Libyan Civil War Megathread

[derspiess]

Why are you assuming that this was a foreign policy blunder (assuming the rebels do in fact fail)?

Because our actions were done to protect the rebels & get rid of Khadaffi.  At least I think that was our goal.  If that will have failed to do the trick, I think it's fair to call it a blunder.

We tried to help, it didn't work.

Yeah-- a blunder.  Or failure.  Or whatever.  Are we debating semantics?

Exactly. If the effort doesn't work, lets see how we can use that to our political advantage. If it does work, lets make sure we don't give any credit. Because it is all politics.

I was just stating that blame/glory is part of politics.  But think about it, do you want a system where a president doesn't have to worry about any political ramifications before ordering military action?

What is funny is how you later go on about "national interests". Who gives a shit about our national interests, it is "politics, baby" and that is surely more important than "national interests".

Both are intertwined.  Personally, if I thought intervening in Iraq was within our national interests I would support the president regardless of politics.  What I was saying with my "politics, baby" comment was that if this blows up in Obama's face, that's political reality, whether you love it or hate it.  Might as well bitch about the weather.

[Berkut]

Why are you assuming that this was a foreign policy blunder (assuming the rebels do in fact fail)?

Because our actions were done to protect the rebels & get rid of Khadaffi.  At least I think that was our goal.  If that will have failed to do the trick, I think it's fair to call it a blunder.

We tried to help, it didn't work.

Yeah-- a blunder.  Or failure.  Or whatever.  Are we debating semantics?

No, we are not. A blunder is a mistake, something that should never have been done in the first place.

A failure is not necessarily a mistake at all.

Exactly. If the effort doesn't work, lets see how we can use that to our political advantage. If it does work, lets make sure we don't give any credit. Because it is all politics.

I was just stating that blame/glory is part of politics.  But think about it, do you want a system where a president doesn't have to worry about any political ramifications before ordering military action?

I would love a system where leaders do not have to make sure that everything is certain to work before they do anything. Because we end up with decisions being all about politics, rather than about what is right, or good for the country.

What is funny is how you later go on about "national interests". Who gives a shit about our national interests, it is "politics, baby" and that is surely more important than "national interests".

Both are intertwined.  Personally, if I thought intervening in Iraq was within our national interests I would support the president regardless of politics.  What I was saying with my "politics, baby" comment was that if this blows up in Obama's face, that's political reality, whether you love it or hate it.  Might as well bitch about the weather.

True enough, but it is rather unfortunate, and I can certainly look with disdain on those who care more about scoring political points than they do about what is right.

Sadly, there are not enough people like me, and too many like you, so we end up with a system where leaders have to care much more about whether some other person who cares more about politics than what is right can fuck them if they cannot guarantee success. Of course, that just means we get leaders (like Obama) who are cut from that exact same cloth. Not like he got elected on the basis of his stand on principles rather than tribal politics.

[Savonarola]

Sorry, rebels, better luck next time:

Turkish PM against arming Libyan rebels 


Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, has said he does not support the idea of arming Libyan rebels fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power.

Speaking at a joint news conference with David Cameron, the British prime minister, in London, Erdogan said: "Doing that would create a different situation in Libya and we do not find it appropriate to do that."

Erdogan also said that that sending weapons to Libya could feed terrorism, saying such weapons shipments "could also create an environment which could be conducive to terrorism".

His comments came as Gaddafi warned the Western powers mounting air strikes on his country that they had unleashed a war between Christians and Muslims that could spiral out of control.

Western states intervened in Libya after the UN authorised them to protect civilians it said were under attack by pro-Gaddafi forces, but Tripoli says the military intervention in an act of unwarranted aggression.

"If they continue, the world will enter into a real crusader war. They have started something dangerous that cannot be controlled and it will become out of their control," said a text from Gaddafi, read out on state television.

"The leaders who decided to launch a crusader war between Christians and Muslims across the Mediterranean and who ... killed... huge numbers of civilians in Libya, they have been made crazy by power and they want to impose the law of strength on the strength of the law.

"They have also destroyed the shared interests of their people and the Libyan people and undermined peace and wiped out civilians and they want to return us to the Middle Ages," Gaddafi was quoted as saying.

Gaddafi gave regular televised speeches in the first days of the conflict but he has not been seen in public for several days.

Officials say he has been forced to change his routine after an air strike hit the heavily-guarded compound in Tripoli where he has his main residence.

NATO said it had "seamlessly" assumed full command of military operations over Libya on Thursday, and warned combatants on the ground against attacking civilians.

The military alliance had agreed on Sunday to take over all operations from a coalition led by the US, France and Britain, the handover officially took place at 0600 GMT on Thursday morning.

The move puts the 28-nation alliance in charge of air strikes that have targeted Gaddafi's military infrastructure, and of policing a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.

"The transition has been seamless, with no gaps. NATO is fully responsible," Canadian Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, commander of NATO's Libya operations, told journalists at the military alliance's Southern European headquarters in Naples.

US role

Meanwhile, as the US debates its future role in the Libyan conflict, defence leaders in Washington on Thursday slammed the brakes on any the extent of US help to the rebels.

Top officials said that some country other than the US should perform any future training and equipping of the Libyan opposition groups.

Under withering congressional probing and criticism of what was described as an ill-defined mission to aid a rebel force that officials know little about, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, sketched out a largely limited role for the US military going forward.

Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told members of the House Armed Services panel that many other countries have the ability to train and support the rebels.

"My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States," said Gates. "Somebody else should do that."

Gates and Mullen told Congress that future US participation will be limited and will not involve an active role in airstrikes as time goes on.

They were unable, however, to answer key questions from clearly agitated politicians about the length of the operation and how it will play out if Gaddafi does not relinquish power.

The US goals are unclear and officials do not know who the rebels are, said Mike Turner, a Republican representative, adding that if it came to a vote he would not support US involvement in the operation.

Turner and others repeatedly complained that Congress had not been consulted on the Libya operation, and chafed that the legislative branch is not willing to be a backseat driver.

CIA active

Gates and Mullen said that Gaddafi's military has been degraded by as much as 25 per cent, but Mullen noted that regime forces still outnumber the rebels by about 10-to-1.

They said the opposition groups are fractured and operating independently city by city, with just 1,000 of the rebels militarily trained.

Their comments came as Gaddafi's forces struck forcefully back at the rebels this week, recapturing lost ground and triggering pleas for help from the battered opposition forces.

Gates said that he believes political and economic pressures will eventually drive Gaddafi from power, but the military operation will help force him to make those choices by degrading his defense capabilities.

Gates and Mullen were testifying before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in the wake of revelations that small teams of CIA operatives are working in Libya.

Gates declined to comment on the CIA activities in Libya.

US officials have acknowledged that the CIA has sent small teams of operatives into Libya and helped rescue a crew member of a US fighter jet that crashed.

The CIA's precise role in Libya is not clear.

Intelligence experts said the CIA would have sent officials to make contact with the opposition and assess the strength and needs of the rebel forces in the event Barack Obama, the US president, decided to arm them.

Er... don't we want a different situation in Libya? 

[frunk]

As far as I can tell current US military involvement hasn't been that much larger than the times we launched attacks on Libya in the 80s, and is significantly less then say Grenada, Serbia or Somalia.  Congress wasn't consulted before those conflicts either.

[derspiess]

No, we are not. A blunder is a mistake, something that should never have been done in the first place.

A failure is not necessarily a mistake at all.

Distinction without a difference in this case, then.  I think this action was a mistake.

I would love a system where leaders do not have to make sure that everything is certain to work before they do anything. Because we end up with decisions being all about politics, rather than about what is right, or good for the country.

I see what you're saying.  But political ramifications also have a positive function in that they force the leader to take more calculated risks when authorizing/ordering military action.

True enough, but it is rather unfortunate, and I can certainly look with disdain on those who care more about scoring political points than they do about what is right.

Scoring political points & supporting what is right are not always mutually exclusive. 

Sadly, there are not enough people like me, and too many like you,

I don't put political hackery above my own principles; you should know that.  I supported this president when he wasn't doing anything on Libya (though I got annoyed with his escalating rhetoric & apparent indecisiveness).  If I find something I agree with, I'll support the guy on it-- partisanship be damned.

so we end up with a system where leaders have to care much more about whether some other person who cares more about politics than what is right can fuck them if they cannot guarantee success.

What is your fixation on guaranteeing success?  Can people not criticize the president because they disagree with the policy decision and think he did a shitty job of implementing it on top of everything?

Of course, that just means we get leaders (like Obama) who are cut from that exact same cloth. Not like he got elected on the basis of his stand on principles rather than tribal politics.

Well, you voted for him

[DGuller]

I think "tribal politics" bit is pushing it.  Obama did appeal to a wide range of people, until they elected him and discovered he's black and a Democrat.  You don't win North Carolina and Indiana through "tribal politics" alone.

[Ed Anger]

--NATO will block arm shipments into Libya by sea, no matter where they are coming from, but Admiral Di Paolo is "confident" no allies are thinking about doing that.

Yes, I'd like to see General Bouchard try to stop a CIA shipment in. 

[Sheilbh]

I think the weird thing is this would be more popular had Gadaffi started to take Benghazi and footage of people dying come on our screens.  It's a perverse quality that an intervention that stops a potential massacre is probably less popular than one to end an on-going massacre.

For what it's worth I do think this has been blown way out of proportion.  I still think it was a mistake.  But at the minute is it really that much more intense for Western powers than, say, the Iraqi no-fly zone?  My view is it is unconstitutional, but then haven't most American wars been undeclared and undiscussed? 

I find the response here and in the American news really weirdly hyperbolic.  I think because the right are rediscovering their isolationism (remember one of McCain's maverick moments was supporting Clinton on the Balkans) because there's a Democrat in office, while the left are just uncomfortable with a war that's being repeatedly linked to Iraq despite no superficial or deep similarities.  And it's been going on for about a fortnight and people are stressing out.

[MadImmortalMan]

McCain is supporting this too. At least he's consistent.

[Admiral Yi]

But at the minute is it really that much more intense for Western powers than, say, the Iraqi no-fly zone?

Quite a bit more intense for the US and Britain.  Infinitely more intense for the other guys.

[Sheilbh]

But at the minute is it really that much more intense for Western powers than, say, the Iraqi no-fly zone?

Quite a bit more intense for the US and Britain.  Infinitely more intense for the other guys.

Is it more intense than the first phase in 92?  Yep it's more for the French and the rest but I get the impression it's more popular there.  The people who seem to be wobbling are the Americans.

[jamesww]

Al-Jazeera had a report* from the fighting around Bregha, and the rebels were showing some slight organisation, someone in uniform was trying to herd them and they'd banned the celebratory gunfire (thank fuck). 

However its still largely comedy hour; footage showed them firing a small MRL system from the back of a pick up, unfortunately they'd failed to remove one of the bedrolls from the vehicle side, it promptly caught fire and threatened to send up the whole bloody thing as the fighter desperately pulled away the burning mattress.


* filed by the lovely Sue Turton

[Caliga]

 

I bet one of them ran around in circles on the ground going "woo woo woo woo woo" after that, too.

[Neil]

Even for ww2, Frankie explained the conflict as necessary to respond to the aggression of the Empire of Japan, then promptly directed the vast bulk of US resources in precisely the opposite direction.

He did explain the 'Germany First' doctrine, and that was definitely the plan.

[Habbaku]

How quick does Japan go down if we ignore Germany and throw everything into the Pacific instead?