Civil War in Libya

[caravel]

Yet another war for oil.

[Viking]

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.

There is no "them".

Yet another war for oil.

If you say so.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yet another war for oil.

I've seen that theory argued more and more as things have dragged on, and I am still not convinced. Whilst Libya has oil, it's not a significant overall stock and western oil companies have had access to it on favourable terms for some time. Dictators help the oil flow much more effectively than rabble.

No, my view is that this is a war of political weakness. A new and untested Tory Prime Minister, a loathed President begging at the altar of ancient republican principles and yet another embattled President paralysed by inability and lack of any recognisable principles - all resorting to the time-honoured distraction of attacking a smaller country to prove their machismo.

Not crude oil - snake oil.

[caravel]

I agree in part - it's regime change, pure and simple. The west spent decades breeding dictators like gadaffi and hussein, then when those dictators stop playing ball and become "evil dictators", "axis of evil" or whatever is in fashion at the moment, it's time to remove them. As to "why", well it's still oil, gas, minerals, I'm afraid otherwise the west wouldn't care and wouldn't get involved as is the case in bahrain, yemen, saudi, etc where the evil dictators are west friendly. If anyone really thinks that cameron, obama, sarkozy, et al, really give a flying **** as to what happens to Arabs and are not in this for economic reasons, then they are in need of a large dose of reality.

[Hax]

Every time we try to help them,

Yeah, whatever.

And what did we do when the Shi'ites rose up in resistance after listening to Radio Free Iraq, hosted and serviced by the Americans? What happened to the Kurds in North Iraq who were tortured to death? Do you think those "pockets of resistance" are fighting the Coalition forces just out of spite?

Let's face it, when the Iraqis who desperately needed freedom and we were sick of seeing their families being murdered in shady prisons all over the country, when we told them to rise up against the Ba'athists and take up arms, we suddenly pulled back and instead of laying siege to Baghdad and ousting Saddam Hussein, we just slapped sanctions on the country that hurt not the government, but the kids who were dying of depleted-uranium induced cancers in Basra. What was on the list of forbidden goods to enter Iraq? Syringes not the least, but the list extens to thermometers, scientific magazines, toilet paper, tissue paper, soap, shampoo, miroscopes and much, much more.

So do you honestly believe that the Iraqi insurgents have no reason at all to possibly dislike the West? That it's just spiteful behaviour induced by too many readings of the Qur'an or by listening to a crazed imam calling for death to the west? Or even worse:

it blows up in our face

Saying that the First Gulf War was an accessory to the attacks of 9/11? Did you just try to link Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden? Excuse me, but you make no sense whatsoever. The only way you might suggest the two are linked was that when Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq that Bin Laden offered to fight for Saudi-Arabia but was rebuked. Okay, big deal.

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.

Oh yeah? Where were the beloved Geneva Conventions when the Iranians were gassed by the thousands during the Iran-Iraq war? When it was convenient to not talk about human rights, we didn't. Where was universal freedom when Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down, supposedly "accidental"? Only when Hussein paraded captured British pilots in Baghdad did we feel it necessary to cling onto the Conventions. Only then.

So if you think that the Arab population has no reason to hate the US, go ask the parents of the thousands of children that died of leukemia after touching pieces of shrapnel who died in Baghdad and Basra and all over Iraq. Imagine me and my family being tortured. You walk in with a gun, shoot my father, sister and mother. Then you talk a bit with the torturer about how evil those practices are, take some of his torturing equipment as well as my toilet and my bed, then leave, then come back some ten years later, decide to then shoot the torturer, imagine how I'd feel. How'd you feel?

[rory_20_uk]

That's why it's best to just deal with the countries and not ever bother with applying morals to the situations as frankly we don't have the time or resources to do things "properly", so best not do them at all.

The West always does the quick, easy, cheap PR stunts that get the voters at home happy. This often makes things worse abroad and creates false expectations. Now even the Rebels are blaming NATO for not doing enough! That NATO does anything is above and beyond what they need to do - unless Lybia has suddenly become a threat to a NATO member...

The West should operate a far more realistic foreign policy, with long term self interest the first determinant. Or we price ourselves out of markets that China is increasingly willing to fill. We help ourselves and protect ourselves. You sort yourselves out. We deal with those who have things to sell we want and can buy things we have. We'll only get involved in your squalid entanglements if you're stupid enough to lash out at us. Good long term relationships are of course good as we both benefit. But if we don't both benefit then expect money to do to those where it will benefit us.

