Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

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.

Irrationality/inconsistency is v useful in foreign policy. Going to town on K*dafy puts e.g. Assad in a hell of a difficult position should the protests ever reach Syria.

haha goole are you suggesting that gaddafi's dudes were marching towards benghazi like "we are gonna kill all this women and children" and the rebels stepped in between them? benghazi is the rebel base - it's where most of their fighters are (setting aside the various tribes and factions within the libyan resistance and their differing agendas). if you're gonna crush a rebellion that's where you're gonna go. again, i'm not giving gaddafi credit for being some kind of good guy but the civilians killed in libya so far fit entirely under the "normal" kind of tit-for-tat retribution, collateral damage, and just plain mistakes that happen in any war. it is horrible but it's like, this is what happens when civil wars start.

so if the motivation behind the_west's military intervention were merely to save innocent lives, there are far starker humanitarian crises to blow billions of dollars on. right? so there have to be other motivations. i'm just trying to work out what those are. it's sorta weird how that seems like an offensive thing for me to be doing!

― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, March 22, 2011 5:04 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

you give way more leeway to gadaffi here than the UN, or, i suppose, the_west

goole's post just above otm: this was not a 'civil war' started by armed rebels. this was gadaffi killing unarmed protesters just like in yemen. so "the civilians killed in libya so far fit entirely under the "normal" kind of tit-for-tat retribution, collateral damage, and just plain mistakes that happen in any war." really dog?

but anyway: have you figured it out yet, what the_west/UN gains? sweeter oil deals? they seemed sweet enough for BP et al. some oversight of the transition to a post-gadaffi libya? im willing to go there and say the second motivation isn't even that bad. potentially less bloody. i don't know. im halfway idealist -- not enough to think getting rid of gadaffi will solve everything in a minute. and i don't think the UN has been a complete waste of time over the years.

x-post

Protests have reached Syria and some protestors are already dead

By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Bassem Mroue, Associated Press – 51 mins ago
DAMASCUS, Syria – Protests spread in southern Syria Tuesday as hundreds of people marched to demand reforms in a previously peaceful village, witnesses and activists said.

In a nearby city, troops and protesters faced off outside a mosque where demonstrators have taken shelter.

The government sought to contain the first serious intrusion of the Arab world's political unrest by firing the governor of the southern province of Daraa, where security forces killed seven protesters in the main city of Daraa over the weekend.

The governor's dismissal failed to quell popular anger and the protests reached the village of Nawa, where hundreds of people marched demanding reforms, an activist told The Associated Press.

The activist said troops were trying to reach the mosque in Daraa's historic center where protesters have sought protection. He said protesters placed large rocks in the streets near the al-Omari mosque to block the troops.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110322/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_syria

Hm okay, maybe Assad doesn't see it that way but he should.

The latest edition in the Bombing Moe series:

http://sitrep.globalsecurity.org/articles/110322731-bombing-moe-gilt-furniture-and.htm

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

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 22 March 2011 18:02 (2 hours ago) Bookmark

i'd just like to point out max said this like a month ago

shoulda posted this here

Moammar Gadhafi's snipers and tanks are terrorizing civilians in the coastal city of Misrata, a resident said, and the U.S. military warned Tuesday it was "considering all options" in response to dire conditions there that have left people cowering in darkened homes and scrounging for food and rainwater.

Heavy anti-aircraft fire and loud explosions sounded in Tripoli after nightfall, possibly a new attack in the international air campaign that so far has focused on military targets. But conditions have deteriorated sharply in Misrata, the last major city in western Libya held by the rebel force trying to end Gadhafi's four-decade rule. Residents of the city 125 miles (200 kilometers) southeast of Tripoli, say shelling and sniper attacks are unrelenting. A doctor said tanks opened fire on a peaceful protest on Monday.

just a dictator soin some dictatin', nothing to see here...

Maybe this isn't as obvious as I think it is, but isn't what makes a dictator a dictator the fact that they do and have done these kinds of things for years? Like, you're not a dictator upon taking office. First you have to prove your merits as a dictator but tormenting, oppressing and generally mistreating your people, right? Not saying being a dictator is a good thing and these abhorrent actions aren't worth objection, but this is where I detect disingenuousness on the part of the humanitarians: what made Qaddafi tolerable for the past four decades? What threshold did he cross, considering he's always been known as a bully, lunatic, terrorist supporter, serial human rights abuser and all-around terrible person? Is he qualitatively worse now?

I mean, he's not exactly evincing a sudden change of disposition. Dude's ruthless.

What threshold did he cross, considering he's always been known as a bully, lunatic, terrorist supporter, serial human rights abuser and all-around terrible person?

the threshhold that was crossed was that his people rebelled.

hmm, i wonder what could possibly have held the_west back during the first and i guess most violent-est twenty years (other than, well, bombing tripoli). what could it possibly have been?

apparently it has got a mite less oppressive in the last decade, but that's exactly when revolutions begin: when things get a bit better.

^^^This is true. Qaddafi was starting to appear almost reasonable for helping out with TERROR stuff, Libya's in OPEC and his kids were studying abroad and writing very bad dissertations about opening up government in the developing world. I am hopeful because North African agitants thus far are not Islamic zealots; they're mostly young people not getting a fair crack of the whip but getting very pissed off with heads of state who have been in situ for 30 years and foment a cult of personality. This is, I hope, generational.

this kids were studying abroad and writing very bad dissertations

Which proves they've been Westernized.

the threshhold that was crossed was that his people rebelled.

The opportunity for the Libyans to determine their own government for the first time in ages is worthy. The opportunity for the US to help its image by helping is good. A democratic Libya between a democratic Egypt and a democratic Tunisia is nothing to sniff at. I wish them luck. They'll need it.

LOLSOTO what about the Beyonce gigs? Proof that MTV Base is/was the international soundtrack of jet-trash assholes who live in opulent transient beigeness the world over.

for lots of rich folks it pays to have fluctuating levels of ignorance and awareness and a conveniently timed sense of moral outrage

would just like to say the (albeit limited and scattered) political blowback Obama is getting in the US is alternately disgustingly opportunistic and pathetically blinkered

So basically the usual, then.

mostly

A bit more about who the the rebels are, and the mushy area between nonviolent resistance and running gun battles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22tripoli.html

And the story of the 4 journalists who were abducted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/world/africa/23times.html

(Should I be tweeting this and then linking to the tweet?? so confusing)

hillary is saying that qaddafi is looking for an exit strategy, which would be so great but strikes me as wishful thinking most likely