Libya: Seriously, where is this going?

[Singularity]

Russia and China have traditionally supported Ghaddafi until very recently when he made friends with Britian and the US.

Didn't you get the memo that Venezuela, North Korea and Iran has taken all of the looney clients that used to belong to China and Russia? And it's not called Axis of Evil anymore, it's Axis of Crazy.

Seriously though. If Gaddafi can claim power in the west he will most likely lean on the African Union. He's got a lot of credit(literally) with them as opposed to the "western lapdogs" in the east who kills AU mercenaries.

 

[Gigaz]

Seriously though. If Gaddafi can claim power in the west he will most likely lean on the African Union. He's got a lot of credit(literally) with them as opposed to the "western lapdogs" in the east who kills AU mercenaries.

The African Union promoted the strikes against Gaddafi. They want him gone. And so do China and Russia, otherwise they would have vetoed in the UN.

 

[Singularity]

The African Union promoted the strikes against Gaddafi. They want him gone. And so do China and Russia, otherwise they would have vetoed in the UN.

What now? When did the "AU" get a spot on the security council, and with veto powers none the less?

The last thing I read about the AU is that Gadaffi's oil money purchased a nice doze of respect with them being the major contributor to the upkeep of AU for the last five years. And the AU's alternative to the UN resolution 1973(the one in effect in Libya now) was called "roadmap to peace" which Gadaffi embraced and the rebels viewed upon as "roadmap to continued power" for Gadaffi.

 

[Aegis]

What now? When did the "AU" get a spot on the security council, and with veto powers none the less?

He was referring to Russia and China vetoing.

They want him gone. And so do China and Russia, otherwise they (they being Russia and China) would have vetoed in the UN.

 

[MobBoss]

Guys, the bottom line is you cant foment regime change without sending the troops in. Unless you get really, really lucky, and take the head cheese out with an airstrike - which Qaddafi has shown to be savvy of and takes appropriate measures.

So, unless this UN/NATO/coalition of the apathetic/whatever finally decides to send troops in on the ground, Qaddai is going to win this conflict. As to a demarkation line ala North/South Korea, again, who's going to police it? Who's going to put troops on the ground to guard it?

 

[innonimatu]

So, where is that war going?

Seems like the outcome of this war against Libya will be just further discredit to NATO and to the ICC, and the destruction of sizable portion of Libya's infrastructure. Not even that government change in which the french dwarf bet. At this stage don't thing that the rebels could take power even if NATO did manage to assassinate Qaddafi. It's very clear that they do not have the support of a majority of the population, and therefore lack the manpower to advance on the capital.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

In march I made a poll that said "who will win Libya's civil War". It closed a month later because I thought it would be over by April. I first thought the rebels would win, but now I'm leaning towards Gaddafi. (not that I ant him to win).

 

[Tani Coyote]

Short of a major strategic coup, it seems both sides will be stalemated for a while. Libya has joined countless other African nations in being divided upon itself.

We can smell the geopolitics already. People will support one faction in hopes of scoring points with the winning regime.

 

[civver_764]

Another horrible tragedy in US foreign policy

 

[Joecoolyo]

The rebels have been making some nice advances on Gadaffi recently; they're small, but everyday Gadaffi forces grow weaker and weaker (I think they're operating at 20% of the pre-war forces, though I think that statistic is old now).

This war should be over within a couple months, if not the year, and the Libyans will finally have control of their government.

 

[innonimatu]

In march I made a poll that said "who will win Libya's civil War". It closed a month later because I thought it would be over by April. I first thought the rebels would win, but now I'm leaning towards Gaddafi. (not that I ant him to win).

Hey, it's a civil war, and it's Africa. Don't hold any illusions that there is a good side and a bad side. If you want to pick which is worst, the rule of the thumb is that you can wait until it ends and them assume that the winners were the most... ruthless in the war.

I still don't believe that this was was deliberately instigated from the outside, but that leaves me wondering, why did the US jump into it so quickly? The french I can understand, Sarkozy is an idiot and thought he could just support a quick and easy war, and then win votes at home and oil deals for french companies. The british I can understand also, Cameron is another idiot and the brits always disliked Qaddafi. But why did the US government jumped into yet another war when it already had so many around the world going nowhere? Especially after all that supposed rapprochement with Qaddafi in the past few years?

Did Obama also thought it would be an easy war and and easy way to gain some popularity? Or even another Nobel Peace prize?

 

[amadeus]

It's a lose-lose situation for the U.S. Let's look at the two possible outcomes.

Gaddafi wins: Does Gaddafi go back to supporting terrorism in the West as payback for the bombing of Libya? I'm not as worried about Gaddafi trying to manipulate oil prices because he can happily sell the oil to China or South Africa and cutting production would hurt Libya when its most vulnerable.

Rebels win: Now we've got an unstable state with only limited loyalty to the U.S. or any European government. Will they be able to effectively govern the country? Will U.S. commercial interests be acknowledged? Will Libya be able to prevent al-Qaeda from operating in the country? How much U.S. aid is going to be necessary to prop up their government?

It's not going to end well. Unsurprisingly, the best option would have been to stay out of it and treat it as a purely internal affair. I know we certainly wouldn't want Libya's "help" in some state of trouble here in the West.

 

[Cheetah]

I haven't taken the time to look closely at it for a while, but from the latest reports I read:

- The NTC/Libyan Republic are advancing slowly but surely on Gaddafi/the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (that's a mouthful!). Currently they're very close to recapture an eastern city with a huge oil refinery and petrochemical plant - Brega IIRC. Gaddafi has about 3000 soldiers there, but it's going slowly as the defenders have placed a lot of land mines and dug ditches filled with some petrochemicals as traps.

- Tripoli is almost out of gasoline. The queues to get some lasts for days, and the only way they actually manage is from illegal trading of gasoline through the Tunisian border. Tripoli still has a lot of diesel however, so they pay 3 parts diesel to get 1 part gasoline. The Republic is closing in on the last pipeline supplying Tripoli with petrol as well however, so that situation can't last forever.

All in all, I'm confident that Gaddafi will lose, as long as the West is willing to continue aiding the new Libyan Republic.

 

[Camikaze]

I still don't believe that this was was deliberately instigated from the outside, but that leaves me wondering, why did the US jump into it so quickly? The french I can understand, Sarkozy is an idiot and thought he could just support a quick and easy war, and then win votes at home and oil deals for french companies. The british I can understand also, Cameron is another idiot and the brits always disliked Qaddafi. But why did the US government jumped into yet another war when it already had so many around the world going nowhere? Especially after all that supposed rapprochement with Qaddafi in the past few years?

Did Obama also thought it would be an easy war and and easy way to gain some popularity? Or even another Nobel Peace prize?

Maybe the US isn't stuck in a rigidly realist mindset? The oil angle simply doesn't work for the US at least (I would safely assume that it doesn't apply for the French as well, but don't know enough about that charge to argue it). Libya isn't really all that defensible from a realist point of view for the US. Which would seem to point to the conclusion that maybe the US actually did go into this on some sort of altruistic basis, however misguided you may think that to be. Or perhaps due to domestic factors (that Obama was getting pressured to do something).

 

[r16]

those who have followed the older threads will remeber me for my pointless rants . Here is yet another .

now it appears some of the most important countries of the planet have come to senses to follow the gameplan and recognized Bingazi . For all its worth ı don't . And ı won't .

the venue was my country , the time was right after dear seperatists shot dead 13 soldiers . True to form of this new age they refuse to accept their victory and claim the bush fire that debilated the 40 strong patrol was started by air attack . Dear seperatists of course lack an air force though they are fully covered by people . Something the regulars of Turkish armed forces are starting to suspect as the seperatists have improved quite a bit , they can't be brought to fight . As such the exchange ratio goes down to the detriment of my country .

returning to air attack thing , ı had already posted in this forum our beloved seperatists were sure to spill it out , bragging who were behind them . Considering the new agers here are hinting military sure must be responsible for so many casualties in broad daylight , because they don't like the goverment yet blame military jets only for downing the helicopter of a minor Right Wing party leader and not for this fracas , there really must be something for certain good people outta there . Indeed , everything is there . How godless commie bunch of seperatists are rejecting the new found Islamic brotherhood of the country , how conscripts are useless and professional soldiers will be better - one suspects muuuuuch better if the new professionals are all from the new agers ; how do we say Waffen SS in Turkish ? - and so on . It would be really against their upbringing and make up to accept America doesn't like them at all .

yep , heresy it will be suggest Mr.Petraus is once again on the job . Back in the day the Turkish military office in Kerkük was doing nothing in favour of this country and America decided somehow rightfully they better be reminded of whom was the bigger brother in this game . Petraus saw it to that the job involved handcuffs and sacks over the heads as terrorist suspects . In concert with the general flow of the times where new agers were to kick the waste out of military . Names will be hold responsible as well .

we will surely follow Libya one day .

and it is friendly advice from a loser named r16 that people in Ankara should stop talking about the terrible power of the greatest power in NATO and how we will make people sorry . It is really entertaining to outside world to see the total lack of feeling for the new agers when it comes to this great power . Do not give crecedence to Hillary Clinton's nice and empty rhetoric on how USA supports Turkey against terrorists . ı would rather have a red card for ambiguity than one for proper foul commentary on such speeches .She has gone on record saying the likes of Esad are not indispensible . Neither is Ms. Clinton .

one more obviously stupid point regarding this explosion in Cyprus where the North is supposed to give electricity to South , at half price to the tune of maybe a million dollars . When were we made to do so ? It has been widely published we Turks hate compensation in the form of bloated contracts , like when the Armenian troubles of 1896 resulted in the supremely great Sultan Abdülhamid buying ships for a navy he had rotting at the Haliç (Golden Horn) ? Would Turkish Foreign Ministry be offended if their bright idea ( perhaps invented by a certain Rodham ) was interpreted as a pile of -uhm - waste ? Will the contract be immediately amended to full commercial practices ?

 

[pi-r8]

Another horrible tragedy in US foreign policy

Nah, this is already a huge victory for the US. First, the country has been devastated by fighting, which is a huge setback for all the pro-democracy movements in the mideast. People will be afraid to revolt for democracy for fear of a Libya style civil war. This has been a long and bloody war, with western forces helping the rebels just enough to keep them going, but not enough to actually win the war for them. The end result will most likely be a split country, with Ghaddafi or one of his generals in control of the west, and a pro-western dictator in control of the east where most of the oil deposits are.

Democracy crushed, and oil reserves taken away from an anti-western dictator and given to a pro-western dictator. The US generals Couldn't ask for a better result than that.

 

[Verbose]

Ghaddafi had stopped being "anti-western" (buddying up to the US and EU) well and good before his actual people decided they wanted him gone, and thought they saw an opening to make it happen. (These things do happen infrequently in dictatures, but they do happen, and usually to the surprise of everyone, the rebels themselvs included.) At least the people in the east did for sure, almost universally. More of a mixed bag in the west - but it is mixed.

The basic problem with the Ghaddafi regime it that it never really profitted anyone in Libya except Ghaddafi and his immediate circle. It's part of why he's as relatively weak as he actually is, yet there is a distinct of prior alternative power-groups that could challenge him (having killed the Islamists, while gutting his own army to make sure it wouldn't be much of a threat), and he has no compunction about bringing the house down to remain on top if that's what it takes. As it is, he's running a kind of medieval warlord campaign based on having the equivalent of a big chest filled with gold to buy support with.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Why so nervous? Did anybody going into this think it would be over quickly? Every war in history gets started on the promise that it will end quickly

 

[aronnax]

Why so nervous? Did anybody going into this think it would be over quickly? Every war in history gets started on the promise that it will end quickly

The Seven weeks war was pretty quick...

Anyway, the French Foreign Ministry said that Gaddafi contacted them telling them that he is willing to go. Here's the BBC article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14127804

But there doesn't seem to be any more development on that. It was several days ago.

 

[warpus]

Gaddafi is probably putting conditions on that deal that the West won't be willing to accept.