Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

They already have a reality show, and we're watching it right now. It's called ... reality.

doh!

So the US is now sorta saying that Yemen's prez for life should go.

Speaking of reality shows, they should just have Yemen dude and Qaddafi swap countries. Like, Nation Swap. Just to shake things up, see what happens.

The UK is gonna give rebels fancy communication equipment. This is to help prevent further air strikes on the wrong people as well as to allow communication among the rebels. But the UK is not ready to give them weapons yet either.

Meanwhile, hundreds of pro-democracy rebels in Ivory Coast massacred for trying to take down their own democracy-resisting strongman. Better keep those jet engines running, right? Especially if we want to keep global cocoa prices down.

UN and French troops are shooting people there too if it makes you feel any better

lol france is pissed these days

Libyan rebels near Brega and Libyan civilians are pissed that NATO is not doing enough to help them.

Those Libyans don't understand the delicate intricacies of not-wars. We are at not-war in Libya. If we were at war, they'd be super-pissed at us for coming in, steamrolling the country, flattening the infrastructure, taking over the government and trying to build schools for girls.

What do the "why Libya, why not Ivory Coast?" people make of the Ivory Coast intervention? Do they like this one? Seems to be working.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/2011/04/110405_jj_latest.shtml

I dunno what those guys think, but the tide was already against Gbagbo, and has been for months. The UN intervention has (hopefully) reduced the cost in life and time before a solution. But it was still different from Libya where those holding power had the upper hand.

What do the "why Libya, why not Ivory Coast?" people make of the Ivory Coast intervention? Do they like this one? Seems to be working.

well i'm confused as to why intervention in ivory coast is so easy to do and get away with, whereas libya requires a whole host of subterranean diplomatic agreements, quid-pro-quos, resolutions etc etc. is it because libya is closer to europe as the crow flies?

Arab countries have much more global political influence than African ones.

Gbagbo lost his election, the AU condemned him, the US condemned him, the UN condemned him, he's batshit but w/o as deep a power base, the only ppl realistically who can intervene are France under the aegis of the UN, Nigeria just postponed local and presidential elections so they're unlikely to want to get involved. Libya, otoh, is close to France, Italy and Malta and it's a major supplier of oil to Italy but also to France, did I mention that the European economy isn't exactly flourishing right now, PIGS and all? Yet interference is far more risky politically and the dividing lines are less clear.

NY Times:

BREGA, Libya — Forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi battered rebel fighters on the road outside this strategic oil town on Tuesday with rocket fire, mortars and artillery, driving them many miles to the north and leaving them in disarray.

A day after a senior Libyan rebel leader had criticized NATO for “a delay in reacting and lack of response to what’s going on on the ground,” there was still no sign of the air power that two weeks ago seemed to have the loyalist forces reeling toward the Qaddafi stronghold of Surt, more than 100 miles to the west.

BBC guy reporting on that retreat, and how the assault took them by surprise, also mentioned seeing 2 Gaddafi armoured cars smouldering in the road after an airstrike. Also claims by the UN that they've taken out a third of Gaddafi's forces.

The NATO coalition shouldn't have bothered attacking at all. The point was to prevent bombardment of civilians, not to pick winners. The ideal (given stated aims) would be an enforced stalemate wherein all transport between 17 and 19 East longitude is considered in violation. Let them stew and find a dignified exit for Gaddafi and a federalized constitution for the rebels.

it's the "picking winners" part that i really really really have a problem with, even if i were totally on board with the winners picked

Is this one of those bombing the trains to Auschwitz type dilemmas?

It's not picking winners, it's choosing sides - and there is a difference, even if not in outcome. Hell, even Gandhi stressed the importance of choosing sides in WWII. Failure to act is to support Gadaffi. Partitioning the country would take more force than removing him. The problem remains that the world has not acted enough, rather than acting too little.

i hear all that

I'm with Dowd on this. If you allow Gaddaffi's troops to retake towns hence life will be dangerous for civilians in those towns. Jeeez Tracer, you're still worried that these rebels might be worse than Gaddaffi.

what?? when did i ever say that?

really, i mean i DO understand that being opposed to western airstrikes is equal to supporting gaddafi's right to kill civilians in cold blood, but no one should have to bring up hitler to make their arguments

I probably wouldn't put it as strongly as saying that opposition is "equal to supporting gaddafi's right to kill civilians in cold blood" - it may enable his actions, but it doesn't condone them. I guess it gets a bit too act and omissions doctrine at this point.

