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

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

I've read (I believe it was Stratfor in mid-February) that the main reason the Egyptian protest succeeded is that there was a silent coup in the Egyptian military in later 2010 against the 80 year old Pres. Hosni Mubarek handing over the reins of power to his son Gamal, who they despised. Sorry to be so cynical, but it seems popular dissent can achieve more than bread and circuses only with the intercession of power.

Maybe if the Libyan rebels offered the prospect of better oil royalty terms to those who aid them.

I love the way the Saudis are basically applying the Brezhnev doctrine to their neighbours.

I think you're right, Sanpaku. It's pretty obvious that the fighting in Zawiya, Brega, Benghazi, Ras Lanuf (does that one sound like Star Wars, or what?) is being done by a lot of people who had nothing to do with the peaceful protests that ignited all this, and I'm kind of shocked at how little the different agendas have been explained in the press.

The pity is the rebels (in Benghazi, at least) are conscripting 15 year olds for the fight. They get a week of training, but there aren't enough guns to let all of them fire one before being trucked to the front. All this acc'd to the Economist from Mar 15.

Cowboys and Indians is much easier to explain.

xpost

and I'm kind of shocked at how little the different agendas have been explained in the press.

― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Monday, March 14, 2011

If you know that the agendas are different please enlighten me on how you know and how they are different. Not trying to be snarky, just curious and admit that I don't know much about Libya.

so this isn't going so well is it

From what I can tell there are lots of groups and tribes who have pretty disparate grievances with the Ghadafi regime and some of the more, uh, shooty ones saw an opening and seized it. That's not a value judgement at all - I'm just saying it would be helpful if this were fleshed out a bit more than just calling everybody "the opposition".

Am I right in thinking that one of Ghadafi's "smart" moves has been to make sure there isn't a single, monolithic Libyan army that could turn against him?

looking like it

So basically we're going to wait until Qaddafi has totally crushed the rebellion before we OK the no-fly zone, right? In essence committing to another uneasy detente a la Iraq, flying about, patrolling the skies to prevent something that already happened, while the bad guys goes about his nefarious business and our airborne presence foment further anti-US resentment in the US?

(I apologize for poor subject-verb agreements)

looking like it.

Saudi moves in Bahrain are depressing as well.

yeah Japan disaster diverting attention totally favors the despots unfortunately

in libya, bahrain & wisconsin

no false equivalencies, obv nobody gettin carpet bombed in madison, i'm just sayin

Using tanks, heavy artillery and airstrikes, forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi began a sustained assault here on Tuesday, seeking to rout a ragtag army of insurgents and would-be revolutionaries holding the last defensive line before the rebel capital of Benghazi. New York Times

It's not looking good

MANAMA, Bahrain — Hours after the king of Bahrain declared a three-month state of emergency, doctors at a central hospital on Tuesday said two protesters had been killed and some 200 wounded and injured in clashes with riot police in the suburban village of Sitra

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/middleeast/16bahrain.html?hp

Saudi Arabia has been watching uneasily as Bahrain’s Shiite majority has staged weeks of protests against a Sunni monarchy, fearing that if the protesters prevailed, Iran, Saudi Arabia’s bitter regional rival, could expand its influence and inspire unrest elsewhere.

I'm following a few Bahraini tweeters and let's just say it sounds pretty fucking awful on the ground there.

hey some good news

Good news in Egypt and Tunisia, but not so good news in Libya and Bahrain.

I heard a cable tv news guest suggest this morning that AL Jazeera was not covering Bahrain with the same intensity it had covered previous protests.

The Doha, Qatar-based Al Jazeera news network has been credited with helping to sustain protest movements across the region with its wall-to-wall coverage, but will its editorial line change now that Qatar has voiced support for Saudi intervention in Bahrain?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/03/qatar-bahrain-saudi-arabia-protests-troops-security.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef0147e33ec55e970b