Civil War in Libya

[Banquo's Ghost]

We are their democratic tradition. People pretend that other people from other cultures are from another planet. Our tradition is theirs and theirs is ours. We will see what will happen, but any nation not jumping into the information revolution will be at a debilitating disadvantage in the developing global economy. People are starting to get this fact all over the world. Many arab kids who use the internet have more in common with American kids who use the internet than either of them do with their own parents. Adults don't seem to understand the world in the ways that the youth do. Years ago it was in reverse, but now while the adults have increased their understanding in a linear way, youth has recieved exponential benefits.

Most people want the same things.

I'm fascinated by the assertion that "we are their democratic tradition". Could you expand on the thesis?

Whereas there are some common threads in Western democracies, each is a product of the individual country's history and culture. Even quite closely related cultures such as the UK and the USA have significantly different democracies and traditions.

The internet is merely a form of communication - it does not surmount cultural biases (any review of the Backroom demonstrates that). I would also note that Western democracies are in a state of (perhaps terminal) decline in the face of corporate power expressed through narrowing oligarchies. None of this is a model - in my opinion - for emerging popular movements in nations which have, for too long, been reliant on autocratic central powers rather than the citizenry and its expressed will.

LEN is entirely right - we have no right to attempt an "export" of our flawed version of democracy to cultures that have entirely different histories and economic conditions. That will not stop the Western powers trying to influence and meddle, because we have too much of our own economies tied up in the region (not to mention the thorny problems of Israel's security and how we view any "will of the people" that installs an Islamic theocracy).

[Goofball]

I'm fascinated by the assertion that "we are their democratic tradition". Could you expand on the thesis?

Whereas there are some common threads in Western democracies, each is a product of the individual country's history and culture. Even quite closely related cultures such as the UK and the USA have significantly different democracies and traditions.

The internet is merely a form of communication - it does not surmount cultural biases (any review of the Backroom demonstrates that). I would also note that Western democracies are in a state of (perhaps terminal) decline in the face of corporate power expressed through narrowing oligarchies. None of this is a model - in my opinion - for emerging popular movements in nations which have, for too long, been reliant on autocratic central powers rather than the citizenry and its expressed will.

LEN is entirely right - we have no right to attempt an "export" of our flawed version of democracy to cultures that have entirely different histories and economic conditions. That will not stop the Western powers trying to influence and meddle, because we have too much of our own economies tied up in the region (not to mention the thorny problems of Israel's security and how we view any "will of the people" that installs an Islamic theocracy).

Correct, we have no right to export our own political dogma. But don't you think that at some point we have an obligation to step in and prevent a madman from slaughtering civilians?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Correct, we have no right to export our own political dogma. But don't you think that at some point we have an obligation to step in and prevent a madman from slaughtering civilians?

But that is exporting our own political dogma.


Who are we to decide that there should not be an authoritarian leader who can use force to protect the interests of himself and his class? To interfere in this would be to spread demcracy and human rights as understood by the West.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also, nice crossover wuith the Charlie Sheen thread:

Charlie Sheen v Muammar Gaddafi: whose line is it anyway?

The US actor and the Libyan leader have produced some choice lines recently. Can you distinguish between them?



Quiztime!

Such awesomeness: 'I have defeated this earthworm with my words – imagine what I would have done with my fire-breathing fists'. But is it Gaddafi or Sheen?

[Lemur]

Charlie Sheen v Muammar Gaddafi: whose line is it anyway?

The US actor and the Libyan leader have produced some choice lines recently. Can you distinguish between them?

Quiztime!

There's now an improved version: Gadaffi, Sheen, or Glenn Beck?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Correct, we have no right to export our own political dogma. But don't you think that at some point we have an obligation to step in and prevent a madman from slaughtering civilians?

No, I don't - unless we consider it a principled obligation and apply it equally whenever there are significant breaches of human rights. Therefore, when we gear up to invade China to protect their civilians, we can add Libya to the list.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No, I don't - unless we consider it a principled obligation and apply it equally whenever there are significant breaches of human rights. Therefore, when we gear up to invade China to protect their civilians, we can add Libya to the list.

Well we can't invade China because we'll lose.

But it are practical considerations such as that that indeed mark the limit I would put on humanitarian intervention. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy as a matter of course. And we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable.
One can oust Gadaffi if the situation became desperate, although the better scenario is to leave it to market forces. He who, and that which, emerges victorious in Libya can subsequently reasonably be assumed to have a workable power base, for he wouldn't have won elsewise.



I blame Iraq for destroying the appetite for humanitarian intervention. And Kosovo. In the former a US administration hijacked and made a mockery of the wish to do good and to make sacrifices to spread democracy, sadly, right in America, the one country that is not completely cynical about these things. The latter was a case of aiding one evil against another. Not an unmitigated disaster, for both warring parties were separated, but still best to think about while holding one's nose.

