Libya better w/o Gaddafi or not?

[HopAlongBunny]

The views range.
Anything would be better than life under Gaddafi; or ; from wealthiest African nation to complete basket case, Gaddafi was better than what happened next.

The pro side seems to discount the general fall in standard of living, ruined infrastructure, women's rights being reversed and continual violence.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/years-regrets-libya-gaddafi-demise-171019073901622.html

The con side points to the above problems:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-richest-state-under-gaddafi-to-failed-state-after-nato-intervention/5408740

Some of the difference may rest with tribal/religious divisions; some did better under Gaddafi than others.
Some may be so wedded to free speech that any sacrifice is worth it; again though post revolution speech is tricky...and can still get you killed.
Was it just a gift to the MIC and the only freedom anyone was interested in was access to oil?

[Fragony]

Gadaffi wanted to use a different currency, that's all it takes. Nobody is better off.

[spmetla]

Anything would be better than life under Gaddafi; or ; from wealthiest African nation to complete basket case, Gaddafi was better than what happened next.

They could have been better off if anyone had actually planned for post-Gaddafi. Instead Obama was happy to support our allies but not on the ground, the French who started the intervention weren't about to get involved on the ground and the Brits wouldn't if the French and US weren't. It was a perfect example of a repeat of Bush '43's naivete but in the guise of Sarkozy. Kill the dictator and then magical democracy will bring flowers and prosperity to the country.

If the French (and ideally the Italians) had been willing to go on the ground as they did in Mali (which was fallout of the flawed Libyan intervention) then perhaps there could have been a better situation. I know their colonial history with Algeria and Tunisia next door would make it extremely unpopular in the Arab world but the French seemed to do a good info campaign for Mali so perhaps they could have done one for Libya too.

Bombing campaigns don't lead to peace unless there's a truly friendly ground element ready to defeat the enemy and impose the system 'we' or the 'freedom fighters' want in the first place. It's the modern equivalent of sending in gunboats to shell a unfriendly port but with far greater negative impacts.

[rory_20_uk]

For us - definitely better with Gaddafi. He was a bastard, but mainly a known quantity. He helped keep a lid on economic immigrants to South Europe.

For the locals... probably depends on which group you're from. On balance, probably better with him - but it is a close call.

The country should be recreated into the three different blocks - do the whole post-colonialism thing.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think it may be a bit like Brexit. There is the potential for good things a decade or more down the road, but most of the short term things just suck and the short term could still derail the long term.


In general, I do not like the "keep the murdering thug on the throne because at least he keeps all of their problems from affecting any of us who really count" attitude that seems to attach itself to those like Gaddafi or Hussein or Assad or Pahlavi. I understand the inclination -- less bothersome things to deal with -- but I am not much of a fan of Avoidance as a conflict management strategy (http://sourcesofinsight.com/conflict-management-styles-at-a-glance/). It always seems to bite you in the posterior eventually.


My thoughts are towards the nation-building issue raised by our Taplow-on-Thames Darkside medic.

The large bulk of successful revolutions quickly become civil wars as the new power arrangements are worked out. I live in one of the fortunate countries that did have a successful revolution but did not have to have a few years of blood-letting to follow just to sort out the power arrangements for the new regime. We kept it to a simple 'kick out the ones who backed the losers by social ostracism' level for the most part.

I think that if you DO intervene in a revolution to aid/effect the victory of one side that you are morally obligated to expend the military effort to help suppress terrorism and violence and to allow for a comparatively peaceful assumption of power by some new government of/by/for the locals. Whether this involves partition or the return of a monarchy or whatever depends on the situation at hand. In the interim, while that is developing, is a period of years wherein you need to provide 10-1 (or 7-1 with good helicopters) ratios of security forces to radicals/guerilla to suppress most of the guerilla/terrorist violence.

The USA failed to do this in Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO failed to do this in Libya, and we will fail to do this in Syria as well.

[Agent Miles]

No nation, to include your favorite democracy, is better off in chaos and without central authority. Numerous website guides spell out how to institute regime change. The "Arab Spring" was not a bunch of Pollyannas whisking away dictators by sticking a flower down the barrel of an AK-47. Really clever groups of anarchists used really clever, well-organized revolt to paralyze weak despots. Cell phones and social media allow communication within these groups and to the outside media. Students are not chosen as demonstrators, but instead their older mothers and grandmothers march for change. No one would dare open fire on them. The wives of police chiefs and military officers are berated in groceries or on the street until their husbands strike by "calling in sick". Despite their indigenous language, select protestors carry signs in English for the western camera crews. These groups may be populated at first by lots of "useful idiots", but anarchists just want to destroy any authority. Chaos brings opportunity. Once everything crashes, then the group that offers order, starts giving the orders. Nothing good will happen in Libya because no one good is doing anything.