[Viking]

I agree in part - it's regime change, pure and simple. The west spent decades breeding dictators like gadaffi and hussein, then when those dictators stop playing ball and become "evil dictators", "axis of evil" or whatever is in fashion at the moment, it's time to remove them. As to "why", well it's still oil, gas, minerals, I'm afraid otherwise the west wouldn't care and wouldn't get involved as is the case in bahrain, yemen, saudi, etc where the evil dictators are west friendly. If anyone really thinks that cameron, obama, sarkozy, et al, really give a flying **** as to what happens to Arabs and are not in this for economic reasons, then they are in need of a large dose of reality.

A good first shot of reality would be to realise that Gaddafi toppled king Idris, whom the West had some control over. Gaddafi's ideas were pan-Arabic. Here's an extract from the BBC:

Libya became independent in 1951, under King Idris, but still remained a British protectorate - with both the UK and the US maintaining their military bases and control over the country's foreign and defence policies.

Commercial oil discoveries in the late 1950s gave both governments even more incentive to keep things as they were - until a young signals captain called Muammar Gaddafi seized power in 1969.

His decision to nationalise oil production, to get a majority share of revenues, and to demand the closure of the British and American bases were widely popular.

As to how the West has helped the person of Saddam Hussein, you should point that out - because reading some details on Iraqi history, such a companionship does not exactly stand out.

Either way, it is neither Cameron, Sarcozy nor Obama who have had the final say in the past. Their exact motives are not clear, but I do believe they give a flying ****, as a minimum.

That's why it's best to just deal with the countries and not ever bother with applying morals to the situations as frankly we don't have the time or resources to do things "properly", so best not do them at all.

Not only is it the right thing to act in some cases rather than none, but it is also in our self-interest. Dictatorships tend to spend money on secret police rather than on education or other things that could aid technological and scientific advances, things that could benefit humanit as a whole. To put this in a larger perspective: when an asteroid threatens Earth, then the more countries that are like the West rather than Gaddafi's Libya, the greater the odds that we know how to deflect it. That's one example, but we also have threats like change in climate beyond human control - return of ice ages du to changes in Earth's orbit etc. In short: we do not want Gaddafi-style dictatorships, for the common good.


EDIT:

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.

Another reply to this. In Iraq, nobody requested outside help at the time. Take a look at this video from Benghazi today, and take a look at the flags in the background



Not quite Iraq pre-invasion, is it?

[Viking]

Oh but they did. There were constant calls by Iraqis to liberate the country. It was, after all, our duty after mercilessly betraying them in 1991 and imposing a child-killing humantarian crisis on them thereafter. Freeing Iraq became our responsibility, and a moral imperative that could not be ignored any longer.

That's another element of the Iraq saga that gets conveniently left out of the current narrative. Look up Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. I would suggest Aram Roston's The Man Who Pushed America to War; The Extraordinary Life, Adventures, And Obsessions of Ahmad Chalabi.

Iraqis or the Iraqi people as a greater group? Then again, is it the majority of the Iraqi populace of today that engages in terrorist acts?

[Viking]

Report from a British TV team inside Misrata: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XMbnBhpi2Q (can't be embedded)

Including everything from rebel snipers in a high building to a boy playing in a garden getting his leg blown off by an incoming mortar shell (and later dies).

[Strike For The South]

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

[Banquo's Ghost]

I have split the tangential discussion on Arab culture off into its own thread. Let's keep this one for discussion of the politics and news reference Libya.

[rory_20_uk]

Not only is it the right thing to act in some cases rather than none, but it is also in our self-interest. Dictatorships tend to spend money on secret police rather than on education or other things that could aid technological and scientific advances, things that could benefit humanit as a whole. To put this in a larger perspective: when an asteroid threatens Earth, then the more countries that are like the West rather than Gaddafi's Libya, the greater the odds that we know how to deflect it. That's one example, but we also have threats like change in climate beyond human control - return of ice ages du to changes in Earth's orbit etc. In short: we do not want Gaddafi-style dictatorships, for the common good.

The costs of removing dictatorships are front loaded, where as the advantages are back loaded, and are purely theoretical.

The number of dictators that replace distators regardless of how they were removed or the cost to the West.

If the vast amount of resources wern't squandered on futile missions abroad then we'd have a vast number of improvements. Google is going to double the renewable solar energy after investing under $200million. How many days - or is it hours - is that money spent in afghanistan or now Lybia?

[Viking]

The costs of removing dictatorships are front loaded, where as the advantages are back loaded, and are purely theoretical.

The number of dictators that replace distators regardless of how they were removed or the cost to the West.

If the vast amount of resources wern't squandered on futile missions abroad then we'd have a vast number of improvements. Google is going to double the renewable solar energy after investing under $200million. How many days - or is it hours - is that money spent in afghanistan or now Lybia?

Yet liberating countries is an investment, if done properly. In the longer run, the math is less clear - whether 200 mill USD spent directly on renewable energy yields better results than 200 mill USD spent on tomahawk missiles. There are also other things that enter the equation when considering yes or no to intervention. I have not mentioned Afghanistan, which is quite obviously a much more messy country with a weak central authority.

[drone]

Tim Hetherington, one of the directors of Restrepo, died today in Misurata.

[PanzerJaeger]

Intelligence experts see Gaddafi rebuilding power

(Reuters) - Muammar Gaddafi has consolidated his position in central and western Libya enough to maintain an indefinite standoff with rebels trying to end his four-decade rule, U.S. and European officials say.

"Gaddafi's people are feeling quite confident," said a European security official who closely follows Libyan events.

A "de facto partition for a long time to come" is the likely outcome, the official said, because of Gaddafi's improving position and the weakness of the ill-equipped and largely untrained opposition forces.

Growing pessimism about the rebels' ability to challenge Gaddafi's control of a large section of the country has fueled calls for greater support of the opposition from the United States and its allies.

President Barack Obama continues to oppose sending U.S. soldiers to Libya but supports British and French moves to deploy small military contingents to advise the rebels, the White House said on Wednesday.

The State Department said it was recommending Obama approve $25 million in medical supplies, radios, body armor, halal ready-to-eat meals and other U.S. aid for the rebels that would not include weapons.

Despite NATO air strikes and moves to bolster anti-Gaddafi forces, U.S. and European intelligence agencies assess that the Libyan leader has solidified his control of Tripoli and most of western Libya.

[Viking]

The Gadaffi regime cannot rebuild its power when it everyday looses its tanks, rocket launchers, artillery and command and communication centres. Without the tanks and the artillery, Gaddafi's army is nothing. We saw a collapse in the army when Adjabiya fell to the rebels. The regime army managed to get itself back on its feet in the area, but we should expect to see more collapses sooner or later.

The regime is so desperate to retake Misrata that it launches shells seemingly at random into the city, not worried about civillian casualites. Yet despite the desperate attempts of the regime, the rebels appears to have been gaining ground in the city lately.

In Tripoli, there are reports of guerrilla warfare being waged by local rebels:

The proximity to the nerve center of Gaddafi's powerful military apparatus in the capital Tripoli makes it hard for fragmented dissenters to organize their actions into a movement.

But that may now be changing. Tripoli residents said there have been several attacks on army checkpoints and a police station in the past week, and gunfights can be heard at night.

In one attack a week ago, opposition supporters stormed a checkpoint in eastern Tripoli and seized arms, residents said.

"There have been attacks by Tripoli people and a lot of people have been killed on the Gaddafi army side," said a Libyan rebel sympathizer who lives in exile abroad and maintains daily contact with colleagues in the restive suburb of Tajoura.

Asked who the attackers were, he said they were local residents who wanted to topple the Libyan leader.

Either part of a broader rebel plan or simply a spontaneous evolution of tactics, the shift toward more urban resistance could add a new dimension to the two-month-old conflict and work to erode Gaddafi's support base in his main western stronghold.

Another resident said that in places like Tajoura, the government controlled only key junctions and roads, where it has checkpoints reinforced with anti-aircraft guns and tanks.

But smaller streets deep inside suburbs were outside their control.

These reports could not be verified independently. Information is difficult to piece together because the government does not allow journalists to report freely in the capital. Suburbs such as Tajoura are off limits to reporters.

EDIT: This is just in:

11:21am
Al Jazeera Arabic channel's reporter in Tunisia has said that about 100 Gaddafi forces have handed themselves over to the Tunisian borders’ guards after being chased by rebels.

He also said that the crossing area have been witnessing heavy clashes over the last few days. Some shells hit the Tunisian side of the borders.

11:06am Breaking news out of Libya - Al Jazeera's Sue Turton has reported that Libyan rebel forces have taken control of the Wazin border post on the Tunisian frontier after overrunning Gaddafi troops.

"The border crossing is 200km south of the main crossing. there have been reports of fierce fighting, several hundred anti-Gaddafi soldiers took control of this crossing.

"It is a mountainous area, which explains why they managed to take it. They have taken it before and it can go back to Gaddafi forces."

So much for consolidation.

[PanzerJaeger]

Fascinating video from Misurata. The battle looks to have been just as intense as it was portrayed in the media. Battle damage has always interested me, and I wish the camera man had focused on the destroyed AFVs a bit more. Also, I can't help but cringe every time I hear the celebratory gunfire. In a situation like that, you never, ever want to waste ammunition.

[Viking]

In the east, the regime foces has been unable to even reach the gates of Ajdabiya lately, with the previous short-lived advance that did just that under the cover of a sandstorm. In the west, in Misrata, regime forces has suffered significant setbacks - and are trying to cover it up with talk about non-existing tribes and 'halt of operations'. Even further west, they loose a border crossing to Tunisia - nothing less!

There are further 'reports' about problems for the regime: in Sirte, Zawiya and Bani-Walid - but these lack confirmation, so I treat them as rumours for now.

It seems clear to me, though, that it is just a matter of time. I fear Gaddafi might still be in power in two months from now, perhaps even twice that time or more - but the constant attrition caused by both rebels and NATO is going to kill the regime, eventually.

[tibilicus]

I have no problem Gaddafi dying a slow death, so long as he dies..

[Viking]

Reports that Tunisian troops have engaged Gadaffi forces on the Tunisian side of the border; and that a Tunisian woman was killed in shelling by the Gaddafi forces:

http://af.reuters.com/article/tunisi...73S0PB20110429

TUNIS, April 29 (Reuters) - Tunisian troops fought forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi inside the Tunisian border town of Dehiba, a local resident told Reuters.

The resident, called Imed, said by telephone there was heavy fighting in the centre of the town, which is near a border crossing point into Libya.

http://af.reuters.com/article/tunisi...73S0NK20110429

Forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi are attacking the Tunisian town of Dehiba, near the Libyan border, with small arms and artillery, two local residents told Reuters on Friday.

"Intense shooting is taking place now in central Dehiba. This started around two hours ago. People here cannot come out. The battle started after the (pro-Gaddafi) brigades attacked the rebels positioned in Dehiba."

A second local man, called Samy, told Reuters shells were falling on houses in Dehiba and a Tunisian woman had been killed.

Going to be interesting to see what Tunisia does, if anything.

[Viking]

What's a civil war without kittens?

[Viking]

So, helicopters are being deployed.

France and other members of a NATO-led coalition will use attack helicopters in Libya, French officials said on Monday, a step meant to hit Muammar Gaddafi's forces more accurately from the air.

[...]

Confirming the proposed use of helicopter gunships, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told reporters in Brussels the move was in line with a United Nations resolution to protect Libyan civilians and NATO's military operations.

"What we want is to better tailor our ability to strike on the ground with ways that allow more accurate hits," he said. "That is the goal in deploying helicopters."

[...]

The French daily Le Figaro reported that 12 helicopters, which could launch more precise attacks on pro-Gaddafi forces and targets than fixed-wing aircraft, were shipped out to Libya on the French warship Tonnerre on May 17.

"It is not just French helicopters ... it's coordinated action by the coalition," the diplomatic source said, in response to the newspaper report. "It is at NATO level."

The source said the move could not be considered as part of a strategy to use ground troops in the conflict, now in its fourth month.

Being more risky to deploy than jets, one coud be led to think that they have some faith in this step - though I have personally really no idea. Will be interesting to see..

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Video deleted. Too much "salty" language and broad stereotyping to conform to the standards of the BR. Patrons interested in this video are advised to search for "Howard Stern" Youtube and Libya -- at their own discretion. SF

[Strike For The South]

Howard Stern?

Clearly a beacon of rational thought for all forigen policy animals

[Fragony]

Al Jazeera claims to have footage of Brittish ground troops

not happy

[Hax]

Clearly a beacon of rational thought for all forigen policy animals

Obviously. Fear the Libyan Ayatollah, the country with close-to-100% Sunni Muslims!

[TheLastDays]

I have no problem Gaddafi dying a slow death, so long as he dies..

The problem ist, that others are suffering while he dies...

[Fragony]

The problem ist, that others are suffering while he dies...

Ain't that true, black africans are going to love it, spoligies in advance you are screwed.

[TheLastDays]

Ain't that true, black africans are going to love it, spoligies in advance you are screwed.

I don't get it...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Prejudice amongst the Libyans. Now would not be a good time to be a black immigrant. What used to be contempt out of racism might now mix with collective anger towards Gadaffi's mercenary forces whose defining characteristic supposedly is their dark skin.