Org Mobile Site
Thread: Civil War in Libya
Maybe we should airdrop some food and medical supplies into the revelutionary controled areas, like what the chocolate bomber did in east germany during the cold war. We could easily get away with it by saying it's a humanitarian mission and gaddafi couldnt try to shoot down the planes in fear of ticking off the UN.
Why dont we just missplace some SAMs and instructors?
would level out the playing field, without the weapons ending up killing civilians in umpteen years.
would level out the playing field, without the weapons ending up killing civilians in umpteen years.
Originally Posted by Shibumi:
Why dont we just missplace some SAMs and instructors?
would level out the playing field, without the weapons ending up killing civilians in umpteen years.
That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!Why dont we just missplace some SAMs and instructors?
would level out the playing field, without the weapons ending up killing civilians in umpteen years.
I can't wait for an entire Libyan airbase, pilots, planes, crews and all to defect to the Oppostion. When that happens, Qaddafi will burn within the hour.
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
I'm concerned that Secretary Gates is not interested in setting up a no fly zone at this point. I wonder what his pre-requisites would be to warrant that action.
The ability to do it would be one.I'm concerned that Secretary Gates is not interested in setting up a no fly zone at this point. I wonder what his pre-requisites would be to warrant that action.
To set up a no-fly zone would first require that all anti-aircraft measures (command and control, radar etc) were taken out. That means bombing the ground. Gaddafi would have half these facilities re-located next to schools within a day, possibly already. I'm sure the Libyan rebels would be jumping with joy seeing the Western powers bombing children for them.
Even if we could take out the AA, there are still issues with the no-fly zone.
Libya is rather big, patrolling the airspace simply would take a whole lot of resources. And with the military stretched thin as it is, and the budgets looking as they do, I just do not see it happen anytime soon.
Libya is rather big, patrolling the airspace simply would take a whole lot of resources. And with the military stretched thin as it is, and the budgets looking as they do, I just do not see it happen anytime soon.
nvm
Getting involved with any side if Libya is not going to end well.
If the side wins we back they're a Western stooge. If it doesn't, the leaders now hate us.
Whoever wins is going to "take off the white gloves" at some point. And we in the oh so pure West like to pretend that war is a clean fight (of course we all turn a blind eye when we're involved). We won't be able to place a news blackout as we would if we were in charge. So, pictures of our "allies" doing probably a long list of "warcrimes" - or prior to the UN, standard acts of war.
We get involved then we'll get blamed for any humanitarian diaster that takes place. If the rules of engagement are only fire if fired upon, then await cries of massacares whilst our troops watched. If more... elexible then await our troops shot "innocents".
No-fly zone is a joke. A great idea for the UN to have a serious debate until all the shooting stops. It's sufficiently complicated to take months to sort out if required.
Let the African Union take the lead in this mess. We could possibly donate some stuff to them to help, but that should really be it.
If the side wins we back they're a Western stooge. If it doesn't, the leaders now hate us.
Whoever wins is going to "take off the white gloves" at some point. And we in the oh so pure West like to pretend that war is a clean fight (of course we all turn a blind eye when we're involved). We won't be able to place a news blackout as we would if we were in charge. So, pictures of our "allies" doing probably a long list of "warcrimes" - or prior to the UN, standard acts of war.
We get involved then we'll get blamed for any humanitarian diaster that takes place. If the rules of engagement are only fire if fired upon, then await cries of massacares whilst our troops watched. If more... elexible then await our troops shot "innocents".
No-fly zone is a joke. A great idea for the UN to have a serious debate until all the shooting stops. It's sufficiently complicated to take months to sort out if required.
Let the African Union take the lead in this mess. We could possibly donate some stuff to them to help, but that should really be it.
I love it how all the people who were gung-ho for the Afghan and Iraq invasions are now starting to come out with the same comments about Libya that the 'doves' were saying about Iraq and Afghanistan all those years ago. Glad that these 'hawks' have started to grow up a little.
In Iraq there was possibly a causus belli - which turned out to be utterly discredited. I doubt there would have been so many Hawks who'd've gone in for basically nothing.
The complete lack of a reconstruction plan was something that most Hawks would have also viewed as essential, merely out of pragmatism.
