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

might get a decent call of duty sequel out of all this tbf

What seems odd about this particular UN mandate vs., say, the Balkans is the the US sort of drove the Balkans thing, but here hung back. How often does Europe drive the call for military intervention?

Which is to say, this seems to me an atypical UN action, all the more surprising following Iraq.

say, the Balkans is the the US sort of drove the Balkans thing, but here hung back

uh Hillary drove this pretty hard from all accounts

http://slatest.slate.com/id/2288687

Interesting to read that. Still, the US was not driving this no-fly zone debate, however much Clinton wanted us in the mix.

How often does Europe drive the call for military intervention?

Kosovo.

Very uneasy about these developments, despite it being "just" a Security Council vote.

I still want to know what happens if Qaddafi maintains a cease fire.

And if he doesn't!

Some updates:
- No U.S. carriers in the Medditeranean (the USS Enterprise, formerly on station in the Red Sea, moved to the Arabian Sea to support Afghanistan operations)
- Italy just gave permission for other nations to use its airfields but will not participate itself without parliamentary approval
- Gaddafi's troops killing wounded in Misrata hospital
- they've also advanced halfway from Ajdabiya to Benghazi in 2 hours, and fighting is taking place in Qaminis and Suluq (both stories on Al Jazz)

that's some ceasefire, yep

I never thought I'd hi-five Jeffrey Goldberg. I have the same questions:

But: Do we really know who would rule Libya if Qaddafi disappeared from the scene? I met a whole bunch of anti-Qaddafi activists in Cairo last week, and they didn't fill me with good feeling about their intentions or their beliefs. Or, for that matter, their competence. I know that there are many brave people among the opposition, and I wish fervently for their success, on the theory that they can't be worse than Qaddafi. But I'm not one hundred percent behind this theory.

And another question: Are we seeking to depose Qaddafi, who, we are informed by various American officials, has "lost his legitimacy" to rule (as if he didn't lose it when, for instance, he blew up Pam Am 103) because we just hate him more than run-of-the-mill dictators? Is it because he has committed crimes that are so unique? He's a satanic figure, of course, but he has never committed atrocities on the scale of, say Saddam Hussein, or Hafez al-Assad. Are we offended because he has launched aerial attacks against his own citizens? Of course we are, but is this really so unusual in the Middle East?

And another question: Is the goal to remove Qaddafi from power? To limit his running room? What if Libyan rebels don't succeed in removing him from power? How long will the West be engaged militarily in Libya? What is the strategy here? Is there a strategy? What's the plan if this settles into a standoff?

Are we offended because he has launched aerial attacks against his own citizens? Of course we are, but is this really so unusual in the Middle East?

um yeah this is pretty unusual

And another question: Is the goal to remove Qaddafi from power? To limit his running room? What if Libyan rebels don't succeed in removing him from power? How long will the West be engaged militarily in Libya? What is the strategy here? Is there a strategy? What's the plan if this settles into a standoff?

these are all good questions though

this seems to me an atypical UN action, all the more surprising following Iraq.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, March 18, 2011 7:04 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

well... the argument goes that the iraq war was not properly sanctioned by the UN. im not sure if there's a typical UN response. it's reacted differently to different situations since the end of the cold war. i can't think of an easily comparable scenario to this within that period. the strategic stakes were lower in kosovo, i think.

but it isn't surprising that a president who came in as a post-dated 'anti-war' guy shilly-shallied about getting into it, and had his spokespeople rubbish talk of a no-fly zone. and it isn't surprising that the same administration has not gone the unilateral route and has got as much regional and international support as possible. the fucking arab league are on-side ffs!

it's all pretty atypical, this eruption of revolt across the middle east and north africa, isn't it?

xpost

Do we really know who would rule Libya if Qaddafi disappeared from the scene? I met a whole bunch of anti-Qaddafi activists in Cairo last week, and they didn't fill me with good feeling about their intentions or their beliefs. Or, for that matter, their competence. I know that there are many brave people among the opposition, and I wish fervently for their success, on the theory that they can't be worse than Qaddafi. But I'm not one hundred percent behind this theory.

do we "really know"? -- no, can we be "one hundred percent" sure? -- again, no, grow up.

And another question: Are we seeking to depose Qaddafi, who, we are informed by various American officials, has "lost his legitimacy" to rule (as if he didn't lose it when, for instance, he blew up Pam Am 103) because we just hate him more than run-of-the-mill dictators? Is it because he has committed crimes that are so unique? He's a satanic figure, of course, but he has never committed atrocities on the scale of, say Saddam Hussein, or Hafez al-Assad. Are we offended because he has launched aerial attacks against his own citizens? Of course we are, but is this really so unusual in the Middle East?

it's a matter of opportunity, and the viability of the resistance. that's where the question of legitimacy comes into it. it's because of a particular accumulation of circumstances; it isn't based on this debate-club level of equivalency-seeking.

And another question: Is the goal to remove Qaddafi from power? To limit his running room? What if Libyan rebels don't succeed in removing him from power? How long will the West be engaged militarily in Libya? What is the strategy here? Is there a strategy? What's the plan if this settles into a standoff?

goal is to remove him from power. these are important questions. but as with everything else, no jeffrey, no-one knows how exactly this plays out. that's often the way.

um yeah this is pretty unusual

If you discount the adjective "aerial" from "aerial attacks," there's Saddam's gassing of that village in '88.

has "lost his legitimacy" to rule (as if he didn't lose it when, for instance, he blew up Pam Am 103)

all other stuff aside for a second, this is bullshit. "legitimacy" ie some combination of raw power over and assent from the people of a country just aren't related to killing someone else's civilians or not. let's not bring up drone strikes on a pashtun wedding or whatever. they're just not the same thing. this stuff is so annoying to read.

No, I didn't accept that point either.

The important thing here is to hold on to our skepticism and wish Libyans the best.

If you discount the adjective "aerial" from "aerial attacks," there's Saddam's gassing of that village in '88.

which was also highly unusual

there's Saddam's gassing of that village in '88.

― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, March 18, 2011 8:49 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

this was during the cold war... and 23 years ago. i mean. so yes, this is different from that situation, but why exactly do we have to follow that inglorious precedent of non-intervention?!

why exactly do we have to stand for rhetorical questions?

The important thing here is to hold on to our skepticism and wish Libyans the best.

― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, March 18, 2011 8:52 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

well, yes. but 'wishing them the best' would likely have led to mass murder. heavy shit is still on the cards, of course. but iirc the UN was set up to prevent that sort of thing.

how many times would you have sought Security Council resolutions in the last, say, twenty years, nrq?

Even accounting for differences between how and why we invaded Iraq and what's happened in the Security Council the last few hours (and what it means for their respective countries), your tone a few posts ago reminds me of a Heritage Foundation intern in 2003. "It's the right thing to do, let's not worry about these silly details now, fuck niceties."

yours remind me of kissinger in the 70s rly so

xp: which was also highly unusual

Except that the village in question was on the border with Iran, and both were lobbing chemical shells at each other all the time.

It isn't that unusual for the local dictators to use extremes of retailiation against their own dissent. Assad of Syria leveled the town of Hama with artillery in 1982. The Algerian military were alleged to do some horrific false flag operations starting their own civil war with militants.

i suppose there is a point where, 'what about yemen, what about ivory coast' kind of questions of this can be answered with, welp, you do what you can to help who you can whenever you can. no, the reasons why libya is a problem when other things are not Big Problems don't look good added up.

if Q wasn't such a crazy m-f and was better at his job as a tyrant -- wear a suit and don't fuck about, assad style -- we'd probably not do anything, or wouldn't think we needed to. i dunno.

but damn if this doesn't give me a sick feeling. another war.

lol assad xpost, how often does that happen

re pan am 103 -- this didn't lead to action because it wasn't really clear who had ordered it. initially, im fair sure libya was not in the frame. and it's still a pretty murky story that may have involved syria and iran.

Algerian civil war is probably a closer analog to what's going on (or is about to go on) although maybe minus the extremist/salafist angle

xp

Pan Am 103 is a murky murky case beginning to end, if you needed an Axis of Evil stick to beat him with you'd be better referencing his supplying the 'Ra with guns/cash/explosives whatevs, which is at least documented

yeah but no one at the Corner cares about that shit

yours remind me of kissinger in the 70s rly so

dude seriously? Fuck you.

There's a lot of murk in Yemen as well. From a distance it may become hard to say where the civilian protests break off and a seventh outbreak of the 2004-2010 Shi'ite insurgency starts.

yeah but no one at the Corner cares about that shit

― in my world of suggest bans (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 March 2011 21:08 (13 minutes ago) Permalink

no one in the corner has swagger like us

lol D

I cried when they gave Alfred the Nobel Peace Prize. true story.

I perhaps spoke too soon: the 2004- Shi'ite insurgency revisits the grievances stemming back to South Yemen's independence, while the 2009- Sunni separatist insurgency in is more or less a continuation of the 1986 South Yemen Civil war. Both Shi'ia insurgents from the North and Wahhabi separatists from the South seem to be using the protests in San'aa to air grievances.

To make it all more confusing, "Yemen" is Arabic for "south". Maybe they called it Yemen (Aden) for years to avoid headaches.

iirc north and south yemen were reunited some time ago, before that aden was the southern capital and sana'a the northern capital

x-post

viability of the resistance.

It's kind of a catch-22, but how can this Libyan resistance be considered vibrant when it needs international military support to survive? That's what's so awkward about this commitment. The only way the resistance can win is if we (the international community) directly aids them, and even then, they can't do it without our planes. But then it's a case of us/the US/the UN directly engaging with Qaddafi as enemy, which seems to be fishy, seeing as he's done nothing to anyone outside his country at this point. Horrible though that may be, he's not alone in his dastardly despotism.

nrq doing a great job of picking up Dom's "biggest asshole on ILX" banner itt

seriously dude, just shut up. "the argument goes"... yeah, right, thanks for putting words in my mouth. Kosovo wasn't strategically important? god you really have no fucking idea what you're talking about for somebody who poses as an intellectual.

The International Action Center (IAC) is an activist group founded by former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark. It supports anti-imperialist movements around the world, and opposes U.S. military intervention in all circumstances.

nah they've got a link to an article about how Milosevic is one of the great peacemakers of the 20th Century so I think it stands up

was kinda hoping i was doing a great job of picking up Dom's "biggest asshole on ILX" banner

hey sleeve who did 9/11?

Charlie Sheen

correct answer was 'becky lucas'

Kosovo wasn't strategically important? god you really have no fucking idea what you're talking about for somebody who poses as an intellectual.

― sleeve, Friday, March 18, 2011 10:15 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark

great link

get to 'The TRUTH about Milosevic' in how many clicks?

took me 2 iirc

apparently he was lovely

i concede that clinton took office with a barely concealed hard-on for kosovo. the plans were drawn up years in advance and he was looking for any excuse. any!