Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

"honest mistake guv!"

it's almost as if the overstatement of civilian danger, terrorist ties of the rebels, and long-term consequences were totally predictable and pointed out in real-time

Not just pointed out - the UK actively worked with Qaddafi to suppress the same groups when it was expedient!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/24/britain-family-gaddafi-legal

Tracer Hand, do you have a link to read the whole of that document? Seems important!

A further wrinkle I didn't know about was that the West also propped up Hissein Habré's murderous regime in Chad in the eighties because he fought Libyans for a bit. The policy has really been all over the place, and the only constant has been a lot of North African civilians killed.

i think this is it -

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/119.pdf

Thanks! Will work my way through it all, but began with reading the conclusion, and that is pretty great as well. Is it a truly bi-partisan report? Because it seems impressively even handed, but I don't know enough to say. Don't know anyone on the committee, for instance.

Reminds me of the influence of Chalabi and Iraqi exiles, and PNAC neocons, in 2002:

the political momentum to propose Resolution 1973 began in France...

“the decisions of President Sarkozy and his Administration were driven by Libyan exiles
getting allies within the French intellectual establishment who were anxious to push for a
real change in Libya.”

On 2 April 2011, Sidney Blumenthal, adviser and unofficial intelligence analyst to the then United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reported this conversation with French intelligence officers to the Secretary of State. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:
a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
b. Increase French influence in North Africa,
c. Improve his internal political situation in France,
d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.

Yeah, the whole chapter is pretty damning. Sarkozy is such a shithead.

Xps, it's a mixture. Most of the Labour MPs (Clywd, Gapes, Hendrick iirc) are unrepentant adventurists, though Qureshi isn't. Quite a few of the Tories (Blunt, Baron and Rosindell) have voted against, or not bothered to turn up for votes on, military actions in the past. You also have the world's only pro-Russia Pole (Dan Kawczynski). It's a weird blend of people but that probably works in its favour.

81. Unpublished House of Commons Library research found that the UK spent some £320 million on bombing Libya and approximately £25 million on reconstruction programmes. However, those figures do not include the UK’s contribution to multilateral reconstruction projects, such as those run by the United Nations. In addition, Dr Adrian Gallagher, University of Leeds, pointed out that the Government reduced its estimate of the cost of the military intervention from £320 million to £234 million. Taking into account UK contributions to programmes run by the United Nations, which had overall responsibility for co-ordinating reconstruction, and the European Union, Dr Gallagher concluded that the UK “spent just under half as much (48.72%) on rebuild than on intervention.”

value for money much, UK?

ican we call this a success now

― unorthodox economic revenge (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 20 October 2011 15:26 (seven years ago) bookmarkflaglink

:/

Migrants stranded in Libya endure sewage, maggots, disease

By intent, and certainly a politically more palatable solution to the migrant problem than hosting the concentration camps in Italy.

Backed by Italy, Libya enlists militias to stop migrants

I anticipate this model to stop refugees fleeing overpopulation, resource scarcity, and the climate crisis will promoted in other nations of the Maghreb and West Asia (and maybe even Mexico).

I got handed a lot of shit for saying this over and over.

I am totally unconvinced that the people of Libya are going to benefit from this war, however much this is invoked as the sole purpose of our bombing.

― Aimless, Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:58 AM (eight years ago)

Post WWII, the populations that have benefited from foreign military/intelligence agency intervention (South Korea, Kosovo) are utterly dwarfed by those that have been harmed. We're batting well under 0.1.

I am totally unconvinced that the people of Libya are going to benefit from this war, however much this is invoked as the sole purpose of our bombing.

idk what yr crowing about, you think they would have been better off getting massacred by Khadhafee? yeah ok whatever, this is an unprovable hypothesis.

There would have been a crackdown on regime change plotters in Benghazi (who had been collaborating with French military intelligence since late 2010), and least those who didn't obtain asylum. However, it wouldn't have thrown the nation into regional (and tribal) conflict for a decade.

Often, dictatorial rule is preferable to civil conflict.

Ah, yes, Οὖτις, you were the one who looked at my stated misgivings about our participation in the Libyan war and concluded that I thought "colonialism was worse than genocide". How genocide crept into the discussion is a mystery only you can solve.

"humanitarian intervention" is a bad idea that otherwise sensible ppl keep falling for

obama said in some interview late in his term that intervening in libya was his worst mistake as president, and it's hard not to agree

piracy on the Mediterranean, seems a little unlikely

― goole, Thursday, 25 August 2011 16:58 (seven years ago) bookmarkflaglink

does anyone want to intervene to topple haftar/the army? terrorising the south, indiscriminately or at least inaccurately shelling tripoli, how many dead civilians would it take?

are open air slave markets not a big issue in libya now too?

Often, dictatorial rule is preferable to civil conflict.

― despondently sipping tomato soup (Sanpaku), 3. juli 2019 20:28 (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

My main problem with this is that dictatorial rule is pretty inherently unstable, and most often ends in civil conflict anyway.

Both Haftar and Jarvanka are UAE clients. There won't be a US led intervention.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/24/mercenaries-flock-to-libya-raising-fears-of-prolonged-war

Of course. Saudi Arabia has been using the same janjaweed to guard their own border with Yemen for several years, having learned how useless their own National Guard (ie, army) is.

Interesting article but doesn't say that NATO bombed Libya's Great ManMade River & destroyed a pipe factory, causing water scarcity since 2011. Now 4 out of abt 7 million Libyans could “face imminent water problems,” a potential “humanitarian disaster.” https://t.co/je5ASKbfGq

— Lucia Pradella (@LuGuangMing) August 18, 2021

Up to 20,000 are now believed dead in Libya. This tragedy hasn't just been caused by floods, but by NATO's 2011 military aggression and ongoing sanctions that have decimated the country and undermined its ability to prepare for extreme weather events. https://t.co/mUekVkd5Vw 1/2

— Kai Heron (@KaiHeron) September 14, 2023

Community notes does its job again

Libya was once one of Africa's most prosperous countries, but years of lawlessness have left it a fragile, divided state - ill-prepared to cope with the forces unleashed by a natural disaster. https://t.co/aFGO37ettU

— BBC News Africa (@BBCAfrica) September 13, 2023