Libya: should anything be done?

[Coito ergo sum]

Who's in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... apart.html

Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
French propose a new political 'committee' to oversee operations
Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign's direction
Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes 'neutralises' Libyan military machine
U.K. ministers say war could last '30 years'
Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians - calls bombing a 'crusade'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1HS5fGjfx


What was the term that's been bandied about from time to time...? Amateur night?

[Coito ergo sum]

“The exit strategy will be executed this week,” President Obama said, “in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment. We will still be in a support role. We will be supplying jamming, intelligence and other assets unique to us."

Planes in the air? Ships in the Mediterranean? Intelligence being provided? Doesn’t sound like an exit strategy at all.

What it does recall is Lewis Carroll.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

From the beginning of this suddenly-announced military campaign, the White House has been making great efforts to under-sell the US role and emphasize the participation of European allies and Arab partners. Even those Arab partners like the UAE that ultimately didn’t contribute military assets as White House officials say they had been led to believe.

Last week the President said “the United States will contribute our unique capabilities at the front end of the mission to protect Libyan civilians, and enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners.”

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Gates, talking about who would take over for the US and when, said, "this command and control business is complicated. We haven’t done something like this, kind of on the fly before. And so it’s not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... ategy.html

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ....this thing is starting to sound like a joke. We're in; we're out. We're sort of in. We're not in it to kill Qadaffi, so we bomb his headquarters and "almost get him." We're only there to protect civilians and not to take sides in a civil war, but we're trying to "level the playing field" so the contestants have a fair fight.

[Coito ergo sum]

Al Qaida commander backs Libyan rebels in message

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212003

And, now we're on the same side as Al Qaida. I wonder how this would be played in the media if it happened in 2008....

[Coito ergo sum]

“We are not at war with Libya, we are protecting the civilian population,” said Fillon and added, “Our objectives are very specific... to protect the civilian population, excluding explicitly any occupation forces.”

http://www.france24.com/en/20110322-fra ... resolution

[Coito ergo sum]

Libya costs, mission unclear
Allies ‘in complete disarray’ on whether Gadhafi is goal

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... n-unclear/

[Thumpalumpacus]

I could possibly support "democracy" if I ever experienced it. Not sure what "democracy" entails so I am hesitant to "support" it.

A good working definition for me is, "The ability of a citizen to speak up against, and if necessary turn out, his or her government without fear of government reprisals." Hopefully that helps.

Speak up in what sense? Overthrow the government without fear of reprisals? That doesn't exist anywhere. Any government will fight back if they feel the risk of being overthrown. I know this is a little off topic, and I do apologize, but this terminology interests me. Seems very vague.

Forgive, then, my pursuing this course. How can you not understand what it means to speak up against something? Surely you're familiar with critique; you're obviously adept at questioning a line of thought. Speaking up against a government would entail critiquing its policies and/or procedures. Is that clear enough for you, or do you need further help? If you're wishing to be deliberately obtuse, do it on someone else's leg. Otherwise, you may safely assign the colloquial meaning to my words and quit with this semantic nonsense. If you wish to pretend not to understand, very well.

Also, I said "turn out", not "overthrow", the government. The terms have vastly different meanings. "Turning out" is generally peaceful and legal, while "overthrowing" is illegal and often not peaceful. The fact that you made this change in wording isn't really accidental, is it now? Pardon me, but your rhetoric is showing.

Well, pretty much anywhere people can "speak up against anything"...it's a matter of context and coverage. Anyone anywhere can sit in their home and "speak up" against policies and procedures. Not sure how that is in any sense democratic.

I will assume you haven't registered to vote, then.

If you mean "protesting", if you take canaduh for an example (where I am from) most people would probably say it is a democratic country, but protesting (ie. speaking up in public) is virtually illegal.

That's because you Canucks don't value free speech. Don't you fine racial slurs, and such? And you wish to lecture me about freedom?

As for "turning out" one government for another with the same policies, not sure how that is democratic either. Turn out one capitalist liberal democratic government for another? What "rhetoric" would that be? Your "rhetoric" is showing as well by stating you support "democracy"...whatever that is.

Perhaps if a government with different policies might win votes, it might win office?

And if after this discussion you still don't know how I define democracy, you're too much the fool for me to bother with; have a nice day. Troll elsewhere.

[Thumpalumpacus]

“The exit strategy will be executed this week,” President Obama said, “in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment. We will still be in a support role. We will be supplying jamming, intelligence and other assets unique to us."

