Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

But these were ragtag incompetents with Facebook pages, blogs, and streaming TV.

Milo, I mean "we" in the sense that "we" - the US, the UN, "the west" at large - will all take the blame if this goes bad or gets worse. I've never personally authorized a single military action, and I assume neither have you.

I hate the idea of anyone dying here, short of Qaddafi himself, but it's a civil war, isn't it? If one side isn't dying the other will be. The only way to prevent bloodshed is to put peacekeepers on the ground, and I haven't heard anyone suggest such a crazy thing. Though if this were truly an international crisis I imagine all options would be on the table, not just the current tentative steps being taken.

xpost Well as I understood it the main broader motive here was to stop the region's dictators getting the idea that they can put down a rebellion with military massacres. The repression elsewhere isn't (yet) on the same scale. Also events in Tunisia and Egypt had focussed the world's attention on north Africa so this was already a bigger deal for the western public than, say, Ivory Coast - not fair, perhaps, but a factor.

dictators getting the idea that they can put down a rebellion with military massacres

But isn't this basically what makes dictators dictators?

For comparison, the cost of enforcing no-fly zones in Northern and Southern Iraq from 1991-2003 is estimated at about 1 billion/year (excluding the 1998 Desert Fox / Lewinsky distraction airstrikes). The incremental cost of flying over hostile territory isn't that much greater than that of just procuring, maintaining and training in peacetime.

Greenwald (in part):

I understand -- and absolutely believe -- that many people who support the intervention in Libya are doing so for good and noble reasons: disgust at standing by and watching Gadaffi murder hundreds or thousands of rebels. I also believe that some people who supported the attack on Iraq did so out of disgust for Saddam Hussein and a desire to see him removed from power. It's commendable to oppose that type of despotism, and I understand -- and share -- the impulse.

But what I cannot understand at all is how people are willing to believe that the U.S. Government is deploying its military and fighting this war because, out of abundant humanitarianism, it simply cannot abide internal repression, tyranny and violence against one's own citizens. This is the same government that enthusiastically supports and props up regimes around the world that do exactly that, and that have done exactly that for decades.

By all accounts, one of the prime administration advocates for this war was Hillary Clinton; she's the same person who, just two years ago, said this about the torture-loving Egyptian dictator: "I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family." They're the same people overseeing multiple wars that routinely result in all sorts of atrocities. They are winking and nodding to their Yemeni, Bahrani and Saudi friends who are doing very similar things to what Gadaffi is doing, albeit (for now) on a smaller scale. They just all suddenly woke up one day and decided to wage war in an oil-rich Muslim nation because they just can't stand idly by and tolerate internal repression and violence against civilians? Please.

For the reasons I identified the other day, there are major differences between the military actions in Iraq and Libya. But what is true of both -- as is true for most wars -- is that each will spawn suffering for some people even if they alleviate it for others. Dropping lots of American bombs on a country tends to kill a lot of innocent people. For that reason, indifference to suffering is often what war proponents -- not war opponents -- are guilty of. But whatever else is true, the notion that opposing a war is evidence of indifference to tyranny and suffering is equally simple-minded, propagandistic, manipulative and intellectually bankrupt in both the Iraq and Libya contexts. And, in particular, those who opposed or still oppose intervention in Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, the Sudan, against Israel, in the Ivory Coast -- and/or any other similar places where there is widespread human-caused suffering -- have no business advancing that argument.

I have no idea what point "just dictators being dictators" is supposed to make, tbh.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

greenwald has his uses and i'm extremely glad that he's around but god he's just this perpetual 12-year-old who can't get over Hypocrisy. OF COURSE WE LET SOME DICTATORS GO AND ATTACK OTHERS. OF COURSE WE DO. that's not a reason to oppose this happy moment when we had enough geopolitical interest in something that was also a humanitarian concern, or to assume that we have absolutely no humanitarian impulses at all.

And, in particular, those who opposed or still oppose intervention in Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, the Sudan, against Israel, in the Ivory Coast -- and/or any other similar places where there is widespread human-caused suffering -- have no business advancing that argument.

