Exit strategy for Libya?

[egslim]

I don't think forcing the regime into submission will be that difficult. However, the issue of "what then?" will be as tough as ever, but I am not sure there are any way to guarantee an happy outcome there, no matter what precautions you take.

Of course NATO can get rid of Gadaffi.

But the news that the rebels are again in retreat despite NATO air support tells us they're very weak in West-Libya. That's bad, because it might mean they'll be too weak to control that part of the country, even if NATO would do all the work for them to defeat Gadaffi.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Who, Gaddafi? You gotta be kidding me. That guy's got a history of brutality against anyone who even thinks about opposing him.

No, I wouldn't trust him to "forgive" anybody.

You seem to be missing the point - deliberately?

It may well be true that when Gaddafi offered amnesty to those who laid down his arms but those who continued to fight would be hunted house to house without mercy that this offer of amnesty was a trap. In this situation President Hopey-Change should have said "Gaddafi offered amnesty but we believe his word is not to be trusted and provides not sufficient guarantees."

Instead President Hopey-Change claimed with extreme dishonesty that "Gaddafi said he would have no mercy on his own people" pretending he was openly planning to commit genocide on the people of Benghazi. As much as I despise George W Bush and Tony Blair, I can not recall them sinking to such levels of mendacity (assuming they actually believed that there were WMDs).

In fact we have a good idea what would have happened in Benghazi, because rebel snipers are being hunted house to house in Misrata, just as the US army hunted house to house in Falluja, or the Israeli army did in Jenin. It is what you have to do when you have a jihadist insurgency that is chosing the urban environment as its battleground.

Does anyone thing the insurgents would be any better or (more likely) a lot worse, should they with Allied air support make it into Sirte? But this is one lot of civilians that NATO doesn't seem to want to protect.

I could have sworn that UN Security Council Resolution talked of a ceasefire - yes yes I know that was completely dishonest manuoevre and was an impossible one-sided demand on the Libyan army only, so we would have a pretext to attack them - but has anyone thought of putting a serious ceasefire proposal together?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Who, Gaddafi? You gotta be kidding me. That guy's got a history of brutality against anyone who even thinks about opposing him.

No, I wouldn't trust him to "forgive" anybody.

Naturally, of course. I forget that the rest of the world doesn't see it the way I do. IMO they get framed a lot (PA103/Lockerbie at the very least), and have the oppression, insanty, unpredictability, and so on exaggerated, some fabricated, and so on. It's hard to grasp 'til you've seen it in action, but just about the whole world (well, the rich half and the dumb half they control, anyway) is crooked when it comes to telling you the full truth about Libya under Gaddafi. The worst is yet to come, as all the skeletons we stuffed in this closet, plus whichever are really his own, fall out multiplied by ten, in order to justify and over-justify this campaign that apparently needs and accepts a lot of false justification.

So ... the world disagrees and distrusts, and at least by now tempers are surely hot. My fair solution is to partition, but give these French-MI6-CIA-backed, al-Qaeda-plagued, Contra wannabes, and their patrons, no benefit for the plot. No oild fields. They get Darnah to Tobruk, perhaps, nothing south. We keep the muscle nearby, to prevent a Gaddafi takeover, and no need, if we leave his system and oil wealth intact,

I hadn't heard that, but it does nothing to support the position that these are peaceful, unarmed, defenseless protestors to claim that they can accidentally shoot down one of their own fighter jets, or any of the other permutations.

Agreed. In part, that's what I meant. And by the way, considering how uniform world opinion right now seems to be on the immense clarity of the situation in Libya, I appreciate your comments recently.

I have to give American media good marks on this one.

They were pretty accurate in shifting their language from "protesters" to "rebels" as the situation transitioned from unarmed demonstrators to armed fighters.

Not to disagree, since I'm not sure how quickly that turned around. But for referencem a timeline of a few facts I know, not all-inclusive:
Feb. 17 - national day of rage called
Feb. 18/19 - 15 mercenaries captured in combat hanged in al-Baida
Feb. 23 - 22 executed soldiers found at al-Baida, video evidence suggests by the rebels.
Feb 23 - Time publishes an account of app. 200 captured mercs, claiming to have been 325 strong at one point (diff. = app. 125)
Feb 23 - International Federation for Human Rights announces that Gaddafi's forces around Benghazi/al-Baida executed 130 of their own soldiers for refusing to "open fire on pro-democracy protesters."

Yet up to the edge of the no-fly vote a month later, for example, the US ambassador to the UN said we needed to enforce the Libyan peoples' right to "express themselves," while France's foreign minister clarified that could only be done by marching on Tripoli and seizing control.

And in general, we are all leaning towards the word civilians. A bit more vague - covers protesters, "citizen-fighters," rebel-held cities, and advancing rebel forces - we'll do what we have to to protect any/all of those. As well as, surely, coalition military personnel and equipment, also no-shoot, civilian category.

But not, I'd wager, any Libyan person who is willing to do a dang thing to stop the takeover of their country.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Can I just add to your timeline.

Feb 16 - the domain libyafeb17.com is registered.

 

[geni]

Then again, I don't think anyone expected the NFZ/airstrikes to be effective in a week. That does not mean they are useless.

The Foreign Minister has defected, for instance...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/31/libya-mousa-kousa-gaddafi-foreign-minister

Doesn't mean much. He's not inner inner circle. It's point possible that gadiffi is no longer trusting anyone who isn't a blood relation and thus getting out would be a reasonable option.

 

[Piggy]

You seem to be missing the point - deliberately?

It may well be true that when Gaddafi offered amnesty to those who laid down his arms but those who continued to fight would be hunted house to house without mercy that this offer of amnesty was a trap. In this situation President Hopey-Change should have said "Gaddafi offered amnesty but we believe his word is not to be trusted and provides not sufficient guarantees."

Instead President Hopey-Change claimed with extreme dishonesty that "Gaddafi said he would have no mercy on his own people" pretending he was openly planning to commit genocide on the people of Benghazi.

Good God, man, do we really need the Palinese here?

In any case, I took your comments to express confidence that Gaddafi would do what he said and forgive those who laid down arms. And given his history, I doubt that.

If you meant something other than that, well, ok.

Regarding Obama's comments, they appear to be accurate.

Gaddafi did say he would have no mercy on his own people. I don't take Obama's word to intend that Gaddafi implied that he would kill everyone in the country.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Of course NATO can get rid of Gadaffi.

But the news that the rebels are again in retreat despite NATO air support tells us they're very weak in West-Libya. That's bad, because it might mean they'll be too weak to control that part of the country, even if NATO would do all the work for them to defeat Gadaffi.

Nothing wrong with splitting the country in two ... East and West.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Good God, man, do we really need the Palinese here?

In any case, I took your comments to express confidence that Gaddafi would do what he said and forgive those who laid down arms. And given his history, I doubt that.

If you meant something other than that, well, ok.

Regarding Obama's comments, they appear to be accurate.

I would class myself as left-wing, but Palin would seem to be more intelligent and better informed than you.

Gaddafi stated that those who laid down their arms would be granted amnesty and those that continued to fight would be hunted house to house without mercy like the US army did in Falluja. This was twisted by President Hopey-Change to imply that Gaddafi said he was going to massacre the people of Benghazi - Josef Goebbels himself never stooped to such gross misrepresentation.

I don't have an opinion on what Gaddafi would or wouldn't do, but I would caution against a reductionist view of the conflict. This is not Gaddafi versus the people. This is the Libyan army versus an insurgent militia. It is quite likely that there is very little direct instructions flowing down from Gaddafi - ie the army is mostly acting spontaneously as any army would to insurgents that ambush it in cities and attack from within civilian areas.

Had the Libyan army not tried to obey the UN Security Council ceasefire and gone into the Benghazi, the situation would have been similiar to Misurata. Where possible civilian population is evacuated from areas of fighting and the army tries to destroy the insurgents.

To be honest, I am rather surprised that the army wasn't able to carry out more comprehensively enveloping movements in the areas around Bin Janwad and Ras Lanouf and comprehensively cut-off the rebels. I sort of assumed they might have been setting something like that when they retreated so far and so fast. But they may have been afraid of air strikes and/or had much of their off-road vehicle capacity destroyed.

Either that or our intrepid journalists are all lurking well behind the front line and avoided any traps.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Nothing wrong with splitting the country in two ... East and West.

Let me guess - with the Sirte basin going to the East? After all, we do need a divident on our investment.

 

[Piggy]

Gaddafi stated that those who laid down their arms would be granted amnesty and those that continued to fight would be hunted house to house without mercy like the US army did in Falluja. This was twisted by President Hopey-Change to imply that Gaddafi said he was going to massacre the people of Benghazi - Josef Goebbels himself never stooped to such gross misrepresentation.

Show me the quotes.

Show me where Obama supposedly misconstrued Gaddafi's words specifically in the way you claim he did.

Show me the money.

And btw, your comparison to Goebbels is disgusting.

 

[Piggy]

I don't have an opinion on what Gaddafi would or wouldn't do

Really? So why the hell did you butt in and try to tell me that I "missed the point" when I responded to this post:

He said he'd crush those who continued to rebel, and foregive those who put their guns. That's carrot and stick, and I suspect he'd follow up on it.

If you have no opinion on the matter, then shut your trap.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Show me the quotes.

Show me where Obama supposedly misconstrued Gaddafi's words specifically in the way you claim he did.

Show me the money.

And btw, your comparison to Goebbels is disgusting.

If Obama wants to be compared favorably to Josef Goebbels he needs to show more ethics than Josef Goebbels in his public pronoucements

Here are your quotes:

* "At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gadhafi declared he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day... It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen."

Here is what Gadhafi said

In an address Thursday evening on state TV, Gadhafi says his forces will begin the assault on Benghazi, proclaiming "the matter has been decided ... we are coming."

He says there would be amnesty for those "who throw their weapons away," but for those who resist "there will be no mercy or compassion."

Gadhafi says his forces would "rescue" the people of Benghazi from "traitors" and warned them not to stand alongside the opposition. "The people will see tomorrow if the city if one of traitors or heroes ... Don't betray me, my beloved Benghazi."

Can you point to a single time that Josef Goebbels so maliciously twisted words as Obama did here?

 

[Piggy]

Here are your quotes

Okaay....

So... where's the disconnect you claim exists here?

Where was Obama wrong?

According to your quotes, Obama claimed that "Gadhafi declared he would show 'no mercy' to his own people" and Gaddafi said "there will be no mercy or compassion."

Obama was correct.

I don't see your problem.

Actually, I do see your problem... it's evident when you compare Obama to Goebbels... but that's a different sort of problem.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Okaay....

So... where's the disconnect you claim exists here?

Where was Obama wrong?

According to your quotes, Obama claimed that "Gadhafi declared he would show 'no mercy' to his own people" and Gaddafi said "there will be no mercy or compassion."

Obama was correct.

I don't see your problem.

Actually, I do see your problem...

And I see your problem, you are malicious and dishonest. You can know that Obama was twisting to quotes to try and create the impression that Gaddafi was threatening to generally kill civilians rather than offer amnesty to militants who surrendered and kill those who refused to surrender - but you care more about the electoral fortunes of the Democratic party than any amount of misery you unleash on Libya

How does what Gaddafi said about hunting from house to house for militants still fighting differ from what Bush said and did in Fallujah?

"'Kick ass!' [Bush] said, echoing Colin Powell's tough talk. 'If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal.

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!'"

 

[Piggy]

And I see your problem, you are malicious and dishonest. You can know that Obama was twisting to quotes to try and create the impression that Gaddafi was threatening to generally kill civilians rather than offer amnesty to militants who surrendered and kill those who refused to surrender - but you care more about the electoral fortunes of the Democratic party than any amount of misery you unleash on Libya

Oh, stuff it in a sock.

I'm not even a Democrat, and I don't support intervention in Libya.

Nevertheless, Obama correctly quoted Gaddafi. Even your citations show it.

End of story.

And as for offering amnesty, that's not Gaddafi's standard operating procedure. Anyone who would act on that promise is acting foolishly indeed.

 

[Piggy]

How does what Gaddafi said about hunting from house to house for militants still fighting differ from what Bush said and did in Fallujah?

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you were a troll. My mistake.

Carry on.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Oh, stuff it in a sock.

I'm not even a Democrat, and I don't support intervention in Libya.

Nevertheless, Obama correctly quoted Gaddafi. Even your citations show it.

End of story.

And as for offering amnesty, that's not Gaddafi's standard operating procedure. Anyone who would act on that promise is acting foolishly indeed.

What breathtaking mendacity, what a vile mixture of racism and hypocrisy.

Let us suppose Gaddafi had said "I will have no mercy on pedophiles" you could equally (and with equal deceit) say as Obama did "Gadhafi declared he would show "no mercy" to his own people."

After all there will be some pedophiles in Libya and if Gaddafi shows no mercy to them, he will be showing no mercy to his own people.

I shudder to think how full of hate a person would have to be to not be able to see a difference between not showing mercy to insurgents who refuse an amnesty and refuse to lay down their arms - the context the of the "no mercy" quote and this

“In places like Benghazi, a city of some 700000 that Qadhafi threatened to show 'no mercy' his forces have been pushed back"

 

[egslim]

Nothing wrong with splitting the country in two ... East and West.

In general I prefer countries to stay in one piece. Fewer foreign governments to deal with, and they're better able to practice real sovereignty. For example, Kosovo has between 40 and 60% unemployment, and 21% of its GDP is from aid by the international community and Kosovar diaspora.

In this case, however, a partition of Libya would seem to offer the most realistic way to get out fast and clean.

 

[Bill Thompson]

The exit strategy for Libya is to not reelect Obama and replace him with someone who has an idea of how to be The Commander In Chief. Come to think of it, that is the best exit strategy for Afghanistan too.

Heck, I could even be a better president. And we can all agree that that is pretty sad.

 

[egslim]

The exit strategy for Libya is to not reelect Obama and replace him with someone who has an idea of how to be The Commander In Chief. Come to think of it, that is the best exit strategy for Afghanistan too.

It would be a better exit strategy to get out of Libya before the end of Obama's term.