Cimarron29414

dc-

As rb agreed, it was the President's responsibility to explain to us why US bombs had to be used. Weeks ago, the US moved warships to the region? Why? Why couldnt Britian and France? If there is a good reason, I want to hear it, and I'll accept it. Since that explanation is not forthcoming, I can only assume there isn't one - and frankly, I deserve one.

As for your taxes conversation, I'll avoid it. It's not the right place. I agree it is not a vacuum.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

i just gave you one, cimmaron.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

As rb noted and I thought Obama explained, the US was best equipped in the region to respond in the timely manner necessary.

I would also note that the Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Turkey (the only Arab member of NATO) and the UK, along with the US (not in the lead role) are enforcing the naval arms embargo.

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/asse...-factsheet.pdf

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Cimarron29414

Wait. We were only better equipped/prepared because we got off our asses weeks ago with a little foresight and positioned our equipment - something that France and Britian could have done, if it wasn't the perpetual assumption that the World's policemen do it.

Yes, I want the explanation to go back that far - three weeks ago. Explain to me why all of those nations couldn't have moved their forces the way way we did, with the understanding that the US would NOT be dropping bombs in this endeavor. We have provided roughly 640 KaPows so far. Certainly those other nations could have scrounged around for that many and kept our flag and President from being burned in Sri Lanka.

---edit----

rb, indeed you did. And while you may even be correct on all points, I need it to come from the man who signed the order. One of the challenges we all face in formulating our opinions is that we do so with whatever information we have available and choose to consume. Clearly, the President knows things about this that we don't. I'm sorry, but I think we should all have high standards when it comes to military involvement. I know that you do. I believe that I do. Did his explanation truly satisfy you, or perhaps you are injecting your assumptions...benefit of the doubt, if you will...into your rationale?

Again, I've come to a different conclusion than you guys. I'm willing to change it if I consume some information which indicates that WE had no choice (three weeks ago) but to get in position and, ultimately, act.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

i get that, cimmaron----but i doubt there's a single consideration in what i wrote that would be politick to run out in a national television address. for example, it'd be a bad idea to make too explicit the geopolitical interests around petroleum at an official level. better to pretend something else is on----focus on the high ground and all that.

no president is ever entirely transparent about interests. ever. not part of the game. hell, augustus caesar knew that. anyone whose held power knows that. machiavelli is a theory of it. an instructional guide. you know.

i think obama did a reasonably good job of laying out the overall rationale for acting, btw.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

I'll say what Obama couldnt say...Our NATO allies can be chicken hawks.

IMO, that is not a reason for the US to not prevent an immanent massacre of thousands if you take Kadaffi at his word at the time...while at the same time, forcing those NATO allies to take over the lead of both the air and naval operations.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

at the same time, there's a controversy unfolding across the newspapers in france over the question of whether sarkosy got out in front of this in the way he did in order to shore up his imploding public approval ratings. this is linked to the fact that the socialists did reasonably well in the local elections over this past weekend....

LIBYE - Fait-on la guerre pour la popularité de Sarkozy ? - Big Browser - Blog LeMonde.fr

very little is obvious.

another perspective, which i think kind of interesting, from this morning. the article is entitled: the obama doctrine. why libya and not syria?

Doctrine Obama: pourquoi la Libye et pas la Syrie - Big Picture - Blog LeMonde.fr

notice that when obama pointed to countries where the "arab spring" (a kind of irritating expression that implies this is in some sense a re-run of 1989 which was a rerun of 1968, as if nothing new can ever happen-----so a purely ideological meme) was being met with force/suppressed, he pointed to iran and not syria. or bahrain. or yemen for that matter. or algeria. the blog entry poses the simple question: so.....why is that?

which le monde's writer interprets as an example of "that mix of idealism and cynicism characteristic of obama"....

so there are varying interpretations. just fyi.

---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:19 PM ----------

at the same time, there's a controversy unfolding across the newspapers in france over the question of whether sarkosy got out in front of this in the way he did in order to shore up his imploding public approval ratings. this is linked to the fact that the socialists did reasonably well in the local elections over this past weekend....

LIBYE - Fait-on la guerre pour la popularité de Sarkozy ? - Big Browser - Blog LeMonde.fr

very little is obvious.

another perspective, which i think kind of interesting, from this morning. the article is entitled: the obama doctrine. why libya and not syria?