Iraq?

or to assume that we, like, plan everything. xp

Good job bundling together half a dozen hugely different situations though.

also lol "in part" because it wouldn't be a greenwald post without 8239528952 paragraphs

UPDATE: three more paragraphs
UPDATE II: wait i remembered something else to be petulant about

greenwald has his uses and i'm extremely glad that he's around but god he's just this perpetual 12-year-old who can't get over Hypocrisy. OF COURSE WE LET SOME DICTATORS GO AND ATTACK OTHERS. OF COURSE WE DO. t

I don't think that's his point – in fact he explained how and why Iraq and Libya are different.

i just like the idea of hillary having a really great dinner with President and Mrs. Mubarak

I think the "why not dictator x too?" argument can be disingenuous - as if critics of the Libyan action would be overjoyed at intervention in any of those other countries, most of whom have oil or mineral wealth or gas pipelines or something that would be brought up as a criticism. It's a bogus alternative.

I don't think that's his point – in fact he explained how and why Iraq and Libya are different.

he mentioned that a difference exists, yes, to head off the comments. but he spent pretty much all of his rhetorical time on "but they're still both wars and wars are :(" and "look at all these other dictators, if we REALLY loved our brothers we'd kill ALL of them" and even managed to fit in a quick "oil!" mention. his thesis, at least in what you quoted, is "the u.s. government doesn't REALLY care, wake up sheeple". which is booooooooooooooooooring.

"Would you like the snifters or champagne glasses?"

http://commentmideast.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/t1larg.clinton.mubarak.afp_..jpg

oh sorry i forgot the part where he says "no, YOU'RE indifferent to suffering".

hahaha

But these were ragtag incompetents with Facebook pages, blogs, and streaming TV.

no this is a good point - i've been reading some pretty raw accounts by someone actually in benghazi as i type this and he has been very impressed by the media savvy of the benghazites - he says they're always busy, busy updating web sites, making phone calls, etc. but he also says - and this is just one very jaded dude talking, so take w grain of salt - that they have lied over and over again - about air attacks that didn't exist, about people killed that didn't exist - and he was sorta leaning no intervention happening because he figured the_west was not into this sort of crying wolf (and that made him anxious, because everybody on the ground could see that the rebels really WERE going to get the shit kicked out of them if nothing changed)

his thesis, at least in what you quoted, is "the u.s. government doesn't REALLY care, wake up sheeple". which is booooooooooooooooooring.

Failing to entertain, the truth sucketh

the sheeple bat-signal

besides, I agree w/ Bill Maher, the American public is more like a dog. A fat, stupid dog.

xpost

It's a bogus alternative.

besides, I agree w/ Bill Maher, the American public is more like a dog. A fat, stupid dog.

And Maher is the sheeple watching them?

look, no government in the history of ever has just "not cared". that's not how history works. governments aren't sociopaths. governments are extremely complex entities caught up in a historical tide with a huge amount of momentum, and they act based on a combination of self-interest and ideology; prediction and guesswork; selfishness and generosity. if you want to actually understand a historical moment, instead of just dropping a few emptyheaded one-liners of impregnable cynicism but of absolutely no depth or usefulness or contextual relevance, you have to consider everything, with curiosity, empathy, and openmindedness, and also you have to consider the incontrovertible fact that governments, especially in fast-moving times of crisis, do not actually know everything about why they are doing what they are doing. that's what historians are for. what ten-paragraph essays attacking imaginary people who think that the united states government is the red cross are for has yet to be determined.

i'm just kind of amazed at how easily people here for whom i have a tremendous admiration and respect can be all "the world will be a better place with (x) gone". i mean, we make fun of blair and bush and cheney for saying this stuff because these are not good justifications. even if they're true, or said sincerely.

personally it's very hard for me to see any conflict where i'd be alright with the united states sending in fighter jets and cruise missiles and whatever. maybe the congo, ten years ago? i don't know.

I agree w/ Bill Maher

oh this explains it. carry on.

Would endorse a Security Council vote to eliminate Bill Maher for reliance on cynicism to mask deep disinterest in history.

xpost

you have to consider the incontrovertible fact that governments, especially in fast-moving times of crisis, do not actually know everything about why they are doing what they are doing. that's what historians are for.

Good point. We should therefore all chill and wait to see how this plays out in 10 or 20 years.