[rory_20_uk]

Lybia has oil. The leaders of the groups are already selling the oil - and of course exploiting people trafficking and probably several other sidelines. Why on earth would they want to bother with running the rest of the country? There's no money in that! When the state appearance of a functioning state needs to be maintained (e.g. Nigeria) the leading thugs will do so. But they're not going to rebuild a country to steal the resource they are already stealing.

~:smoking:

[Agent Miles]

ISIS and Al Qaeda don't care about the oil. The oil groups are just useful idiots.

[rory_20_uk]

ISIS and Al Qaeda don't care about the oil. The oil groups are just useful idiots.

Depends on one's perspectives. For the crooks siphoning the money, the militant Islamic nut-jobs are the useful idiots since they provide a lovely cover / bigger problem.

~:smoking:

[Agent Miles]

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

Works for nut jobs too.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

When the dictator is buried with the taters, you either nation-build and accept that cost or let the thing degenerate into civil war/warlordism and remain a perpetual hell hole. Warlordism is one of the natural forms of governance to which humankind reverts (its a variant on the youth gang).

[rory_20_uk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

~:smoking:

[spmetla]

When the dictator is buried with the taters, you either nation-build and accept that cost or let the thing degenerate into civil war/warlordism and remain a perpetual hell hole. Warlordism is one of the natural forms of governance to which humankind reverts (its a variant on the youth gang).

Seeing as Libya is on the European periphery option B should never have been seen as a damn choice.

It's still able to be 'fixed' if the European nations had the will to do it. All of the neighboring countries would appreciate the intervention and would do their part to assist and not allow safe havens.

Establish a EU or UN "protectorate of Tripolitania" and "protectorate of Cyrenaica" and do the provincial level and national level governance for them by using EU or UN security forces and court systems. If security and legality can be restored then so can the economy, especially in a country with oil.

It's got a relatively small population that mostly hugs the coast. Not too much for mountains and most importantly the neighboring countries would likely not harbor terrorists and warlords or provide equipment and money as the Iranians and Pakistanis did for Iraq/Afghanistan.
The routes through the desert are limited and certainly more controllable than any comparable border in say Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan is.

Yes, this method would be literally colonialism again but the current mess is how the North African colonies started anyhow with the Barbary coast pirates being such a nuisance that the French invaded to deal with the mess and just govern it directly. So long as the EU nations made it clear that they didn't intend to keep Libya for themselves they could probably sell the idea to the locals who by and large would like it minus the warlords and islamists who would be the major losers. Having actual slave markets operating in North Africa again should be unacceptable to the UN and action should be taken instead of letting it continue to fester in hope that one warlord can create stability which would just lead to a return of a dictator.

[Pannonian]

No nation, to include your favorite democracy, is better off in chaos and without central authority. Numerous website guides spell out how to institute regime change. The "Arab Spring" was not a bunch of Pollyannas whisking away dictators by sticking a flower down the barrel of an AK-47. Really clever groups of anarchists used really clever, well-organized revolt to paralyze weak despots. Cell phones and social media allow communication within these groups and to the outside media. Students are not chosen as demonstrators, but instead their older mothers and grandmothers march for change. No one would dare open fire on them. The wives of police chiefs and military officers are berated in groceries or on the street until their husbands strike by "calling in sick". Despite their indigenous language, select protestors carry signs in English for the western camera crews. These groups may be populated at first by lots of "useful idiots", but anarchists just want to destroy any authority. Chaos brings opportunity. Once everything crashes, then the group that offers order, starts giving the orders. Nothing good will happen in Libya because no one good is doing anything.

Unfortunately for us, in that region, one existing force offers unity, a state, and existing familiarity. When there is instability in the region, this force will naturally come to the fore, as the only thing that offers stability. That's why it's never a good idea to destabilise the region.

[Pannonian]

Seeing as Libya is on the European periphery option B should never have been seen as a damn choice.

It's still able to be 'fixed' if the European nations had the will to do it. All of the neighboring countries would appreciate the intervention and would do their part to assist and not allow safe havens.

Establish a EU or UN "protectorate of Tripolitania" and "protectorate of Cyrenaica" and do the provincial level and national level governance for them by using EU or UN security forces and court systems. If security and legality can be restored then so can the economy, especially in a country with oil.

