Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

greenwald on oil interests and their role in the war:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/11/libya/index.html

^ correct answer = simplest, etc, ad nauseum

all of that stuff is of course true but lol @ UPDATE #1 in which he responds to the complaints of the PEONS:

To clarify what I believe was already clear ... That's not to say that Gaddafi's "resource nationalism" is the only or even overriding motive for the war in Libya. Wars are typically caused by the interests of multiple factions and rarely have just one motive.

oh!

lmao

nice mea culpa

The White House says the act requiring approval by Congress doesn’t apply to the Libya operation because what United States forces are doing there doesn’t amount to “hostilities.”

that's some catch, that Catch-22

While Obama and Boehner flip-flop re the War Powers Act,the AP reports that in Libya

Tunisian army official Mokhtar Ben Nasr said the number of Libyans fleeing has mounted in recent days, with 6,330 Libyan refugees crossing into Tunisia earlier this week. Dozens of Libyan soldiers also have defected to Tunisia by boat, the state news agency there reported Wednesday.

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/06/20/natos-libya-bombing-error-wont-help-a-flagging-war-effort/

What a mess--NATO bombing errors; stubborn Gaddafi won't leave and won't stop his own ugly killing; Obama won't get Congressional approval.

I wonder if the compromise plan to have elections discussed above can get support from either the rebels or Gaddafi.

surely the first rule of war in the new west is to pick a fight only where you know you can win. the libyan intervention has been 95% misguided from day 1. something seriously wrong if it's down to a 'stubborn' leader who won't do what we want him to do (but we'll forget about what assad is doing).

Doing the bombing from above approach (like in the Clinton 90s) is difficult.

Juan Cole who has supported the effort from the beginning has recently listed 10 things wrong with the operation

http://www.juancole.com/2011/06/top-ten-mistakes-in-the-libya-war.html

what's your view curmudgeon?

I support the intervention but think Obama should have gone to Congress for authorization. I recognize that it is inconsistent to be taking action in Libya but not in Syria (or Bahrain or Yemen) but there seem to be so many elements that factor into those decisions (not all logical). I do not know enough to discuss specifics of the NATO strategy. If you read upthread, you'll see that others think the whole thing is wrong. Glenn Greenwald and others are making that case elsewhere.

Also, Syria is discussed on this other thread:

a thread about the civil unrest in egypt (& elsewhere in 'the region' if necessary)

on its own terms it's not "inconsistent", NATO countries had some chance of knocking off Qdf and/or "protecting civilians" by intervening in libya and don't have that chance in syria at all

The House on Friday rejected a measure that would have authorized the United States’s mission in Libya, but also rejected a measure to limit financing.

Uh, ok.

Judges from the International Criminal Court on Monday issued a warrant for the arrest of Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi, his son and a top military intelligence chief, calling for them to to stand trial for crimes against humanity in connection with a violent crackdown on anti-government protesters this year.

Good luck in enforcing the warrant

The House on Friday rejected a measure that would have authorized the United States’s mission in Libya, but also rejected a measure to limit financing.

Uh, ok.

― curmudgeon, Friday, June 24, 2011 7:02 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

US Congress, just thinkin baout thangs

Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi will have to receive security guarantees to relinquish his four decades of rule over the North African nation, said Mikhail Margelov, Russia’s envoy for negotiating Qaddafi’s departure.

“Qaddafi will be interested in getting guarantees about his personal security,” Margelov said in a phone interview from Harare today after holding talks with Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe.

Can they get Q and Mugabe to leave power?

that's basically the devil's bargain for a lot of despots i think. not a bad bargain either, imo

getting off easy is what it is

for whom?

what exactly would 'personal security' imply though? being arrested probably safer than lynched or bombed

letting him slip quietly away to some shithole to live in a villa seems measurably safer for a whole lot of libyans...

yeah just buy him off along with mugabe, lukashenko and the rest, put them on an island and make a tv show of it

^^^presumably some kidn of Battle Royale show

ha

And Qadafi has just chewed off Mugabe's ear! But will they be able to avoid the deathtrap Lukashenko has waiting for them? TUNE IN NEXT WEEK

That program is not on yet.

