Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

poll only has 50 choices?

I've been waiting to use this quote from the West Wing pilot...

LEO: Margaret. Please call the editor of the New York Times crossword and tell him that Khaddafi is spelled with an h, and two d’s, and isn’t a seven letter word for anything.
MARGARET: Is this for real? Or is this just funny?
LEO: Apparently, it’s neither.

[Later, on the phone to the New York Times]

LEO: [on phone] Seventeen across. Yes. Seventeen across is wrong. You're spelling his name wrong. What's my name? My name doesn't matter. I'm just an ordinary citizen who relies on the Times crossword for stimulation. And I'm telling you, that I've met the man twice, and I've recommended a preemptive Exocet Missile strike against his airforce. So, I think I know how to...
C.J.: [in shock] Leo!
LEO: [looking at the phone, then hanging up] They hang up on me. Every time.
C.J.: That's almost hard to believe.

sorry, I'll go away now :D

When your opponents have just had the shit pounded out of them for a week, at a cost of a couple of billion dollars, regaining momentum is made rather simpler.

Yes, that's the point.

So, when the rebels reach the Team Qaddafi towns and begin their inevitable massacre in that direction, backed by allied warplanes, we all cool with those innocent men, women and children amongst the supporters getting slaughtered?

A literal reading of the UN resolution would suggest the "allies" then start bombing the rebels, right?

So, when the rebels reach the Team Qaddafi towns and begin their inevitable massacre in that direction, backed by allied warplanes, we all cool with those innocent men, women and children amongst the supporters getting slaughtered?

What makes you think the rebels will massacre people?

The rebels will strike with surgical precision, using laser-guided weapons, to eliminate only the 52 villains soon to be depicted on a pack of custom-printed playing cards.

And anything else would be a massacre.

Casualties inflicted during battle, even upon innocent civilians, would not qualify as a massacre. However, if deadly force is deliberately used against civilians in a situation where no military resistance is expected, then "massacre" would fit. I have no idea if the rebels in Libya will do this or not. Retribution is a common sequel to successful armed uprisings.

The rebels are going to need the continuing support of the UN, which might keep them from getting over-zealous. I suspect that most of the violence will be in the character of the other revolts, or the early anti-soviet protests - the people will turn on groups like the secret police. We also don't know if the army will defend Tripoli - they're on the backfoot at the moment, presumable to try to ringfence Tripoli, but things might look hopeless by then, with defections within the army, and internal revolt within the city.

"How long must the footsteps of freedom be gravestones" is a legitimate question, but people forget that the alternative situation was that freedom took a couple of steps, faltered and stumbled, falling into a mass-grave in Benghazi. I'd take the risk of possible retaliatory violence (which I think is unlikely) over the near certain slaughter that would have followed Gaddafi's victory.

What makes a revolt worthwhile is not the success or failure of the struggle for freedom - this is no difference from the other revolutions recently except this has been met with force - what matters is that people were willing to commit to that struggle, and we should stand by them.

/drunk/flowery/sorry

also otm

a few questions

- what does this have to do with us

- isn't it extremely likely that becoming the air force of the libyan rebels will have the opposite of the declared effect, i.e. instead of buttressing the most exciting, broad-based arab uprising in literally centuries we have stomped in like a bull in a china shop and guaranteed that whoever succeeds gaddafi will be seen as an illegitimate western puppet

- most people on this thread seem to be hanging their support of this strange coalition on "civilian deaths" - that gaddafi has been egregious in this respect and must be stopped at all costs. so - if this ragtag libyan oppositon were holed up in benghazi with their backs to the wall, gaddafi's tanks and planes advancing inexorably toward them, you would NOT support airstrikes by the global north in the absence of earlier instances of civilians being killed?

- what does this have to do with us

- if a 16-year-old deathmetal fan picks up an AK and jumps in a jeep and is then killed by mortar fire, is that a "civilian death"?

- who are we fighting for? do we stand foursquare with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group LIFG, formerly backed by bin laden, then qatar, who have assassinated dozens of libyan policemen, who tried several times to assassinate gaddafi, who in 2009 supposedly renounced violence, and who sparked the initial libyan protests in mid-february (allegedly shooting and killing more than 100 libyan soldiers)? we're probably more sympatico with the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL), given that they were created by israel and the CIA and subsequently backed by britain, morocca, saudi arabia, france and iraq. what do we think of the Libyan League for Human Rights, a geneva-based organization that gets heavily quoted in the media, predicting "a massacre like rwanda" in the absence of air support? how far we will go with the Libyan Constitutional Union, which wants a return to the monarchy?

