Civil War in Libya

[Pannonian]

The only way we could be a 100% sure that this war was won in the favour of the rebels, is to send in troops. But nobody wants that. There is no guarantee for that a NFZ would work out quite as intended, and thus "we" are reluctant.

The only way of making it anything other than a 100% sure loss for the rebels is to ban any machinery from moving. Gaddafi remaining in power is probably better for Europe's security anyway, so goodness knows why there was any push for intervention.

[Centurion1]

Look a no fly zone is not going to happen. Sure everyone says set up a no fly zone not a big deal america woo hoo, it would not be easy hell it may not even be possible.

We have around 13 carriers in the american fleet. not all of these carriers are active. we cannot afford for all of these carriers to be active. next libya actually has a decent integrated air defense system. third no fly zone is very difficult to accomplish. we would need multiple carriers in the meditteranean, which we cannot have without relinquishing control over other vital areas or taking them out of the vital persian gulf.

a no fly zone while everyone says "why not?" is not so easy to acheive in reality.

not to mention, why the hell should we feel obligated to do so?

[Noncommunist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-N...%E2%80%93_Iraq

The British were the only ones who sent in a sizable amount of troops. Everyone else either send in a few thousand or a couple hundred. These troops were often confined to various noncombat roles and often withdrawn years ago. So yes, it basically was just us for the vast majority of the fighting.

How exactly do you know the person put in power will be better than Gadaffi?

And so far, Iraq is a developing democracy. Clearly, we can go in "alone"(not counting the rebels as allies) and win against a tin pot dictator. Plus, there have been a number of other conflicts were won by the US without serious allies.

We don't. However, with how bad he's been, it's likely that anyone that does arise won't be worse. And with us as allies, we can exert more pressure on them to be more democratic.

The same can be said about most of the world. What exactly makes Libya so special and why exactly should I care?

Because they've taken the effort to revolt after getting massacred when they were doing protests. And they're clearly asking for help of almost any sort.

The French helped us for a variety of reasons. I'm also not seeing the connection between this and Libya. Just because this nation was helped during its birth in the 18th century by a foreign power doesn't mean I'm obligated to help a totally unrelated country 200 years later.

The point was that just because a country has internal problems doesn't mean that it should forever remain fixated on those problems and should be willing to help a fellow country in need.

Yes we are all human. I tend to care more about the people I'm more closely related to though. Countrymen < Friends < Family

Would you sacrifice your own family to save 50 Libyans? After all we are all human.

But how closely related are you to most Americans? And how many Americans do you know vs how many are strangers to you? And what really is the difference between an American that's a stranger and any other nationality that's a stranger?

[Tuuvi]

It seems to me that the rebels have lost, which makes me sad. But perhaps not all is lost, if Tunisia and Egypt become democratic maybe they can pressure Libya to do the same in the long run.

[Viking]

The only way of making it anything other than a 100% sure loss for the rebels is to ban any machinery from moving. Gaddafi remaining in power is probably better for Europe's security anyway, so goodness knows why there was any push for intervention.

Because dictators suck.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It seems to me that the rebels have lost, which makes me sad. But perhaps not all is lost, if Tunisia and Egypt become democratic maybe they can pressure Libya to do the same in the long run.

Well, a week ago Gaddafi seemed to have lost. They're fighting in a desert country, Gaddafi's Air Force is not as effective as you might think, and he'll run out of bombs eventually - probably quite quickly.

[Sarmatian]

Because dictators suck.

Depending on their alternative...

[Viking]

The unknown is...indeed unknown. We here have a unique possibility to witness the toppling of a dictator and to see a democracy take his place; so we should act upon this as far as we may.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I tend to look favourably on dictators in Muslim countries who are actually containing radical Islam, with of course Ataturk being my favourite.

Gah! You only say that because mad desert dog Gaddafi was fighting the Turks together with his buddy Milošević.

We here have a unique possibility to witness the toppling of a dictator and to see a democracy take his place; so we should act upon this as far as we may.

It's been over for two weeks now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The unknown is...indeed unknown. We here have a unique possibility to witness the toppling of a dictator and to see a democracy take his place; so we should act upon this as far as we may.

Or another dictator, or a religious diktat.

In the absence of a secular political identity the most tightly knit groups will be either tribes or religious sects, this is probably why attempts at western-style democracy seem to yield one or the other in the Middle East and Arab World.

[Viking]

Or another dictator, or a religious diktat.

In the absence of a secular political identity the most tightly knit groups will be either tribes or religious sects, this is probably why attempts at western-style democracy seem to yield one or the other in the Middle East and Arab World.

We'll see what happens in Egypt and Tunisia - till then. Libya had the potential to be a really interesting case, but alas, it doesn't look like it's headed anywhere at present. Though we'll see.

Anyway, the comment of yours does give the sneaking impression of that Europe has actually been democratic since the dawn of the continent - and that all the contemporary nations came into existence at that point. The French revolution, for instance, had a really mixed immediate outcome. Was not Germany democratic at the time Hitler came into power? I don't really think that Europe has any right to judge the Arab world in this respect. Lands, tribes and villages get united only to split up - and the process may repeat.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We'll see what happens in Egypt and Tunisia - till then. Libya had the potential to be a really interesting case, but alas, it doesn't look like it's headed anywhere at present. Though we'll see.

Anyway, the comment of yours does give the sneaking impression of that Europe has actually been democratic since the dawn of the continent - and that all the contemporary nations came into existence at that point. The French revolution, for instance, had a really mixed immediate outcome. Was not Germany democratic at the time Hitler came into power? I don't really think that Europe has any right to judge the Arab world in this respect. Lands, tribes and villages get united only to split up - and the process may repeat.

I'm not judging anyone, but currently the Arab world does not generally incline towards Western democracy, with our seperation of powers and our elected representatives. Arab elections have an average turnout of around 35%, if 12% of the population support Sharia Law (as in Egypt) and they are the largest block to actually vote then you can end up with a government that the majority do not support, but who still got the most number of votes.

We do have the same problem in the West, notably in Welsh and Scottish referendums, where the native speakers are more politically cohesive and activist, resulting in distorted results.

[Furunculus]

hilarious eu parliament speech where the d00d farrrrrrrage sticks to to da man..... otherwise known as de-rumpey:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...risy-on-libya/

[Louis VI the Fat]

hilarious eu parliament speech where the d00d farrrrrrrage sticks to to da man..... otherwise known as de-rumpey:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...risy-on-libya/

And six months after the British PM shook hands with Hitler, he declared total war on him.

The world is such that you have to work with autocratic leaders. It is not in itself hypocrisy to both deal with them and call for their removal. As for why few called for Gaddafi's violent removal as little as late last year - this is owing to there currently being a viable alternative, plus the momentum of the Arab Revolution, plus a wave of democratisation in two of Libya's neighbours, and an armed insurrection on the ground, and new atrocities comitted by Gaddafi.

I see no hypocrisy in a grudging acceptance of Gaddafi six months ago and calling for his removal now. Likewise, if an armed insurrection were to break out in Iran, I'd call for military support for them too, even if I am not in favour of invading Iran right now, as is.

[Sarmatian]

Gah! You only say that because mad desert dog Gaddafi was fighting the Turks together with his buddy Milošević.

You're just jealous because Gaddafi liked his pal Milosevic more than he now likes Sarkozy.

[Hax]

Arab elections have an average turnout of around 35%

Yes, and Arab states are generally controlled by dictators. Isn't that what's changing?

[Tuuvi]

Well, a week ago Gaddafi seemed to have lost. They're fighting in a desert country, Gaddafi's Air Force is not as effective as you might think, and he'll run out of bombs eventually - probably quite quickly.

Yes but it seems to me that the tides have turned, which is really disappointing. Good point about his bombs running out but the rebels' morale might not be able to last that long.

[PanzerJaeger]

It seems we could be on the verge of entering a new stage in the conflict. If the pending UN resolution passes, TuffStuff may just get his wish. The revolt having been nearly crushed in earnest, the West could selectively intervene in an attempt to sway the outcome, while at the same time tacitly endorsing the crushing of protests in Bahrain.

British forces could be in action over Libya as early as Friday, if a UN resolution is agreed, a senior government source has told the BBC.

Worst case scenario: Gaddafi overruns Benghazi and the West is left to maintain a no-fly zone over a conflict that is effectively over, just like in Iraq.

Any bets as to the passage of the resolution? My guess is that the US is secretly hoping Russia and/or China will put a stop it.

[rory_20_uk]

Another no-fly where helicopters are allowed? One where all the Aircraft can do is take pictures as the ground forces grind down the rebels? Russia already had their own alternative resolution which was apparently toothless.

How many days until it's passed? Another week? Could be over by then. If the West already has assets in the area and can start as soon as pen is put to paper, then it might be in time. If they wait until the resolution to move assets to the area that could mean further days of delay.

The Serbs became very adept at hiding from the West airforce, and I imagine that the desert is a good place to hide. When the fighting gets to the cities it'll be nigh on impossible to ensure the rebels aren't getting bombed.

Impressive. Passed on time and a resolution with teeth.

[TinCow]

The resolution passed. It apparently approves of ground attack in addition to a strict no-fly zone. France and Britain will apparently begin the attacks within hours.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009

I must say, I am very proud of how the West has handled this situation, with particular praise for France. It's wonderful to see nations other than the United States taking the lead on a situation like this.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The resolution passed. It apparently approves of ground attack in addition to a strict no-fly zone. France and Britain will apparently begin the attacks within hours.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009

I must say, I am very proud of how the West has handled this situation, with particular praise for France. It's wonderful to see nations other than the United States taking the lead on a situation like this.

Fantastic. I knew that I agreed with Democrats on most foreign policy issues. I am proud to be an American today, I'm even prouder of the people of Libya.

[tibilicus]

Excellent news. I also hope the Arab league will take a strong role in any such actions. Time to crack some skulls!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Balls to the MF Wall

[Lemur]

Wait, does this mean that we are in another unfunded, undeclared war? Would it be okay with Europeans if we sat this one out?

-edit-

And could somebody else pick up the tab this time? We're kinda hurting from our last two excursions.

Establishing and taking control of the skies over Libya could cost the Pentagon up to $300 million a week – or around $15 billion a year – under mission scenarios formulated by a top Washington defense think tank. [...] “Assuming an operational tempo similar to that of the no-fly zones in Iraq, the ongoing cost might be in the range of $100 [million] to $300 million per week,” states the report.

The full option would require taking out Libyan air defense systems in what the think tank says would be a “series of coordinated strikes” at a “one-time ... cost between $500 million and $1 billion.”

The northern option would put U.S. aircraft in control of all Libyan turf above the 29th parallel, which includes about 230,000 square miles, according to CSBA. The cost of this kind of mission would fall between $30 million and $100 million per week.

A northern no-fly would also require the U.S. military to deal with Libyan air defense systems, meaning it would still come with a one-time bill of between $400 million and $800 million, CSBA said.

[a completely inoffensive name]

it's not a waste of money when the indigenous public is actually providing the bulk of the ground force.

[Populus Romanus]

Why can't money just grow on trees?


It is fantastic that we are imposing the no fly zone, even better that we are bombing the Army. Perhaps we should just bomb Qaddafi and get this whole fiasco over with quick?

[LeftEyeNine]

OUR WESTERN OVERLORDS BRING PEACE, HUMANITY AND DEMOCRACY AGAIN !!!

JUST LIKE HOW THEY HAVE DONE IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, BOSNIA AND MOST OF AFRICA !!

HOLY FLYING WEST, TAKE CHARGE, DELIVER US !!!

YOUR INTERVENING ALWAYS PROVED SUCCESFUL.

LOOK, I NEVER USED THE WORD "OIL".

Thank you.

[Slyspy]

I'm not that impressed by the idea of getting involved, but if you good Turkish boys want to lend a hand then feel free.

[LeftEyeNine]

I'm no authority, why address like that ?

I'm all against Western intervention in, especially internal affairs of other countries, mainly being in the Middle East or Africa.

UN or whatever other coalition or initiative is/will be too polluted with politics and the benefits of the grand parties involved.

History did not prove otherwise and I don't want to see it again. That's all.

[Leet Eriksson]

Wait, does this mean that we are in another unfunded, undeclared war? Would it be okay with Europeans if we sat this one out?

-edit-

And could somebody else pick up the tab this time? We're kinda hurting from our last two excursions.

Establishing and taking control of the skies over Libya could cost the Pentagon up to $300 million a week – or around $15 billion a year – under mission scenarios formulated by a top Washington defense think tank. [...] “Assuming an operational tempo similar to that of the no-fly zones in Iraq, the ongoing cost might be in the range of $100 [million] to $300 million per week,” states the report.

The full option would require taking out Libyan air defense systems in what the think tank says would be a “series of coordinated strikes” at a “one-time ... cost between $500 million and $1 billion.”

The northern option would put U.S. aircraft in control of all Libyan turf above the 29th parallel, which includes about 230,000 square miles, according to CSBA. The cost of this kind of mission would fall between $30 million and $100 million per week.

A northern no-fly would also require the U.S. military to deal with Libyan air defense systems, meaning it would still come with a one-time bill of between $400 million and $800 million, CSBA said.

Does it even matter what the costs are? whining about it seems rather superfluous when the US is already deep in debt.