The initial invasion and taking over of the country might be costly, yes, but after that the oil would be all ours ... more than making up for the  investment.

And we can add another tee shirt to go along with this one:

http://www.cafepress.com/+this_iraqi_oil_long_sleeve_tshirt,40995253

That should help stimulate the garment industry.  Oh, wait.  No it won't.  The garment industry has been outsourced to Thailand.

Mike,

Thank you for posting the STRATFOR link.  I was seriously beginning to question my instincts.  Being in agreement with bigC, Momo, and Eric, but in disagreement with you, is an event that caused me to wonder if I had just suffered a stroke and was unaware of it.

This is the part that will make all of us happy, I think:

It should also be remembered that the same international community that condemned Saddam Hussein as a brutal dictator quite easily turned to condemn the United States both for deposing him and for the steps its military took in trying to deal with the subsequent insurgency. It is not difficult to imagine a situation where there is extended Libyan resistance to the occupying force followed by international condemnation of the counterinsurgency effort.

Read more: How a Libyan No-fly Zone Could Backfire | STRATFOR

Following a "moral obligation" to help end the rule of a megalomaniacal terrorist is inevitably going to lead to a condemnation of the US being immoral, interested only in oil, a bully, etc.  We can not win in Libya (in the Catch-22 sense) and shouldn't risk it.  My only hope is that Obama has the courage to listen to his advisors on the matter, and not cave in to the political pressure being hoisted upon him by the Fox republicans who are eager to portray him as weak and indecisive on the matter of "supporting democratic movements".

Clinton is already warning of an extended civil war, and Obama also needs to do his part to warn the public about what lies ahead, and the dangers of American involvement.

Mike,

I found this late last night:

Still, despite the weapons advantage, the report noted that the Qaddafi forces appeared lacking in morale. “In recent skirmishes in small coastal towns the rebels have easily repelled the pro-government forces’ largely uncoordinated attacks with the most rudimentary of weapons,” the report said. “The loyalty of the air force has also been called into question as many bombs have been reportedly dropped miles from their targets.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/world/africa/09libya.html?scp=1&sq=loyalty%20in%20question%20libya&st=cse

I am offering it in support of my rather casual observation earlier:

I keep seeing clips on the news of opposition forces assembling on highways, and bombs falling about 200 yards away from them in the sand.  Either those pilots are incredibly incompetent, or they really didn't want to hit their targets.  Segments of Libyan ground forces also do not seem interested in decisively clearing the rebels.  I keep hearing reports of pro-Gadaffi forces penetrating rebel lines in the center of a city, then retreating back to their former positions.  I think that was in Zawiya or Misurata. (Jay)

If Gadaffi's soldiers and pilots refuse to fight for him, they are going to be shot.  However, that doesn't mean that they are going to fight with their hearts in it.  A few pilots defected to Malta with their planes, but I am sure that most men have families in Libya and that would not be an option for them.  I sense that some "loyalists" are simply biding their time, wanting to make sure if Gadaffi actually is going to lose before their throw their weight behind the opposition.

As the situation progresses, there will be some calls to send weapons to the rebels.  It will be like the Bosnia scenario, where the Europeans did not want to send more arms to embattled forces because that would just intensify the fighting.  Clinton has already warned against "sending arms to a post office box in Libya", because you really don't know who you are arming.

In Bosnia, we knew the situation.  We have no idea who we would be sending guns to in Libya, and the effort would probably be seen as "war profiteering" if the rebels start carrying M-16s.

Actually, for a conflict of this nature, modern armor and weaponry might not be so important.  This is a popular uprising, and it can't be quelled by simply knocking out the opposing sides hardware.  You are going to need to send troops door to door to root out individual fighters who are opposed to a restoration of the regime's authority.  Here is a great article about how the Chadians were able to rout Gadaffi's armor with truckloads of lightly armed fighters tooling around in Toyota's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War

The Libyans have plenty of options to fight Gaddafi.  If the rebels actually do have overwhelming support, they can call for a national strike and really put the screws to the regime.  We shouldn't assume that simply because there are legions of teenaged men running around the streets of Libya with AKs, that we need to make them even more dangerous when we aren't sure what they stand for, or if the people of Libya even want to be overrun by heavily armed teenagers.

The Brits got busted yesterday sending a team of commandoes to investigate the situation on the ground.  That mission was surely a precursor to an arms shipment.  The rebels sent them home.  Apparently, even they know that foreign involvement is undersirable.

