Libya: should anything be done?

[sandinista]

Those that didn't make it over the border to Egypt or Tunisia would have been rounded up and shot, along with their families, and many civilians in towns that went over to the rebellion.

I doubt it. Ringleaders might have been shot or ended up in jail - which would also happen in the U.S. under similar circumstances - but Qadafi hasn't shown any tendency to, say, gas or massacre entire towns of his own people, as Saddam Hussein and the late Assad did.

I don't know, so hard to tell now whats propaganda and whats not when it comes to these kinds of things. The above seems to be the UN/western line which makes it automatically suspicious. I tend towards agreeing with you on this Warren Dew.

[JimC]

Those that didn't make it over the border to Egypt or Tunisia would have been rounded up and shot, along with their families, and many civilians in towns that went over to the rebellion.

I doubt it. Ringleaders might have been shot or ended up in jail - which would also happen in the U.S. under similar circumstances - but Qadafi hasn't shown any tendency to, say, gas or massacre entire towns of his own people, as Saddam Hussein and the late Assad did.

I don't know, so hard to tell now whats propaganda and whats not when it comes to these kinds of things. The above seems to be the UN/western line which makes it automatically suspicious. I tend towards agreeing with you on this Warren Dew.

I'm not certain either, but the speeches that Gaddafi was making earlier certainly threatened such things, so it is a real possibility...

Whether such a strong possibility is enough to justify intervention is a moot point; I am not a strong supporter of western action so far... At the moment, though, the intervention seems to be helping to maintain a bloody stalemate. Without air support, government forces may not be able to crush the rebels, but even without planes and tanks, the trained military forces (as long as their motivation remains) cannot be ousted by the basically civilian armed rabble rebels...

[Coito ergo sum]

I suppose there are some reasons to be cynical about the intervention, and concerned over the precedent it sets.

However, if it hadn't happened, it seems virtually certain that government forces would have rolled over the rebels fairly quickly. Those that didn't make it over the border to Egypt or Tunisia would have been rounded up and shot, along with their families, and many civilians in towns that went over to the rebellion.

I would ask the same question that every Democrat would have asked in 2006 or 7 or 8. So what? Are we to take sides in every one-sided civil war or domestic dispute? If some rebel group has an uprising in the US and it is "virtually certain that the government forces would roll over" the upstarts, ought NATO swoop in and level the playing field?

And, everything you just said smacks of "preemption." You're "virtually" certain that something will happen, but it hadn't happened yet. The doctrine of preemption was resoundingly opposed under the last Presidency on the basis that preempting a threat and attacking who you think will attack you is not sufficient to intervene. The Libya situation is even once removed from that, since those doing the preempting aren't even those who might in the future be attacked.

[Coito ergo sum]

Those that didn't make it over the border to Egypt or Tunisia would have been rounded up and shot, along with their families, and many civilians in towns that went over to the rebellion.

I doubt it. Ringleaders might have been shot or ended up in jail - which would also happen in the U.S. under similar circumstances - but Qadafi hasn't shown any tendency to, say, gas or massacre entire towns of his own people, as Saddam Hussein and the late Assad did.

In Iraq, however, Saddam gassing and massacring was just a pretext for the invasion, which was for nefarious purposes (vengeance, oil). In Libya, the possibility that Qadafi would do something nasty is apparently sufficient, because the same folks who suspected the motives of the previous administration do not suspect the motives of the current administration. And, in this case, Britain isn't the "lap dog" of the US. Since France agreed this time, that means that the motives are pure, apparently.

[Coito ergo sum]

Those that didn't make it over the border to Egypt or Tunisia would have been rounded up and shot, along with their families, and many civilians in towns that went over to the rebellion.

I doubt it. Ringleaders might have been shot or ended up in jail - which would also happen in the U.S. under similar circumstances - but Qadafi hasn't shown any tendency to, say, gas or massacre entire towns of his own people, as Saddam Hussein and the late Assad did.

I don't know, so hard to tell now whats propaganda and whats not when it comes to these kinds of things. The above seems to be the UN/western line which makes it automatically suspicious. I tend towards agreeing with you on this Warren Dew.

I'm not certain either, but the speeches that Gaddafi was making earlier certainly threatened such things, so it is a real possibility...

Although Hussein's speeches in Iraq were insufficient. ”

Qadafi rolled over and played nice in 2003 and 4. He opened his doors to inspectors, turned over his plans and designs on catastrophic weapons and clearly indicated that he had no designs outside of his own borders. Hussein maintained the aggressive and threatening posture in 2002 and did not come clean like Qadafi did. Hussein actually did attack his own people, and that was deemed insufficient to pose a "threat," and without a threat, there was no justification for an attack.

So, is the test now to become: If the President thinks that there is a "real possibility" that a government will shoot some of its citizens, that he may commit US forces to military action without getting the authorization of Congress? That is what's happened here, apparently, and the next Republican President will be able to claim that power too, no?

Whether such a strong possibility is enough to justify intervention is a moot point;

Why is it moot? Because the President refused to allow debate on the topic and "rushed to war?" That doesn't render the issue moot, because this situation is capable of being repeated over and over again around the world. The issue must be addressed. The "rush to war" thing is another really interesting argument - in 2003, the 12 years of sanctions and no-fly zones all of which were repeatedly violated and flouted by Iraq, the oil-for-food program which was repeatedly violated by Hussein, and the 2 year build up to war in Iraq where it was reported in the news and debated in Congress was insufficient debate and discussion. Remember - the President at the time supposedly refused to even debate the issue? In Libya, events happened in a matter of weeks, there was no debate, any Congressmen raising issues about it were roundly ignored, and the President - who in 2007 stated explicitly that Presidents do not have the authority to engage in military action without first calling on Congress - just committed the US to military action on his own executive fiat.

I am not a strong supporter of western action so far... At the moment, though, the intervention seems to be helping to maintain a bloody stalemate. Without air support, government forces may not be able to crush the rebels, but even without planes and tanks, the trained military forces (as long as their motivation remains) cannot be ousted by the basically civilian armed rabble rebels...

On what basis are we supporting the rebels over the government. We know there is a "strong possibility" that if the rebels prevail, they will massacre government officials and supporters too.

It seems to be sort of taken as a given that the rebels are the good guys. Are they? Apparently, they are filling up with Muslim fundamentalists and Mujahideen and Al Qaeta contingents. Is that who we wish to support? And, again - is it our business - where is the "imminent threat?"

[Thumpalumpacus]

It should be noted that in early March the Senate of its own accord urged the UN to install a no-fly zone. Also, the President notified congressional leaders -- notified, not requested liberty of action -- three days before he started this campaign.

While I disagree with this use of force, it's not, apparently, illegal.

We'll see if the American folk do anything to change that, non, mon cheri?

[JimC]

Those that didn't make it over the border to Egypt or Tunisia would have been rounded up and shot, along with their families, and many civilians in towns that went over to the rebellion.

I doubt it. Ringleaders might have been shot or ended up in jail - which would also happen in the U.S. under similar circumstances - but Qadafi hasn't shown any tendency to, say, gas or massacre entire towns of his own people, as Saddam Hussein and the late Assad did.

I don't know, so hard to tell now whats propaganda and whats not when it comes to these kinds of things. The above seems to be the UN/western line which makes it automatically suspicious. I tend towards agreeing with you on this Warren Dew.

I'm not certain either, but the speeches that Gaddafi was making earlier certainly threatened such things, so it is a real possibility...

Although Hussein's speeches in Iraq were insufficient. ”

Qadafi rolled over and played nice in 2003 and 4. He opened his doors to inspectors, turned over his plans and designs on catastrophic weapons and clearly indicated that he had no designs outside of his own borders. Hussein maintained the aggressive and threatening posture in 2002 and did not come clean like Qadafi did. Hussein actually did attack his own people, and that was deemed insufficient to pose a "threat," and without a threat, there was no justification for an attack.

So, is the test now to become: If the President thinks that there is a "real possibility" that a government will shoot some of its citizens, that he may commit US forces to military action without getting the authorization of Congress? That is what's happened here, apparently, and the next Republican President will be able to claim that power too, no?

Whether such a strong possibility is enough to justify intervention is a moot point;

Why is it moot? Because the President refused to allow debate on the topic and "rushed to war?" That doesn't render the issue moot, because this situation is capable of being repeated over and over again around the world. The issue must be addressed. The "rush to war" thing is another really interesting argument - in 2003, the 12 years of sanctions and no-fly zones all of which were repeatedly violated and flouted by Iraq, the oil-for-food program which was repeatedly violated by Hussein, and the 2 year build up to war in Iraq where it was reported in the news and debated in Congress was insufficient debate and discussion. Remember - the President at the time supposedly refused to even debate the issue? In Libya, events happened in a matter of weeks, there was no debate, any Congressmen raising issues about it were roundly ignored, and the President - who in 2007 stated explicitly that Presidents do not have the authority to engage in military action without first calling on Congress - just committed the US to military action on his own executive fiat.

I am not a strong supporter of western action so far... At the moment, though, the intervention seems to be helping to maintain a bloody stalemate. Without air support, government forces may not be able to crush the rebels, but even without planes and tanks, the trained military forces (as long as their motivation remains) cannot be ousted by the basically civilian armed rabble rebels...

On what basis are we supporting the rebels over the government. We know there is a "strong possibility" that if the rebels prevail, they will massacre government officials and supporters too.

It seems to be sort of taken as a given that the rebels are the good guys. Are they? Apparently, they are filling up with Muslim fundamentalists and Mujahideen and Al Qaeta contingents. Is that who we wish to support? And, again - is it our business - where is the "imminent threat?"

I think you misunderstood my position, which I may not have explained clearly.

The intervention worries me for a number of reasons, including the rather dangerous precedent it sets in terms of outside military intervention in a country's internal affairs. In addition, the motives of the intervening powers are somewhat mixed...

You, Warren and Seth have concerns with the propriety of internal political decision-making processes within your own country, which is fair enough, but somewhat unimportant from an international perspective.

However, even if one decides, on balance, that the intervention was unwise, it might still be true that, without it, Gaddafi's forces may have massacred many, many thousands. The whole thing is a perfect example of a lose/lose scenario...

[Coito ergo sum]

From an international perspective, however, my point still remains. Are we to accept now that it is an acceptable reason for preemptive intervention that a government "might" massacre many thousands? That would be a rationale perfectly applicable to Iraq in 2003. It was, in fact, one of the several reasons offered - he had massacred his own people and might do so again. That was coupled with "he had invaded a neighbor, and might do so again." It was also combined with the failure to comply with UN regulations, etc.

Also, many European countries - France, for example - did not agree that preemptive self defense could be a good enough reason to go into Iraq in 2003, even if there is a potential humanitarian issue in the country. So, fast forward to Libya, and now France says - we don't need to have any direct threat to us, it's sufficient to have a potential humanitarian issue in a country and then we can preemptively prevent the potential....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why does America do everything half assed?

Too many Canadians in the country?

We need a wall along the Alaska-Canada border to keep the Canucks out.

You'd have to put another around Florida and one around Arizona.

I heard the Canucks are getting ready to invade. It's no coincidence that they have massed 30 million people right along the Canadian/US border....invasion seems imminent...

See -- proof Canadians are massing at the border, ready to invade:

War Plan Red.