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

This opening line from Pilger's latest column threw me. "As the US and Britain look for an excuse to invade another oil-rich Arab country, the hypocrisy is familiar." I'd say they were looking for an excuse not to. Does anyone in power in the US or UK - as opposed to neocon pundits - actually relish intervention?

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2011/03/pilger-assange-sweden

yeah i was pretty shocked to see pilger writing complete horseshit

i don't know about 'relish' but i think there are people who are not neocons who favour helping the rebels

like philippe sands and ming-campbell, both 'staunch anti-iraq war' people, who say the rebels need help

not from the_west of course, but from the african union or arab league

neither of which is being particular vocal about the need for gadaffi to go

where to even start with that pilger article? also what, people still hold julian assange up as a hero?

i'm also completely unimpressed with the hampstead mansion "occupation". maybe try some meaningful targets instead of empty figureheads, professional activists.

TBH I posted the link to bitch about its transcendent wrongness, not because I was surprised. The whole piece is nonsense but something about applying the tired old "blood for oil" narrative to such a confused situation, with the pro and anti intervention camps ranging from right to left, boiled my piss.

Does anyone in power in the US or UK - as opposed to neocon pundits - actually relish intervention?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_economy

tbh i didn't read beyond the bit about tom paine, though i posted it to the wikileaks thread coz it was something someone in 'community' said as a joke

you don't really go to the NS for original thinking

xpost

oh good point louis, whatever it is

I have reëvaluated all commentators as 'entertainment', rather than 'news' or 'politics', and it makes stuff like that much easier to take. Basically form ideas first, then read Pilger/Aaronovitch for amusement or ignore entirely, according to taste. They're just whimsy.

Granted, some are useful for telling you interesting facts, but Pilger is probably not in that category.

oh, that was me stirring. of course america is looking to invade. invasion is usually financial rather than military.

could you expand?

Oh FFS Louis.

*nods sagely*

sorry, not really very balanced or rational atm, we have the fucken sea heading towards us at jet speed

reëvaluated

diaeresis <3

Where are you, LJ?

new zealand. so we're not gonna cop it bad. but plenty are. anyway, i'll stfu about this but it'll be interesting to see how the libyan and egyptian economies rebuild

I actually have no idea what to think re: intervention right now. At the moment, I'm leaning towards "let the rebels deal with it". If Gaddafi's seriously gaining the upper hand and the consequences are likely to be so brutal for those on the losing side then I'm not so sure. Anyone who claims to have a fixed position on this is kidding themselves.

otm. i brought up a no-fly zone on this thread ages ago, or so it feels, but im not sure exactly what i think. louis is kind of right that these countries are at risk of being drawn into the evil western banking system via the shock doctrine. but that's on the cards even without intervention.

i think what france has done is the story to follow. what happens if help is formally requested by what is now recognized by a pretty big regional player as the legitimate government? don't mention the mirage jets.

louis is kind of right that these countries are at risk of being drawn into the evil western banking system via the shock doctrine.

well yeah, except that Libya was already in the international economy and happily selling oil to the west. So I don't really see the relevance of this made-up shock doctrine in this case.

The Libyan rebels are surely happy to carry on selling oil to the_west, it's that the oil money is being squandered by a tiny handful of Gaddafi stooges.

How is Libya's oil production doing at the moment? Are we still buying Libyan oil? Will we continue to do so whatever happens? A war so devasting that it takes out Libya's main source of income is not really in anyone's best interests, unless they're insane.

Doesn't mean it won't happen obviously.

If the frontline stabilises, I could imagine Gaddafi using his jets to take out the oil infrastructure in the rebel held parts of the country.

How is Libya's oil production doing at the moment? Are we still buying Libyan oil? Will we continue to do so whatever happens? A war so devasting that it takes out Libya's main source of income is not really in anyone's best interests, unless they're insane.

― Matt DC, Friday, March 11, 2011 12:28 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

yeah, and beyond that, who is BP's contract with? the libyan government? once that's de-recognized then...

also surely a bunch of the oilmen have been airlifted out?

I could be wrong, but I think the way the oil market is structured it wouldn't be that easy for "us" to stop buying Libyan oil, because all oil just kind of makes its way onto the open market and goes through several intermediaries before it becomes gasoline at your service station or whatever.

Horrified (but not surprised) at stories that Libyan loyalists have been "cleaning up" battle scenes before letting the press in. Also, locking down hospitals to prevent reporters (whose equipment is being confiscated) from reporting on casualties. And burying bodies.

I'm no expert Hurting 2 but from what I've read Italy is the only western country heavily dependent on Libyan oil.

