Civil War in Libya

[Skullheadhq]

This revolution isn't sexy. I'm not buying it.

Says le French

[Subotan]

Didn't read those 20 pages, but just wanna say I support the colonel.

...indeed. And why do you do support Gadaffi?

[drone]

but just wanna say I support the colonel.

He does make good chicken.

[Jaguara]

He does make good chicken.

I think he is actually talking about "THE Colonel"...meaning that he is a big fan of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, it didn't take long for the rebels to start blaming us. Next stops on the familiar path will be condemnation, hate and burning resentment for the next fifty years.

General Abdel Fattah Younes was scathing in his condemnation of Nato. "They have disappointed us. Nato has become our problem. Either Nato does its work properly or we will ask the Security Council to suspend its work."

[Fragony]

Ya, a job well done

[Sarmatian]

Why do I get the feeling that rebel leadership is full of wanna-be-Gaddafis...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well, it didn't take long for the rebels to start blaming us. Next stops on the familiar path will be condemnation, hate and burning resentment for the next fifty years.

General Abdel Fattah Younes was scathing in his condemnation of Nato. "They have disappointed us. Nato has become our problem. Either Nato does its work properly or we will ask the Security Council to suspend its work."

Laughable and dissapointing.


But then, we're not there out of any illusions about the rebels. We are there because the Libyan too has the right not to be killed.

There are few conflicts which are fought between orcs and white knights. Important for the intervention in Libya are questions such as whether there will have been some net gain in human suffering averted, and if there is a way out at some point (a mere delay is pointless).

[Banquo's Ghost]

Laughable and dissapointing.


But then, we're not there out of any illusions about the rebels. We are there because the Libyan too has the right not to be killed.

There are few conflicts which are fought between orcs and white knights. Important for the intervention in Libya are questions such as whether there will have been some net gain in human suffering averted, and if there is a way out at some point (a mere delay is pointless).

I think you are in some danger of believing the propaganda. It's very clear that NATO leaders are doing their best to help the rebel side*.

However, your important question for the intervention is exactly right. The answer, which I think was apparent before intervening, is that we are prolonging the civil war on behalf of a collection of rag-tag groups who will shortly turn on themselves and us in frustration. The misery inflicted on civilian populations will continue to mount. Whereas that may also have happened with no intervention, our hands are now covered in the same blood. And the net result will be a Libya that hates the West whichever "winner" emerges.

It is precisely because this is not a fantasy novel that involvement is a snare and delusion. The bad guys do not always wear black hats, nor do grubby politicians expiate their sins by murdering foreigners in imagined wars of morally impeccable liberation.

* Having said that, the third incident (that we know about) of its type - the inevitable mistakes that happen in these wars - looks to have angered the rebels even more.

[Sarmatian]

Laughable and dissapointing.


But then, we're not there out of any illusions about the rebels. We are there because the Libyan too has the right not to be killed.

There are few conflicts which are fought between orcs and white knights. Important for the intervention in Libya are questions such as whether there will have been some net gain in human suffering averted, and if there is a way out at some point (a mere delay is pointless).

So, Nato countries may as well have supported Gaddafi. War over quicker, much less human suffering. I thought the intervention happened because rebel government was democratic and it, oh dear, turned out to be full of self-proclaimed leaders who want to be Gaddafi instead of Gaddafi...

Your ability to find excuses is truly astonishing...

[Skullheadhq]

...indeed. And why do you do support Gadaffi?

I think he's funny, rebels spoil the fun.
Besides, I always called an arab-looking friend of mine Gadaffi, which isn't that funny anymore when the real Gadaffi is gone.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So, Nato countries may as well have supported Gaddafi. War over quicker, much less human suffering.

That's a good point.

One could claim this is exactly what we did, up until all hell broke lose two months ago. Gaddafi was tolerated/supported because there was no ready alternative, no net gain to be had.

All sorts of weirdos and freaks are tolerated because merely bombing them into oblivion would not solve anything, will not bring about any improvement. Perosnally I think we ought to guillotine one random autocrat every three months or so, just to keep them all scared and running, even if it only means the next one will take his place.

[Sarmatian]

That's a good point.

One could claim this is exactly what we did, up until all hell broke lose two months ago. Gaddafi was tolerated/supported because there was no ready alternative, no net gain to be had.

All sorts of weirdos and freaks are tolerated because merely bombing them into oblivion would not solve anything, will not bring about any improvement. Perosnally I think we ought to guillotine one random autocrat every three months or so, just to keep them all scared and running, even if it only means the next one will take his place.

