2011 Libyan uprising and no fly zone.

[Yoshi525]

The Arab League that screamed for intervention was more than capable of intervening on their own.

Especially if the intervention had been limited to the air superority role stated...

 

[DammitBoy]

Yeah I'm not sure what the US is doing in here either. This was more a case for Turkey, Italy, France and the Arab League.

I blame our Dear Leader.

This just in U.S. boots on the ground in rescue mission by USMC extraction team who saved two pilots and shot 6 Libyans in the process.

Semper Fi!

alsoplustoo - expect to hear much cheering including the rant, "Death to America!"

 

[Sander]

The NATO is actually not being used. Only NATO capability is used.
And the UN? The UN would likely be one of the only supposedly legitimate organizations to be able to mandate an intervention. It did not send in blue helmets however.

Are we going to do the same for any other country? Will we declare a no-fly zone over Tibet when the next uprising comes? Will we support a religious uprising in Pakistan that topples the current regime?
Of course not. Yet, the damage done would likely be the same as what good ol' Kadhaffi would've done to his own people...

We didn't support the Nepalese uprising either, did we? Why aren't we mopping up in Birma/Myanmar?

Yes, not acting is often horrible, but we've done it so many times before. Why did we act now in particular? What gives us the right to intervene when it's not even clear if the rebels aren't a minority in the country?

The whole bit about civilians being murdered gets to me, y'know.

Also your argument seems to be "we didn't used to do this, why are we doing it now". Whenever someone brings up Yugoslavia, it's "Why didn't we act sooner". Whenever someone brings up random African country in gruesome civil war people say "Why aren't we intervening there".
Now there's an intervention (a bit late, though), and the argument is "Why are we there"?
Bullshit.


And yes, there are a lot of different (geo)political reasons why things are being done in Lybia and not in other countries. But I'm not going to complain about something actually getting done.

I feel very strongly PRO-NATO for the record btw. It's one of the most useful military organizations in the world. But again: NATO isn't actually involved at this stage, only member states, which is very different.

But as to why I feel bad about it? We are creating power vacuums in the region. In countries where the only real organized opposition is usually supporting islamic extremists (openly or overtly).

Believe it or not, but Libya was a great ally to the US in the war on terrorism (in the past decade). Navy SEALs, Green Berrets and British SAS trained Libyan anti-terrorist teams.
Libya also had an arrest warrant out for Osama Bin Laden years before 9/11 and they had warned the West multiple times of the dangers he posed.

Much like in Saddam's Iraq, in Kadhaffi's Libya the extremist religious sects were fairly well under control and kept tabs on as they posed a threat to the powerstructure already in place (this was obviously not always the case, as Kadhaffi long supported extremists, but this changed). Remove this powerstructure and you now have a bigass playing field that is impossible to control for the fledgling state.
In time, previously strong and western-minded countries like Egypt might fall into Talibanesque conditions, and this through democratic means... It's hard to believe, but not impossible. Libya can be manipulated in the same way. You can better believe that muslim extremists will be pumping a lot of money in reconstructing the country when the time comes, thus gaining favor and political power over time.

It scares me, because this scenario is not unlikely in a lot of other countries, such as Yemen (which is already far more extreme & religious than both Egypt and Libya). Where is our support for Yemen's uprising? Or Bahrein's? Those are all out western allies... And we're not going to lift a finger because of it. Where is your democracy and freedom there?

To top it all off, most if not all countries participating have internal political reasons to attack Libya & Kadhaffi. Especially France...

It leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Doing nothing would likely have resulted in wholesale slaughter, yes. But I'm not convinced this is going to be much better for them in the short term (they might still get slaughtered) and for us in the long term (we might be creating our own future enemies).

Your main argument seems to be "they could turn into Islamist extremists!"
Well, they could. But the fact that Western nations played a big role in helping liberate a country like that should mitigate that. Besides that, the fact that a significant portion of the population is being repressed only aids the rise of extremism.
The best way to fight extremism isn't to support an oppressive regime, it's to make sure there's no reason for extremism to rise.

The Arab League that screamed for intervention was more than capable of intervening on their own.

It wasn't actually doing so. And it's not like this could be just postponed indefinitely.

That's a bit of an odd argument. There are protesters in Italy too. There is armed resistance in Spain and Russia. I don't think that really legitimizes an intervention in any of those countries.

Afghanistan had a resistance that actually held a good chunk of the country. It was still considered exporting democracy.

Question is, when is an uprising large enough to consider it legitimate. Who determines that? How? It's an imperfect science, which means both of you are right.

Well yes, it's all inexact and subjective. And of course, Western nations aren't going to be supporting an uprising of militant islamist against a democratic government any time soon (ever). But this doesn't seem like a particularly fringe case.

 

[DammitBoy]

The Arab League that screamed for intervention was more than capable of intervening on their own.

It wasn't actually doing so. And it's not like this could be just postponed indefinitely.

I agree, pressure should have been applied until they did. Like no more money until you act kinda pressure.

 

[Shoveler]

I agree, pressure should have been applied until they did. Like no more money until you act kinda pressure.

Only one problem here though, they wouldn't do anything no matter how much pressure is applied. It's one thing to want to do something, it's another to actually do it. My argument is they don't possess the means/fortitude diplomatically or militarily to effect a difference. There are only a few countries that can, and some of them were trying. (if you can call it that....)

I don't think diplomacy will work with Gadaffi, only force, whether it be rebels toppling him or coalition forces (hopefully rebels). Or neither, the world can sit by and watch as his slaughters the populace.

Personally I'm all in favor of a no fly zone, it gives the rebels some support without committing too much, and can have the same desired effect of possibly deposing him. Bombing units on the ground however (not including SAMs) takes it to another (more involved) level of conflict. Which in the media is presented as the U.S. being the aggressor even though war has been waging for weeks there already.

Shov

PS. Legit question, what has the Arab League done to stop such as this in the past? How much experience do they have in diffusing such matters?

PPS. Which of the groups mentioned in the thread have experience putting together a multi-national coalition of military fighter and support craft? Turkey? France? Arab League? To me this is the main reason they can effect no real change of anything.

 

[DarkCorp]

Really hope we have a post-Ghadaffi plan. I really hope we did this for something else then capitalism otherwise it just might bite us in the ass.

Or, things might go along Korea-esqe lines where one side atleast gets better.

 

[Sander]

Really hope we have a post-Ghadaffi plan. I really hope we did this for something else then capitalism otherwise it just might bite us in the ass.

Or, things might go along Korea-esqe lines where one side atleast gets better.

Eh....how, exactly, is this being done for 'capitalist' reasons?

 

[Ilosar]

I strongly doubt the Arab League would have done anything. It's a very loose coalition united more by proximity than any real interest or friendship.

@SuAside: I understand your point, but I still feel doing nothing would have been even worse. This time around there is a quite big legitimacy for intervention, it's a damn civil war.

Also, the revolt in Lybia is attracting attention because a) it's close to Europe, b) Ghaddafi is a very well-known lunatic, deposing him = good points with pretty much anybody nearby and c) because of all the other revolts happening in the Middle East, the rebel movement is seen as legitimate and in continuity with what happened these past months in Egypt and Tunisia.

That, and maybe Sarkozy and co. are just mighty tired of old rubber face.

 

[DammitBoy]

You kids slay me - as in I roflmao.

The Arab League has craploads of military hardware to use - because the U.S. sold it to them and spent billions equipping and training them.

No way to pressure them? How about, "You want any more billions in aid? Step the fuck up!" Their common interest is U.S. dollars and greed.

Capitalist reasons? How about the OIL. You don't actually believe anybody gives a shit about Libyans do you? lol - why aren't we stopping the genocide in the Ivory Coast? Why didn't we stop any genocide where there wasn't oil? Bleeding hearts are so silly.

Why hasn't the Arab League done anything now or in the past? Because if you can get a chump to do it for you and you can blame them for screwing it up later, you win twice.

You'll notice Saudi Arabia has no trouble shooting people in Bahrain. They shouldn't have any trouble shooting people in Libya.

 

[Sander]

You kids slay me - as in I roflmao.

The Arab League has craploads of military hardware to use - because the U.S. sold it to them and spent billions equipping and training them.

No way to pressure them? How about, "You want any more billions in aid? Step the fuck up!" Their common interest is U.S. dollars and greed.

Capitalist reasons? How about the OIL. You don't actually believe anybody gives a shit about Libyans do you? lol - why aren't we stopping the genocide in the Ivory Coast? Why didn't we stop any genocide where there wasn't oil? Bleeding hearts are so silly.

Feh. Oil supplies weren't ever threatened. There was no need to invade to protect an oil supply.

The West is benefited by a stable regime in Lybia or any country, really. But it can't sell support for Khadaffi. And ignoring Lybia really wasn't an option. Not because all the leaders of those countries have such bleeding hearts, but because they can't sell not acting to the populace.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Feh. Oil supplies weren't ever threatened.

Big spike in prices says otherwise.

 

[DammitBoy]

Feh. Oil supplies weren't ever threatened.

Big spike in prices says otherwise.

I guess he hasn't been watching the news where all the politico's have been saying we need to secure the oil and right of passage for other oil countries.

Or he's using that to deflect from the rest of my post that he ignored.

 

[Sander]

Feh. Oil supplies weren't ever threatened.

Big spike in prices says otherwise.

Spikes are temporary. No reason to believe that there were long-term problems.

Besides, prolonging this war by supporting the rebels is only going to prolong the high oil price.

Or he's using that to deflect from the rest of my post that he ignored.

I wasn't aware I was obligated to respond to things I didn't disagree with.

 

[Shoveler]

The Arab League has craploads of military hardware to use - because the U.S. sold it to them and spent billions equipping and training them.

Craploads yes...that they use quite crappily.

No way to pressure them? How about, "You want any more billions in aid? Step the fuck up!" Their common interest is U.S. dollars and greed.

Except their desire to save face amonst other arabs/muslims. Muslims on muslims, on direction from the U.S., looks bad for them, real bad. They've never really openly supported the U.S., doubt that any kind of pressure would change that in any dramatic way. End game is we wouldn't cut off the aid, so that option is off the table, except in theory only.

Capitalist reasons? How about the OIL. You don't actually believe anybody gives a shit about Libyans do you? lol - why aren't we stopping the genocide in the Ivory Coast? Why didn't we stop any genocide where there wasn't oil? Bleeding hearts are so silly.

Agree mostly here.

Why hasn't the Arab League done anything now or in the past? Because....

....it is ineffectual.

You'll notice Saudi Arabia has no trouble shooting people in Bahrain. They shouldn't have any trouble shooting people in Libya.

Yes, they had to move a thousand troops across a 25km causeway to a miniscule country. Not really much strategy there. They have no way of sustaining any long term (more than 1 day really) military effort what so ever.

Also, I usually agree with a lot you have to say, just differ on this one, all in all, I'd rather the U.S. not have to be involved. I just don't put much stock in the abilities most the countries involved to actually accomplish anything.

 

[welsh]

Honestly, I don't have much problem with this. For the US, this is the price of super power.

Sure American service people are at risk. But hey, we have a big navy and a big airforce for a reason. I pay taxes for this and those services eat a lot of that tax dollar. No offense to our guys in uniform, but this what you get paid for.

We've spent lots of money on aircraft, training, bombs and all sorts of nastiness. Got to use that ordinance up sooner or later, its use it or lose it. Replace the weapons and you got defense spending and hey, conservatives, that's corporate welfare!

I also have no problem with the US keeping itself limited to a military campaign and not getting politically into it. Better to let the Brits, French and Italians oversee the post war instead. Italians get more gas from Libya anyway, so if they want to oversee the change in government when Qadaffi goes, ok.

We've got enough problems with the wars we are still trying to deal with. Let the French and Italians do this one.

As for the UN- you do recall that the UN was largely a US creation, created in a factory warehouse in New York, with the idea of bringing the countries together to contain war, decide when war was ok, and then get the countries together to actually get the job done. This is one of the big reasons for having a UN. Nice to see it work for a change.

As for the Arab League, they need to get their game on. I agree, but hey, they are a US proxy force that only recently got serious about developing a military capacity. If you want to use them as a proxy force, you got to give them some leadership.

As for those criticizing US leadership, dudes, the US is the dominant power in the world and we get lots of benefits from that status. But the price of leadership is that sometimes, you got to lead.

No one said the price of empire or super power is cheap, but once you got it, well, you got to pay for it the hard way.

The alternative, we could let the Chinese call the shots.

Will the revolutionaries become islamic extremists? Maybe. But they still need to sell their oil to someone and that oil proceeds are going to be needed to rebuild the country.

I will be sorry to see Qadaffi go. The guy is the Charlie Sheen of the Middle East. But do we really want his sons to take over from Dad? Qadaffi looks like an aged hipster that just spent a night at a Grateful Dead concert getting stoned and maybe blown by an underaged girl. But let a son take over and Libya could be a problem.

Will Qadaffi go? Probably. He's got few financial resources except his liquid assets. His mercenaries are likely to have second thoughts about killing for money when they see their buddies blown all over the desert. You got to live to get paid.

Last I heard, the tide had swung back to the rebels.

Oh and Saudi Arabia- I don't like them sticking their nose in Bahrain that is, in part, a base for the US 5th fleet. But the Saudis and the Bahrainis might be thinking that the US won't do much. Too much talk and not enough big stick. Use the big stick on Libya and the Bahrainis and Saudis might take greater notice.

Sorry folks, for the US, it was time to put up or shut up.

 

[Alphadrop]

Somebody explain to me how you qualify bombing tanks, if you are only supposed to be creating a no-fly zone.

Does Ghaddafi have flying tanks? Was there a flying carpet at his private residence?

Maybe the coalition commander was raped by a T-80 when he was a kid?

Sure you aren't getting the UN and NATO mixed up welsh?

 

[LinkPain]

War, war never changes.

 

[DammitBoy]

George Will has some excellent questions for Obama on the U.S. being in Libya. Perhaps our Dear Leader might have been asked some of these important questions if he had (as he said he would when he was campaigning for the presidency) ask congress for an authorization to commit U.S. troops to a military action?

The world would be better without Gaddafi. But is that a vital U.S. national interest? If it is, when did it become so? A month ago, no one thought it was.

How much of Gaddafi's violence is coming from the air? Even if his aircraft are swept from his skies, would that be decisive?

What lesson should be learned from the fact that Europe's worst atrocity since the Second World War - the massacre by Serbs of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica - occurred beneath a no-fly zone?

Sen. John Kerry says: "The last thing we want to think about is any kind of military intervention. And I don't consider the fly zone stepping over that line." But how is imposing a no-fly zone - the use of military force to further military and political objectives - not military intervention?

U.S. forces might ground Gaddafi's fixed-wing aircraft by destroying runways at his 13 air bases, but to keep helicopter gunships grounded would require continuing air patrols, which would require the destruction of Libya's radar and anti-aircraft installations. If collateral damage from such destruction included civilian deaths - remember those nine Afghan boys recently killed by mistake when they were gathering firewood - are we prepared for the televised pictures?

The Economist reports Gaddafi has "a huge arsenal of Russian surface-to-air missiles" and that some experts think Libya has SAMs that could threaten U.S. or allies' aircraft. If a pilot is downed and captured, are we ready for the hostage drama?

If we decide to give war supplies to the anti-Gaddafi fighters, how do we get them there?

Presumably we would coordinate aid with the leaders of the anti-Gaddafi forces. Who are they?

Libya is a tribal society. What concerning our Iraq and Afghanistan experiences justifies confidence that we understand Libyan dynamics?

Because of what seems to have been the controlling goal of avoiding U.S. and NATO casualties, the humanitarian intervention - 79 days of bombing - against Serbia in Kosovo was conducted from 15,000 feet. This marked the intervention as a project worth killing for but not worth dying for. Would intervention in Libya be similar? Are such interventions morally dubious?

Could intervention avoid "mission creep"? If grounding Gaddafi's aircraft is a humanitarian imperative, why isn't protecting his enemies from ground attacks?

In Tunisia and then in Egypt, regimes were toppled by protests. Libya is convulsed not by protests but by war. Not a war of aggression, not a war with armies violating national borders and thereby implicating the basic tenets of agreed-upon elements of international law, but a civil war. How often has intervention by nation A in nation B's civil war enlarged the welfare of nation A?

Before we intervene in Libya, do we ask the United Nations for permission? If it is refused, do we proceed anyway? If so, why ask? If we are refused permission and recede from intervention, have we not made U.S. foreign policy hostage to a hostile institution?

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fears Libya becoming a failed state - "a giant Somalia." Speaking of which, have we not seen a cautionary movie - "Black Hawk Down" - about how humanitarian military interventions can take nasty turns?

The Egyptian crowds watched and learned from the Tunisian crowds. But the Libyan government watched and learned from the fate of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments. It has decided to fight. Would not U.S. intervention in Libya encourage other restive peoples to expect U.S. military assistance?

Would it be wise for U.S. military force to be engaged simultaneously in three Muslim nations?

I have another question for ya - how many of you lil fellers squeeled like stuck hogs when Bush invaded Iraq because it was an unneeded 2nd front on our war on terror, but now three conflicts is a great idea?

 

[Shoveler]

I have another question for ya - how many of you grown men complained when Bush invaded Iraq because it was an unneeded 2nd front on our war on terror, but now three conflicts is a great idea?

Didn't bother me a hell of a lot, it was time that douche was dealt with. Make it a mission to kill americans (attempted assassination of our president namely), then reap the rewards.

 

[DarkCorp]

@Sander

I was thining along the lines of oil as well. Sure we may have instability/price spikes but maybe when we get a pro-american government in half of the country (or whole), it may drop.

Then again our corporate asshats never seem to be happy with profits. You give them good profits then the fuckers demand better profits. Hence my reservations.

And as to China, yes I prefer us to control oil than the chinese any day of the week.