No Fly zones over Libya?

[The Fool]

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.c...a-fighters-heading-to-libya-from-afghanistan/

Wow BAC....turning into a Gaddaffi supporter?

Maybe the western forces should switch sides and stop al Queda from taking over Lybia.....(all 200 of them?)

Maybe we can blow the living crap out of both sides and run Libya ourselves. I'll run the place and you can be the minister for truth....sound like a deal?

 

[BeAChooser]

Wow BAC....turning into a Gaddaffi supporter?

Not at all. I just hate to see us do something that is Stuck On Stupid in a country that according to the latest reports still has chemical weapons. But then it may be too late for that now.

 

[JihadJane]

Same old criminals running the show:

'Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions'

 

[geni]

Not at all. I just hate to see us do something that is Stuck On Stupid in a country that according to the latest reports still has chemical weapons. But then it may be too late for that now.

The chemical weapons thing is probably wishful thinking at this point. While it's possible gaddafi has them actualy using them against protestors/rebels would france with way too much justification for a ground invasion.

 

[BeAChooser]

The chemical weapons thing is probably wishful thinking at this point. While it's possible gaddafi has them actualy using them against protestors/rebels would france with way too much justification for a ground invasion.

I've cited sources on these threads stating that indicate Ghaddafi had not yet destroyed the bulk of that arsenal. They were still building the facilities to do so and the inspectors were complaining about the delays. And I'm not worried about Ghaddafi using them against the rebels (because you are right, that would give France a pretext for a ground assault, assuming they have the guts to face a WMD armed opponent). No, I'm worried about the Ghaddafi regime at some point using them in the US or France, or the arsenal falling into the hands of al-Qaeda backed rebels if Ghaddafi loses ... since there are no boots on the ground.

 

[JihadJane]

I certainly find your interpretation of the facts we currently have in this thread interesting.



Really? I did not see what support this. Almost all the major foreign actors currently in Libya are private. Their share are on the rise and is certainly more important today than it was at the end of the embargo. Libya has stated that it awaited billions in foreign investments. And so far, private foreign companies are the ones providing it.

What is your preferred explanation for the Pentagon's willingness to spend hundreds of millions of dollars bombing Libya?

 

[IDB87]

What is your preferred explanation for the Pentagon's willingness to spend hundreds of millions of dollars bombing Libya?

Is that what you're going on - explanations that make us happy?

 

[Thunder]

is the Pentagon spending extra money on Libya? or are these funds already allocated?

i hate to think we have to spend extra money any time **** hits the fan somewhere on Earth.


....honestly, its clear that these funds were already allocated to Defense spending, so its not like this money would have/could have gone somewhere else if the civil war did not erupt.

 

[Policenaut]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52264.html

"Challenged on whether Obama overstepped his constitutional authority in attacking Libya without congressional approval, Clinton told lawmakers that White House lawyers were OK with it and that Obama has no plans to seek an endorsement from Congress, attendees told POLITICO.

And, as if to add insult to injury, news broke during the House briefing that Obama had already signed an order authorizing covert action in support of the rebels. When asked about it after the first briefing, House members were unaware the president had taken that action.

“I have no knowledge of what he signed,” said Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee."

This is what matters more than any question about money.

*Edit* This too -

Same old criminals running the show:

'Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions'

 

[quadraginta]

is the Pentagon spending extra money on Libya? or are these funds already allocated?

i hate to think we have to spend extra money any time **** hits the fan somewhere on Earth.


....honestly, its clear that these funds were already allocated to Defense spending, so its not like this money would have/could have gone somewhere else if the civil war did not erupt.

If we hadn't fired those missiles at Libya we would have fired them at someone else?

Sooner or later, I suppose, but that doesn't mean that this time around was the wisest use for them.

We've lit off over $300 million of high dollar fireworks in the last ten days or so. That's just the missiles, alone. Was that money that was already allocated? What about the money to replace them?

 

[Noztradamus]

What is your preferred explanation for the Pentagon's willingness to spend hundreds of millions of dollars bombing Libya?

That Obama learnt from Kennedy's mistakes at the Bay of Pigs. This time the popular uprising against the dictator gets full US air support.

 

[Laeke]

What is your preferred explanation for the Pentagon's willingness to spend hundreds of millions of dollars bombing Libya?

I gave my opinion of that somewhere else, but I never claimed to have the explanation.

 

[egslim]

That Obama learnt from Kennedy's mistakes at the Bay of Pigs. This time the popular uprising against the dictator gets full US air support.

Yes, and they still flee like whipped dogs.

Two observations:
- The uprising has very limited popular support in Tripolitania.
- The rebels can't fight.

On the first point, my impression is the uprising consists of two layers. The top layer is from the Libyan elite. These people are pro-democracy and pro-civil rights. They're a small group, but they're the ones giving interviews and twittering.
But the meat of the uprising, the majority of the rebels, is from the second layer. They're the common Cyrenaicans, fighting against Tripolitanian domination of Libya. It's basic tribal warfare between the two regions.
That's why the uprisings in Tripolitania were quickly defeated: They consisted of only a few representatives from the elite. In Cyrenaica the rebelling elites could call on the masses, so there they survived.

On the second point. It's one thing for a guy with an AK47 to flee from a T55. But from what I read Gadaffi's forces are now between 3,000 and 4,000 strong, and use the same equipment as the rebels so NATO air support can't distinguish between the two.
When the air strikes began I expressed doubts about the rebel's ability to take Gadaffi-held cities. But this is much worse than I expected, it's pathetic. After weeks of combat the rebels still lack any semblence of organization, and display no motivation to actually fight for their cause. Even with serious air support.

I understand the sentiment to support people who rise up to fight for their freedom against an oppressor. It may not always be practical or a good idea, but it's an idealistic concept. But our role should be limited to one of support, while the people who rise up do the bulk of the fighting.
However, in Libya the only rebels who know how to fight are the religiously motivated mujahedeen. The rest are a useless bunch of cowards, as far as fighting is concerned. The only thing they're good for is to pose heroically for the camera.

The rebels are, even after weeks of fighting and with considerable air support, unable to organize and hold a line or Tripolitanian city against 3,500 men in technicals. And if we dispose of Gadaffi they'll have to pacify and democratically organize a country of 6,000,000, including the whole of Tripolitania and Fezza. If their current state of affairs is any indication, that will be a complete mess.

I think Gadaffi, or a similar autocrat, is the only one who can keep Libya peacefully together. We should either partition the country into a Tripolitanian and a Cyrenaican part, or give Gadaffi a free hand to restore order. The alternative is a civil war/failed state, and I don't like the prospect of having one of those in the Med.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If we hadn't fired those missiles at Libya we would have fired them at someone else?

Sooner or later, I suppose, but that doesn't mean that this time around was the wisest use for them.

We've lit off over $300 million of high dollar fireworks in the last ten days or so. That's just the missiles, alone. Was that money that was already allocated? What about the money to replace them?

And doesn't the personnel get combat pay?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think Gadaffi, or a similar autocrat, is the only one who can keep Libya peacefully together. We should either partition the country into a Tripolitanian and a Cyrenaican part, or give Gadaffi a free hand to restore order. The alternative is a civil war/failed state, and I don't like the prospect of having one of those in the Med.

I think you're right.

Also, back to the point I keep harping on--the legal and moral justification for this intervention. .

The UN Charter says we can only intervene in internal affairs if the international peace is disturbed (or perhaps at least threatened). You make a good case that the quickest route to preserving international peace and regional stability was to have let Gaddafi quash the rebellion. Our intervention seems more likely to threaten regional stability and international peace than the rebellion itself.

Do you have any information about the numbers of the population that would be counted as rebels or loyalists? I just heard someone on the radio saying that loyalist forces outnumber rebel forces something like 10 to 1. If that's any indication, it sounds like the rebellion is a fairly small minority, and we really have no business helping to overthrow a majority government on behalf of a small minority in the name of "democracy". [ETA: or perhaps even more ironically, in the name of self-determination.]

 

[dudalb]

Sounds as if somebody is trying to talk themsleves into being a Gadaffi supporter.

 

[egslim]

Also, back to the point I keep harping on--the legal and moral justification for this intervention. .

The UN Charter says we can only intervene in internal affairs if the international peace is disturbed (or perhaps at least threatened). You make a good case that the quickest route to preserving international peace and regional stability was to have let Gaddafi quash the rebellion. Our intervention seems more likely to threaten regional stability and international peace than the rebellion itself.

I've been saying for a while now that the moral justification for this intervention is based on a cartoonish simplification of the conflict by the media. They focussed on the democratic vs autocratic side of the conflict, while ignoring the tribal, regional and religious dimensions.

Legal justification is muddy. The Security Council is the final arbitrator on that issue, and it obviously won't condemn any action by one of its permanent members. So I daresay the intervention is legal, by grace of us owning the judges. Which won't convince many others.

Do you have any information about the numbers of the population that would be counted as rebels or loyalists? I just heard someone on the radio saying that loyalist forces outnumber rebel forces something like 10 to 1. If that's any indication, it sounds like the rebellion is a fairly small minority, and we really have no business helping to overthrow a majority government on behalf of a small minority in the name of "democracy".

I don't know.

I do remember reading a count of about 200 mujahedeen fighters, who did actually attack the government forces. If they faced a few thousand government troops, that might be close to the 10 to 1 ratio.

But there was also part of an interview with a rebel fighter, who said he wouldn't feel safe anywhere between Ra's Lanuf and Misrata - in other words, in Tripolitania. That was before Gadaffi's latest offensive.
Without organization the rebels rely on spontaneous action, and my guess is far more rebels volunteer to defend their own homes than to advance.
That the rebels haven't been able to organize themselves into units is a sign of organizational incompetence.

 

[egslim]

Sounds as if somebody is trying to talk themsleves into being a Gadaffi supporter.

When the rebellion started I was very much in favour of the rebels.

After evaluating the information that has gradually become available, I changed my position.

Evidence indicates the rebels:
- Can't fight or organize themselves.
- Have very limited popular support in Tripolitania.
- Are mainly motivated by tribal and regional rivalries with some extremist religion thrown in, instead of democratic reforms.

Gadaffi is a nasty piece of work, but he knows how to pacify and stabilize the country.

We're being suckered to side with the losers in a tribal war, and that means we'll not only have to do most of the fighting for them, but probably also do much nationbuilding afterwards. We're better off if Gadaffi stays in power.

 

[JihadJane]

'Libyan rebels massacre black Africans'

 

[geni]

Evidence indicates the rebels:
- Can't fight or organize themselves.

Eh they are civilians we guns. That they can't fight or organise is to be expected. Whats odd is they don't even seem to try.

- Have very limited popular support in Tripolitania.

A number of towns sourounding tripoli did jump on the rebal side to start with so I wouldn't write off popular support.

- Are mainly motivated by tribal and regional rivalries with some extremist religion thrown in, instead of democratic reforms.

If that was the case we would expect them to actualy fight. People stand and fight against impossible odds for their tribe or their god. Running at the first sign of trouble? Thats more in line with fighting for vaugley defined freedom and democracy.

Gadaffi is a nasty piece of work, but he knows how to pacify and stabilize the country.

If thats all we want I'm sure the CIA could find a less annoying rent-a-dictator.

We're being suckered to side with the losers in a tribal war, and that means we'll not only have to do most of the fighting for them, but probably also do much nationbuilding afterwards. We're better off if Gadaffi stays in power.

Oh ye of little cynicism. Rebels who can't win a battle without massive air support are the ideal people run the country since they not only owe us a favor or two bit assuming they have the odd braincell will realise how easy they would be removed.