Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

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

sorry i mean what the hell do i know? i just feel like if i were qaddafi id be looking to make this as difficult as possible for the coalition forces

the question there is how much his military will take. well, *a* question. hard to read his mind. by clinging on, he would make life very hard for western leaders. and im sure that does matter to him, but he ends up that dead that way, when he could just be chilling poolside in caracas.

The smartest thing Qaddafi could do is nothing, which would indeed make this as difficult as possible for the coalition forces.

i don't know how that works. not sure where the revenue comes from. feel like although the rebels are disorganized, gaddaffi pulling back from attacking benghazi (which is what 'doing nothing' means surely?) presages his downfall.

By nothing, I assume you mean "park the tanks next to kindergartens, and start disappearing suspected opponents of the Gaddafi clan at night".

there's a lot of bullshit out there about this of course, but this might be the most annoying

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/85528/we-intervene

nb i'm only thru the first paragraph so far

oh god why are you doing that to yourself?

i dunno, it's like going to the gym or something

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Flagellants.png

That picture is how I feel for at least 50% of my time on the internet.

i need some shoes like that

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/03/22/what-is-the-us-plan-for-libya?hp

All kinds of different ideas from putting Un peacekeepers in to enforce a ceasefire to splitting the country in 2 with a rebel East and a Quadaffi West, to coming up with carrots to get Quadaffi to go to Venezuela or using military sticks to end things for him

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12837330

Col Muammar Gaddafi's air force "no longer exists as a fighting force", the commander of British aircraft operating over Libya has said.

But his ground forces are still operating

Oh sure. It just makes it weird when people keep referring to the broader UN resolution as just a no-fly
zone when there's no more planes to fly.

I think there are plenty of planes left to fly, and plenty of anti-aircraft weaponry still in Gaddafi's hands but he's chosen not to use or expose them, pretty sensibly

(Though I'm not suggesting for a minute they pose any kind of threat to the US)

I think there are plenty of planes left to fly

any source for this?

i haven't read or heard a single report of gaddafi's planes themselves being blown up. what i've been reading is that they are "grounded" as a result of command and control being degraded, and visible air defences being taken out. so they may as well not exist right now because they can't be protected and organized.

not for the first time, seumas milne marks himself as a right cunt:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/23/nothing-moral-nato-intervention-libya

"western forces are in action against yet another Muslim state"

for dudes like gerry healy, not a million miles from milne ideologicially, the beauty of gadaffi's libya was its lefist secularism... but anyway onwards

As in Iraq and Afghanistan, they insist humanitarian motives are crucial. And as in both previous interventions, the media are baying for the blood of a pantomime villain leader, while regime change is quickly starting to displace the stated mission.

what is the object of this rhetoric? gadaffi is a bit pantomimic, yes. so was idi amin. it's as if milne wants to say the villain talk is all hype.

On the ground, the western attacks have failed to halt the fighting and killing

they seem to have stopped the advance into benghazi. ah, but then perhaps civilians in the east were not at risk. or had it coming:

As its secretary general, Amr Moussa, argued, the bombardment clearly went well beyond a no-fly zone from the outset. By attacking regime troops fighting rebel forces on the ground, the Nato governments are unequivocally intervening in a civil war, tilting the balance of forces in favour of the Benghazi-based insurrection.

well, the resolution called for more than a NFZ, for better or worse. but well, "regime troops fighting rebel forces", yeah i guess that's it, isn't it? he'll mention civilians being killed by western bombs -- legitimately -- but not, you know, the killing of unarmed civilians by libyan forces.

but then the massacre, says milne, was never going to happen...