Planes in the air? Ships in the Mediterranean? Intelligence being provided? Doesn’t sound like an exit strategy at all.

What it does recall is Lewis Carroll.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

From the beginning of this suddenly-announced military campaign, the White House has been making great efforts to under-sell the US role and emphasize the participation of European allies and Arab partners. Even those Arab partners like the UAE that ultimately didn’t contribute military assets as White House officials say they had been led to believe.

Last week the President said “the United States will contribute our unique capabilities at the front end of the mission to protect Libyan civilians, and enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners.”

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Gates, talking about who would take over for the US and when, said, "this command and control business is complicated. We haven’t done something like this, kind of on the fly before. And so it’s not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... ategy.html

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ....this thing is starting to sound like a joke. We're in; we're out. We're sort of in. We're not in it to kill Qadaffi, so we bomb his headquarters and "almost get him." We're only there to protect civilians and not to take sides in a civil war, but we're trying to "level the playing field" so the contestants have a fair fight.

The whole thing is a political disaster. You have France and Italy and the US and the UK at loggerheads, Germany pulling out, the Arab League pulling the rug out from our feet, and Russia wiping up the board with "we told you all along they were after you". And images of a crashed F-15 on the Libyan desert.

Face it, we Americans got screwed again. How is this not a strong argument for more isolationism?

[Warren Dew]

Face it, we Americans got screwed again. How is this not a strong argument for more isolationism?

It's an argument against interventionism, certainly. I don't think avoiding adversarial relationships with other countries implies avoiding cooperative relationships with other countries, though.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Face it, we Americans got screwed again. How is this not a strong argument for more isolationism?

It's an argument against interventionism, certainly. I don't think avoiding adversarial relationships with other countries implies avoiding cooperative relationships with other countries, though.

A good distinction, and thanks for putting it in. However, "cooperative" relationships is a rather vague term, too. Myself, at this point I'd rather see us pull back both military units and strategic commitments. Although Japan has taken a recent hit, SKorea and Europe can well fend for themselves.

Engagement doesn't seem to be a terribly productive policy, considering recent history.

[sandinista]

I will assume you haven't registered to vote, then.

None of your business really.

That's because you Canucks don't value free speech. Don't you fine racial slurs, and such? And you wish to lecture me about freedom?

I'm not "lecturing to you about freedom " but if I was...I'll give you a hint...if it bothers you don't read it Mr.Freedom.

Perhaps if a government with different policies might win votes, it might win office?

Little right now. Not sure what that means.

And if after this discussion you still don't know how I define democracy, you're too much the fool for me to bother with; have a nice day. Troll elsewhere.

So, what do you "mean" by "democracy"?

[Coito ergo sum]

“The exit strategy will be executed this week,” President Obama said, “in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment. We will still be in a support role. We will be supplying jamming, intelligence and other assets unique to us."

Planes in the air? Ships in the Mediterranean? Intelligence being provided? Doesn’t sound like an exit strategy at all.

What it does recall is Lewis Carroll.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

From the beginning of this suddenly-announced military campaign, the White House has been making great efforts to under-sell the US role and emphasize the participation of European allies and Arab partners. Even those Arab partners like the UAE that ultimately didn’t contribute military assets as White House officials say they had been led to believe.

Last week the President said “the United States will contribute our unique capabilities at the front end of the mission to protect Libyan civilians, and enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners.”

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Gates, talking about who would take over for the US and when, said, "this command and control business is complicated. We haven’t done something like this, kind of on the fly before. And so it’s not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... ategy.html

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ....this thing is starting to sound like a joke. We're in; we're out. We're sort of in. We're not in it to kill Qadaffi, so we bomb his headquarters and "almost get him." We're only there to protect civilians and not to take sides in a civil war, but we're trying to "level the playing field" so the contestants have a fair fight.

The whole thing is a political disaster. You have France and Italy and the US and the UK at loggerheads, Germany pulling out, the Arab League pulling the rug out from our feet, and Russia wiping up the board with "we told you all along they were after you". And images of a crashed F-15 on the Libyan desert.

Face it, we Americans got screwed again. How is this not a strong argument for more isolationism?

The Arab League voted for intervention in Libya to smokescreen the rest of the uprisings in the Arab League. They, basically, threw Qadafi under the bus to keep the west occupied in Libya and knowing that there will be no intervention in any of the other "humanitarian crises" in the middle east. Any further similar intervention is obviously not politically feasible.