- what does this have to do with us

- what does this have to do with us

some of the points are worth addressing, but posing this question three times, as if particularly perceptive and overlooked, strikes me as beyond retarded, unless you're into abandoning the UN, joining #team_pat_buchanan, etc

hackney tourist board gonna give himself an aneurysm here

isn't it extremely likely that becoming the air force of the libyan rebels will have the opposite of the declared effect, i.e. instead of buttressing the most exciting, broad-based arab uprising in literally centuries we have stomped in like a bull in a china shop and guaranteed that whoever succeeds gaddafi will be seen as an illegitimate western puppet

is it 'extremely likely'? what makes the likelihood so extreme? all of this is so crudely put -- won't it GUARANTEE THE EXACT OPPOSITE EFFECT? isn't the rebellion EXCITING whereas arab league, UN, and western intervention will make the winners PUPPETS even if they asked for help!? anyway anyway: it isn't out business to buttress or not-buttress anything because what the fuck does it have to do with us, right? why should we buttress these dudes who, you then say, are probably either islamists or agents of mossad anyway? what's so exciting, by the way, about the rebellion if it's being pushed by the islamists? what's your line here?

: it isn't out business to buttress or not-buttress anything because what the fuck does it have to do with us, right?

well, in a nutshell.

what's exciting about all this rebellions to me is that they're broad-based and largely positive; intolerance and fear are not the main weapons involved, which marks a big difference from most revolutionary and civil wars of the last couple of decades, from the balkans to rwanda to afghanistan. it makes me think that the 90s may finally be over, and that arabs are leading the way. or at least they were.

unless you're into abandoning the UN

haha yes, the united states just takes its marching orders from the UN. right.

by your own account, the revolutionaries don't all sound that positive and tolerant:

do we stand foursquare with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group LIFG, formerly backed by bin laden, then qatar, who have assassinated dozens of libyan policemen, who tried several times to assassinate gaddafi, who in 2009 supposedly renounced violence, and who sparked the initial libyan protests in mid-february (allegedly shooting and killing more than 100 libyan soldiers)? we're probably more sympatico with the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL), given that they were created by israel and the CIA and subsequently backed by britain, morocca, saudi arabia, france and iraq.

and this rebellion was going to be smashed, so how the west has destroyed the momentum of the arab spring by stopping that happening is unclear to me.

xpost

the UN is such a US puppet: that's why it okayed the iraq war. i kid: obviously it is. but idk, anti-war kids used to say things like 'the iraq war lacked a UN resolution'; now they say 'the UN is a bunch of bullshit' i suppose.

not really sure you could have a UN-type outfit that wasn't dominated by the great powers. would be really interested to hear how that could work.

it makes me think that the 90s may finally be over

get one calendar

dude i just saw a guy who looked he was in a Verve video this morning. and all those tattoos will last FOREVER.

where were the UN when kulashaker were releasing records eh

regarding the makeup of the revolutionaries in libya i think yes - some of them are just thugs with a grievance who happened to have been trained by the CIA in chad. but a lot of them are idealistic young people with a grievance. sometimes those are the same people. i think it's very broad-based and very complicated. IBM should send in Watson the supercomputer to help the rebels keep track of themselves.

and this rebellion was going to be smashed, so how the west has destroyed the momentum of the arab spring by stopping that happening is unclear to me.

i was thinking more in terms of shockwaves throughout the region. i.e. the Egyptian military is supplying truckloads of arms to the Libyan rebels; will this de facto alliance with NATO eventually delegitimize the New Egypt? maybe not. who knows? kapow!

anyway i noticed that no supporters of the Libyan rebels' new air force have been interested in answering the question about whether they would still support it in the absence of civilian deaths leading up to the standoff in benghazi. if demonstrators had not been killed previously, would you have been willing to bite your lip and watch the rebel troops get killed (actually i think "slaughter" was the favored term) with the_global_north doing nothing overt to stop it?

most of these countries are part of the global north, id have thought, really, being relatively rich and technologically advanced

i don't know if they hate europe and america as much as you'd like them to, though -- it's possible, and then, yes, maybe kapow!

no-one knows what the new egypt is yet. those arms that they're giving to the libyan rebels, be they CIA-trained or pure-of-heart islamists, are probably from the old, ie US-backed, egypt. kapow!

xpost

that's a really strange hypothetical to me. are you in favour of the gadaffi family's assets being frozen? what, after all, has it to do with us?

those arms that they're giving to the libyan rebels, be they CIA-trained or pure-of-heart islamists, are probably from the old, ie US-backed, egypt. kapow!

no, those arms being delivered right now, as we type.

that's a really strange hypothetical to me.

i pose it because to me it seemed that a lot of the emotional urgency driving this new war was the image of this tiny band of rebels facing certain death at the hands of a dictator's army. yet the justifications for intervention - on this thread, in the media, and from the state department - weren't military but humanitarian.

no, those arms being delivered right now, as we type.

but the arms are, i would imagine, from existing egyptian stock? that's what im assuming. has the US cut all ties with the egyptian military now? or has it magicked up some other way of paying its way and that of the libyan rebels?

i think the justification for the war came itt from the prospect of "this tiny band of rebels AND A BUNCH OF UNARMED CIVILIAN PROTESTERS facing certain death at the hands of a dictator's army", yep. reasonably sure gaddafi would not have distinguished the CIA-backed guys (who obviously weren't that well trained over in chad since they did a pretty bad job) from the unhappy burghers of benghazi.

oh i mean there is no doubt that anyone in benghazi who so much as provided a bed for a rebel or journalist to sleep in would have been killed. but what does that have to do with us?