For now, according to NPR, Qadaffi is using sub-Saharan Africans who had come to Libya to work, as soldiers to bolster the size of his force. He is paying them and suggesting that being part of his military is the only way they can stay. NPR says that the rebels assert that Q is hiring experienced Sub-Saharan mercenaries, but NPR based on what they have seen in refugee camps, says that is not the case.

Meat grinder war. But the west will keep it going as long as there are rebels willing to die with our assistance.

^^^

i think the rebels would be willing to die without our assistance, too! and in many cases "willing" wouldnt really enter into it!

Qadaffi could leave for Zimbabwe or somewhere today and the rebels and the west would be happy for the fighting to stop, as would the folks that for financial reasons have enlisted in Qadaffi's military

xp to max

In which case, obviously, our assistance is not required.

Except you will rejoin that, of course, it is. But to accomplish what? Oh, yes, that's right, protecting civilians. Except this can only be accomplished through offensive operations against Q, but not too much offense, lest we protect civilians too vigorously, because that would overstep the UN resolution and amount to regime change. So the regime does not change, but it still must be fought.

Or something like that.

I don't think our support of the rebels here is morally wrong btw, so while I agree with yr assessment of the conflict I don't really agree that we should just wash our hands of the whole affair

If the sole strategic aim is to convince Q to step down, then we have no strategy.

I think our strategic aims would be met if the rebels manage to off Q. or if we happen to kill him in an airstrike.

At this point, the rebels have no prayer of getting close enough to Q to kill him and that will not change for the foreseeable future. If an airstrike were to kill Q, but one of his sons immediately stepped in to fill his shoes, this would not amount to anything new and the war would continue.

i dont know if i really "support" the war i just didnt like your characterization of it above as some kind of... western project to make sure a lot of libyan civilians died

At this point, the rebels have no prayer of getting close enough to Q to kill him and that will not change for the foreseeable future.

I dunno how yr so sure about this or how long the "foreseeable future" is. if your point is that this war is just going to go on and on and there's nothing anybody can do about it... well, what kind of point is that, exactly.

I mean if that really is your prognostication, what is so wrong with trying, however marginally, to increase the odds that the side we would like to win eventually prevails? we're only "prolonging" this conflict in the sense that if we weren't assisting, Q would butcher all his enemies in short order. You are okay with that, I assume.

or do you think Q would just be like, "nah that's cool, let's partition the country, I get the west, you keep the east. Pardons for all!"

or do you think that by prolonging this conflict even MORE people will die than if Q just got to have his way with the country? we're talking about the calculus of mass murder here, and none of the options are good. they range from "horrific" to "slightly less horrific". I'm going with the "slightly less horrific" option.

You are okay with that, I assume.

Shakey, you may take that road, if you like, but the world is rife with autocratic leaders killing or torturing their enemies. We are not intervening militarily in those countries. Often we are offering military assistance to the leader instead. You are okay with that, I assume.

no I'm not. but just because we're doing the wrong thing in other places shouldn't preclude us from doing the right thing in this particular place. every international conflagration is, in its way, unique, and treating them all the same is both wrong and ill-advised.

nice misdirection there though

no, I'm not

I see my assumption was as untrue as yours was, then. Why you would think I am okay with anybody perpetrating a massacre is stupid, even as rhetoric.

Now that we've settled that bit of kerfuffle, let's examine your position:

every international conflagration is, in its way, unique, and treating them all the same is both wrong and ill-advised.

So, clearly, the fact of killing of innocent people and government-sanctioned criminal injustice is insufficient, of itself, to justify military intervention. Absent more compelling factors (which you do not specify) such an intervention could be "wrong and ill-advised" in your view. I happen to agree.

Where we disagree is whether those other, compelling factors exist in Libya. Slamming me for amorality and uncaring is a sweet little game, but you are just as willing to be amoral and uncaring when it suits you. Call it misdirection, but I think it is relevant.

I just don't understand what you think we should do here, since you're always very elliptical about it

also the compelling factors here (which I and others have specified upthread more times than I can count) are a) opportunity and b) support of both the surrounding and larger international communities

like, we have no leverage in Syria, we can't get away with arming anybody there. but we do have some room to operate in Libya, as well as allies, UN backing, support for (or at least lack of opposition to) our involvement from Q's neighbors, etc.