Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

At this point, the rebels have no prayer of getting close enough to Q to kill him and that will not change for the foreseeable future. If an airstrike were to kill Q, but one of his sons immediately stepped in to fill his shoes, this would not amount to anything new and the war would continue.

i dont know if i really "support" the war i just didnt like your characterization of it above as some kind of... western project to make sure a lot of libyan civilians died

At this point, the rebels have no prayer of getting close enough to Q to kill him and that will not change for the foreseeable future.

I dunno how yr so sure about this or how long the "foreseeable future" is. if your point is that this war is just going to go on and on and there's nothing anybody can do about it... well, what kind of point is that, exactly.

I mean if that really is your prognostication, what is so wrong with trying, however marginally, to increase the odds that the side we would like to win eventually prevails? we're only "prolonging" this conflict in the sense that if we weren't assisting, Q would butcher all his enemies in short order. You are okay with that, I assume.

or do you think Q would just be like, "nah that's cool, let's partition the country, I get the west, you keep the east. Pardons for all!"

or do you think that by prolonging this conflict even MORE people will die than if Q just got to have his way with the country? we're talking about the calculus of mass murder here, and none of the options are good. they range from "horrific" to "slightly less horrific". I'm going with the "slightly less horrific" option.

You are okay with that, I assume.

Shakey, you may take that road, if you like, but the world is rife with autocratic leaders killing or torturing their enemies. We are not intervening militarily in those countries. Often we are offering military assistance to the leader instead. You are okay with that, I assume.

no I'm not. but just because we're doing the wrong thing in other places shouldn't preclude us from doing the right thing in this particular place. every international conflagration is, in its way, unique, and treating them all the same is both wrong and ill-advised.

nice misdirection there though

no, I'm not

I see my assumption was as untrue as yours was, then. Why you would think I am okay with anybody perpetrating a massacre is stupid, even as rhetoric.

Now that we've settled that bit of kerfuffle, let's examine your position:

every international conflagration is, in its way, unique, and treating them all the same is both wrong and ill-advised.

So, clearly, the fact of killing of innocent people and government-sanctioned criminal injustice is insufficient, of itself, to justify military intervention. Absent more compelling factors (which you do not specify) such an intervention could be "wrong and ill-advised" in your view. I happen to agree.

Where we disagree is whether those other, compelling factors exist in Libya. Slamming me for amorality and uncaring is a sweet little game, but you are just as willing to be amoral and uncaring when it suits you. Call it misdirection, but I think it is relevant.

I just don't understand what you think we should do here, since you're always very elliptical about it

also the compelling factors here (which I and others have specified upthread more times than I can count) are a) opportunity and b) support of both the surrounding and larger international communities

like, we have no leverage in Syria, we can't get away with arming anybody there. but we do have some room to operate in Libya, as well as allies, UN backing, support for (or at least lack of opposition to) our involvement from Q's neighbors, etc.

i don't think starting an unwinnable civil war with a ruthless dictator is really "the right thing to do"

and fwiw i don't think starting an unwinnable civil war with a ruthless dictator and then pleading for NATO assistance as a matter of moral urgency is "the right thing to do", either

uh we didn't start it?

xp

or are you blaming the protestors for "starting" the war again? I thought we put that weird misconception to rest

Why you would think I am okay with anybody perpetrating a massacre is stupid, even as rhetoric.

― Aimless, Friday, July 8, 2011 7:37 PM (2

Earlier on this thread I am pretty sure you voiced the view that countries including the US should only get involved in war when they are directly attacked. I suggested you were an isolationist and you did not seem to like that label. So while you might not be ok with a massacre, you in the past seemed to suggest that other countries should not intervene to stop one.

xp to Shakey

The difficulty is that the room to operate, the allies and the lack of opposition from neighboring countries do not extend far enough to allow a coherent and workable strategy for removing Q.

The only strategy that amounts to more than a roll of dice would require an army to oppose his. The rebels, howeve brave they may be, are not an army. The only army in Libya belongs to Q. If you want to dislodge an army, you need to place another army on the ground.

Our allies aren't willing to do this. His neighbors are not willing to countenance this. Our own nation would not be willing to start yet another war, as this would require conscription in order to enlarge our own army, or else moving troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan. Not to mention the cost of another full scale war.

So, we are rolling the dice instead.

You seem to be happy with this. For you this is a legitimate strategy. Max objects to characterizing this as a western project for killing a lot of Libyans. I can't see it as much else but gambling with Libyan lives, and as long as their are lives to gamble with, we'll keep it up. But this is not what I view as a legitimate use of US military power.

As for what I want us to do, that is much trickier now that we've waded in knee-deep. The external factors (no army in Libya, our country, allies and neighbors unwilling to back a real war) aren't going to improve one jot. That leaves us only a graceless exit or a lucky roll of the dice. Since I don't wish to roll the dice interminably, a graceless exit, ugly, with recriminations to spare, as the only bad choice among worse choices.

I just wish someone had had the sense to foresee this (aside from me) and forestall this before Obama dragged us in.

shakey mo are you conflating peaceful protests with the establishment of rebel military bases and dudes riding around in technicals with mortars again? i thought we put that weird misconception to rest

even if you want to see them as the same people - even if they were the same people - i think it was a terrible mistake for the gaddafi opposition to see their opposition on a military basis

"happy" is kind of overstating it. I'm more like "okay" with it.

I don't really see Q prevailing in the long-term. he's old, he's isolated, and lots of people want him dead. not really a recipe for long-term success. I'll be surprised if this turns into a 30-year civil war a la Columbia. I guess it could happen...

otoh I just don't really get why you think a graceless exit, resulting in a massacre, is somehow preferable (or less bloody?) than gambling on forestalling it indefinitely.

xp

even if you want to see them as the same people - even if they were the same people - i think it was a terrible mistake for the gaddafi opposition to see their opposition on a military basis

yeah and I see this as first world condescension in one of its worst forms - telling people they don't have the right to defend themselves.

like telling a hapless protestor whose being shot at not to shoot back and just lay down and die = NAGL

especially when its a defense of last resort (it's not like they started out with the mortars, things started peacefully and then deteriorated because of Q's escalation)

Earlier on this thread I am pretty sure you voiced the view that countries including the US should only get involved in war when they are directly attacked.

Here is what I did say (as you seem dislinclined to go find it on your own):

There are many quite strong and well-established justifications for going to war against a country and it I have no problem with them whatsoever. For example, if that country's armred forces invades or attacks your country, or it blockades your ports, or seizes ships at sea that sail under your flag. There are other, similar causus belli and I won't bother to name them all. They are united by the simple fact of violent aggression against your country.

What is lacking in what I said, that you included in what you recalled me saying, is the word "only", or any other indication that violent agression against one's country is the sole legitimate reason for going to war. Elsewhere I also included aggression against allies with whom we have treaty obligations. This includes, by now, half the world at least. I suggested then, as I do now, that sanctioning war to protect our own country or up to half the world, is a peculiar definition of isolationist.

Moreover, I would be willing to consider war in cases where other clear national interests are at stake, but I am certainly not willing to write a blank check for any all wars of choice. Fuck me if I will go that far.

it is weird that you continue to elide the fact that the result of such a stance is that massacres - and most pertinently massacres we could have perhaps prevented from happening - are going to happen. it does not seem unfair to characterize this position as being "okay" with massacres occurring. because if you were not really okay with it, you would advocate for our involvement in preventing them.

I think that's exactly what Aimless is saying! Massacres will happen.

imho we have an obligation to act where we have the ability to act. we had the ability in Libya, Q hasn't killed quite as many people as he would have, or would like to. this is a net positive.

xp

Why you would think I am okay with anybody perpetrating a massacre is stupid, even as rhetoric.

― Aimless, Friday, July 8, 2011 7:37 PM (2

for Alfred

silence = consent etc

or I guess in this case inaction = consent

Isn't that inevitable in some conflicts though?

btw this discussion is ancillary to the Obama administration's confusion -- intentional or otherwise -- about what it wants in Libya. "To prevent a massacre"? Oust Qaddafi? Not freak out the Europeans dependent on Libya's oil? Is it a police action? A war?

imho we have an obligation to act where we have the ability to act.

paul wolfowitz over here

j/k

kinda

Wolfie would invent a "they are making nuclear weapons" justification first

wolfowitz's logic totally convoluted and self-serving, not to mention delusional, dishonest and evil

thx tho

for one thing re: Iraq we didn't have much of an obligation since no attack/massacre/threat was imminent and all arguments to the contrary were entirely spurious

On an opportunistic note, I'll just say the odds of success in intervening in Libya are greater than in intervening in Syria and the downsides of Q's continuing rule in Libya after the Arab Spring were much worse for Italy and France and perhaps the UK than whatever happens in Syria, which is precisely why they (and we) are there. Does anybody really think it a good idea to leave before Q is ousted or leaves? You guys can squabble all you want about how we got there, but NATO is there and if we pull out before ousting the Guide, we'll earn hatred from the rebels and contempt from the regime, the economy will contine to flounder, and the tensions in the country will not abate, even if Q tries to imprison or kill every rebel.

From what I hear, there is increasingly talk of some kind of peace talks in Libya and even the possibility of Q staying there if he relinquishes power. I do hope there's a good endgame.

inaction = consent

Christ, Shakey, you have a short memory. Your own inaction is consenting to shit from here to kingdom come, but somehow that doesn't seem to dent your thick skull. It only matters to you that in this one instance it applies to me, not that it applies to you in a dozen cases I could name.

I am totally not in control of everything my gov't does, nor do I approve of all of (or even most of) it lol. I happen to think that in this specific instance they're pursuing the best option of many bad ones. You seem to be of the opposite opinion, and that letting Q kill a bunch of people is preferable to taking a chance that said killing can be indefinitely forestalled. You have yet to explain why you think this is so.

anyway M. White otm

It only matters to you that in this one instance it applies to me,

only because we are discussing this specific instance! if you want to talk about some other instance where US foreign policy is clearly in the wrong (and I am more than willing to agree there are many) take it to some other thread

shakey, my point is that "the ability to act" = "huge fuckin military"

in a better state of affairs we might well not have "the ability to act" in this way

sure.

which kind of shades the morality of acting?

well I'm against us having a military in the first place (especially an all volunteer military) but since for the most part nobody in this country agrees with me, I'm not gonna complain when our military happens to be on the right side of an equation for once.

i think the evidence has borne out that 1) jerry-rigging a shoestring military opposition force against a conscienceless dictator or 2) dropping hundreds of bombs or 3) both is not a recipe for "forestalling killing", indefinitely or otherwise

really. so you think the total amount of people killed in the conflict to-date is less than the number Q would have killed (dunno if I should include tortured/imprisoned here as well) if allowed to indiscriminately crush the opposition?