No Fly zones over Libya?

[Caustic Logic]

Not to debate with the overall message you posted, but I just sometimes scratch my head about this.

National sovereignty is stomped constantly in international affairs, and we did not wait the UN for that to happen. The Holy Alliance pretty much theorised the whole thing 2 centuries ago and it probably go older.

The only real precedent there, I might think, is that we have a nice white and blue dress to do so. I do believe it is a sort of progress and that it give more leeway to other international actors to circumvent or influence the action taken. It is the whole point of the UN after all: foreign intervention and wars will happen anyway, better to have some sort of institution to ease up the conflicting effects than to leave it up to the countries themselves.

Point taken. Things are more civilized than they could be, and so on. But it still sucks, and is unfair. I could go for better filters, checks, and balances, becuase this is just nuts, IMO. A one-sided cease-fire demand, emotional in nature, responding to a humanitarian crisis that seems to be at least partly fictitious.

LGR is right, this is full-on tactical support and the goal is, will allowing, to help them win the war and conquer all of Libya.

Seriously - this is a mission to protect the rights of citizens to protest and have elections?

 

[little grey rabbit]

The marvellously expanding Security Council "No Fly Resolution".....

It is beginning to dawn on the British military establishment how little support the opposition has.

But he did stress that there was a huge difference between a limited intervention and a full-scale occupation force, which is banned under the terms of the UN mandate.
Asked whether British ground troops could be deployed in a defensive role to protect civilians, the armed forces minister did not discount the possibility, although he said he did not believe that any deployment would be on a "significant scale".
He told BBC1's Breakfast programme: "I don't think we would at this stage rule anything in or rule anything out but I agree with the distinction that you draw between landing an occupying force and the use of anybody on the ground."

So as I understand it correctly, the no fly zone says you can invade - so long as you don't occupy. Well that clears that up.

 

[Laeke]

Laete, people claim to be tweeting from Misrata, ergo they have internet access.

Wow that's incredible: soon they will have cell phones too!

A month ago Libya was the African country with the highest standard of living, admittedly not a massive claim, but still something to consider while we all slap ourselves on the back while we watch it slide into becoming the next Somalia.

I'm not sure what it has to do with the issue. We're not bombing them because we assume they are poor.

The point of this is that there are probably (very conservative estimate) 10 000 cell phones with video capacity in Misrata - it was after all, the third largest city

Aside from a short clip of two unexplained explosions four days ago, I know of not one clip of shelled ambulances, overflowing casualty wards, desperate street fighting, flattened city center. All of which have been in recent days tweeted or phoned in by a "doctor" in Misrata.
No clips of rebel check points, no clips of rebel fighters parading weapons. Nothing.

You surely are aware that the opposition are well aware of the value of the information war, the value of images and the value of controlling the media narrative?

Does not the absence of tangible evidence not suggest you are being conned?

I think you somewhat missed my point. I did not point to a tweet, to a testimony or to a youtube video, but to the declaration of a Libyan spokesperson. He is saying that, right now, they are "hunting down terrorist elements". But maybe they do that with flowers?
He also claims that they control the city for 3 days. Didn't Libya announced a cease-fire, like, 4 or 5 days ago? How did they gain control of the city then? Surely, as you pointed out yourself since the rebels do not seem to cease fire, this means that Libya is advancing through armed action?
Twice did Libya announced a cease fire. Yet, by their own declarations, they are still fighting and apparently taking offensive action.

On a side note, I have a hard time following the way you link video with tangible evidence, cell phone becoming the new paramount of proof, especially if you claim to be savvy about the information-age and all that. Video is prone to all sort of tampering and editing. Cell phones videos are even worse: low quality, short clips, source difficult to define in a lot of cases, handled by amateurs.
Because, well, I could give you this link, but I wanted to play Devil's Advocate, all I can derive from this video is that something exploded somewhere. Confirming date, place, and other such infos without any extensive research would be pointless.
As per the previous point, you seem quick to ask for a deep analysis of the "media narrative" of the rebels while ignoring that the regime is also playing one of its own.

I see mentions of Misrata, Zintan and other towns being under fire on Reuters, Al-Jazeera & co.
But then again, why trust the MSM and who they get the info from: I concede that they do get their testimonies via phone with unverifiable sources. Maybe it would easier for them to gather images if they weren't arrested by the Libyan Army, like pretty often, just saying.

 

[little grey rabbit]

I think those journalists should have been put on trial (they entered Libya illegally after all) and given a short prison sentence with labor - like helping remove bodies from destroyed military targets around Tripoli.

It would answer both the demands of justice and - assuming the journalists took it in the right spirit (highly unlikely I know) - could have given them a deeper understanding of the responsibilities of their profession.

Since in the eyes of the western journalist every AK-47 waving civilian is a peaceful protester, while Libyan soldiers are war criminals if they fire back - I am not surprised the Government won't allow journalists around the country.

 

[egslim]

There will be no realistic ceasefire issued in the current situation, indeed. If this is the goal of the Libyan regime though, it is not impossible for them to go to the Arab League or the African Union, or Russia, or... and work out a realistic proposal, with a buffer zone, an interposition force, and talks to how settle the issue. Would probably do them a lot more good in discrediting imperialists dog than what they are currently doing.

The rebels want to get rid of Gadaffi, and they're not a controlled, conventional army. This isn't gonna be solved by international talks.

I think the best any country can do now is to privately offer Gadaffi, his entire family and top-level officials sancturay with full immunity from prosecution in a holiday resort of their choice, on condition that they leave the country.

That offers him an opportunity to survive and live a life of luxury. As opposed to his current options, which are either to win/stalemate the conflict, or get captured/imprisoned/tortured/killed.

 

[little grey rabbit]

The rebels want to get rid of Gadaffi, and they're not a controlled, conventional army. This isn't gonna be solved by international talks.

I think the best any country can do now is to privately offer Gadaffi, his entire family and top-level officials sancturay with full immunity from prosecution in a holiday resort of their choice, on condition that they leave the country.

That offers him an opportunity to survive and live a life of luxury. As opposed to his current options, which are either to win/stalemate the conflict, or get captured/imprisoned/tortured/killed.

Gadaffi knows we are too dishonest to be trusted to stick by such a deal. We would with 100% certainty break our word - even if it could not be reliably traced back to us.

 

[Laeke]

Journalists

Of course, it would have nothing to do with any sort of media narrative so essential in this information age that the Libyan regime would like to impose.

egslim:
I do believe a cease fire is possible but for that to even happen the current regime would have to settle at a deep disadvantage. But that is a merely an opinion and you may be right.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Of course, it would have nothing to do with any sort of media narrative so essential in this information age that the Libyan regime would like to impose.
.

Of course it would.
Libyan media distorts to favor its governments. MSM journalists distort to favor their agendas.

It was sensible to try and starve the media of oxygen, because the track record was to take a situation were 300 people had died including 111 soldiers and say peaceful demonstrators were being massacred.

Why on earth would you give such people licence to keep lying?

 

[FireGarden]

"If the rebels lack the military means to take these towns back, are coalition warplanes going to fight their battles for them? And if not, would the revolutionary council in Benghazi accept partition? As things stand, the answer to both questions is no. So even if Gaddafi's forces accepted the ceasefire, the rebels would keep on fighting.

Members of the council have already said they fear the result of a limited air campaign will be a military stalemate and have called for an escalation of air strikes to wipe out Gaddafi's army. This is the logic of intervention, but it is not in the remit of the UN resolution. Three days ago, air strikes launched to save innocent lives looked simple enough. Very quickly, they have become part of the war."

'Libya: Moving targets
The longer the Libyan campaign goes on, the sooner the issue will have to be confronted: where is it leading?'

It's not a matter of if those in Benghazi will accept partition. The UN resolution is for protecting civilians, not for helping one side defeat the other. So the rebels aren't in the driver's seat. They might have to settle for partition. Not easy for them, especially for those who have family in Gaddafi held areas. But if the current air campaign turns into one of getting rid of Gaddafi, then the fighting will escalate to the level of Shock and Awe. That's not currently authorised by the UN.

 

[FireGarden]

'Odyssey Dawn' can be accurately translated as "Here comes trouble".

It's funny or maybe not so funny but did you know that Odysseus’ name means “trouble” in greek, meaning both giving and receiving trouble, and if we add that to the second part 'Dawn' they have in effect named this operation the problematic new era or even better - here comes trouble.

Funny, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odysseus

The name Odysseus is derived from the verb odussomai (oδύσσομαι), meaning "to be wroth against', 'hate",[6] suggesting that the name could be rendered as "the one who is wrathful/hated". However, the name Odysseus is of non-Greek origin and probably of non-Indo-European origin too, while it is of an unknown etymology.

 

[Laeke]

Of course it would.
Libyan media distorts to favor its governments. MSM journalists distort to favor their agendas.

It was sensible to try and starve the media of oxygen, because the track record was to take a situation were 300 people had died including 111 soldiers and say peaceful demonstrators were being massacred.

Why on earth would you give such people licence to keep lying?

So, if I follow you:
- You ask for tangible evidence of what is happening in the warzone
- Since you consider that the MSM are liars, anything they say will not constitute tangible evidence, I guess.
- As such it discredits any source they might mention.
- Besides you do not place any faith in the testimonies mentioned.
- I take good note that "the Libyan media distorts the info in favor of its governement"

Thus, I conclude that the only source of info you would accept for your evidence are viral information such as cell phone videos, as you told me. The kind of info which is precisely the hardest to make tangible, by the way.

You theorize that type of info should be abundant using a PerryMasonesque analysis of Libya telecom capacities with the HDI as a starting point.
Actually Internet usage in Libya seems rather limited (320.000 to 353.000 users, according to the CIA Factbook), the regime, as several other countries in the region, tried to limit it because of the uprisings. So I'm not sure how you come to form your expectations there.

Basically you want tangible evidence, but will not accept anything from the MSM, cast doubts on semi-anonymous testimonies via phones, in a warzone where communication infrastructure is perhaps lacking or state controlled.
Mmmmh.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Can anyone cite a precedent for what we're doing in Libya, forcing a one-sided cease fire in a civil war? Based on an emotional response to mostly rebel reports of the scale of their suffering and need, glossing over the huge hole in what's really (publicly) known - as opposed to believed - about the situation and the combatants? And demanding, straight-faced, that the government's forces cannot shoot at anything, even the "civilian" "protesters" that are now flying their own seized fighter jets and retaking cities with outside (mercenary?) air and missile support. It just seems a little extreme and perhaps an unsettling precedent.

Yeah... what happens to 'responsibility to protect' in civil wars when rebel armies become 'citizen fighters'? Does it become 'responsibility to intervene for whoever we like'? Maybe the use of the term 'citizen fighters' doesn't really change anything... as someone (tranewreck I think) pointed out in another thread, something very similar to Kadafy's suppression of dissent is going on in Cote D'Ivoire right now, but nobody's talking intervention there. States will intervene in civil wars when it suits their interests, and will refrain from such intervention when it does not.

In terms of the precedent in Libya, I mean there have been many instances where outside powers have supported one side or the other in a civil war. I would say that what took place in the Balkans, especially in Kosovo, was more directly similar in some respects. What's maybe newish here is that the US is saying it wants others to lead, and it worked through the UN. I am a little skeptical about this war's aims and I find how it's being portrayed to be (at least) very cynical. At the same time, if the US allows its use of force outside its borders to be governed by international institutions this might be a slight nudge towards a positive longer-term development.

 

[egslim]

Gadaffi knows we are too dishonest to be trusted to stick by such a deal. We would with 100% certainty break our word - even if it could not be reliably traced back to us.

We're never gonna make such an offer, because nobody wants to be seen protecting Gadaffi. Even though the alternative is for him to fight for survival, which means he'll fight dirty. He has nothing to lose.

And while he won't trust any Western country, there are others like Venezuela.

egslim:
I do believe a cease fire is possible but for that to even happen the current regime would have to settle at a deep disadvantage. But that is a merely an opinion and you may be right.

The basic requirement for a ceasefire to work is you need armed forces who can receive and will obey such an order. The rebels certainly don't satisfy that requirement, and I doubt Gadaffi's forces do.
Most of the rebels act spontaneously, without orders - they don't even have a chain of command. It's simply not possible to get such a rabble to collectively cease fire.

 

[angrysoba]

Is that the first time an F-15 has ever gone down in combat?

Strictly speaking it seems it didn't "go down in combat" but you know what I mean.

Anyway, what's the news on Qatar sending planes to Libya? An Egyptian friend of mine was incensed at the idea of Arabs sending planes to kill other Arabs. I said that he would obviously be angry at Gaddafi then. He meant Arab countries going after Arab leaders and says that while he hates Kazzafi he doesn't think it is the business of anyone else to intervene.

 

[angrysoba]

We're never gonna make such an offer, because nobody wants to be seen protecting Gadaffi. Even though the alternative is for him to fight for survival, which means he'll fight dirty. He has nothing to lose.

And while he won't trust any Western country, there are others like Venezuela.

Yeah, I want Chavez to step in and offer Gadaffi a safe way out. I wonder why Chavez isn't going to do it?

 

[angrysoba]

So the problem now is Gaddafi allowing things? You'd refer he repressed them from expressing themselves? For shame, good sir. (mostly kidding with ya).

It's an odd country. Revolutionary mentality is fostered, sacrifice for a goal, hardened by shared experience of sanctions and other ostracism that gives them a potent "us vs. the world" mentality, etc. And this is a chance to put it to use to show their support and willingness to (hypothetically) die protecting a government they really support. National values, etc. Really I'm guessing here, but I don't think this works well as more evidence against Gaddafi.

If they're genuinely there as human shields it is still weird to show them off with pride.

 

[Laeke]

Anyway, what's the news on Qatar sending planes to Libya?

Last I read, they are on their way. Just like they were the days before.
As you suggest, some have speculated that the Qatari are going in slow haste for political reasons, to appease different sides of their opinion.

The basic requirement for a ceasefire to work is you need armed forces who can receive and will obey such an order. The rebels certainly don't satisfy that requirement, and I doubt Gadaffi's forces do.
Most of the rebels act spontaneously, without orders - they don't even have a chain of command. It's simply not possible to get such a rabble to collectively cease fire.

I share your doubts. As best as we can tell, insurgents are not very organised. The NCT did try to set something (city councils, represented within a larger structure) but I do not know if it was implemented or if it is efficient.

 

[WildCat]

A candidate for the most deranged tweet award



Still it makes a change from tweets saying the center of Misrata has been leveled, three ambulances have been deliberately hit and government snipers are indiscriminantly killing civilians from the top of buildings

OMG, you do have a BS filter!

 

[WildCat]

The rebels want to get rid of Gadaffi, and they're not a controlled, conventional army.

Neither is Khadaffi's "army".

This is a tribal fight. No professional armies are involved.

 

[WildCat]

Is that the first time an F-15 has ever gone down in combat?

Strictly speaking it seems it didn't "go down in combat" but you know what I mean.

Possibly, though F-15s have certaionly crashed before. But its combat record against other planes still stands at 104-0.