Of course you are, and I’m appreciative that you’re aware of that, It’s just a pity that you’re not capable of understanding that being dogmatic, on any issue, isn’t something to be proud of. It’s why your voice carries little or no value with most people here.

Would someone please shoot me now?  I have suffered long enough on this thread, but at this exact moment I believe that I have sunk to the lowest level of my entire life.  I am a drunken vagrant passed out in the gutter, and a passing dog just lifted its leg and pissed on my head.

Momo, I agree with most of what you just said.  Someone shoot me.

You made a point about Bahrain the other day, and I somewhat agree, but with a different logic.  What about Bahrain?  If the West is going to take such a forceful stance on Libya, will we not be seen as hypocritical for being silent on Bahrain?  I don't want to get involved in Bahrain, Syria, or Yemen, because these are all sectarian societies possibly emerging from an extended period of dictatorship, and things are going to get ugly.  But then again, so is Libya.

Like Momo, I really don't understand the sense of urgency on Libya.  I don't understand why America knew to stay on the sidelines for the Arab Spring, but then so suddenly intervened.  Like Momo, I don't really see any genocide or massive human rights abuses.  Sure, they existed, but not a the scale that has historically provoked an international response.

You know what certain Arabs are going to allege, right?:  We are in Libya because of the oil.  I hate that allegation, but, something is gnawing at my gut right now.  This just doesn't make sense.

We took sides in a civil war, and there is no one to hand power to.

One of the things that I disagree with Momo on in the above post is this:

The original aim of the UN was to prevent war, Brendan. This has been sacrificed and replaced by “nation-building”. The idea is that one system, the one of the US, which obviously they are happy with, makes all nations happy.

That is some vintage Momo stupidity and anti-US paranoia, but my point about it is that the mission definitely has not turned to "nation-building".  I believe that that will eventually be necessary now.  You can't knock out Gadaffi and then walk away.

Another thing:

I am only surprised at Brendan’s and BigC’s attitude.

As far as I know, bigC has rather wisely positioned himself against intervention from the start of this thread.  That will probably be the last time I am ever in need of defending him.

As far as I know, bigC has rather wisely positioned himself against intervention from the start of this thread.  

Not quite so. BigC, who can answer for himself, has basically sat on the fence. He was more inclined towards intervention but felt the rebels would win regardless. I disagreed and I advocated air strikes 2+ weeks ago. Maybe then the rebels would have won by now. 

The Security Council Has At Last Lived Up To Its Duty  by Kenneth Roth (Director of Human Rights Watch) Published in: Foreign Policy March 18, 2011

For the second time in three weeks, the council (UNSC) accomplished the politically impossible, first referring Libya to the International Criminal Court, then, yesterday authorizing military force to protect civilians from Muammar al-Qaddafi's wrath.

 The challenge now is not only to translate this remarkable Security Council consensus into effective protection for Libyans. It is to extend the human rights principles embraced for Libya to other people in need....Can it begin to recognize that a leader's atrocities against his own people are a global concern, not an internal affair? No one believes these steps will be easy, but the task before us is to translate the Security Council's principled reaction to Libya into a broader doctrine of genuine protection for people facing mass atrocities.  

Eric,

You and I were in agreement when you held this position:

eric_5

4 March 2011 - 10:21pm

There are measures that can be taken against Gaddafi and his associates that will undermine their position and discourage other dictators.

1. The UK and other countries are taking steps to freeze assets of Gaddafi and co.
2. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is launching an investigation.
3. Interpol has issued a worldwide alert.

Everything doesn't depend on sending UN gunboats to determine the result of military conflict.

I consider the UN resolution 1973 to be unwise.  I think it is unwise of you to so blindly follow the decisions of the UN, even when they are in contradiction of your original position.

I understand that you put a lot of your future hopes for humanity in the arms of the UN, but the institution is highly fallible, and you can't see the forest for the trees.  UN endorsement does not, automatically, makes things wonderful.  It often makes things worse.

Brendan,

The difference being that these affiars will be settled less violently, by infantry and small weapons on an equal playing field.

As citizens of democracies who have a tendency to submit to domestic pressure for foreign interventions on humanitarian grounds, it is important that we understand the nature of civil wars.