I think Libya is pretty low on the list of producers, but apparently Libyan oil is a lot easier to refine, which makes it appealing to the usual suspects.

Qaddafi is a better bet for American imperialism than any of the alternatives, don't look for too much heavy lifting from Washington.

if washington did do some heavy lifting you'd be calling that imperialism too

win-win

well, it's what imperialists do; plz tell me who else is running this sorry excuse for a country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/world/africa/12libya.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all

Only days ago, rebels were boldly promising to march on Surt, Colonel Qaddafi’s hometown, then on to Tripoli, where opposition leaders predicted its residents would rise up. But the week has witnessed a series of setbacks, with a punishing government assault on Zawiyah, near the capital, and a reversal of fortunes in towns near Ras Lanuf, whose refinery makes it a strategic economic prize in a country blessed with vast oil reserves.

There was a growing sense among the opposition, echoed by leaders in opposition-held Benghazi and rebels on the front, that they could not single-handedly defeat Colonel Qaddafi’s forces.

“We can’t prevail unless there’s a no-fly zone,” said Anis Mabrouk, a 35-year-old fighter. “Give us the cover, and we’ll go all the way to Tripoli and kill him.”

That seemed unlikely, though. Even without warplanes, Colonel Qaddafi’s government could still marshal far superior tanks, armor and artillery, along with the finances and organization to prosecute a counteroffensive. Given the disarray, some rebels took pride in their success in holding the lines at Ras Lanuf as long as they had. Soviet-made warplanes struck Brega, more than 100 miles from the front line on the road that resupplies the rebels, as well as several spots on the way to Ras Lanuf.

Andrew Exum thinks out loud:

http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2011/03/order-battle.html

It seems to me to be both important and worth noting that if the United States and its allies are to intervene in Libya, simply enforcing a no-fly zone will not be sufficient enough to alter the balance of power in favor of the rebels. (Assuming that this is something in the national interest to do in the first place.) Just going off of field reports as well as a rough order of battle, it seems likely that it would take a more aggressive military intervention to really alter the balance in Libya.* Are the United States and its allies willing to do such a thing? Would that be in our interests?

The cautious steps, at an emergency European Union summit, represented a setback for President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, who had pushed for a bold stand that would put Europe more actively on the rebel side and encourage its ragtag fighters as they seek to beat back advancing counterattacks by Gaddafi's military.

To some extent, Sarkozy was joined by Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain in demanding a muscular stand and support for military preparedness. The two leaders had sent a letter to their E.U. colleagues Thursday appealing for a "clear political signal" from the summit. What emerged with the most clarity, however, was that a majority of the 27-nation European group, although sympathetic to the rebellion, was uncertain what steps to take to help the fight against Gaddafi

Washington Post

guess that means germany

sarko and dave just need to get israel on board to do 1956 all over again

how difficult would be it to destroy the libyan army? no need for 'intervention', just scud the air defences and then bomb the rest #cc2

welp now the provisional transitional national council (as recognized by france) *is* explicitly calling for air support

imperialism alert

or 'objective pro-gadaffism' alert pick one

Big news:

20:11 The Arab League has announced it’s statement regarding its discussions regarding Libya today. It has confirmed that the League has agreed for a No Fly Zone to be imposed on Libya via the UN. The League also announced that it encourages the opening of dialogue between the Arab countries and the National Transitional Council in Libya. The League stated that there should be absolutely no military intervention in any shape or form and that any action should be preventative and humanitarian rather than being for military causes.

So, basically it comes down to 1) whether Turkey is still committed to a veto on No-Fly by NATO, and 2) whether the US wants a third commitment to swatting at swarming bees with a sledgehammer. Gaddafi MO for 40 years has been never to directly retaliate, but to pay third parties to get payback by other means.

Right now, my sense is that the tactical leadership/discipline of the rebels is so bad that pro-Gaddafi forces will have Brega subdued in a week and be on the outskirts of Benghazi in 2. Heavy weapons would help, but not if your troops won't dig holes to set up proper ambushes. They should look more like these Digger defenders of Tobruk, Libya in 1942, not like commuter college students after a sports event:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L1--fyDVodw/TM-hHrRxiHI/AAAAAAAAAkU/NGMefNHeZxE/s400/Australian+troopsfront+lineTobruk.jpg

Terrain becomes more easily defended (more natural cover) in the foothills of the Jabal Akhdar plateau around Benghazi, so that's where fighting will stalemate for awhile.

i don't get why the rebels are so poorly organized -- thought a bunch of army had gone over to their side.

The League stated that there should be absolutely no military intervention in any shape or form

other than blowing up libyan aircraft and defences! still, it's a big thing. don't arab league nations have jets they could send up?

