Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

does it smell fresh?

the idea that this is an easy way to a fast buck or a poll boost is idiotic

I may be idiotic but I didn't say it was an easy way. I don't think this is the reason Sarko's doing it, but he's a politician facing electoral defeats, it's not like it won't have crossed his mind.

That and wanting to make up for being totally on the wrong side of everything with the Tunisia uprising

(and with, like, Tunisia in general for the last 100 years)

I think I continue to miss whether this operation has a stated goal aside from the vague "no-fly zone." Is the idea that by taking out Qaddafi's heavy weapons and planes that the rebels can then regroup and conceivably take out Qaddafi themselves (even though we/the UN has explicitly stated that taking out Qaddafi is not the goal)? What do we want to the rebels to gain, survival or victory?

xpost to Notinmyname, I wasn't trying to insult anyone itt or pretend that cynical motives aren't part of the whole mix. My posts come from cutting between ILX and some of the more aggravating nonsense on Guardian comment threads. I'm not in the business of calling anyone on ILX idiotic, especially not in such a complicated situation.

I think I continue to miss whether this operation has a stated goal aside from the vague "no-fly zone." Is the idea that by taking out Qaddafi's heavy weapons and planes that the rebels can then regroup and conceivably take out Qaddafi themselves (even though we/the UN has explicitly stated that taking out Qaddafi is not the goal)? What do we want to the rebels to gain, survival or victory?

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, March 21, 2011 12:57 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

i agree there is too much vagueness, and the TPM blogpost j0rdan linked to had things i agreed with too, on the question of momentum. the turnaround in US opinion hasn't been adequately been explained. meanwhile, the attacks seem to be exceeding what was mandated. there's a lot to worry about.

on the french thing: genuine question: is the french public in favour of doing this, to the extent it would help sarko in the election? i thought the french were generally solidly against war.

Can we start this thread again with all the Louis/ History Mayne shite taken out?

An American general on the news last night (it was unclear if he was was retired or not) was very frank that this was about removing Gaddafi, and that the military operations have already gone far beyond establishing a no-fly zone i.e. missile strikes have been hitting convoys, tanks, etc. And he said the "rhetoric" of the Arab League that "we cannot stand idly by" when a leader targets his own people was obviously laughable since that is what half of them are currently doing, i.e. the AL sees this as a way to get rid of a loose cannon that none of them like. How this squares with yesterday's statements from the AL to the effect of "whoa, whoa, we thought we were supporting a no-fly zone, not a full-scale NATO assault" I don't know.

... not specifically what Louis/HM posted themselves (xp)

Basically it seems like the idea is to reduce Gaddafi's heavy weapons just to the point where the rebels can win "by themselves".

i thought the french were generally solidly against war.

What, in general? Haven't seen any polls in the UK about this intervention, but getting the distinct impression the GBP are not thrilled about it.

I think the french are in favour of not having lots of brown people turning up on the south coast claiming asylum and a family in Clichy-sous-Bois.

:(

lol oh yeah

See also: Sarkozy having to fight an election against Marine Le Penn next year.

the lack of clarity among the brits is already apparent... meanwhile, has her majesty's opposition ventured an opinion?

i mean sure we need a six month policy review before really taking sides but -- a preliminary view perhaps?

For the intervention but reserving the right to carp impotently (xp)

Lol I've managed to not realise this was happening until now. Kudos to all involved.

Official: U.K. Subs Fired at Tripoli Compound

But will they give back their performance fees?

How this squares with yesterday's statements from the AL to the effect of "whoa, whoa, we thought we were supporting a no-fly zone, not a full-scale NATO assault" I don't know.

Just covering their asses. Hard to believe many Arab leaders give much of a shit about Libya being bombed to pieces. It's not like they're thinking, "Oh no, Bahrain is next," since it very obviously isn't.

An American general on the news last night (it was unclear if he was was retired or not) was very frank that this was about removing Gaddafi

"It is not or mission to kill Qaddafi. Cut off his money, food and weapons, yes. Destroy his army, that too. Blind him and cripple him, OK. Give his enemies better weapons and directions to his bunker, maybe. But kill him? No."

Recommend watching your back there, Dmitry

part of this is the_west giving a fuck when it ain't its turn

whose turn is it? Just Qaddaffi with money from Russia, China and others? Or others (the weak Arab league or coalition of African nations)?

when is it the_west's turn?

i think we weve properly reassembled our paradigm to include buddhism and energy and stuff

^ hilarious post

funny US politics note to all this:

Obama changing his mind is attrib'd to Sec. Clinton, Amb. Rice, NSCer Samantha Power

Power called Hillary a "monster" (actually didn't, but...) in 08, got fired.

well, people here think it's interesting

and they're all ladies! imagine that. ladies!

not joking/combatitive (mostly cuz i dont know where i stand on this frankly) wondering what ilx poster 'aerosmith' thinks of all this

Freddie deBoer, over the last couple days:

I believe in the importance of internal resistance movements. I believe in them precisely as long as they remain internal, because I understand, as so many seem not to, that it is a blatant and ridiculous contradiction in terms to enforce democracy by foreign military aggression. You cannot enforce democracy from without. Self-determination is the non-negotiable precondition for democracy. After we have installed our Vichy democracies, they tend to operate as you would assume such governments would. You only have to ask the minority parties of Iraq, which have reported again and again that they are excluded, marginalized, and oppressed, up to and including the disappearance of protesters.

