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

[GMantis]

It seems that at the moment the protests are in the east of the country, where Kadhafi has been hated for a long time. Until the protests spread to Tripoli, his regime will probably be not in too much danger.

This is by far the worst regime that has had any type of unrest in it, so I'm really hoping this one goes.

I also hope that the regime goes, but not Qaddafi personally...

Events in Libya certainly prove again why anti-Western dictatorships are more likely to hang on than pro-Western ones. Since countries like Libya don't depend on good relations with the West anyway, they don't need to care whether crushing the protests by force is gonna annoy their non-existing allies in America/Europe. So, let's just put the protesters against the wall and be done with it...

[/quote]
You are very much behind the times. Libya is at the moment quite a darling of the West. For example, remember the disgraceful way in which the UK released the Lockerbie bomber.


Note: The various spellings of the name of the tyrant pretending to rule in the name of the Libyan people are intentional.

[GMantis]

Quite an illuminating speech.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Finally Gaddaffi has moved closer to the position of the demonstrators!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In light of this bizarre statement, I'm wondering if there is a  weapon in the Libyan arsenal that hasn't been used yet against the protesters? The navy? Long range missiles?

[GMantis]

There are also claims that the protesters control Sirte, which would be quite an achievement as this is Qadhafy's birthplace.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/20112235434767487.html

Also, Sarkozy (!) calls for sanctions against Libya:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f1fc5fbe-3f36-11e0-8e48-00144feabdc0.html

[GMantis]

By the way, is actually any oil being exported right now? Either by Gaddafi or the opposition?Because Qadaffi especially will soon have serious problems paying his mercenaries if he can't export oil (that's if he's not press ganging them).

[GMantis]

Not that I share Opebo's opinion of Gadhafi, but it's ironic that they are recognizing the opposition government when it seems that Gaddafi has gained the upper hand.

[GMantis]

     So they're saying the rebels have taken back Brega. Think it's true? It seems like the main source for this are the rebels (Al Jazeera is only claiming that "sources tell [them]"), who I wouldn't particularly trust, but at least they seem to have a better track record than the government, which is about as trustworthy as Hamilton.

It seems that their trustfulness of the rebels has been declining along with their fortunes. They lied about both Zawaya and Ras Lanuf and with independent confirmation about Brega available (see here: http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Benghazi-braces-as-morale-sinks-20110313), I'm not inclined to believe them.

[GMantis]

It's interesting how many civilian casualties they will be. They tend to be a lot in such humanitarian operations.

[GMantis]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4044611,00.html

If true, a very foolish beginning to a dubious operation.

[GMantis]

Great job, injecting yourself into a Arab tribal war.

If it's not, there is a good chance it will become one now.

[GMantis]

It is interesting to note how excited yesterday's imperial superpowers are about this. A chance to flex their muscles and prove they're not irrelevant, I suppose?

Well, in Sarkozy's case there is the need to divert attention from his shady dealings with Gadhafi.

[GMantis]

The most likely scenario seems to be akin to Iraq in the 90s.  Qaddafi still in power but ability to massacre rebellious regions checked.  As we know that's not competely stable.

That would happen if the coalition was only attacking his air defenses. Which is most certainly not what it's doing.

[GMantis]

Don't know if this is true or not (see context here) but if this is really happening, the tribal war which has been denied by many posters here will soon be a fact.

[GMantis]

If the rebells attack Sirte, will the coalition continue to support them with air strikes? And will they still use the excuse of protecting the civilians?

[GMantis]

By the way, regarding Opebo's idea that the "beards" are behind the uprising, it seems that actual "beards" do not share this view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq4el7gyPas&feature=player_embedded#at=36
Of course, they say against Gadhafi and only oppose the foreign intervention, but considering that Gaddafi would probably have destroyed the uprising by now, they don't seem to have much regard for it as well.

[GMantis]

So, as Gaddafi closes back in on Adjabiya and soon Benghazi, it looks like once again China and Russia have outsmarted the West (except for Germany) and the US.  Now it's either boots on the ground, or the rebels will lose.  You can't play for stalemate, and now that you've gotten involved, you'll look incredibly weak when the rebs go down.

No, it's not outsmarting. Russia and China didn't hinder this operation and the Coalition violated the UN mandate. That Gadhaffi is still winning means that either that the operation is carried out incompetently or that the rebels have far less support than previously thought and that they prefer the Coalition to do all their work for them. The second is more likely and it doesn't speak well of those who decided supporting the rebels was a good idea.

[GMantis]

I fail to see how the past is of any relevance. There are atrocities going on now, and whoever has the power to stop them must do so.

Atrocities are going on all over the world.......and always will.

And this would be an excuse for not caring about them ?

Come on, just admit it : you position is morally bankrupt.

Your position of intervening on the side of rebels, of which little is known and may be worse than Qadhafi and bombing a sovereign country in the process (probably killing many civilians, which is what the intervention was supposed to prevent), is also morally suspect.

[GMantis]

We know that the leader of the National Transitional Council is Gadaffi's former justice minister. We also know that he was considered as something of a reformer even before all hell broke lose in Libya. His deputy was a known human rights lawyer. The prime minister of the rebel government formerly served on Libya's "National Economic Development Board", but was also seen as one of the more reform-minded representatives of the regime. While the council certainly can't fully vouch for what individual rebel units may do or not do in the field, it is a reasonable assumption that the rebels are at worst the lesser evil compared to Gadaffi's regime.

And some in the transitional council participated in the torture of the Benghazi six. At least Gaddafi delegated this to subordinates.

I fail to see how the past is of any relevance. There are atrocities going on now, and whoever has the power to stop them must do so.

Atrocities are going on all over the world.......and always will.

And this would be an excuse for not caring about them ?

Come on, just admit it : you position is morally bankrupt.

Your position of intervening on the side of rebels, of which little is known and may be worse than Qadhafi and bombing a sovereign country in the process (probably killing many civilians, which is what the intervention was supposed to prevent), is also morally suspect.

If you seriously argue that not interventing would have led to less civilians dying, then you're either very naive or very dishonest.

Actually, there are two likely ways that intervening will result in more civilians dying (apart from casualties of the air strikes).
1. By prolonging the war and proportionally fighting in urban areas with the corresponding increase in casualties.
2. Now, one could respond that Gadhafi would cause great casualties by taking revenge agains his opponents. But a victory of the rebels would permit them to take revenge against their opponents, and there are indications that they've already started to do that (this doesn't count the attacks suspected of being mercenaries).
So, like many other things in this war, the effect on civilian casualties of the intervention is quite unclear.

[GMantis]

Apparently they are still claiming that the aims of the operation is protecting civilians. When will they understand that crude propaganda usually has exactly the opposite effect?

[GMantis]

Rebels attempting to seize Brega (again).  If successful, Qaddafi will be limited to pretty much just Sirt and Tripoli.

And everything but Misrata in between, as well as the coast from Tripoli to the Tunisian border and the western part of the Fezzan.

[GMantis]

Apparently, Gadhafy's forces have decided that they don't have enough enemies...
Libyans (probably Gadhafy loyalists) invade Tunisia

[GMantis]

Opebo, you mean the same Gaddhafi who was best friends with the west until February this year?

[GMantis]

With Qaddafi gone, now it's on to Syria...  

Too little oil.

[GMantis]

I highly doubt that there will be a military intervention in Syria.  The Syrian military's strong enough and the rebellion disorganized enough that the "NATO airpower plus local rebel soldiers on the ground" model has zero chance of success (call me back if the Syrian rebels become a realistic military force).  Without that, there's simply no way to oust Assad without NATO (esp. American) boots on the ground, and that simply is not going to happen.

Not to mention that Israel wouldn't really like a pro-Western government in Syria, as it would remove their justification for holding the Golan heights.

[GMantis]

I don't believe in possibility of military intervention in Syria for following reasons:

1. NATO and US are already quite tired with Libya and obviously have little idea what to do with present problem
2. Obama already took a huge political risk in joining intervention in Libya. He's neither gambler nor an idiot
3. No player in the region wants regime change. Israel doesn't love Assad, but don't want to risk losing a predictable neighbour either. Neither wants Lebanon. Saudis and other Gulf monarchies are worried about spreading of the unrests and will sit with the present rulers (hell, Saudis are already scared with Yemen and were with Bahrain). Iran is a close Syrian ally. Iraq is too concerned about it's own fragile security and fragile government to wish any additional meltdown.

Also, the Russians (the primary weapons seller to Assad) don't want to lose a major client.

As if their opinion mattered...

[GMantis]

Is it too early to open a bottle I'm almost ready to embrace the NTC after this