Civil War in Libya

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.