Some more updates. Truth rating imprecise.
There are reports that Saadi and Khamis Ghadaffi were burned in the kamikaze attack on Ghadaffi’s compound and that Khamis is in critical condition. (This has been denied repeatedly. Let’s see if they show up on TV anytime soon.)
Looks like they got the artillery out.
It’s pretty clear that Gadaffi is shelling the town he claimed to take the other day, which suggests strongly he, uhm, didn’t actually take it.
Oh, and as far as Benghazi?
Misrata update:
Ajdabiyah, which many sources claim is under Gadaffi’s control, is almost certainly not. The Gadaffi forces seem to be stuck at the western gate.
Tripoli is now officially relying on shipments and reserves for fuel. City has less than 30% of what it normally needs. Rebels took an oil tanker yesterday, reports of rebels with RPGs harassing and attacking shipping, from speedboats. Someone got clever, looks like.
BBC is saying the deserting soldiers have started making a stronger appearance in Benghazi and may be ready to make a spirited stand there.
British Foreign Secretary Hague also seems to be pitching the idea of the UK implementing a no-fly zone without consulting the UN. Said there is already an international treaty in place – the name of it escapes me – that allowed countries to intervene without the need for UN approval as long as there was regional backing. Such a no-fly zone would be purely to protect citizens and not meant to support either side in a conflict.
This is why so many are so disillusioned (disgusted?) by America, in spite of how much they do in fact contribute world stablility – when it comes to their own interests they go in guns blazing; when it’s a matter of the lives of innocents from some ‘far off land’, it’s all vacilation.
A fortnight ago a ‘no-fly zone’ would have sufficed. Now what to do at the eleventh hour, on the precipice of genocide? Invasion!?
Also, it must be said, some ‘coinkidink’ that as soon as the Saudis go marching in to Bahrain the US jump on the ‘intervention’ bangdwagon… rolls eyes
Wow. I know most Dopers consider the GWB era to be one of cowboy foreign policy, but how can you not be sickened by this kind of pusillanimous vacillation?
The U.S. view(i.e. it’s just our opinion, not necessarily right) is that we need to be prepared to contemplate(Consider that for a minute. Not that we’re thinking about, we’re not even ready to think about it, but we NEED to be ready to think about…) steps that include, but perhaps go beyond, a no-fly zone at this point. (PERHAPS go beyond a no-fly zone, which is nowhere near reality now.)
Though this may shock some people, I am going to actually have to side with the US on this one. Every once in a blue moon, the US appears to reach a foreign policy decision that is actually just and sane. This is probably one of those times.
First of all, I do not get the sense that there is much global appetite for a US invasion. You have squandered what little goodwill you had following 9/11 with the whole Iraq debacle. A further military attack on another Arab nation will be met with much anger and cynicism, especially in the Arab world.
Secondly, and perhaps more pertinently, wars cost money, and you’re pretty much bankrupt. Let’s not beat around the bush here. You cannot afford this war, and your army cannot spare many more soldiers. How would you finance something of this scale? The US is already in the midst of a budget crisis, and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will be jumping on the chance to exacerbate it.
Perhaps most importantly, what’s the point, anyway? This is a civil war between government forces and armed rebels. Such things are a dime a dozen, and nobody speaks of intervention in all the other situations. What makes this different? Sure, the Western press went all out in reporting on this issue, and gullible Westerners quickly came to deify and identify with the rebels… But is this enough of a reason to actually join a war on their side? Is being a sore loser enough of a justification to put the lives of your own soldiers in jeopardy? I find this type of thinking bizarre. The US has no horse in this race, and I have yet to hear one compelling reason for it to intervene. I imagine that more than a couple US federal officials share this view.
The point is to get rid of the Gaddafi regime, for two reasons:
It would be better for the people of Libya. Whatever comes next, it can hardly be worse. (An Islamist regime would arguably be worse, but we have no reason to believe that tendency is heavily represented among the rebels or the people.)
Everybody else really, really wants Gaddafi to go. In case you haven’t noticed, he’s been making a nuisance and sometimes a threat of himself for decades. Nobody shares (or cares to try to understand) his “Green” ideology, or regards his regime as in any way admirable. His only friends are those like Chavez who allied with him because they have nothing in common but a common enemy in the U.S.