We need to move away from this Western pre-occupation with micro-managing global affairs.  In terms of political development, "we" are often a century or two ahead of much of the world.  There are going to be wars, uprisings, riots and revolts, and while there is tremendous political pressure for our leaders to "stop the killing", this is just a fact of life in developing nations and we have to learn to let nature takes its course.

Ya know, I had a political science professor in college who specialized in Italian fascists.  He wrote a book called "Italo Balbo: A Fascist Life".  He and I talked about Libya and Italy back when I was his student.

I often resent the Europeans for refusing to acknowledge that much of the world's problems has to do with the legacy of European colonialism.  I have few kind words for colonialism, but I have to say that for some reason, the Italians have a decent history in Libya.

From Wikipedia:

The governor Italo Balbo developed the Italian Libya from 1934 to 1940, creating a huge infrastructure (from 4,000 km of roads to 400 km of narrow gauge railways to new industries and to dozen of new agricultural villages).[12]

The Libyan economy nearly "boomed", mainly in the agricultural sector. Even some manufacturing activities were developed, mostly related to the food industry. Building construction increased in a huge way. Furthermore, the Italians made modern medical care available for the first time in Libya and improved sanitary conditions in the towns.

The Italians started numerous and diverse businesses in Tripolitania and Cirenaicia. These included an explosives factory, railway workshops, Fiat Motor works, various food processing plants, electrical engineering workshops, ironworks, water plants, agricultural machinery factories, breweries, distilleries, biscuit factories, a tobacco factory, tanneries, bakeries, lime, brick and cement works, Esparto grass industry, mechanical saw mills, and the Petrolibya Society (Trye 1998). Italian investment in her colony was to take advantage of new colonists and to make it more self-sufficient. Total native Italian population for Libya was 110,575 out of a total population of 915,440 in 1940 (General Staff War Office 1939, 165/b).[13]

The last railway development in Libya done by the Italians was the Tripoli-Benghazi line that was started in 1941 and was never completed because of the Italian defeat during WWII.[14]

Sure, that was probably written by an Italian glazing over his nation's less reputable acts in the country, but it does seem that the Italians actually have a deep affection for Libya.  That makes me wonder: what does Italy have to say about all this.  As usual, it is Britain, France, and the US posturing for roles as global leaders, but what about the Western country that actually knows the most about Libya?

I am watching CNN for the day's updates.  I am hearing how Gadaffi forces shot two doctors--possibly because they were treating rebels--and how loyalists were shooting wounded civilians rather than allow them to get medical aid.

Guys, I hate to sound like an asshole, but the Arabs are masters of propaganda.  The best way to get someone to fight your battles for you is to make allegations such as this one.  It will only be a matter of time before we start hearing about the mass rapes being committed by Gadaffi's forces, I think.

Do you Americans remember Nurse Nayirah?  Nothing like stories of rapes and dead babies to get us gullible Westerners involved:

"Fifteen-year old Nayirah, who gave testimony anonymously, testified before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus in October 1990 that she was a refugee volunteering in the maternity ward of Al Adan hospital in Kuwait City, and that during the Iraqi occupation she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing Kuwaiti infants in an incubator room: “They took the babies out of the incubator, took the incubators, and left the babies to die on the cold floor,” she testified.[3] The testimony came at a crucial time for the Bush administration, which was pressing for military action to eject Iraq from Kuwait. Nayirah's story was widely publicized, and Amnesty International at first seemed to corroborate the report. The story helped build domestic support for the Persian Gulf War.[1]

Nayirah was later disclosed to be Nayirah al-Sabah, daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, Kuwaiti ambassador to the USA. She was demonstrated to have connections to the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was at that time working for Citizens for a Free Kuwait.[1] The latter activist group was organized by the exiled Kuwaiti government, to gain support for the Kuwaiti cause.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Nayirah

My only hope is that Obama has the courage to listen to his advisors on the matter, and not cave in to the political pressure being hoisted upon him by the Fox republicans who are eager to portray him as weak and indecisive on the matter of "supporting democratic movements".  (Jay)

I just watched a CNN interview with John McCain.  I need to say that I like McCain, and I voted for him in the last presidential election.  He just made a strong statement for American intervention in Libya, and claimed that international support wasn't necessary.  Few understand the complications of such an intervention better than McCain.  I think he is completely full of shit here.

I think that McCain is taking the opportunity to score some political points, and would be the last one to actually want to intervene in Libya.  He knows the situation in Libya is going to be nasty for quite some time, and he can safely criticize the president for "allowing it to happen" for the duration of the civil war.