I would bet that 85% of the all deaths resulting from political violence over the last 40 years occured at the hands of 22 year-old males who recently came into possession of an AK-47.

What do you want to see?  An end to Gadaffi, or an end to the violence?  They are not one and the same.  You must choose.  Tanks and artillery are the best way to end the violence quickly.  An armed population in a sectarian society during a state of anarchy is going to kill more people and endure for years longer.  You keep saying there is no comparison to Iraq.  You are wrong.

As with most complex events, there are no easy answers here. Is Gaddafi an unhinged tyrant who has been killing unarmed protesters and armed rebels (all of them civilians, by the way, momo)? Yes. Would Libya and the rest of us be better off if were he toppled? Common sense would seem to suggest that is so.

But ... and I might as well line up alongside Jay for the firing squad ... I tend to agree with momo that this should have been left to the Libyans to sort out.

Unlike momo, however, who hates the US and tends to see base ulterior motives in any action it undertakes, my reasons have more to do with logic and practicality.

(By the way, momo, the U.S. appears to be backing out of the action already. I guess that will leave Britain, France, Canada, Italy, Denmark, Spain, Qatar and Norway to squabble over who steals the oil and builds the airbases – not to mention the new puppet government. We have enough bases around there, but nice of you to be thinking of our needs.)

The revolt in Libya was at the beginning and should have remained part of the Arab Spring, a natural development with citizens of each country protesting authoritarian regimes which they are no longer willing to put up with. That some of these protests have turned violent is regrettable but also not unexpected. In Gaddafi’s case, it should be surprising to no one that, rather than take the more logical approach of stuffing his suitcases with loot and fleeing to Gstad (or wherever would have him), he chose to stay and fight it out.

But what, exactly, is the difference between Libya and Bahrain? Protestors against a tyrannical government are being brutally crushed there, too. The difference, of course, is that Bahrain is an ally, and not run by a raving nutter who lives in a tent but by a royal family we’re on good terms with.

Obama has chosen to get the U.S. involved in what is an internal conflict. Whatever good might come from it – a few Libyan lives saved, Gaddafi toppled – are outweighed by the dangerous precedent that’s been set. Even if we were to pull out of the coalition tomorrow, the damage has been done.

Like Jay, I’m content to let the EU and whatever other nations are involved handle this from here. Of course, whether they can handle it is an open question. And what exactly is the end game? If, as it seems, Gaddafi is capable of killing his people even without aircraft and armored artillery, what comes next? I think Mike would agree that, if the intent is really protect Libyans on the ground, then foreign boots on the ground will sooner or later be needed. I foresee special forces teams inserted (if they haven’t been already) to lase smaller, better hidden targets for aircraft, liaise with rebel leaders, arrange arms and supply drops and, eventually, train cadres of fighters who can take leadership roles.

What I don’t want is for those special forces troops to have an American patch on their O.D.s.

I think Mike would agree that, if the intent is really protect Libyans on the ground, then foreign boots on the ground will sooner or later be needed.

Regretfully, I have to agree.  This is not something airpower can fully accomplish.  That is why I am so bothered by the lack of a mission statement, defined end state, or exit strategy.

And what happens when the fragile Euro-coalition starts to fall apart as it is destined to do based on the flaws already outlined?  

Some Historical perspective on the two Libya's.

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."    Presidential Candidate Barak Obama, 2007

Momo,

I expect that this intervention will develop into a full occupation. Most likely the country will be split. It will be the source of conflict too. The protesters who started the thing have already been replaced by tribal leaders and former ministers who have changed sides. The interior minister who is responsible for the affair of the Bulgarian nurses is on the side you support, too …

What did you mean by the sentence in bold type?  It is on page 9, 23 March 2011 - 9:01pm.

Where have the protesters been replaced by "tribal leaders and former ministers"?

I remember how during the rise of the insurgency in the Iraq war, most of the American media ended every single story about bloodshed in Iraq with the words "It has been _____ days since president Bush declared an end to major military operations in Iraq".

I am going to start the new trend:

It has been 5 days since President Obama declared that American participation in Libya will be over in "days, not weeks".

