Libya: Benghazi unrest, to Civil War, to a new government and Gaddafi's death.

[Insula Dei]

The way the West has dealt with this is disgusting and will cost us dear for generations to come. Once again we have signalled to those in the region that we indeed are the enemy and that the secular opposition is incapable of ending dictatorships in most of the Middle-East. I fully expect thousands to turn towards radical islamism across the region.

People who think there was any danger of the islamists taking over in Lybia don't know their stuff. If we're unlucky they will be the ones taking over when the Qaddafi regime falls in 10-20 years or when revolution comes to the Arab peninsula though, because we failed the Arab people this time round.  

Good lord, don't you think this smacks of 'White Man's Burden'?

You don't mean to suggest anyone but the USA is calling the shots in the UN, do you?

[opebo]

The way the West has dealt with this is disgusting and will cost us dear for generations to come. Once again we have signalled to those in the region that we indeed are the enemy and that the secular opposition is incapable of ending dictatorships in most of the Middle-East. I fully expect thousands to turn towards radical islamism across the region.

People who think there was any danger of the islamists taking over in Lybia don't know their stuff. If we're unlucky they will be the ones taking over when the Qaddafi regime falls in 10-20 years or when revolution comes to the Arab peninsula though, because we failed the Arab people this time round. 

Good lord, don't you think this smacks of 'White Man's Burden'?

When the Arab League invites a NATO intervention, the scenario's somewhat different.

You don't mean to suggest anyone but the USA is calling the shots in the UN, do you?

Guys, you're misunderstanding me - I mean the general idea that it is somehow the responsiblity of the paternalistic white man to 'help out' these swarthier peoples.  As if they cannot fight for their own freedom.  Sounds to me like the old 'White Man's Burden' idea - 'we have to help them'.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The way the West has dealt with this is disgusting and will cost us dear for generations to come. Once again we have signalled to those in the region that we indeed are the enemy and that the secular opposition is incapable of ending dictatorships in most of the Middle-East. I fully expect thousands to turn towards radical islamism across the region.

People who think there was any danger of the islamists taking over in Lybia don't know their stuff. If we're unlucky they will be the ones taking over when the Qaddafi regime falls in 10-20 years or when revolution comes to the Arab peninsula though, because we failed the Arab people this time round. 

Good lord, don't you think this smacks of 'White Man's Burden'?

When the Arab League invites a NATO intervention, the scenario's somewhat different.

     Though the question is, does the Arab League have any more right to interfere with Lybia's internal affairs than the next folks? Just because they're not white, doesn't mean that their actions are anything other than being international policemen.

[Insula Dei]

Well, there is something called 'International Community' which just about all countries seem to accept as an objectively good thing. I don't think preventing a semi-genocide is outside of what that International Community should be interested in.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Preventing semi-genocides isn't such a bad thing, though I think that imposing a no-fly zone crosses over into aiding the rebels, which is interference in Lybian internal affairs.

[Insula Dei]

     Preventing semi-genocides isn't so horrible, though I think that imposing a no-fly zone crosses over into aiding the rebels, which is interference in Lybian internal affairs.

You don't think Qaddafi is going to have a jolly old Tea Party with those rebels, do you? The only thing standing between us and some nasty massacring in Lybia is the possibility of an intervention.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Preventing semi-genocides isn't so horrible, though I think that imposing a no-fly zone crosses over into aiding the rebels, which is interference in Lybian internal affairs.

You don't think Qaddafi is going to have a jolly old Tea Party with those rebels, do you? The only thing standing between us and some nasty massacring in Lybia is the possibility of an intervention.

     There are different kinds of interventions that exist. I surmise it would be possible to dispatch a multinational humanitarian taskforce to assure the proper treatment of rebels & rebel sympathizers without directly assisting them in their war against Qaddafi's government.

[Middle-aged Europe]

     Preventing semi-genocides isn't so horrible, though I think that imposing a no-fly zone crosses over into aiding the rebels, which is interference in Lybian internal affairs.

You don't think Qaddafi is going to have a jolly old Tea Party with those rebels, do you? The only thing standing between us and some nasty massacring in Lybia is the possibility of an intervention.

     There are different kinds of interventions that exist. I surmise it would be possible to dispatch a multinational humanitarian taskforce to assure the proper treatment of rebels & rebel sympathizers without directly assisting them in their war against Qaddafi's government.

LOL

[2952-0-0]

There are reports that two loyalist battalions in Sirt have defected and taken over the airport, and that an air force pilot has done a Kamikaze mission on Gaddafi's Tripoli compound. If true this is a major psychological boost for the rebels.

[Lief 🗽]

Well the rebels will need to pull off a Stalingrad at this point. I suspect taking Benghazi will be pretty bloody, since the rebels know that they'll be dead either way.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     There's also been a report that two fighter jets have defected to the rebels.

[John Dibble]

     Preventing semi-genocides isn't so horrible, though I think that imposing a no-fly zone crosses over into aiding the rebels, which is interference in Lybian internal affairs.

You don't think Qaddafi is going to have a jolly old Tea Party with those rebels, do you? The only thing standing between us and some nasty massacring in Lybia is the possibility of an intervention.

     There are different kinds of interventions that exist. I surmise it would be possible to dispatch a multinational humanitarian taskforce to assure the proper treatment of rebels & rebel sympathizers without directly assisting them in their war against Qaddafi's government.

That has to be the most naive thing I've heard all week. How exactly would they do this short of occupying every city in the country and showing a willingness to use lethal force to keep Gaddafi's thugs in check? Such an effort would require far more intervention than a no-fly zone.

[exopolitician]

     There's also been a report that two fighter jets have defected to the rebels.

Only two? That'll do it...

[Associate Justice PiT]

    Preventing semi-genocides isn't so horrible, though I think that imposing a no-fly zone crosses over into aiding the rebels, which is interference in Lybian internal affairs.

You don't think Qaddafi is going to have a jolly old Tea Party with those rebels, do you? The only thing standing between us and some nasty massacring in Lybia is the possibility of an intervention.

     There are different kinds of interventions that exist. I surmise it would be possible to dispatch a multinational humanitarian taskforce to assure the proper treatment of rebels & rebel sympathizers without directly assisting them in their war against Qaddafi's government.

That has to be the most naive thing I've heard all week. How exactly would they do this short of occupying every city in the country and showing a willingness to use lethal force to keep Gaddafi's thugs in check? Such an effort would require far more intervention than a no-fly zone.

     It was a stupid suggestion in reaction to another dubious suggestion. A no-fly zone seems like something that likewise would require more intervention than just, I don't know, giving the rebels superior arms?

[Insula Dei]

    Preventing semi-genocides isn't so horrible, though I think that imposing a no-fly zone crosses over into aiding the rebels, which is interference in Lybian internal affairs.

You don't think Qaddafi is going to have a jolly old Tea Party with those rebels, do you? The only thing standing between us and some nasty massacring in Lybia is the possibility of an intervention.

     There are different kinds of interventions that exist. I surmise it would be possible to dispatch a multinational humanitarian taskforce to assure the proper treatment of rebels & rebel sympathizers without directly assisting them in their war against Qaddafi's government.

That has to be the most naive thing I've heard all week. How exactly would they do this short of occupying every city in the country and showing a willingness to use lethal force to keep Gaddafi's thugs in check? Such an effort would require far more intervention than a no-fly zone.

     It was a stupid suggestion in reaction to another dubious suggestion. A no-fly zone seems like something that likewise would require more intervention than just, I don't know, giving the rebels superior arms?

How's my suggestion dubious? Everybody knows Qadaffi will kill thousands after this. Heck, his own son has suggested so himself.

[J. J.]

     It was a stupid suggestion in reaction to another dubious suggestion. A no-fly zone seems like something that likewise would require more intervention than just, I don't know, giving the rebels superior arms?

I doubt if you could get enough in and I'd know that the rebels could use them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Preventing semi-genocides isn't so horrible, though I think that imposing a no-fly zone crosses over into aiding the rebels, which is interference in Lybian internal affairs.

You don't think Qaddafi is going to have a jolly old Tea Party with those rebels, do you? The only thing standing between us and some nasty massacring in Lybia is the possibility of an intervention.

     There are different kinds of interventions that exist. I surmise it would be possible to dispatch a multinational humanitarian taskforce to assure the proper treatment of rebels & rebel sympathizers without directly assisting them in their war against Qaddafi's government.

That has to be the most naive thing I've heard all week. How exactly would they do this short of occupying every city in the country and showing a willingness to use lethal force to keep Gaddafi's thugs in check? Such an effort would require far more intervention than a no-fly zone.

     It was a stupid suggestion in reaction to another dubious suggestion. A no-fly zone seems like something that likewise would require more intervention than just, I don't know, giving the rebels superior arms?

How's my suggestion dubious? Everybody knows Qadaffi will kill thousands after this. Heck, his own son has suggested so himself.

     Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the suggestion of a no-fly zone, which seems to me a rather inefficient way of helping the rebels if that's what our goal is. You responded to my post initially rather than the other way around.

[Mr. Morden]

Since a quick, "clean" victory by either side now appears impossible, TNR gives a quick blurb on what it suggests are the four "most likely scenarios" of the Libya uprising:

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85279/libya-afghanistan-iraq-somalia

Northern Iraq, Southern Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia

[John Dibble]

It was a stupid suggestion in reaction to another dubious suggestion. A no-fly zone seems like something that likewise would require more intervention than just, I don't know, giving the rebels superior arms?

Gaddafi's main advantage right now is that he has air power and can bomb the crap out of rebel positions with near impunity. Short of giving them fighter jets in sufficient number to fight off the bombers you won't really solve the problem this way because it would require us to give up some of our most expensive equipment as well as require us to give rebels a minimum of months of training that it doesn't look like they have in order to use that equipment effectively. Just giving them guns might help them, but without the power to control the air the rebels would still be at a significant disadvantage. Also, the disorganized nature of the rebel forces makes it hard to maintain control of weapons and there is a legitimate worry that weapons currently in rebel hands may end up on the black market after the war is over.

A no-fly zone doesn't require us to set one foot in Libya, it just takes away Gaddafi's big advantage. The rebels have shown that they are able to fight battles on the ground, so it would be a significant gain for them to not have to worry about fighting enemies in the air.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Alain Juppé, our new Foreign Affairs Minister (and finally someone interesting and efficient in some of our govts for years, glad this is the one that represents France abroad), made a declaration in the Assemblée Nationale this afternoon, he said that France, UK, and Lebanon were actively working on a UN resolution that they will present soon to the UN SC. Amongst other things this resolution will ask for the permission of an intervention there. And, important, he said that 'some Arab countries' gave their agreement for an active participation in this, which apparently also was a condition asked by Russia to determine their position.

Then so far, seems to me that here could be the possibilities:

Very optimistic option:

Something I haven't imagined and that would a good surprise.

Most possible optimistic solution:

The rebels succeed in defeating Gaddafi's ground army in Benghazi. They would fight over tough there, they wouldn't lose it easily it would only need heavy Air Force strike. And that could, yes, be a Stalingrad (hopefully in less nasty), because then, according to a reporter from itélé who's in the East, Gaddafi's army would have let very few men in each conquered city in the East, and if the army is defeated in Benghazi one part of it could surrender and join the rebels too. For example according to that same reporter, 2 days ago, 4 brigades of 1,000 men who were faithful to Gaddafi so far would have stopped to fight for him. And if something like this happen, the bunch of big military officials, who would be less crazy than the guy they still follow, could consider they are in a f**ed up situation and decide to use army against the guy and the sons, and optimally they catch them and they finish tried. Also, about the use of the Air Force, according to that same reporter of itélé, Gaddafi allegedly take in hostage the families of pilots if they disobey, then it would really take so big military officials who have some actual impacts on the hierarchy of the different Libyan forces to decide to stop all that craziness and perversity. That way, Libyans would have gained their freedom alone.

