No Fly zones over Libya?

[JoeTheJuggler]

So are does this mean that until we have evidence of the systematic targeting of unarmed civilians we should assume that this is what the regime is doing? Or is it that Gahdafhi regime is using disproportionate force in responding to the rebellion that justifies the airstrikes?

I don't speak for him, but it seems reasonable to me that before we intervene with military force we have evidence of what's going on, who is who, who wants what, and some sign that we have exhausted all non-military options.

The false dichotomy that we either sit idly by or we start blowing stuff up shows a singular lack of imagination.

 

[FireGarden]

The false dichotomy that we either sit idly by or we start blowing stuff up shows a singular lack of imagination.

Other things were tried. It was getting pretty close to being too late to change matters in any way whatsoever.

I don't think the bombing should go on until Gaddafi is finished. I think it would be enough to just keep Gaddafi's forces from launching attacks. This will end up meaning telling the rebels that they have to stop attacking. But, technically, we're not supposed to be there to fight for them. Just to keep civilians safe. And, in principal, that means civilians on both sides. There was this issue, at least:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202729

Though not much can be done about that from the air.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Other things were tried. It was getting pretty close to being too late to change matters in any way whatsoever.

I don't think the bombing should go on until Gaddafi is finished. I think it would be enough to just keep Gaddafi's forces from launching attacks. This will end up meaning telling the rebels that they have to stop attacking. But, technically, we're not supposed to be there to fight for them. Just to keep civilians safe. And, in principal, that means civilians on both sides. There was this issue, at least:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202729

Though not much can be done about that from the air.

It seems certain that Nato will not allow the Government to assert its sovereignty over Benghazi.
It seems unlikely that the rebels can get very far towards Tripoli

So at some point a line of control or ceasefire line will have to be drawn and that will only be respected if there are genuine independent observers monitoring it.

The questions we are now going to kill people over is where will that line of control be drawn and how to divide oil reserves. We have an excellent precedent of the oil for food program run by the UN, - where oil sales were controlled by the UN and contracts dealt out - lots of kick-backs all round and a massive plunge in living standards for Iraqis.

Meanwhile

1642: Patrick Baz, AFP's Middle East photo manager, tells the New York Times' Lens blog about covering the conflict: "I think it's the only conflict I've covered where I don't understand. It's very, very, very weird what's going on. Why is the rebellion not supported by the former army that supposedly joined them? Where are the special forces of this army? There's not a single unit in this rebellion that is organised."

Gee I wonder.

The Libyan made a mistake by not ignoring the UN security council resolution and pushing into Benghazi in the very small window they had. We are too dishonest and hypocritical to be trusted and whatever the Libyans had done we would have accused them of breaking the ceasefire and massacring civilians.

I see Ben MacIntyre in Times is trying to spin away what occurred by saying the Libyan army paused because they ran out of petrol - to obscure the fact that the Libyan army paused because they were trying to respect the UN. They were rewarded with an aerial massacre.

Never, never, never respect the UN

 

[BeAChooser]

http://townhall.com/columnists/john...r_liberals_about_obamas_libyan_war/page/full/

7 Questions For Liberals About Obama's Libyan War

It seems like it was just yesterday when we had an "imperialist warmonger" in the White House who was going to be replaced by a peace-loving Democrat who promised "hope" and "change" instead. It's funny how that worked out, isn't it? We still have troops in Iraq, we've escalated the war in Afghanistan, and now we're bombing everything that moves in Libya. Yet, the same liberals who were protesting in the streets and calling George Bush a war criminal have mostly been meek and quiet about the fact that the President they supported has been following in George Bush's footsteps.

So, the obvious question is, “Did you lefties believe ANY of the crap you were spewing about the war on terrorism before Obama got into office?” If so, maybe you could answer a few questions prompted by the things liberals were saying during the Bush years.

1) Isn't this a rush to war? … snip …

2) Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him? … snip ..

3) Is this a war for oil? … snip …

4) Where are the massive protests? … snip …

5) Shouldn't we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead? … snip …

6) Aren't we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya? … snip …

7) Isn't Barack Obama a chickenhawk? … snip …

 

[Cylinder]

I got a feeling that "we are not targeting Gadaffi, just his C and C for the military" might be a distinction without a practical difference.

I guess it's a small bit of navel-gazing but I think it does have a practical difference, I suppose. Outright assasination carries with it diplomatic, legal and public relations consequences that need not be exposed, since CINCs are quite legitimate targets as members of the C3 node.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Other things were tried.

What other things were tried, by whom and for what end?

I heard a lot of rhetoric, including Obama's insistence that Gaddafi must leave now.

 

[Keeper]

When asked yesterday how long the UK would be involved in military operations in Libya, the Armed Forces Minister replied "How long is a piece of string?".

Not exactly "we'll fight them on the beaches" is it?

 

[Laeke]

What other things were tried, by whom and for what end?

I heard a lot of rhetoric, including Obama's insistence that Gaddafi must leave now.

UN Resolution 1970 a month ago asked the end of the gross and systematic violation of human rights and all that.
Several diplomatic outrages and warnings by various countries and organisations since the beginning of the repression.
Very mediatic talks about the military intervention and what it would entail, in advance.

Kadhaffi's actions never showed any willingness to stop repressing. Obviously because this kind of regime cannot accomodate any sort of real opposition and must stomp it.

You say that what dudalb pointed out is a false dichotomy: perhaps it is, but we can see it unfolding in this very thread. Some here vilify the intervention on the ground that we do not do anything to support the Bahreini (for instance) uprising. Ok that's a fair topic of discussion. But in doing so they also try to cast as many doubts as possible on the sincerity of the uprising (which apparently is the only illegitimate, artificial uprising since we decided to help it.) and brandishes national sovereignty as the end all of international relations.

So when we intervene to support an uprising which is about to be eradicated by violent means, we are wrong and serving our interests.
And when we do nothing (or merely limit ourselves to speeches), we are wrong and serving our interests.
And if we did nothing for Libya, it would also be our fault because we did business with the regime in the last years and that our interests are also there.
And all this while whitewashing the regime as far as it can possibly go.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Go Muammar!

"This assault... is by a bunch of fascists who will end up in the dustbin of history ....I do not fear storms that sweep the horizon, nor do I fear the planes that throw black destruction. I am resistant, my house is here in my tent... I am the rightful owner, and the creator of tomorrow. I am here. I am here. I am here."

I shall not die, I shall not die. When death itself is dead, I shall be alive.

[That is not Gadaffi, but I suspect Gadaffi's future may follow the same trajectory as the person who sait it]

 

[little grey rabbit]

Our dear friend "Doctor in Misrata" seems to be in fine form this morning.

Fresh after saying the entire center had been flattened, ambulances were being shelled and convoys of children were being deliberately targeted, he got out of bed this morning and had this to say

0611: A doctor in Misrata has said rebels in Libya's third-largest city are vastly outgunned by troops loyal to Col Gaddafi. "The fighters are using primitive tools like swords, sticks and anything they get from the Gaddafi mercenaries,"

I like the way he never reuses material.

 

[JihadJane]

So when we intervene to support an uprising which is about to be eradicated by violent means, we are wrong and serving our interests.
And when we do nothing (or merely limit ourselves to speeches), we are wrong and serving our interests.
And if we did nothing for Libya, it would also be our fault because we did business with the regime in the last years and that our interests are also there.
And all this while whitewashing the regime as far as it can possibly go.

If there were an similar uprising in the USA it would also be eradicated by violent means.

 

[Laeke]

If there were an similar uprising in the USA it would also be eradicated by violent means.

You already said that a few pages ago. In this hypothesis must I also consider that the uprising would be a foreign plant?

I asked you if you could point me to the documentation that allowed you to flat out say that 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.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Kadhaffi's actions never showed any willingness to stop repressing.

Says articles in the media. I'm looking at the Benghazi situation and the supposed breaking of the cease-fire at the moment, vis-a-vis Benghazi. His government swore they weren't attacking the city ayt all, only heading there. Rebel sources told the news all morning on March 19 that Gaddafi's forces were - at the same time - 20 km away, 5 km away, at the gate, shelling the city, inside the city, tanks in the streets, and so on (the tanks were later driven back, and all Gaddafi forces driven from the city).

Apparently someone was shooting something around there. The government insisted it was the rebels shooting each other to try and "bring in the West." I can't see ruling that out - some hard-line fanatics willing to kill a few with random shelling to panic the West into its intervention, right away. There are no photos of this attack and more importantly no photos or any other evidence coming close to proving any Libyan forces wereeven near the city. None. (that I've seen yet).

Except that fighter jet. Libyan AF MIG, just buzzing over the rebel-held city, shot down from the ground, crashed, pilot ejects. THIS gets photographed and gets out. THIS is huge-size front page material. It's war. Gaddafi's jet, on its way to attack protesters, shot down by rebels, it was first presumed. He broke the cease fire.

Then it was a rebel held jet - they have those? Shot down in a friendly fire incident, but the pilot was okay. Then, it was shot down by Gaddafi's forces, and the pilot was dead. Okay.

If government forces were close enough to shoot down a jet over the southern outskirts of Benghazi, weren't they also close enough to be vulnerable to it? The no fly zone becomes no firing in self-defense at enemy air attacks zone. He broke the cease fire.

He's breaking it again every ten minutes, the media says, and every five minutes we get a tweet from around there swearing artillery genocide and apocalypse and another hundred dead and why haven't we made it stop YET? At this rate, going by reports compiled, Gaddafi may have killed like 100,000 people.

So ... what do we know, as opposed to what we perceive? Are we being rational skeptics to just accept one side and reject the other? Doesn't friggin' matter what we think, it's the big guns deciding what's real and what isn't and what's to be done about it. The media just explains - to them, and us, on their behalf - what we're to tell ourselves about why.

 

[JihadJane]

You already said that a few pages ago. In this hypothesis must I also consider that the uprising would be a foreign plant?

I asked you if you could point me to the documentation that allowed you to flat out say that 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.

Yes, that was a rash statement. However virtually the entire insurgent leadership are old soldiers and seasoned activists, not protesting youth. And they acknowledge that they wouldn't be there without the efforts of the youth.

I don't think I've argued that the uprising was a foreign plant, only that special forces from foreign countries have been active in the country for a long time prior to the uprising. Destabalization by supporting/encouraging indigenous groups is an old covert tactic.

~~~~~~~

"... the head of the Italian Senate's defence affairs committee, Gianpiero Cantoni, said the original French anti-NATO stance was motivated by a desire to secure oil contracts with a future Libyan government."

'Who's in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart'

 

[Mikemcc]

Says articles in the media. I'm looking at the Benghazi situation and the supposed breaking of the cease-fire at the moment, vis-a-vis Benghazi. His government swore they weren't attacking the city ayt all, only heading there. Rebel sources told the news all morning on March 19 that Gaddafi's forces were - at the same time - 20 km away, 5 km away, at the gate, shelling the city, inside the city, tanks in the streets, and so on (the tanks were later driven back, and all Gaddafi forces driven from the city).

Apparently someone was shooting something around there. The government insisted it was the rebels shooting each other to try and "bring in the West." I can't see ruling that out - some hard-line fanatics willing to kill a few with random shelling to panic the West into its intervention, right away. There are no photos of this attack and more importantly no photos or any other evidence coming close to proving any Libyan forces wereeven near the city. None. (that I've seen yet).

Except that fighter jet. Libyan AF MIG, just buzzing over the rebel-held city, shot down from the ground, crashed, pilot ejects. THIS gets photographed and gets out. THIS is huge-size front page material. It's war. Gaddafi's jet, on its way to attack protesters, shot down by rebels, it was first presumed. He broke the cease fire.

Then it was a rebel held jet - they have those? Shot down in a friendly fire incident, but the pilot was okay. Then, it was shot down by Gaddafi's forces, and the pilot was dead. Okay.

If government forces were close enough to shoot down a jet over the southern outskirts of Benghazi, weren't they also close enough to be vulnerable to it? The no fly zone becomes no firing in self-defense at enemy air attacks zone. He broke the cease fire.

He's breaking it again every ten minutes, the media says, and every five minutes we get a tweet from around there swearing artillery genocide and apocalypse and another hundred dead and why haven't we made it stop YET? At this rate, going by reports compiled, Gaddafi may have killed like 100,000 people.

So ... what do we know, as opposed to what we perceive? Are we being rational skeptics to just accept one side and reject the other? Doesn't friggin' matter what we think, it's the big guns deciding what's real and what isn't and what's to be done about it. The media just explains - to them, and us, on their behalf - what we're to tell ourselves about why.

Or simply that they are acting on chaotic and conflicting reports, the uprising isn't exactly a cohesive body with a central spokesperson and the government (all of them!) have their own propaganda purposes behind any media releases.

 

[little grey rabbit]

He's breaking it again every ten minutes, the media says, and every five minutes we get a tweet from around there swearing artillery genocide and apocalypse and another hundred dead and why haven't we made it stop YET? At this rate, going by reports compiled, Gaddafi may have killed like 100,000 people.

.

Well whatever the hold the opposition have over NATO it is clearly working. Airstrikes now on Misrata.

Insurgeants tweet jump and the Coalition asks "How high?"

#
1054: More on the strikes in Misrata reported by Reuters: "The allied planes bombed twice so far. At 1245 (2245 GMT) this morning and then again less than two hours ago," a resident tells the agency. "They (pro-Gaddafi forces) haven't fired a single artillery (round) since the air strike."

Actually in something of a rarity that last tweet is probably accurate.

 

[Virus]

If there were an similar uprising in the USA it would also be eradicated by violent means.

Libya is a totalitarian state. The USA is a liberal democracy. The only people who think they need an armed uprising against it are commies and other weirdos.

 

[Laeke]

Are we being rational skeptics to just accept one side and reject the other?

I do see quite a lot of people eager to jump at the side of Kadhaffi. The opposite is also true. I have not a lot of time to adress all your points, I would point out that some very publicized photos do show tanks being struck by the "UN" planes around Benghazi on the 20 March.

Yes, that was a rash statement.

Huhu.

I don't think I've argued that the uprising was a foreign plant

Oh?

There are other options than military violence.

The motivation of the 'usual players' isn't something we can know for sure. If they overstep the limits of the requested help, then we can criticise them. But I don't think they have.

They were there long before help was requested. They helped create the situation they are now "helping".

No, merely that "they helped" create the situation "long before" which is as close as you can get while keeping it vague enough to not subtantiate it. You constantly try to sow doubt about the sincerity of the uprising as per your rash statement above.
You also pointed, but I'm too lazy to look for the exact post, that the situation went to violent war because "the West" armed Kadhaffi (a claim that should be examined further, but let just admit that western countries did sell arms to Libya in the past years). The question of his responsability in how he used those arms, of course, is not to be adressed.

 

[little grey rabbit]

A quick look at the maps here
http://sepmstrata.org/Libya-Hassan/Petroleum-History-Libya.html
suggests that Gadaffi is likely to continue attacking his own civilians, violating ceasefires and generally committing outrages against human rights until the Benghazians reach Brega, by which time they will have the bulk of the oil fields and facilities that they would be able to acquire without taking Tripoli.

At which point poor old "doctor in Misrata" will find that no one will publish his tweets anymore.

I don't think the coalition have any appetite for bombing the rebels through Sirt and keeping Misrata in the poorer and less oil rich division of the country will be to the financial advantage to the Benghazians.

 

[WildCat]

Define, please, "working".

I'm no expert, but we do have a cadre of diplomats who are good at negotiation and diplomacy. To claim that we have exhausted diplomacy by this point is pretty premature, since it's not even clear even what we want or who the parties for negotiations might be.

Yes, we should have tried diplomacy for a few more years at least. It's not like Khaddafi's forces were at the gates of Benghazi yet.

Oh, wait...