Can't argue with that, I just don't like to see it done over other people's back.

[Viking]

I think you are in some danger of believing the propaganda. It's very clear that NATO leaders are doing their best to help the rebel side*.

However, your important question for the intervention is exactly right. The answer, which I think was apparent before intervening, is that we are prolonging the civil war on behalf of a collection of rag-tag groups who will shortly turn on themselves and us in frustration. The misery inflicted on civilian populations will continue to mount. Whereas that may also have happened with no intervention, our hands are now covered in the same blood. And the net result will be a Libya that hates the West whichever "winner" emerges.

It is precisely because this is not a fantasy novel that involvement is a snare and delusion. The bad guys do not always wear black hats, nor do grubby politicians expiate their sins by murdering foreigners in imagined wars of morally impeccable liberation.

* Having said that, the third incident (that we know about) of its type - the inevitable mistakes that happen in these wars - looks to have angered the rebels even more.

Actually, there seems to be some sort of idea that the coalition led by the U.S., France and the UK was doing it the right way. Then NATO came in, and things went downhill. There is also this idea that Turkey is to blame to NATO's inactivity:

Ankara also conveyed its disappointment to Jibril about protests Wednesday in Benghazi against Turkey. Libyan rebels attacked the Turkish consulate in the city, removed the signs and demanded that the Turkish flag be lowered. Protesters also said Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was a “persona non grata” for the Libyan people.

"The protestors are saying that Erdoğan disappointed them and are urging him to take his place alongside the Libyan revolutionaries," Turkish Consul Ali Davutoğlu.

Last week, Erdoğan said last week that NATO’s mission was not to arm the rebels, but protect them.

Nevertheless, many protesters chanted, “The revolutionaries want arms,” “Erdoğan don’t be blithe, look at Misrata” and “Erdoğan, don’t talk to Gadhafi.”

The consul also said that although the number protestors had decreased, many demonstrators have said they will not leave until the Turkish flag is lowered.

If the latest incident indeed is caused by a NATO airstrike rather than by loyalist forces, then that is a serious blow to our reputation. But lets not forget that we saved Benghazi from the battles ahead - and, most likely, defeat. So while we make mistakes, we have been a necessity for the revolution's success.

The gravest danger is not airstrikes that go wrong, but attempts to meddle in the internal political affairs of the country. As long as we avoid that - sticking to iron and explosives - and as long as Gaddafi is defeated - our reputation should end up being OK.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

* Having said that, the third incident (that we know about) of its type - the inevitable mistakes that happen in these wars - looks to have angered the rebels even more.

It's a pretty bloomin big incident, as well. I can see how people on the ground might become suspicious. It will be interesting to see if we find out who's plane and pilot was responsible. With the withdrawal of American forces the "Allies" must be reaching overstretch.

Also, notice how we're the "Allies" again now, and not a "Coalition"?

[Slyspy]

Whoop-de-do. Things like this are bound to happen when you consider the lack of effective command and control on the rebel side which is bound to make coordination with NATO extremely difficult. I doubt they even have much in the way of unified markings.

I believe that the term "Allies" is being used since NATO has now taken over operations.

[Viking]

NATO airstrike causing instant rout among loyalist forces:



could they not have opened machine gun fire on those pickup trucks? Too great altitude?

[Viking]

Are they nuts?

“In one particular strike near Misrata, our pilots observed Regime forces loading armoured vehicles onto equipment transporters to be taken forward into population centres. NATO pilots, observing many troops around the transporter, first engaged a tank concealed along a nearby hedge line. This strike destroyed the tank and forced the nearby troops to flee, allowing the second strike to destroy other vehicles with minimal loss of life. We will not always be able to limit loss of life but Regime forces should understand that if they continue to operate these vehicles and follow orders to attack their own people they will be targeted.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_72192.htm

[Louis VI the Fat]

Are they nuts?



http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_72192.htm

Isn't that just about standard practise in any conflict in he Arab world in which the outside world takes an interest? The life of an Arab is worth more to the West than to Arab leaders. So when there are foreign eyes looking, theres an opportunity to be exploited. Put a tank next to a kindergarten and the Western commander has got a moral problem, not the Arab tank leader, to whom the lives of Arabian children are without worth.

The second mechanism is the insatiable Arab appetite for outrage and hysteria. Followers need to be regularly whipped into a frenzy with martyrs and blood and accompanying colourful language.



