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

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

Al Jazeera is considered among the most credible Arabic news sources, but it has been accused at certain times of allowing its royal backer's political affiliations to skew its coverage. Al Jazeera Arabic, in particular, has recently been criticized for what some see as its overly careful handling of violent clashes between Bahraini protesters and government forces.

-- Meris Lutz in Beirut

for shame. you'd never catch a US news network displaying a national bias.

Although even if they tried to cover Bahrain in more depth, the Bahrain and Saudi forces would likely come down on them

people hold Al-Jazeera to a higher standard than Fox!

Sarkozy election campaign was funded by Libya, says Saif Gaddafi

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/16/sarkozy-election-campaign-libya-claim?CMP=twt_gu

Probably just trolling though? At this point, all Gaddafi can get from relations with the West is lolz.

The West let him retake his country with force, and the Russians and Chinese may ignore embargos and keep his regime functioning.

Among those options are jamming Libyan government radio signals and financing the rebel forces with $32 billion in Libyan government and Qaddafi family funds frozen by the United States. That money could be used either for weapons or relief. The meeting broke without a decision, the official said. from NY Times

The fact that these are still just "options" and not being done makes clear that Libya is not a US priority

xp - I don't think you'll see any European/American politicians palling around with him for a while. Sure, Russia and China will be happy to make up.

the west's painful dithering over the past few weeks as though they might actually do something useful has been the most pathetic sight

I agree it's been awful to watch, though in retrospect it was always unlikely that there would be any intervention.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175367/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_the_pentagon_and_murder_in_bahrain/#more

How the Pentagon and military contractors and others have worked with Bahrain in recent years

Libya is a HUGE priority for the US. Keeping it "stable" means not opening the can of worms that comprises all these armed opposition groups. I don't think it's any deeper than that.

Moreover, senior officials, notably the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, have made it clear that the United States does not view Libya as a vital strategic interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/world/africa/17libya.html?hp

The article provides no justification for that claim. It doesn't even mention what Donilon said.

I mean, it's weird working through what the article is trying to suggest - that the United States will not intervene militarily because it does not see Libya as "vital strategic interest".

This depends on the idea that the United States prefers democracy in places where it has a "vital strategic interest", but that's a weird notion, totally undemonstrated by the evidence.

Surely if Libya (specifically, its resources) were a "vital strategic interest", the United States would do anything in its power to stop a truly democratic movement from gaining power. Given that the US's actions (or lack of actions) appear certain to redeliver power to Ghadafi (or one of his cronies) it's at least logical to suppose that Libya really is of strategic interest to the United States.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/four-new-york-times-journalists-are-missing-in-libya/?src=tptw

I mean, it's weird working through what the article is trying to suggest - that the United States will not intervene militarily because it does not see Libya as "vital strategic interest".

This depends on the idea that the United States prefers democracy in places where it has a "vital strategic interest", but that's a weird notion, totally undemonstrated by the evidence.

Surely if Libya (specifically, its resources) were a "vital strategic interest", the United States would do anything in its power to stop a truly democratic movement from gaining power. Given that the US's actions (or lack of actions) appear certain to redeliver power to Ghadafi (or one of his cronies) it's at least logical to suppose that Libya really is of strategic interest to the United States.

― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, March 16, 2011 5:05 PM (50 minutes ago) Bookmark

the US isn't that... not sure of the word here. but let's look at it another way. does the US operate in its national interest in pakistan? it's extremely hard to say. it does seem to work partly according to opportunity, inertia, and other things unrelated to a cool appraisal of the facts.

besides, there's no 'truly democratic movement' that can't be channelled -- at any rate, truman knew this.