Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

Third, we should ask the new governments in Egypt and Tunisia to immediately call Arab League sessions to debate the violence in Syria. Libya was expelled; let’s demand that Syria be, too

this would be nice but so not gonna happen

xpost So, hard-nosed realpolitik and morality be damned?

There should be a break between "realpolitik" and "and"

"realpolitik" and "morality" have no business being together.

Tracer was just noticing the salient fact that civil wars are bloody messes that can ruin countries for a couple of generations, with no guarantee that the outcome will be anything remotely like what the combatants sought as their original goal.

One of the possible outcomes would be a split between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania (no idea where the Fezzan would go). I've been reading that Cyrenaica linguistically and tribally looks more to the East and Tripolitania looks more to the Maghreb. Since Benghazi is the capital of Cyrenaica (in insurgent hands) and Tripoli is in Qaddafi's hands, I can see some kind of cease-fire along those lines. Unfortunately, since most of the oil is in the East, Qaddafi could always make his usual anti-imperialist noises and would probably always intrigue at the very least in an attempt to get the region back.

Brokering a peace based on extensive compromises has not been working especially well in the middle east lately, but I must say it would be a welcome outcome.

Even if these bodies do not act, the attention should give heart to Syrian demonstrators.

Fred's problem, like most neo-cons, is that his head is too far rectally inserted to clearly see the situation. The uprisings in Libya were pretty wide-spread and quickly joined by people abandoning the regime. In Syria, they have not been as widespread, concentrating recently mostly on Daraa. I rather wish that Assad would read the handwriting on the wall and get rid of the emergency law that has been in place since '62 and call for genuine, multi-party elections but after today's speech, I'm not terribly sanguine about that.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0330/President-Assad-s-defiant-speech-stuns-Syrians-who-call-for-more-protests

Assad's speech may make opposition in Syria more widespread

xpost I meant that Syria and Libya are on their face more or less the same: repressive dictator putting down citizen revolt with excessive violence. Reasons for intervening - or not intervening, as the case may be- are indeed totally different. But anyone else think that the US/UN intervening in Libya but not Syria or wherever just might be giving some of those other regional dictators the idea that if they give at all they're done for? And that the only way to survive is to fire on protestors, clamp down, etc.? I understand the regional players are all different, but they have the internet in Syria, too. And Iran. And everywhere. So even if our action is limited to Libya, the impact of our actions doesn't stop at the Libyan border. Obama's speech more or less said that to do nothing sends the wrong message. But to do something sends a message, too, which surely some of these bad guys are hearing loud and clear as they dig their heals/trenches.

should give heart to Syrian demonstrators

See: Hungary, circa 1954. The western powers, esp USA, "gave heart" to demonstrators then, too. Fat lot of good it did them.

Assad's speech may make opposition in Syria more widespread

^^^my suspicion as well

(Not saying we should get involved in Syria at all, btw. Just that by dint of intervening in Libya we're now sort of passively involved, or at least connected, regardless).

they have the internet in Syria, too. And Iran.

um

Just meant that it's not like they don't see what's going on, and are reacting accordingly is all.

Anyway, I don't see why Syria won't go the full Iran and suppress any malcontents with extreme prejudice. Remember, not too long ago Iran's streets were teeming with people calling for reform. But now reformers are laying way low. Those that weren't killed, imprisoned or otherwise disappeared, that is.

might be giving some of those other regional dictators the idea that if they give at all they're done for?

also dude this is their default modus operandi

xp

High speed internet access is a concession the Ba'athist party has made in Syria only since january

geez don't these guys know how to use facebook yet wtf

sorry just to be clear i dont ACTUALLY think tracer was saying "who is the real war criminal"

Syria's identity is a bit more fractured than Libya's. btw. There's a sizeable Kurdish population, a sizeable Christian population and the Alawites mostly in charge of the govmnt are an odd sect of Shia.

I really do think the Iranian/Hezbollah connection and our presence in Iraq (which I truly believe Obama wants us to get out of) complicates any intervention in Syrian affairs. First off, Russia isn't happy at the way UN1973 is being applied nor is China, so any future UN resolutions aimed at 'halting bloodshed' in Syria probably won't get anywhere. Assad is claiming that the army has been instructed not to harm any Syrians or shed their blood. I'm not sure what that actually means and I'm not so sure of his hold on power within the present regime. (This a country prone to coups since its independence in '46.)

Hizbollah, Syria's client in Lebanon and whose member, Najib Mikati, was just elected prime minister after the national unity govmnt collapsed also recently bloodied the Israelis. Lebanon is in as much danger as at any time since 2008 of returning to civil war (the last one lasted 15 years and was horribly destructive) and unrest in Syria has far greater and potentially more dire regional ramifications than what's happening in Libya.

