Libyan Civil War Megathread

[The Minsky Moment]

[The actual existence of WMDs on the ground being the sole and only reason for the war only became the Pravda of the left after it became clear that there weren't any. Prior to that, it was largely ignored as a reason because everyone, including the left, largely assumed they were there.

It wasn't ignored by the congressional authorization of force that Hansie keeps talking about.  That authorization was explicitly based on the alleged findings of WMD risk and a Presidential  declaration that Iraq was not complying with the UN enforcement mechanisms.

[Warspite]

I don't buy into this idea that other "interventions" were for non-humanitarian reasons, and hence don't count.

WW2 for example, was most definitely sold as a humanitarian war.

World War Two began in Europe because German armed forces cross the border with Poland uninvited, committing the international sin of territorial aggression. The UK and France went to war to protect the territorial integrity of Poland, not the well-being of Polish civilians. The latter may be a pleasant side-effect of the former, but no Cabinet minute nor Commons debate cites humanitarian intervention. They do, however, talk about the vile Hun trying to redraw the map of Europe by violence again. That was the crime that draw the UK and France into war. Not the ghettoisation of Jews.

We cut off oil exports to Japan, which *directly* led to their attack on the basis of a aggressive Japanese war.

Yes, the Japanese rampage in China was an example of territorial expansionism and a crime against the peace of nations; Nanking disgusted the public, but the crime to justify the war was against the peace of nations.

[quoteWe supplied Britain with war materials, which led directly to the German DOW on the basis of their war of aggression against France and Poland.[/quote]

Again, because Germany was a threat to the peace of nations; had the Nazis not touched a single Jew, homosexual or Slav, their crime of international aggression would still have compelled action.

The list goes on and on - we cite humanitarian concerns in war after war after war. You cannot just blithely say "Oh, THAT was not a humanitarian war!" to dismiss any intervention where the result was that we end up supporting people who did terrible things. If so, I will just state "Oh, THIS isn't a humanitarian war!" either, and come up with some other "reason" why we need to take out the current nutjob up for removal.

Aside from Somalia (intervening where there was no state), Kosovo and now Libya, I cannot think of any military interventions primarily justified on the basis of humanitarian concerns, as opposed to 'international peace and security' (even Kosovo was undertaken to a great degree because of the regionally destabilising effect it was having on neighbouring states like Macedonia). Instead, we have plenty of counter-examples where a weaker foe than Libya has set off a humanitarian emergency and then nothing has been done.

[Warspite]

I do hope that the US can back away from an active roll as much as possible. Qadafi is kind of pathetic, and the regional powers should be more than capable of making his regime non-sustainable.

You are right, but I think we're going to see a very inward-looking Egypt for some time.

Don't worry, though; Sarkozy needs his Khaki election, so I'm sure he'll commit until Gadaffi is gone, even if no one else does.

[Berkut]

[The actual existence of WMDs on the ground being the sole and only reason for the war only became the Pravda of the left after it became clear that there weren't any. Prior to that, it was largely ignored as a reason because everyone, including the left, largely assumed they were there.

It wasn't ignored by the congressional authorization of force that Hansie keeps talking about.  That authorization was explicitly based on the alleged findings of WMD risk and a Presidential  declaration that Iraq was not complying with the UN enforcement mechanisms.

WMD risk extends beyond whether he has any RIGHT NOW, and there was no question that he was not complying with UN enforcement mechanisms until it was too late.

[Warspite]

[The actual existence of WMDs on the ground being the sole and only reason for the war only became the Pravda of the left after it became clear that there weren't any. Prior to that, it was largely ignored as a reason because everyone, including the left, largely assumed they were there.

It wasn't ignored by the congressional authorization of force that Hansie keeps talking about.  That authorization was explicitly based on the alleged findings of WMD risk and a Presidential  declaration that Iraq was not complying with the UN enforcement mechanisms.

WMD risk extends beyond whether he has any RIGHT NOW, and there was no question that he was not complying with UN enforcement mechanisms until it was too late.

I recall the reasons offered for the war were that Saddam was a direct threat to regional and international peace and security because of his failure to comply with a UN Security Council mandated inspections regime.

The debate, and ultimate reason for the failure of a second resolution, was over whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq was in material breach. This was the crux of the disagreement: the US and UK believed the inspections regime had failed and that failure to comply was reason for war. France and Germany argued that more time was needed; though there was non-compliance, this in their view was not a sufficient breach to authorise action. I suspect Russia and China would not have authorised action short of Saddam Hussein launching warheads filled with sarin on Amman and Riyadh.

To be fair to the "lefties", whose stance on the war I opposed, many of them were in fact claiming that they didn't believe Saddam had weapons stocks.

Maybe my memory has let me down, but this is how I remember it.

[Berkut]

There was certainly plenty of lefties who did not buy the dog and pony show put on by Powell. But the idea that the case for war was solely based on that dog and pony show is, IMO, post-hoc revisionism. If Saddam had had piles of WMDs sitting around, then some OTHER reason for the war (there were several) would be trotted out as THE reason, which turned out to not be the case.

The same thing will happen with Libya - whatever the actual reasons to act (which are never simple) afterwards some reason that is the easiest to attack will be selected as THE reason, and Obama will be blasted for that.

[Warspite]

There was certainly plenty of lefties who did not buy the dog and pony show put on by Powell. But the idea that the case for war was solely based on that dog and pony show is, IMO, post-hoc revisionism. If Saddam had had piles of WMDs sitting around, then some OTHER reason for the war (there were several) would be trotted out as THE reason, which turned out to not be the case.

The same thing will happen with Libya - whatever the actual reasons to act (which are never simple) afterwards some reason that is the easiest to attack will be selected as THE reason, and Obama will be blasted for that.

Ok, but President Bush was pretty forthright in his State of the Union address in 2002. The below is an excerpt, starting with the first mention of the word "Iraq":

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our Nation's security."

While he starts of by stressing how cruel the regime is, in terms of the threat to the US and its allies - and the peace of the world - it is all terrorism and WMD.

[Mr.Penguin]

Lol, Libya state media is accusing  Denmark of being behind the bombing of Gaddafi's compound Tripoli. They say that the whole bombing campaign is part of Denmark's long war against muslims, starting with the Muhammad drawings.

   
Lets start a new Crusade...

[Malthus]

There was certainly plenty of lefties who did not buy the dog and pony show put on by Powell. But the idea that the case for war was solely based on that dog and pony show is, IMO, post-hoc revisionism. If Saddam had had piles of WMDs sitting around, then some OTHER reason for the war (there were several) would be trotted out as THE reason, which turned out to not be the case.

The same thing will happen with Libya - whatever the actual reasons to act (which are never simple) afterwards some reason that is the easiest to attack will be selected as THE reason, and Obama will be blasted for that.

Ok, but President Bush was pretty forthright in his State of the Union address in 2002. The below is an excerpt, starting with the first mention of the word "Iraq":

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our Nation's security."

While he starts of by stressing how cruel the regime is, in terms of the threat to the US and its allies - and the peace of the world - it is all terrorism and WMD.

The exerpt you quoted is all about the possibility that Saddam could be a danger in the future. It is true he used poision gas on people and monkeyed with inspectors.

[Berkut]

Yeah, that entire excerpt supports my point more than the claim that the entire war was all about the existence of WMDs at that time.

It was even weird at the time - people looked at the words spoken, and somehow came up with entirely different meanings for them.

This little blurb I think, makes a very good case for war against Saddam. In a nutshell, it boils down to:

1. He has proven that he is willing to use WMDs - something beyond the pale in international politics.
2. He has refused to abide by the terms that ended the previous war, said terms being explicitly designed to prevent him from developing WMDs again. He has "something to hide".
3. He has shown himself to be an enemy of the US and our allies, and is willing to ally himself with terrorists.
4. Given the recent events (9/11) the US is no longer willing to sit back and wait for a threat like this to manifest itself directly.

It isn't a rock solid case - I can certainly understand all kinds of arguments against it. But the idea that this all sums up to "ZOMG Iraq has some old cans of nerve agent he didn't get rid of! Lets invade!" is ludicrous.

[The Minsky Moment]

2. He has refused to abide by the terms that ended the previous war, said terms being explicitly designed to prevent him from developing WMDs again. He has "something to hide".

It's the latter claim that was in error and it was a key basis for securing support for the war.  Otherwise there would have been no urgency for immediate action.

I do think the Bush administration honestly believed that the WMDs were there, however.  Saddam succeeded in fooling the outside world that he was further advanced than he really was and that success proved costly to him.

[Mr.Penguin]

At the front line...

[Liep]

[derspiess]

Awesome.  I wonder what the reporter to combatant ratio is over there.

[KRonn]

Lol, Libya state media is accusing  Denmark of being behind the bombing of Gaddafi's compound Tripoli. They say that the whole bombing campaign is part of Denmark's long war against muslims, starting with the Muhammad drawings.

   
Lets start a new Crusade...

There you go, you certainly have the flag for it!