If that’s not enough, consider the alternatives:
If Gaddafi goes, and if all goes well, then there will be a continuous tier of more-or-less democratic states along the north coast of Africa. That will be much better for world peace and quiet as well as the peoples of those countries. They might even form an open-borders economic union, or cooperate to build a high-speed rail line from Marrakech to Port Said – that part of the world really needs better transportation infrastructure. Oil wealth will rebuild Libya. Tourism will boom – “Come see the New Libya!” Lovely Mediterranean beachfront, much of it undeveloped, Greek and Roman ruins . . . lotsa potential there. All of this will make North Africa richer. Is that not the best way to fight imperialism – to make a Third World region richer on its own account?
If Gaddafi does not go . . . Well, you must be able to see that things cannot be put back the way they were a month ago. The rebels have had a taste of freedom, they won’t stop. There will be a guerrilla insurgency, like in occupied Iraq, with covert aid from sympathetic countries. Libya will be embargoed by practically everybody – might even be blockaded. Its economy will slow to a crawl. Unless there’s an “oil for food” program, its oil won’t get exported and oil prices will climb. Bad for the Libyans, bad for everybody. What’s so great about Gaddafi, that all this is not worth avoiding?
Plus the fact that Gaddaffi is a delusional, power-mad, murdering lunatic who routinely executes or tortures innocent people for the crime of daring to criticise his disgusting regime. He’s a tyrant and a monster who’s shown absolutely no qualms about opening fire on unarmed protesters including women, children and the elderly, and he’s a despicable stain on the face of humanity who’s has turned a promising, prosperous country into a twisted, sickened parody of what it was and could be. He’s poisoned the very hearts of people with fear and suspicion, and stolen from them to line his own pockets. The sooner he’s dead and gone, the sooner Libya can re-build itself into what it has the potential to be.
If you’re going to jump in on people for changing the topic in a thread then you’re going to have to jump in at some point on practically every single thread that ever gets posted here. My question wasdn’t vague at all, it was absolutely crystal clear and all the clearer for its brevity and it was an entirely valid question that the questionee had no problem understanding. It was obvious that I wasn’t going to get an answer so I gave up trying before you even started moderating.
Actually, right now the rebels have it. If they can hold out, and appear to be able to control that area for a while, you will soon see governments giving diplomatic recognition to the rebel forces. France has already done so. (And France just happens to be one of the biggest customers for Libyan oil.)
But this is simply an argument from a subjective opinion. My own good-faith subjective stance is that a continuation of Gaddafi’s governance is the optimal outcome for the Libyan people at this point in time. You’re going to need a stronger argument than “Because I feel this way” in order to justify putting human lives in jeopardy for a cause that many do not approve of.
What do you mean, “everybody… wants Gaddafi to go?” I don’t, so there goes your “everybody” statement. Or do you mean “all other states?” As you point out yourself, Venezuela doesn’t want him to go, so this argument falls apart as well. We don’t even know if the majority of states want Gaddafi to go.
Also, since when did sovereignty become a popularity contest? I’m not seeing that in the UN Charter or anywhere else in international law. A government of nation X is not required to have the continuing support of the rest of the world in order to keep governing X.
And who cares that other nations have failed to embrace Gaddafi’s policies? No nation has adopted Bhutan’s use of “Gross National Happiness.” Should we bomb Bhutan next?
None of this is compelling. I don’t want to see a democratic North Africa; I oppose open-borders economic policies; regional tourism has done just fine under the authoritarian governments; China’s developing the biggest high-speed train network in the world with absolutely no democratic input. Also, no: the best way to fight imperialism is to not let the imperialists (read: NATO) establish a foothold in your backyard.
Firstly, if the Libyans need to have a drawn-out guerrilla war, then let them have it. It’s their call, and the resolution needs to be theirs as well. Peace cannot be imposed from the outside; it must rise up on the inside. Consider Afghanistan for a moment. The outside world has been trying to pacify it for centuries, and how is that working out? Let people forge their own destinies; they are sentient beings, not your playthings.
Secondly, I doubt that the world will turn its back on Libyan oil, regardless of who wins. China alone will gladly purchase the entire output, and it’s their established policies to deal with all governments as equals.