Now we're involved, and if Qadafi is overthrown and the country descends into further civil war, then there will be responsibility on the part of the west - you broke it, you bought it, so to speak. You can't, at least not consistent with the Geneva Conventions, bomb the fuck out of a country, help send it into disarray and then wash your hands of it all. That appears to what the "Coalition of the Unwilling" are doing. Say what you want about Afghanistan and Iraq, the US was in it to win it and in it to fix what got broke. This Libya thing is more like a kid with a stick knocking a hornets nest out of a tree.

[Coito ergo sum]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama said he was setting clear and unmistakable terms for the U.S. role in Libya: It would be limited, lasting days, not weeks, and its purpose was to protect Libyan citizens.

But that's not the way it's turned out. Less than a week later, the mission has been clouded by confusion and questions about who's in charge and who's doing what - all while the killing of civilians is going on.

The Pentagon claims success in establishing an effective no-fly zone over much of Libya that has grounded Col. Moammar Gadhafi's aging air force. But Gadhafi's tanks and troops are still targeting civilians on the ground.

The administration seeks to minimize current disputes over the reins of leadership, suggesting everything will fall in place quickly...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 4-03-06-25

I'm a little suspicious of the claim that Qadafi's forces are still targeting civilians on the ground. Has anyone seen hard evidence of this targeting? Or, is it just an assumption being made by the western forces?

[JOZeldenrust]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama said he was setting clear and unmistakable terms for the U.S. role in Libya: It would be limited, lasting days, not weeks, and its purpose was to protect Libyan citizens.

But that's not the way it's turned out. Less than a week later, the mission has been clouded by confusion and questions about who's in charge and who's doing what - all while the killing of civilians is going on.

The Pentagon claims success in establishing an effective no-fly zone over much of Libya that has grounded Col. Moammar Gadhafi's aging air force. But Gadhafi's tanks and troops are still targeting civilians on the ground.

The administration seeks to minimize current disputes over the reins of leadership, suggesting everything will fall in place quickly...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 4-03-06-25

I'm a little suspicious of the claim that Qadafi's forces are still targeting civilians on the ground. Has anyone seen hard evidence of this targeting? Or, is it just an assumption being made by the western forces?

Reports from Misurata do seem to suggest that, though there has not been independent confirmation, which makes sense as there simply are no independent sources to be found in the area where Gaddafi's forces are said to be attacking. That being said, I have not heard of any pro-Gaddafi civilians in Misurata or Ajdabiya denying the accusations of military attacks against civilian targets, and there's a steady stream of refugees going from Ajdabiya to Benghazi, Tobruk and the Egyptian border, so even if the accusations aren't independently verified, they are at least plausible.

[Coito ergo sum]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama said he was setting clear and unmistakable terms for the U.S. role in Libya: It would be limited, lasting days, not weeks, and its purpose was to protect Libyan citizens.

But that's not the way it's turned out. Less than a week later, the mission has been clouded by confusion and questions about who's in charge and who's doing what - all while the killing of civilians is going on.

The Pentagon claims success in establishing an effective no-fly zone over much of Libya that has grounded Col. Moammar Gadhafi's aging air force. But Gadhafi's tanks and troops are still targeting civilians on the ground.

The administration seeks to minimize current disputes over the reins of leadership, suggesting everything will fall in place quickly...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 4-03-06-25

I'm a little suspicious of the claim that Qadafi's forces are still targeting civilians on the ground. Has anyone seen hard evidence of this targeting? Or, is it just an assumption being made by the western forces?

Reports from Misurata do seem to suggest that, though there has not been independent confirmation, which makes sense as there simply are no independent sources to be found in the area where Gaddafi's forces are said to be attacking. That being said, I have not heard of any pro-Gaddafi civilians in Misurata or Ajdabiya denying the accusations of military attacks against civilian targets, and there's a steady stream of refugees going from Ajdabiya to Benghazi, Tobruk and the Egyptian border, so even if the accusations aren't independently verified, they are at least plausible.

The thing is - when fighting occurs in a city, almost every building is arguably a civilian target, and unless civilians have been fled, there will be civilians in the area. And, the "rebels" are not an organized "Geneva Convention card carrying" army. They are - well - civilians who picked up guns and joined the the resistance.

[Coito ergo sum]

White House: Libya fight is not war, it's 'kinetic military action'

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... z1HWvsY2MH