Doctrine Obama: pourquoi la Libye et pas la Syrie - Big Picture - Blog LeMonde.fr

notice that when obama pointed to countries where the "arab spring" (a kind of irritating expression that implies this is in some sense a re-run of 1989 which was a rerun of 1968, as if nothing new can ever happen-----so a purely ideological meme) was being met with force/suppressed, he pointed to iran and not syria. or bahrain. or yemen for that matter. or algeria. the blog entry poses the simple question: so.....why is that?

which le monde's writer interprets as an example of "that mix of idealism and cynicism characteristic of obama"....

so there are varying interpretations. just fyi.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

I agree with both of you. I've just gotten to a point where I'm going to expect more candor to earn my support. We don't have surplus funds, bombs, troops or good will to throw around anymore, especially when others are available/capable. For the record, I believe I would feel the exact same way about this 3 years ago (if you know what I mean). I have to run guys. I enjoyed it.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

this from tariq ali---who, btw, you would never see get a prominent spot in a us-based media outlet, such is the extent of the exclusion of actual left viewpoints from the round of interchangeable reactionaries that comprise the american punditocracy:

Libya is another case of selective vigilantism by the west | Tariq Ali | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk


the problem here is that ali is also correct, in my view.

it is possible to hold these positions simultaneously---supporting the fact of the nato intervention on humanitarian grounds while asking oneself---why libya and not elsewhere? why is the united states saying nothing about bahrain? is ali correct about the american response to any threat to the saudi royal family? is that option not foreclosed by the other tactical choices that the us has made (i think it is.....i think the decoupling that the obama administration is trying to argue for isn't ultimately going to hold water and that if they act to protect the saudi regime they'll entirely squander any positioning advantage they've acquired so far....advantage that presupposes one does not read the game in cynical terms....but is requires being read in cynical terms)...

more exactly---and accurately---there is obviously an attempt playing out in front of us to co-opt or contain these revolts.

that this is not primary thematically in the spineless american press---which has never met a corporate status quo it did not worship---changes nothing.

what i think ali overstates is the cynicism of it. i think it's all predictable that geopolitical interests would be acted upon following one logic and sold following another. the only difference between obama moderates and extreme right wingnuts and neo-cons is the style of the selling. but it's a rhetorical difference only. that's also obvious.

but i suppose if you actually believe what's being said as if it were a self-contained description of why the dominant powers are acting in libya and the fact that there's nothing self-contained about it were to suddenly dawn on you



o shit





then it'd appear cynical, yes?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Yesterday, 43 Somalian civilians died when they were caught amongst heavy gunfire and mortar shells. January 26 marked the 20th anniversary of the overthrow of their dictator.

They haven't had a functioning government since.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

The "what ifs" can not be proved definitively one way or another. All we can do is look at the circumstantial evidence, that is why I chose the word can rather than will.


There are ways to help other than troops but more than a no fly zone. Also, this is a dynamic situation - one day they may say X and the next they may say Y, based on conditions. And, my question remains the same, what are we willing to do? Has it been made clear to the rebels, the rest of the world, Kadafi, the American public? I believe each could listen to Obama and walk away with a different view of what we are willing to do. Is Obama doing this on purpose? Does he even know what he is willing to do, what his level of commitment is? Does he have the right to do this without the authority of Congress?

I enjoy good fairy-tales but I don't believe in fairy-tales. Unwindable battles by definition are unwindable. In the case of Libya and the rebels they need at least enough outside support to make it a fair fight.

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------

As was expected, Kadafi is employing a strategy to minimize his military's exposure to the no fly zone. The rebels have no response, how are we going to help? Are we going to provide air support to advancing rebels? Are we going to provide weapons? Training? Other offensive assistance? Does anyone know? Are we simply going to play games with the rebels and then leave them high and dry? Obama needs to clarify what the hell his goal is and what he is willing to do!

Rebels retreat from Libya oil port under attack - Yahoo! News

You do not fight wars by committee.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

christ, ace, it's always the same nonsense. you want a different type of marketing. that's it. you want marketing made up of decisive sounding sentences. then you peer into marketing and imagine that you're looking at something else. well, you aren't. get a clue. jesus christ.


right now, in the real world, there's a debate going on about whether the un resolution authorizes arming the rebels. the united states and britain are officially of the opinion that it does. but this is not clear:

Arming Libya rebels not allowed by UN resolutions, legal experts warn US | World news | guardian.co.uk

there's also the related problem of whether it'd be enough to just toss weapons at the rebels. maybe they'd have to be shown how to work them?

it's obvious that gadhafi's military capabilities are not crippled and it's obvious that all he has to do at the moment anyway to operate outside militarily is (a) move during the day and (b) don't fly planes.

there are also reports that gadhafi's forces are laying anti-personnel mines.

it's a real problem, this whole situation. the situation is far more important than what talking heads say on teevee about the situation. your priorities are entirely out of whack, ace.

except of course that you don't like obama and never seem to tire of saying you don't like obama. but on that, i really couldn't care less. for you, it's like putting "i am writing the sentence that says:" in front of every sentence you write. it's not interesting. it's an a priori.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

I heard a commentator on...I think it was NPR...flat out declare that special forces were on the ground in Libya. However, I haven't seen any other reference to that. Has anyone else seen anything?

Yesterday, the Pentagon listed the first 11 days as costing $580M. So, I stand corrected on the $1B estimate I said the day before.

Ace,

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I believe you want the administration to say what their limits are (so we feel better about the expense/longevity of this op) and then stick to those limits. Part of me would welcome a delivery of those terms. There have been so many changes over the course of the campaign, that I don't think it is possible. For example, if we said that our limit is defensive airstrikes to support a no-fly zone and then Quaddafi started shelling the rebels with Mustard Gas, I'm pretty sure the limits would change. Would our leaders then have "lied" to us? Politically, it is a no win situation to describe those limits, if there are so many astericks for when those limits would change. The other disadvantage of setting limits is that it can show your cards to your adversary - much like putting a "pull out" date on our other two wars. The enemy knows they need only sit and wait.

However, I do see your point that current history demonstrates that the US only gets into things like these for the long haul and rebels may feel any US presence implies that the Abrams Division will be coming up behind them in a day or two. The "false sense of hope" that one might feel from not being capable of truly reading the political climate within the US and translate that into what it really means in terms of support. So, I see where you are coming from, but I think this situation represents some unchartered territory in US diplomacy. There isn't a page in the playbook for this. We'll all look back and know exactly what we should have done. Hell, we'll all revising this history in a matter of weeks to suit our case.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

filtherton

Since ace finds counterfactual arguments compelling, I'm going to point out that counterfactual Ace is complaining about counterfactual Obama tipping his hand to Qaddaffi by being too explicit in our constraints with respect to Libyan intervention.

roachboy

there's a swirl of rumor about nearly every aspect of this action. over the past few days reports surfaced that arms are getting to the rebels through egypt. there was a long denial from the provisional government in cairo this morning that sounded persuasive, but could either really mean (a) the arms aren't going through egypt or (b) they are but it really shouldn't get any attention. i haven't heard anything directly about us or uk special forces being on the ground since early on when the uk squad was caught and then released, to the embarrassment of london. but given the debate that's happening about weapons delivery and the problem that attends those deliveries of showing people how they work, i'd be more surprised if there were not people on the ground than i would be to find out there are officially.


one place i think everyone who's paying attention to this is in agreement, though: this is a new kind of situation and not a whole lot is clear about it. not a lot of precedent. and the precedents that exist shouldn't be precedents because they were fucking disasters (iraq anyone? or for the Really Big Show, vietnam?......and for france, there's always algeria, which turned out real well for them...)

and none of this is to even start talking about syria, which could well be the next place to blow up. that'll be ugly. and the policy complications that attend libya will be a walk in the park in comparison if it does. there's little doubt---at this point---that asad will massacre people to stay in power. he's already moving (accepting the resignation or firing the government for example, the promise to lift martial law and institute reforms) but that's balanced by the speech from this morning blaming some "conspiracy against syria" for all that's happened. so the options are all on the table. and the americans have a realpolitik interest in syria along much the same lines as they have with egypt----israel.

and then there's saudi arabia...

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

More to Ace's point: One has to be concerned that other potential uprisings will have a false sense that the US will provide similar support to their cause, since they did it in Libya - thus emboldening them out of a slower, peaceful protest and reform - and into violent confrontation.

As we both said, this is new territory for the US. The path is more evident when there is an invasion of an ally. This? It's terribly easy to make a really big mistake.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

aceventura3

There are people actually fighting in a war. It is real. It is interesting reading and listening to the ramblings of "intellectuals" far removed from the field of battle, but the fate of real people lay in the hands of people debating what they think needs to be done or what they are willing to do. All of this should have been resolved before getting involved. Thomas Sowell put it well in a editorial peice appearing in IBD:

Obama Speech: Full Of Rhetoric, Bereft Of Logic - Investors.com

I hope Obama has a plan.

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

Or, more simply put -



Libya Speech - CharlotteObserver.com

Don't let roach see this, he will go off on some leaders don't matter...Ace needs marketing slogan, tangent.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

cimmaron: that assumes---again---that there's no gap between war marketing and what's being said and done on the ground. which is ridiculous to assume. and that is what ace has consistently been doing---pretending to be able to evaluate the actual situation on the ground through the war marketing that this administration---like any other, sadly---is doing. all that varies is the style. ace doesn't like that style. i can't really imagine caring about that.

but i do think it's pretty hilarious that thomas sowell of all people is attempting to position himself as more authentic than obama. smacks of all kinds of ugly shit. surprised that sowell didn't call obama an uncle tom. i suppose he's saving that bon mot for later.

the editorial page of idb. ace-gospel. funny shit.

to the underlying point: this is a nato operation. i too hope there is a plan. another thing that the conservative set can't seem to get through their heads is that the bush unilateralist period is not only over, but was a debacle. the united states is not john wayne. it is not dad. it is a partner in a coalition. i know it stings to have the sacred nation-state not the Center of All Things---but really, there are drugs for other pathologies and maybe sometime there will be a drug for excessive nationalism.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Not going to be funny if Kadafi is left in power. Wake up and understand that we have gone down a road that absolutely requires that Kadafi be removed or the pretense of saving civilian lives was b.s.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

ace---do you actually think about what you write before you write it? during the speech--hell during EVERYONE's speeches whose said ANYTHING about this operation, the statement has appeared: getting gadhafi out of power is the political goal. obama has said it is not the americans' military goal. but that the united states will pursue that objective by non-military means. other countries have not said that they will so limit themselves.

it's a nato operation, ace dear. you can't seem to wrap your little mind around that, so can't seem to figure out that the united states isn't the only player.


that said, i don't have a clear idea of what the next move will or should be--i mean like tomorrow. gadhafi's forces have apparently retaken brega. their military capacity is not eliminated by any means.

i don't think the rebels have been sold a bill of goods by anyone. the only place there's been a promise of unlimited aid is in your imagination, ace. and that isn't a place that interests me.

the reality looks quite the opposite---i am thinking that there's likely to be a ground intervention sooner rather than later. hello libyans. excuse us while we hijack your revolution. thanks.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

rb: I agree with your analysis that this really is just "marketing". You are absolutely correct that the words do not reflect what is going on covertly. We only know what we are told, and they like it that way.

There is the complexity of cultural consumption of that marketing coupled with the cultural interpretation of recent American involvement in other theatres. Some middle eastern and north african tribes even have customs where if one commits to defend someone, that commitment is to the death. I don't want to imply that that definitely plays a role here. The broader point is to say that any words our administration may say (that actually reach the rebels) are being parsed through such a different filter than ours.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

at the same time, the military situation is really fucked up, for lack of a better term:

from reuters, about an hour ago.

Libya and Middle East unrest - live coverage | World news | guardian.co.uk


not good not good at all.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

rb-

I did want to ask your opinion on something. The NATO charter is really a mutual defense charter - an attack on one is an attack on all. Obviously the operative words there are "an attack on." Did you have any feeling one way or the other about NATO running a UN operation, since it does seem to be outside the bounds of the charter?

This is not a setup for ambush. I just wondered how you felt about it. Personally, I'm pretty agnostic about that part of it. You already know my two personal concerns (no congressional vote and telling us why OUR bombs?)