It's got a relatively small population that mostly hugs the coast. Not too much for mountains and most importantly the neighboring countries would likely not harbor terrorists and warlords or provide equipment and money as the Iranians and Pakistanis did for Iraq/Afghanistan.
The routes through the desert are limited and certainly more controllable than any comparable border in say Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan is.

Yes, this method would be literally colonialism again but the current mess is how the North African colonies started anyhow with the Barbary coast pirates being such a nuisance that the French invaded to deal with the mess and just govern it directly. So long as the EU nations made it clear that they didn't intend to keep Libya for themselves they could probably sell the idea to the locals who by and large would like it minus the warlords and islamists who would be the major losers. Having actual slave markets operating in North Africa again should be unacceptable to the UN and action should be taken instead of letting it continue to fester in hope that one warlord can create stability which would just lead to a return of a dictator.

Iraq.

[spmetla]

Iraq

Not really a response there. Libya is not Iraq and has a whole host of factors that would allow for the restoration of security, biggest being the lack of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia as neighbors. When your neighbors harbor and fund terrorists it's kinda hard to restore order. Libya has friendly neighbors, a relatively lawless Saharan region and a small population in a small strip mostly along the coast. There's also far less military grade explosives floating (for use as IEDs) around seeing as Libya had a relatively small military unlike Saddam whose military at one point was the 4th largest in the world and had munitions stockpiles to match.

The example of French intervention in neighboring Mali and EU intervention in neighboring Chad are examples of such.

[Pannonian]

Not really a response there. Libya is not Iraq and has a whole host of factors that would allow for the restoration of security, biggest being the lack of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia as neighbors. When your neighbors harbor and fund terrorists it's kinda hard to restore order. Libya has friendly neighbors, a relatively lawless Saharan region and a small population in a small strip mostly along the coast. There's also far less military grade explosives floating (for use as IEDs) around seeing as Libya had a relatively small military unlike Saddam whose military at one point was the 4th largest in the world and had munitions stockpiles to match.

The example of French intervention in neighboring Mali and EU intervention in neighboring Chad are examples of such.

"Not in our name". Intervention of any kind is toxic.

[Husar]

The intervention in Mali was apparently aimed at helping the legitimate and somewhat popular* government in repelling outside invaders, seems quite different from going to Libya to establish some western order there, potentially against the will of the local population.
The argument that they can't fight back due to lack of ammunitions is somewhat morally bankrupt...
Not to forget that the current situation was mostly established by your intervention.


*at least more than the invaders

[Pannonian]

Not really a response there. Libya is not Iraq and has a whole host of factors that would allow for the restoration of security, biggest being the lack of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia as neighbors. When your neighbors harbor and fund terrorists it's kinda hard to restore order. Libya has friendly neighbors, a relatively lawless Saharan region and a small population in a small strip mostly along the coast. There's also far less military grade explosives floating (for use as IEDs) around seeing as Libya had a relatively small military unlike Saddam whose military at one point was the 4th largest in the world and had munitions stockpiles to match.

The example of French intervention in neighboring Mali and EU intervention in neighboring Chad are examples of such.

Also, if you think "Iraq" isn't really a response, let me present to you exhibit A, which is entirely typical of the argument. NB. the article is how exit from the EU will degrade the UK's economy to the point where it will be more difficult for any Labour government to fulfil its domestic promises. I'll quote some of the comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42558162


Why is the BBC giving airtime to this war criminal? One of the most disgusting, mercenary, sanctimonious and hypocritical leaders in memory. And now mis-using his former position to undermine the democratic will of the British people. Filth on any definition of the word.

Blair is the most discredited politician in the UK and should be in jail for war crimes. His main publicist is now the BBC, a publicly- funded broadcaster committed to propping up the metropolitan elite with its self-righteous bile. Blair and the BBC deserve the dislike and distrust of the British public that seems to grow by the day.

tony blair have you found those weapons of mass destruction yet? well when you do you then can have the right to comment. why do the media give him any air time.....hes a busted flush and no longer relavent anymore.

I hate this man, he is a lunatic and has blood on his hands. Please sign
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200165

We all trusted Bliar when he claimed he had credible evidence of WMDs. He lied. That was criminal and unforgiveable. Millions of Iraqis suffered. He now has the gall to expect us to listen to him now. He should be tried and imprisoned if found guilty. May, a previous Remainer, is prepared to accept the validity of the Brexit case and fight the corner. Bliar does not have that info.

Said blair... the war criminal

From the man who misled the public into an illegal war - does he really think so little of the people that he believes we will ever believe another word he says. This horrible man represents the worst of the wesminster metropolitan elite arrogantly telling 17.4m voters they were too stupid to know what they voted for and should trust and believe what he says. Send him back to his Tuscany villa.

Blair should be made to face the families of the dead service men he sent to war due to his lies.
Anyone who listens to this war criminal should be ashamed of them selves.


NBB. This article is about economics and how future governments can/cannot fulfil their promises given the state of the economy we are entering into. Imagine what the comments would be if the issue being discussed is actually foreign intervention.

[Fragony]

Comments are not a source

MSM isn't either it are just bedtimemoms, the ministry of truth

[Pannonian]

Comments are not a source

MSM isn't either it are just bedtimemoms, the ministry of truth

Commenters and their like voted to bring us out of the EU, with many citing the reason for their vote as who was campaigning for Remain. There will be a sizeable population for each past PM who will take this view on whatever issue they are currently commenting on, with the HIGNFY-esque argument "Is this the... who... Maybe they should just shut up.", thus shutting down all reasoned argument on any issue. And like I said, this is an article on something completely unrelated to Iraq. If the issue being discussed is foreign intervention, multiply this manifold.

[rory_20_uk]

Commenters and their like voted to bring us out of the EU, with many citing the reason for their vote as who was campaigning for Remain. There will be a sizeable population for each past PM who will take this view on whatever issue they are currently commenting on, with the HIGNFY-esque argument "Is this the... who... Maybe they should just shut up.", thus shutting down all reasoned argument on any issue. And like I said, this is an article on something completely unrelated to Iraq. If the issue being discussed is foreign intervention, multiply this manifold.

Try as I might, as soon as I hear Tony is positive about something I am instantly viewing it in a negative light.

However, you too appear to be simplifying the reasons people have for leaving the EU rather a bit.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Try as I might, as soon as I hear Tony is positive about something I am instantly viewing it in a negative light.

However, you too appear to be simplifying the reasons people have for leaving the EU rather a bit.

~:smoking:

During the referendum campaign, it was Cameron who was the toxic personality who needed a kicking, with Blair keeping out because of his toxicity. But either way, that's people taking against a position simply because of who was arguing for it. And there will be significant populations who will take that line for each former PM. Reasoned arguments get shoved aside simply because of the "Is the... who... Maybe he should just shut up" factor. HIGNFY gets away with it because they're a comedy programme who live on cheap laughs. However, more and more, politics is operating in this way.

[rory_20_uk]

During the referendum campaign, it was Cameron who was the toxic personality who needed a kicking, with Blair keeping out because of his toxicity. But either way, that's people taking against a position simply because of who was arguing for it. And there will be significant populations who will take that line for each former PM. Reasoned arguments get shoved aside simply because of the "Is the... who... Maybe he should just shut up" factor. HIGNFY gets away with it because they're a comedy programme who live on cheap laughs. However, more and more, politics is operating in this way.

I was meaning in general. I know it nonsensical and my entire job is about reviewing data from a neutral standpoint and yet I still am affected by a politician who has been out for over a decade. So dare I say I am so badly affected I can only conclude that most people are even more swayed by factors which are completely irrelevant. It is quite depressing.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Commenters and their like voted to bring us out of the EU, with many citing the reason for their vote as who was campaigning for Remain. There will be a sizeable population for each past PM who will take this view on whatever issue they are currently commenting on, with the HIGNFY-esque argument "Is this the... who... Maybe they should just shut up.", thus shutting down all reasoned argument on any issue. And like I said, this is an article on something completely unrelated to Iraq. If the issue being discussed is foreign intervention, multiply this manifold.

You were probably right the whole time, but at least play fair

[Agent Miles]

Sixty years ago, Egypt and Syria pretended to be the United Arab Republic for 3 years. Egypt has lots of people and little oil. Libya has the opposite. A merger would average this out and Arabs would be policing Arabs. Otherwise, any group wishing to gamble with a trillion euros of occupation aid can try this:

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/repository/FM307/FM3-07.pdf

Saif Islam Gaddafi (POS Dictator jr.) may win a so called election this year, so Libya would then no longer be "w/o Gaddafi".

Once again, should the West only do business with the really nice people in the world? Before you post, remember that Assad is going to remain the leader in Syria. Is a return to order better than a second Somalia or Islamic State? No one knows what the Libyans want and they may not know themselves. They apparently don't want what they have now. It's a horrible situation with people dying every day. If the choice is hard to make and you feel that everyone in the world will probably hate your choice, just swallow hard and pretend that you're an American.

[spmetla]

The argument that they can't fight back due to lack of ammunitions is somewhat morally bankrupt...
Not to forget that the current situation was mostly established by your intervention.

They can fight back just fine, the point about the IEDs is in how generally destructive they are to everyone in the local environment. The biggest victim of IEDs in Iraq was not the coalition military but Iraqi civilians. The terrorists there had no qualms about regularly killing and wounding dozens of civilians and destroying infrastructure in attacks against coalition vehicles.
In iraq it also created an actual IED manufacture industry in which professional bomb makers would essentially make these weapons for which ever group wanted to buy them.
The enemy not having such destructive weapons does help though :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrT2lwEk8cg#t=00m27s

I fully understand the current situation is due to that intervention. That intervention I'm sure you can agree was half baked. As Pannonian said all interventions are toxic, I'll agree to that but with caveats. In regards to Libya, the intervention is already done but only in regards to killing Gaddafis regime, next to nothing was done to prevent the current descent into violence which I feel was the bigger crime than intervening to prevent Gaddafis squashing of the Arab Spring revolt. If there were a ability to go back in time I'd be completely against Sarkozy leading NATO into Libya but seeing as time travel isn't possible playing should've isn't the best.
As I've made clear I think it's in the interest of the EU and regions of north and central Africa to 'fix' Libya. That unfortunately won't happen on its own. Allowing the current situation to fester allows it to descend into the Somalia and Yemen levels of instability.
As for imposing a western style system, I wouldn't go that far. A stable country or countries that at the very least don't harbor terrorists, smuggle people into Europe, and enslave refugees and migrants would be nice for starters. So long as the resulting government isn't essentially at war with the west it would be a good result, preferably in the form parliamentary democracy of sorts. Seeing as democracy takes time to work and requires that the opposing parties don't have armed militias to contest unfavorable results is why I'd see a period of occupation and management by EU or UN powers as necessary.

The current situation has the country essentially split into a East and West as it has been historically (half is culturally more berber and looks to North Africa the other half toward the more arab middle east). My proposition is largely to legitimize this and speed along security and rule of law.


Also, if you think "Iraq" isn't really a response, let me present to you exhibit A, which is entirely typical of the argument. NB. the article is how exit from the EU will degrade the UK's economy to the point where it will be more difficult for any Labour government to fulfil its domestic promises. I'll quote some of the comments.
I'm not advocating for the UK to step into the mire of Libya and I fully understand why any government would not want to step into there. It is a shame how Blair's reputation went from great to war criminal over Iraq seeing as he largely led the US into forming its policies to stop the Yugoslav civil wars as well as bring about more liberal governments in Africa.
This is very much a problem directly for the EU nations, especially France and Italy. The UK since 1964 has surrendered its old role in the middle east outside of supporting the US and I certainly don't expect them to try to regain that level of influence again.

[Fragony]

Ever considered that nothing can be done?

[spmetla]

Yes, that's what we're doing right now and will probably continue to do.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, that's what we're doing right now and will probably continue to do.

Buying the oil and sending some assets to disincentivise the smugglers is about all we should be doing. We've already done enough damage.

~:smoking:

[Agent Miles]

Warlords, drug lords, terrorists and "venture capitalists" know exactly what they need to do in Libya. Remember how Hitler could have been easily stopped in 1936, but good people did nothing? Well, it's 1936 in Libya. Perhaps Hitler 2.0 is not a true fear, but innocent Libyans are suffering. They will eventually follow whoever creates authority in the region, because they won't have a choice. I know that morality isn't chic and that arguments like good vs. evil may not interest people in the West whose own families are not in peril, however, fundamentally the situation is exactly that.

A military force has to occupy at least the major urban areas of Libya. They must be sustained while a Libyan police and army are trained. The former cops and soldiers are probably worthless, so training a new crew will be the better choice. That training has to be from boots on the ground types. We made the mistake of air dropping supplies to the freedom fighters in Syria. Every community adopted a "Militia", but they couldn't defend themselves, although they appreciated the food and medical supplies for their children. Infrastructure must be established where people can find work. Once the cities are safe, the military with the fledgling Libyan troops can start patroling the interior. Eventually, a trained Libyan army/police force can take over and the occupation force relieved.

I neglected to mention the bombings, arson, assassinations, betrayals, demonstrations, corruption and other minor frustrations that good people suffer to do the right thing, but I'm sure someone else will bring that up.

[rory_20_uk]

Warlords, drug lords, terrorists and "venture capitalists" know exactly what they need to do in Libya. Remember how Hitler could have been easily stopped in 1936, but good people did nothing? Well, it's 1936 in Libya. Perhaps Hitler 2.0 is not a true fear, but innocent Libyans are suffering. They will eventually follow whoever creates authority in the region, because they won't have a choice. I know that morality isn't chic and that arguments like good vs. evil may not interest people in the West whose own families are not in peril, however, fundamentally the situation is exactly that.

