No Fly zones over Libya?

[William Parcher]

More smack...

...reported by Libyan state television: An armed forces communique says the "wanton attack" on Saturday targeted military installations in Tripoli, Misrata, Benghazi, Zuwara and Sirte. "The aggression killed 48 martyrs, most of whom were children, women and elderly," the communique adds. More than 150 were injured and maimed. "This savage attack affected many educational, health and civilian installations. It also terrorised the children and women living near by the sites targeted by this savage attack."

 

[leftysergeant]

They've got the guns.

Anti-aircraft guns in Cairo are not going to take down an aircraft over Benghazi.

On paper they have advanced, modern armed forces. Saudi Arabia spends a fortune on the best and latest gear.

But, by treaty, we do not let them get their hands on aircraft that can be refueled in flight. They would be plowing furrows in the desert before they got across Egypt.

Egypt has a modern high-tech military.

Ground forces, yes. Air force, not so much.

The idea is that nobody wants to invade because the political blow-back might actually strengthen Daffy's hand with the waffling supporters.

 

[William Parcher]

I am expecting some announcments from the LIbyan government that will bring back memoris of the Iraqi Information Minister back in 2003.

Many events are almost identical to the 2003 Iraq "invasion" situation. Conspicuous anti-aircraft guns firing into the night sky with tracers over Tripoli... firing at nothing. It's to fool the people into thinking they are actually defending against an enemy force above the city. Lots of intentional misinformation coming from the Libyan government meant to fool their own people.

It's like Gaddafi has taken every cue from Saddam Hussein.

 

[geni]

Many events are almost identical to the 2003 Iraq "invasion" situation. Conspicuous anti-aircraft guns firing into the night sky with tracers over Tripoli... firing at nothing. It's to fool the people into thinking they are actually defending against an enemy force above the city. Lots of intentional misinformation coming from the Libyan government meant to fool their own people.

Baghdad was actualy under attack and it appears that the Iraqis may have managed to take out one cruise missile.

It's like Gaddafi has taken every cue from Saddam Hussein.

Well tacticaly his options are fairly limited. It appears he may be trying to get to close to the rebels to be bombed but that doesn't help much with the rest of the country.

 

[Caustic Logic]

mystery jet - further news. No one on the ground injured, but wreckage shown, tail fin had the new flag painted on it (before crashing?) pilot died in the parachuting, it's reported. He had a family. The shooting was of course by pro-Gaddafi forces, we're told, and apparently initial reports it was on its way to bomb rebel bases were best guesses at the time.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/0...s-early-stages-enforcing-sanctioned-fly-zone/

 

[Virus]

Arabs can't fight. They can't project power outside their borders. They can't coordinate a millitary operation between themselves. That's the deeper issue.

 

[Pardalis]

The Arab League have now criticized the Allied airstrikes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/20/libya-air-strikes-live-updates#block-14

Now they can go **** themselves.

Never again should we do their dirty work for them. Bunch of ungrateful idiots. Next time they seek our help, WE'RE BUSY.

 

[Pardalis]

Russia says Western strikes kill Libyan civilians

And how many civilians were killed by Qhaddafi in the last month?

 

[geni]

Arabs can't fight.

T. E. Lawrence might dissagree. Iran didn't have the most enjoyable of times against Iraq.

Then you've got more irregular styles of warfare.

They can't project power outside their borders.

Saudi arabia is currently doing so.

They can't coordinate a millitary operation between themselves.

Given how large a group you are talking about that is unsurprising.

 

[geni]

Now they can go **** themselves.

Never again should we do their dirty work for them. Bunch of ungrateful idiots. Next time they seek our help, WE'RE BUSY.

Unfortunately by the time the Arab league wants us to attack someone (well other than Israel) the situation has already reached the point where we don't find it very acceptable.

 

[JihadJane]

Oh about that.
Someone should tell Kadhafi, since he said several times that it was all the doing of Al Quaida drugging young Libyans.

JihadJane, sorry to repeat myself (I will do it only once) but what other way than military actions were possible in the present particular case that were not tried?

- Mediation.

- Talks with the parties in the conflict (African Union Declaration on Libya)

- Don't get involved in a sovereign country's civil war. Hezbollah has demonstrated that liberation movements in the region are able to resist and defeat apparently overwhelming military force.

- A political solution from the Arab world.

- Citizens from neighboring countries cross to border into Libya to stand with their Libyan comrades for mass, non-violent resistance.

The No-Fly-Zone-or-not question (the resolution goes much further than just authorizing a no-fly zone) ignores how those, supposedly now on a rescue mission, armed Gaddafi to the teeth in the first place (same old story), helping to militarize future civil conflicts.

It is definitely a bad idea for Western military forces to get involved. They have no moral legitimacy (even now, the US is slaughtering civilians in Pakistan) and their intervention may crucially undermine the entire region's revolutionary push towards liberation from its dictators, autocrats, monarchs,oil sheiks, foreign military bases and financiers and from Western control of their resources and political processes. Libya's problem is also a regional problem of moribund satraps, particularly in the Gulf States. Increased support should be given to revolutionaries there, even at the price of giving up US military outposts.

In contrast to what happened in Egypt ("Eeek! The Muslim Brotherhood!"), the West appears strangely unconcerned about Islamic militants among the Libyan rebels (Benghazi was the center of an Islamic revolt in the Nineties), nor has The United States ever paid any serious attention to Arab League resolutions before.

Who are the good-guy rebels? What is their political agenda? Do you know?

Below, George Galloway discusses the Saudi Arabian invasion of Bahrain and the war on Libya, on Press TV. He suggests that a deal was done between the US and Arab rulers, whereby the Arab League would back the no-fly rule over Libya and in return the US would acquiesce to the Saudi invasion of Bahrain:

 

[leftysergeant]

Arabs can't fight.

Tell that to the veterans of the Iran/Iraq war.

They can't project power outside their borders.

There is no need to do so if you have no imperialist ambitions and do not have lines of commerce to defend.

They can't coordinate a millitary operation between themselves. That's the deeper issue.

They share no particular ambitions that require it.

 

[egslim]

Never again should we do their dirty work for them. Bunch of ungrateful idiots. Next time they seek our help, WE'RE BUSY.

To be blunt, the only idiots here are the people who expected gratitude for their military intervention.

Reality is that nobody will ever love you for an intervention.
- The people you attack obviously hate you for it.
- The people you support might play nice (if they're in desperate straits), but everybody hates being in a position of need and tries to forget about it as fast as possible.

ETA:
- Neutrals will always blame you for the inevitable collateral damage, and accuse you of ulterial motives.

 

[JihadJane]

ETA:
- Neutrals will always blame you for the inevitable collateral damage, and accuse you of ulterial motives.

...which, of course, you never have!

~~~~~~~~~~

'BP to start drilling off Libyan coast'

 

[geni]

- Mediation.

- Talks with the parties in the conflict (African Union Declaration on Libya)

That requires more than one party to last long enough for talks to take place which looked unlikely.

- Don't get involved in a sovereign country's civil war. Hezbollah has demonstrated that liberation movements in the region are able to resist and defeat apparently overwhelming military force.

Overwhelming military force would be nuclear carpet bombing. Let me know when someone manages to resist that.

- A political solution from the Arab world.

They are still free to produce one.

- Citizens from neighboring countries cross to border into Libya to stand with their Libyan comrades for mass, non-violent resistance.

I for one have no interest in throwing away large number of tunisian lives with no gain. Non-violent resistance requires you be up against someone who likes to think of themselves as ethical. Gaddafi doesn't appear to be too bothered by such matters.

The No-Fly-Zone-or-not question (the resolution goes much further than just authorizing a no-fly zone) ignores how those, supposedly now on a rescue mission, armed Gaddafi to the teeth in the first place (same old story), helping to militarize future civil conflicts.

Gaddafi's kit is mostly soviet and given the amount of cash he had on hand he was always going to be able to buy some millitry ability. Fortunately for everyone else he wasn't very good at using it and ended up losing a war with chad.

It is definitely a bad idea for Western military forces to get involved. They have no moral legitimacy (even now, the US is slaughtering civilians in Pakistan) and their intervention may crucially undermine the entire region's revolutionary push towards liberation from its dictators, autocrats, monarchs,oil sheiks,

Except Gaddafi crushing the rebels is the end of the road for the revolution since it sends out the lession to all the other players "kill them all no one will care".

foreign military bases and financiers and from Western control of their resources and political processes.

Military bases have very limited political control (see cuba if you think otherwise) and I really can't see much western control over saudi arabia.

Libya's problem is also a regional problem of moribund satraps, particularly in the Gulf States. Increased support should be given to revolutionaries there, even at the price of giving up US military outposts.

Except you were claiming that the rebels in Libya were CIA backed and then objecting to that. Do you want us to support them or not?

In contrast to what happened in Egypt ("Eeek! The Muslim Brotherhood!"), the West appears strangely unconcerned about Islamic militants among the Libyan rebels (Benghazi was the center of an Islamic revolt in the Nineties), nor has The United States ever paid any serious attention to Arab League resolutions before.

We try to stop the egyptian revolution so yes there are worries but we will deal with them. The Libyan rebels also have worries attached to them but we will deal with those.

Who are the good-guy rebels? What is their political agenda? Do you know?

Good-guy rebels? Military Council for Justice and Democracy down in Mauritania. Of course they lost in the long term.

Below, George Galloway discusses the Saudi Arabian invasion of Bahrain and the war on Libya, on Press TV. He suggests that a deal was done between the US and Arab rulers, whereby the Arab League would back the no-fly rule over Libya and in return the US would acquiesce to the Saudi invasion of Bahrain:

He overestimates US power. Saudi Arabia can get involved in Bahrain and the US can't do anything about it. Both sides know this so there would be no rational reason for any such deal.

 

[geni]

To be blunt, the only idiots here are the people who expected gratitude for their military intervention.

Reality is that nobody will ever love you for an intervention.
- The people you attack obviously hate you for it.
- The people you support might play nice (if they're in desperate straits), but everybody hates being in a position of need and tries to forget about it as fast as possible.

ETA:
- Neutrals will always blame you for the inevitable collateral damage, and accuse you of ulterial motives.

No be fair sierra leone worked out okey. It helped that the revolutionary united front are almost cartoonishly evil but militarily incompetent mind.

 

[egslim]

No be fair sierra leone worked out okey. It helped that the revolutionary united front are almost cartoonishly evil but militarily incompetent mind.

I didn't say intervention never works out - though it often doesn't - , but that nobody should never expect gratitude for undertaking it.

 

[JihadJane]

"The members of the Arab League 'have overlooked their own backyards, where discontent is brewing and similar kind of rebellion is already knocking at their doors,' Ajaz Ahmed wrote in the Arab News in Saudi Arabia. 'They need to work out a solution … instead of involving the foreign forces, which have a history of occupying Arab lands.'"

'Double standard seen in Arab response to Libya
Concerns over Western involvement and possible reigniting of Islamic radicalism complicate the situation, which is also coated with hypocrisy.'

 

[leftysergeant]

Military intervention that does not involve occupation is the best course at this point. If the revolt succedes and we are in country, we look like we started it for our own ends. If it all goes sour while we are there, it looks like our fault.

Supposedly, we are involved for humanitarian reasons. So give them the help they ask for and no more. Doing more would look like we were trying to run the operation, and that will give the next tin horn to face a revolt evidence that the revolt is not home-grown.

 

[Laeke]

- Mediation.
- Talks with the parties in the conflict (African Union Declaration on Libya)
- A political solution from the Arab world.

There can be no talks or mediation while combats are going on. UN Resolution 1970 made it clear, and it was 20 days ago. The "Arab world" (or the closest thing we have in the Arab League) and the African Union backed resolution 1970 and even 1973n despite their current criticism.
Kadhaffi had ample time to conform to UN demands, or provide an acceptable situation for dialogue.
He did the exact opposite and tried to stamp on the rebellion as far and as quick as he could.

Military intervention happened at the last possible moment, and did not start right upon the UN vote: Libya still had a 24 hour window before the first strikes.

- Citizens from neighboring countries cross to border into Libya to stand with their Libyan comrades for mass, non-violent resistance.

Yeah because Libya seems like the kind of sensible place where those things could work. As far as we know, the police almost went directly to violence after the first protests in mid-February. And talks of mercenaries came three days after the first protest. But yeah, "fellow neighbours" should have jumped into the fray to show the power of non-violence.
Also, while not devolving in any kind of civil war, Egypt and Tunisia demonstrations were not all peace and love. 200 casualties or so in Tunisia, on a whole, it seems.

Who are the good-guy rebels? What is their political agenda? Do you know?

I dunno but maybe revolutionaries pushing towards liberation from its dictators, autocrats, monarchs,oil sheiks, foreign military bases and financiers and from Western control of their resources and political processes., as you so eloquently put.

Although I'm not sure how you reconcile saying that and using the Islamist Menace in the same post. Or your mention of how the Libyan insurgency was an artificial plant by the western powers. So which is it?

Libyan opposition has many faces, both in exile or in the country. The CNT (or however it is spelled in English) has some former/defecting Kadhafi "notables".
Are they trusworthy? I would be a tad suspicious, but then again, that does not really fit with bearded izzzzzzlamists.
But that's not the fact of the matter at hand: the issue is that, at the very least, parts of Libya has expressed their will for a political change in a brutal despotic regime, and that the regime made it very clear that he will not listen and decided to kill dissenters right off the bat. The only thing that would crucially undermine them would have been not intervening.
As I said in another thread, this will not magically make Libya a democratic paradise or international affairs a pretty place. But at least there's a hope for improvement, unlike letting Kadhaffi in charge.

If the 2011 events in the Arab world has proved something, it is that the "Arab Street" is tired of the old schtick of Beards & Crusaders. The people of Egypt and Tunisia were able to topple their "Western-backed-or-tacitly-approved" leaders and we didn't get in our planes to bomb them: quite the contrary Western powers had no other choice but to accept and commit to the protesters, because despite all our little interests, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that, from our moral perspective, they were right to do what they did.

They have no moral legitimacy

Not to ride high and mighty on my horse, because "Western powers" have their fair share of skeletons in the closet, but I fail to see what kind of decisive moral high ground would have the Arab League (You know those moribund satraps), the African Union or Chavez.

Besides, the military intervention in Libya, while being conducted mostly by "Western powers" (and there's also some practital reasons to that), acts on an international mandate which has been voted, not vetoed either by Russia or China (which could have denied at any moment this legitimacy), and with which the Arab League and African Union agree, at least on the principle.