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.
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.
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.
This does seem to be the case. NATO recently bombed Libyan state TV.
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.
Color me skeptical. It appears that the infighting amongst the rebels is under way a bit too soon.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
Government fighting back in Zliten. Situation unclear.
End Game for Benghazi Rebels as Libyan Tribes Prepare to Weigh In?
– Much more at source. I leave it to TPTB to determine whether I’ve overextended the copyright laws with my quote.
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:
– bolding mine.
So, to them, they wouldn’t be killing “Libyans.”
Luckily you didn’t provide any of your own words to cast an argument there.
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 is a reliable source, I’m Mother Theresa.
Oh, right, five problems. Fifth, it’s weaseling on certain things. For example, compare this:
to Al Jazeera’s brief on the same topic:
That cite just says he’s pro-Arab. Which could place him on either side of any civil war in an Arab country.
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.
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.
So, who holds Zliten at the moment? And, for that matter, Brega?
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.