No Fly zones over Libya?

[JihadJane]

The German foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, justifying Berlin's decision not to take part in operations in Libya in an interview with Der Spiegel:



Westerwelle: We want to stop the dictator. Indeed, right from the very beginning, we have spearheaded international and European efforts to impose sanctions. But military missions and air strikes are something else. I don't want us to venture onto a slippery slope that would lead to German troops participating in a war in Libya.

SPIEGEL: Doesn't inaction make us just as guilty as military intervention?

Westerwelle: The alternative to military operations is hardly inaction. After examining the repercussions of a military mission, with all of its uncertainties, which could possibly go as far as deploying ground troops and maintaining a military presence for years, I came to the following conclusion: No, we will not take part with German troops, no matter how honorable the motives of our partners who have decided differently.

....


Westerwelle: It is understandable that the rebels have asked for support. But why is it the West that is primarily responsible and not the countries of the region, above all the Arab League? Incidentally, we Germans have already had discussions with the Libyan opposition.

SPIEGEL: What was your impression?

Westerwelle: We assured them of our support, but we also asked them if they were looking to introduce a clan-based society or a democratic society with free and fair elections. These are justified questions.

 

[Laeke]

Argh, this is terrible.

<snip>

That's the problem with wide, vague notions, so allow me to elaborate on the statement.
The uprising in Tunisia and Egypt gained huge support within western public opinions, because we little powerless citizens of western democraties can only emphasize for people demanding more liberal regimes. Governements love the statu quo and were lukewarm about the former despots being ousted (France in Tunisia & USA in Egypt) but they cannot do anything but paying some public lip service to the demonstrators, at the very least, because not doing so would probably create an outrage within their population.

And of course, public opinions are dependant on the media, and the media attention is unjust: Cannot speak for the USA, but things happening on the Med, quite close to home, do get a lot more attention in Europe. Yemen, Bahrein and some other African countries did not get the same amount of coverage even though the events there clearly follows what happened in the "Arab Spring".

Public opinions are fickle and can be manipulated. The whole Libya affair was eclipsed by Japan for a week or so, after all. But when they get involved, the governements do have to appease them, even more so in western democracies, but that is also true in "despotic" or absolutist regimes. Kadhafi or Saudi Arabia did try to buy themselves out of the protests by promising subsidies on social issues, for instance.

Maybe the arab street can come into present century.
Then we can talk.

The so-called and fabled "Arab Street" has proven in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen... that they were far less behind than what "experts" try to feed us all year long: Surprise, surprise, the Arab and African common man have the basic same needs that any of us, they wish for a good life and some basic freedom.

JihadJane

Maybe?
Don't you think it's important to find out?

It depends what I have to find out. As far as I can tell, those rebels are not fanatic islamists. They are an opposition force to an authoritarian regime that hadn't allowed any form of protestation in 40 years. As a lemming inhabitant of a western democracy, I tend to believe that our political system is the alpha & omega and that Libya would benefit and improve from political discourse between opposing parties.

Why is it necessary misrepresent what I wrote?

Did I?
In the same message you explained to us that Western intervention would undermine the fight of the people in this region currently fighting to oppose old despots and monarchs. So I gather that we are in agreement that the whole Arab Spring deal is as of now, a positive force and a legitimate movement. The Libyan uprising are not uncommon or surprising as they started in the wake of the other ones.

You explain to us that Western governements were scared of the "Muslim Brotherhood" and is seeing islamists everywhere even though, so far, those uprisings seems to be honest, sincere, and "religious" issues rank low in their motivations.
Then in the same message you do paint a doom and gloom "Who are the rebels?", "Don't you remember that Benghazi had an islamist insurrection?", and such. I guess you were pointing at the "myopsis" of the "Western powers" which sees islamist menace whenever they want, but this do raise another question: why should I believe that the Libyan rebellion is something more sinister or less sincere than the Tunisian, Egyptian, Yemenite, Bahreini one (the ones you are lyrical about)?

So I'll give you that: The intervention in Libya does happen because it is convenient, for a number of reasons. There's no political loss in doing it. And I agree that if this is the kind of international doctrine we strive to enforce, we should stand by it in numerous other cases.

Libya is a complex soup.

While my geopolitical opinions are not by any means complex or worthy of attention outside the Internetz, I fail to see how reducing this soup to "Western Imperialism"/"It's about the oil" is anymore complex.

 

[egslim]

Depends on how much he can trust the local populations. Any forces in cities are going to be cut off with limited resupply any they are not exactly vast in number. Could they handel a further insurection?

With his C&C systems trashed his secret police are going to have a harder time keeping the population inline.

I don't know how much local support Gadaffi really has in each city, and I doubt anyone does. But in the cities he retook from the rebels most of the rebel-supporters will have been identified and probably already dealt with.

Attacks by the rebels on a city might also push the local population to support Gadaffi. Killing a person's friend or relative tends to make him hostile.

Supply is an issue, but they have to let food and medical aid through to prevent the civilians from starving to death. So Gadaffi's forces will benefit too. At the moment it's anyone's guess how long the cities can last.

 

[JihadJane]

JihadJane


It depends what I have to find out. As far as I can tell, those rebels are not fanatic islamists. They are an opposition force to an authoritarian regime that hadn't allowed any form of protestation in 40 years. As a lemming inhabitant of a western democracy, I tend to believe that our political system is the alpha & omega and that Libya would benefit and improve from political discourse between opposing parties.

What evidence do you have that the rebels are interested in establishing a democracy or "political discourse between opposing parties"?

While my geopolitical opinions are not by any means complex or worthy of attention outside the Internetz, I fail to see how reducing this soup to "Western Imperialism"/"It's about the oil" is anymore complex.

The Imperialism/oil angle relates to the motives for Western intervention, not to the internal affairs of the Libyan soup.

why should I believe that the Libyan rebellion is something more sinister or less sincere than the Tunisian, Egyptian, Yemenite, Bahreini one (the ones you are lyrical about)?

The demands and grievances of Libyan protestors all over Libya have been falsely conflated with on armed group of rebels from an opposing tribe in the east.

 

[angrysoba]

My opinion is that the claimed attack on Benghazi was completely hyped and was nothing more than rebels attacking Government forces outside of Benghazi - it was absolutely vital that they be able to claim that the government was violating the ceasefire.

You can believe what you like. There was no firing in Misurata/Misrata?

Anyway, I have sometimes found that certain types of regimes simply don't know how they come across. We all remember the "cut-off-their-legs" spokesman for Saddam Hussein but this guy, Ibrahim Musa seems to have been educated in England by the sounds of his voice and therefore, the Libyan government might calculate, will help them win a bit of PR.

Unfortunately, he's saying that all the civilians that are sitting outside government buildings waving and smiling are in fact "voluntary human shields".

Do you buy that LGR, Jihad Jane?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12801812

 

[Laeke]

What evidence do you have that the rebels are interested in establishing a democracy or "political discourse between opposing parties"?

That is not what I said.
If Kadhaffi cannot squash/exile the current opposition, he will have to discuss with them at one point (you know, the "mediation" or "dialogue between parties" that is called upon and that you mentioned on the former page and that we are trying to force upon him), and this will mean that Libya will have to engage in a political process towards some changes. That is the political "discourse" I was reffering to.

This is not a foolproof, 100% safe process, and we do not know what will be the exact outcome. It could fail. Life and world politics are unfortunately not that easy.

There was absolutely no way that Kadhaffi would have accepted to do so without any pressure from the rebels and the international community.

 

[egslim]

Public opinions are fickle and can be manipulated. The whole Libya affair was eclipsed by Japan for a week or so, after all. But when they get involved, the governements do have to appease them, even more so in western democracies, but that is also true in "despotic" or absolutist regimes. Kadhafi or Saudi Arabia did try to buy themselves out of the protests by promising subsidies on social issues, for instance.