Also, the Libyan army is one of the worst on the planet, so its not the rebels have to be supremely cunning. They just need less bravado and more hierarchy.

A few of brigades in the East (~6,000) turned for the National Coalition, but were only active around Ras Lanouf on one day. I suspect many are doing like the remaining youths of Az-Zawiyah (burying red clothing, finding the green hankerchiefs in their drawers, regretting they burnt their green book).

At root, it seems this uprising may have been a mistake by the leaders of the Warfala tribe, who thought regional youth unrest was their chance to grab a bigger cut of the oil pie. Unfortunately, they've failed in enlisting many of the other tribes, also sidelined by the relatively small Ghaddafi tribe, to their side. The Tourareg of the Fezzan are some of the fiercest fighters in Africa, akin to the Junjaweed herders that turned a dispute over limited water with Christian farmers in the Darfur into a genocide. Despite much pleading, they're sitting this one out.

Libya may not have much of an army, Gaddaffi has kept it deliberately weak, but it does have a lot of irregulars, militia and mercenaries.

xpost

Sanpaku I'm curious what you do that puts you in touch with some of the more obscure points of reference in this dicussion

i say 'obscure' i suppose i obviously mean 'specific,' as they're only obscure if you're not paying close enough attention

I don't work in national security or Arab studies, just have a childhood fascination with "politics by other means", a bit like War Nerd without the wit. George Friedman's Strator has focused on the tribal dynamics, which was linked on another forum, and Stratfor's analysis here seems fairly grounded (which isn't always the case). The tribal angle (in Libya, at least) hasn't been picked up by major media, which fixates on social networking and freedom fighting, and its certainly in the interest of the revolutionaries to stay on message. From my armchair, it looks like there were widespread peaceful protests which when suppressed provided an opening for armed insurrection by groups with a grievance, the most important being the Warfala tribe (the most numerous in Libya):

Scotland Herald: 28 Oct 1993

CAIRO: Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's Government has executed dozens of Libyans and arrested hundreds after a rebellion aimed at toppling his 24-year rule, an opposition group claimed yesterday. A spokesman for the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, based in Cairo, said Government troops had quelled all resistance except in Bani Walid, eastern stronghold of the Warfala tribe that led the uprising. The spokesman voiced fears that Gaddafi's troops will try to slaughter the Warfala. Libya has denied any uprising but Western diplomats have confirmed advances on Tripoli by rebel troops.

Bad blood lasts decades.

There's also an Islamist side to the rebellion too, but it predates Al-Qaeda by more than a century. The rebel stronghold of Cyrenaica was also the center of the Senussi Sufi (but Salafist-influenced) brotherhood, who fought French, British & Italian colonialism. Their patriarch was grandfather to King Idris I (overthrown by Gaddafi), so in a sense Idris's red black and green flag hoisted by rebels is the flag of the Senussi sect. Al-Qaeda's Wahabism is Salafist but opposed to Sufism, so its unlikely there's any ties.

They just need less bravado and more hierarchy.

― Competent Person Statement (Sanpaku), Saturday, March 12, 2011 6:59 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

From what I've read they need planes, tanks, weapons and money.

General Wesley Clark says Libya doesn't meet the test for US intervention

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR2011031103244.html

In 2001, when the United States went into Afghanistan, it was clear that we had to strike back after the attacks of Sept. 11. And we're still there, despite all the ambiguities and difficulties, because we have a vital interest in combating al-Qaeda and similar terrorist groups there and across the border in Pakistan.

How do we apply this test to Libya? Protecting access to oil supplies has become a vital interest, but Libya doesn't sell much oil to the United States, and what has been cut off is apparently being replaced by Saudi production. Other national interests are more complex. Of course, we want to support democratic movements in the region, but we have two such operations already underway - in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there are the humanitarian concerns. It is hard to stand by as innocent people are caught up in violence, but that's what we did when civil wars in Africa killed several million and when fighting in Darfur killed hundreds of thousands. So far, the violence in Libya is not significant in comparison. Maybe we could earn a cheap "victory," but, on whatever basis we intervene, it would become the United States vs. Gaddafi, and we would be committed to fight to his finish. That could entail a substantial ground operation, some casualties and an extended post-conflict peacekeeping presence.

Protesters in Bahrain and Yemen not having success yet.

Saudi Arabia has apparently sent 1000 soldiers in to Bahrain to shut down protests. Al Jazeera will be reporting on it shortly.

http://www.france24.com/en/20110314-saudi-troops-have-entered-bahrain-saudi-official

http://www.tradearabia.com/news/LAW_195141.html