And it leaves room for the Western politician who let's his pr be conducted by a professional pr agency. The first thing these teach is that the truth is but a commodity. Never admit to the possibility that you may have made a mistake. Bombs are nowadays smart bombs, they understand the difference between good guys and bad guys and will explode only in the direction of the latter. Civilian casualties must mean the oppostion was so evil as to hide his equipment amongst civilians instead of neatly displaying them in open desert, far removed from any actual war zone.

[Sarmatian]

Isn't that just about standard practise in any conflict in he Arab world in which the outside world takes an interest? The life of an Arab is worth more to the West than to Arab leaders. So when there are foreign eyes looking, theres an opportunity to be exploited. Put a tank next to a kindergarten and the Western commander has got a moral problem, not the Arab tank leader, to whom the lives of Arabian children are without worth.

The second mechanism is the insatiable Arab appetite for outrage and hysteria. Followers need to be regularly whipped into a frenzy with martyrs and blood and accompanying colourful language.



And it leaves room for the Western politician who let's his pr be conducted by a professional pr agency. The first thing these teach is that the truth is but a commodity. Never admit to the possibility that you may have made a mistake. Bombs are nowadays smart bombs, they understand the difference between good guys and bad guys and will explode only in the direction of the latter. Civilian casualties must mean the oppostion was so evil as to hide his equipment amongst civilians instead of neatly displaying them in open desert, far removed from any actual war zone.

That was the standard practice in Bosnia, too. Bosnian muslims placed guns in school or hospitals. Most of the time it was ignored but sometimes it wasn't. Western media and Nato moved swiftly to capitalize on it, branding Serbs as Nazis. When Nato does it, it's the other way around. Gotta love the hypocrisy.

[Hax]

Isn't that just about standard practise in any conflict in he Arab world in which the outside world takes an interest? The life of an Arab is worth more to the West than to Arab leaders. So when there are foreign eyes looking, theres an opportunity to be exploited. Put a tank next to a kindergarten and the Western commander has got a moral problem, not the Arab tank leader, to whom the lives of Arabian children are without worth.

The second mechanism is the insatiable Arab appetite for outrage and hysteria. Followers need to be regularly whipped into a frenzy with martyrs and blood and accompanying colourful language.

I'd reply to this post, but I'm late for a massacre. Sorry.

[Jaguara]

could they not have opened machine gun fire on those pickup trucks? Too great altitude?

They could have launched another warhead into the midst of that group, but old-school strafing is not really in the doctrine anymore (except wth the old A-10s, which are heavily armoured for that purpose).

First off, fighters no longer have machine-guns, they have 20mm autocannons which fire explosive rounds. Performing low altitude strafing exposes the (very expensive) fighter to even small arms fire. While the risk of any one person bringing down a fighter this way is minute, overall it does result in losses. It is generally considered not to be worth the risk - especially when you can pound indefinately from high altitude with relative impunity.

[Leet Eriksson]

Nato's strategy is really hilarious, its not just incompetent rebels, but the whole nato/coalition/whatever it is they call themselves now gambled their whole strategy on displaying as much fireworks with as much shock value as possible to have gaddafi stand down or probably surrender, but it didn't work and now everyone is running around like headless chicken. Its almost too hilarious how a clown makes 3 world powers look like imbeciles.

[Strike For The South]

Nato's strategy is really hilarious, its not just incompetent rebels, but the whole nato/coalition/whatever it is they call themselves now gambled their whole strategy on displaying as much fireworks with as much shock value as possible to have gaddafi stand down or probably surrender, but it didn't work and now everyone is running around like headless chicken. Its almost too hilarious how a clown makes 3 world powers look like imbeciles.

That's the biggest problem though, NATO is being useless, anyone with half a brain could see that coming from half a mile away but the biggest problem is these rebels are the Larry, Moe, and Curly of rebelion movements. The colonel is just to weak to stop them right now

This whole thing is like a retard banging a drum set, At first you think the noise might turn into something but quickly you realise its just noise

[Leet Eriksson]

That's the biggest problem though, NATO is being useless, anyone with half a brain could see that coming from half a mile away but the biggest problem is these rebels are the Larry, Moe, and Curly of rebelion movements. The colonel is just to weak to stop them right now

This whole thing is like a retard banging a drum set, At first you think the noise might turn into something but quickly you realise its just noise

I just read this gem today, thanks for reminding me:

"People in rebel-held areas want to know what the revolutionary council – a 31-person body that functions around a core of 11 people who have been publicly named and meet regularly in Benghazi – is doing about it. But they are getting few answers. The council's two principal leaders, Mahmoud Jibril and Mustafa Abdul Jalil, are hardly visible. Both men are, in any case, regarded by those dealing directly with them as sincere and well-meaning but lacking in either charisma or authority.

One person working closely with the council's day-to-day operations was deeply frustrated at the fact that "they don't understand the need to communicate with the Libyan people.

"They don't understand that no one knows who they are. These lawyers and doctors in Benghazi who say they are a government, it's like kids playing dress-up for a lot of them. They don't understand the need to explain to the people what it is they are doing," the source said."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ration-on-nato

[Louis VI the Fat]

Nato's strategy is really hilarious, its not just incompetent rebels, but the whole nato/coalition/whatever it is they call themselves now gambled their whole strategy on displaying as much fireworks with as much shock value as possible to have gaddafi stand down or probably surrender, but it didn't work and now everyone is running around like headless chicken. Its almost too hilarious how a clown makes 3 world powers look like imbeciles.

Not quite.

The goal of NATO is to protect Libyan civilians while allowing for the establishment of a regime change, hopefully more democratic. Gaddafi's goal is to cling on to power at all costs. There is a disparity in the means the different parties can employ. NATO could force Gaddafi into surrender in the blink of an eye. However, unlike Gaddafi, NATO respects the life of Arabs.

It's really not hilarious, but tragic. Tragic how Libya is ruled by an autocrat, and how half the world changed from rooting for Arab Spring to the Arab autocrat simply for his standing up to NATO.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'd reply to this post, but I'm late for a massacre.

No you're not, because you live in the west where Arabs aren't habitually massacred by other Arabs.

It is why the Arabs are fed up and are having revolutions.

That was the standard practice in Bosnia, too. Bosnian muslims placed guns in school or hospitals. Most of the time it was ignored but sometimes it wasn't. Western media and Nato moved swiftly to capitalize on it, branding Serbs as Nazis. When Nato does it, it's the other way around. Gotta love the hypocrisy.

The other way around? When has NATO hid its guns in schools or hospitals?

This whole thing is like a retard banging a drum set, At first you think the noise might turn into something but quickly you realise its just noise

Are you mocking our webcam conversation of last week? I told you I've only had that drum set for three weeks now, some day I'll be good at it, dammit.

[Strike For The South]

Im glad the Gaurdian agrees with me

Are you mocking our webcam conversation of last week? I told you I've only had that drum set for three weeks now, some day I'll be good at it, dammit

When you get angry, I get aroused

[PanzerJaeger]

Isn't that just about standard practise in any conflict in he Arab world in which the outside world takes an interest? The life of an Arab is worth more to the West than to Arab leaders. So when there are foreign eyes looking, theres an opportunity to be exploited. Put a tank next to a kindergarten and the Western commander has got a moral problem, not the Arab tank leader, to whom the lives of Arabian children are without worth.

The second mechanism is the insatiable Arab appetite for outrage and hysteria. Followers need to be regularly whipped into a frenzy with martyrs and blood and accompanying colourful language.

We (the West) really need to stop caring about these people. They hate us when we prop up their leaders and they hate us when we overthrow them. They blame us for oppressing them, and they blame us when we deliver them freedom on silver platter and they are too incompetent to take it. Every time we try to help them, it blows up in our face. The NeoCon's biggest mistake, imho, was their belief in universal human aspirations.

Just deal with whichever strongmen emerge in these nations and be done with it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

We (the West) really need to stop caring about these people. They hate us when we prop up their leaders and they hate us when we overthrow them. They blame us for oppressing them, and they blame us when we deliver them freedom on silver platter and they are too incompetent to take it. Every time we try to help them, it blows up in our face. The NeoCon's biggest mistake, imho, was their belief in universal human aspirations.

Here we disagree. The neo-cons made a lot of big mistakes, but the belief in universal aspiration wasn't one of them. It was the belief that one nation can impose those aspirations on another for their own good.

In my opinion, the aspirations to human rights and liberty are universal, but must be earned by the people that then cherish and them. Sometimes this is through conflict, sometimes by enlightenment, but always by a great and personal struggle. It may take a shorter or longer time, and the character of the implementation may look very different in each culture.

Other - no matter how well intentioned - imposing those values by force of arms simply cause resentment and ultimately rejection for yet more generations. By far the best "imposition" is by living the values at home, and the myriad benefits that invariably arise become the driver for aspiration elsewhere.