The foreign governments could easily have ignored the Libyan uprising. Actually, most governments did just that, and if it hadn't been for the French nothing would have happened.
Of course local governments can't ignore an uprising that takes place right under their nose, that's another matter entirely.

My point is that conflicts are considered for intervention depending on their mediagenicness, not morality. And the media distorts the facts to make a story more appealing to their audience. As you say, North African stories do better in Europe than those from Sub-Saharan. Nastiness by the "good guys" is glossed over, that of the "bad guys" emphasized.
So the problem is we intervene based on a childish good vs bad story that's often a far cry from reality, and then people are surprised when our intervention doesn't work out as well as our simplistic understanding of the issue would have predicted.

Saddam was pictured by the media as an evil dictator who oppressed the Iraqi people. It would have been more accurate to say Saddam was a brutal dictator who kept a tight lid on sectarian violence in his country.
Then people wouldn't have been so surprised by the sectarian violence there, after Saddam was removed.

 

[JihadJane]

...the international community.

??

 

[little grey rabbit]

You can believe what you like. There was no firing in Misurata/Misrata?

That video is 3 or 4 days old now and proves that the rebels do have a satellite link and can upload videos, should they chose.

That video showed two explosions (from what I can't say), they showed no men were guns - suggesting the rebels don't have a powerful presence in the city. Of course, how can we even be sure it is Misrata?

There has been no further videos - no one expects people to film frontline fighting but there have been no videos of shelled and burned out buildings, no videos of causalties in hospital wards, no videos of funerals - even secret funerals.

Since we know they can upload videos from Misurata the absence of footage there probably tells us something.

 

[JihadJane]

It would have been more accurate to say Saddam was a brutal dictator who kept a tight lid on sectarian violence in his country.
Then people wouldn't have been so surprised by the sectarian violence there, after Saddam was removed.

More accurate still would have been "US-installed brutal dictator".

 

[Laeke]

egslim: I do agree with you, on the general idea if not on the details.

??

I do consider that an UN mandate with approval of several other parties including the Arab League and African Union (they may be critic of how we are conducting it, but they do support the overall stated goals: enforce a NFZ, impose a ceasefire and discussions between the conflicting parties), which went unopposed by Russia & China, is as close as we can currently get of the "international community".

 

[little grey rabbit]

No, I just don't care about it. Gadaffi only declared it to play for time and the rebels didn't agree to it. This conflict is too messy for a "ceasefire" to work anyway, people fire their guns in the air all the time, even when no enemy is in sight. Even if there was a "ceasefire" order, probably half the forces wouldn't receive it with the lousy communications they have.


More likely Gadaffi gambled he might be able to take Benghazi quickly, before Western air power would immobilize his forces. He declared a ceasefire to win a little more time for that.
.

You are wilfully misrepresenting what I said.

The UN Security demanded a ceasefire, when Government forces retreated 150 kilometers for whatever reason they had effectively ceased fire.

When the rebels chased them 150 kilometers down the road and attacked them, they made a ceasefire impossible.
At that point, under the UN Security resolution NATO was obliged to turn their missiles on the rebels for a blatent breach of the ceasefire

 

[JihadJane]

That is not what I said.
If Kadhaffi cannot squash/exile the current opposition, he will have to discuss with them at one point (you know, the "mediation" or "dialogue between parties" that is called upon and that you mentioned on the former page and that we are trying to force upon him), and this will mean that Libya will have to engage in a political process towards some changes. That is the political "discourse" I was reffering to.

This is not a foolproof, 100% safe process, and we do not know what will be the exact outcome. It could fail. Life and world politics are unfortunately not that easy.

There was absolutely no way that Kadhaffi would have accepted to do so without any pressure from the rebels and the international community.

