# Libya too?! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 16, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595 "2011-02-16T16:37:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 84
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1661 "2011-08-01T16:41:48Z")
But it doesn’t say “all defensive means” to protect civilians. The scope of means required to protect civilians is literally unlimited. If the military planners decide that it’s necessary to remove Quadaffi from power in order to protect civilians, then that’s what will happen. Those who claim that this is outside the scope need to show where the scope is limited. It’s a difficult demand, however, because the scope is explicitly unlimited. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1662 "2011-08-01T17:20:15Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Massive breakthroughs in the Misrata and Nafusa fronts. On the Misrata front, the rebels are at the gates of Zilten, making this the first major city they have assaulted from the outside. There is talk of skipping Zilten and continuing to Khormus, which is the only thing between them and Tripoli. > > On the Nafusa front, the rebels have captured Hawamid and Josh and surrounded Tiji. Fighting at Tiji. [They lost Josh.](http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/libyan_rebels_round_up_ghadafi_militiamen_nagIGFYnwp1sqDvcG4euDI) ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1663 "2011-08-01T19:49:06Z")
Eh, this kind of thing happens. You take something, you lose it to a counter assault, then NATO blows the counter assault to crap and you take it again. I’m watching the high water marks, and seeing what the same marks look like a week later. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1664 "2011-08-01T20:38:02Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > But it doesn’t say “all defensive means” to protect civilians. The scope of means required to protect civilians is literally unlimited. If the military planners decide that it’s necessary to remove Quadaffi from power in order to protect civilians, then that’s what will happen. Those who claim that this is outside the scope need to show where the scope is limited. It’s a difficult demand, however, because the scope is explicitly unlimited. Just so we’re clear, I agree it’s reasonable, I’m only saying it’s not unreasonable to argue against it (at the threat of trolling; although I obviously understand that’s not the real reason he was moderated). The scope of the phrase in the resolution “take all necessary measures” is unlimited (as long as legal). However, that phrase _is_ qualified in two ways. (1) You can’t use occupation forces as a measure, and (2) you can only “take all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians from threat of attack. You’re saying that second qualification, protecting civilians from threat of attack, is practically meaningless (i.e., what couldn’t be construed as protecting the civilians). I disagree. I do agree going after Gadhafi is within that qualified scope because he has already attacked them and I don’t believe that he will stop unless removed from power, but I don’t think it’s an unlimited qualification. For instance, I don’t think we could attack another country if that other country somehow threatened attack or use it as a means to go after al qaeda if they threatened attack against Libyans, or even if they did attack Libyans in a suicide bombing. To me, that would be outside the scope of the resolution (even though you can argue it’s not). It’s all just opinions on general language (why even qualify “take all necessary measures” if it’s still unlimited). If someone thinks the scope is tighter and going after Gadhafi is outside the scope, I don’t think that’s unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1665 "2011-08-01T22:01:55Z")
[Rebels claim to have captured the base of a pro-Gaddafi brigade operating under the rebel banner.](http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/08/20118191348222791.html) ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1666 "2011-08-01T23:27:36Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > The scope of means required to protect civilians is literally unlimited. This does seem to be the case. NATO [recently bombed](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/30/us-libya-nato-idUSTRE76T0KE20110730) Libyan state TV. > [@](#): > > “Our intervention was necessary as TV was being used as an integral component of the regime apparatus designed to systematically oppress and threaten civilians and to incite attacks against them,” the NATO spokesman said. Really stretching it, in my opinion. I still have no clear understanding of NATO’s conception of what the difference might be between preventing attacks on civilians and actively supporting the rebels. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1667 "2011-08-01T23:29:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Rebels claim to have captured the base of a pro-Gaddafi brigade operating under the rebel banner.](http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/08/20118191348222791.html) Color me skeptical. It appears that the infighting amongst the rebels is under way a bit too soon. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1668 "2011-08-02T01:31:09Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > I still have no clear understanding of NATO’s conception of what the difference might be between preventing attacks on civilians and actively supporting the rebels. There doesn’t have to be. The scope is unlimited, so if NATO feels that the best way to protect civilians is to support the rebels so that they can depose Quadaffi, then that’s what NATO will do. They have however, I believe, refrained from coming right out and saying that they’re helping the rebels, but it’s pretty clear that stopping Quadaffi’s forces and/or removing Quadaffi from power dovetails nicely with supporting the rebellion. I’d also argue that dual-use targets like state TV are and always have been acceptable targets of war, just like roads and bridges and such when military necessity justifies the strikes against them. The scope of the resolution is sufficiently broad that a war to destroy Quadaffi’s capability to project force and authority is 100% within its guidelines. > [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Just so we’re clear, I agree it’s reasonable, I’m only saying it’s not unreasonable to argue against it (at the threat of trolling; although I obviously understand that’s not the real reason he was moderated). I understand. My argument, however, is that folks can use ‘gut feelings’ or idiosyncratic definitions to define NATO action outside the scope, but for all practical purposes the scope is unlimited as long as they don’t send in an occupying force. > [@CoolHandCox](#): > > The scope of the phrase in the resolution “take all necessary measures” is unlimited (as long as legal). However, that phrase _is_ qualified in two ways. (1) You can’t use occupation forces as a measure, and (2) you can only “take all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians from threat of attack. You’re saying that second qualification, protecting civilians from threat of attack, is practically meaningless (i.e., what couldn’t be construed as protecting the civilians). Pretty much. As a resolution it’s sloppy if it intended to limit the scope of NATO action, but genius if it was intended to give NATO an unlimited mandate. The first qualifier is only to limit the use of ground troops, the second isn’t a limiting factor at all. If you’re acting to protect civilians, you’re within the scope of the resolution. In order to counter that and show that action was outside the scope, you (plural) would have to show that the actions had no possible bearing on the safety of civilians, and that’s a tall, tall order. Massive bombing of Quadaffi’s forces doesn’t cut it, trying to assassinate Quadaffi doesn’t cut it. Hell, short of directly targeting civilians, I’m not able to think up any military action within Libya that could legitimately be argued to be outside of the scope of “all necessary means”. > [@CoolHandCox](#): > > It’s all just opinions on general language (why even qualify “take all necessary measures” if it’s still unlimited). If someone thinks the scope is tighter and going after Gadhafi is outside the scope, I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Well, it was only qualified in any meaningful sense in that an occupying force has been banned. Short of that, though, there is really no limit. I’d have to check the text of the resolution again, but I’m reasonably sure that they’re restricted to action within Libya, so attacking another nation for sponsoring AQ if AQ was killing civilians is outside the scope, IIRC. But beyond that, there is no real qualifier that limits the scope. Someone who, for instance, claimed that attacking Quadaffi and/or his forces was outside of the scope would have to show how NATO is limited in the scope. But they’re not. They’re explicitly unlimited in the scope of their actions as long as they’re designed to protect civilians. It’s not enough for people to argue “I don’t think they should be attacking Quadaffi’s forces, therefore it’s outside the scope.” They’d have to show how attacking Quadaffi’s forces had nothing to do with protecting civilians. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1669 "2011-08-03T12:03:44Z")
[Government fighting back in Zliten.](http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/08/201182125438296541.html) Situation unclear. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1670 "2011-08-03T17:30:05Z")
[**End Game for Benghazi Rebels as Libyan Tribes Prepare to Weigh In?**](http://uruknet.com/?p=m80142&hd=&size=1&l=e) > [@](#): > > \*\*\*According to NATO spokesperson Lavoie, allowing Libya’s population to watch government TV, and by implication, to hear terrorist public service announcements concerning subjects as gasoline availability, food distribution for Ramadan, updates on areas to be avoided due to recent NATO bombing, prayers and lectures by Sheiks on moral and religious subjects during Ramadan or see the Prayer Times chart posted on government TV, during this month of fasting, plus children’s programs and normal programming, had to stop immediately. > > The reason to bomb Libyan government TV, according to NATO is that Libyan leader Ghaddafi has been giving interviews and speeches following repeated NATO bombings which recently have included hospitals, Ramadan food storage warehouses, the nation’s main water distribution infrastructure, private homes, and more than 1,600 other civilian sites. NATO believes that preventing Qaddafi’s use of Libya’s public airwaves by bombing transmission towers is within UN resolutions 1970 and 1973, the scope of which are being expanded beyond all recognition from their original intent. NATO spokesperson Lavoie claims that Libya’s leadership is using TV broadcast facilities to thwart NATO’s “humanitarian mission” and, yet again are, “putting civilian lives at risk.” > > Government officials admit using the media for communication with the population, including to urge tribal unity, to dialogue with those based in Benghazi referred to here as “NATO rebels”, to argue for an immediate ceasefire and yes, even to call for all Libyans to resist what many here, including Colonel Ghaddafi, call “the NATO crusader aggressors.” > In western Libya, and even among many in the east, according to recent rebel defectors who daily arrive on the western side, NATO has lost the respect of this country, Africa, the Middle East and increasingly the international community. The reasons are well known here and include the serial false premises and descriptions of what happened in February in Benghazi and Misrata areas. > > \ > > Only the zealots of “humanitarian intervention” could seriously have contemplated the kind of protracted, bloody land war in Libya that would have been necessary to win. So, the bet on an alliance with NATO now appears to have been doomed from the start, even on its own terms. > > The force that is rapidly entering into this conflict is the leadership of Libya’s more than 2000 tribes. In a series of meetings in Libya, Tunisia and elsewhere, the Tribal Council is speaking out forcefully and forging a political block that is demanding an end to Libyans killing Libyans. > > Generally considered Libya’s largest tribe, are the Obeidis to which the Younnis family belongs. Some of the tribal leaders and members have vowed revenge against rebel leaders and as they carried the coffins of Abdul Fatah and his two companions they chanted, under the gaze of security forces, “the blood of martyrs will not go in vain.” > > Libya’s Tribal Council has issued a manifesto which makes clear that it intends to end this conflict, help expel “the NATO crusaders”, achieve reforms while supporting the Gaddafi, Tripoli based government. Before Ramadan is over, it intends to end Libya’s crisis even if it needs to rally its hundreds of thousands of active members to march on Benghazi.\*\*\* – Much more at source. I leave it to TPTB to determine whether I’ve overextended the copyright laws with my quote. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1671 "2011-08-03T17:45:40Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > [Tribal Leaders] … demanding an end to Libyans killing Libyans. > … > have vowed revenge against rebel leaders Interesting juxtaposition there. Not likely to lead to an end of killing, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1672 "2011-08-03T17:59:27Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Interesting juxtaposition there. Not likely to lead to an end of killing, in my opinion. Good catch and you are right; doubt there’s anything that can be done to stop the civil war from playing out. Interesting to note that the Tribal Council calls the rebels “Arabic regressive forces” and blames them (and NATO) for “civilian killings.” They also go on to say: > [@](#): > > What is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi was imposed by NATO on us and we completely reject it. Is it democracy to impose people with armed power on the people of Benghazi, **many of whose leaders are not even Libyan or from Libyan tribes but come from Tunisia and other countries**. – bolding mine. So, to them, they wouldn’t be killing “Libyans.” ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1673 "2011-08-03T18:13:50Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > – Much more at source. I leave it to TPTB to determine whether I’ve overextended the copyright laws with my quote. Luckily you didn’t provide any of your own words to cast an argument there. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1674 "2011-08-03T18:20:21Z")
I see four problems with your article. First, it’s so skewed it’s not even funny. Second, Googling references to the “Libya ‘Tribal Council’” recovers a whole lot of blog posts from the last couple months, the early hits of which are all copies of this story, and literally no Big Name sources —if there is a single “tribal council”, it’s clearly not quite the august body the article claims it to be. Third, _the tribes are split, they were always split, and that isn’t new information_. Remember, everyone is a member of a tribe —it’s not an independent power, but a bunch of independent powers. There are a number of important, neutral tribes —but they’re unlikely to pick the Qaddafi side now if they hadn’t already. The tribes that had held off taking a position were clearly waiting to see who won; you don’t pick the guy who will be bombed to hell whenever he starts doing well. Fourth, if [Franklin Lamb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Lamb) is a reliable source, I’m Mother Theresa. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1675 "2011-08-03T18:30:17Z")
Oh, right, five problems. Fifth, it’s weaseling on certain things. For example, compare this: > [@](#): > > Generally considered Libya’s largest tribe, are the Obeidis to which the Younnis family belongs. Some of the tribal leaders and members have vowed revenge against rebel leaders and as they carried the coffins of Abdul Fatah and his two companions they chanted, under the gaze of security forces, “the blood of martyrs will not go in vain.” to [Al Jazeera’s](http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-aug-2-2011-2330) brief on the same topic: > [@](#): > > The tribe of assassinated rebel commander Abdel-Fattah Younes has vowed to find justice for themselves if those responsible for his death are not quickly found. > > “The way he was killed looks like a betrayal, so until now we are trying to calm and control the youth of the tribe, but we > don’t know what could happen,” one of Younes’s sons told foreign reporters when asked if rifts within the rebel ranks could turn violent. > > … > > Mohammed Hamed Younes, one of the general’s nephews, opined that there was never any intention to question General Younes over his links to Gaddafi, as the rebel council says was the objective of an arrest warrant. > > “If there was an intention to investigate him, they could have called him and he would have followed orders, but there was > no intention of that. From the start, there was an intention of betrayal and treason.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1676 "2011-08-03T20:47:05Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > Fourth, if [Franklin Lamb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Lamb) is a reliable source, I’m Mother Theresa. That cite just says he’s pro-Arab. Which could place him on either side of any civil war in an Arab country. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1677 "2011-08-03T21:04:24Z")
It also refers to a number of his positions, which are pretty out there (and, if I might say so, trending toward being more anti-US and anti-Israel than pro-anyone.) Al Jazeera he ain’t. For that matter, Robert Fisk he ain’t. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1678 "2011-08-04T10:06:49Z")
And, of course, if NATO keeps bombing these civilian targets, why does everything Gadaffi takes reporters to wind up with the same routine of ‘military graffiti on the wall, russian shells present, and protesting civilians that seem to have been dragged from town to town and were first visible in Tripoli’? It’s not like people weren’t expecting NATO to screw up and bomb the hell out of a house or two. It happens. But so far, every time it’s been investigated, it’s been the Colonel faking things. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1679 "2011-08-04T12:17:19Z")
So, who holds Zliten at the moment? And, for that matter, Brega? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595/1680 "2011-08-04T14:31:03Z")
Brega is not controlled by the Gadaffi forces at all. However, the rebel forces are stalled there, for two reasons. A: the assassination, and B: the mines. Zilten is ‘contested.’ I have not heard any major reports from my sources recently. Which means something should show up in the next day or so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595.md?page=83) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-too/571595.md?page=85)