A military force has to occupy at least the major urban areas of Libya. They must be sustained while a Libyan police and army are trained. The former cops and soldiers are probably worthless, so training a new crew will be the better choice. That training has to be from boots on the ground types. We made the mistake of air dropping supplies to the freedom fighters in Syria. Every community adopted a "Militia", but they couldn't defend themselves, although they appreciated the food and medical supplies for their children. Infrastructure must be established where people can find work. Once the cities are safe, the military with the fledgling Libyan troops can start patroling the interior. Eventually, a trained Libyan army/police force can take over and the occupation force relieved.

I neglected to mention the bombings, arson, assassinations, betrayals, demonstrations, corruption and other minor frustrations that good people suffer to do the right thing, but I'm sure someone else will bring that up.

When exactly has America with this "Pollyanna" world view managed to make a "failed state" better after they've got involved? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? Somalia?

This whole thing appears to be based around the fact that the locals want help, the troops that go in will not do what America troops have acted in every other theater they've been in with ignorance and violence in equal measure - given this is how your paramilitary police treat your own citizens then why would they not, eh?

And then after building up everything the troops stop taking bribes, taking drugs and working for the warlords and decide that they'd much rather collaborate and all will be fine after the West leaves as soon as humanly possible and their families will not be killed by militants. HILARIOUS!

Please, just get this plan to work in one of the places you've already gone into rather than peddling the same old same old failed fairy tales into new theatres whilst the others continue to implode.

~:smoking:

[Agent Miles]

"I neglected to mention the bombings, arson, assassinations, betrayals, demonstrations, corruption and other minor frustrations that good people suffer to do the right thing, but I'm sure someone else will bring that up."

After only 12 minutes! A new record for cynicism.

[rory_20_uk]

"I neglected to mention the bombings, arson, assassinations, betrayals, demonstrations, corruption and other minor frustrations that good people suffer to do the right thing, but I'm sure someone else will bring that up."

After only 12 minutes! A new record for cynicism.

Sorry, just moving that to one side as trying to brand as "minor frustrations" is at best naive and at worst trying to fit facts around beliefs. They are central to the whole reason why this is such a bad idea and also why the USA seems to be incapable of learning.

~:smoking:

[Agent Miles]

It's called sarcasm, but I'm quite sure that I needn't point that out to you.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

When exactly has America with this "Pollyanna" world view managed to make a "failed state" better after they've got involved? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? Somalia?

One could make an argument for the Phillipines. Of course, that did require half a century and we curtailed but never truly eliminated the Moro fanatic issue.

And Agent Miles, the kind of nation building you are suggesting takes a minimum of a generation and a half to really alter the course of a culture (37.5 years) because a substantial chunk of those invested in doing things the old way have to literally die off for the change to truly take root. That is a LONG time to station soldiers/educators/constabulary/and the rest of the apparatus of state building and it would not be cheap. Moreover, at least the first few years will also be dealing with an insurgency as well.

And if you declare the job finished too quickly, you end up with Haiti...which was beginning to thrive under our constabulary, and then we left far short of that 37.5 year mark....

[rory_20_uk]

It's called sarcasm, but I'm quite sure that I needn't point that out to you.

Stick to your strengths. And no, dry wit isn't something Ohio is renowned for.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Oh ffs that was funny, the Brit wins

[Agent Miles]

I wasn't aware that the thread was supposed to be a comedy about people dying.

Seamus, either good people do the right thing (see this Ohioans sig), or one by one the world's countries slowly slide into hellholes. Unsolicited criticism from unaffected quarters will always spew forth. Many forms of evil are gnawing at civilization. The easy thing to do is not ever the right thing to do. Dare to be part of a solution.

[Montmorency]

Who are the good people?

Who are the evil people?

[rory_20_uk]

I wasn't aware that the thread was supposed to be a comedy about people dying.

Seamus, either good people do the right thing (see this Ohioans sig), or one by one the world's countries slowly slide into hellholes. Unsolicited criticism from unaffected quarters will always spew forth. Many forms of evil are gnawing at civilization. The easy thing to do is not ever the right thing to do. Dare to be part of a solution.

Dare to offer one that has any, y'know, detail? We would prefer something based not just based on aspirations and that we'll all be so happy with the result.

~:smoking:

[Agent Miles]

The people that care enough to do something.

The people who do something without caring.

Rory which part of the 208 page book on stability operations wasn't detailed enough for you?

Fun Fact:
The quote at the beginning of chapter 1 by Colonel Sir William F. Butler is actually a paraphrasing of the quote from Thucydides. I'm sure everyone caught that.

[rory_20_uk]

The people that care enough to do something.

The people who do something without caring.

Rory which part of the 208 page book on stability operations wasn't detailed enough for you?

Running the risk of repeating myself: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and beforehand even Vietnam, Korea. Any other disasters that the USA has waded into, killed loads of the (clearly eeeeevil) locals and then left when reality didn't play fair and follow their lovely plans?

I don't care about a modern day fairy tale. I would like the USA to actually finish sorting out one mess before trying to do another one half arsed.

~:smoking:

[Agent Miles]

Agreed! We'll do that in Libya. Thanks for caving in like a champion.

[rory_20_uk]

Agreed! We'll do that in Libya. Thanks for caving in like a champion.

Sorry, I'm used to dealing with more sophisticated intellects. I'll try again.

With a catalogue of either finished failures and ongoing disasters, resolve these first. Then other thing?

If that's too tough to grasp I hope that another here can help translate over the IQ gap.

~:smoking:

[Devastatin Dave]

Prominently muslim nations can only be ruled by theocrats or brutal dictators. Its the only way third century thinking cultures can be somewhat governed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Prominently muslim nations can only be ruled by theocrats or brutal dictators. Its the only way third century thinking cultures can be somewhat governed.

You're just jealous of G's all-distaff bodyguard.

[Fragony]

I know I am, that's really hot

[Gilrandir]

Running the risk of repeating myself: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and beforehand even Vietnam, Korea. Any other disasters that the USA has waded into, killed loads of the (clearly eeeeevil) locals and then left when reality didn't play fair and follow their lovely plans?


South Korea seems to be an exception.

[rory_20_uk]

South Korea seems to be an exception.

Except that they're still at war, have a capital in range of the enemy's artillery and the North is a basket case. Hardly an inspiring success.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

Except that they're still at war, have a capital in range of the enemy's artillery and the North is a basket case. Hardly an inspiring success.

~:smoking:

The North has been a basket case for a couple of decades. And? Israel is in similar position. Yet both have thriving economies and somehow manage to survive the presence of disgruntled neighbors.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The North has been a basket case for a couple of decades. And? Israel is in similar position. Yet both have thriving economies and somehow manage to survive the presence of disgruntled neighbors.

True, but the "security first" mindset among Israelis can be a bit hard core to cope with, and SK's intelligence service does not have much in the way of domestic oversight. The USA has had more leaders assassinated over the years, but none of ours were ever offed by our own CIA director.

[Gilrandir]

True, but the "security first" mindset among Israelis can be a bit hard core to cope with, and SK's intelligence service does not have much in the way of domestic oversight.

Perhaps it is because South Korea is not hemmed by hostile neighbors (as Israel) but directly borders on just one so it has to focus its attention mostly northwards.

[spmetla]

Running the risk of repeating myself: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and beforehand even Vietnam, Korea. Any other disasters that the USA has waded into, killed loads of the (clearly eeeeevil) locals and then left when reality didn't play fair and follow their lovely plans?

I don't care about a modern day fairy tale. I would like the USA to actually finish sorting out one mess before trying to do another one half arsed.

It's a fair point. All of the above are messes that the US has waded into. Of the ones listed Korea is the only success story. Saying that the US didn't reunite Korea under the leadership of the south equals failure isn't exactly fair, with the PRC and USSR supporting the North overtly that wasn't really possible short of WW3 starting in East Asia. It's actually amazing how much the success of South Korea has happened despite the danger of the North, it's a real shame that a reunification in the 90s couldn't have been effected when the North was at its most vulnerable.

Other small 'victories' could be Panama, Grenada, Desert Storm (kuwait's infrastructure and security was destroyed too), Kosovo (even though I oppose the creation of that nation), post WW2 Greece, post WW2 West Germany, post WW2 Austria, post WW2 Japan, Micronesia, post Egypt-Israel peace treaty Sinai. With those you can put no shortage of qualifiers or show failures too (Cuba, Chile, Iran, Nicaragua, Mexico several times, Lebanon, and more).

I certainly don't advocate the US wading into more peace keeping because we all know our government has a very short attention span and in recent history has proven to be completely incompetent at rebuilding nation-states. Not to mention any conflict the US wades into is like adding gasoline to the fire given the current hate the US has incurred for itself throughout the world and especially the middle east. That's why I'd like nations with a direct impact because they are practically neighbors to intervene. The French are my choice because they've been very good as threading the line between useful help and seeing as occupiers in Mali and the Ivory Coast. That they didn't go into Iraq gives them a better moral high ground and even though they started the nato intervention in Libya it's still seen as a US debacle instead.


Prominently muslim nations can only be ruled by theocrats or brutal dictators. Its the only way third century thinking cultures can be somewhat governed.

There are a few examples of stable muslim majority nations out there that are not theocracies or dictatorships. Malaysia, Indonesia, Tunisia, Turkey, Bosnia. There are a few that are not democracies but someone liberal (Morocco, Algeria, Kuwait, the gulf States, Syria prior to the civil war, The major point of course is the separation of 'church' and state that needs to occur. Just like any of the abrahamic religions, once the religious leaders start to affect policy repression of all the wrong faiths becomes the easy answer for any problems. Remember it was not so long ago that the Troubles were quite violent in Northern Ireland and throughout Britain. The far right Israelis are as hateful and dangerous as any Islamists and were active zionist terrorists during the British occupation of Palestine. There are pro-life terrorists that kill or injure doctors and women that had abortions in order to save unborn babies in the name of God.

When society is dangerous people tend to revert to local tribal or micro-nationalist tendencies and become more extreme in the religion as they look to deities to save them in extreme plight. The middle east under the Ottomans was relatively stable and multi faith and ethnic until the 19th century when the rise of nationalism threatened it's cosmopolitan demeanor and it in turn became more repressive and religiously oppressive and conservative.


The people that care enough to do something.

The people who do something without caring.

Rory which part of the 208 page book on stability operations wasn't detailed enough for you?

Accusing everyone not doing something of not caring isn't fair. Not everyone is in a position to help and as they've point out all our recent efforts to help have had little to nothing to show for. If they don't think that they can do anything to help then it's quite normal for them to be able to care and do nothing.

The US has all sorts of manuals, pamphlets, and training guidance on Stability Operations and Counter Insurgency. None of them have exactly resulted in us having much success. We unfortunately are not good at all at that type of war. As a nation we are too closed minded and too short sighted to try and understand the problems of other nations in the world which is why our solutions of throwing money and brute force at problems seems to usually not work. MacArthur for all his flaws was good at treading that line in occupied Japan, Patton as well in Germany. Perhaps if Petraeus had been in charge of Centcom in 2001 we'd have done better than General Tommy Franks who had no plans for Afghanistan or Iraq that went beyond toppling the Taliban or Saddam Hussein.

[Gilrandir]

There are a few examples of stable muslim majority nations out there that are not theocracies or dictatorships. Malaysia, Indonesia, Tunisia, Turkey, Bosnia.


Some people here would question the inclusion of Turkey into the list of non-dictatorships.

Bosnia isn't the country where Muslims dominate. They account for about 50% of the population. Moreover Bosnia is divided along ethno-confessional lines, so that the three major ethno-confessional groups don't mix up each mostly minding their own affairs.

[Fragony]

Turkey isn't all that stable, not all Turks are very happy with the Erdo-Khan, he mostly draws from the lower classes. To Europeans it looks like he's very popular because most Turks here come from it. And many of them won't speak out because of the wolves

[spmetla]

I'm not a fan of Erdogan in the slightest, he probably will be a dictator but as of yet he's just working toward that. Sadly he's taking advantage of the weaknesses of democracy to make himself into a dictator but we can't deny that Turkey was a democracy for quite a while before him. Just as Hungary is a democracy despite the autocratic overtures of Orban.

As for stable it is relatively so. It's always teetered on the brink between anarchy and stability since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.


Bosnia isn't the country where Muslims dominate. They account for about 50% of the population. Moreover Bosnia is divided along ethno-confessional lines, so that the three major ethno-confessional groups don't mix up each mostly minding their own affairs.
Muslims are still the majority there with the Christians split between Catholic and Orthodox making the muslim Bosniaks the majority for most decision making. Given that they had a 10 year civil war between those groups it is a testament that peace can be re-established in similar countries. I know most of the former Yugoslavs I've talked to still have strong hate for their neighbors despite which the region is relatively stable and that's due to NATO, UN, and EU intervention and continued engagement and investment.
If NATO had just bombed Serbia and then never put forces in to secure Kosovo afterward it would likely still have low level albanian/kosovar-serbian violence at the para-military level if not with the involvement of the Serbian military.

[Gilrandir]

Muslims are still the majority there with the Christians split between Catholic and Orthodox making the muslim Bosniaks the majority for most decision making.

The majority is precarious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Ethnic_groups

I don't know much of the process of decision making in Bosnia, but it seems to me that the agreement of the three factions is neccessary which renders numerical dominance nonsignificant.

[Greyblades]

I blame post colonialism.