The evidence points to the "Allies" aiming to kill Kadhaffi (or, if he is very lucky, just remove him from power) rather than encouraging him to engage in discussion with "the current opposition".




"Asked if Gaddafi might be considered a target, Fox [UK Defence Secretary] told BBC Radio 5: "That would potentially be a possibility," provided there was no risk of civilian casualties.

'We are very careful to avoid [civilian casualties] for humanitarian reasons," he said. "Also for the propaganda reasons that it would provide for the regime itself.'"

A journalist stands in the rubble of a building in Gaddafi's residence compound in Tripoli, destroyed by a missile. Photograph: Mohamed Messara/EPA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/21/libya-gaddafi-air-strikes-live

 

[little grey rabbit]

Actually I think, just like in 1996 elements, in the British and French security services have made a devil's bargain with the opposition - including the defectors from Gadaffi's cabinet. So that the rebels have the French and British over a barrel, if they are allowed to go down in defeat, they will threaten to reveal the role played in their defections - and presumably in planning the "spontaneous uprising generally.

So the opposition has the UK and French security services over a barrel, the security services has the media over a barrel and the media have the politicians over a barrel.

So the rebels can not lose, because that would mean Western red faces.

Hurrah for democracy! Lucky old Libya, nothing like the smell of freedom in morning.

 

[angrysoba]

That video is 3 or 4 days old now and proves that the rebels do have a satellite link and can upload videos, should they chose.

Yes, from the time the ceasefire was announced. The ceasefire that was broken.

Now we're going to try again with a ceasefire apparently.

 

[Virus]

Without the show of airpower Benghazi would currently be overrun and massacred
by fascist supporters as Qaddafi promised he would do.

We're preventing a megalomaniac from slaughtering his population. Grab a tissue and deal with it.

 

[angrysoba]

Actually I think, just like in 1996 elements, in the British and French security services have made a devil's bargain with the opposition - including the defectors from Gadaffi's cabinet. So that the rebels have the French and British over a barrel, if they are allowed to go down in defeat, they will threaten to reveal the role played in their defections - and presumably in planning the "spontaneous uprising generally.

So the opposition has the UK and French security services over a barrel, the security services has the media over a barrel and the media have the politicians over a barrel.

So the rebels can not lose, because that would mean Western red faces.

Hurrah for democracy! Lucky old Libya, nothing like the smell of freedom in morning.

Your argument is of the form:

I think you're full of BS. So, you are full of BS. Unfortunately no red faces for you because you BS completely without shame. Hurrah! Isn't it great to BS in such a carefree manner. That's freedom of speech. Lucky you! And lucky us!

 

[little grey rabbit]

Doublespeak: Ceasefire

#
1213: More from the Libyan rebels: they say their aim is still to capture the Libyan capital, Tripoli, but that they want to achieve that without foreign offensive action, the rebel spokesman has told a news conference in Benghazi.

#
1211: The Libyan rebels have been speaking: a spokesman in Benghazi has said they welcome more air strikes by foreign forces, but do not want foreign ground troops to intervene in the war.

Am I the only person on JREF who understands the meaning of the word ceasefire?

Am I the only person in the entire world who understands the meaning of the word ceasefire?

 

[twinstead]

Am I the only person on JREF who understands the meaning of the word ceasefire?

Am I the only person in the entire world who understands the meaning of the word ceasefire?

As most conspiracy theorists do, I'm sure you must think that you are the only person in the entire world who has figured it out. Surrounded by sheeple who don't want to acknowledge your superior intellect. It must be very frustrating for you.

 

[little grey rabbit]

As most conspiracy theorists do, I'm sure you must think that you are the only person in the entire world who has figured it out. Surrounded by sheeple who don't want to acknowledge your superior intellect. It must be very frustrating for you.

I am all ears, twinstead. Please explain the meaning of the word ceasefire to me - because I was absolutely certain I knew the definition of it a few days ago.

Now everyone seems to be working off a secret dictionary that I know nothing about.