Obama's Libyan Adventure-Will It End Badly?

[Ramira]

@John_Mace

Let’s take a Muslim/Arab country that had no history of even being a country prior to 1952, that has been ruled by an oppressive dictator since the 1960s, that has a goodly amount of oil, and is comprised of any number of competing tribes.

Tribalism can be exagerated in Libya, even if the bien pensant new born experts in the West wish to make it important. To say that it has no history of being a country before 1952 is very superficial, the resistance to the Italians organised by the Zaouia Essanusi was of a very nationlist character.

A country that is held together by an army made up of lots of mercenaries who aren’t even Libyans.

The claim of the mercenaries, while good propaganda for the rebellionists is not standing up to the survey by journalists of the soldiers seen. Not that it is an army holding the country - so far no Libyan opposition is calling for a division of the counry - this is in opposition to the example of the Kurds in Iraq - and not even the change in the capital. There is no sign that the country is truly divided in this way. You are seeking against facts to pain the most darkest picture.

Add to the mix that this country borders an even larger country that is going through its own revolution of unknown outcome and with a history of generating Islamic radicalism.

Et alors? You think that the West snobbing the Rebellion, letting Qaddafi massacre the rebellionists would have led to the stability next to Egypt? To the contrary, I say it would have led to worst and this is why France and the UK have pushed the intervention. There was already when the intervention occured, a country awash in arms after the breaking into of the armouries. The restablishment of Qaddafi in the East is most certainly leading to a insurgency and rebellions, and also to Qaddafi seeking - as he did in the past - to destabilise his neighbours by funding those opposed to democracies in Tunisie and Egypte. In French we read already of signs of this being done in Tunisia, before Libia began its war.

So you think it a good idea then to leave the Rebellion to turn to the hard radical Islamists, that the West should let them without even the gesture of stopping the Qaddafi tanks, be crushed? Your argument is that?

It seems to me shallow, superficial, only reacting without thinking. The very mention of the Egypt situation and its past history is the justification of the West as least giving some support to the Rebellionists.

What could possibly go wrong?

The better question you should ask is what could go right by doing nothing, for that is the other real choice.

Only a crazy person would do that. Let’s send in troops to maintain order. We’ll have to set up our own guy to run things for awhile

Atlhgouh it is clear you are mocking this from pretending by superficial analogies that this is Iraq again, that is a more stupid suggestion, which would have been rejected by the Rebellion. No what is being done now is smart, it leaves the Rebellionists to build themselves, and create an organic response with legitimacy to tear down the evil Qaddafi, but gives the West some credibility with the Rebellionists and a sense that they have friends. The way which the Flag of France is being proudly put forth shows the good will this has bought.

At least there is a good chance here, the path of doing nothing, what is the real results - again everyone stays silent on this, for it is the real alternative and I think it is known to be actually more negative

[FinnAgain]

@Magiver

When we remove his planes and tanks and he still goes on killing people what is our strategy?

There doesn’t appear to be one for major combat operations, since an occupying force is explicitly prohibited under the UNSC resolution. Again, I’m really not understanding the confusion, can you please explain to me what about the UNSC resolution you believe makes the operational parameters of our mission unclear or complicates our exit strategy?

@DSeid

The problem is how to continue to achieve the objective after you stop flying the jets. Other than by Qadaffi’s exit (one way or the other) how will the no-fly forces ever become convinced that he is no longer a threat to his people? We already know we can’t believe him when he says it.

Well, the mission parameters offer us very few options on how to achieve the objective if air power is no longer sufficient. At that point, we have the option to have special forces training/leading the rebels, and we can arm them, but I’ve never heard folks refer to an exit strategy and mean ‘How do we extract the operators we have resident in the country?’

I’m sure, even then, the exit strategy would be ‘exfiltrate across the Egyptian border.’
Or some such.

[E-Sabbath]

FYI: Misrata, Ajdabiya now under Rebel control. So I guess that’s the answer to what happens after all the Government armor is destroyed.
Update: Currently heading towards Ras Lanuf.
http://www.thisrestlessheart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/map-libya.gif

[ralph124c]

Another question: WHO is responsible for the hundreds of thousands of refugees, that will be created by this clusterfuck?
The Italians are already being invaded by Tunisians-no doubt, a million Libyans showing up on Pantellaria will be welcome.
The absence of thinking this thing through is astonishing!:smack:

[Ramira]

@ralph124c

Another question: WHO is responsible for the hundreds of thousands of refugees, that will be created by this clusterfuck?
The Italians are already being invaded by Tunisians-no doubt, a million Libyans showing up on Pantellaria will be welcome.
The absence of thinking this thing through is astonishing!:smack:

Yes, particularly on the part of people thinking it is intervention that is generating the refugees and not the actions of Qaddafi. There were many tens of thousands crossing the border to Tunisia before any intervention.

It is astonishing, the way which things that were happening before you now find a way to blame on this intervention.

[DSeid]

**Finn]/b], sorry if I was unclear. I was not asking about what to do “if air power is no longer sufficient” but how you leave when removal of air power will result in atrocities.

ralph, why do you believe that more refugees (let alone “hundreds of thousands”) will be created by the no-fly zone and by preventing tanks from approaching opposition civilian population centers, than by letting jets and tanks attacks those centers?

Please spend a little energy thinking this through yourself.

[Lobohan]

@ralph124c

Another question: WHO is responsible for the hundreds of thousands of refugees, that will be created by this clusterfuck?
The Italians are already being invaded by Tunisians-no doubt, a million Libyans showing up on Pantellaria will be welcome.
The absence of thinking this thing through is astonishing!:smack:

So what you’re going to do is ignore everyone showing you your previous posts are uninformed and just keep throwing up partisan jabs until something sticks?

Think about this, focus on this very hard. Do you think there would be more or less refugees now, or if Kadaffi were on a genocidal rampage? Do you suppose that it might be that stopping a slaughter and giving a popular rebellion a chance might mean that *fewer *people will run from the country in a panic?

[elucidator]

And how will Obama withdraw all the troops he never sent in the first place? He can’t! Its impossible! He has no exit strategy to withdraw those troops! None!

[FinnAgain]

@DSeid

**Finn]/b], sorry if I was unclear. I was not asking about what to do “if air power is no longer sufficient” but how you leave when removal of air power will result in atrocities.

Fair enough. But under the UNSC resolution we’re pretty much out of major combat options once air power isn’t sufficient.

[CoolHandCox]

@FinnAgain

Fair enough. But under the UNSC resolution we’re pretty much out of major combat options once air power isn’t sufficient.

They’re going to have to send a few ground troops in at some point to mark targets to be bombed that are not inherently identifiable by air/satellite. I don’t think the resolution disallows that, either.

It depends if Gadhafi keeps fighting or not.

[FinnAgain]

I’d be willing to bet money that they already have special forces/marine recon/whatever on the ground to paint targets for bombers. But if the air campaign isn’t successful they can’t put an occupying force in place.

[Jolly_Roger]

@John_Mace

That’s a pretty good summar, DSeid. One thing I would like to add, though, is FUCK the Arab League!

snip

That kinda made me chuckle, 'cuz I told a friend once “Fuck the Middle East! I’m tired of this shit! If I could go back in time to grade school I’d convince my past self to devote his life to being a scientist and perfecting some kind of synthetic fuel that was better, cheaper and more easily created than gasoline. Then we wouldn’t have to deal with all the crazy shit over there.”

Admittedly it was the few beers talkin’ and my screwing with time and space is probably the least of the issues that my idea would cause. But really, I’m kinda sick of the entire place. I’m not even going to pretend I have some great knowledge of all of the factors of the craziness over there, but I can’t think of any good news that I’ve ever heard about the Middle East…in my entire life. It depresses me.

I hope…I want…Libya and the rest of the region to be in peace and for people to stop killing each other and all that…but I’m afraid this thing might go on for some time, as just another quagmire of lost lives and resources. At this rate I’ll never be able to quit drinkin’…

[CoolHandCox]

@FinnAgain

I’d be willing to bet money that they already have special forces/marine recon/whatever on the ground to paint targets for bombers. But if the air campaign isn’t successful they can’t put an occupying force in place.

I brought it up in one of these threads, but what does occupying force mean? To me, you can bring in ground troops, you just can’t loiter (govern/control/ect) when you’ve cleared a city/country.

[FinnAgain]

Most likely the ICRC’s definition:

[

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.

](ICRC | International Committee of the Red Cross)

In practice, though, we wouldn’t put ground troops in and then put them under the command of rebel forces. Which would speak to them being in a position of exercising martial authority over territory in which they were resident.

[ralph124c]

@DSeid

**Finn]/b], sorry if I was unclear. I was not asking about what to do “if air power is no longer sufficient” but how you leave when removal of air power will result in atrocities.

ralph, why do you believe that more refugees (let alone “hundreds of thousands”) will be created by the no-fly zone and by preventing tanks from approaching opposition civilian population centers, than by letting jets and tanks attacks those centers?

Please spend a little energy thinking this through yourself.

Yes, I have thought about this..probably with much greater depth than the commentators here.
the fact is WE DON’T KNOW who the rebels are. They might be the nicest folks on the planet-or they might be AlQueda jihadists..we just don’t know.
Second: look at the record of US military intervention..take Somalia, for example. We wound up taking sides in a civil war-look how that wound up.
Now, we are plunging in to another conflict-recklessly and without any regard for the consequences. We might be hailed as liberators-and then, we might be attacked. And whn we inherit this country-who is going to police it?
(Hint) It won’t be the French or Italians.:rolleyes:

[CoolHandCox]

@FinnAgain

Most likely the ICRC’s definition:

[url=http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm]

In practice, though, we wouldn’t put ground troops in and then put them under the command of rebel forces. Which would speak to them being in a position of exercising martial authority over territory in which they were resident.

I agree with that definition of occupying force. The UN resolution is written somewhat ambiguously though (UN 1973:“…excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory…”). To me though, that means the ICRC definition of occupy you quoted above.

Although, I don’t see how that implies UN ground troops would be put under rebel command. The UN just couldn’t legally occupy any Libyan territory. Occupy meaning more administrative authority over the population, rather than UN troops physically occupying space inside Libya and having authority of the troops physically occupying that space. The latter being allowed.

Doesn’t mean it would ever come to that, but I think the option is there. Especially if Gadhafi doesn’t back down and can meaningfully still attack civilians.

[FinnAgain]

@CoolHandCox

Occupy meaning more administrative authority over the population

I disagree. I believe that it’s simply exercising authority. If you effectively institute martial law you’re the occupying power even if you don’t, just as an example, regulate civil services.

[Ramira]

@ralph124c

Yes, I have thought about this..probably with much greater depth than the commentators here.

In truth, this made me laugh. Taking your comments about refugees, it is very clear that this is not true, you have not thought at all in depth.

the fact is WE DON’T KNOW who the rebels are. They might be the nicest folks on the planet-or they might be AlQueda jihadists..we just don’t know.

If one follows the news, it is clear that the rebellion is very popular and widespread. I am shocked that so many Westerners, for the bad excuse of Somali and Iraq repeat the lies of the Qaddafi regime.

It is clear from interviews and contacts that the rebellionists are from many backgrounds, and some are Salafistes but some are not. You perhaps want to befriend Qaddafi again? Or perhaps you think that you will win more by letting Qaddafi take control?

Second: look at the record of US military intervention..take Somalia, for example. We wound up taking sides in a civil war-look how that wound up.

In Somalia the Americans thought they could put troops to fight in stead of locals. I do not think you have those illusions any more.

Now, we are plunging in to another conflict-recklessly and without any regard for the consequences.

I think the US came into this very reluctantly and is avoiding any great commitments. This is not reckless. They know a Libya in total rebellion is a danger to Egypt and Tunis. I think there is great regard to consequences.

We might be hailed as liberators-and then, we might be attacked.

It seems to me you are writing as if there is an invasion when no power is talking about an invasion, and only support by air to prevent the tanks and rockets of Qaddafi from being free to bombard cities.

And whn we inherit this country-who is going to police it?
(Hint) It won’t be the French or Italians.:rolleyes:

I think your hints have as much value as your opinions about refugees, having as much information in them.

[CoolHandCox]

@FinnAgain

I disagree. I believe that it’s simply exercising authority. If you effectively institute martial law you’re the occupying power even if you don’t, just as an example, regulate civil services.

I would put making/enforcing the law under the umbrella of administrative authority. Whatever it takes to “run” the city after Gadhafi has lost or withdrawn from it is occupation. The UN would not be allowed to do that under the resolution. We might just be calling the same situation a different name.

[Prohaira]

in Islam there is a cultural/religious concept called “Insha’Allah”, or if god wills it…

Inshallah

“god is Merciful”… so why are Infidels creating a Muslim’s future to their will.

Muhammad prophesied that Muslims would fight to the last sect standing, that the winner would be his Islam, would create the Caliphate Empire in Dar el Islam. he said nothing about infidels choosing who won by picking who won with Cruse Missiles.

get out Muslim countries n stay out, that alone’ll cut the Deficit by 500% :smack:

i don’t think they appreciate our wanting to create a neutered, lap dog version of Islam so we can steal their natural resources.