JUST A LITTLE BIT

In the case of Ivory Coast, it's been an intervention months in the making, plus a much more clear cut idea of the opposition: the is, the guy that won the national election and the millions that support him, vs. the despot refusing to concede who has nationalized the banks, cocoa industry, etc., to consolidate power and fund his side. Libya just seems so much more ambiguous/amorphous, with "Qaddafi is a bad guy" the only thing obvious to everyone. Just about every other aspect of it is a degree of guesswork.

So, with regard to Ivory Coast, I'm fine with intervention. Though the French, obviously, owe a much greater debt to and have a much deeper relationship with Ivory Coast that we do with Libya.

^sorry for all the typos, packing a kid's lunch while I wrote this

Re Ivory Coast, here's an article from the Nation on how the exploitive role played by American agribusiness companies like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland (in not paying farmers fairly for cocoa) will continue to be a problem there even if/when the guy who lost the election finally leaves

http://www.thenation.com/article/159707/roots-cote-divoire-crisis

NPR this morning covered Libya and Yemen from the perspective of those in the US government who are trying to stop Al Queda. Sadly it seems that civilians in both of those countries are irrelevent pawns. All of the military 'experts' just assume that changes in governments in those 2 countries will help Al Queda in Libya(alleged to exist based on prior reports) and Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula(AQAP gave us the underwear bomber). There was no discussion of economic aid or anything else for the people in Yemen, just how the US has been unable to use Predator drones in recent months to target AQAP.

Josh in Chicago, do you have a child?

I've got two!

That's impressive. Congratulations.

Well, they're not that new! ;)

But thanks.

NATO bombing missions in Libya apparently up a bit today, but Gaddaffi is trying to use non-military vehicles and hiding troops in urban areas to make things more difficult.

good to know. any idea when it will end?

Ha. I liked the story that one of Gaddaffi's sons was suggesting that if his Dad be considered a British style king, he would go along with having a Parliament.

Gaddafi also wrote another letter to Obama:

from the NY Times

In a letter to President Barack Obama on Wednesday, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi called for an end to airstrikes on his forces and addressed the American leader as “our son,” apparently referring to Mr. Obama’s African heritage.

Colonel Qaddafi also assured Mr. Obama that he has not taken the American military action personally, and even endorsed his campaign for reelection in 2012.

As White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reminded reporters on Wednesday, the letter was “not the first,” from the Libyan leader to the American president.

omg

Man, Muammar really needs to go into exile on a talk show. If it weren't for the evil, he'd be a zany comic genius.

the letter was “not the first,” from the Libyan leader to the American president

Muammar el-Gaddfly

I'm sure the big thing Obama wants in his corner right now is the endorsement of a crazy black man dressed as a future pimp

just got nostalgic for Idi Amin for a moment there

Many of the fighters are brave, but by any measures by which a military might be assessed, they are hapless NY Times on Libyan rebels

So I guess these "hapless" rebels are not Al Queda?

You'd have to check their driver's licenses to be sure

@bencnn benwedeman
Fighters, civilians fleeing ajdabiya after apparent NATO airstrikes kills at least three (including doctor), wound more than 10 opposition
1 minute ago via Twitter for iPhone

"We Support the Libyan Democratic Revolution and Oppose Western Military Intervention and Domination "

http://www.cpdweb.org/

And elsewhere in the region:

After Bahrain’s Sunni rulers crushed protests last month, the Shiite opposition is trying to regain momentum

Phyllis Bennis responds to Juan Cole:

http://www.zcommunications.org/on-libya-a-response-to-juan-cole-by-phyllis-bennis

She's just rehashing old arguments. Her argument about the military strength of the rebels might have seemed logical when the rebellion began, but I don't see many people voicing that view now about the "hapless" rebels.

Nothing surprising in that CPD statement - just wishful thinking and a pretty casual approach to massacres.

I guess you must be referring to those predicted massacres that did not happen, but are now happening in an alternate reality.

They did not happen because of the bombings, yes.