"all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation
force of any form on any part of Libyan territory..."
It remains to be seen whether BHO will now seek congressional authorization for the use of military force, or enter into hostilities with nothing more than a permission slip from the UNSC. Either way, we are entering into an open-ended commitment with no exit plan, taking sides against a dictator who is undoubtedbly a bad guy but who poses no threat to us, with no clear idea of who makes up the opposition. Familiar, eh?
The best case scenario would be that (a) the other parties behind the resolution do most of the work, (b) the old regime quickly collapses, (c) the opponents refrain from retaliating with their own atrocities on civilians, and (d) the newly empowered agree among themselves to have free elections and a democratic constitution. Unfortunately we had similar best case scenarios the last two times and it didn't work out all that smoothly.
Some obvious things to worry about:
(a) Suppose Ghaddafi turns out to be faster or stronger than expected, and takes the major east Libyan towns before, or even in spite of, any UN action. Then what? Shrug and leave, let him hang the prominent citizens of half the towns in the country, and spend the next twenty years (dictators live long lives) boasting that he beat the UK, France, the US, and the entire Arab league combined? Or will we decide to ramp it up and take him out anyway despite the rebels being routed - by air power alone?
(b) Suppose Ghaddafi loses and the rebels move into Tripoli. Nevermind whether we have a plan, do they have a plan? Is there even an identifiable leader, or is it more like Villa, Carranza, and Zapata temporarily putting off the "discussions" about who will be in charge? If they do fight among themselves, does our mandate still include jumping in to protect civilians?
(c) It now appears Ghaddafi might have some actual supporters. Do we expect them to just quietly fade away if the rebels win, or will we have five years of Muammar's Fedayeen planting IEDs, blowing up police stations, and trying to destablilize Tunisia and Egypt?
Of course you could argue that most of the bad stuff above is likely to happen anyway, without us doing anything. Here are some downsides directly connected to us getting involved: (a) navy and air force stretched even thinner, (b) ground operations required to retrieve downed pilots, (c) lots and lots of money and excuses for various national security measures, (d) droned-Libyan-wedding-party-of-the-week, and (e) adding a largish clan of North Africans to the club of people who think the US is a valid target for terror attacks.
At this point our best hope for staying out is for Congress to forbid expenditures of funds on this mission. But that's not likely to get through the Senate, so it looks like our President will get his third war.
*was sitting on a different comment for a bit*
(#252674)What's next?
Sit back and let Muammar drop his freedom bombs?
And stomach that? My gut doesn't like that option.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Go for it
(#252790)Give us the one you were sitting on...
You do realize that similar amounts of killing are going on Ivory Coast and various other spots, just with a lot less publicity. And if the decision is strictly on humanitarian grounds, I would think higher priority should go to places like Bahrain where most of the people getting shot actually are peaceful protesters. It does seem clear that the rebels in Libya are the "good guys" if one had to pick sides, but they're not exactly in the Gandhi category, and we're under no obligation to pick sides.
The Shorter Version
(#252854)So far, it would be, now currently is, "just" air-strikes. And it's targeted at Muammar forces and any misses probably wouldn't be hitting people not supporting Ghaddafi.
Iraq, that wasn't a civil war already going on, that was a war was started from scratch. Libya already reached critical mass where offering resistance help isn't going to as huge a risk as in other circumstance into making things deadlier.
Ghaddifi's history isn't the best, and what kind of incentive is it to other dictators/King's if he's allowed to try and keep control and not just try and flee?
---Ghaddafi, according to CBS, is starting to arm civilians into militias. Uniformed, untrained, fighting force with probably little command structure.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
The Iraq venture really messed up the concept of
(#252676)legitimate intervention.
There doesn't seem to be an option apart from sitting it out. Boxing Gaddafi in, without leaving him an escape route, was a really bad idea. And he's now defiant, and wears the mantle of the freedom fighter. Whatever the UNSC might opine, [url=http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201131633330526824.html]the Chinese (and others) are grumbling.[/url]
[quote]However, the military action faced resistance from other nations, including Russia and China. "Some members have questions and they need clarifications before a decision is made," Li Baodong, China's ambassador, told reporters. But he added: "We are very concerned about the deteriorating situation in Libya".
---
Opponents of the no-fly zone want to know who will take part in it and how it will be patrolled.
Hardeep Singh Puri, India's envoy, raised questions about the ban on "all flights".
Portugal, Germany and South Africa have also raised doubts about the idea of a no-fly zone for Libya.
New "paragraph by paragraph" talks on the draft resolution are to be held
on Wednesday, Mark Lyall Grant, Britain's envoy, said. But diplomats
said no vote was likely before Thursday.[/quote]
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Not really
(#252679)the concept of legitimate intervention started dying with the work of Matthew Brady, and accelerates as audio visual recording gets more and more realistic. You can call it whatever you want, it's just war by another name.
I blame it all on the Internet
Boxing in
(#252793)You're right that there's a real conflict between the goal of bringing war criminals, terrorism sponsors, and human rights abusers to justice, and the goal of getting regime change with minimum loss of life. IMO letting a dictator run off with a few 10's of millions to a safe retirement is generally worth it.
However, it's not clear that Ghaddafi was really on the verge of running. Most of time they don't leave until the mobs are right outside the Presidential palace and senior advisors are telling them it's over, and apparently it didn't really get to that stage.
The other factor is that Ghaddafi has plenty of experience with pariah status and has previously gotten away with stuff much less justifiable on international law grounds than what he's doing now. He probably believes he could hold out indefinitely under any kind of sanctions or restrictions short of a ground invasion.
Ghaddafi raises the ante
(#252677)[Link]
I don't think he can really get away with any of this, even one of the NATO powers could easily destroy his air force. But it does show that threats alone won't do the job.
I blame it all on the Internet
It Would Be Nice. . .
(#252680). . .if they had gotten around to this a couple of weeks ago, before a good portion of the rebels were wiped out by Qadaffy. At this point, the no-fly zone might just end up performing the dubious exacta of killing a lot of Libyans and making the US look impotent at the same time.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Yeah, I think we passed the point of no return on this
(#252685)about a week ago, from what I know about the situation there isn't much more to protect, unless the idea is we use sanctions and no-fly zones to punish Libya like we did Iraq in the 90s. I'll be happy to be mistaken though and be among the first to congratulate the President and the UN if something good comes out of this.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
Question for conservatives:
(#252692)Would you be willing to see tax rates rise to pay for a third military operation?
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
I'd rather see
(#252695)social security and medicare cut.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
It's like the Great Depression
(#252697)never happened. It's like the best way to recover from the Great Recession is to slash the spending power of fixed-income individuals who can no longer earn a living.
M Aurelius was probably right.
The Next Step is Conscription
(#252701)of fixed income individuals who no longer work for a living.
Yeah, just like the great depression
(#252702)except for the eligibility age of social security being set past average life expectancy it is set over a decade before instead. Oh yeah, then there is the billions of fraud each year mailed out to these entitlement programs. Oh, and don't forget the advances in medical technology that allow geriatric patients to float near death for months at a time now. But other than that, exactly like the great depression.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
Not the point.
(#252704)There was a collective understanding that a large class of indigent retired persons was an undesirable public burden...one that becomes a catastrophic public burden in times of widespread unemployment & wealth destruction. That general principle hasn't changed even a little.
If you want to nibble around the edges of the issue, fine; even small changes amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. Efficiency is a good idea; controlling health costs is quickly becoming a survival necessity.
But none of that changes the basic need for & success of those programs.
M Aurelius was probably right.
It is exactly the point
(#252708)The original question was the smarmy proposition that conservatives aren't willing to raise taxes in order to fund military operations in Libya (which is ironic, given that the conservatives who have weighed in on the no-fly zone seem to think it is too little, too late, but whatever). My response is that before raising taxes I'd rather see some cuts in the entitlement programs, which take up a greater share of the federal budget than the DOD, transferred to the DOD. You come back with a great depression response and I responded that it ain't the 30s anymore and these programs could stand to be reigned in.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
So by cuts you meant improved efficiencies?
(#252712)Fine by me, although the same could be said for DOD spending, and probably more. Did you see the stories about *billions* of dollars worth of fuel going missing in AfPak? That's just the penguin's nostril on the tip of the iceberg.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I am not opposed to cuts/improved efficiencies for DOD either
(#252715)Apart from the wasted billions in Iraq and Afghanistan which need to be policed, there are bases to close, programs of marginal value to cut, and stateside contracts to audit. But I also mean cuts to social security and medicare. Raising the eligibility age is a cut. Means testing is a cut. Restrictions on end of life care are cuts. To my mind these and policing fraud are the no-brainers, we haven't even approached the difficult decisions.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
Two words: death panels.
(#252717)Americans believe, rightly or wrongly, that they have a god-given right to the most expensive, extreme treatments available when their lives are on the line. Good luck to the politician who tries to convince them otherwise.
Meanwhile, given that there are hundreds of billions of dollars to be made in far more palatable cuts (for example, excising tumorous financial middlemen from Medicare the way the ACA bill does), that would seem the way to go.
Given that we are in a recession, one with zero upward movement in employment/salaries, cutting actual working programs (military or entitlement) at this particular point in time is a bad idea. Anything that takes money out of the hands of individuals likely to spend it on goods & services is a bad idea.
M Aurelius was probably right.
There is no money in their hands to spend
(#252719)it's Chinese credit that is being spent, which is only further adding to the portion of the federal budget allotted for interest on the debt. Death panels are as popular as raising taxes, but the frame of this thread is what conservatives were willing to do pay for action in Libya, not what is politically feasible to do so.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
I'd say
(#252724)the whole thing could be self financing
*ducks*
In other words, no.
(#252734)I see the conservative inability to give an honest answer to a question remains unchanged.
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
conservative inability to give an honest answer
(#252738)Gee, with an attitude like that I can't understand why someone who would dare to disagree with you wouldn't want to provide straight forward answers.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
Feel free to disagree with me all you like.
(#252748)But answer the question, will you? I asked if opening a third military front in Libya is worth raising taxes for. I didn't ask if we should gut social programs or raise taxes. The former for those of us who are financially secure (which I assume includes all of us commenters here in the States) involves no skin in the game: gut SS and Medicare and we feel no direct pain. Raise taxes, though, and it hits us all in the pocket.
So again, I ask you, or any other conservative here: is going into Libya worth raising taxes over?
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
With a trillion+ dollar budget
(#252750)and what I see as quite a bit of waste and programs expanded way outside of their intended mandate, my first inclination is a desire to redirect current revenues before we raise anymore- for anything, military or otherwise. That's why I said I would prefer to see cuts in the largest parts of the budget outside of debt interest. However, in a perfect world, if the federal government were a tightly run ship and we needed to take on another military commitment, if I supported it, then yes, I would support raising taxes in order to pay for it. In this particular case, right here right now, I'm not even sure I support it. If you asked me two weeks ago then I would have answered yes, I would pay higher taxes. Or, if it is a matter of us making sacrifices, I would volunteer to go, if they would take me (which they won't, I've tried).
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
This is playing on the false view of the US being Broke....
(#252778)Here is the whole article putting the stake to this Vampire...
I can see the need to fix, audit and streamline anything that is possible... Are issues are structural and not resource driven... We have the money to fix the problems we have just not the political will.. In fact we have yet to have a true debate on this issue..."
I will stipulate that Revenue and Cuts will both be on the table. The question is who pays where do we take our pound of flesh?
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo
I guess one
(#252786)definition of "broke" is "no one will lend you money anymore". Because as long as other people will let you go even deeper into debt, that means everything is OK, right?
Truer than you think
(#252789)because as long as we're running a trade deficit the total of public and private debt must increase to match that deficit. If you want to avoid debt you'll have to get the trade numbers positive or at least roughly neutral. If you don't than uyour only choice is between public or private debt - or devaluation of the currency to reduce past debt (but increase it in the future).
I blame it all on the Internet
Certainly
(#252792)nothing untrue in what you say. The disagreement is only whether a permanent deficit is desirable or sustainable.
True but we also have the lowest level of Revenue
(#252797)In Sixty years.... Taking into effect that our debt can pretty much be put on the Economic belief system that Reagan ushered in. We can start by taxing related to gain over that 30 year period.... If not we are looking at the first generation in our countries history to leave the next generations worst off...
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo
I find it hilarious that you guys....
(#252822)....are basically using the arguments I used to stick in Hank's face when he'd whine about war spending. :^)
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
No, this is addressing comment #252692
(#252969)I was just trying to stay within the premise as I saw it set (I first understood it as a revenue neutral question about funding rather than what we are individually willing to sacrifice for action in Libya).
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
Is it solidly earmarked towards mil ops and set to expire....
(#252755)...upon cessation of hostilities? If so, yes. If not, no; too much other loser-support crap it would end up going towards later.
(Yes, I already read the rest of the thread.) :^)
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
Heh, loser 85 year olds. -nt-
(#252757).
M Aurelius was probably right.
85?
(#252772)If we're talking 85-year-olds, [url=http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html]there's nothing to worry about[/url]. :^)
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
Tell that to your president
(#252814)He's the one who's jumping on board with the coalition of the willing, without even an Authorization to Use Military Force from Congress.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
hmm
(#252817)"tell it to so and so" is a strange answer to such a direct and straightforward question.
“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
-George Bernard Shaw
Not really
(#252874)Just trying to veer things back to the actual situation at hand, which has now evolved to cruise missile strikes. This is all on your president, not "conservatives".
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Do you want to stake out a position here?
(#252864)Do you think the President is acting outside of his constitutional and statutory limits?
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
What is there to stake?
(#252880)There is a history of presidents taking unilateral actions and committing acts of war, where an AUMF is either not sought by the president or where Congress abdicates its role and lets the president play commander-in-chief without interference. My comment was merely a statement of fact. There has been little public discussion of committing our resources to this venture. It has been a rush to war. I will also say that all of you Obama fanboys just got chumped yet again. Quote:
Another Obama comment with an expiration date.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Your choice
(#252894)for President the last go around was on the Sunday shows again, complaining that Obama hasn't acted quickly enough or strongly enough. Is he wrong?
Also, support for the President from this Republican Congress? you're ha'vin a laugh.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
The last I checked,
(#252973)McCain and other conservatives don't have their fingers on the trigger of the U.S. military. Your president does. It's not that hard of a point. Barack Obama made some nice-sounding noises during the campaign that caused liberals to feel all gushy and yes-we-canny, then when reality bit, he threw you to the curb. At least McCain was honest about his views up front.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
McCain was running on the GOP ticket
(#252987)So, it's kind of difficult to tell if he was honest, or trying to keep the base. He had flip-flipped on a lot of issues, 2000 McCain and 2008 McCain weren't identical twins.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Okay...
(#252897)So he was wrong then, and although acting within his authority, he is acting unadvisedly now? Do I have you right?
I think Obama didn't want to go in but figured if the French and the Brits wanted to take the lead he'd play ball. I know there wasn't enough time for a congressional debate. Another 48 hours and the rebels were toast.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Last line is exactly true.
(#252899)-
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
So is the objective
(#252903)to protect civilians, or the rebel army? Because, you know, army != civilians, even if you believe that the rebels will be kinder to civilians than the Qs.
My opinion? It seems regime change
(#252905)is the objective - perhaps Serbia in the last decade is a possible parallel.
There are bound to be civilian casualties - possibly even hospitals will be hit by mistake, as in previous "precision" campaigns.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Fair enough but
(#252907)the guys at the top (Obama, Mullen, Sarkozy, Clinton, various Arab League spokesmen) can't seem to make up their mind.
I'd say they have a pretty good idea.
(#252908)Maybe they're just not telling us everything - Obama, Mullen etc.
The Arab League is another story.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
They're saying a lot:
(#252911)Secretary of State Clinton:
On the other hand, Admiral Mullen:
On the third hand, Sarkozy and Cameron:
On the fourth hand, Barack Obama
On the fifth hand, Barack Obama
On the sixth hand, Amr Moussa
There's no plan. This looked like low-hanging fruit, which was the entire reason for pursuing Libya instead of, say, Ivory Coast or Yemen, and as soon as the fruit tree turns out to be a bit thorny there's total confusion.
EDIT: making this into a diary
What's the point of having this military if we can't use it?
(#252975)bgates nails it.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
You are agreeing with that comment?
(#252977)I suppose that means you think Bush II didn't have the moral authority to launch a military action. How patently ridiculous.
C'mon, BD. This is serious stuff, not an occasion for hit-and-run political commentary. I'll ask you again, stake a position. I'll gladly concede that he has contradicted himself, but that just proves he's contradicted himself.
Does Obama have the authority, or doesn't he?
Should he have delayed military action until Congressional approval was granted (with the rebels defeated by that time?)
Is his action advisable, or not?
These are the big issues, and to use the occasion for political potshots is small.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Nope
(#252984)I'm tweaking your side for using the chickenhawk epithet when it aligned with your politics, as was bgates. Now that the glove is on the other foot, you're saying it's "hit-and-run political commentary". Well, whatever. Speaking of hits, here's another gem from bgates.
As for your question of whether Obama has the authority to launch strikes, asked and answered. As to whether the strikes on Libya were advisable, I grudgingly and tepidly support bombing (on the strength of this argument) as well as arming the rebel factions. What I don't support is a president who sold you a bill of goods about getting Congressional backing and then proceeding to behave no differently from the predecessor whom you and he so virulently criticized.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
You guys are kind of hilariously missing the big difference
(#252985)between the invasion of Iraq and the intervention in Libya: there is an actual reason for immediate action in Libya. There was no such thing in Iraq. The UNSC timing is based on events on the ground; the timeline for invasion of Iraq was dictated from the White House.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Big Difference?
(#252986)So you're saying that Curveball, Chalabi and their ilk weren't credible sources of "intelligence?"
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
That and the Other Part of the Chickenhawk
(#252992)charge is that the "Chicken" part of Chickenhawk ("draft dodging") is missing with Obama's lady advisors.
Isn't that the chicken hawk argument
(#252981)all over again?
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
Then what?
(#252980)Beyond the sentiment of "we've got to bomb something!" there is no plan with Libya, as eeyn524 ably pointed out in his latest diary. Eight years ago, an administration bombed a country and removed a dictator, then had exactly no workable plan on the table to deal with the aftermath. Does this not sound the least bit familiar? This will most likely not end cleanly or shortly.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Closing the barn door after the horses escaped
(#252694)Gaddafi just declared a cease-fire, but he can afford to now.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Not necessarily. Qaddafi forces control Ras Lanuf & Marsa Brega
(#252703)oil facilities, but check out the Asset Freeze section of UNSC 1970. They've got Qaddafi by the fiduciary short & curlies, backed up by a partial shipping & total aviation blockade, plus a blacklist for individuals found bypassing any of the above. This explains the sudden about face. The next move is no doubt some kind of negotiation with the Qaddafi clans over oil revenue sharing.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Putting more or less
(#252788)exactly the same types of freezes on Saddam yielded no result (except for lots of dead Iraqi children) in 12 years.
Libya is quite a bit different from Iraq.
(#252795)Libya imports 75% of its food. Oil exports from 10-12 ports account for more than 80% of GDP. Half of Qaddafi's army stepped away and he was forced to hire mercenaries...the guys now hoping to shoot their way through Benghazi. US & Europe have frozen at least $50 billion in Libyan assets -- GDP is $80 billion. If ever there was a regime to be brought to the table by sanctions, it's Libya.
Iraq is in Mesopotamia...breadbasket of the ancient world.
The Qaddafi clan looks to have a lot of options...but ignoring a blockade isn't really one of them. They can't eat oil.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Let's hope
(#252799)you're right. I'm skeptical - there were Libyans long before there were oil wells, they have a long border that would be very hard to block effectively, and I would guess that unless the rebels get plenty of outside support they will run out of money and food a long time before the Khaddafi clan.
Anyway, cutting off or even restricting food is a bad idea. It's trivially easy for a dictator to make sure that whatever food exists goes to his supporters and not to anyone else. The sad fact is that restricting medicine, building supplies, clothes, metal, equipment, consumer goods or pretty much anything you can think of short of weapons grade uranium, is going to hurt the supposed victims of the regime more than the regime itself. Sanctions just plain don't work except on governments accountable to an electorate that wants the benefits of trade and international acceptance (e.g. South Africa).
The lesson I see from Cuba, Iran, Iraq, etc is that only useful options are accepting the nasty government as legally if not morally legitimate, and dealing with them the best we can, or full up war. UN resolution theater, sanctions, bombings, proxy wars, and other stuff don't solve anything.
I don't mean actually cutting off food, of course.
(#252800)Driving people into desperation doesn't seem like a good way to bring peace & democracy, and of course you can't starve a leader out of power. It does mean facing Qaddafi with a stark choice...find some accommodation or start living in a bedouin tent for real (well, so to speak). Greatly lowered expectations, or, some kind of workable accommodation. (Boxing them in again probably isn't a good idea.)
It's leverage...who knows if it will move anything in the right direction.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Aaaaand, Qaddafi forces invade Benghazi.
(#252821)Calling the UNSC bluff, it looks like. Qaddafi forces also claim they've been taking shellfire from the rebels. Airstrikes & aircover are of course useless in a city full of allies & civilians. Meanwhile, freezing Libyan assets, holding Qaddafi's money and tax base hostage? Well now (maybe) he will have hostages of his own to bargain with.
Your move, United Nations.
M Aurelius was probably right.
It's on
(#252841)Apparently NATO's launching air strikes against Libyan forces with France in the lead.
Maybe we shouldn't be thinking of this in terms of 1989 or 1848, but rather 1789.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité!
A Video. . .
(#252843). . .of Colonel Goofy meeting up with a guillotine would certainly get a lot of hits on YouTube.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Col Goofy?
(#252856)Excellent, sir!
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
No ground operations.
(#252855)Definitely no ground operations. He promises.
Deja Vu
(#252867)I thought that particular announcement was stupid when Bubba made it regarding Bosnia, too--why tell the enemy in advance what line you're not willing to cross?
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
No harm
(#252869)(from your point of view) - since his credibility in the Arab world is zero it really doesn't matter what he says.
Both the US and the UN
(#252863)are politically incapable of merely removing a dictator and then leaving. They'll have to stay in Libya to "stabilize" it after Ghadaffi's gone (which I assume he will be, one way or another), with the predictable consequences you've listed. I hope it won't be as bad as Iraq, both because there is likely to be less postwar organized resistance and because the American public probably won't put up with another ten-year occupation.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Ideally, we'll get a formal capitulation
(#252879)I suspect that one of the reasons that the occupation of Bosnia and Kosovo went smoothly was that the Serbian forces formally capitulated both in 1996 and 1999.
If Colonel Q surrenders and agrees to go into exile, there won't really be a basis for an insurgency.
Plenty of basis
(#252886)If Q capitulates, it's true that some of his supporters might decide the game is over. However, it's a large extended clan and some of them might not be willing to give up their wealth and positions just because the boss cut and run.
But even if the whole Q faction collectively surrenders, what makes you sure that the rebels don't have differences among themselves? Or that they have any qualms about using violence to address those differences?
Note: El Baradei got mobbed and stoned by Islamists yesterday. One hopes this isn't the start of a trend.
Robert Fisk on the subject of bombing Libya
(#252878)[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-first-it-was-saddam-then-gaddafi-now-theres-a-vacancy-for-the-wests-favourite-crackpot-tyrant-2246415.html]Link[/url], but he can't really criticize this time very well, can he?
[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-palestinians-understand-gaddafi-better-than-we-do-2239799.html]He's better on the Palestinians.[/url]
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
It looks led by France
(#252888)Not sure why, but Sarkozy has been pushing this from early on; the French (the French!, let that sink in for a minute), started the bombing within hours and the most direct attacks on columns of loyalist forces. The French have not been this proactive since Suez, a half century ago.
I am not sure what is going on, but Obama seems to be along for the ride, not much more. I would not call it his war at all.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
100 Tomahawks
(#252892)seems like more than "along for the ride".
Plus, the Tomahawks were aimed more at military infrastructure in Qaddafi held areas, while the French seem to be working on military vehicles actually engaged in attacking Benghazi. I understand why taking out infrastructure is necessary and proper once you've decided to do a no-fly zone, but it also goes along with Obama's rhetoric: Sarko is still saying that the objective is to protect civilians, and that the war can stop if Qaddafi stops. Obama is openly saying the objective is regime change and nothing less is acceptable.
He owns it.
If you are the US
(#252893)100 Tomahawks is sort of the least you can do.
Time will show if the difference in rethoric is meaningful.
But certainly the actual presence of French fighter pilots over Benghazi skies, bombing (killing) Qaddafi troops, is more personal and symbolically much stronger than robot missiles launched from the sea to destroy defense infrastructure.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Also, don't forget...
(#252923)France took the rather odd step of recognizing the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya, over a week ago.
Especially odd because the rebels don't even have a clear set of authorities; each city was more or less rebelling independently.
The US was and is nowhere near the point of doing that.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
And the Arab League...
(#252889)...would seem to be backtracking.
Unless, of course, I understand French less than I think I do (being under-educated, and all).
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.