Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

i think juan cole's letter is persuasive at times but parts of it feel blinkered. the anti-intervention arguments he demolishes are very simplistic ("pure pacifism is a crock", etc). they're far from being the strongest arguments he can muster against this military action. i.e. he doesn't take on any of the practical arguments against. which is weird, because he doesn't usually straw-man like that. i find the tone strangely rah-rah at times, with paens to "the working people" of libya, as if opponents of this military intervention are opposed to the desires of the working people of libya's desires. there's a lot of that kind of rhetorical bullshit in there, to be honest. according to cole, opponents of this intervention "all did have the implication that it was all right with the world community if Qaddafi deployed tanks against innocent civilian crowds just exercising their right to peaceful assembly and to petition their government." i mean.. again it's reminiscent of every war build-up ever. "so you're ok with (x) killing his own people?" "uh no" "then we agree"

's desires

Do Syrians believe their state radio--

State news media have largely blamed foreigners and residents of a Palestinian camp near the city for the unrest in Latakia. On Sunday, state radio reported multiple sightings of foreigners in the coastal town, including “a group of Lebanese women who said they wanted to rent an apartment but ran away when asked for identification.” NY Times

That's as good as Fox tv or Rush L.

that's a very left-sounding argumentative strategy to me: 'either you do something about it or you're ok with it'.

xp oh yeah there was a Syrian govt spokeswoman on the radio over here, she said the shooting of protesters was nothing to do with the security forces, it was a bunch of guys who'd come over the border - with uniforms, and guns - and they'd all been arrested. o_O doesn't begin to describe it.

for what its worth, even tho i think hes mostly wrong, i appreciate tracer's posts in this thread if only for forcing ppl to articulate & think stuff thru because its def not like hes the only one thinking this

Totally.

"even tho i think hes mostly wrong" haha thanks MUCH fucker

The Nation magazine is still fighting the constitutional debate on this saying Obama needs to get authorization from Congress while others have moved on to the stalemate debate--will Ghaddaffi just hunker down with his troops and his money and his supporters while the rebels will not be eager to fight street by street in the cities against Ghaddaffi supporters and Ghadaffi's troops (especially since they don't have the weapons)

"they" meaning the rebels don't have the weapons

"even tho i think hes mostly wrong" haha thanks MUCH fucker

― goole, Tuesday, March 29, 2011 4:40 PM (41 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ha well more like 'even tho i think other arguments are more convincing'

i agree with tracer's take on the cole letter

So what is your take on the "war buildup" story re Quadaffi's tanks and the potential for massacre. Do you think the Allies made that up or that Quaddaffi's troops were heading there to have tea and a discussion, or what? And if you're not ok with what Q was arguably intending to do, what do you think the Allies should have done instead?

as if opponents of this military intervention are opposed to the desires of the working people of libya's desires

So how would you demonstrate your support for the desires of the working people of Libya?

With Iraq, in response to war buildup talk, one could say that Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction, but I don't see how this war buildup is comparable based on Q's actions and talk from the days before.

i never equated iraq and libya

i sympathize with the "working class people of libya", whoever that is, but am a little leery of jumping in and expending resources and money we could use at home. i don't have a huge problem with the way NATO handled this, given the imminent threat to (actual) civilians articulated by gaddafi, though i don't doubt they could have accomplished just as much without our help. but that's our job i guess, always taking the lead.

my real beef, and i know this makes me a crazy liberal and very not serious, was with taking action without authorization from congress (which bam could have gotten anyway, if he wanted to!). committing acts of war absent an imminent threat is serious business imo, and should require consent of the people, through their elected representatives.

I don't think saving "resources and money we could use at home" is a moral argument though, especially as it's not as if all that military spending would otherwise be spent on education and infrastructure.

there are plenty of things that go into the decision to go to war or not that aren't necessarily morally sound arguments. that's beside the point, though; whether this was the right thing to do or not (and i think, with some reservation, it was, for someone at least), it should be up to the people to decide if they want to engage. that kind of decision-making isn't purely moral and it shouldn't have to be

Fair enough. I wasn't critiquing your constitutional point. Not living in the US, that bothers me less but I respect that it bothers you.

people are being killed all over the world, and we're sitting "idly by". we've got the power to stop some of that, at least temporarily, but why don't we? well, lots of reasons xpost to myself

xpost sadly it's not even a constitiutional point anymore, it's been ignored for so long now. i think the principle is a good one, regardless

i don't doubt they could have accomplished just as much without our help.

...

i honestly have no idea how capable other UN countries are miliarily. you guys don't have your own planes and shit? the entire rest of the UN couldn't handle LIBYA for a week without us babysitting you? better hope you stay on our good side for WW3

yeah you'd think, but no. think US commitment was necessary to get the acquiescence of russia, china, india, etc. britain is maxed out, not sure about france. but the arab league, african union?

dictators around the region would have gotten the message that violent repression "works"

Ha ha, yeah, violent repression totally fails. Granted, it typically takes decades to fail, which is longer than many "successes" last, but still. Violent repressive dictators around the globe take note: your time is running out! Very, very slowly.

In the meantime you can lend us a few Mirages to bolster our coalition cred. No, not Mazda Mirages! The planes we sold you. I don't know, where's the last place you remember seeing them?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/

The idea of humanitarian intervention begins in 1968 with the Biafran war.

really? what about the genocide convention 20 years earlier? curtis is such a bullshitter sometimes.

more questions today

- is armed rebellion the best response to living under Gaddafi in spring of 2011?

- how in the world did the rebels ever expect to win a military confrontation w/gaddafi?

- if no rebel had ever picked up a gun, and a steady drib-drab of protestors kept getting killed each week would this intervention have ever happened? should it have?

- UNR 1973 calls for "protection of civilians" - hasn't this been achieved? if not, how will we know when it's been achieved? if we continue bombing gaddafi's army after this point are we in violation of the resolution?

- if rebels harm or kill any civilians will we bomb them too? should we?

The idea of humanitarian intervention begins in 1968 with the Biafran war.

hahahahaha

no son

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84194/Bulgarian-Horrors

those are good questions tracer but

- how in the world did the rebels ever expect to win a military confrontation w/gaddafi?

like: http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/pro-gadhafi-force-opens-fire-on-tripoli-protest-casualties-reported-1.346302

there were protests in tripoli too

this didn't start as an 'armed rebellion'

1. Not for us to judge
2. The impetus of Tunisia and Egypt - high hopes - naivete - not sure why this is a pressing question TBH
3. No, because sadly that happens all over the place. Once the stakes were raised and there was a chance of a massacre everything changed.
4. That's the big one - the general feeling is that if Gaddafi stays in power he will punish the rebels.
5. Not "any civilians" no - large numbers, ie a massacre, yes (morally), tricky (politically)

2. The impetus of Tunisia and Egypt - high hopes - naivete - not sure why this is a pressing question TBH

tunisia and egypt succeeded without armed rebellions. arguably BECAUSE they weren't armed rebellions.

it's a pressing question because once you initiate a civil war/armed rebellion/what have you, between teenagers riding on technicals vs a very big military, you guarantee massive loss of life, massive internal displacement, massive reprisal. you don't know where it's going to end, how and if it's going to escalate. and that's even if you "win". maybe wasn't for us to judge in february but now that we are their air force i think we have permission to weigh things up.

tunisia and egypt succeeded without armed rebellions. arguably BECAUSE they weren't armed rebellions.

think it's more to do with the egyptian military not firing on unarmed protesters? whereas gadaffi did fire on unarmed protesters. again for the cheap seats, what happened in libya did not begin as an armed rebellion.

allllllso, think the jury is somewhat out on whether the rebellion in egypt has succeeded yet.

xpost But it didn't start of as an armed rebellion - it was completely ad hoc, with protesters becoming fighters. I appreciate all the questions your posing but do you have answers to any of them? What do you think should happen when protesters pick up guns?

i think they shouldn't pick up guns. especially when it's perfectly clear they stand no chance.