This is one of the things that bothers me about American foreign policy.  Affairs of foreign states are used as political ammunition in domestic American politics.  We made a lot of disastrous decisions in the past because presidents did not want to be accused of "allowing a nation to go communist".  Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?  Because the administration that has the courage to lift it will lose the state of Florida in the next election--and thus possibly the election itself--because of it.  Why was America the first nation to recognize Israel, and continues to provide disproportionate support in relation to the rest of the world?  Don't get me started.

For as much as I like McCain, I think it is criminally immoral to encourage emotional decision making on the futures of entire nations simply to garner a few more votes in the American electoral college.

I don't know how much you buy from us, but most of your (US) oil comes from us. 

I don't know how much you buy from us, but most of your (US) oil comes from us. 

Wonder if we could pour Flying Monkeys Smash Bomb Atomic Strong IPA  directly into our gas tanks ...

That is one AWESOME beer!  If you love Hops, this beer is "slap you around and take your lunch money" GOOD!   Skip the gas tank...DRINK the beer and walk (stumble) home!

Owly,

Well I reckon that the rebels have all but lost. May as well face facts. 

Negativity festers in you my friend.  The rebels have been driven out of Ras Lanuf, but that doesn't mean that the war is over.

I believe it was the 32nd Brigade that took the town.  That is the best paid, best equipped, most loyal force the regime has.  They had technical and material superiority, and complete command of the air.  However, it took them a week to take the town.  That is actually a victory for the rebels.  Those defending Ras Lanuf bought valuable time for those in Benghazi to organize their forces and set up defensive fortifications.  (Of course that assumes that there is some level of organizational competence functioning in Benghazi.  I could be wrong about that.)

It looks like about 350 kilometers to Benghazi from Ras Lanuf, with few routes to transport the equipment to reclaim the important eastern part of the country.  It is not going to be easy to move around on those open highways through hostile territory.  There are many lessons in recent Arab history about how to harass a superior military force, and I imagine that the Libyan rebels will begin engaging in asymmetrical warfare.  Roadside bombs; ambushes; snipers; maybe even a suicide bomber or two.  Gadaffi has an insurgency on his hands.  Hope he enjoys it.

I don't know which story I like better, Eric's one about how Gadaffi and his family are leaving the country with bags full of money, or Jay's one of how the insurgency will ultimately prevail.

The window of oppotunity is closing, if it hasn't already closed, and this will just be one more nail in the coffin of supposed Western moral superiority.

one more nail in the coffin of supposed Western moral superiority. chris

Do you have a morality index to hand? What objective criteria do you have in mind? By the standards of Mormons, Muslims and Evangelical Christians, the 'West' is a cesspit of sin.

Eric,

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you write things like that?

Chris,

I don't know which story I like better, Eric's one about how Gadaffi and his family are leaving the country with bags full of money, or Jay's one of how the insurgency will ultimately prevail.

Enjoy them both.  We may both be right eventually.

In American news, reporters are chosen for their physical attractiveness.  Do you really think Anderson Cooper has idea about the situation in Libya?  The lesson is, take what you hear on the news with a grain of salt, and develop a more profound view of Libyan society.

The Al-Qaddafi tribe in Libya has historically tended goats around Sirte.  There are many in Libya who always considered Gaddafi to be nothing more than a glorified goat herder.  There are, I think, 140 tribes in Libya, 30 of which are powerful enough to influence events in the nation.  Many of them have decided that they don't want to be ruled by Gadaffi anymore.  If Gadaffi starts killing them because of their opposition, he is opening up Pandora's Box.

The "rebels" (there is a reason why I keep putting words like "rebels", and "opposition", in quotes) appeared to make significant gains at the beginning of the revolution as towns "fell" to the opposition, but in actuality they simply stopped accepting Gadaffi's authority and picked up guns.  Saif Gadaffi may be able to drive his 32nd brigade into the heart of Zawiya, but that does not mean that he has changed the people's will.  The more brutal he is in suppressing those rising against his rule, the more hardended that will becomes against his rule.  You rule over Arabs with largesse, not by killing them.  If you shoot an Arab you are just going to piss him off.

I am not sure what you are actually thinking about the Libyan crisis, but Owly is still thinking of it in terms of conventional warfare, where two sides with their respective flags square off, and whoever captures the other's flag first wins.  He is discouraged because Gadaffi is "retaking territory", but that is not what this is about.  This is tribal warfare, and it is only going to get worse.

I don't see how Gadaffi could survive this, but then again, I was surprised when Saddam managed to survive an uprising after the 1991 war.  However, that may not have been a nascent uprising as much as it was an act called for by President Bush.  The uprising against Gadaffi is much broader and deeper, and is truly indigenous.  I wouldn't want to be a member of the wrong tribe patrolling the streets of Benghazi at night enforcing Gadaffi's rule.

Guys,

Think about it this way: "Libya" is a geographical abstraction created by the Italians.  It is another example of the problems created by European colonialism.  There is no Libyan national consciousness in the same way there is a French or British national consciousness.  Libya is not a nation state, nor is it a state like America with an identity based on shared values, experience and struggle.

It is a collection of states bound together by the coincidence of the former extent of Italian control.  There is Tripolitania in the northwest, Fezzan in the southwest, and Cyrenaica in the east.  If Gadaffi had spread the wealth of Libya around evenly, there wouldn't be a problem.  However, he acted like he was doing the Benghazis a favor if he invested a little money in the east, but spared no expense on himself and his playboy sons.  The "Cyrenaicans" have a right to be disgusted by this, and have tremendous incentive to rebel and potentially "seceed from the union".  The majority of the nations natural assets are located beneath their feet.  If they can gain control of the oil leaving Tobruk, begin selling it, and begin buying weapons, I can't see them being interested in asserting control over the rest of the country, or even remaining in "Libya" itself.

The situation is very complex, and it could go anywhere.  The United Nations may well find itself with a few new members when this is all said and done.

The rebels are now calling for foreign intervention.

From the Guardian:

The Provisional Transitional National Council said that calls by European leaders for Gaddafi to quit and the threat of more sanctions were not enough as the regime regains its footing after the initial shock of the popular uprising.

The revolutionaries fear that the hesitation by most European states and the US to take direct action is providing a breathing space for Gaddafi to continue his attempts to crush the uprising in areas around Tripoli and to move toward Benghazi.

"If you don't want to do something, you rely on the diplomatic side. It is not enough when people are dying," said Iman Bugaighis, spokeswoman for the revolutionary council. "We need more than diplomacy. We need a no-fly zone but we need more than that. We need air strikes. I think they know where to bomb if they want to bomb. They know how to intervene. It's urgent."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/libya-rebels-air-strikes-gaddafi

(Sorry for not embedding the link, but, formatting wise, this site hates me.)

It is a collection of states bound together by the coincidence of the former extent of Italian control.jay

With a change of the name of the former colonial power, you can apply the same reasoning to many conflicts. As you correctly point out, Brits and Americans think of countries in terms of nation-states,in cases where they are not only internally fragmented into tribes but overlap borders. The Pashtuns of Afghanistan (otherwise known as the Taleban) are actually more numerous in Pakistan (former British India) than in Afghanistan itself. Hence, a great deal of nonsense about the Taleban finding a 'safe haven' in Pakistan when they're just travelling around in 'Pashtunistan'.

Matt,

I was reading about Iman Bugaighis last night.  I can't really figure out who is in her organization (the PTNC sometimes, or just TNC others) or anything about her.  All I know is that she was a orthodontist about a month ago.

I honestly have no idea why France recognized this group as the legitimate representative of a "Free Libya", but if anyone can find any better information on who these guys are, please post it.

"We need air strikes. I think they know where to bomb if they want to bomb. They know how to intervene..."

That sounds a little clueless for an official statement.  I might be wrong about a lot of things on this thread, but one thing I know is that the future Libya will not be ruled by a dentist.

...one thing I know is that the future Libya will not be ruled by a dentist.

Why not?  For the past forty years it's been ruled by a sheep herder.  Seems like an upgrade.

And another note to you Europeans so eager to intervene in Libya, remember that you will be fighting your own weapons:

The European Union’s latest arms control report, released in January this year, said that member states had issued licences for the sale of 293.2 million pounds worth of weapons and weapons systems to Libya in 2009 alone, reports The Telegraph.

More at : Libyan forces using western arms to deal with anti- Gaddafi protestors: EU http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/libyan-forces-using-western-arms-to-deal-with-anti-gaddafi-protestors-eu_100508193.html#ixzz1GKf8WZWV

300 million pounds of weapons is a lot, although I am not sure why they give you the weight instead of the dollar amount.

Owly,

Glad you are here.  I have a few questions for you:

#1  Why do the British still sell things by weight?  Are there not more sophisticated determinants of value?

#2  If they are going to sell arms by weight, why not use the metric system like they do for everything else?  Should that be "150 million kilos of weaponry"?

#3  Why does the BBC tell you what things are not, instead of what they are?  If you listen to the BBC, they will tell you what the FTSE didn't do, even though it actually DID do it.  For example, if the FTSE goes up by 0.3%, they will say that it was up "not point 3 percent".  I don't understand you guys sometimes.

I'm Australian, so I've got no political ax to grind here. This is a civil war, the same as Vietnam was. At least in Vietnam the people were largely ambivilent to Communism, but in a muslim Islam ia the ideaology country you are already the enemy. A no fly zone is no guarantee to victory, and if it fails the war is prolonged and then what next? Ground troops? Then every jihadistr in the Mahgreb will be on their way to Libya to kill westerners.

Let someone else do it. Innocents will be killed and the US will be blamed.

Saddam was much worse than Khadafy (attacked Iran, attacked Kuwait, killed 200 000 of his own people, constant threat to the Gulf) and everyone scrambled to defend him, so there is a lot of hypocracy here. The Dafur has suffered for years. Mugabe has killed his own people for many years. Where is the action!!!

Here in Australia people complain about the US being the self appointed world policeman, but who is the first world leader to be mentioned on the news for not doing anything? Obama. More hypocracy here, and I know the US won't be thanked as soon as the inevitable first child gets killed by a stray US bomb.

This is an Arab/African problem. They must grow up and sort it out

ax to grind

Is he sure he's Australian? That's the American spelling of 'axe'.

Eric,

Simply because a word is misspelled does not mean it is the "American" spelling.

"...ax, ...ambivilent, ...ideaology, ...hypocracy,..."

Looks like this guy is definitely Australian.

Son of a bitch.  I put an "e" on the end of "ax."  I've turned into a Eurotard.

I have a new theory on the Arab Spring which I am sure that you guys are just dying to hear.

About a week ago I was watching a CNN report from Libya.  As the analyst was speaking, they had some of that stock footage of men gathered on a highway.  I am sure that the camera crews were encouraging the people--who are all kids, by the way--to do something exciting for the cameras, as guys standing around on a highway is just boring.

One kid ran off into the sand towards a mortar piece, jumping up and down and flashing victory signs with his fingers.  He began waving his scarf.  Then, he lunged out with his foot and kicked a mortar shell, which immediately exploded, no doubt killing him.  The footage then flicked around to guys firing RPGs into the air, supposedly at a passing fighter jet.

Watching that kid blow himself up made me wonder, "Who are these guys?  Who is in charge?  What are they revolting for?"  I am becoming increasingly convinced that the answers to those questions are "Nobody, no one, and nothing".

A guy immolates himself in Tunisia, and the Middle East erupts.  Where is the logic in that?  Is there any planning here?  All of the revolutions so far have been uncoordinated and leaderless.  Just masses of people taking to the streets.  This has caused me to second guess my reasoning on Libya.

Events in the Middle East are starting to resemble events in the west in the 1960s.  I am sure that you have all heard the statistic that "70% of the population of the Muslim world is under the age of 30", or whatever the exact number is.  It looks like we are dealing with the growing pains of the Arab Baby Boomers.

To see if I was on to something, I googled "Arab Baby Boomers".  It is apparently a novel theory so far, but I did find this article:

http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2011/03/06/the-rise-of-the-arab-baby-boomers/

Which led me to a wiki page about "youth bulges":

The expansive case was described as youth bulge by Gary Fuller (1995). Gunnar Heinsohn (2003) argues that an excess in especially young adult male population predictably leads to social unrest...

and more relevantly:

The Middle East and North Africa are currently experiencing a prominent youth bulge. Structural changes in service provision, especially health care, beginning in the 1960s created the conditions for a population explosion, which has resulted in a population consisting primarily of younger people. It is estimated that around 65% of the regional population is under the age of 30.[6]

The Middle East has invested more in education, including religious education, than most other regions such that education is available to most young people.[7] However, that education has not led to higher levels of employment, and youth unemployment is currently at 25%, the highest of any single region.[8] Of this 25%, over half are first time entrants into the job market.[9]

The youth bulge in the Middle East and North Africa has been favorably compared to that of the Asian Tigers, which harnessed this human capital and saw huge economic growth in recent decades.[10] The youth bulge has been referred to by the Middle East Youth Initiative as a demographic gift, which, if engaged, could fuel regional economic growth and development.

I am beginning to wonder if the Libyan crisis has anything to do with civil war or tribalism.

It looks like most people inside Libya actually do despise Gadaffi, but you really can't win a gun battle with "people power".  You need leaders, organizations, structure, and the discipline to adhere to the dictates of all of the above.  Those are all things that 20-somethings are reflexively opposed to.  People are finally standing up to Gadaffi, but in the past three weeks I have yet to see them resisting with any coherence.  It is all just kids jumping around and firing Ak-47s into the air.

So what happens now?  Gadaffi may put down the revolt, but then does he put 70% of his population into prison?