warning: conspiracy theorist alert: given that probably about half the factions of the National Transitional Council ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transitional_Council ) were either created directly by western powers or funded by them over the past thirty years, could the United States (and the UK, and France, etc) not only feel a special responsibility here, but actually bear a direct responsibility?

i don't know. nothing. let em die i guess.

it's obviously crazy to have western europeans and americans involved in arab affairs, and that's why we should let the ottomans do their thing

xpost

holy shit really? putting this thread in my reahview for a bit. someone else can discuss questions of agency w/ you.

is it so so crazy to see this as yet another western-backed failed coup of gaddafi's regime, this time with the heartbreaking add-on of peaceful young demonstrators?

given its far from over, yes

no this was gonna be quick, obama said so

Or just US lead role was gonna be over quick

Although NATO heavily relies on US

that's one way of putting it!

kinda interested that the_left is gearing up to gloat over dead arabs rather than dead jews for a change

my conspiracy theory goes as follows:

- tunisia then egypt see broad-based, secular uprisings that result in long-time dictators being shown the door

- state department, cia and diplomat types look at the map and are like, wtf. we've got the NFSL and all sorts of other exile opposition groups, we've been funding opposition malcontents in libya for decades, this is their fucking moment! what the hell are they doing?? let's sow some liberty, team. send a telegram: go go go go go

- "day of rage" organized by NFSL and LIFG (whose main branch disavows the action: "rage" signifies violence and the LIFG formally renounced violence four months earlier in exchange for the release of more than a hundred prisoners)

- protestors are (predictably) killed

- but the country really does want change, and thousands of youths clamor both with placards and with AKs

- they fail miserably

- the NSLF and LIFG are like hey USA - you really gonna hang us out to dry?

given that probably about half the factions of the National Transitional Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transitional_Council ) were either created directly by western powers or funded by them over the past thirty years, could the United States (and the UK, and France, etc) not only feel a special responsibility here, but actually bear a direct responsibility?

― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Monday, March 28, 2011 2:10 PM (53 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

is it so so crazy to see this as yet another western-backed failed coup of gaddafi's regime, this time with the heartbreaking add-on of peaceful young demonstrators?

― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Monday, March 28, 2011 2:21 PM (42 minutes ago) Bookmark

"probably about half the factions of the National Transitional Council" "were either created directly by western powers or funded by them over the past thirty years, could the United States (and the UK, and France, etc)" -- to you this adds up to western-backed coup, in which the thousands or protesters were dupes? were the other about-half of the factions backed by outside states? would be interested to know. pretty sure, for example, that the palestinians get overseas assistance.

btw "heartbreaking add-on of peaceful young demonstrators" -- really classy.

xpost

lol at you

either created directly by western powers or funded by them over the past thirty years

Sounds a bit like that stuff about how every single Shia political organisation in the Middle East, no matter how large or small, is funded by the Iranians

well, look it up. a large part of the organized opposition groups are either western backed or want a return to the monarchy.

you don't have to buy my conspiracy theory to have a lot of trouble with the USA, UK and France raining bombs down on libya to support them.

Ha, no doubt Iran is at least a little bit why everyone's so mum about Syria, which is just about as egregious a situation as Libya.

The problem with any US involvement is that, frankly, the the_west can't do much without our support/weapons. So hand it to NATO, hand it to the UN, hand it to France, but we're footing the bill and unloading the bombs.

juan cole's open letter to the left, which disagrees with everything i've said:

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/an-open-letter-to-the-left-on-libya.html

Misread that as John Cale there!

that reminds me, the world hasn't heard from moe tucker about foreigners in awhile

Is she beating the drum to invade Iran? Get it?

Ha, I was just about to post that Juan Cole piece.

well, look it up. a large part of the organized opposition groups are either western backed or want a return to the monarchy.

you don't have to buy my conspiracy theory to have a lot of trouble with the USA, UK and France raining bombs down on libya to support them.

― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Monday, March 28, 2011 3:39 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

do the other organized opposition groups get outside help? genuine question, it's just that your whole thing seems to be based on the idea of the US as a uniquely evil agent in the world. you're going to have to go further in your denunciation of the transitional council than saying they have had support from the west, which in itself isn't a lot. especially given that ten days ago your line was that the US was not getting involved because it liked gadaffi being in power. now we learn that the_west was conspiring to get rid of gadaffi! for shame, the_west. for shame.

The problem with any US involvement is that, frankly, the the_west can't do much without our support/weapons. So hand it to NATO, hand it to the UN, hand it to France, but we're footing the bill and unloading the bombs.

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, March 28, 2011 3:40 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

that's also a problem with egyptian involvement. or, hell, saudi involvement, if it comes to that. (im pretty sure the french don't get much US help or use US weapons but ehh.)

This is one thing that puzzles me about certain proponents of the anti-war case. On the one hand the_west have been shamelessly colluding with Gaddafi for the past x years and on the other they've been plotting his downfall for x years and just waiting for their chance. Which is it? I know the usual argument is "aha, he's outlived his usefulness." Well, what usefulness and why has he only outlived it now?