Excerpts from a French writer in an opinion page in Al Jazeera:

"...Why does France seem to crave such prominence? In the eyes of the French, France’s international status remains a key ingredient in forming their own national identity. The way we French are perceived by others affects how we perceive ourselves, and nothing is more troubling for us than to be perceived with indifference or, worse, not to be noticed at all.

Suddenly, with the Libya issue, we can tell ourselves that we are catching up with Germany, whose pusillanimity is striking; we are showing the way to the United States; and the French (and British) flags are deployed in the streets of “liberated” Libya, together with that country's own new flag. And, just as suddenly, the French, according to early polls, are proud again to be French....

...Of course, domestic considerations are not absent from Sarkozy's thinking. In 2007, when he played a key role in the liberation of Bulgarian nurses imprisoned by Gaddafi, Libya's leader was rewarded with what looked like a legitimacy prize: an official visit to Paris. He was no longer a pariah, but an eccentric partner.

Today, by contrast, it all looks as if intervention may re-legitimate Sarkozy in the eyes of French citizens, whose votes he will need in next year's presidential election. An energetic and daring gambler, Sarkozy is taking a high but legitimate risk that he can retake the moral (and political) high ground...

...And today, with France taking the lead in an international effort to protect the Libyan people from their leader, they can feel simultaneously proud of being French and of their Arab roots. These positive identities constitute the best protection against the sirens of fundamentalist Islam.

Of course, an ideal scenario implies that the intervention "goes well", and that it does not incite confusion or chaos in Libya or the wider region.

France, together with Great Britain, and with the more distant support of the US, is undeniably risking much, for it is easier to start a war than it is to end one..."

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322145133190578.html

Debate is raging in America over our participation in Libya.  The following is a letter sent from the US Speaker of the House (of Representatives) to President Obama:

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Thank you for your letter dated March 21, 2011, outlining your Administration’s actions regarding Libya and Operation Odyssey Dawn.  The United States has long stood with those who seek freedom from oppression through self-government and an underlying structure of basic human rights.  The news yesterday that a U.S. fighter jet involved in this operation crashed is a reminder of the high stakes of any military action abroad and the high price our Nation has paid in blood and treasure to advance the cause of freedom through our history.

I respect your authority as Commander-in-Chief and support our troops as they carry out their mission.  But I and many other members of the House of Representatives are troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America’s role is in achieving that mission.  In fact, the limited, sometimes contradictory, case made to the American people by members of your Administration has left some fundamental questions about our engagement unanswered.  At the same time, by contrast, it appears your Administration has consulted extensively on these same matters with foreign entities such as the United Nations and the Arab League. 

It is my hope that you will provide the American people and Congress a clear and robust assessment of the scope, objective, and purpose of our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.  Here are some of the questions I believe must be answered:

• A United Nations Security Council resolution does not substitute for a U.S. political and military strategy.  You have stated that Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi must go, consistent with U.S. policy goals.  But the U.N. resolution the U.S. helped develop and signed onto makes clear that regime change is not part of this mission.  In light of this contradiction, is it an acceptable outcome for Qadhafi to remain in power after the military effort concludes in Libya? If not, how will he be removed from power?  Why would the U.S. commit American resources to enforcing a U.N. resolution that is inconsistent with our stated policy goals and national interests?  

• In announcing that our Armed Forces would lead the preliminary strikes in Libya, you said it was necessary to “enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners.”  Do we know which partners will be taking the lead?  Are there clear lines of authority and responsibility and a chain of command?  Operationally, does enforcement of a no-fly zone require U.S. forces to attack non-air or command and control operations for land-based battlefield activities, such as armored vehicles, tanks, and combatants?

• You have said that the support of the international community was critical to your decision to strike Libya. But, like many Americans, it appears many of our coalition partners are themselves unclear on the policy goals of this mission.  If the coalition dissolves or partners continue to disengage, will the American military take on an increased role?  Will we disengage? 

• Since the stated U.S. policy goal is removing Qadhafi from power, do you have an engagement strategy for the opposition forces?  If the strife in Libya becomes a protracted conflict, what are your Administration's objectives for engaging with opposition forces, and what standards must a new regime meet to be recognized by our government?

• Your Administration has repeatedly said our engagement in this military action will be a matter of “days, not weeks.”  After four days of U.S. military action, how soon do you expect to hand control to these other nations?  After the transition to coalition forces is completed, how long will American military forces remain engaged in this action?  If Qadhafi remains in power, how long will a no-fly zone will be enforced?

• We are currently in the process of setting priorities for the coming year in the budget.  Has the Department of Defense estimated the total cost, direct and indirect, associated with this mission?  While you said yesterday that the cost of this mission could be paid for out of already-appropriated funds, do you anticipate requesting any supplemental funds from Congress to pay for ongoing operations in Libya?

• Because of the conflicting messages from the Administration and our coalition partners, there is a lack of clarity over the objectives of this mission, what our national security interests are, and how it fits into our overarching policy for the Middle East.  The American people deserve answers to these questions.  And all of these concerns point to a fundamental question: what is your benchmark for success in Libya?

The American people take the use of military action seriously, as does the House of Representatives.  It is regrettable that no opportunity was afforded to consult with Congressional leaders, as was the custom of your predecessors, before your decision as Commander-in-Chief to deploy into combat the men and women of our Armed Forces.  Understanding some information required to respond may be classified, I look forward to a complete response.

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner

After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Americans were bewildered, and the question that kept circulating was "Why?".  It was a national debate: "Why do they hate us?"  Perhaps the best answer came from Bill Maher, who responded, "They hate us because we don't know why they hate us".

Maybe it is because the Arabs can read, and when they do they see things like this:

Wendy Schiller, a Brown University political scientist, argued Obama may have eventually paid a political price, if he didn't intervene before Gadhafi's troops took control of the last rebel stronghold in Benghazi.

"Americans generally do not like to see protesters seeking political rights shot, wounded or killed," she said. "Standing by and watching that happen, especially after the U.N. authorized a no-fly zone, would have made Obama look weak and indifferent to their struggle."

Or this:

Today, by contrast, it all looks as if intervention may re-legitimate Sarkozy in the eyes of French citizens, whose votes he will need in next year's presidential election.

Or this:

Some Italian politicians sought to settle old colonial scores by cynically noting that if France was allowed to lead this mission, it would get all the Libyan oil contracts and Italy would get all the Libyan refugees.

Or this:

The EU gold rush began after the UN lifted its arms embargo in 2003, with senior British, French and Italian officials jetting in and out of Tripoli in delegations with arms and oil industry executives.

"You've seen a lot of major suppliers going for a chunk of the Libyan arms market due to its increase in resource [oil] revenues," he told EUobserver. "[Libyan leader] Moammar Gaddafi has been playing the suppliers off each other and he hasn't really signed for big ticket items [from EU companies] yet."

In the 2005 to 2009 period, the only 'big ticket' EU deals were Italy's sale of six helicopters and a French contract to refurbish Libya's Mirage combat jets.

Ottfried Nassauer from the German arms control NGO Bits, said: "Nominal [trade] standards are quite high, but in reality business interests and economic interests as well as political interests override the ethical standards in many cases." He added that Libya supplies a large fraction of German oil imports and can manipulate energy prices.

And this:

Start with the official figures: €343 million of weapons sold in 2009 alone. The EU Observer, Deutsche Welle and Der Spiegel summarize those numbers and examine what is behind them. They speculate, for example, that the €43m of German electrical exports includes jamming equipment used to block the mobile phone and GPS networks.

We have the power to intervene in Arab countries with devastating effect, but for all of our claims to be doing so for "humanitarian reasons", it doesn't look like our motivations or our actions match our words.

I strongly believe that this is happening for all the wrong reasons--i.e., domestic elections--and that we are doing so with a complete disregard for the future of Libyans.

The Netherlands have now joined the coalition (6 fighters). Turkey's parliament has agreed to join the navel blockade (4 frigates and a sub). In addition, as soon as tomorrow, NATO will be taking over command and control of the mission now that Turkey has agreed.

Looks like Sweden is about to commit 6 blond nurses if NATO so requests. These brave nurses will endevour to coax Moammar out of the country by offering free check-ups to Supreme Leaders on the Tunisian Island of Djerba. [unverified]