what's happening in the empirical world is that there are significant divisions within---for example---the uk that split the government and military around how to interpret resolution 1973 over the question of whether actually taking out gadhafi is authorized. the government argues that it is. the military says it is not.

the united states is looking to turn over the task of co-ordination to nato in the coming days. the idea is plain--the united states is not going to play a central role in running this show. nor are they going to play a leading role in executing it. but they'll help. this is a job for shiny weapons systems, apparently. the administration's been quite clear about this.

there are real questions about what's going to follow the implementation of the no-fly zone. the juan cole article i posted above references kosovo as a possible way of thinking about how political organization for the rebels might come out of the process of establishing the no-fly zone. the distinctions and linkages are made pretty clear in the article---assuming you actually read it.

on the ground in the empirical libya, its already quite clear that the idea that there is a rebel army capable of moving directly against gadhafi in the wake of some incineration campaign run from the air using shiny jets and cruise missles is a chimera.

so the main problem is not tribal. that's a subset (to the extent that gadhafi's core of supporters are from his tribal group and most of those who oppose him---seemingly---are not----but here again, it's really quite hard to know for sure as most---if not all---of this inference is based on a location of "the revolt" in benghazi. but reality is far more fractured and complex than that. most realities are complex).
from the point of view of the un-sanction intervention of the international community, the main problem is that there's really no organized army to take up the space that the no-fly zone is supposed to open up.

there are already multiple requests for more and better weapons. i expect that the arms bazaar will be more than happy to oblige.
but that won't change the problems in actually moving against gadhafi's forces.

and i don't know what---if any---plan there is to address this. but it's already a hole in the "we'll be home in a matter of a few days once we incinerate some of these people" claims.

Obama was also all about Kadafi needing to step down. Kadafi responded that he won't. O.k., what's next? Not clear.

Humanitarian action to save lives??? What that really means is Kadafi employs a different strategy. Unless there is real support of the rebels a no fly zone is virtually meaningless. Strategy is not clear.

Not a central role??? Right! Hey, I own a bridge in Brooklyn, wanna buy it? What is "not a central role" two weeks from now, a month from now, 6 months from now? We have a nice vague concept here - "not a central role" - not clear.

Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Did you read my post. The key question regarding outside involvement in a civil war is on the table. Do you understand the point, do I need to walk through it with you? Why ignore this question. it is like the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Everything else is like white noise until this question is answered. In most failed revolutions, the lessons of Sun Tzu are often not headed - in this case consider the quote below and shame on us for not providing real leadership in this regard.

Read more: Sun Tzu Quotes - Page 3 - BrainyQuote

The rebel cause was lost from the start, and they need more than a no fly zone.

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------

The more I think about this the more it bothers me.

Think about it this way. You are a Lybian rebel. You get word of the UN rsolution of a no fly zone. You hear and see UN coalition planes and rockets hitting Kadafi targets. You think you have the support of the world and that they will come to your aid as needed. You fight on. You fight on. Then one day when things are at their worst and you wait for the Calvary...it doesn't show up...the slaughter occurs.

Either we commit, or stay out. Being half way in is wrong.

rb-

That really is my point.

Another billion dollars in military debt on our fancy guided KaPows!
Another few hundred dead muslims courtesy of American KaPow!
Another few thousand news reports showing the few hundred dead muslims courtesy of American KaPow!

And if we pack it up, <insert cool spelling of Qaddafi here> will slaughter them in a week.

If we stay, we do little more than keep the tribes on their segregated playgrounds...for the next decade. Oh good, another $300B in military debt in order to babysit tribes that can't seem to settle their differences without heads rolling.

If the rebels actually can muster enough people to make a run on the capital they will be slaughtered without close air support.

If the rebels actually take control of Libya, it's really just a tribal suppression swap...and now we get to bomb the people we spent $300b protecting for a decade.

cimmaron---i'm not at all sure about that last step. i see what's happening in libya as of a piece with what's happening across north africa and the middle east---very similar generational emphasis, very similar solidarities. it's not a repeat of the older-school tribal nexus. it really isnt---with the exception of the social base for gadhafi's regime.

the problems are organizational, really. now that this has become war theater--thanks to the hamfisted and brutal response of gadhafi to the rebellion--there's a lot of pressure on the council in benghazi--which is only a couple weeks old, fer chrissake--to become very quickly a full blown political opposition---which it isnt---its more an expression of opposition----and a military organization---which it isn't.

i don't think the rebels are a lost cause, however. i think they have very considerable support and it's short-sighted at the least to not see that (if you look at all.) but the situation is most curious and evolving extremely fast.

fact is that the only people who are certain about what's going to happen don't know what they're talking about.

and like i said, i support the action but with significant reservations. i support it because it prevented a massacre on a greater scale than gaza.

but it's a complicated situation.

i mean, clearly the europeans who buy 80% of libya's oil want to play with another group in power....

but i gots to go...

rb-

For the record, I was all for preventing the slaughter of the rebels. It's when the KaPows started going off in Tripoli that the UN coalition lost my support. Now, once again, the West will get to be the babysitter/scapegoat with very little gained and very little which could have been gained. Now that I see what they really wanted to do with the strikes, I think we (the US) should have sat this one out.


...edited...

I also hope you are correct, rb, and I am wrong.

No, it is not complicated. This is not a novel issue in world history. The outcomes can easily be predicted based on what people/groups/nations are committed on doing. Kadafi can defeat the rebels, the UN coalition can defeat Kadafi. If Kadafi remains in power eventually the Lybian people involved in the revolt will be killed. Seems pretty simple to me.

---------- Post added at 09:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ----------

Worse, the anti-western world sentiment has already started:

Arab League head says wanted no-fly zone, not bombs | Reuters

Over the past month or so, a fluid situation in Libya amidst the outbreak of revolution across the region required a measured but fluid response, with the hope that a quick, however unlikely, result would follow in Libya.

Nearly a month ago (Feb 25) , Obama issued an Executive Order freezing Libyan assets in the US....an appropriate first step.

A week or so later, the West (France, Britain) sought a UN mandate, first securing the support of the Arab League and all the while cajoling China and Russia not to veto a Security Council resolution...an appropriate next step rather than rushing in with military force without a mandate (unlike Iraq, where Bush simply ignored the fact that there was no mandate).

UN resolutions rarely happen overnight, but are worth the wait to legitimize future actions, at least to some degree.

IMO, both the freezing of assets and the subsequent seeking of a UN mandate were reasonable actions w/o going overboard that brings us to where we are today and where the US message is clear...we did our part, now we expect France and Britain to take the lead.

Will that happen? Who the hell knows.

Already, the Arab League is backing down from its support of the mandate, raising a new set of issues.

We also should be a bit wary about who we arm, recognizing that some among the rebels and the Libyan National Council may have tribal goals rather than national goals...unlike the protesters in Egypt, Tunisia, etc. Do we really want to create another mujaheddin-like (afghan "freedom fighters" that later morphed, at some level, into the Talaban) force in Libya?

I, for one, certainly appreciate this approach rather than rushing in like a crazed cowboy with six guns blazing away.

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 PM ----------

Nothing is complicated in ace world...we know that.

Don't worry, I'm from the internet. I killed Gadafi with my mind, he must slumber forever in earth. Problem solved.

heh just thought you guys could use a little (if badly) comic relief.

for the record, the arab league spokesman said earlier this afternoon that the criticisms of the implementation of the no-fly zone centered on reports of civilian casualties. they are not backing away from supporting the action itself.

at the same time, most of the states in the arab league are in a curious position, supporting an action in support of rebels in libya---albeit on officially humanitarian grounds--who are carrying out the kind of revolt that most of the countries are either actively trying to suppress/avoid or are hoping to...so it makes sense, even if for that reason alone, that the organization would be particularly focused on the humanitarian grounds and violations of that logic.

russia on the other hand---which abstained in the security council vote---is echoing gadhafi's "crusader" logic. but putin has his own anxieties about seeing similar things in the central asian countries and---maybe---within russia itself.

For me, the only thing that muddies this action is Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was unwarranted. As such it throws into question just about any military action involving the US.

The difference with Gulf War 1 and this action in Libya is that the Arab League and the UN are on board and involved.

This stinks of politics. In war the concept of "we did our part" rings empty with me. When will we learn - do what needs to be done for a swift and decisive victory.

For the record Bush did not rush into Iraq and he got Congressional approval.

You appear to mock my comment, yet you take the position that Obama's has acted in a decisive and clear manner with a strategy to accomplish his goals. If Obama has acted in a decisive and clear manner with clearly defined goals - there would not be so many questions. It is possible that Obama his employing a strategy of deception against the enemy, but I don't see why that is needed given the inferior position Kadafi is in on the world stage. Kadafi is clearly isolated and if non-military actions could remove a dictator from power, this seems to be a perfect example of where it could work. I get using politics in this manner, but when using the military politics be damned - do the job, image be damn - do the job. Do the job or stay home.

Ace... this isn't Obama's goal. It's the UN's goal. The US and the other partners are there to carry out the UN's goals.

Do you believe the Arab League voluntarily supported the UN resolution? Or could it be that they supported the resolution realizing the potential consequences if they did not.

Do you believe the average ME person on the street supports the UN resolution? I doubt they do. The silence from liberals is deafening regarding some ME people motivated into becoming terrorists because of western involvement in ME country affairs compared to when bush was in office.

I firmly believe the Arab League is in support of this. It may be a mixed support rather than universal support but the support is there. There is no reason to think they would give support now when they have been so easy to withhold that support for other actions.

As for the people on the streets, again, I can't think the response to this is anything but mixed. However, given the recent push for change across the region, I can't help but believe that there is a lot of support for a) getting rid of Ghaddafi and b) a desire to prevent him from killing his own people.

Have you listened to Obama talk about this issue? Have you listened to Clinton? Have you listened to Rice? Did you note how the US voted on the resolution? Were the bombs and planes not affirmation of our goals? Perhaps, I just don't get the subtly in the point you make.

---------- Post added at 12:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 AM ----------

Time will tell.

Regarding the Arab League many currently in power will need the support of the west to stay in power. They will also use any opportunity to play both sides as opportunity arises, you can bet on that in my opinion.

As someone not immersed in the US mediasphere, I can say that outside of the US, this is being presented as a UN resolution made at the request of the Arab League. While the US is the big player it is not seen as the only player. In other words, this is not coming across as a US effort (regardless of how it is getting played out stateside).

As for the action itself, I would like to see more Arab League involvement. To my eyes, this cannot be won (whatever that means) with a no-fly zone alone. It will take ground support. That ground support must come from the Arab League and definitely not from some Western dominated coalition. Arab self-determination must step up and deal with this.

It would be even better if, the Arab air support took on a greater role in enforcing the no-fly zone. I know there are a few jets from Qatar and other Arab nations, but it would be better if they had the majority as well.

At present, this still smacks of Western Imperialism even if it's the right thing to do (and time will tell if it was the right thing to do).

I think you should make a new thread about this, and the claim that Dennis Kucinich thinks it is an impeachable offense...

I guess the bigger question is, would the congress play political games to deny military action to win political points? Would the congress be able to act quick enough since they are in recess right now? What would the consequences of talking up military action leading up to the vote, only to get denied do to the credibility of the US?

But, I agree that there should be some congressional oversight... but I would hope that they would agree to the same conclusion the UN did this time.

---------- Post added at 10:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

I also think the big "elephant in the room"/"Ron Paul" type of question that needs to be asked is, "What country is next that we will have to provide air support to?" Iran? Yemen? Bahrain? North Korea? Pakistan (if the 'extremists' start protesting...)?

well the reason noone cares what happens in saudi arabia.. is that they control a large portion of the worlds oil.

I'm glad you posted this, rb.

I've been doing everything I can to get infromation about what's going on, Libya's history leading up to today, international law, the UN Charter, what's historically been done (or, as is often the case, not done) in instances similar to this one, and what America, the UK, France, the UN and others have been saying about this. I was very, very reticent simply because, tbh, my country has a history of bombing the living crap out of things that shouldn't be bombed, particularly in my lifetime, but I keep finding myself, ultimately, backing the revolutionaries. All other things aside, I really want the people of Libya to succeed in their revolution, to overthrow their dictator and regain control of their lives. They deserve freedom simply because they're human beings, but they're earning it with their own suffering and deaths and the sooner the killing ends and Gaddafi is removed from power, the better. By my understanding, the UN sanctioned bombings and no-fly zone will help the revolutionaries.

Obviously it's very frustrating that we're being so selective in our support for revolutionary movements, and clearly there are ulterior motives behind our support, but the ultimate effect is helping brave people win their freedom.

since aljazeera was banned from libya a few weeks ago, im wondering how the libyan people are keeping abreast of the latest developments? state sponsored TV?

i can see how the show of support can turn against the allies quite quickly if libyan state tv is their ownly source of information and is only showing the deaths of innocents.

with the no-fly zone now enforced and the libyan troops in retreat from the rebel strongholds, what now?

is that not the aim of the UN resolution?

i have some bad feelings about this because there is no absolutes in any of the decisions being made. everyone seems to be going into this half heartedly. The allies, the arab league, even the libyan army. there's no unanimous decisions on any of the decisions.

I think Ghaddafi is playing things slowly, knowing that as long as he stays in power, he can afford to wait for this to fall off the front page before he starts his massacres.

The brits, americans and french can forget about their oil contracts if The Colonel stays in power. He needs to go, and he's not going out alive. If he's taken out, do we see the end of the Libyan army?

$31.5M worth of F-15E crashed overnight. Add that to the tab.

Opinions and views on this matter are being formed each day. the article below supports a couple of points, the Arab League has reserved a position where they can say the West over stepped what they approved and that the US is going to be considered the central "outsider".

Libya intervention threatens the Arab spring - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

I worry that Libya will become like Afghanistan:

Freedom fighters today....???? Tomorrow. I hope it all works out for the best.

for those that dont know about the history of the Libyan resistance to italian occupation, you may want to do some reading on Omar Mukhtar.

Omar Mukhtar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's one of the most famous Libyans, and is a symbol of arab resistance and is considered by arabs and libyans alike as a freedom fighter in the face of imperialistic oppression. he withstood Mussolini for 20 years until his capture in 1931. Anthony Quinn even portrayed Mukhtar in a movie Lion of the Desert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


will it become like afghanistan? i dont think so. Libya isnt fighting for its homeland like the afghanis or omar mukhtar were. Nor is this an ideological war like the afghan/russian war.

Thank you for the information. The wiki was a good basic read on the man.

Not to nitpick but wiki has him born in 1862 and dying in 1931 "at age 73". 1862 and 1931 are 69 years apart.

this is an interesting al jaz report on scenarios for a libya future:


and this is a compilation of reports about what's happening now, information which is hard to really come by given the media ban. some of this is quite disturbing:

Pambazuka - Gaddafi?s overthrow: Telling the story online

I still cannot grasp the fact that this far into his presidency, the anti-war noble peace prize winner, hasn't ended the Iraq or Afghanistan war and is now getting us involved in another conflict.

It's been a couple days and I still am so mad I cannot think straight.

On a side note I think it's ironic yet awesome that Dennis Kucinich is looking for support from the TEA PARTY to defund this war.
As bad of a guy that Kadaffi might be, he pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands we've killed in Iraq and Afghanistan this past decade.

Look at what we've become. It's so shameful.

Ghaddafi hasn't made a lot of friends in the Arab League. He has been fingered for financing an attempt on the life of the king of Saudi Arabia. He has ridiculed and mocked other members of the League. It's no wonder they are against him.

Add to this, a good helping of tail wagging the dog... The more the Arab street pays attention to the Libya issue, the less they may pay attention to their own corrupt regimes. This could, in the end, bite them in the ass.

The whole action is odd and there is still no clear idea who the opposition is in Libya.

Obama was never anti-war, samcol.

One suggestion from Wolf Blitzer today was to use the $31 billion that Gaddafi/Libya has in US banks to fund it...

i think it's funny to read conservatives trying to appropriate the language of being anti-war. they endorsed the afghanistan war. the reason the united states is still there has a lot to do with the incompetence exercised on conservative watch. they endorsed the iraq debacle. and that is the shameful conservative fiasco that it is. and now they're all blah blah blah war is horrible?

right.

When most conservatives support a war they give specific and clear reasons for the support. Being against military action in Libya is not a contradiction to supporting military action in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Also, conservatives have the ability to processes current and new information in order to make decisions in the context of what is in the nation's best interest going forward. The loopy argument that if you supported "that" war you have to support "this" war...or if you supported a deficit then you have to support a deficit now is pure idiocy - and the folks on the left engage that argument all the time and now you seem to do it also.

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

I have respect for Kucinich. He is consistent and acts according to his beliefs. He is a man of conviction. I wish all politicians acted in a similar manner.

So would you say that the conservatives who aren't supporting the action in Libya are asking themselves WIIFM?

that's a straw man, ace. i haven't engaged in any such argument. i'm merely pointing out the surreal spectacle of manly man conservatives tripping all over themselves to sound all anti-war when the obvious fact of the matter is that the only reason they--and you---oppose the action in libya is because it is happening under the obama administration.

you other "argument" comes about "clarity" and "simple-mindedness" isn't an argument at all. it's a statement of consumer preference. you go shopping for the sentences that are used by a given political regime to market war. you prefer the simple statements preferred by republican regimes to speak organically to their simple constituents.

so really, it's no more interesting than knowing that sometimes you might like raspberry jam, and sometimes strawberry so long as nobody tells you that strawberry is really different from raspberry. then you don't like it.

In a purely cynical context, yes. I am sure my answer either confuses or allows for incorrect conclusions, but I will add that it is my belief that human behaviors are motivated by self-interest - and I don't pass any moral judgment to that, I expect it.

In a broader context, it is not a secrete that Europe and France in particular has a direct interest in Libyan oil and in part has motivated their interests in taking military action, the US does not share that direct interest as well as having high priority issues needing our focus. Many in the US are torn regarding military involvement in Libya including, conservatives, liberals and middle of the road people for various legitimate reasons.

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

Really. You think I and others determine support of war based on Obama??? I think you fail to see the difference between observations of Obama's leadership and a personal view of our objectives. Obama has not yet clearly defined the military objective. What he says compared to what is needed has yet to be reconciled.

Anyone who has spent any time understanding me knows that is false. How you think you can conclude that is beyond my comprehension - not to mention that it is purely irrelevant to the topic in this thread.

I assume you don't consider yourself to be a "wingnut", so you tell us what is in our "national interest" in this context.

more ace shuck and jive. first you post a string of nonsense about the "lack of clarity" from the obama administration concerning libya then you get called on it and you are shocked---shocked i say---that anyone would think that you can't distinguish marketing material from real-life, even though throughout your "objections" you referenced nothing but marketing material. but you "know the difference" and "anyone who tried to understand you" would know that you do---except that you write as though there is no difference until that poses a problem for you and then you deny that you did it.

it's lame.


the problem with the libya operation from a strategic viewpoint is already becoming clear. it's like somehow the militaries woke up this morning and realized that the airstrikes aren't stopping people from getting killed in misrata, in zahwihya, etc by gadhafi's militias. it's like some strange repeat of the first weeks of world war 1 except with lots of incredibly expensive shiny weapons systems and a healthy dose of techonology fetishism (keep those budget lines open) to delude people into thinking that they'll be home by christmas.

for example, despite the pounding visited upon kadhafi's air force and armor in open ground, the rebels haven't been able to organize a counter. shocking. they aren't a military. they're facing a military.

and here is the source of much of the ambivalence i think most people feel when they look at what's happening---assuming that one accepts the premise of the action (there are arguments both ways about that---the only stupid position is that the action was wrong because obama is the one who authorized it---you know, the wingnut position.)

in le monde this morning, the headline is: revolution or war.
those are the options: either there is a general uprising in every city in libya---and soon----that changes the terrain of the game or the path seems quite clearly open to ground troops in libya. from there things will get ugly fast.

so the united states is looking to avoid getting hoovered into the bloodbath.

and gadhafi seems to be counting on the idea that when it comes to taking the next step the west won't have the stomach for it.

so it's a game of chicken. a nationalist dick-waving thing.

that is about as clear as it gets in this situation.

except that lots of people are dying. that's clear.

rb-

The only justified criticism I have of Obama regarding the Libyan campaign is that he did not put this to a vote in Congress. I feel it was the right thing to do when US military actions are going to occur. I was so mired in work at the time, I wasn't paying attention and had naturally assumed that a Congressional vote had occurred prior to US KaPows. I was taken aback when I found out it had not.

I also believe it to be a strategic blunder for Obama because now the success or failure of this operation lies squarely with him. His opposition can say "Well, I didn't even have a chance to oppose this." How many dozens of times have we read a conservative retort that has said "Well, the Congress voted for Iraq." Obama denied himself the share-the-grief vote, and that was a big mistake.

possibly. as i've said, i'm ambivalent but in general supporting the action up to this point largely on stop-the-massacre grounds. but the scenario i outlined above seems to be accurate, to my unhappy not-quite-surprise.

my assumption about the action so far as obama was concerned is that much hinges on making a quick shift into the relative background and moving this off from being a third us war in the region---this despite the differences (un sanction, there being actual reasons to do them, etc.) which would circumscribe the action differently than a conventional war would. but i confess that i have not been paying much attention to congress recently as they seem mired in dealing with tea party posturing about runaway expenditures while at the same time authorizing a budget proposal that does not cut a single military procurement line.

that said, i have little doubt that if the united states finds itself hoovered into the ground game that this arrangement will have to change. whether the administration will have a stronger or weaker case to make at that point is anyone's guess.

keep in mind that much of the limitations/problems for the united states is caused by two entirely unnecessary bush people wars. just saying. the wages of catastrophe, the ways in which the bush people remain a gift that keeps on giving...

Yeah, but Congress voted for Afghanistan and Iraq. :D Sorry, I couldn't resist.

true. but the infotainment system was far more---um---neo-fascist in orientation at the time. that is, co-ordinated centrally around a primitive us/them game. and cowboy george operated from a state of emergency. and congress just fucking rolled over, particularly given the shabby presentations of infotainment they got on iraq. so they failed in their oversight functions twice and now there's complaining that they've not been consulted.

at the same time, the need for consultation grew out of the vietnam debacle and the church act. so it was to prevent another debacle....but you're right: congress did approve afghanistan (debacle) and iraq (debacle). sorry. couldn't resist.


at the same time, it's obviously a problem formally speaking. what i really dislike about the obama administration---well, one of the things---is that they inhabit the imperial presidency taken/staked out by the bush people (on dubious legal and historical grounds) quite contentedly. this bugs me.

in terms of the situation in libya, however, things are simpler: the situation required action and as it is that action came about as close to too late as is possible to be without exactly being too late.

like i said, there's ambivalence aplenty here, something for everyone to not quite feel great about.

but a massacre did get at least slowed way down.