as for 8:30 am eastern daylight time on this saturday 20 march benghazi is under attack from several sides. a jet has been shot down. people are fleeing toward egypt. they keep asking themselves pointed questions like:
"Do we have to wait till Gaddafi kills us all before the world acts? We are very disappointed," said Adel Mansoura, an air traffic controller fleeing Benghazi with his family. "When we heard the UN resolution, we were very happy and thought we had our freedom but now we have been left on our own to the killers," he said at a petrol station where dozens of other cars queued for fuel.
what the fuck is the delay?
on the other hand, while the massacre continues, it is perhaps good to consider the fact that any move is fraught with complications:
Quote:
West overzealous on Libya
Al Jazeera's senior political analyst discusses the risks and opportunities inherent in UNSC Resolution 1973.
Marwan Bishara Last Modified: 18 Mar 2011 14:02
Now that the United Nations Security Council resolution for a no-fly zone has been passed, how will it be implemented?
The UNSC Resolution 1973 has made it legal for the international community to protect the Libyan people from Muammar Gaddafi's lethal and excessive force - by, among other things, imposing a no-fly zone and carrying out military strikes and other military action short of occupation.
However, the overzealousness of certain Western powers like Britain, France and, as of late, the US, to interpret the resolution as an open-ended use of force, is worrisome. With their long history of interference and hegemony in the region, their political and strategic motivation remains dubious at best. Likewise, their rush to use air force individually or collectively could prove morally reprehensible - even if legally justified - if they further complicate the situation on the ground.
This sounds like 'damned if they do, damned if they don't'?
Well, the onus is on these Western powers to prove that their next move and actions are based on a strictly humanitarian basis and are not meant as a down payment for longer-term interference in Libyan and regional affairs.
They need to demonstrate how their 'change of heart' from supporting the Gaddafi dictatorship over several years to condemning him as a war criminal and acting to topple him, is not motivated by more of the same narrow national and Western strategic interest.
Unfortunately, the Libyan dictator's statements and actions (and his recent cynical and contradictory threats and appeals) have played into Western hands, making it impossible for Libyans, like Tunisians and Egyptians before them, to take matters into their own hands.
Those who abstained at the UN Security Council, including Germany, India and Brazil, wanted to co-operate in charting a brighter future for Libya, but are also suspicious of the overzealous French and British eagerness to jump into a Libyan quagmire with firepower.
What then should Libyans, Arabs and other interested global powers do to help Libya avoid a terrible escalation to violence or a major humanitarian disaster?
Now that the international community has given the Libyan revolutionaries a protective umbrella that includes a full range of military and humanitarian actions, it is incumbent upon the Libyan opposition to mobilise for mass action in every city and town both in the east and west and challenge the regime's militias.
As the Libyan regime loses its civilian, tribal and international legitimacy, so will his security base be shaken over the next few days and weeks.
In fact, if the Libyan revolutionaries avoid complacency and exploit their newly gained legitimacy and protection in order to work more closely with their Arab neighbours and to demonstrate their political and popular weight in the country, the regime could very well implode from within.
The most effective and constructive way to use the newly mandated use of force by the UN Security Council is to use as little of it, as accurately, as selectively as possible, and ideally not use it at all. It is still possible for the threat of the use of international force, coupled with domestic popular pressure, to bring down the weakened regime.
An escalation to an all out war is in no one's interest, especially Libya's
|
West overzealous on Libya - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
so there's a quandry.
it's pretty clear that gadhafi's main ally at the moment is speed.
so what he's done already is to continue fragmenting the information environment as a way of creating diversions and/or screens with the sole function of buying time.
you know, declare a cease fire by saying that there is a "stoppage" or a process of stopping of attacks, so a process a kind of slowing-down that might be happening at a rate imperceptible for most people particularly those who find themselves under attack from several sides at benghazi.
the west, whatever that means, has a problem of definition of scope and scale of the operations. gadhafi is apparently banking on the effectiveness of threatening a much wider conflict than the imposition of no-fly zone, so is threatening nato with a longer-term war that would not be restricted to conventional means. he must calculate that this will be enough to create the delay necessary to complete pushing the rebels out of the country or killing them.
the west whatever that means also has a logistically complicated operation of developing a chain of command, a plan and moving materials around. this is obvious from a tv spectator position...and plays to the matter of speed as gadhafi's main ally.
it seems to me a back-against-the-wall approach that gadhafi is taking though---he has to be prepared to see this into endgame. he's erased other options; it hardly makes sense that he anticipates a future in a deposed dictator retirement community in hawaii.
it seems to me that nato has to act very quickly maybe before they're ready. that seems the main move that could alter the game---with all the caveats outlined in the al jaz editorial.
it would also seem to me that the logic of the situation would militate for a massive action aimed at entirely destroying gadhafi's military/milita capabilities at the hardware level. to counter that libyan state media is claiming that crowds of pro-gadhafi civilians are gathering at military targets that are likely to be hit.
so this is ugly.
what do you foresee happening?