Libyan Civil War Megathread

[Mr.Penguin]

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

Posers or real front line fighter?, I suspect that the ratio for front line fighter is very low, most likely 1:1...

[garbon]

the intervention may also be a good idea because preventing the mass slaughter of a civilian populace at the hands of a madman is simply the right thing to do.

Even if the said populace may turn out to be a bunch of ungrateful pricks in the end.

[derspiess]

I haven't found any acceptable news sources for this little war.  Any recommendations? 

[derspiess]

It is good to know that Obama and 90 percent of the democrats opposition to Bush was purely partisan and devoid of any true ideological principal.

Those are not the only and mutually exclusive possibilities, thus the incoherence of the NRO op-ed.

While Hansy is just playing turn-about, he is pretty much exactly correct in regards to the dem opposition to Bush and his wars.

The funny thing is that he doesn't apparently realize that his own opposition to Obama being exactly the same (purely partisan and based on no ideological principles) just makes him look like as big a tool.

Of course the radical "Moveon" left's hysteria over Iraq was 90% partisan bullshit - that much is obvious by the fact that they are NOT all hysterical over Obama co-opting the Republican position on Iraq and Afghanistan almost completely.

I don't see how the right turning around and doing the exact same thing in an even MORE obvious manner is going to somehow make them look principled though.

I don't think Hans say he was opposed, did he?  And I don't see a majority of the right rising in opposition.  I think many have disagreements with how Obama went about it, and how that seems to conflict with strong statements he made in the past about presidential powers, intervention, etc.

I can't speak for the rest of the Right-- no doubt there are some political opportunists who criticized Obama's inaction and will soon criticize him for taking action.  But I don't buy that you have to support intervention in Libya today if you supported the Iraq war in 2003.

I opposed intervention in Libya because it does not seem to serve our national interest & is going to cost a lot of money we don't have & possibly some of our own guys' lives.  But now that we're involved I think we need to see our mission through to a successful conclusion-- if it's necessary to wipe out Khadaffy & end his regime, let's hurry up & do it.  And FWIW, I don't believe Obama was acting outside his authority (though I'd like him to tell us what changed his mind on the matter). 

[alfred russel]

This strikes me as a terrible idea. If you don't have a rebel force with some sort of centralized leadership, how do you expect a good outcome from this?

[garbon]

This strikes me as a terrible idea. If you don't have a rebel force with some sort of centralized leadership, how do you expect a good outcome from this?

After weeks of bleating that Qaddafi had to step down, I don't see how we had a choice.

[DontSayBanana]

I don't think Hans say he was opposed, did he?  And I don't see a majority of the right rising in opposition.  I think many have disagreements with how Obama went about it, and how that seems to conflict with strong statements he made in the past about presidential powers, intervention, etc.

I can't speak for the rest of the Right-- no doubt there are some political opportunists who criticized Obama's inaction and will soon criticize him for taking action.  But I don't buy that you have to support intervention in Libya today if you supported the Iraq war in 2003.

I opposed intervention in Libya because it does not seem to serve our national interest & is going to cost a lot of money we don't have & possibly some of our own guys' lives.  But now that we're involved I think we need to see our mission through to a successful conclusion-- if it's necessary to wipe out Khadaffy & end his regime, let's hurry up & do it.  And FWIW, I don't believe Obama was acting outside his authority (though I'd like him to tell us what changed his mind on the matter). 

I wouldn't say it's being treated the same way as the Iraq war- hell, I wouldn't even say it's being treated the same way consistently, and that's a large part of the problem.

There are plenty of significant differences between this and Iraq, but Obama's rhetoric on the issue has been so wishy-washy and aimless that it could be interpreted almost exactly like Bush's nearly-equally-ambivalent commentary on Saddam Hussein and the conditions in Iraq.

The vibe I've been getting from Big-O is less, "here's the problem, and here's what we're going to do about it," and more, "yeah, there's a problem, so I'm going to go with a cookie-cutter response because I don't know what else to do."

[dps]

This strikes me as a terrible idea. If you don't have a rebel force with some sort of centralized leadership, how do you expect a good outcome from this?

I suspect that some people simply judge Colonel Loony being gone is a good outcome.

[Martinus]

This strikes me as a terrible idea. If you don't have a rebel force with some sort of centralized leadership, how do you expect a good outcome from this?

I suspect that some people simply judge Colonel Loony being gone is a good outcome.

Or, for that matter, "stopping mass slaughter of civilians".

[alfred russel]

This strikes me as a terrible idea. If you don't have a rebel force with some sort of centralized leadership, how do you expect a good outcome from this?

I suspect that some people simply judge Colonel Loony being gone is a good outcome.

There is a long list of countries in Africa and the Middle East that are worse off than Libya under Colonel Loony. Quasi stability with bad government is better than a civil war.

[Martinus]

This strikes me as a terrible idea. If you don't have a rebel force with some sort of centralized leadership, how do you expect a good outcome from this?

I suspect that some people simply judge Colonel Loony being gone is a good outcome.

There is a long list of countries in Africa and the Middle East that are worse off than Libya under Colonel Loony. Quasi stability with bad government is better than a civil war.

What "quasi stability"? Are we living in the same reality? 

Some people here (you included) are acting as if the West was invading a stable if corrupt Libya to impose a regime change. This is clearly not the case.

[Ed Anger]

This war bores me now.

[alfred russel]

What "quasi stability"? Are we living in the same reality? 

Some people here (you included) are acting as if the West was invading a stable if corrupt Libya to impose a regime change. This is clearly not the case.

Clearly not at the moment, there is a civil war going on. 

But until recently it was quasi stable. The only way to get back to quasi stability is for one side to have a clear winner, and how are you going to get that with the rebels when they don't seem to have anything more than goofballs looking to get on TV while shooting their guns in the air?

[DGuller]

This war bores me now.

Americans don't realize how good they got it.  People in other parts of the world have at most one war, we've got three wars to choose from.  Be grateful for what you have.

[The Minsky Moment]

I second Martinus' point here.  Several cabinet ministers and the UN delegation declared for the rebels.  The Central Bank governor went incognito for a while before resurfacing to say he was prepared to cooperate with the international sanctions regime.  Meanwhile, on the other side, Qadaffi himself has no official government position; nor IIRC does any member of his family.  There is no quasi stability here; there is an organized crime family using violence and intimidation to assert control over a state.