Hard News: Libya
175 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Clinton’s admission that there is ongoing dialogue with The Colonel implies that all avenues were not exhausted before bombs were dropped.
Exhausting all avenues takes time, as many bloody dictators know. Whilst the exhaustion takes place they just carry on with their mass murder.
Obviously there is a balance to be struck, but surely Gaddafi had taken this issue past the point of no return?
I wonder what this thread would be like if the international community was still squabbling about whether to intervene whilst Gaddafi had regained control of Libyan cities and was still conducting house to house murders.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I wonder what this thread would be like if the international community was still squabbling about whether to intervene whilst Gaddafi had regained control of Libyan cities and was still conducting house to house murders.
I think it would still be divided and for the same reasons. I don't think the people that are nervous about this are totally without reason. War is an extremely murky and dividing thing. Usually I'm dead against it. What is different this time is the regional plea to aid the rebels. Even the local fascists are shocked at the idea open and indiscriminate attacks on people protesting the regime, everyone around them, and serious credible threats to eradicate them without mercy.
Furthermore, the request is not for an invasion. It is for an evening of the odds. This gives the rebels a chance to show their numbers, and it gives hope to people there that might be sympathetic, but are terrified that they can't win.
It's not the most efficient way to oust a dictator - I think more people will die than if a massive invasion just toppled the regime outright. But it might be the right way to do it. When people fight for their own freedom, they value it more.
Edit: Of course, they still might get nailed.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
I wonder what this thread would be like if the international community was still squabbling about whether to intervene whilst Gaddafi had regained control of Libyan cities and was still conducting house to house murders.
Gaddafi has regained control of Libyan cities and might be currently conducting house to house murders. I'm not seeing anyone arguing that the marine corps should have gone into Ajdabiya. So I'd suggest relatively quiescent.
-
chris, in reply to
I wonder what this thread would be like if the international community was still squabbling about whether to intervene whilst Gaddafi had regained control of Libyan cities and was still conducting house to house murders.
It's unlikely there would even be a thread, just as this isn't one for any of the numerous nations whose governments are currently massacring civilians.
Exhausting all avenues takes time, as many bloody dictators know. Whilst the exhaustion takes place they just carry on with their mass murder.
Obviously there is a balance to be struck, but surely Gaddafi had taken this issue past the point of no return?
That's surely rhetorical Don. Certainly someone is taking this issue past the point of no return, but whether or not it's Gaddafi is a matter of personal bias. Having lived both within and outside the sphere of western influence I can understand the conceptual foundations upon which such conclusions can be reached, These assumptions of moral superiority become an habitual thing, and that foreign powers are disposed to influencing the outcomes of civil wars is a given (either publicly or not). But as we could gauge from the Iraq experience: If this becomes another protracted struggle, the death toll will most likely greatly outweigh what it would have been had there been no intervention.
After a more than four-hour meeting in the Mauritanian capital, the body also asked Libyan authorities to ensure "humanitarian aid to those in need," as well as the "protection of foreigners, including African expatriates living in Libya."
It underscored the need for "necessary political reforms to eliminate the causes of the present crisis" but at the same time called for "restraint" from the international community to avoid "serious humanitarian consequences."
But if you like, Gaddafi took the issue past the point of no return, Nato are at the helm now and so goes another Arab country down the toilet.
-
chris, in reply to
Yes, he’s very keen to exhaust all avenues, whilst simultaneously finishing off his internal opposition. There was never any attempt to exhaust all avenues of peaceful negotiation with them.
Certainly Ben, and the timing is pivotal, for had he not been leading his country in this way longer than we've both been alive, I'd see it as more than the opening of another front in this cynically promoted, very contrived, war (against nationalism) for democracy.
-
glennd, in reply to
Seems to me that the African Union and the Arab League threw Ghadaffi to the wolves in order to keep the pack from their own collective doors and their insistence is no more than self-interested convenience. If the USA et al are busy for the next few years in Libya, on the outskirts of the Islamic region, they will be freer to act as they see fit with their own populations.
Add to that they (the AL and AU) get yet another free pass to condemn the USA and the West in general when their are inevitable civilian losses to such a no fly zone which always drags out the war and tends to perpetuate the power of the very man they are trying to oust.
Nope, I still don't get why Obama allowed the USA to get entangled in this mess, taking the USA to war again without even going through the motions of getting a congressional vote or appearing before the nation to state it was going to happen (which Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan... have all done in similar situations). Still, it will be up to his successor around 2014 to clean up the final mess, if history is anything to go by.
-
glennd, in reply to
Fighting a war at even odds is a guarantee of maximal casualties, it is axiomatic and known since time immemorial. That is why any true warfare is fought at overwhelming odds where at all possible, it is faster, cleaner and (if the dominant side is not genocidal) going to produce less casualties in civilian and military terms. It is easier to turn an enemy to total rout and force surrender if they have no hope of winning at 10:1 odds than encouraging them to fight on when they think they have an even chance. Only boxers deliberately go into evenly matched fights and then only because they know they aren't going to die.
I'd go as far as to say that deliberately limiting a military effort, once engaged, to even odds is immoral.
If these powers *truly* want Ghadaffi to stop what he has been doing for decades then the answer is not a no fly zone, which allows him to carry on most business as usual, nor is it limited support to unknown and inexperienced "rebels" which gives Ghadaffi better than even odds of retaining power (and gaining propaganda tools to rally against the rebels and the West), it is to go in and either kill him or arrest him and totally rout his forces. It is definitely not firing off a few tomahawks and washing your hands of the business.
Sure the follow up is hard, but that must come anyway. The question is how long you want to wait and how long you want to watch the death toll grow. The current action seems almost to guarantee massacres, excess civilian casualties inflicted by both sides and no guarantee of removing the regime.
As has been noted elsewhere, if you will strike at a king, make sure to kill him.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Obama has made a gargantuan error by committing the USA to a war ...
It’s not much of a commitment though, is it? What’s his exit strategy here? Stop firing missiles.
After the US have done their part, which mainly seems focused on disabling the Libyan air-defences, they can largely leave it up to the other nations involved (which as you yourself argue, have more direct interests in this.) If it all works out, the US can say “Hey, we played our part!”
If it doesn’t work out, the US can say “well hey, we played our part.”
Considering all the circumstances that led up to this – and not just randomly comparing it to any other potential intervention – I think Obama probably did the right thing in the end.North Korea can murder and starve millions,
Yeah, because that comparison makes sense. Just the same situation, North Korea and Libya.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
I wonder what this thread would be like if the international community was still squabbling about whether to intervene whilst Gaddafi had regained control of Libyan cities and was still conducting house to house murders.
It’s unlikely there would even be a thread,
It’s like the whole build up to this action has escaped you. If the UN were still arguing about whether to intervene, whilst Gaddafi was using his military forces to kill civilians, there would quite likely be a thread.
-
glennd, in reply to
Of course North Korea is not the same. It is a million times worse, for North Koreans, but no one is about to go aiding them. Even if the North sinks Southern ships, fires on Southern islands etc. So you are correct, not the same at all.
But the comparisons are fairly made because of this new fangled R2P policy, which to many looks like "a convenient policy we can use to make war, sorry kinetic military action, on certain nations when the time is ripe but avoid any moral questions about applying the idea universally".
The risk for Obama is that he will be left carrying the can if the rest of the coalition feels like pulling back. Britain and France are well capable of suppressing Libya's air defence system by themselves. The images that will live in the Arab/African mind are the first strikes launched by US ships and attacks by western aircraft, it is just another string in the anti-western bow. If Obama had stayed out then that'd look a whole lot less convincing. And domestically he is getting in hot water, if conversations with actual Americans of many stripes are anything to go by. They already lost some hardware and narrowly avoided lost aircrew, it isn't going to be pretty for Obama if bodybags start coming home from yet another foreign venture that most on all sides rightly view as none of their business this time.
-
It’s unlikely there would even be a thread,
It’s like the whole build up to this action has escaped you. If the UN were still arguing about whether to intervene, whilst Gaddafi was using his military forces to kill civilians, there would quite likely be a thread.
On the contrary, I was hanging out for a good week at least for a thread to discuss this, when just that was happening. Given that this is the only place I’d ever comment, I was getting a little antsy. It’d be nice if there was a thread on the Arab situation in general at the moment, as the military killing of civilian protesters is happening all over the arab world right now, I’ve mentioned Yemen, Bahrain, it’s not been picked up.
-
glennd, in reply to
And the reason that is not being picked up Chris is because it (unconsciously in many cases) leads to endorsing something akin to the Bush doctrine and there is absolutely no-one prepared to go down that road at the moment. Thus, despite "universal" ideals of protecting civilians, Libya will remain a special case with any excuse required taken to not act against others in the region, desperate avoidance of deploying ground forces and the ultimate shafting of many a Libyan.
-
chris, in reply to
Yeah. When I read back over this:
If it all works out, the US can say “Hey, we played our part!”
If it doesn’t work out, the US can say “well hey, we played our part.”I'm disillusioned by the chilling reality that there is still a very widespread western perception that this is the kind of audience the US deserves.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Of course North Korea is not the same. It is a million ...
person strong army, yeah. That, and the imminent threat to South Korea. And its chemical weapons. You get the picture. Glad we agree.
They already lost some hardware and narrowly avoided lost aircrew, it isn’t going to be pretty for Obama if bodybags start coming home from yet another foreign venture ...
So not “firing off a few tomahawks and washing your hands of the business” then.
-
Well it is nice to see that the concern for the well-being of our fellow humans goes as far as the difficulty in liberating them. Pretty much condemns them to starvation until the whim of time brings about the fall of the ruling dynasty. That whole R2P thing really is just a matter of convenience isn't it? But still, if you wish to take Korea off the table then Syria, Iran and the general neighbourhood provide more than enough replacements.
And, if you wish to be pedantic about turns of phrase then update that to “firing off a few tomahawks, running a few strikes and attempting to wash your hands of the business”. But, as you noted, it is win-win for the USA whatever the outcome once they wash their hands so please excuse the less than precise enumeration of the action so far.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
I was getting a little antsy.
You still seem to be.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Well it is nice to see that the concern for the well-being of our fellow humans goes as far as the difficulty in liberating them. Pretty much condemns them to starvation until the whim of time brings about the fall of the ruling dynasty.
I’m not sure what you’re on about. My concern for the well-being of my fellow humans in one part of the world is balanced against my concern for human beings elsewhere. The moral assessments aren’t always easy, but I’m not sure how else one would go about judging such issues.
But still, if you wish to take Korea off the table …
Not at all! North Korea is a salient example of the silliness in your argument. I’m happy to keep it front and centre:
“Military intervention in North Korea; Military intervention in Libya = Same Thing!” says military analyst glennd.And, if you wish to be pedantic about turns of phrase …
Don’t be silly. On the one hand you want to imply a difficult and dangerous road has been taken by Obama (“the USA et al are busy for the next few years in Libya” etc). On the other hand, you want to get away with a phrase like “firing off a few tomahawks and washing your hands of the business”. Make up your mind what your point is, and get back to us.
-
glennd, in reply to
My point was that the USA/Obama wishes to wash its hands of the business after limited engagement, however history and a reasonable expectation shows no such thing will happen (the limited engagement that is). That is Obama's error and that is what will cost him.
-
chris, in reply to
I was getting a little antsy.
You still seem to be.
You can't deny that was one hell of a cricket match.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Of course North Korea is not the same. It is a million times worse, for North Koreans, but no one is about to go aiding them. Even if the North sinks Southern ships, fires on Southern islands etc. So you are correct, not the same at all.
Yes, but part of the problem is the considerably greater threat posed by North Korea. It is quite likely that any action by them would lead to the immediate destruction of Seoul and millions of deaths. It's not wonderful that they get away with being total bastards, but that is how they're doing it, and failing to attack them is extremely sensible. It's comparably dangerous to attacking a superpower.
Libya has very much more limited military resources, which means that the overwhelming force you were suggesting is "more moral" can be brought to bear. And is being brought.
The situation is similar to the decision about how to deal with a violent individual or a rioting crowd. In one case you just take them down and arrest them. In the other, it's considerably different and much more care is required.
-
The situation is similar to the decision about how to deal with a violent individual or a rioting crowd. In one case you just take them down and arrest them. In the other, it’s considerably different and much more care is required.
I can handle that comparison Ben, but has this violent individual been conspired against or provoked? Has his violence not previously been tolerated as he's increasingly been regarded as a friend and ally? Is a no fly zone and the bombing of his key assets really the best way to quell his violence?
-
Furthermore, the request is not for an invasion. It is for an evening of the odds. This gives the rebels a chance to show their numbers, and it gives hope to people there that might be sympathetic, but are terrified that they can’t win.
It really leads to the obvious question, what happens when you've "evened the odds", and then the massacres etc still continue. Do you take another step in and keep on evening? If "no", what was the point of the first step? Surely if you're going to intervene and save people, you have to intervene and save people.
-
Pete,
Syria's next.
Dollars to doughnuts the US won't go near that one, though.
-
Neil Morrison, in reply to
Is a no fly zone and the bombing of his key assets really the best way to quell his violence?
yes it is.
But don't let the opinions of others overwhelm your concern for the well being of the Nth Koreans. I'm sure no-one who is concerned with Libya would want to discourage you from the considerable effort you clearly put into that cause.
But I'm not very in touch with the pro-democracy movement in Nth Korea. Would you be able to give us some information about your activities in that area. It must be quite a challenge.
-
chris, in reply to
But don’t let the opinions of others overwhelm your concern for the well being of the Nth Koreans. I’m sure no-one who is concerned with Libya would want to discourage you from the considerable effort you clearly put into that cause.
But I’m not very in touch with the pro-democracy movement in Nth Korea. Would you be able to give us some information about your activities in that area. It must be quite a challenge.
Challanged to work out what you're talking about for sure. What was that? I never mentioned North Korea, readdress to Glennd please Neil.
Is a no fly zone and the bombing of his key assets really the best way to quell his violence?
yes it is.
While initial Western airstrikes hit Libyan air defences and an armoured column in the east, Gaddafi's tanks kept up their shelling of Misrata in the west, killing dozens there this week.
Residents said a "massacre" was taking place with tank and artillery fire destroying buildings and snipers picking off people indiscriminately. Doctors were operating in hospital corridors and having to turn some of the wounded away.
It's like you're brain's hardwired to a binary:
1 Military intervention
0 No Military intervention
Post your response…
This topic is closed.