U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Forces

[Holycannoli]

I don't think the idea is that the foreigners remove Gaddafi.

Yes and they're going to try to use that to justify helping the rebels with a no-fly zone preceded by airstrikes to remove defenses.

The distinction you're drawing between protesters and rebels really doesn't exist. It was Gaddafi who escalated the situation, they're still the same people he's fighting.

At any rate, I think a lot of people are falling into the trap of assuming the western powers are the primary agents and maker of these events, rather than a secondary, supporting external balance-tipping force.

There's a huge distinction between protesters and armed rebels taking over cities. One group should not be fought with violence, and the other should. Once the protesters take up arms they are no longer innocent civilians. I understand why they took up arms, but at this point it is intervening in a civil war, not intervening for humanitarian reasons. Intervention came too late for that.

 

[Arwon]

Once the protesters take up arms they are no longer innocent civilians. I understand why they took up arms, but at this point it is intervening in a civil war, not intervening for humanitarian reasons. Intervention came too late for that.

Yeah. And?

What do you think was going to happen when Gaddafi won? There's your humanitarian imperative.

 

[cardgame]

Holycannoli, would you feel better about helping them if they were still defenseless?

I mean, you can't blame them for taking up arms and defending themselves and their right to democracy.

 

[Defiant47]

I actually jumped for joy when I read the news about this

 

[Defiant47]

/me starts marking his calendar for his deployment to Libya in 2012-2014

I wish I could just drop everything right now and join a "boots on the ground" invasion and liberation of Libya.

In a sense it's "special" because it's not quite a civil war - the UN is viewing this as a world leader going after and killing his own people.. most of whom have risen up against him.

In another it's "the right thing to do", if you support democracy, human rights, and so on. Just because most of the time the world community at large (if there is such a thing) does not do "the right thing" doesn't mean that it's wrong to celebrate when they do... the rare instance when it happens.

And you know, there is another real difference here. The leaders in the region have urged the UN to act. Unless I'm mistaken, the entirety of the Arab League supports this UN action. Not only does the UN have the mandate of most of the region, it also has the support of the most of the world, including most of the population of Libya itself.

If the UN hopes to have any legitimacy it HAS to act when it has such support.

Well said.

 

[Lay_Lay]

Sweet. Let's balkanize it and redraw the lines to create some tiny west-friendly oil rich emirates, leaving Libya proper a miserable wasteland.

 

[Elrohir]

Pretty much what Arwon said.

I'm worried that this might be too late -- Gaddafi has surprised me with his resiliency -- but I really hope this helps. We should have done this weeks ago. (Although we may not have gotten Russian and Chinese abstentions a few weeks ago, so maybe it's for the best?)

 

[Masada]

Massed nonviolent action can work, but then again, Gandhi was dealing with the British, not with a bloodthirsty dictatorship.

... the twits weren't much better mang.

 

[Yui108]

Sweet. Let's balkanize it and redraw the lines to create some tiny west-friendly oil rich emirates, leaving Libya proper a miserable wasteland.

Libya Proper being Tripolitania,or Fezzan?

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

I wouldn't get my hopes up if they are going to choose Tripolitiania or any cool names. Still disappointed about the name South Sudan winning against other list of names available for that country.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I fear it is too late to have any impact. Qaddafi is likely to just launch his attack on Benghazi immediately, before anything can be done. And even if something is to be done, there is no reason for him to hesitate to do as he pleases. He has no friends anywhere, neither at home nor abroad, and there is no reason for him to not fight bitterly. He has much to lose by hesitating and potentially much to gain by seizing the initiative.

This is just another instance of the international community dithering while events unfold before them. There is just no one with enough will or interest to do anything. It is not in anyone's interest. After all, Qaddafi has been in power for 40 years, and he hasn't threatened anyone (except maybe Chad). If the worst he can do is sponsor some terrorists, that's apparently accetable to the world.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I'm not really sure how I feel about this. If we do intervene, war is somewhat unavoidable, and we can't afford another war. If we don't intervene, Qaddafi is likely to win. So I'm pretty torn on this issue.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I remember reading somewhere that apparently Gaddafi didn't have the logistical support to launch an attack on Benghazi.

 

[innonimatu]

I remember reading somewhere that apparently Gaddafi didn't have the logistical support to launch an attack on Benghazi.

He didn't need it. The fighting so far, judging from all news reports, has been very limited, with a few thousand fighters, or even a few hundred, involved on either side.
Intervention may end it quickly, but it may also instead make it much worse.

And I'd love to have a straight answer to the following:
How come two countries (the UK and the US) who were invoked in leveling a city in Iraq (Fallujah) in their war against armed insurgents can claim any standing for attacking the libyan government for doing the same thing?
And how come the "international community" be willing to intervene to "protect the civilian population" in libya, and the same international community intervene in Bahrain against the "civilian population?

Never mind the hypocrisy of international politics, what I want to pint out is that defense of civilian populations, democracy, or whatever is not a priority within those. I don't trust the UK, France, etc, to act for the good of the libyans. I don't know exactly what motivated this UN resolution, whether it's just political theater or a prelude to yet another invasion and occupation, but I fear that the libyans are going to get even more crewed by this.

The invasion of Afghanistan was popular, and now it's a never-ending occupation with the local president occasionally begging the foreigners to pack and leave, to no effect. The invasion of Iraq was accompanied by less cheering, but it too turned out to be based on a heap of lies and have no "exit strategy", with many former supporters changing position. Will Libya be a third to follow the pattern?

Would I rather leave Libya alone even if it means a Qaddafi win? Yes. The so-called international community should rather enforce non-interference from abroad, embargo entry of those weapons and alleged mercenaries. If Qaddafy is so unpopular with his own people, he'd fall eventually. And it should do exactly the same with Bahrain, with similar consequences.

 

[Arwon]

I think you're getitng way too conspiracyish there. Western governments have been caught out by these events, they're playing catch-up and trying to respond to a rapidly changing and evolving situation. The response? Trying to tip an internal conflict's balance against a hated dictator by taking his two big advantages, air power and artillery, out of play.

The resolution explicitly rules out ground forces, the Transitional National Council has said all along they don't want ground troups, the West is hardly in a mood to deploy ground troops anywhere. They're not orchestrating some secret plan to conquer Libya.

 

[Godwynn]

I'd rather have Europe and/or the Arab League handle this one by themselves.

 

[innonimatu]

I think you're getitng way too conspiracyish there. Western governments have been caught out by these events, they're playing catch-up and trying to respond to a rapidly changing and evolving situation. The response? Trying to tip an internal conflict's balance against a hated dictator by taking his two big advantages, air power and artillery, out of play.

But that may very well only prolong the conflict, make it much bloodier, and see it end with Qaddafi still in power. To actually help the rebels it may very well be necessary to invade. And the past history of invasions in these situations left a legacy of chronic instability in most of the places invaded, which is then used to justify permanent occupation forces, be they UN blue helmets, NATO, or some other international coalition.

You can argue, of course, that not intervening can also lead to chronic instability and present Somalia as an example, except that there has been much intervention there over the years (one going on now), only done quieter. The only recent case of an international intervention which did not lead to permanent foreign military occupation was East Timor, and even there foreign troops never completely left and after 5 years invaded (excuse me, "were invited in") in large numbers again. Perhaps Libya is a similar unintended accident (as East Timor was, coming on the wake of Kosovo) with intervention driven purely by public pressure, but I don't think so. Bahrain, where the opposite is happening even now with the blessing of the same foreign powers, kind of kills that hope.
I'm not saying that there was any conspiracy, mind you. I fully believe that the protest in Libya and the evolution to civil war were internal developments encouraged by the revolutions elsewhere. I just believe that there will be one if intervention actually happens, and it won't have the welfare of the libyans as a goal.

 

[Arwon]

Some of that stuff could happen. Just as likely not too. Nothing about this action implies invasion and occupation, and besides which, give the protestors some credit for their chances to oust Gaddafi without foreign troops. They kinda sorta nearly did already.

(You really can't call the recent Australian deployment to East Timor an "invasion", that's just silly.)

 

[innonimatu]

(You really can't call the recent Australian deployment to East Timor an "invasion", that's just silly.)

I cling to this strange notion that independence means that a nation sorts out its political spats without external meddling. That a fight between a president and a prime minister shouldn't be solved by one side inviting over the "deployment" of foreign troops.
I know, it's not realistic...

 

[Tee Kay]

Al-Jazeera reporting crowds celebrating in Benghazi.

Huh.

$10 on Gaddafi taking Benghazi anyway. I doubt the no-fly zone, even you managed to get it in place before Gaddafi crushes the rebels, would really do anything.

Meanwhile elsewhere in the Middle East the protesters are being killed with the silent approval of the international community.