We are all watching developments in Libya. Tunisia and Egypt have disappeared from the headlines. It is rather odd to me that of all the movements in the Arab world to remove long-entrenched dictators, the one that has gathered the strongest response from America is that in Libya. America has frozen 30 billion in Libyan assets, and is positioning naval forces in the Meditteranean. We are going to regret this.
America should be concentrating its efforts on aiding Egypt and Tunisia. These are the two countries with perhaps the best odds at achieving democracy, should they survive the revolutionary turmoil that they are currently in. A few days ago demonstaters in Tunisia were fired upon as they were protesting the interim government. There were several deaths. This is not good. There is a fragile transition underway, and it could easily be derailed by such developments.
Libya is in the early stages of civil war. "The Resistance" is gathering strength and has recently begun consolidating control over the oil fields in the east to use against the regime. These are estimated to be 80% of Libyan production. Mark my words: whoever the leaders in this "resistence" are that have taken control of the country's oil will not simply hand that control over to any hypothetical interim government. Get ready for the warlords, people.
Whatever nastiness happens in Libya is now going to be stamped with the ubiquitous damnation, "American-backed". Here is a sample of a future news article that the next generation of Eurotards will never allow us to forget:
"A ferry full of undocumented refugees fleeing the civil strife in Libya was intercepted off the coast of Sardinia this morning. The humanitarian crisis in Libya continues to spiral out of control as the American-backed junta in Libya persists in killing babies with impunity..."
Why do we (Americans) involve ourselves in efforts that have little chance of success, and thus guarantee that we are associated with the inevitable failure? The intelligent strategy would be to pour all available energy and resources into developing democracy in Tunisia and Egypt, and leave Libya to Europe.
Eric,Some interesting facts
Eric,
Some interesting facts about Benghazzi. I read in one of the articles I posted that more suicide bombers (per capita) in Iraq were from that city. So, it is an actual risk, not just speculation. Al Quada is in the mix here, and so are the long standing blood feuds.
a group of Benghazi
You've bought into this East/West civil war thing. I don't know which part of Libya Mahmoud Jibril was born in but he was a member of the Gaddafi government until recent events and the Libyan Transitional Council claims to represent Libya and not just a part of it. They've convinced Sarkozy so far.
From the opinion pages of Al
From the opinion pages of Al Jazeera:
[it's well worth reading but you can't just copy huge screeds like this, Jay - it's illegal. I've made your link live as mollification - BC]
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html#
This article calls a few
This article calls a few things that are easy to understand “mysteries”.
Well, and why does Russia allow Nato supplies to Afghanistan to go over their territory? Same reason: if western countries want to be hated by Middle Eastern peoples, Russia and China won’t stop them. It serves their interests admirably.
South Africa’s standing suffers from their support of Mugabe, and being tied up with Gaddafi as well would be too much. India and Brazil have no interests in Libya and express that by their abstention.
The German situation is a bit complicated, here are a few points that play a role:
The public opinion is against the intervention, and overwhelmingly so against our participation.
Our political parties don’t represent this, and that’s why we are in Afghanistan. A disaster, and that shows that the public has got it right. With the many elections to come our government is for once not in the position to disregard the public opinion, otherwise the CDU would have done so (but not the FDP).
Timothy Garton Ash (whom I dislike anyway) had a very revealing piece in the Guardian:
Er, yes. Very unfortunate state of things, Mr Ash. It’s called democracy, actually.
We know that our role is to constantly laud our western allies for enforcing our peacefulness against our inherent streak for violence (see Jay) and that at the same time we must fight your dirty wars “voluntarily” (see Owly and the tanks on the lawn). You’ve promised us sovereignty, can you deliver?
Of the supporters of the intervention, only few argue with the humanitarian issue. The fairy tale that war and destruction helps civilians has absolutely no credibility here.
The main argument of the supporters is realpolitik in our foreign relations. It’s been constant German policy to side with the US or with France, and preferably with both. This is the first time that we leave this policy. By the way, Westerwelle wanted to vote no and Merkel vetoed that. For a few days he has been very diplomatic about the criticism from abroad, but then he clarified: if Germany had voted yes, we would have been forced to take part too. He is right (and I have never thought that I would ever agree with him).
Ironically for our tiger-ducks their strategy won’t help them with the elections, because it is too transparent. Watch BaWü tomorrow: the blackest of the black states of our south. They’ve had CDU governments for 58 years. It’s going to be close, but this time they can loose. And then the countdown for Merkel starts.
