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

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.

and i don't think the US has been that keen on gadaffi, historically, as it goes, really, and in the grand scheme it really hasn't been a 'vital' strategic interest, more a pimple to deal with occasionally.

all these armed opposition groups

The New York Times article referred to a "ragtag" rebel group getting routed. I guess they can be armed and ragtag.

The Pentagon and State Department also seem to have slightly different views on this as Hilary Clinton met with representatives of Libya's rebel opposition.

The US does not rely on Libyan oil.

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.

No, it can mean the Pentagon strategy while the US military is busy struggling in Afghanistan and Iraq is to not have American soldiers injured or killed in a country that is not economically or politically important to the US. The Pentagon has put the bad things Ghadaffi did to Americans in prior years behind them, and does not see him as a current threat.

aspects of this are interesting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8386511/Libya-Barack-Obama-is-in-no-hurry-to-see-Gaddafi-go.html

The Pentagon has put the bad things Ghadaffi did to Americans in prior years behind them, and does not see him as a current threat.

This is my point exactly.

While the US doesn't rely on Libyan oil, lots of other countries do, and it's in the US interest to make sure that it is supplied in a predictable manner.

im guessing you'd be against the US intervening

I don't think any good could come of it, given the US's priorities in the region. Given the kinds of people they usually support. I'd be in favor of an intervention that was intended to give full power and sovereignty to a democratic Libya though.

i guess part of what im asking is how a libyan economy functions without selling oil...? the flipside of the US 'relying on oil' is oil countries depending on people to buy their oil. given that obama and everyone else has called on gadaffi to go, things aren't predictable even if (well, when, now), he stays in power. but he's not a big enough player to hold anyone to ransom. ie he's not the house of saud.

xpost

i'll take that as a no, i guess

I'd be in favor of an intervention that was intended to give full power and sovereignty to a democratic Libya though.

given that no such disinterested force has existed in the history of the world. even the benevolent liberation of europe in 1944-5 did not give full power and sovereignty to, say, italy, and it's pretty clear the US worked pretty damn hard to prevent it elsewhere.

Yeah :(

It's not clear that there's a 'democratic Libya' available to support, more's the pity. The first rule of intervening surely must be 'know what you're intervening for'?

Also, the Italy case is an interesting one I feel. I've seen it written that the US subverted Italian elections in 1948 and thereby prevented a Communist government in 1948, which surely nobody would now consider a bad thing to have done. It casts a new light on handwringing over the subversion of democracy in Iran in 1953 - could say it was the same event even, just that in Italy it was ultimately for the best and in Iran it wasn't (definitions of 'the best' permitting).

yeah i was about to say about italy. on the whole, a communist victory would have been pretty bad. im sure there's a alternaverse where the US liberated europe and was then just like 'g2g bitches', but down here...

in the libyan situation, i don't know what to think.

The first rule of intervening surely must be 'know what you're intervening for'?

But is this ever as obvious and clear-cut as one would like

iirc clinton's been meeting with rebel delegations this week. they've had a month to get some idea. and -- subversion of democracy alert -- the US would have an impact on the outcome. if the outcome is more rather than less democratic, well, that would be better than bad.

thereby prevented a Communist government in 1948, which surely nobody would now consider a bad thing to have done

Speak for yourself

really?

I've no idea how an Italian Communist government in 1948, democratically elected, would have turned out. If it went wrong you could always pull an Allende on them I suppose.

That was my first reaction, too, Tom.

Also, I don't really know exactly where the Italian Communists were at in 1948 but, for the next 30-40 years they were basically the main part of the left in Italy and not a bunch of raving wild-eyed Bolsheviks afaik

Should read or listen to the "Little world of Don Camillo" IMO

i guess part of what im asking is how a libyan economy functions without selling oil...?

I'm guessing some country or countries will ignore embargos and buy some oil from Libya.

A TomDispatch analysis of Defense Department documents indicates that, since the 1990s, the United States has transferred large quantities of military materiel, ranging from trucks and aircraft to machine-gun parts and millions of rounds of live ammunition, to Bahrain’s security forces.

...

In addition to all these gifts of weaponry, ammunition, and fighting vehicles, the Pentagon in coordination with the State Department oversaw Bahrain’s purchase of more than $386 million in defense items and services from 2007 to 2009, the last three years on record. These deals included the purchase of a wide range of items from vehicles to weapons systems. Just this past summer, to cite one example, the Pentagon announced a multimillion-dollar contract with Sikorsky Aircraft to customize nine Black Hawk helicopters for Bahrain’s Defense Force.

Business as usual

Proponents would argue that this is preventing Iran's fundamentalists from becoming the predominate power in the region. But surely trying to work towards a constitutional parliamentary system (with a monarch?) in Bahrain would be better than pushing the country further into extremes

Why is the assumption always made that Shiites will run gleefully into the arms of Iran, given half the chance?

I would have thought the events in Egypt would have taught the West not to make the usual (bordering on racist) assumptions they always seem to make make about Arabs etc

Iran's arms are wide enough to hold them close together although they're worlds apart

1970s and 1980s conservative argument in a different part of the world: Anything but communist rule, even if its an authoritarian right-wing dictatorship

2011: anything but Iranian supported Shia fundamentalist rule, even if it is an authoritarian dictatorship

Where did former Bush administration employee David Frum come up with this item he mentions in his Telegraph article that History Mayne linked to above:

For the past few days, Washington policy circles have been worrying over a piece of research circulated last week: "On a per capita basis … twice as many foreign fighters came to Iraq from Libya – and specifically eastern Libya – than from any other country in the Arabic-speaking world. Libyans were apparently more fired up to travel to Iraq to kill Americans than anyone else in the Middle East. And 84.1 per cent [74] of the 88 Libyan fighters … who listed their hometowns came from either Benghazi or Darnah in Libya's east."

Gaddafi wormed his way back into the West's good graces by passing on intel on Islamist activity, and has suppressed Salafi inspired insurrections in Cyrenaica before. So I wouldn't write off Frum's intel (though I hate his whole clique). I have no doubt that there are a lot of sincere pro-democracy activists among the insurgents, but U.S. foreign policy has been burnt severely twice this decade siding too eagerly with insurgents.

All a bit moot. The U.S. will want the cover of a NATO resolution for a no-fly zone, and that's not going to happen without a lot of arm-twisting of Turkey, who are adamant in their veto (and have billions in contracts with Gaddafi).

didn't libya give up AQ Khan?

Britain, France and the US, along with several Arab countries, are to join forces to throw a protective ring around the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi as soon as a UN security council vote on military action is authorised, according to security council sources.

A source at UN headquarters in New York said military forces could be deployed "within hours" of a new security council resolution calling for states to protect civilians by halting attacks by Muammar Gaddafi's forces by air, land and sea.

The resolution would impose a no-fly zone over Libya – but a no-fly zone was no longer enough, the source said. "The resolution authorises air strikes against tank columns advancing on Benghazi or engaging naval ships bombarding Benghazi," he said.

Britain, France and Lebanon sponsored the new resolution, which provides the moral and legal basis for military action.

British and French forces are understood to have been placed on standby, after the US said it was prepared to support the measure if Arab countries agreed to take an active role.

The security council was scheduled to vote on the new resolution this evening, and its backers expressed confidence it would pass after hours of negotiation.

that.... seems crazy. how is that possible

i'm picturing troops appearing out of thin air a la Risk or something. does seem very weird.

lol @ Hillary noting Qadafi's essentially evil nature

I know that in some ways this seems too late but I still think there was no way the US or any other western country could have preempted the Arab League and the UN without a shitstorm. If China and Russia don't veto it and this gets passed, I'm optimistic about military action for the first time. The prospects for the surviving rebels if Gaddafi crushes the uprising is grim.

Yeah this was completely unexpected...even when the US started making noises I assumed it was because they knew it was all over anyway.

i have to say this does not look good to me

really looks like one of those obamoid compromise plans that will offend nobody completely, satisfy nobody likewise, and may not even work very well. the goal is not necc to depose gaddafi, but aid in holding benghazi? for how long?

yeah I don't really get what the long-range plan is here. what's the exit strategy.

if we're going to intervene, may as well go all in and just kill Kadhafee

just guessing here, but holding Benghazi means a respite for the rebels to train and rearm so that they can kill Cuhdahfie? not sure what the goal here is