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

NATO - Official text: The North Atlantic Treaty, 04-Apr.-1949

looking at the charter quickly (first time in a while) i would think that the action would be legitimated via article 3 and 5, which introduce the category "security" as a justification for acting, and the repeated references to co-ordination with the un that run throughout. i don't see it as a problem from that viewpoint.

my ambivalences have much more to do with the kind of objections tariq ali outlined in the guardian yesterday---the hijacking of a revolution, the selective application of this "ethical" argument for justifying intervention, etc.. even as i think that there had to be some kind of intervention in libya to prevent a massacre (which still might happen)....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

Thanks, I can see that. NATO is certainly the most organizationally competent entity for executing the UN resolution. The UN is not as strong in military coordination/communication - for obvious reasons. If they'd tried to spin this up as quickly as the NATO group did, well, they wouldn't have been able to.

We agree. I'm not fond of American bombs falling on a new set of Muslim heads. I am even less fond of the possibility of U.S. fatigues being photographed pulling down ceramic Qaddafi walls.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

another aspect of complexity: the military situation is only part of the game. there are others. and people are motivated by complexes of things--the see their surroundings in mobile ways. even folk you wouldn't think it of:

which bbc's live blog guy goes on the interpret:

BBC News - Live: Libya and Mid-East crisis

go figure.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

I know you get confused in the way you want to portray complexity when it does not really exist - but try to understand that Kadafi would not be in power if that was our goal. Obama wants Kadafi out of power only under certain conditions. His goals appear to be focused on creating conditions, not an end result. There are big contradictions in what Obama says, what he is doing and what is needed.

Right. This is a US operation. I don't play pretend games. Obviously you and others do. You folks can pretend that wars can be fought and won by committee or some form of a democratic consensus - but in the real world there has to be a command and control structure to a single point of accountability.

The UN passed a resolution basically for a no fly zone, it can easily be argued that the resolution has already been violated. In your mind you can continue to think things are what they are not, people in the real world don't have the luxury that you have - we live in a dynamic world where every action has a reaction, constant monitoring and adjustments. This is not theoretical stuff where you can plug in assumptions to generate predictable results.


I bet you are a weak chess player. True masters of the game can envision their moves to games end forcing their opponent's actions. Some player's can't even see their next move, just as you can't. Here is a clue:

No fly zone, advantage rebels.
Use of smaller arms and tactics, advantage Kadafi.
Tactical air support against smaller arms and tactics, advantage rebels.
Or,
Put foreign boots on the ground.
Or,
bomb Kadafi's military into next week.
Or,
pray for the rebels.

See the pattern. Then expect a response form Kadafi or a response that is unexpected, like what if he gains an ally? Who might it be? what kind of help would they give. I as well as others have already given this thought, have you? Has Obama? Then what? bottom line is we went into war, half assed - shame on us.

Am I to conclude that you can not read, I never said there was an actual promise of unlimited aid. Why make stuff up, if you can read?

People, can listen to Obama's speech and walk away hearing what they want to hear, including the rebels.

After all the above, you agree that Obama's words are b.s., and that he was never clear on his actual objectives. Gee, why all the dramatics?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Not quite right, ace.

In addition to authorizing the No-Fly Zone, the resolution authorized "protecting civilians" ("to take all necessary measures...to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory), enforcing the arms embargo, freezing assets...

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Perhaps if you are looking at this as being a spectator, I can see the "marketing" point. When our military is being used overtly or covertly, I don't consider myself a spectator. Wars are not won based on "marketing". A leader who wages war has to have the commitment of his army and of his public. The commitment has to be real.

---------- Post added at 10:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 PM ----------


Here is item 4 under in the Protection of Civilians section:

And here is what a couple of people had to say about the resolution:

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

The resolution "basically" is a no fly zone and it can be argued that the resolution has already been violated. Foreign forces have allegedly been reported on Lybian territory. Also, the resolution does not call for Kadafi's removal, which according to Roach is Obama's clearly stated objective. Nor, does the resolution call for military support of the rebels, outside of protecting civilians.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Your interpretation that the resolution is basically a no-fly zone interesting to say the least and simply incorrect to be more accurate.

The expressed hope or objective of NATO and the Arab League (and probably most everyone else who cares) is that Kadafi will be removed from power or step down to save his sorry ass as a result of a growing national rebellion facilitated in part by the limited UN authorized mandate to prevent the rebellion, and civilians, from being indiscriminately slaughtered, not be the insertion of ground forces from the West.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

ace..this whole factual thing is hard for you isn't it?

on your first "point": you don't like obama. i think we all get that. that you can't figure out the distinction between a military and a political goal is your problem.

at the same time, in the real world, lots of very basic things are not yet clear. maybe they never will be. i don't like it---you don't like it. no-one cares.

on your second "point": here you decide it's time to be a neocon cartoon. in this episode, you are so ideologically opposed to international co-operation that you're forced to simply make shit up in order to make the reality in front of you go away. from there you proceed to pose fake dilemmas. and you act like you know stuff you patently don't know. it isn't a united states operation ace. there is a command structure. transfer of control is likely tonight or tomorrow. you'll just have to deal with it.

on your third "point": i've been reading military assessments of the situation for days----the most explicit and informative have been in the french press, where the pet generals like to read from janes and make prognostications about strategy. on tv they stand behind model railroad-style maps with croupier and move tanks and army men around. it's very adolescent. you'd love it. most of what you say is problematic if facts are of any consequence. but they're obviously not, so we'll pass over to the more obviously surreal moment.

which comes when you veer off into your imaginary ally scenario. and that's just goofy. here's the situation: gadhafi's allies are incorporated into the mercenary forces he's got working alongside the militia units that two of his sons control. these units and not the libyan army are what the rebels are up against. and there is a considerable assymetry in terms of professionalism and weapons. but he's never trusted the conventional army and so has worked to keep it weak. which it is. the bulk of the mercenaries are from chad and nigeria, so far as is known. they're in libya in part because gadhafi has funded most of the breakaway fighting that's happened in those two countries over the past 30 years or so. so he has friends, but none are in power. because he's fucked around for so long and with such an obvious paper trail in trying to destabilize governments in the region, he's not got a whole lot of friends in the region. at this point he doesn't even have friends in the oau.

that's reality. who's the magic ally gonna be? you?


the **only** thing you say that's factually accurate is that the rebels are in a bad way militarily. but everyone is saying that. everyone.

i think you're the kind of chess player who doesn't know when he's lost the game.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

citadel

Well the war never really stopped.

roachboy

Libya conflict: revelations emerge that Obama has authorised undercover help | World news | The Guardian

um...yeah. if you've been following the mobile cloud of infotainment about libya----which is, regardless of how things turn out, less problematic an infotainment cloud than that which emanates from fukushima----this isn't exactly shocking. but still, it is not good. the crossing of a line. the set-up came along with the traces of argument over whether it was ok legally to arm the rebels. this was, so far as i can tell (speculating) playing for time on the one hand and a form of public relations on the other.

the curious thing about this particular war marketing is that it's closer to the situation on the ground than the mythologically based war marketing preferred by conservatives. this seems almost not worth mentioning, so obviously reality-optional is conservative mythology these days.

at the same time, the defection of moussa koussa is a really big deal. who this guy is and the information he has is only just beginning to surface in the press.

curious developments all around.

obviously one can hope that the latter constitutes a real blow to gadhafi and to his regime (indications are that it is such a thing, but within the fog of infotainment) such that the unfortunate (at best) possibilities opened by the de facto announcement of the arrival of "advisors" does not turn out to be what the past indicates it could turn out to be.....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

Wow, an evident conclusion to our involvement is getting further away and far more complicated.

Does anyone have a feel for the size of the rebel forces overall? Does it have a net growth or loss as a trend? I've never seen anything regarding how many there are.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

i don't think anyone quite knows, including the rebels.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

If true why didn't they put their expressed hope or objective in the resolution? It is clear that not everyone shares the same hopes or objectives and the resolution contains what they could agree on.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Cimarron29414

NATO and Arab League objectives don't translate well into UN objectives, when there exists such a powerful veto card. I would imagine including anything of the sort would have had Russia and China vetoing the entire resolution.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

aceventura3

No.

Not an important point. People who like him and people who don't have similar concerns to the concerns I have presented here.

I know what the political goals are, I have no clear idea what the military goals are, do you?