[Ronin]

Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy defend out interests as a matter of course.

there...fixed it for you.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well we can't invade China because we'll lose.

Precisely. So inevitably, foreign interventions are not based on ethics but on practicality. To me, the practicality is no intervention at all.

But it are practical considerations such as that that indeed mark the limit I would put on humanitarian intervention. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy as a matter of course. And we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable.
One can oust Gadaffi if the situation became desperate, although the better scenario is to leave it to market forces. He who, and that which, emerges victorious in Libya can subsequently reasonably be assumed to have a workable power base, for he wouldn't have won elsewise.

One cannot assume anything of the sort - the "victor" may be nothing of the sort a few days or months later. Tunisian secret police are already rounding people up in that "liberated" country. You of all people will be aware of how revolutions can turn out. In the end, all may be well, but that is up to the people who suffer through the change, not any external agency whose suffering is always likely to be minimal in comparison.

But to go back to the first point - surely your argument is "we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable, subject to the caveat that the tyranny hasn't got big guns, nukes or pointed sticks, lords over a sufficiently small population that we can be absolutely sure won't turn on us next, isn't supplying us with gas/oil/dried fruit on favourable terms, isn't sub-Saharan Africa, isn't in possession of a topography with mountains, jungles or Bradford, and with the proviso that 'intolerable' is a moveable feast if the aforesaid tyrant spends his money in Harrods."

I blame Iraq for destroying the appetite for humanitarian intervention. And Kosovo. In the former a US administration hijacked and made a mockery of the wish to do good and to make sacrifices to spread democracy, sadly, right in America, the one country that is not completely cynical about these things. The latter was a case of aiding one evil against another. Not an unmitigated disaster, for both warring parties were separated, but still best to think about while holding one's nose.

Humanitarian intervention was a lie before either of those two disasters, but they do graphically illustrate why such measures invariably go horribly wrong, usually at the expense of a lot of local people who are volunteered for martyrdom in the names of our "principles" and invariably with political consequences in the country so liberated that no-one could foresee.

Perhaps you are a devotee of the "Rumsfeld Arrangement" - ie the population will be so grateful for our intervention they will immediately strew our path with rose petals and the world will be in harmony as one?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Precisely. So inevitably, foreign interventions are not based on ethics but on practicality. To me, the practicality is no intervention at all.

But to go back to the first point - surely your argument is "we violently overthrow tyranny wherever there is a reasonable alternative, or whenever a situation is intolerable, subject to the caveat that the tyranny hasn't got big guns, nukes or pointed sticks, lords over a sufficiently small population that we can be absolutely sure won't turn on us next, isn't supplying us with gas/oil/dried fruit on favourable terms, isn't sub-Saharan Africa, isn't in possession of a topography with mountains, jungles or Bradford, and with the proviso that 'intolerable' is a moveable feast if the aforesaid tyrant spends his money in Harrods."

Gah! Multiple quotes with multiple answers quickly become unreadable to third parties. Just to set an example and to satisfy my need to be insufferably smug at least once a day, I shall take your two quotes and reply to them with one single, uninterrupted answer, to show how it is done:

You give an excellent - so sad it becomes humorous - description of our humanitarian policy. However, I was not making a descriptive, but a normative statement. As far as I'm concerned, we spread democracy to an extent limited by practicalities. Practicalities dictate we must follow the politics of the possible. The politicies themselves, however, must be based on the politics of the impossible. Imagination must rule the world. The Anglo mind can satisfy itself by conducting foreign policy as if it were a commercial venture. Others have a higher vocation in the world, must strive to liberate the entire universe. They look at the mausoleum of their forefathers, and this leaves them no choice. Such are the traditions and responsibilities of the third estate.

Perhaps you are a devotee of the "Rumsfeld Arrangement" - ie the population will be so grateful for our intervention they will immediately strew our path with rose petals and the world will be in harmony as one?

As the careful observer will note, I immediately disregard that bit about not mulitple quoting others, thereby showing it was indeed just about me indulging my scandalously conceited nature. It can not be helped. On then, to actual answer:

The obvious reply to your cynicism is: you mean, as in August of 1944? There were indeed throngs of people offering rose petals, wine and women to the Free French forces which liberated France, and also for the Americans and British who accompanied them.

[PanzerJaeger]

Pro-Gaddafi forces appear to launch a probing attack and are met with inneffectual defenses.

As the Libyan leader vowed in a speech in Tripoli to "fight until the last man and woman", his forces advanced on rebel-held strongholds to the east for the first time since the civilian-led uprising started a fortnight ago. Fighter jets launched air strikes on the towns of Brega and Ajdabiya, giving support to ground forces as they pounded rebel positions with heavy artillery fire.