Momo,You live in your own
Momo,
You live in your own world. What do you mean by the phrase "Tiger-Duck"? If I were to guess, I think it you use it to represent something without backbone, incapable of personal opinion.
“You live in your own
“You live in your own world.”
You are whistling in the dark. It’s fairly uncontroversial stuff in my post. I guess you prefer to treat it as “mysteries” and tell me I live in a world of my own. But don’t complain when reality hits you unaware.
What do you mean by the phrase "Tiger-Duck"?
Sorry, should have explained that (but I have so often done so). The tiger duck not only never gets a line of dialogue. Unlike tigers it has no teeth, and unlike ducks it cannot fly. In Janosch’s stories it is simply there, but it never does anything. And this one hopefully is very short-lived.
Parties have colours here, and coalitions get names, if possible. We have a black and yellow coalition with a neoliberal agenda (hornets) that from the start on they they were too weak to implement (tiger duck). By the way: not Merkel’s dream coalition. The only thing worse than a tiger duck coalition is a Jamaica coalition, by the way. (Jamaica’s flag is black, green, and yellow). If the tiger ducks break up, a grand coalition (black and red) and without Merkel is most likely.
[it's well worth reading but
If someone would teach me how to embed links I would surely stop. A couple of pages back I posted an entire article from Pravda. When you didn't bust me there, I got cocky.
If you look at the bar along
If you look at the bar along the top of the edit box you'll see an icon that's meant to look like a chain link which becomes available when you highlight some text. When you click on it you get a box. Just paste your URL into the the "Link URL" box and you're done. I have no idea what the other boxes are for.
I have to disable rich-text
I have to disable rich-text first (at the bottom left hand corner of your your comment box, or whatever its called.) and then do the a href etc.
I think sometimes using preview function (without disabling rich text first) adds tags to a post that keeps some html from working properly. I noticed that in the last thread I was posting in.
Guys, I hate to sound like an
So today, a woman burst into the Tripoli hotel where the foreign press is housed. She claimed that she had been held for two days by Gadaffi's forces, had been gang raped and "defecated on".
I apologize for being such a cynic (a complete jerk if I am wrong), but I do believe this is straight from the handbook.
So she is from Benghazi, but knew where the foreign press was housed in Tripoli and what time they had breakfast. She knew to specifically ask for American and British news outlets (Reuters and the New York Times). We are to believe that she had just escaped from captivity somehow, and went straight to the hotel.
O.k.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/world/middleeast/27tripoli.html?_r=1&hp
Yeah, I read that too. She's
Yeah, I read that too. She's probably dead now.
I had a long conversation about intervention here a couple of years ago. I am still against it and for the same reasons.
I am still against it and
There aren't any same reasons, if you're thinking of the US/UK aggression against Iraq in 2003.
This was a conversation I had
This was a conversation I had with Momo, bigC, and englishman. I think alan got involved a few times. It was either 2008 or 09.
I'm not sure what I want to mention about it that wont interrupt this thread.
I just found out that I have family is coming into town in a few hours and my house is a disaster. Maybe I'll add to this tomorrow.
She's probably dead now.If
If she is lucky. I am hesitant to believe her story, but I can't doubt that she is one of the bravest people on the planet.
Thanks for the tip on embedding. I don't understand why Henry wouldn't say that when I asked him.
It certainly convinced the
It certainly convinced the journalists. If you read a full account of events, you'll see why.
When reading that article her
When reading that article her bravery gives her automatic credibility because you know she's sacrificing herself. But what you mentioned,
So she is from Benghazi, but knew where the foreign press was housed in Tripoli and what time they had breakfast. She knew to specifically ask for American and British news outlets (Reuters and the New York Times). We are to believe that she had just escaped from captivity somehow, and went straight to the hotel.
does make it seem like the story she told might not have been hers.
I'm not even in Libya and I
I'm not even in Libya and I know the foreign press is in the Rixos Hotel. It's not a secret. Check Tripadvisor for a review of the hotel. Reuters and the New York Times are quite well known around the world. I didn't see anything about the woman just 'escaping from captivity'.
yeah well, it was just an
yeah well, it was just an observation and hopefully not too much is read into it. I wasn't thinking of cold propaganda, I thought it might have been something about someone she lost. I can't imagine breaking free and then going right back into the fire but she could have just snapped, thought that would be the only way to get back at them and/or to get protection. The video looks that way.
???When did you ask me about
???
When did you ask me about embedding links, Jay? If you asked me and I missed it, apologies. Amazingly enough, I don't read each and every one of your posts.
Egotistical douchebag.
Nic Robertson tweets she is
Nic Robertson tweets she is alive.
http://twitter.com/#!/NicRobertsonCNN/status/51730969861963776
http://twitter.com/#!/NicRobertsonCNN/status/51731157913579520
http://twitter.com/#!/NicRobertsonCNN/status/51731401774604288
The Libyan government gives the impression that they are caring for her. Clever.
They'll have to be very
They'll have to be very clever to erase the impression of a brutal police state given by the way the security men roughed up journalists and dragged away the woman.
http://tinyurl.com/5u22ro2
Al Jazeera is reporting that
Al Jazeera is reporting that opposition forces are already moving on Brega, just hours after taking full control of Ajdabiya. Brega is a village of 4,000, while Ajdabiya was a city of 100,000. I can't imagine the battle for Brega lasting long, and the rebels should be moving on Ras Lanuf soon.
The real challenge will come should the rebels attempt to take Sirte. That is Gadaffi's hometown, seat of his tribe, and the end of friendly territory. Should be an interesting week.
Crap. Two days and another
Crap. Two days and another 85 posts to wade through.
Brendan,Some interesting
Brendan,
I am impressed with your efforts to enrich your understanding of the Libyan situation. However, I need to caution you against using Russian news sources to share your findings. Russia is, quite literally, what you get when hell freezes over.
I cross reference a lot for
I cross reference a lot for tid bits of the story. It's the only way to get a better perspective on the situation. RT will interview anybody and everybody, which can be tiresome, but every once in a while...
I agree that gives
I agree that gives perspective, Brendan. But it's heavily biased in the opposite direction. Gaddafi does have the support of the people he has bought off. But that only needs to be about 25% of the population if there's enough firepower on his side and as long as he is successful in pitting the remainder against each other. But the firepower issue is no longer a given and divide and rule appears to have failed.
As for the Al Qaeda issue, it would be very surprising if there were not Islamists fighting against him. Of course they're in the mix. The question is whether or not they are sufficiently so to control and direct post-uprising Libya - or even to influence it significantly. I don't think anyone's analysis is complete enough to predict that yet. As the confident prediction of stalemate appears to have now evaporated, I think we shall see quite shortly.
Hi Big,Bias is easy to spot
Hi Big,
Bias is easy to spot at this point, it's the set of facts that any particular article bring to bear to support that bias I am looking at. The Libyan military seems to have collapsed under the pressure, but that does not mean we won't end up with a stalemate. The rebels are weak and merely occupying territory behind the disappearing loyalists. NATO will have a hard time justifying support for an assault on Tripoli, so unless loyalists defect en mass, I'm guessing they stop the close air support after a battle for Misrata.
Al Qaeda? That's just an ironic consideration at this point.
Yes I take the point about
Yes I take the point about bias, Brendan. Whether the rebels will continue merely occupying the the territory the loyalists are vacating is the big question right now. If that was the case then a stalemate would be likely. They need to reach a critical mass where their presence outside a city provokes an uprising inside. To do that, they'll need to by-pass Sirte, relieve the besieged Misrata and then head straight for Tripoli.
If they are stupid enough to attack Sirte then they'll put the "coalition" on the spot. It will be difficult to claim that they are protecting civilians in a city where the majority support Gaddafi. In fact you could have a situation where it is the rebels who could be accused of threatening civilians. What happens then?
“In fact you could have a
“In fact you could have a situation where it is the rebels who could be accused of threatening civilians. What happens then?”
Der Standard quotes Sarkozy interpreting the UN resolution as protecting civilians against Gaddafi’s attacks and his allies seem to agree, if you remember Liam Fox’s words. So I guess the rebels would have a free hand.
70 to 80% of the country’s population live in Libya’s west, by the way. Plenty of civilians around, if the rebels really advance. I doubt it, though: the “coalition” won’t attack in relatively densely populated areas, and the rebels obviously don’t have the capability to attack.
There are reports about Gaddafi trying to negotiate about a ceasefire and exile, with Austria as mediator. Der Standard says the Austrian foreign ministry does not comment, but they have from unnamed US sources that the contacts aren’t one-sided: US asked Vienna to contact Gaddafi, too.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/25/us-libya-gaddafi-idUKTRE72O1P420110325?pageNumber=1
in German:
http://derstandard.at/1297821510346/Sarkozy-droht-allen-arabischen-Tyrannen-mit-Militaerschlaegen
There are reports about
Where the hell is wikileaks? Doesn't Julias Asshinge know that Momo is totally opposed to "secret" disscussions? No good can come of undisclosed negotiations. Better to have extended civil war than secretly get Malomar Gadfly out of the country, and end the bloodshed, if it has to be done behind closed doors. Right?
And now it is public without
And now it is public without wikileaks’ help. ;-)
Did you say “civil war”? Isn’t that a thought crime?
Personally, I hope it's
Personally, I hope it's true. The best, quickest, least bloody ending to this whole thing would be if he went into exile. The the rebels could walk into Tripoli unopposed, bloodlessly, and we could get on to the next Middle Eastern/North African regime change.
Yes. He could have done that
Yes. He could have done that earlier too, but didn’t. There are a few tribes that were privileged under Gaddafi’s rule. They have got a lot to lose now. I’m not sure if they would give up easily. It depends on their numbers, of course.
And if he doesn’t give up, and the population of Tripolis doesn’t rise, it’s stalemate. The “coalition” can’t bomb Tripolis under the pretext of protecting civilians, that would be taking things a bit too far. They are using a lot of, er, creativity in interpreting that resolution anyway.
"Plenty of civilians around,
"Plenty of civilians around, if the rebels really advance. I doubt it, though: the “coalition” won’t attack in relatively densely populated areas, and the rebels obviously don’t have the capability to attack. "
Quite. If is the case that the rebels have to attack then what we have (and have had all along) is not a popular uprising but a civil war. In fact, if what you are suggesting is true, then a majority could well be supporting (or at least not opposing) Gaddafi. If that is the case then there should be no foreign involvement at all.
On the other hand, if it has been a popular uprising then "attacking" would be a completely different proposition.
So far at least, the government forces appear to be running away rather than retreating. The airstrikes are only taking out the armour and air support of the government forces. Even without these, a dug in, disciplined army with artillery should have no trouble repelling an attack by irregular forces. Yet they are folding without resistance. There is no guarantee this will continue as the advance moves west. But so far, it looks like attacking capability is not really a critical issue on the part of the rebels.
Right. Everything depends on
Right. Everything depends on whether there is support left for Gaddafi, and whether these supporters think they have a chance, or if it is better to give up. If the rebels are clever, they will give Gaddafi’s clan some guarantees.
Momo is all about
Momo is all about appeasement. That may be necessary, but not for a long while yet.
appeasement Time the word was
Time the word was consigned to the museum of musty terminology.
Fair representation
Fair representation disregarding tribal affiliation is my aim, not appeasement.
Gaddafi has ruled by favouring some tribes over others. The latter are most violently opposed to his rule, logically. They have most to gain. There is the danger that they will just reverse this policy, and you can be sure that the Gaddafi tribe is aware of that. The tribal system won’t be overcome so quickly, even if a new regime wanted that (which I find unlikely). Guarantees for the tribes that profited from Gaddafi’s rule, that is at least not using some sort of collective punishment, better a fair representation, is not only just, but also prudent in order to weaken Gaddafi.
This strategy is a bit more complicated than “kill them all, let God sort them out”. Too complicated for the bellicists of humanitarianism here, obviously.
I think you are failing to
I think you are failing to grasp the nuance of the intervention. If it implied all out war and regime change, maybe your point would be valid. That is not, however, the case in Libya at the moment.
They need to reach a critical
I have been wondering about this scenario. Things are happening so fast. I went to bed last night wondering when the rebels would secure Brega, and when I woke up this morning their lines were extended past Ras Lanuf.
I don't know if it would be wise to bypass Sirte. From what I understand, there is not much beyond the coastal highway when it comes to navigating northern Libya. Leaving Sirte to the loyalists allows them to cut supply lines to a westward rebel advance. Then again, I don't even know if the rebels have "supply lines".
Do the loyalists sense that they are on the "losing side", now with massive foreign air power backing up highly motivated native ground forces? Will this effect their will to continue the fight? Have the rebels--or at least contingents of them--learned enough about combat to be a more effective, coordinated, and disciplined force? Sirte will answer all or some of those questions.
What if the loyalist do manage to fend off any attack on Sirte, and the Misrata situation is repeated, but reversed? (Rebels beseiging the city, but forced to remain on the outskirts.) What happens if a stalemate emerges in this or a similiar scenario, with rebels only able to push so far West, without ever entering Tripoli, much less toppling Gadaffi.
This is the scenario that has worried me since intervention. Those now defending Gadaffi may also be seen as defending the nation against foreign attack, and against the native "traitors" who sided with the "imperialists" over their countrymen.
What happens if a cease fire is needed, as neither side is able to wipe out the other? America, Britain, and France have been claiming that Gadaffi has lost his legitimacy, and must go. They are actively yet unofficially seeking regime change, so how does this complicate any resolution of the situation short of that.
(A friend just texted me asking if I were interested in some afternoon "mud buggery". He is referring to a crawfish boil happening downtown, as people from Louisiana sometimes call crawfish "mud bugs". He was completely unaware of the double entendre, which makes me wonder if I spend too much time talking to you damn Brits. I might need to get out of the house. I will continue this thought later.)
They are actively yet
Gaddafi is likely to be required at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, making him unavailable to carry out his duties as the Big Brother Leader. In any case, the Libyan Transitional Council does to include him in their plans to move towards a new government. If he's not in jail, he might be able to stand for election.
“Those now defending Gadaffi
“Those now defending Gadaffi may also be seen as defending the nation against foreign attack, and against the native "traitors" who sided with the "imperialists" over their countrymen”
It’s a factor. Another factor is: what weight has the protest movement of secular young people? The democratisation movement in other words. The transition government that is supported by EU and US is only a part of the opposition. They might want to install the next dictatorship.
“What happens if a cease fire is needed, as neither side is able to wipe out the other?”
A partition of the country. The plan wouldn’t even be new.
They might want to install
It would make a change at least. Why indulge in wild speculation, though?
Why indulge in wild
Why indulge in wild speculation, though?
Because censorship is so tight that we can’t know what is going on on the ground. Speculating is all we can do, unless you volunteer to go to Tripoli and interview people.
It would make a change at least.
From the point of view of a mere spectator this might be right. Now try to leave that stance and imagine the point of view of a Libyan protester who has risked his or her life for weeks to fight for freedom, has seen people die and arrested: they might find the result a tiny bit disappointing, if they are going to be oppressed by a dictator with the west’s blessing, but Gaddafi’s methods.
"...imagine the point of view
"...imagine the point of view of a Libyan protester who has risked his or her life for weeks to fight for freedom, has seen people die and arrested: they might find the result a tiny bit disappointing, if they are going to be oppressed by a dictator with the west’s blessing, but Gaddafi’s methods."
That's where my main misgivings lie. The likes of Sarkozy and the British Tories are not known for supporting genuine democracy movements. And the Gulf dictatorships appear to be turkeys voting for Christmas. You have to wonder if some underhand deal has been agreed with what will probably be called "moderate" rebels.
Exactly.
Exactly.
If this is really what the
If this is really what the Gaddafis want to achieve in negotiations, there won’t be a solution by negotiation, I guess. Saif Gaddafi as transition president, wow.
Momo, I have been able to
Momo,
I have been able to process the various positions taken by posters here without issue. Except for yourself. Something in your a priori position sticks with me and, although you have done well to try and define it, I still find it dogmatic in the face of what information was and is out there.
Unless you truly believe that a conspiracy is afoot there is no genuine reason for you, if you are indeed a progressive, or leftist, to not be open to the possibility that the least bad option was exercised in intervening in Libya. [Mother of all war crimes was your description]
I found an essay that I would like you to read as it sums up what I have struggled with in your responses here, it is something I would have written myself were I smarter, more patient and less acerbic.
An Open Letter to the Left on Libya
For the neocons here who insist that this is "just like Iraq" there is a little something for you as well by the same expert. (herr eric_5 ;-)
Brendan,For the neocons here
Brendan,
I was a neoconservative. I came to find out that it is just not that easy. Now, you are the neoconservative. A neoconservative is basically a liberal with balls. Lets wiki, shall we:
That is what you are supporting, correct? Using military power to bring democracy to Libya? If you are a liberal frustrated by watching dictators in the developing world shoot, gas, torture and rob their own people, and demand that your government sanction that country or intervene in a popular uprising against him, you are basically a Neocon.
Not such bad people afterall, eh hoser? Helped bring democracy to the Phillipines, Chile, and Iraq. And now the next generation of Neocons are bringing democracy to Libya.
All information taken from this page.
Jay,I'm surprised that you
Jay,
I'm surprised that you don't seem to understand the term neo-conservative and that it can and does only apply to Americans with a penchant for unilateralism.
Post new comment