I believe in resistance, but that doesn't mean I believe in good outcomes coming from all resistance. And this is the fundamental error, among so many, of the supporters of Libyan revolution, or of the supposed "pan-Arab" uprising: they look to this incredibly complex phenomenon, made up of a shifting multitude of actors and interests, supported by foreign powers both near and far, which proceeds in fits and starts towards whatever goal the aggregate of its parts supports at the moment... and they pronounce it good. With their child's view of the world, with their infantile Manicheanism, they feel that the must sort all actors at all times into the piles of good and bad. With their American arrogance, they believe that they actually possess the wisdom and knowledge capable of performing such a feat. With their imperial hubris, they believe that this knowledge gives them the right to impose their judgments with force and by fiat, and they will do so even while they know that doing so will kill innocent people. That's the condition of the contemporary American.

...

What disturbs me so much about those who are arguing the side of the Libyan revolution and against the side of Qaddafi is that they think that this is sufficient to justify engaging in war. That democracy insists that their opinion on the question is irrelevant to whether to go to war, or that even if we knew for a fact what was right and wrong we'd have no right to invade, seems not even to compute, not for a moment. Of course, I prefer the revolution to Qaddafi. I don't mistake my ill-informed (as any must be) preference with real knowledge; I don't mistake the value of my opinion for the value of a Libyan's; I don't pretend that my Western bleeding-heart morals have any right dictating who lives and dies thousands of miles from our borders; I don't imagine that every Libyan who is revolting has inside them some mini-American, waiting to burst forth and adopt perfectly American values. Support for democracy that is dependent on our agreement with the outcome of democracy is a sham.

i agree with the sentiments well enough, but i guess i haven't made up my mind about all this yet (max otm)

first protester with a KEEP YOUR ROSY FINGERS OFF LIBYA! sign gets a cookie from me

I believe in the importance of internal resistance movements. I believe in them precisely as long as they remain internal, because I understand, as so many seem not to, that it is a blatant and ridiculous contradiction in terms to enforce democracy by foreign military aggression.

And as we discussed on the other thread I guess people with views like this do not recognize the legitimacy of the American revolution because the French helped.

That wasn't aggression, that was France bringing its unique capabilities to bear.

or any e. european gov't after '89, yeah...

i realize that the above article does not represent all objections to or qualms with the situation, but i still think it is ridiculous to paint united nations intervention to prevent the illegal massacre of civilians by a united nations member as some kind of ghastly violation of the enlightened precepts of moral relativism because WHO ARE WE TO SAY???? weirdly this is possibly the only position actually more infantile than manicheanism.

We certainly don't recognise its legitimacy over here (xxxp)

it's true that foreign intervention perverts and damages revolutions. that's why egypt was so cool. if only everything were a best-case scenario.

and they're all ladies! imagine that. ladies!

― goole, Monday, 21 March 2011 16:13 (17 minutes ago) Bookmark

<3 u goole

the LeCarre fan in me rears its head and wonders if the military part of the opposition to Gaddafi weren't the result of plans laid years ago by the_west in tandem with various obstinate tribes and incubated for this moment to strike. This assigns a degree of competency and long-range planning to the CIA and Special Forces which I doubt has ever existed but if such plans DID get made (a "sleeper revolution") what better time than the present to have pressed the Play button?

it's true that foreign intervention perverts and damages revolutions. that's why egypt was so cool. if only everything were a best-case scenario.

I read that sentence 4 times before I realized you weren't talking about "foreign intervention perverts"... Like, hmm...does he mean the US? or the French? who are the perverts in this scenario...

well obviously the french.

though i'd keep my eye on belgium.

my money is on the French, definitely

difficult listening hour (who r u btw?? enjoyed your posts lately and i'm always like 6wks behind on the rename game):

yeah all that falls down somewhat because i think it's really pretty easy to consider QDF as being uniquely, totally horrible! like, how bad would a 'resistance movement' have to be to be worse than him? this is something that can be accurately judged from outside, relatively.

the principle of non-intervention hinges on something else than what deboer describes, in this case. practicality? like, i think the operation has a slim chance of doing anything good.

also, when was the last time a popular resistance movement turned out to be significantly worse for a nation and neighbors than the status quo ante? iran 79?

Attributing any kind of forethought to 'Special Forces' is kind of a basic misunderstanding of their role, IMO. They take orders for involvement from other parts of the government, they don't go starting revolutions on their own.

iran 79?

Significantly worse than the Shah? Are you sure about that?

I'm perhaps alone in thinking UNSCR 1973 might strike just the right ethical balance, so long as its limited to no-fly + halt armor advancing on rebel cities.

The stories out of Az-Zawiya, Zuara, and Ajdabiya of mass reprisals against civilians are pretty ugly, if true. If, at limited human cost the rest of the world can prevent similar atrocities at the larger towns of Misrata and Benghazi it was a correct decision. But it ends there. Let Libya separate into Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, if need be. Libya was an invention of Italian colonialism, just as Iraq an invention of the Treaty of Versailles.

I don't see any on reason on balance why the rest of the world should support a rebel advance on Tripoli, and the political difficulty is now whether we'll resist an instinct to bring the civil war to a speedy conclusion.