We should therefore all chill and wait to see how this plays out in 10 or 20 years.

no this wasn't part of the "what should we do about libya" argument, it was part of the "is falling back on shallow TV sound bytes re: the callousness of the united states government a useful or interesting thing to do" argument. you can do history while it happens as long as you try.

but i mean then you might actually have to think about stuff. or have doubts. which are bummers.

there are things I detest about Bill Maher (and difficult listening hour) too.

like smug atheism

stop being creepy, morbius

"the world will be a better place with (x) gone"

better to say that it would be better had he never been around. but yeah, the attempt to make (x) gone might just make a shitty situation chaotic and shittier. this goes for internal and external pressure.

but the libyans who started protesting -- all across libya, in tripoli too -- weren't really waiting for anybody's permission. they were pretty sure that, not the world, but libya itself would be better with Q gone.

sorry to be a pedant as always, but iirc the sequence went like this:

- after tunisia and egypt, libyans get in on the "dictators out" act
- Q shows no dignified restraint and starts putting it down by any means nec
- 'protesters' quickly become? are replaced by? are intermixed with? are simultaneously? 'rebels' (ie guns out) (this transition has been under-explained imo)
- 'rebels' fare no better than 'protester's, worse actually, as Q's forces clear out uncooperative territory, starting with the capital
- world gets invovled, drawing a ring around the last rebel-held city

the point i'm trying to get to is that there a HUGE element to this that happened way beyond the_west's plans for anything.

protesters' quickly become? are replaced by? are intermixed with? are simultaneously? 'rebels' (ie guns out) (this transition has been under-explained imo)

Yeah, if someone wants to post a helpful news article. This ignorance has shaped a lot of my attitudes.

i myself am a smug pantheist.

To be honest, it's useful to pause every once and a while and try to piece things in order like that. This is all happening very fast, in several places at once. (Which is yet another reason "the west" may have been rash in committing here so soon; God only knows what next week has in store.)

all signs point to mass slaughter if we had waited any longer

like, Capital Q's troops were within 24 hours of taking Benghazi and after that, the jig would be up

Picking and choosing fights is the prerogative of the people with the bigger guns, but the result is that it's righteous military interventions like this one that ultimately seem disingenuous. And the last thing the region needs is more reasons to doubt the motivations of "the west."

My rash thoughts: So because the US government has been disengenuous and hypocritical in the past (and present) and its motivations cannot be trusted, and there are dictators everywhere, and innocent civilians get hurt if you try to stop a dictator, the US should never get involved anywhere? I'm not quite comfortable with that but I guess some of you are.

xp

yeah the painful thing is that in many ways we went in too hastily and in many other ways we went in too slowly

and in some ways we went in juuuuuuuuuuust right (maybe)

But the mass slaughter will resume the minute "the west" stops enforcing a no-fly zone, right? So we didn't stop anything. We indefinitely postponed it, barring the removal of Qaddafi.

xp I think the US should get involved more places - providing food, medicine, even intelligence and strategic assistance, but ideally not directly militarily. Again, if this particular rebellion cannot topple Qaddafi without the help of the west, then essentially the west is trying to topple Qaddafi. But we're not trying that hard, since toppling Qaddafi has been ruled out as a goal. Which leaves the west in an awkward bind.

We're committed to something we won't commit to.

But the mass slaughter will resume the minute "the west" stops enforcing a no-fly zone, right?

pretty sure the no-fly zone will be enforced until Qawdaffy's gone

i'm just kind of amazed at how easily people here for whom i have a tremendous admiration and respect can be all "the world will be a better place with (x) gone". i mean, we make fun of blair and bush and cheney for saying this stuff because these are not good justifications. even if they're true, or said sincerely.

We don't make fun of Bush and Cheney and Blair for saying the world would be a better place for (x) being dead - we make fun of them because they say this with a blinded fervor and a disregard for facts (both of the necessity/justness and what the action will create down the road).

I'd like to think people left of center can get behind the basic statement that the world is generally a better place when autocrats and dictators are no longer breathing. This doesn't mean that you support Global Thermonuclear War or even intervention in all instances (because intervention can make things worse) - but a recognition that a moral high ground exists, and that you and I have it over Qaddafi, is sort of valuable.

the last thing the region needs is more reasons to doubt the motivations of "the west."

Russia's Lukoil, China's CNPC, Malaysia's Petronas, Italy's ENI, Britain's BP all got major contracts rebuilding Iraqi oil infrastructure. As far as I can tell, US corporations are a distinct minority.

I do think deterring anti-American/anti-West attitudes among Libyan Islamists was distinct thread in the decision to intervene. As Gaddafi attests (correctly), these are disproportionately concentrated in the regions now held by rebels.

My rash thoughts: So because the US government has been disengenuous and hypocritical in the past (and present) and its motivations cannot be trusted, and there are dictators everywhere, and innocent civilians get hurt if you try to stop a dictator, the US should never get involved anywhere?

Well yes, this is a very common argument in certain quarters. It's consistent, I'll give it that.