Facing the onslaught it has long feared, the rebel leadership in the second city of Benghazi, just 100 miles north of Ajdabiya, appealed for international military intervention for the first time. On sand dunes along the desert coast scores of untrained and poorly equipped volunteers loyal to the rebel cause struggled to hold at bay the vast superior forces ranged against them. Theirs seemed a hopeless cause. Yet, even as the blood of their fallen comrades stained the desert sand, the rebels held their line and, remarkably, even appeared to push Col Gaddafi's forces back.

The battle took its toll; an open-top lorry darted forward amid falling shells to cart the dead back. Ambulances, braving the onslaught, ferried the wounded to nearby hospitals. The Daily Telegraph counted four dead, but doctors and witnesses said there were several other casualties.

Ajdabiya's inhabitants had been arming themselves with what they could. Some had guns but others came with machetes, axes, hammers, and in one instance a barbecue skewer. "We have come here to defend Ajdabiya," said Mohamed Abdrurrazeg, who grew up in Swansea. "It doesn't matter that I don't have a gun, because some of my friends do. I will just stand here with my people and die with my people."

For over a week the people of eastern Libya had been waiting for Col Gaddafi's inevitable counter-attack after they had died in their hundreds liberating their territory.

When it came, it was ferocious. Warplanes attempted to strike a military base, now in rebel hands, on the outskirts of Ajdabiya with the intention of depriving the insurrectionists of a vast arsenal of rockets and shells stored in the camp's many bunkers. As they had done at least twice before, the bombs missed their target.

But it was the town of Brega, 50 miles west, that bore the brunt of the first major attack of Col Gaddafi's counter-offensive.

Advancing on the town before dawn in a pincer movement, scores of vehicles carrying some of the Libyan leaders best-trained men launched a surprise attack on its main oilfield and airport, seizing both after encountering minimal resistance.

It seemed a hugely significant victory. By controlling the oilfield, pro-Gaddafi forces would have been in a position to cut the energy supply to most power stations in eastern Libya, including Benghazi, and prevent petrol reaching filling stations across much of rebel-held territory.

The airport too would have given Col Gaddafi a significant boost, allowing him to conduct air strikes on the east with much greater ease.

On Brega's sand dunes, chaos reigned. With no co-ordination and no chain of command, men unused to war fired at random as others rested, eating pasta rushed forward to the front by the women of the town. Yet the regime's victory proved short-lived as the inhabitants, most of them civilians armed with looted Kalashnikovs, fought back and forced Col Gaddafi's men to retreat to the grounds of a nearby technical institute.

Now on high ground, the advantage seemed to swing back to the forces of the regime. As the rebels dug in on the sand dunes below, they came under intensive barrages of anti-aircraft fire and artillery bombardment. Armed only with rifles, the rebels' situation seemed hopeless. Some began to retreat.

"These weapons are not enough," said Mohammed Sultan, shaking a jammed AK-47. "They are hitting us with much more force."

But reinforcements began to arrive. Pickup trucks mounted with anti-aircraft guns, sent from Benghazi and Ajdabiya, careered maniacally down a coastal road that had been suddenly transformed into the main supply route for the rebels.

Shooting frenziedly, they flung themselves into the fight but the men in the technical institute responded with ever greater vigour, firing 120-mm shells that detonated in and around rebel positions. There were women and children too at the institute, dragged out of their cars on the Tripoli-Benghazi road and taken there to be used as human shields, rebel fighters who claimed to have witnessed the abductions said.

In Ajdabiya, reinforcements were arriving too to defend a town that everyone expected to be the next under attack if Brega fell. Three antiquated tanks were rolled forward, but much of the ammunition in the nearby depot could not be used because most of the rocket launchers had been looted or were in a state of advanced disrepair.

Then, as the noise of the guns abated slightly, the sound of a fighter jet filled the air. With a deafening roar, two bombs exploded in the dunes nearby, prompting a panicked retreat by some of the volunteer fighters.

Yet, miraculously and inexplicably, Col Gaddafi's men suddenly retreated from the institute. Bewildered but jubilant rebels surged forward onto its campus before scattering as a MiG fighter roared low overhead and bombed them. Although there were no injuries and Brega once again belonged to the revolution, few believe that Col Gaddafi can be beaten so easily.

His forces may be only slightly less inept than the rebels, and their stomach for the fight may be lacking, but their fire power and air force capacity make them a foe that still engenders terror across eastern Libya.

And in Benghazi, rebel leaders appear to have changed their tune, desperately calling for Western airstrikes against government forces.

Meanwhile, the rebel National Libyan Council in east Libya called for UN-backed air strikes on foreign mercenaries used by Gaddafi against his own people.

Hafiz Ghoga, a spokesman for the council based in Benghazi, told a news conference that Gaddafi was using "African mercenaries in Libyan cities" which amounted to an invasion of the oil producing North African nation.

"We call for specific attacks on strongholds of these mercenaries," he said, but added: "The presence of any foreign forces on Libyan soil is strongly opposed. There is a big difference between this and strategic air strikes."

Wednesday's developments come as the US sent warships to the region as part of a Western effort to pile more pressure on Gaddafi to stop his violent crackdown and step aside.

The destroyer USS Barry moved through the Suez Canal on Monday and into the Mediterranean Sea.

Two amphibious assault ships, the USS Kearsarge, which can carry 2,000 marines, and the USS Ponce passed through the canal on Wednesday.

The White House said the ships were being redeployed in preparation for possible humanitarian efforts but stressed it "was not taking any options off the table".

"We are looking at a lot of options and contingencies. No decisions have been made on any other actions," Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said.

The US says Libya could sink into civil war unless Gaddafi quits amid fears that the uprising - the bloodiest
against long-serving rulers in north Africa and the Middle East - could cause a humanitarian crisis.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has cautioned that "Libya could become a peaceful democracy or it could face protracted civil war".

But Gaddafi remains defiant and his son, Saif al-Islam, has warned the West against launching military action, insisting that his father would neither step down nor go into exile.

[PanzerJaeger]

Nice to see you around, Goof.



Anyway, Gaddafi forces are making gains against the dissidents, who are struggling to master the heavy weaponry that they have wrested from the government.

Forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, are reported to have regained control of two strategic towns in the country's northwest, even as opposition fighters in the east prepare to march on the capital, Tripoli.

The claims about the fall of Gharyan and Sabratha on Wednesday came as clashes were taking place in the eastern town of Brega, the headquarters of several oil companies.

A journalist from the nearby city of Ajdabiya confirmed to Al Jazeera that Brega was attacked by pro-Gaddafi forces, saying that about 100 cars carrying foreign fighters carried out the assault.

Earlier government forces were reported to be battling to regain control of rebel-held towns close to Tripoli, trying to create a buffer zone around what is still Gaddafi's seat of power.

Jackie Rowland, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Libya's second largest city, Benghazi, said that aircraft loyal to Gaddafi reportedly carried out a bombing raid against a weapons store about six kilometres outside Ajdabiya.

And in the West, the major powers seem to be distancing themselves from some of their earlier enthusiastic offers of support.

Britain has backtracked from its belligerent military stance over Libya after the Obama administration publicly distanced itself from David Cameron's suggestion that Nato should establish a no-fly zone over the country and that rebel forces should be armed.

As senior British military sources expressed concern that Downing Street appeared to be overlooking the dangers of being sucked into a long and potentially dangerous operation, the prime minister said Britain would go no further than contacting the rebel forces at this stage.

The marked change of tone by the prime minister, who told MPs on Monday that Britain did not "in any way rule out the use of military assets", came as the British-educated son of Muammar Gaddafi mocked Cameron for trying to act as a hero. Saif al-Islam told Sky News: "Everybody wants to be a hero, to be important in history."

[Banquo's Ghost]

And in the West, the major powers seem to be distancing themselves from some of their earlier enthusiastic offers of support.

I wouldn't go so far as claiming the United Kingdom is a "major power". Cameron might have an aircraft carrier available in five or so years, but it won't have any aircraft and anyway he's fired all the pilots. Oh, and most of the troops currently fighting in Afghanistan are being issued redundancy notices right now, so even if they feel motivated to carry on risking their lives in their current theatre, they'll be swelling the dole queues rather than fighting tyrants.

Still, the Prime Minister does offer a foreign policy of sorts (with five days notice) built around selling what arms he does have to Arab dictators. Not sure that helps here.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Still, the Prime Minister does offer a foreign policy of sorts

At least that's more than can be said of the bunch of clowns in the Quay d'Orsay.

First Sarkozy and Alliot-Marie supported Ben Ali to the last. They never saw his fall coming. To damage control the lost prestige in the Arab world, Alliot-Marie was removed as foreign minister. Then Libya burns. Not willing to make the same mistake again, Sarkozy goes public and demands that Gadaffi steps down. This was five minutes before it became clear that Gadaffi is not going to lose this.

That's what you get when you don't listen to your diplomats. French diplomacy - the second largest in the world - is getting desperate, getting fed up. None of the French cables are apparantly read, none of the analyses are studied. What's the point of paying a million people to study foreign developments when it is not going to be put to any use? There are dozens of analysts and experts and people living abroad who report about the situation in Libya, employed in all sorts of different functions, from embassies to think tanks to universities.

Gah! Clinton got both Egypt and Libya exactly right. I bet she had the Americans simply intercept French diplomatic cables and have them translated. The roles have been reversed from a decade ago. This time, it is America that is exactly on the money every single time, and France which is clueless about developments in the Middle East.