The Syria Revolution 2011 Facebook page called on protesters to take to the streets immediately following Assad’s speech. “Go down into the streets now and announce the uprising – control all the cities and declare civil disobedience from this moment onward,” it declared

See, this is just where it all seems such a frustrating mess. We may mean well in Libya, and probably do, but for every Libya there's another country relatively nearby facing the same issues that we're more or less powerless to help with, due to macro-political constrictions. I admire the notion of humanitarian intervention, but at the same time I feel we could do a lot more good in a lot less unstable places by spending those billions on food, medicine and other parcels of practical aid around the world.

So, hard-nosed realpolitik and morality be damned?

False dichotomy. It is somewhat possible to blend realpolitik and morality, but it is particularly difficult to do so when you add in high explosives in large quantities or for extended periods. The moral conscience of explosives is very unreliable.

unrest in Syria has far greater and potentially more dire regional ramifications than what's happening in Libya.

Also, the potential of either a free Libya or a Libya that remembers that we did something wedged in between Egypt, Libya and an Algeria that has emerged to repeal the emergency law (does it always come down to emergency laws in this region?) from the aborted elections in '92 lends itself to a kind of domino effect strategy in the Maghreb/North Africa whereas who the fcuk knows what lies ahead for the Levant?

Tracer was just noticing the salient fact that civil wars are bloody messes that can ruin countries for a couple of generations, with no guarantee that the outcome will be anything remotely like what the combatants sought as their original goal.

i think most people get something like what ur saying aimless, but really, 'ruin' libya, will this? fuuuuuck, how could they? it was going so well there. and they're rising up without a guarantee of success... idiots. historically that's how revolutions have preceded, and that's why so many of them lead to the outcomes everyone has sought. if only the libyans could see this.

Once such a war starts, everyone gets blood on their hands, not just the 'bad guys', and it's a fairly dodgy exercise to intervene in such wars simply for high-minded moral reasons, instead of hard, practical ones. War and high-minded morality make poor partners in almost every case.

on this logic i guess it's BETTER that the US is doing this for the oil? idk you seem to think everyone else is really dumb and naive and blind to the hypocrisy etc?

meanwhile it sounds like there've been some high-level defections. i hope they've got their families out too.

I really, really hope these defections mark a sinking-ship moment because I think the only way this is going to end at all well is if Q's own guys abandon him. People only stick with a dictator when he's winning and my hope since this whole thing began is that he would begin to seem enough like a failure that high-profile folk in the govt and military would throw him under a bus.

Libyan rebel leader lived in Virginia for twenty years.

I'm still massively uncomfortable with this, especially in light of today's late breaking story that HRC said the White House will thumb its nose at Congress. More unitary executive bullshit. Yeah yeah -- the Aims Are Noble.

but really, 'ruin' libya, will this? fuuuuuck, how could they?

Perhaps your imagination is a trifle underpowered.

Taking the position that Libya could not possibly become any worse than it was, say, just six months ago is not credible. Look at how Iraq improved after Saddam Hussein was forcibly removed. Hundreds of thousands dead, infrastructure gutted, national treasures looted and shipped away, national income cratered. You'll get no argument that Libya is cruelly oppressed by a dictator, but this quote shows no grasp of the possibilities for bloody mayhem now that bombs and bullets have been added to the mix.

on this logic i guess it's BETTER that the US is doing this for the oil?

Don't be a putz. Libya's oil was never withheld from the US or world markets. Sure, Iraq was about oil. But it is exceedingly unclear what this one is about, other than a desire to take down Qadaffi without the mess and expense of a real invasion. Oh, and all those noble aims in support of the Democratic Aspirations of the Libyan People.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-29-2011/america-at-not-war---obama-defends-military-action-in-libya

Oh, and all those noble aims in support of the Democratic Aspirations of the Libyan People.

see kids, the capital letters let you know he's being sarcastic

Taking the position that Libya could not possibly become any worse than it was, say, just six months ago is not credible ... this quote shows no grasp of the possibilities for bloody mayhem now that bombs and bullets have been added to the mix.

of course im aware libya post-uprising could likely be worse in the short term, or hell, even long-term, than libya under gadaffi. that's the same with pretty much every revolution ever, american, french, whatever. you and tracer are saying no-one should ever have one, afaict. im very much aware of the possibilities for bloody mayhem, but the bullets, for the millionth time, were added to the mix by gadaffi. he had unarmed protesters shot.

i take it that in your view they should not have protested, because a violent response was inevitable? would be really interested to know what, from your vantage point in the post-revolutionary west, the libyans who rose up should have done instead.

sorry i mean 'Really Interested'

Sure, Iraq was about oil.

Oh, FFS. This again?

Has any country in this region, either pre- or post-colonial meddling, ever had a stable democracy (Israel excepted)? India (not exactly the region, but still) seems to be a shining example of a diverse, huge population reaching some sort of cooperative consensus across religious, etc. lines (recall reading that India's Muslim minority is larger than the entire middle eastern Arab population put together). Turkey, too, right? But the odds of a democratic government coming out of this Libya incursion seems about as unlikely as, I don't know, a truly democratic government coming out of what happened in Egypt, or Tunisia. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. (Stretching the "region" here, admittedly). Which means the only way to "achieve" our "goals" is to maintain a presence in the region to bolster whatever temp/phony government fills the vacuum (is this the inevitable outcome of mission creep?). Just amazing to me that here we are in 2011, with Iraq still simmering and Afghanistan active and all sorts of other shit going on, and we've voluntarily entered into an open-ended military mission in the middle east with vague, unfocused goals and an as yet undeclared means of achieving them.

Lebanon's had democratic governments? Not very stable mind you! But I'm not sure that's their own fault.

It's never their own fault! That's part of the point. Is the region just irreparably broken?

Has any country in this region, either pre- or post-colonial meddling, ever had a stable democracy (Israel excepted)?

it's an impossible, somewhat loaded question -- 'colonial meddling' assumes what? which empire do you mean? the land we call libya has was under imperial control for half a millennium before the fall of mussolini. and under gadaffi it became a russian client. that's not 'meddling', it's a near-permanent state of affairs.

but no, there hasn't been much democracy in libya, historically. nor in any other part of the world.

i don't understand why you think it so unlikely that these north african countries could have democratic government when you also say that india and turkey do have it. im not sure many countries have a 'truly democratic' government, but either way, very few countries started out as democracies.

Is the region just irreparably broken?

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:42 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

jeepers, it's as if western europe hadn't had an episode of mass slaughter within the span of some people's memories. who is the 'control' in this thought experiment?

I don't know why, but it's surprising to realise that through the 1930s Libya was an actual colony - a colony - of Italy.

(And only stopped being one because the British and the French took over)

The Italians and Germans had imperialist envy at the beginning of the 20th century. Note Germany's interests in Southwest Africa (Namibia), the Cameroons, a sphere of influence in China, and a few specks in the Pacific used as coaling stations.

Off the point but I was shocked when I first started reading about Rwanda to learn that the main reason the Hutus resented the Tutsis wasn't centuries of rivalry but the divide-and-rule racial politics of the Germans. From Wikipedia:

"During this period, many Europeans had become obsessed with race, and this had an impact on life in Rwanda. The Germans believed the Tutsi ruling class was a superior racial type who, because of their apparent "Hamitic" origins on the Horn of Africa, were more "European" than the Hutu. Because of their seemingly taller stature, more "honorable and eloquent" personalities, and their willingness to convert to Roman Catholicism, the colonist, including powerful Roman Catholic officials, favored the Tutsis. They were put in charge of the farming Hutus (almost in a feudalistic manner), the newly formed principalities, and were given basic ruling positions. Eventually, these positions would turn into the overall governing body of Rwanda. The Tutsi oppression of the Hutus seemed somehow normal and expected."

By "meddling" I meant broad western interference, from outright colonization (or worse) on down. Anyway, my point is that it seems no more effective to foster the rise of democracy (like was pointed out, a historical anomaly anyway) in this region than it is to redraw borders or partition countries.

xpost And of course, vast swaths of Africa and Asia were European colonies as well, well into the 20th century. It doesn't take much history to reach back to some seemingly inconceivable scenarios that comprised our weird collective reality just a couple of generations ago.

But what if the citizens of those countries want democracy? Do we just say, no, you're not ready for it, you'll only fuck it up.

I mean, in some ways that's a good question. It's conceivable, for numerous cultural/religious reasons, that democracy literally can't work there, though of course there can be compromises. I'd suggest that even Israel is a compromised democracy (and hey, the US, too). But the ethnic/religious divides there are ancient and real, and grudges and distrust go back for centuries. How did India and Turkey pull it off?

Also, it's sort of being difficult, but who are "the citizens?" A majority? A vocal minority? The rebels? And it's almost like trying to resolve an abusive relationship decades down the line: it's possibly less that anyone wants democracy, per se, so much as something, anything better than their decades-reigning bad-drunk stepfathers, with "democracy" a loose ideal.

(Obv. this is just one hypothesis, because at this point there haven't been a lot of "what's next?" specifics)

It's never their own fault!

Re: Lebanon. Guessing that been stuck between Syria and Israel might, uh, put some strain on a country