Other optimistic and quite positive option:

UN SC is ok for intervention before big fights happen in Benghazi, foreign military intervention, hopefully it happens well, and it's the beginning of the end for Gaddafi.

Less optimistic option:

Big fights in Benghazi, and odds that it turns more into a Grozni than a Stalingrad, and then other countries can't do other thing than, intervening. Yeah, Sarkozy almost promised an intervention to the Libyans who came in Paris, I can't imagine he tries nothing if it really turns bad in Benghazi, no matter what the UN could have said. In such an emergency situation I guess he could count on UK would followed France's position from the beginning and on the Arab countries that would have given their agreement to intervene according to Juppé.

Pessimistic option:

This is not an option.

Well, Juppé also said that he had 'good reasons' to hope for a good outcome in what could happen in UN. All is about time now.

I hope this, which I must say kinda does something to me, will be more associated with success and pride than fail and shame:



Today, people demonstrated with French signs in Benghazi.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It was a stupid suggestion in reaction to another dubious suggestion. A no-fly zone seems like something that likewise would require more intervention than just, I don't know, giving the rebels superior arms?

Gaddafi's main advantage right now is that he has air power and can bomb the crap out of rebel positions with near impunity. Short of giving them fighter jets in sufficient number to fight off the bombers you won't really solve the problem this way because it would require us to give up some of our most expensive equipment as well as require us to give rebels a minimum of months of training that it doesn't look like they have in order to use that equipment effectively. Just giving them guns might help them, but without the power to control the air the rebels would still be at a significant disadvantage. Also, the disorganized nature of the rebel forces makes it hard to maintain control of weapons and there is a legitimate worry that weapons currently in rebel hands may end up on the black market after the war is over.

A no-fly zone doesn't require us to set one foot in Libya, it just takes away Gaddafi's big advantage. The rebels have shown that they are able to fight battles on the ground, so it would be a significant gain for them to not have to worry about fighting enemies in the air.

     My issue is that I'm unclear on how a no-fly zone would work, exactly. When I hear about it I think of ships firing missiles at any military planes that might be launched from Libyan soil, but I surmise that it is something not so primitive in its implementation.

[Silent Hunter]

It was a stupid suggestion in reaction to another dubious suggestion. A no-fly zone seems like something that likewise would require more intervention than just, I don't know, giving the rebels superior arms?

Gaddafi's main advantage right now is that he has air power and can bomb the crap out of rebel positions with near impunity. Short of giving them fighter jets in sufficient number to fight off the bombers you won't really solve the problem this way because it would require us to give up some of our most expensive equipment as well as require us to give rebels a minimum of months of training that it doesn't look like they have in order to use that equipment effectively. Just giving them guns might help them, but without the power to control the air the rebels would still be at a significant disadvantage. Also, the disorganized nature of the rebel forces makes it hard to maintain control of weapons and there is a legitimate worry that weapons currently in rebel hands may end up on the black market after the war is over.

A no-fly zone doesn't require us to set one foot in Libya, it just takes away Gaddafi's big advantage. The rebels have shown that they are able to fight battles on the ground, so it would be a significant gain for them to not have to worry about fighting enemies in the air.

     My issue is that I'm unclear on how a no-fly zone would work, exactly. When I hear about it I think of ships firing missiles at any military planes that might be launched from Libyan soil, but I surmise that it is something not so primitive in its implementation.

It would involve more than that; possibly F-22s flying around inside Libya; attacks on SAM sites that lock on to the enforcing aircraft, possibly even a few Tomahawks.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I feel ashamed of being a westerner. I really wish our political leaders were born in Libya, that's all they deserve.

[The Mikado]

At least France is taking a leadership role on this (though their long historic bad blood with CQ dating back to the Chad War is noted...France never liked CQ talking of Libya replacing France as the big dog in Africa).

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah, France is the only Western country that is acting even somewhat bravely. Everyone else, Obama included, is cowardly allowing the stage to be set for a brutal massacre of the opposition and many years of even harsher tyranny and bloodshed.