I don't think it was perfectly clear at all - the early phase of the rebellion was very successful and there was a belief (wrong but not absurd) that Gaddafi's forces would abandon him, as had happened in Tunisia and Egypt.

civilian protesters were being shot in the streets and could reasonably have anticipated worse. you're saying they have bitten their tongue, said sorry, and promised never to protest again. im not sure gadaffi would have forgiven them.

should the libyan people just knuckle down and live under gadaffi? what is the next move there? they should have help from outside , and they shouldn't pick up a gun (they'll lose), and they shouldn't protest peacefully (they'll get shot), by your reckoning, so far as i can tell.

xpost

shoulN'T have help from outside

should the libyan people just knuckle down and live under gadaffi? what is the next move there?

i really don't know.

initiating an armed rebellion is one of the biggest things any political group can do, with the biggest consequences in terms of human misery and suffering and you'd better fucking know what you're doing. it seems the rebels (who i don't consider an identical category with "the protestors") didn't have a clue. would the suffering have been less if no one had picked up a gun? would other pressure have been brought to bear had the protests remained peaceful? we'll never know.

i just sort of have to boggle that we're throwing our lot in with people whose judgement has been like "gaddafi'll fold when he gets a load of our thirty toyotas"

Here's a question based on the current New Statesman cover and the general "why only Libya?" argument. Where among the following would someone who opposes the Libyan intervention be happy to see western military action?

Iran
Gaza
Sudan
Yemen
Bahrain
Ivory Coast
Zimbabwe
Burma
North Korea

i don't completely know. but i don't think that in these situations decisions are made rationally, or on the basis of very much knowledge. i've no doubt that some of the rebels are dangerous and the prospect of them carrying out reprisals is frightening. i don't think one does know what one's doing! in other 'successful' bloody revolutions of the past, i doubt they knew what they were in for: hundreds of thousands of people died in the french revolution.

so no-one knows, and the end result is still unknown. but i would say that the protests were made non-peaceful by gadaffi's forces shooting at them, on the whole. i guess he took a hard line because he thought there was risk of a real armed rebellion kicking off. that's life as a dictator.

xposts

Tracer, wouldn't you agree that a large group of people have the same right to self defence as a small group? i.e. when the early movement was under violent attack people were morally justified in taking up arms to protect themselves?

*small group or individual

xpost i have to say none. i just don't think the US has any credibility as an honest broker, especially in the middle east. i think any military step it takes in any of the countries mentioned will make things worse. i mean it sucks.

this episode - which i have every expectation will end badly, though i really hope not - kind of points up the contradictions of the westphalian concept of sovereignty. every nation is supposed to have a monopoly on the use of force inside its borders, which is contingent on the consent of its people. now we have a situation where "the international community" (i.e. the_global_north) can openly make an outside determination that this deal isn't being honored or conducted fairly. the contradiction (inherent in any treaty or war) is, from where does this determination happen? in what venue? in a country? outside all countries? when the very concept of rules depends on a state to enforce them, what do we make of rules that exist outside of any state? (EU countries have been thinking about this for some time, though there they've constructed a quasi-state or a super-state)

dowd sure they have the "right" to launch a quasi military campaign but they also have the responsibility to think it through.

ehh pretty sure 'the consent of its people' was not at the forefront of european rulers' minds when the treaty of westphalia was signed.

gadaffi sure as hell lacks it. but yes i agree, the concept of international law is pretty much horseshit. who enforces it? who writes it? im kind of hobbesian on this point.

i don't think the initial resort to arms was 'launching quasi military campaign' btw. i think it was to fend of armed assaults by gadaffi's forces on unarmed protesters.

ehh pretty sure 'the consent of its people' was not at the forefront of european rulers' minds when the treaty of westphalia was signed.

eeeeeeeeeeiouhhhh no but the concept of sovereignty now includes that. even the worst dictator claims his people love him.

well, yes, but the_west/the_global_north/the imperialist running dogs of the so-called free world can point out that it's bullshit. and i think in some cases rational people can agree! there's no impartial, neutral, honest broker out there, who can say with complete disinterest, gadaffi has to go. but im not sure what you're saying here. we should continue to uphold the westphalian concept of sovereignty? or the surely contradictory ideal of the UN? or what?

oh i'm not making any argument at all about that. we're stuck with the concept of sovereignty for awhile i think. it's just unavoidable thinking about this stuff in a situation like this.

It has to be said, this thread is the only place I can find to discuss this stuff reasonably. Comment Is Free is full of Imperialism! Neocons! Links to Prison Planet!