Afghanistan was another theatre where mission creep has become endemic. Was the initial plan to turn Afghanistan into Denmark, or cull those who harbour an enemy of America?
There is also the fact that neither of these situations has been resolved, so even hawks might think twice about a third concurrent conflict.
The complete lack of a reconstruction plan was something that most Hawks would have also viewed as essential, merely out of pragmatism.
Afghanistan was another theatre where mission creep has become endemic. Was the initial plan to turn Afghanistan into Denmark, or cull those who harbour an enemy of America?
There is also the fact that neither of these situations has been resolved, so even hawks might think twice about a third concurrent conflict.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
In Iraq there was possibly a causus belli - which turned out to be utterly discredited. I doubt there would have been so many Hawks who'd've gone in for basically nothing.
I think we should be everywhere whenever even minor causes turn up. I thought that the WMDs were a distraction when I was urging us to back a war against a dictator. One at a time we should topple dictators. Befriend them when we must, then find a reason to undermine their authority and drag them out. Do it for reasons other than national security - not for treasure, not for anything other than targeting leaders who profit off of the misery of their own people.In Iraq there was possibly a causus belli - which turned out to be utterly discredited. I doubt there would have been so many Hawks who'd've gone in for basically nothing.
I think that we are a police force internationally and that this reality is discounted for no reason; I just wish that other nations would join us in policing the world. We are a stable country and all stable countries have an obligation to aid their unstable and oppressed neighbors.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
I love it how all the people who were gung-ho for the Afghan and Iraq invasions are now starting to come out with the same comments about Libya that the 'doves' were saying about Iraq and Afghanistan all those years ago. Glad that these 'hawks' have started to grow up a little.
Afghanistan was justified, and in my opinion established the correct Western doctrine regarding nations that actively host terrorist cells that launch international attacks - i.e., that they will share in the responsibility. Trying to establish a democracy there is debatable. We probably should have just installed a Western backed strongman and been done with it, but we are idealists at heart I suppose. I love it how all the people who were gung-ho for the Afghan and Iraq invasions are now starting to come out with the same comments about Libya that the 'doves' were saying about Iraq and Afghanistan all those years ago. Glad that these 'hawks' have started to grow up a little.
Iraq, to me, was a form of mutually beneficial imperialism. The US would have reasserted its preeminence in the world after 9/11, turned an enemy into an ally in a critical region of the world, and collected all the benefits that come with it (lucrative oil and trade contracts), while the Iraqis would be free of a dictator, enjoy the benefits (freedom and human rights) of a US supported representative democracy, and likely become the Germany, Japan, or South Korea of the Middle East. Obviously it didn't turn out that way and the thought process behind the invasion reflected a level of hubris that came out of the amazingly lopsided First Gulf War and the booming '90s. It has been a huge loss for the US, but also for the Iraqis who were too short sighted to see the gift they'd been given. Lesson learned.
Intervention in Libya doesn't even offer the pretext of a happy ending, and certainly not any substantive gain, and is fraught with dangers and unintended consequences.
The truth is that these people are not our brothers in arms. Most of them hate the Western world over real and perceived injustices only slightly less than they hate their own governments. I, for one, will never again rise in support of 'freeing' any Middle Eastern nation - they don't want it, and if they cannot do it themselves, they don't deserve it.
Originally Posted by Viking:
I am sure the Dutch are still uncomfortable with that fact that they did not bring the nazis out of the country on their own.
Nah, military-wise we have nothing to be ashamed about, we didn't exactly roll over, it's the holocaust that still stings. I am sure the Dutch are still uncomfortable with that fact that they did not bring the nazis out of the country on their own.
Rebels may ask for military support but I think we shouldn't meddle. Whatever happens, every dictator in the world is crapping it's pants from now on. Never be rude to an Arab geez
Originally Posted by :
Never be rude to an Arab geez
Jalaa! Never be rude to an Arab geez
Hospitality is sacred, rudeness is a capital offense. Or so they say
A heartening quote from today: "We want a civil state, pluralism, with freedom enshrined by law. Extremism was a reaction to oppression and the violence of the state. Give us freedom and see what happens." -- Shukri Abdel-Hamid
Originally Posted by Lemur:
A heartening quote from today: "Extremism was a reaction to oppression and the violence of the state. Give us freedom and see what happens." -- Shukri Abdel-Hamid
A heartening quote from today: "Extremism was a reaction to oppression and the violence of the state. Give us freedom and see what happens." -- Shukri Abdel-Hamid
Excellent quote. This forms the core of my international understanding. Freedoms solves so many problems that it is nuts not to pursue it endlessly, even outside of your own borders.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
I love it how all the people who were gung-ho for the Afghan and Iraq invasions are now starting to come out with the same comments about Libya that the 'doves' were saying about Iraq and Afghanistan all those years ago. Glad that these 'hawks' have started to grow up a little.
Here here... I hate to say it but this decribes me.I love it how all the people who were gung-ho for the Afghan and Iraq invasions are now starting to come out with the same comments about Libya that the 'doves' were saying about Iraq and Afghanistan all those years ago. Glad that these 'hawks' have started to grow up a little.
a) We have no business getting involved in another country's affairs
b) We have enough problems of our own. Instead of wasting money in Libya, how about we use the money for constructive purposes at home?
Originally Posted by Ice:
Here here... I hate to say it but this decribes me.
a) We have no business getting involved in another country's affairs
b) We have enough problems of our own. Instead of wasting money in Libya, how about we use the money for constructive purposes at home?
Why not? What really should make the state so special that we cannot interfere when they massacre their own people?Here here... I hate to say it but this decribes me.
a) We have no business getting involved in another country's affairs
b) We have enough problems of our own. Instead of wasting money in Libya, how about we use the money for constructive purposes at home?
Yes, the US has problems but compared to the problems that the Libyans have, it seems pretty inconsequential. It's like refusing to feed a starving man outside because your iPod is having issues.
And while I think we should at least initially tread lightly in getting involved, if the rebels are ever on the ropes, we really should go in and rescue them and then let them deal with Gaddaffi in whatever means they please. Otherwise, it seems that the lesson for current dictators is that they should oppress their people harshly because they win if they do. Compared to some other dictators, Ben Ali and Mubarak weren't that bad. Gaddaffi on the other hand has massacred some of his own people and to see him get away with that seems like it would set a bad precedent.
Dramatic footage from Zawiya. It was reportedly finally retaken this morning but now the situation still seems contested.
Also, the CSM draws an interesting comparison with Iraq in '91.
Also, the CSM draws an interesting comparison with Iraq in '91.
Originally Posted by :
With cool confidence, a Libyan expatriate arrives at this remote border with a small fortune in donations and imminent regime change on his mind.
From the outside, it looks easy: He predicts that Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi has perhaps 10 days before the people-power Arab revolt sweeps him away as it already has the authoritarian leaders of Tunisia and Egypt.
“Every time someone dies, [the opposition] gets stronger,” says the Libyan with a North American accent, who could not be named. “Qaddafi is going to have to kill everybody. If that’s the price of freedom, I guess we are willing to pay it.”
But rather than the euphoric victories in Tunisia and Egypt, Libya's conflict now evokes another uprising: Iraqis' 1991 bid to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It, too, began with hope but ended in despair as the dictator brutally suppressed antigovernment rebels and ruled for another 12 years.
Finally, Al Jazeera suggests the rebels are so ignorant of the weapon systems they're using that they are injuring themselves.With cool confidence, a Libyan expatriate arrives at this remote border with a small fortune in donations and imminent regime change on his mind.
From the outside, it looks easy: He predicts that Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi has perhaps 10 days before the people-power Arab revolt sweeps him away as it already has the authoritarian leaders of Tunisia and Egypt.
“Every time someone dies, [the opposition] gets stronger,” says the Libyan with a North American accent, who could not be named. “Qaddafi is going to have to kill everybody. If that’s the price of freedom, I guess we are willing to pay it.”
But rather than the euphoric victories in Tunisia and Egypt, Libya's conflict now evokes another uprising: Iraqis' 1991 bid to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It, too, began with hope but ended in despair as the dictator brutally suppressed antigovernment rebels and ruled for another 12 years.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Finally, Al Jazeera suggests the rebels are so ignorant of the weapon systems they're using that they are injuring themselves.
Just an elucidation. There is a significant number of regular troops amongst the rebels, though due to the nature of the revolution, they is a huge number of volunteers that have no or little military training.Finally, Al Jazeera suggests the rebels are so ignorant of the weapon systems they're using that they are injuring themselves.
Originally Posted by Noncommunist:
Why not? What really should make the state so special that we cannot interfere when they massacre their own people?
Yes, the US has problems but compared to the problems that the Libyans have, it seems pretty inconsequential. It's like refusing to feed a starving man outside because your iPod is having issues.
And while I think we should at least initially tread lightly in getting involved, if the rebels are ever on the ropes, we really should go in and rescue them and then let them deal with Gaddaffi in whatever means they please. Otherwise, it seems that the lesson for current dictators is that they should oppress their people harshly because they win if they do. Compared to some other dictators, Ben Ali and Mubarak weren't that bad. Gaddaffi on the other hand has massacred some of his own people and to see him get away with that seems like it would set a bad precedent.
Well, the thing is that we're not dealing with peaceful protesters and demonstrations, this is an armed rebellion and any state in the world would have responded the same way. It's not all black and white here...Why not? What really should make the state so special that we cannot interfere when they massacre their own people?
Yes, the US has problems but compared to the problems that the Libyans have, it seems pretty inconsequential. It's like refusing to feed a starving man outside because your iPod is having issues.
And while I think we should at least initially tread lightly in getting involved, if the rebels are ever on the ropes, we really should go in and rescue them and then let them deal with Gaddaffi in whatever means they please. Otherwise, it seems that the lesson for current dictators is that they should oppress their people harshly because they win if they do. Compared to some other dictators, Ben Ali and Mubarak weren't that bad. Gaddaffi on the other hand has massacred some of his own people and to see him get away with that seems like it would set a bad precedent.
It's an armed rebellion against a dictator. The rebels are the civillians of the country. We are not taking part in a regular civil war, but in a fight between the people and a dictator and his friends.
You wouldn't see a similar uprising in the West, because the democratic system is respected - and because a lot of people will actually have voted for the people in charge.
You wouldn't see a similar uprising in the West, because the democratic system is respected - and because a lot of people will actually have voted for the people in charge.
Even that it is a minority of peple who voted for the leader, and the leaders never step down even when they're approval is in the 20s.
The leaders int he west often have pretty threadbare legitimacy and never go to the polls when dissatisfaction is high.
The leaders int he west often have pretty threadbare legitimacy and never go to the polls when dissatisfaction is high.
I have yet to see an example, any country and any time in history, of an armed rebel being considered civilian.
We may not like Gaddaffi, but let's not distort the facts because of that, shall we...
We may not like Gaddaffi, but let's not distort the facts because of that, shall we...
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
I have yet to see an example, any country and any time in history, of an armed rebel being considered civilian.
We may not like Gaddaffi, but let's not distort the facts because of that, shall we...
That's when the civillians take up arms you know - unlike armed guerrilla groups pouring out from the forests. It seems impossible at times to make a distinction between civilian and rebel in this conflict, they are roughly the same . That's a good hint. Civilans all over the country take up arms, with one goal: to topple the regime. Let us see which conflict you'd liken this one to.I have yet to see an example, any country and any time in history, of an armed rebel being considered civilian.
We may not like Gaddaffi, but let's not distort the facts because of that, shall we...
Well, in that case, any people, not officially belonging to an army, who ever took up arms against anything are just civilians. One could say that terrorists are just civilians who took up arms to fight against, what they perceive to be, an oppressive regime.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Well, in that case, any people, not officially belonging to an army, who ever took up arms against anything are just civilians. One could say that terrorists are just civilians who took up arms to fight against, what they perceive to be, an oppressive regime.
The difference is of course in the outcome. The American Patriots in the Revolution would have been described in the same dismissive terms if they'd lost to the British as history is written by the victors: the American Civil War doesn't like to focus unduly that the Southern States were merely trying to be left alone until were invaded by the North.Well, in that case, any people, not officially belonging to an army, who ever took up arms against anything are just civilians. One could say that terrorists are just civilians who took up arms to fight against, what they perceive to be, an oppressive regime.
"Officially" - what is that? Whose officials? If you refuse to recognise the other side every soldier is then by definition merely a civilian wearing a funny suit and carrying a gun.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Well, in that case, any people, not officially belonging to an army, who ever took up arms against anything are just civilians. One could say that terrorists are just civilians who took up arms to fight against, what they perceive to be, an oppressive regime.
No. The difference is that the civilians did not arm themselves prior to the uprising, they armed themselves later on. Guerrilla groups are more secluded from the rest of the population, and typical receive training and plan their operations. Of course, civilians arming themselves are on their way to become something else; but the circumstances are important.Well, in that case, any people, not officially belonging to an army, who ever took up arms against anything are just civilians. One could say that terrorists are just civilians who took up arms to fight against, what they perceive to be, an oppressive regime.
According to your logic, in case I found a firearm on the street and shot someone with it; with no prior planning what so ever, I'd no longer be a civilian.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
The difference is of course in the outcome. The American Patriots in the Revolution would have been described in the same dismissive terms if they'd lost to the British as history is written by the victors: the American Civil War doesn't like to focus unduly that the Southern States were merely trying to be left alone until were invaded by the North.
Exactly, and I'd like principles more than I dislike Gaddafi.The difference is of course in the outcome. The American Patriots in the Revolution would have been described in the same dismissive terms if they'd lost to the British as history is written by the victors: the American Civil War doesn't like to focus unduly that the Southern States were merely trying to be left alone until were invaded by the North.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
"Officially" - what is that? Whose officials? If you refuse to recognise the other side every soldier is then by definition merely a civilian wearing a funny suit and carrying a gun.
Officially as in they're a part of an organization sanctioned by the state, with a clear chain of command... ie. national army.
"Officially" - what is that? Whose officials? If you refuse to recognise the other side every soldier is then by definition merely a civilian wearing a funny suit and carrying a gun.
Officially as in they're a part of an organization sanctioned by the state, with a clear chain of command... ie. national army.
Originally Posted by Viking:
No. The difference is that the civilians did not arm themselves prior to the uprising, they armed themselves later on. Guerrilla groups are more secluded from the rest of the population, and typical receive training and plan their operations. Of course, civilians arming themselves are on their way to become something else; but the circumstances are important.
According to your logic, in case I found a firearm on the street and shot someone with it; with no prior planning what so ever, I'd no longer be a civilian.
No, but if you used it to kill other people with the intent of overthrowing the government, you're no longer a civilian but a rebel. It doesn't really matter if you armed yourself yesterday or three weeks ago. That doesn't mean that rebels are bad guys necessarily, mind you, but they are no longer civilians and can't be treated as such.No. The difference is that the civilians did not arm themselves prior to the uprising, they armed themselves later on. Guerrilla groups are more secluded from the rest of the population, and typical receive training and plan their operations. Of course, civilians arming themselves are on their way to become something else; but the circumstances are important.
According to your logic, in case I found a firearm on the street and shot someone with it; with no prior planning what so ever, I'd no longer be a civilian.
They are indeed rebels. They are not ordinary civilians at this point, but who in Libya is at present? Where are the civilians?
It is a civilian uprising because prior to its initiation; the rebel fighters, apart from defecting military units, were civilians. Not armed militias, not guerilla fighters but civilians. Many of the people at the front might just have picked their weapon the day before.
Planning does matter. If some drunk guy asssaults an army base with the intent of overthrowing the government, that does not make him a rebel. No more is someone who, in a moment of poor judgement, assaults an army base spontaneously with the same intent (provided that the person has otherwise no history of rebellion). It's an isolated incident - we need work towards the same goal before the person is truly a rebel.
Choosing to ignore the circumstances is not going to produce accurate assessments.
It is a civilian uprising because prior to its initiation; the rebel fighters, apart from defecting military units, were civilians. Not armed militias, not guerilla fighters but civilians. Many of the people at the front might just have picked their weapon the day before.
Planning does matter. If some drunk guy asssaults an army base with the intent of overthrowing the government, that does not make him a rebel. No more is someone who, in a moment of poor judgement, assaults an army base spontaneously with the same intent (provided that the person has otherwise no history of rebellion). It's an isolated incident - we need work towards the same goal before the person is truly a rebel.
Choosing to ignore the circumstances is not going to produce accurate assessments.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Choosing to ignore the circumstances is not going to produce accurate assessments.
That goes both ways. He is very correct. No government would tolerate this. The West surely didn't in Iraq and isn't in Afghanistan.Choosing to ignore the circumstances is not going to produce accurate assessments.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO