Civil War in Libya

[Husar]

As usual, one person's rebel is another person's freedom fighter.

In this case I support whoever is against Gaddafi as long as they're not as crazy or crazier than him.

Of course one guy's crazy may be another guy's prophet, but then my opinion is obviously based on my own perception of the world.

[PanzerJaeger]

US sees 'stalemate' in Libya.

The U.S. believes Col. Moammar Gadhafi has solidified control in parts of Libya, creating a stalemate with rebels and raising the stakes in the Obama administration's internal debate about whether to take military action to help the opposition, officials said.

Pro-regime forces pressed into the rebel-held city of Zawiya, near the capital, and appeared to have halted the opposition's momentum to the east in fighting Tuesday.

With the struggle appearing to settle into a standoff, the Obama administration, working with allies, looked into options for intervention, while the European Union prepared to announce broader sanctions on the Libyan government, including an asset freeze.

Rebels in their base in the eastern city of Benghazi, after first suggesting they had made an amnesty offer to the Libyan leader, denied any back-channel negotiations were under way.

After days of attacks and counterattacks, the opposing forces appeared to dig in east of the capital Tuesday, with rebels clinging to the oil-refinery town of Ras Lanuf and Mr. Gadhafi's forces solidifying their hold on the small town of Bin Jawad just to the west.

Rebels have taken heavy losses in their repeated attempts to take Bin Jawad. On Tuesday, Libyan state television broadcast images of dozens of bound men lying face down on the ground. It claimed they were captured rebel fighters.

Libyan government forces appear more cohesive and have been able to regroup, a senior U.S. official said.

[Viking]

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.

The problem is that you already have ignored the context when you produce that statement.

Firstly: what the Libyan gov is doing here is trying to to retake the cities with minimal concern to the loss of innocent life. I cannot see the average western gov bombing a city to the ground because it rebels. It would be considered an unacceptable solution.

Secondy: what is the "this" that you talk about? It is armed resistance against a dictatorship. The nations that make up the West are not dictatorships, thus the analogy falls short. The govs would not just want to protect their own skin, but also the system (more or less..). Not to mention that nationwide rebellion would be absurd in the Western nations as of present. Regional unrest, on the other hand, happens in some countries.

[drone]

George Will lists a pretty good set of questions that need to be asked before intervention. My favs:

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

[PanzerJaeger]

Firstly: what the Libyan gov is doing here is trying to to retake the cities with minimal concern to the loss of innocent life. I cannot see the average western gov bombing a city to the ground because it rebels. It would be considered an unacceptable solution.

We have, and we would again if it was deemed necessary.

Secondy: what is the "this" that you talk about? It is armed resistance against a dictatorship. The nations that make up the West are not dictatorships, thus the analogy falls short. The govs would not just want to protect their own skin, but also the system (more or less..). Not to mention that nationwide rebellion would be absurd in the Western nations as of present. Regional unrest, on the other hand, happens in some countries.

Yet this is looking more and more like regional unrest instead of a popular front - a historically rebellious region using the broader situation to break away. You're assuming that the vast majority of Libyans want Gadaffi gone because you would want him gone. I have yet to see any polls on the subject. Western conceptions of government and power do not necessarily translate to that region.

[Prince Cobra]

"Then it's a revolt?"

"No, sire, it's a revolution"

I think we can safely assume that what is happening in Libya is a revolution. It is true the movement only part of the country but by my calculation it is the most populated part of the country. Az Zawiyah is 300 000, Benghazi is 600 000, Misrata is 500 000, Tripoli is more than 1 000 000 (the loyalty of those living in the capital is highly disputable; the last thing I read was that Gaddafi situated snipers on the roofs in Tripoli). That's about half of the population of the country and have in mind that these are only the biggest cities.

[Viking]

We have, and we would again if it was deemed necessary.

First of all, it is not an American city with American citizens. In an ideal world, it wouldn't make any difference - but in the real world, it does. Furthermore, does minimal concern for civilian life describe the actions of the military there? And if every major Iraqi city was like that of Fallujah, would the same methods still be used?

Last, but importantly, the insurgents in Fallujah were not average citizens who had taken up arms - they had received combat training and were a part of whatever group - as far as I can see.

EDIT: The sum of the two paragraphs above reads: what if all the major cities in Iraq, apart from the capital, had fallen under the control of a mixture civilians, who started the uprising, and defecting military units. What to do then? All in all, I think comparing Libya to Iraq is not particularly helpful as the insurgency there is to some/a large extent based upon structures that existed prior to the American invasion, in one way or the other.

Yet this is looking more and more like regional unrest instead of a popular front - a historically rebellious region using the broader situation to break away. You're assuming that the vast majority of Libyans want Gadaffi gone because you would want him gone. I have yet to see any polls on the subject. Western conceptions of government and power do not necessarily translate to that region.

I base it upon the images that I see from the country. Initially, there were large protests in the capital, but many of the protesters were killed and so the protests has largely ceased as they seemed futile at this point. Two of the largest cities in the whole country, Zawiyah and Misrata, are/were under rebel control because the pepole rebelled, and these cities are located in the western part of the country.

[Sarmatian]

First of all, it is not an American city with American citizens.

http://www.brotherswar.com/Fredericksburg-1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Massacre

I'm sure someone more familiar with ACW could give you even more examples...

[Viking]

Things have changed a bit in the West and in the US since the 18th 19th century. Regardless, the ACW is also of a different breed than the conflict in Libya.

[Sarmatian]

It's the second half of the 19th century actually and I don't see how the breed is so different.

...and I still maintain that no country in the world would tolerate an armed and violent uprising, even in the 21st century.

[Ice]

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.

Why are we the world's police men? If something needs done, let NATO as a whole do it, or the UN. China wants to be treated a world player... let them send in their military to deal with it. Why is it always us? What exactly do I gain from helping rebels in a country on the other side of the world? I'll be Frank; I don't care about Libya. I'd rather spend money here on education, roads, health care, high speed rail, etc rather than helping some "freedom figthers" that I know little about, in a conflict that isn't any of my business. When we meddle in the affairs of others, history has shown it tends to cost us a lot of money, lives, and ends up making us enemies we don't need.

Edit: By the way, this country has greater worries than your I POD comparison. That's a straw man if I've ever seen one.

[Viking]

It's the second half of the 19th century actually and I don't see how the breed is so different.

Erm, it's different because it is the people against ruling minority elite.

...and I still maintain that no country in the world would tolerate an armed and violent uprising, even in the 21st century.

I have never contested that, the question is what the response would be like. Not to mention that such an uprising does not make much sense in the western world at present - which is much of the point anyway...you cannot have the overthrow of a king in a republic, you cannot have gender equality in a country with only one gender etc..

[HoreTore]

It's the second half of the 19th century actually and I don't see how the breed is so different.

...and I still maintain that no country in the world would tolerate an armed and violent uprising, even in the 21st century.

No, nobody would tolerate it.

But neither would any Western nation terror bomb the civilian populstion of that city. Sorry, not going to happen, not until we devolve into fascism.

[PanzerJaeger]

Libyan rebels are losing patience with the United States.

Libyans battling Moammar Gadhafi are losing patience with the United States and its allies, saying they are missing a key opportunity to topple a dictator and win the gratitude of a new democracy in the Middle East.

Are they serious? A week ago they told the world they needed no help, and now the United States is expected to intervene? As far as I'm concerned the rebels can save their attempts at emotional blackmail and public shaming. Good luck and good riddance.

Also, as an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, I must admit that I've been impressed by his ability to avoid the trap so many other presidents have fallen in to.

[Noncommunist]

Why are we the world's police men? If something needs done, let NATO as a whole do it, or the UN. China wants to be treated a world player... let them send in their military to deal with it. Why is it always us? What exactly do I gain from helping rebels in a country on the other side of the world? I'll be Frank; I don't care about Libya. I'd rather spend money here on education, roads, health care, high speed rail, etc rather than helping some "freedom figthers" that I know little about, in a conflict that isn't any of my business. When we meddle in the affairs of others, history has shown it tends to cost us a lot of money, lives, and ends up making us enemies we don't need.

Edit: By the way, this country has greater worries than your I POD comparison. That's a straw man if I've ever seen one.

We are the most powerful nation in the world. If we don't act as the world's policeman, no one else will. European nations have fairly small militaries, and the nations with powerful militaries are either dealing with other issues or are semi or fully autocratic. After all, why should we expect China, an autocratic government dealing with protests itself to then back people who are violently attempting to overthrow oppression? And the last time Russia tried to deal with a "genocide", it was the Georgians who killed a few hundred civilians while trying to reclaim a separatist region.

Yes, it will cost some money, probably some blood, and perhaps might generate some enemies, there is a cost if we don't. The blood of Libyans who are fighting for freedom will most likely be shed in greater numbers. And more nations around the globe will be much more encouraged to put down protests with force if Gadaffi could do it and get away with it. And, by inaction, we can generate enemies who knew that we had the power to help them but chose not to.

Obviously, we Americans do have greater worries than a broken iPod but in comparison with the Libyans who've been oppressed pretty much for their entire existence with few political rights, we are very well off in America.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We are the most powerful nation in the world. If we don't act as the world's policeman, no one else will. European nations have fairly small militaries, and the nations with powerful militaries are either dealing with other issues or are semi or fully autocratic. After all, why should we expect China, an autocratic government dealing with protests itself to then back people who are violently attempting to overthrow oppression? And the last time Russia tried to deal with a "genocide", it was the Georgians who killed a few hundred civilians while trying to reclaim a separatist region.

Yes, it will cost some money, probably some blood, and perhaps might generate some enemies, there is a cost if we don't. The blood of Libyans who are fighting for freedom will most likely be shed in greater numbers. And more nations around the globe will be much more encouraged to put down protests with force if Gadaffi could do it and get away with it. And, by inaction, we can generate enemies who knew that we had the power to help them but chose not to.

Obviously, we Americans do have greater worries than a broken iPod but in comparison with the Libyans who've been oppressed pretty much for their entire existence with few political rights, we are very well off in America.

Agreed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm dissapointed with Obama so far. I was hoping that he would be a police action president like Clinton. I think that the United States has an interest in going in to every nation that brutalizes its people.

[Populus Romanus]

I do not see why we have to send in official military forces at all to end this madness. Just send in a single sniper team of two people, shoot Qaddafi, and end the civil war immediately. Or almost immediately. This is the best way by far.

[Strike For The South]

I do not see why we have to send in official military forces at all to end this madness. Just send in a single sniper team of two people, shoot Qaddafi, and end the civil war immediately. Or almost immediately. This is the best way by far.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPIN THE WHEEL AGAIN SIR

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't understand why we can't offer multi-million dollar reward for a captured Gaddafi - Dead or Alive.

[Populus Romanus]

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPIN THE WHEEL AGAIN SIR

Huh?

[ICantSpellDawg]

"This is a pretty easy problem, for crying out loud"

[PanzerJaeger]

I do not see why we have to send in official military forces at all to end this madness. Just send in a single sniper team of two people, shoot Qaddafi, and end the civil war immediately. Or almost immediately. This is the best way by far.

I don't understand why we can't offer multi-million dollar reward for a captured Gaddafi - Dead or Alive.

What a precedent to set - straight out of Assad's playbook.

I don't understand the breathless rush to personalize this conflict and make it our own. We are not at war with the Gadaffi regime, and the man is not our enemy. It would be amazing if the loudest voices in the West in favor of intervention in Libya could focus some of that energy on Afghanistan - you know, that conflict in a small, third world nation where the fate of freedom loving people hangs in the balance that we actually have a stake in.

"This is a pretty easy problem, for crying out loud"

Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, told me that he tends to favor a no-fly zone — along with the jamming of communications — as soon as is practical. “The last thing you want is a 20-year debate on who lost this moment for the Libyan people,” Mr. Kerry noted.

Un-freaking-believable. Now it's our responsibility to win this moment for the Libyan people?

This is exactly the same trap Bush fell in to. Iraq II was in many ways the direct result of a 10-year debate on who lost that moment for the Iraqi people. We somehow owed them freedom too, and they surely thanked us for the favor.

Also, the cowboy in your article is engaging in some highly misleading commentary.

And, in any case, he noted that the United States operated a no-fly zone over Iraq for more than a decade without systematically eradicating all Iraqi air defense systems in that time.

...and they were engaged almost daily by Iraqi anti-air forces and were forced to return the favor, destroying thousands of Iraqi anti-air assets. It would be nearly impossible to eradicate all air defense systems in any nation, but that does not mean that significant bombing or such installations is not a precondition for such an operation.

[Ice]

We are the most powerful nation in the world. If we don't act as the world's policeman, no one else will. European nations have fairly small militaries, and the nations with powerful militaries are either dealing with other issues or are semi or fully autocratic. After all, why should we expect China, an autocratic government dealing with protests itself to then back people who are violently attempting to overthrow oppression? And the last time Russia tried to deal with a "genocide", it was the Georgians who killed a few hundred civilians while trying to reclaim a separatist region.

Yes, it will cost some money, probably some blood, and perhaps might generate some enemies, there is a cost if we don't. The blood of Libyans who are fighting for freedom will most likely be shed in greater numbers. And more nations around the globe will be much more encouraged to put down protests with force if Gadaffi could do it and get away with it. And, by inaction, we can generate enemies who knew that we had the power to help them but chose not to.

Obviously, we Americans do have greater worries than a broken iPod but in comparison with the Libyans who've been oppressed pretty much for their entire existence with few political rights, we are very well off in America.

First let me start off by saying this is utter nonsense. What kind of fictional, fairy tale world do you live in? I mean, I honestly should have guessed this from your name "noncommunist". Noncommunist? Communism hasn't been a threat for decades, but it guess it easier to see the world in black and white.

You seem to envision the United States selflessly crusading around the world, without real allies, spreading hope and "freedom" to millions. You are so naive as this government only cares about itself. Very rarely when we do something it is out of the goodness of hearts. Why exactly do you think we did jack **** in Sudan when they were committing genocide? It gets even worse when you talk about doing it without allies. Haven't you learned anything from Iraq? Going in gungho without help is a BAD IDEA. Why don't you volunteer and go fight with the rebels if you want to help. I really am sick wasting money and American lives in third world ****holes where the locals end up hating us, and we install a government that was just as corrupt as the last.

Finally, I could maybe get on the board if this country was prosperous and we had a balanced budget. Your IPOD comment shows me you are clueless about our current situation. How about we forget the IPOD and talk about basic infastructure, education, our budget, and health care. Many of the roads and bridges in this country are in dire need of repair and are outright dangerous. Our schools, for a developed country, are atrocious. Many kids cannot afford a decent college education, and end up settling for a lesser school, or climbing deep in debt. I could go on and on, but I think you are get the point I'm trying to make.

Libya is none our business. Repeat, none of our business. Let the Libyans deal with Libyan problems, and let Americans deal with American problems. When kids in the city of Detroit can actually get a decent education, when the single mom can provide food and heating for her kids, and when this country is not paying billions in interest a year in servicing a ballooning debt, then we can think about Libya.

[Banquo's Ghost]

What a precedent to set - straight out of Assad's playbook.

I don't understand the breathless rush to personalize this conflict and make it our own. We are not at war with the Gadaffi regime, and the man is not our enemy. It would be amazing if the loudest voices in the West in favor of intervention in Libya could focus some of that energy on Afghanistan - you know, that conflict in a small, third world nation where the fate of freedom loving people hangs in the balance that we actually have a stake in.






Un-freaking-believable. Now it's our responsibility to win this moment for the Libyan people?

This is exactly the same trap Bush fell in to. Iraq II was in many ways the direct result of a 10-year debate on who lost that moment for the Iraqi people. We somehow owed them freedom too, and they surely thanked us for the favor.

Also, the cowboy in your article is engaging in some highly misleading commentary.



...and they were engaged almost daily by Iraqi anti-air forces and were forced to return the favor, destroying thousands of Iraqi anti-air assets. It would be nearly impossible to eradicate all air defense systems in any nation, but that does not mean that significant bombing or such installations is not a precondition for such an operation.

I think that any thread where PJ and I are in complete agreement should be considered both won and over.

[Idaho]

My guess is that the western powers have no intention of getting on the ground in Libya, but they may try to tie up Gaddaffi forces by appearing that they might. Expect to see US, French and UK warships coming closer to Tripoli as well as the odd fly by from jets.

It was always going to come down to a proper fight - and unfortunately for the Libyans, they have no choice but to learn how to run a makeshift army. Good luck to them. If I was a young man, and an arab speaker, I think I would go and sign up.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@PJ: to be fair the general cowboy you speak of proposes not a full no fly zone, but a no fly zone over rebel held territory (so that Gadaffi can't bomb them).

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that any thread where PJ and I are in complete agreement should be considered both won and over.

Except that we will begin air to ground strikes against Libya WITH the backing of the French government within the next 48 hours, my guess. No-Fly zone should start within that time frame as well. France is on-board, game is go.

America has been the world's policeman, now we have a partner. Congratulations, France. I was hoping for a distinctly European movement on this crisis. We should back them up to the best of our ability.

This is a human conflict and is a common struggle. Brutality against humans anywhere is brutality against humans everywhere. At this point in time, brutality is over there, defensive capabilities are over here and it is our responsibility to level the playing field. They, in turn, have a responsibility to create a government that respects human rights and guards against threats to those rights. We ("western" powers) ought to assist freedom seeking people around the world while we have this amazing gift of hegemony in military capability. The time is fast approaching when that lead will shrink to the point of non-existance, and then we will have to go toe to toe with authoritarian regimes. We had better make sure that Libyans, Tunisians, Egyptians, offer their support to the side of Freedom rather than oppression. The existing "realist" status quo does nothing to solidify the future of Freedom, merely the economic quagmire that will lead to our values being crushed by a rising autocratic world long term.

[Lemur]

Fareed Zakaria, as usual, is very smart:

Over the past five decades, the U.S. has had very mixed results when it has intervened, by air or land, in other people's wars. But it has done pretty well when it has helped one side of the struggle. Arming rebels in Afghanistan, Central America and Africa has proved to be a relatively low-cost policy with high rates of success. Giving arms, food, logistical help, intelligence and other such tools to the Libyan opposition would boost its strength and give it staying power.

Once Gaddafi realizes that he is up against an endless supply of arms and ammunition, he will surely recalibrate his decisions. There have been reports that he floated the idea of leaving office as long as he is guaranteed safe passage. At a weak moment, he made a plea that he be treated like Britain's Queen or the King of Thailand, a figurehead with no powers.

Some worry that if we arm the rebels, things might turn out the way they did in Afghanistan, where the freedom fighters became Islamic jihadists and turned their sights on us. But that's not really what happened. After the Soviet defeat, the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan, leaving it open to Islamic jihadists backed by the Pakistani military. The better analogy is to Chechnya, where as the civil war continued, the rebels became more radical and Islamic fundamentalists jumped into the fight and soon became its leaders. The best way to prevent al-Qaeda from turning Libya into an area of strength would be to have the fighting end — with Gaddafi's defeat. So let's help the Libyan opposition do it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Fareed Zakaria, as usual, is very smart:

Over the past five decades, the U.S. has had very mixed results when it has intervened, by air or land, in other people's wars. But it has done pretty well when it has helped one side of the struggle. Arming rebels in Afghanistan, Central America and Africa has proved to be a relatively low-cost policy with high rates of success. Giving arms, food, logistical help, intelligence and other such tools to the Libyan opposition would boost its strength and give it staying power.

Once Gaddafi realizes that he is up against an endless supply of arms and ammunition, he will surely recalibrate his decisions. There have been reports that he floated the idea of leaving office as long as he is guaranteed safe passage. At a weak moment, he made a plea that he be treated like Britain's Queen or the King of Thailand, a figurehead with no powers.

Some worry that if we arm the rebels, things might turn out the way they did in Afghanistan, where the freedom fighters became Islamic jihadists and turned their sights on us. But that's not really what happened. After the Soviet defeat, the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan, leaving it open to Islamic jihadists backed by the Pakistani military. The better analogy is to Chechnya, where as the civil war continued, the rebels became more radical and Islamic fundamentalists jumped into the fight and soon became its leaders. The best way to prevent al-Qaeda from turning Libya into an area of strength would be to have the fighting end — with Gaddafi's defeat. So let's help the Libyan opposition do it.

Thanks for that, Lemur.