless you're Chinese, German or Russian, nobody seems particularly interested in 2), and the UNSCR doesn't seem to really go as far as 1). What are we actually trying to achieve here?

NTM

I completely disagree with you here. They went in to Iraq under the manufacturedd pretext of destroying WMD's. WMD's that didn't exist and were essentially manufactured to justify Bush finishing the job his Daddy started. In this case there is a very clear mandate to protect the citizens by any means necessary from Gadaffi and his forces. If gadaffi and his cronies were to step down/ be defeated then job done.

Jonny7

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't know. I'm as hawkish as the next guy, but I don't have the greatest feeling about this one. At least Iraq had a desired end-state that was easy to understand. (They may have made poor efforts at planning on how to get there, but the goal was obvious enough). I do not think that anyone has expressed where this ship is even supposed to go, it seems that the purpose of this UNSC Resolution is to do something, but not necessarily something to achieve anything in particular. This seems to be a simple trinary problem: 1) Aid rebels in overthrowing Gaddaffi (or at least achieving independence), 2) Aid Gadaffi in defeating rebels, or 3) Stay the hell out of it. But 3 ain't happening unless you're Chinese, German or Russian, nobody seems particularly interested in 2), and the UNSCR doesn't seem to really go as far as 1). What are we actually trying to achieve here?

NTM

Lets weigh up the consequences of not doing anything

Saddam vs the Kurds slaughter part 2 takes place in Benghazi
Gaddafi persues nationwide crackdown on any dissent, disappearances, torture, mass killings will take place (does anyone actually doubt this?)
Gaddafi and his cabal shut down the net/all media and shore up like Kim Il Yong, going from a crap dictatorship to
"the proper model"
Frozen assets means he stripmines the country, again a la N Korea

The no fly zone - positives
Saving Benghazi and untold lives
Rebels might actually beat Ghaddafi considering his support is mainly family, paid thugs and just the tool of mass fear
Send a message to every dictator, despot and newcomer (Ivory Coast Gbagbo)
Standing up for human rights, decency, democracy instead of ****ting about it or using it as a cover for
strategic and resource aims (Iraq 03)
No allied boots on ground, no allied deaths, no media fallout, no huge commitment

The no fly zone negatives - Negatives
Gaddafi can't attack Benghazi, consolidates power and fear in Tripoli, Rebels battle on but stalemate grows
I cannot imagine any sort of very protracted civil war as Gaddafi does NOT have genuine support

If the no fly zone negatives OUTWEIGH the consequences of not doing anything then we shouldnt have a no fly zone
For me they don't. Its not rosy, but I am ****ing dancing today over this - written in work at breakneck speed