This is not clear, can you elaborate. Kadafi is clear. The rebels are clear. The UN resolution is clear. Members of the Arab league have been clear. The lack of clarity comes from the West and I argue primarily Obama.

Here again you simply make stuff up. There have been many instances where I support international cooperation. I simply believe in there being a single point of accountability and clearly defined objectives.

There are known things I know. Known things I don't know. And, unknown things that I don't know. Isn't that true of every person on this earth - your failure to be specific is problematic. Let's move out of the childish playground game of - you saying I am dumb and me saying you are dumb and you saying I am dumb, etc. - try to be specific in your critique. If you have something of value for me, being vague and insulting is pointless.

You can split hairs on this point all day long, if you want. The US has and will put the most at risk. The US will spend the most money. Nothing will happen without US involvement, cooperation and approval. So they can say authority has been passed to NATO, I won't buy that. I wasn't born yesterday.

You miss the point. War is dynamic, decisions have to be made fast within a line of command. The UN resolution was crafted to narrowly to allow for it to be usfull in a war situation. Again, it can be argued that the resolution has already been violated. What does this say about the coalition?

Clarify. Are you suggesting what I have said is problematic is of no concern and that you you have taken your clue on this from the French press? Why not take your clues from Kadafi's press? Again, your failure to be specific is not helpful, I have pointed out many problems.

Come on, be serious. I think of all kinds of possibilities, I like to exhaust them, even those that are unlikely. anyone who read what I wrote can understand the context. And the context is that people with your outlook get surprised and can't see what comes next, it rarely happens to me. In fact if you look at many of my posts and compare the dates and times, you will find that I am often ahead of the curve - you on the other-hand are often behind it. For example, early on I said the no fly zone was going to be inadequate and that Kadafi was simply going to change his strategy, which he did - it was very easy to see.

---------- Post added at 04:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

Others insist that there is a clearly expressed and shared objective to remove Kadafi, this is not true. The only shared objective was the no fly zone ( and freezing assets and weapons embargo) to save civilian lives. And in the context of the rebels, it is not even clearly defined if they are or are not defined as civilians, an assumption has to be made.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Cimarron29414

ace,

I think you quoted the wrong post of mine.

I do agree with dux and rb that NATO and the Arab League have been clear that they want Qaddafi gone.

I believe that China and Russia would have vetoed any UN resolution which included a fate for Qaddafi.

I believe that the resolution's language stating "protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by [Qaddafi]" is broad enough to imply, "you can bomb every tank you see near a house." That provides quite a bit of latitude.


As an aside, I would implore the two of you to resist the personal comments. As a reader, it becomes increasingly more difficult to get to the substance of your arguments because of the mixing with non-substantive observations about each other's character. You both have worthwhile and opposing viewpoints. It's a shame it is becoming so much more difficult to consume them. I find myself skipping, perhaps something of value. You can do as you will, I'm just asking politely...

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

this article (in french) is among the more extensive analyses of moussa koussa's defection:

Libye : fin de règne pour Kaddafi ?

the gist of it is that koussa has been close to gadhafi for over 30 years and is the last of the inner circle---apart from his sons. most of the commentators who are cited in this piece take the defection as meaning that the regime's days are numbered.

before becoming the foreign minister in 2009, koussa was for many years head of libyan intelligence---so the head of the gadhafi's secret police. this guy knows. there is no-one with more comprehensive information about the gadhafi regime than this.

what's remarkable is that he defected without a guarantee of immunity just after handing in his resignation, according to the article. it's not yet known how he managed to get out of tripoli----gadhafi apparently said repeatedly that "we are all prisoners here"----which is oddly close to that vile eagles song. but i digress----the article says that the current head of libyan intelligence---aboud dourda---is also on the run. it says he's being shuttled out of libya by way of the russian embassy. there's different speculations about where he'll land.

the trigger for these departures publicly is disgust over the violence of the campaign against civilians. i'm sure that's a part of it. i suspect there are other factors too, not least must be some kind of calculation about how the endgame is going to go.

if all this is correct, then it would appear that gadhafi's situation is crumbling from the inside. but given the way it's organized, and the centrality of his kids in running the show that remains, it's not obvious how much further in the crumbling process things need go following on these departures.

there's other stuff in the article, but that's the gist.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite