The Libya problem.

[Laeke]

Well unfortunately you are not gonna get a lot of cold hard facts on the matter, as Libya was not exactly free press paradise and rather lacking in communications on a whole.

The very broad timeline, I think, is solid enough:
- Protests start in eastern cities, in the wake of the turmoil in the region
- Repression directly goes to 11 in the first days.
- Regime seems to have no grip on the events.
- Situation is bad enough that foreign oil companies stop operations and all countries organize the return of expatriates + massive flow of refugees
- Expatriates confirm violent repression, chaos, mercenaries on behalf of regime
- Several members of the regime (like UN envoy) defect
- Insurgency is now armed, push West.
- Something not yet explained happen: Insurgency lose its momentum/Regime regains it/Libyan army comes back from its 2 week vacation (seriously, where were they?)
- Regime push east.
- UN mandated intervention

Beyond that, it is difficult as of now to verify the claims regarding finer details. The coalition seems to be rather precise on what it does (French army, at the very least: "this type of plane did X, on Y type of mission, destroyed Z"). But that's pretty much it. Combat reports on the ground is blurry, communications in the east are cut in a major way, journalists are there despite the regime obviously trying to intimidate them but they have all the failings of your usual eyewitness (with maybe a tad more experience). Consensus seems to be that the insurgents lack organisation, so it's impossible to tell what the figure heads actually control.

I guess same filters applies to the news than per usual: be weary of the more outlandish claims and any sort of heavy rhetoric, prefer first hand accounts (journalists being there), look for sources, etc... and go check directly at Reuters or AFP, half the news you'll read anywhere are lifted from them anyway.

The reasonable and honest position is to admit it is very difficult to make any statement on the day to day situation and that it is impossible to predict what will happen. This is very much contrary with the current trend, where everyone is asked to give a definitive statement about everything.

Accepting uncertainty, and thus that you could make an error of judgement, is however not a weakness.

But I'm still left hanging: Should we have used military intervention, or not? If not, then what should we have done? Should we have let the 48 hours lapse and have Qaddafi shut it all down and fully reassert power, or not? Or what? As that seems wrong. Is there some third option here that I am missing and that isn't clear at all from any of these "reports"?

Your questions are legitimate but there likely never will be a clear cut answer to them.
The other option would have been to not intervene while still setting up the arms embargos and making stern remarks, which would have been a form of action (although not very effective in the short term). It is likely the regime would have routed the opposition (but not that the country would be pacified) and would have gone back to pariah state.

It's up to each of us to see if we would have deemed this acceptable. It is also possible we will have to re-assess our position in hindsight.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Of course, if you take the same position as the article, namely that "Western Media" (which now includes Al Jazeera I guess?)

Fair observation. They've been strongly "Western" in flavor in all this (compared to, say, Libyan or even Russian media). I don't know much about its owners and their agenda. But in this case, I'm picking up signs anyway that the Arab world is well-behind this particular "crusade" and thus have their own reasons for the allegedly slanted media coverage. The alleged funneling of fighters and weapons, the Arab League support of the "no-fly zone," obviously lean that way. And their protests now are only over civilian deaths, not over any plan of overthrow or creation of a new Arab League member in half or all of present Libya. I suspect, as usual, some sort of behind-the-scenes deals here. And as with Afghanistan, I sense teetering monarchies finding a way to score points abroad to placate hard-liners at home.

Sorry, more hung up on the related problem I identified, rather than the OP one. For that, I'd suggest for those convinced of "genocidal" intentions the fairest would be to enforce a separation os a small sliver of Libya, with little oil, and protect that for those who must flee. This would minimize concerns that the West and the rebels are teaming up to cut the whole Gaddafi experiment out of the world picture.

Plus, they could later use it as a dedicated base to eventually destroy the green machine next door.

And another point - political systems might be like organisms, and we know from what these offer that bio-diversity is important. Seems to me the Western system is one of monoculture and clear-cutting. I know few here would agree in the slightest, but ... oh well.

 

[Caustic Logic]

- Something not yet explained happen: Insurgency lose its momentum/Regime regains it/Libyan army comes back from its 2 week vacation (seriously, where were they?)

Well, their representatives in Benghazi were clearly overrun. A militia leader, Ahmed Sodani, fled, was arrested later in hiding (NOT killed), now awaits trial for shooting a lady cop in '84. As for those less worth of being "brought to trial" for the TV cameras, 130 of the people who would be putting this down were slaughtered by insurgents right off the bat. That we can see on video. I suspect many, many others went the same. A few dozen at least are acknowledged so far.

The regime seemed totally surprised by it all, and in disarray - showing to many his illegitimacy. But the "protesters," at first, had an amazing amount of cohesion and agreement and managed to totally seize whole cities. That doesn't usually happen.

 

[Laeke]

It's not secret that Al Jazeera was launched by the Qatar Emir, and that emir is working hard on modernization and the international reputation of his country (gaining the World Cup 2022 is just one instance), which one could still perceive as a sort of "westernization". General consensus is that on both accounts the Emir is pretty successful and that Qatar is doing rather well by Gulf monarchies standard.

It is undeniable that Al Jazeera was inspired by the CNN model and aspire to be a legitimate and respectable voice in world news (and having a whole english language channel is a step in this direction). Qatar was willing to commit itself in the coalition. So the kind of people who have huge distrust of the western media will not to twist very hard to brush it off.

EDIT:
Yeah, of course, some soldiers defected, others were overrun. But the army seemed incapable of stopping the rebels for two weeks. Before finally pushing back with relative ease(?) Did the reinforcements came from Siberia or something? Maybe there was some panic and the regime had a heavy shuffling/regroup/logistics effort, I dunno...

 

[little grey rabbit]

How do you monitor airspace with satellites?

Dunno, but I assume they have extensive military surveillence capabilities in space.

You can watch a news clip here if you like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TncgsS0FDWg

When you think about it was a pretty absurd claim - that Gadaffi was bombing protesters with aircraft. Alas, Americans seem to be beginning to fall into the dangerous trap of believing their own propaganda and then acting as if their fabrications were fact.

 

[little grey rabbit]

A militia leader, Ahmed Sodani, fled, was arrested later in hiding (NOT killed), now awaits trial for shooting a lady cop in '84.

Actually he was professor of public health at the university in Benghazi. While a professor of public health can hypothetically become militia leaders, they are usually too fat and lazy to do anything more than be interviewed on TV.

 

[mike3]

Well unfortunately you are not gonna get a lot of cold hard facts on the matter, as Libya was not exactly free press paradise and rather lacking in communications on a whole.

The very broad timeline, I think, is solid enough:
- Protests start in eastern cities, in the wake of the turmoil in the region
- Repression directly goes to 11 in the first days.
- Regime seems to have no grip on the events.
- Situation is bad enough that foreign oil companies stop operations and all countries organize the return of expatriates + massive flow of refugees
- Expatriates confirm violent repression, chaos, mercenaries on behalf of regime
- Several members of the regime (like UN envoy) defect
- Insurgency is now armed, push West.
- Something not yet explained happen: Insurgency lose its momentum/Regime regains it/Libyan army comes back from its 2 week vacation (seriously, where were they?)
- Regime push east.
- UN mandated intervention

Beyond that, it is difficult as of now to verify the claims regarding finer details. The coalition seems to be rather precise on what it does (French army, at the very least: "this type of plane did X, on Y type of mission, destroyed Z"). But that's pretty much it. Combat reports on the ground is blurry, communications in the east are cut in a major way, journalists are there despite the regime obviously trying to intimidate them but they have all the failings of your usual eyewitness (with maybe a tad more experience). Consensus seems to be that the insurgents lack organisation, so it's impossible to tell what the figure heads actually control.

I guess same filters applies to the news than per usual: be weary of the more outlandish claims and any sort of heavy rhetoric, prefer first hand accounts (journalists being there), look for sources, etc... and go check directly at Reuters or AFP, half the news you'll read anywhere are lifted from them anyway.

The reasonable and honest position is to admit it is very difficult to make any statement on the day to day situation and that it is impossible to predict what will happen. This is very much contrary with the current trend, where everyone is asked to give a definitive statement about everything.

Accepting uncertainty, and thus that you could make an error of judgement, is however not a weakness.



Your questions are legitimate but there likely never will be a clear cut answer to them.
The other option would have been to not intervene while still setting up the arms embargos and making stern remarks, which would have been a form of action (although not very effective in the short term). It is likely the regime would have routed the opposition (but not that the country would be pacified) and would have gone back to pariah state.

It's up to each of us to see if we would have deemed this acceptable. It is also possible we will have to re-assess our position in hindsight.

Thank you for your good post. This thing seems so vexing. As the "other option" you mention doesn't seem good either (hopes for democracy crushed under a heavy fist of Qaddafi, rogue state remains, i.e. status quo restored for who knows how long. That's the rub here: there seems to be an opportunity for real change.). So then comes the question of the existence of a third option: but as you say, there is no good answer to that. I can't imagine what it must be like for the leaders who have to wrestle with these kinds of huge decisions full of a crapload of sticky points and gotchas and all that...

But some say that this is an oil war. Is there any good evidence to help prove this? Is there something to indicate a move on the oil fields? How reliable is it? A wikileak of some kind (here I'm using that term in general to refer to Internet-based breaches of classified information, regardless of whether or not Wikileaks was involved)? Or is it just unproven speculation, due to lack of transparency?

 

[mike3]

Actually he was professor of public health at the university in Benghazi. While a professor of public health can hypothetically become militia leaders, they are usually too fat and lazy to do anything more than be interviewed on TV.

Is this true around the world, even in less developed countries? Have you traveled to them to find out?

 

[Laeke]

But some say that this is an oil war. Is there any good evidence to help prove this? Is there something to indicate a move on the oil fields? How reliable is it? A wikileak of some kind (here I'm using that term in general to refer to Internet-based breaches of classified information, regardless of whether or not Wikileaks was involved)? Or is it just unproven speculation, due to lack of transparency?

The case for the usual "War for Oil" seems rather weak, from my mundane point of view.
Foreign oil companies, especially european, are already all over Libya. The major players are there, although the Italian ENI is especially strong (thanks to former colonial relations, I guess).
While eccentric, Kadhaffi was very much eager to do business for us since the embargo was lifted, and we obliged. Nothing seems to point towards any rash move on his part towards the oil fields.

If we go with the War for Oil rationale, the idea that the insurgents would be western backed from the start makes zero sense, since we already are there in full force. And war is not good for conducting actual business.

I said elsewhere that I would find the whole story more reasonable if it was more something like: by siding with the rebels early on when they looked about to win (which would help up having good relations with the new regime), we burned all bridges to Kadhaffi. Except he didn't fall and we likely ruined all his good will. So now...
It still is a simplistic scenario, IMHO, but heh...

However the fact the region has quite some oil may, as a general principle, be an incentive in our involvement. But in this case France also was motivated by internal politics and a rash diplomatic move taking its root in the character of our president, among others.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Is this true around the world, even in less developed countries? Have you traveled to them to find out?

I haven't been to Libya per se. But I have been to Morroco, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. And you will find that people - particularly when they get a little income - are a lot less different than Americans than you think.

But Americans do have rather bizarre ideas about people in less developed countries so they can easily be gulled into believing any horror story. For example, when I heard the "using aircraft to bomb protesters" I immediately disbelieved it as totally out of character for military. I guess you would have believed it implicitly?

 

[mike3]

I haven't been to Libya per se. But I have been to Morroco, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. And you will find that people - particularly when they get a little income - are a lot less different than Americans than you think.

But Americans do have rather bizarre ideas about people in less developed countries so they can easily be gulled into believing any horror story. For example, when I heard the "using aircraft to bomb protesters" I immediately disbelieved it as totally out of character for military. I guess you would have believed it implicitly?

Which are you referring to? And how do you know what to believe and what not to, with things like this? As unless you're actually there to witness events with your own eyes...

 

[Seismosaurus]

Dunno, but I assume they have extensive military surveillence capabilities in space.

That they may have, but there is no such thing as a satellite which can monitor what aircraft are flying around in a block of airspace. It there were, countries wouldn't buy those rather expensive AWACS planes or go around putting mucking great radars on their ships.

Their satellites may be able to monitor communications in the area. They may be able to photograph airbases and see how many aircraft are not there. But scanning the country for who is flying where from a satellite? Sorry, but no.

 

[little grey rabbit]

That they may have, but there is no such thing as a satellite which can monitor what aircraft are flying around in a block of airspace. It there were, countries wouldn't buy those rather expensive AWACS planes or go around putting mucking great radars on their ships.

Their satellites may be able to monitor communications in the area. They may be able to photograph airbases and see how many aircraft are not there. But scanning the country for who is flying where from a satellite? Sorry, but no.

You could be right, could you have a look at the news clip and tell me if there is any technical basis for the claim - as I may have misreported it, not being up on the tech side
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TncgsS0FDWg

They may have been referring to intel gathered from space - rather than monitoring visually aircraft. I await your informed comment.

 

[little grey rabbit]

In all cases when you are relying on "intel" sources that you can't check you have to consider motivations. But Russia don't have a dog in this fight (refusing to veto the motion) so they are most likely to be acting as an honest broker here.

Compare Russia's intel with American "leaked" intel proving that missiles into government buildings are causing no casualties at all (and Glenn Greenwald's dry comment)....

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/24/leak/index.html

 

[little grey rabbit]

The BBC's graphic has Misrata has "Rebel Controlled". The Libyan foreign minister says

KHALED KAIM, LIBYAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER: There are not any military operation on the ground in Misrata. The situation is just confined to number of - pockets of violence and snipers scattering in different areas of Misrata.

Which is the more accurate source of information here? It is clearly the foreign minister. If insurgents had effective control of Misrata they would be providing clear footage of this, whereas the number of videos coming out of Misrata have been few and mostly surreptiously filmed. There is no footage of anyone armed in the streets, no rebel checkpoints, no rebel units, no rebel spokesman. Just unarmed people talking in groups.

This suggests that rebel control of Misrata is nothing more than underground armed men that will fire from within buildings at government forces.

BUT, the fiction of a "rebel controlled" city has to be maintained, otherwise we can't justify airstrikes on the Libyan army in the area. Even the Libyan army tries to eliminate snipers, then (in our convoluted doublespeak) they are attacking civilians - so that we can justify targeting soldiers from the air.

And we have to do this, as otherwise there is no way that the insurgents will be able to advance at least towards Sirt. And we need that to happen or we won't get a dividend from our investment.

If only the Libyan army had the understanding of Western culture to realise they had to immediately head into Benghazi so that this bloodbath could have been avoided and countless lives saved.

 

[geni]

Ghaddafi started it, not Obama.

Not really. You could make a case that the protestors started it. I mean they did kinda launch an inserection. However the US wasn't involved in that phase. For the current phase sarkozy and perhaps cameron started it. Gaddafi has just been reacting up to this point which is understandable. Last time he tried to start something he lost a war to chad.

 

[geni]

If only the Libyan army had the understanding of Western culture to realise they had to immediately head into Benghazi so that this bloodbath could have been avoided and countless lives saved.

They tried that. Probablem appears to have been a mix of not quite being fast enough and that for all their advantages the Khamis Brigade had overcomming the problems of urban warfare in a city large enough to house over half a million people is extremely difficult.

 

[little grey rabbit]

They tried that. Probablem appears to have been a mix of not quite being fast enough and that for all their advantages the Khamis Brigade had overcomming the problems of urban warfare in a city large enough to house over half a million people is extremely difficult.

Really? Here Ben MacIntyre in the Times said it was because they ran out of petrol. I wonder how many ways we can find to convince ourselves we didn't attack an army that was trying to observe a ceasefire?

From what is happening in Ajdabija it looks like despite the aerial shellacking they have been receiving over a number of days the "Khamis Brigade" (a.k.a anyway we can of avoiding saying the Libyan army) has no problem dealing with the insurgents when they try.

 

[geni]

Really? Here Ben MacIntyre in the Times said it was because they ran out of petrol. I wonder how many ways we can find to convince ourselves we didn't attack an army that was trying to observe a ceasefire?

1)Reality.

From what is happening in Ajdabija it looks like despite the aerial shellacking they have been receiving over a number of days the "Khamis Brigade" (a.k.a anyway we can of avoiding saying the Libyan army) has no problem dealing with the insurgents when they try.

The National Transitional Council are poorly equiped and trained with little heavy weaponry and no C&C worth mentioning. The Khamis Brigade (and no not the Libyan army "Libyan army" would be an insult to the Khamis Brigade) are well equipped, well trained, still have a fair bit of heavy weaponry and at the very least localised C&C.

Under those conditions the Khamis Brigade is unlikely to have much difficulty holding their position.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Good Lord, we wouldn't want to insult the Brigade by suggesting they had any legitimacy would we? We need to pull out the old "Revolutionary Guard" trick.

Actually I may have overstated their capacity to hold on in face of air power.

Many fighters belonging to forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi were held hostage after fierce fighting on Friday, they said.

Pro-Gaddafi forces are now mainly positioned in the west of the city, having previously held the entire city, they said.

Earlier on Friday, western warplanes bombed Gaddafi's tanks and artillery outside the town to try to break a battlefield stalemate and help rebels retake the strategic area.

Plumes of smoke filled the sky as the pace of coalition air strikes escalated, forcing terrified residents to flee Ajdabiya, which is 160km south of the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

We will see what happens from here on in, if they are afraid to surrender (or too embittered or too loyal to surrender) then we can expect some bitter urban fighting.

Can someone get on the phone to Benghazi and tell them they need to use the word "prisoner of war" and not "hostages"? Remember, taking hostages is what the Libyan government is supposed to do, not uprising civlian protesters.

If only the Libyan army had fully understood Western dishonesty and hypocrisy and headed into Benghazi when they had the chance, this bloodbath could have been avoided and countless lives saved