Jump to content

Libya


!@#$%

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 250
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

great oped on the situation enveloping the middle east (it's not long)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/opinion/29iht-edcohen29.html?_r=1&hp

 

 

......

 

and as for what has driven [NATO] to go for airstrikes, i'd say it's that the international community refused to stand by any longer to witness the wholesale slaughter of the dissenting population of libya, and decided not to let qaddafi kill the opposition with brute force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and as for what has driven [NATO] to go for airstrikes, i'd say it's that the international community refused to stand by any longer to witness the wholesale slaughter of the dissenting population of libya, and decided not to let qaddafi kill the opposition with brute force.

 

I think that is a little bit too optimistic. I Think France needs this for domestic and intra-EU reasons. The UK, I'm not so sure about, I've heard decent arguments concerning access for BP since the Gulf of Mexico disaster but they already had contracts under gadhafi after they released the Lockerbie bomber, so I don't get that argument. I've also heard arms sales but I'm not sold on that line either as they don't need to boot Gadhafi for that. I think there may be similar reasons as the US, Gad is not liked by many people nor is he trusted. The Arab League, as useless and corrupt as they are were for the NFZ and having the West implement it making it look like it is supporting the Arab uprisings (when it is at a time that suits them) can be useful throughout the region as it is shifting.

 

I don't know but the whole thing is very messy as we have no defined end goal (the Iraq NFZ went on for 12 years), no exit strategy and a very strong likelihood that Gad will dig in and the country be split in two. The other thing is that this has set a precedent and if Syria starts massacring its demonstrators like they did in Hama a few year back there will be pressure for the same again and that simply won't float with countries like Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, etc.

 

So it's all a little messy right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

word, i see your point. nations don't ever seem to act altruistically

 

but there are other points.

 

nyt oped says no way can syria do that again.

 

an excerpt:

 

You see, you can’t do Hama any more. You can’t do the Iraqi marshes. Perhaps you can kill dozens, but not tens of thousands. These despots relied on the limitlessness of their terror. It had to be as absolute as their contempt for the law.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/opinion/29iht-edcohen29.html?hp

 

 

maybe it is [too] optimistic.

fuggit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it seems to me that the No Fly Zone essentially is just air support for the Libyan rebels, as the coalition has said they'll engage any of Ghadaffi's forces threatening towns, so the rebels have basically all the time in the world to regroup, rearm, etc in the towns they capture with near impunity thanks to (now) NATO air support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it seems to me that the No Fly Zone essentially is just air support for the Libyan rebels, as the coalition has said they'll engage any of Ghadaffi's forces threatening towns, so the rebels have basically all the time in the world to regroup, rearm, etc in the towns they capture with near impunity thanks to (now) NATO air support

 

That means the Libyan forces also have all the time in the world to regroup, rearm, etc.

 

The UN res. on the matter complicates things as the whole foundation of the intervention is humanitarian and protecting civilians. The long lines of logistics between Tripoli and Sirte, Brega, Las Renuf, Ajdabiya, etc. are vulnerable to air power under the banner of protecting civilians. However if the Libyan forces pull back in to a more easily defendable position in a town closer to Tripoli, coalition air strikes can do little to them without risking high civilian casualties. Second, if and when the rebels to advance on a defended urban position they too risk creating civilian casualties and then the whole support for the mission flips as it will be seen as the rebels creating civilian deaths and not Gad forces.

 

Then there is the issue of training and arming the rebels. They are not a fighting force to begin with. They are mostly untrained civilians with a hodge-podge of small arms. They have little long range indirect fire weapons and no training on how to use what they have. Yet they are going up against what is at best a professional army and at worst a cohesive force with command/control and communications.

 

LAstly is the issue of arms. There is a UN mandated arms embargo against the country as a whole, it is as illegal to arm the rebels as it is the Libyan armed forces. That is making it difficult for the rebels to go up against the Libyan forces as they have armour and indirect fire weapons.

 

Lastly, you have to keep in mind the great distances between Tripolitania and Cyranecia (Benghazi). That means not only do you need long supply lines to bring ammo, fuel, food, water, manpower, etc. but as you are doing so you are 100% exposed to attacks from ground, air and long-range indirect fire.

 

 

 

So simply to say, top cover is only one, small part of the picture here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good point about it being a double edged sword, although I had heard reports (al jazeera maybe?) that there were weapons coming to the rebels through Egypt.

There was also talk of the rebels having some limited armor, artillery, that they didn't want to bring out before the NFZ was enacted because it was too vulnerable from the air.

 

The only people I see as being in a position to enforce the arms embargo would be NATO at this point, and since they're fighting the same people, I'm not sure they care if weapons are coming across the border to the rebels.

Online magazine article

Here

I asked White House spokesman Tommy Vietor whether arming the rebels is allowed under the Security Council resolution. His response, via email: "It is."

 

It also wouldn't surprise me if there were British/US/French SF units working in the country now to train the rebels. Its been reported that AC-130s have been deployed to Libya, which are often used in SF actions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah Ac-130s and A-10s have been deployed but it's more notable given that they can accurately target the enemy with reduced collateral damage. There are definitely SF groups on the ground, they are required for target intelligence and illumination. They will also be advising on tactical and political issues but training troops up, organising them and creating a command structure takes months at a minimum. In that time the Libyan forces are also strengthening.

 

Yeah, there are reports of arms coming across the Egyptian border but I cannot see that coming in any great supply. The rebels had some tanks and artillery that came from unit defections and being captured but at very small quantities and they are diminished in utility without properly trained, commanded and coordinated movements, not to mention highly vulnerable.

 

NATO may be the ones capable of enforcement but 1) NATO is faaaaaar from a united front on Libya and that makes 'greyer' actions very leaky and risky, and 2) NATO is not the only player in this issue, you have Russia, China and Iran straight off the bat that are looking to undermine this intervention and they will be very happy to expose any NATO/coalition undermining of the embargo.

 

Lastly, if the rebels start turning up with US anti-tank weapons, long-range artillery, NVGs, 50 cal sniper rifles, etc., it's going to stand out. So it's not an easy thing to do without undermining your efforts. The WH spokesman may have said that but as far as I am aware there is no arming of the rebels by anyone at all at the moment in any way that could affect the outcome of the conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the kind of thing I was referring to when I said NATO are not at all on the same page concerning this op. Italy can pull the use of its airfields if it chooses.

 

Arming Libyan rebels would be an "extreme" measure likely to divide the

international community, Italian foreign ministry spokesman Maurizio Massari has warned.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jLp7ILl5z7A0YHkWUH_Z9MakzstQ?docId=CNG.bf43a8bfb9e123d8b6ae8eff6f21f438.01

 

Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 12:13:13 PM 0846 GMT: Arming Libyan rebels would be an "extreme" measure likely to divide the international community, Italian foreign ministry spokesman Maurizio Massari has warned. "Arming the rebels would be a controversial measure, an extreme measure that could certainly divide the international community," Massari said in a radio interview with Radioanch'io.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really agree, I'm sure that one of the reasons is because of what you are saying, not having the U.S being responsible for a third middle eastern war, but I feel as if Obama and his administration want to bolster the influence and role of these globalist institutions in the world. Isn't Obama the first U.S President to ever sit as chairman of the U.N security council? That alone should show his interest in seeing the U.N upholding it's role in the world. Not to mention, that almost every time I watch or hear a speech from Obama he is talking about the world being united as one, with united interests, and united goals, and bla bla bla united, united, one, one, united...

 

So, this new doctrine he seems to be shaping here... it's only reasonable to question where they plan to go with this, how far, how long, and who is next or will it simply be action in Libya and that is all. We have plenty of other uprisings in the Middle East right now that are creating the same humanitarian threats as Libya is.

 

I would have to disagree I think it has nothign to do with bolstering the reputations or influence of NATO.

 

There is a good chance that this could be another long drawn out shitstorm and basically he is trying to minimalise his involvement in the process. If he was leading the charge against Libya the whole time then it would rest on his shoulders, along with the huge cost of America going alone on something like this .......again.

 

So by passing the buck he is making it easier for him to have a backdoor way out if/when this does go completely pear shaped.

 

I don't know why people seem to worry about global conspiracies shit, makes me laugh, politics is like everything it moves with time, as the world is more connected, so will politics.

 

I dont neccessarily agree with it, but it is the way it is, no country is in a position at the moment to be able to take on these sorts of humanitarian/military misions, and anyway it should be down to the UN or Nato to make these decisions and no one else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree. we can't be the world police and it seems like the current admin knows that. time for some of these intl orgs to step their game up

 

if the US arms the rebels this will get ridiculously complicated

we need to remain in the background, for so many reasons.

 

decyfer, the conspiracy shit makes me guffaw too. if ONLY some group was pulling all the strings.. you;d think they'd be doing a better job of it. ha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to sound like I'm always jumping and 'opposing' other people's perspectives, but I guess that's part of what makes a discussion...

 

 

This concept of 'World Police' is completely misdirected. Countries don't act on 'right and wrong' or legalities, they act on self interest. The concept of policing implies impartiality based on moral and ethical values and that is not the case at all. If it were then the US would have been in Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Iran, Sudan, Somalia but they are not because it is not in their interest or the costs are too high to realise their interest.

 

Seeing it as policing lays an incorrect foundation of analysing the 'how and why' of US actions. Seeing it as national interests framed by security issues that are framed by economics and geopolitics will give you a much greater and clearer understanding of what is going on.

 

The US didn't give a shit about the South Vietnamese (obviously), the US doesn't give a shit about the Shiites in southern Iraq, they sure as hell don't give a shit about the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras in Afghanistan either. The US cares about the US, as every other county only cares about itself. That's the way you have to view these things, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great example of how dysfunctional the rebel forces are.

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418

 

1405: Rebel-controlled Voice of Free Libya radio has admitted an error in reporting the capture of Sirte, BBC Monitoring reports. A rebel colonel also said his forces had conducted a "tactical withdrawal" from Bin Jawad to Ras Lanuf because of the absence of coalition air cover. The radio also aired an appeal for anyone who could drive a T-55 tank to report for duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to sound like I'm always jumping and 'opposing' other people's perspectives, but I guess that's part of what makes a discussion...

 

 

This concept of 'World Police' is completely misdirected. Countries don't act on 'right and wrong' or legalities, they act on self interest. The concept of policing implies impartiality based on moral and ethical values and that is not the case at all. If it were then the US would have been in Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Iran, Sudan, Somalia but they are not because it is not in their interest or the costs are too high to realise their interest.

 

Seeing it as policing lays an incorrect foundation of analysing the 'how and why' of US actions. Seeing it as national interests framed by security issues that are framed by economics and geopolitics will give you a much greater and clearer understanding of what is going on.

 

The US didn't give a shit about the South Vietnamese (obviously), the US doesn't give a shit about the Shiites in southern Iraq, they sure as hell don't give a shit about the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras in Afghanistan either. The US cares about the US, as every other county only cares about itself. That's the way you have to view these things, in my opinion.

 

Which is why I said this-

 

One thing I've learned from Christo-f is to view political events as simply as possible. When you break things down to their most basic elements, morals and values are really just details.

 

Projecting things like morals or values onto it doesn't make it so, or not so. What it seems is that the US felt that it had interests to protect (stability and investments come to mind) and they finally had a chance to act in concert and with impunity against a despot who they didn't particularly care for.

 

Saying that they were right or wrong primarily depends on where one stands on the issue.

 

I personally think war and aggression are not necessarily good things or even constructive in the long term, but....Khadafi is a piece of shit and on some levels he had it coming, so maybe it's not so bad that he's finally getting his comeuppance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to sound like I'm always jumping and 'opposing' other people's perspectives, but I guess that's part of what makes a discussion...

 

 

This concept of 'World Police' is completely misdirected. Countries don't act on 'right and wrong' or legalities, they act on self interest. The concept of policing implies impartiality based on moral and ethical values and that is not the case at all. If it were then the US would have been in Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Iran, Sudan, Somalia but they are not because it is not in their interest or the costs are too high to realise their interest.

 

Seeing it as policing lays an incorrect foundation of analysing the 'how and why' of US actions. Seeing it as national interests framed by security issues that are framed by economics and geopolitics will give you a much greater and clearer understanding of what is going on.

 

The US didn't give a shit about the South Vietnamese (obviously), the US doesn't give a shit about the Shiites in southern Iraq, they sure as hell don't give a shit about the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras in Afghanistan either. The US cares about the US, as every other county only cares about itself. That's the way you have to view these things, in my opinion.

 

i was simply summarizing and over-simplifying the role that we sometimes imagine ourselves to be in, nothing else considered.

 

i totally agree with your points about right v wrong and protecting self-interest and why we aren't actually doing anything where it desperately needs to be done (like ivory coast, burma, darfur, etc etc)

i know our motivations for getting involved in other country's affairs, so i appreciate that greater understanding of the the big picture.

 

i only wish more people knew why we do what we do.

 

http://killinghope.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, either do I. I have my own personal concepts and I do judge others by them, but they are not a reality outside of my own desire of how the world should be.

 

 

 

Sorry, didn't mean to be patronsing before. So many people do see the world police concept as a reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

s'all good.

people in here may need to read up on that anyway. it's a term that gets thrown around a lot without any real understanding of the suffering our military has inflicted on the world in the past century. but i think we're mostly on the same page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the US military and foreign policy has done a lot of good too, even if it was out of self interest. Pretty sure the Japanese, South Koreans, West Germans, Turkish, etc. etc. were pretty glad to see US soldiers in their neighbourhoods during the Cold War.

 

You Sepo's aren't all bad! :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha yeah, i suppose you are right

 

i get so bummed thinking abut what we blew after 9.11

we could have gone into afghanistan, spent all our money and time rebuilding schools and educating kids and creating hospitals

instead we spent that money killing iraqis and destroying our credibility.

 

i can only imagine what could have been if we'd been able to build that nation and hadn't blown iraq to bits. oh well. tax dollars on the fire i guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great example of how dysfunctional the rebel forces are.

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418

 

1405: Rebel-controlled Voice of Free Libya radio has admitted an error in reporting the capture of Sirte, BBC Monitoring reports. A rebel colonel also said his forces had conducted a "tactical withdrawal" from Bin Jawad to Ras Lanuf because of the absence of coalition air cover. The radio also aired an appeal for anyone who could drive a T-55 tank to report for duty.

 

yeah the rebels obviously suck militarily, i saw a video on another site where they were holding a line in a street and just let a technical roll up on their flank and light them up with a DShk, and this isn't the first time they've erroneously reported (whether on purpose or not) that they've captured so-and-so town

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Iraq so far stands as one of the biggest strategic blunders in modern fucking history.

 

Not only did you guys hand Iraq to Iran, the exact opposite of the intention but you also gave Russia a window to do almost whatever it wanted in its former sphere of influence as your attention was focused elsewhere.

 

Goodbye Georgia and the Caucuses, goodbye Ukraine and Eastern Europe, goodbye Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia......, along with Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

 

Great call Chenney, Rumsfeld, Perle and Wolfowitz, you fucking schmucks!!

 

 

 

 

Caveat, not going in to Iraq would not have made Afghanistan any easier, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i didn't say anything about global conspiracies, but i am probably one of the few on this forum that come from that angle so i'm not going to shy away from it just because the majority of you think it's ridiculous.

 

also, your making good points about morality and U.S "policing" the world. it's obvious to me at least that the morality rhetoric in America is 99% bull shit, but what I'm saying is we as citizens are pulled around on that leash because at the ground level most people live their daily lives based off their moral values and we take that shit seriously for the most part so on that note i think its a concern when we are constantly lead into new situations that involve war and conflict under moral justifications. that is always the case when we go to war, or at least when the U.S does. i completely understand that it is for national interests that have nothing to do with morals. i'm not that naive and i don't think many other citizens in the U.S or U.K are either, we know whats up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I just read a similar article which has a military commander saying there are "flickers" of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah (not sure how that works since they're shooting rivals) within the ranks of the rebels, however they're few and far in between and not really in any kind of influential positions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I just read a similar article which has a military commander saying there are "flickers" of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah (not sure how that works since they're shooting rivals) within the ranks of the rebels, however they're few and far in between and not really in any kind of influential positions

 

 

Does it matter if they are few and far between? We're supplying them with weapons...again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I was (and I still am) opposed to US/British/French/NATO/whoever intervention in the first place, I was just repeating what I had read earlier.

If I had to guess, I would say there were probably CIA hit squads in Libya ready to take out anyone on the governments wanted list, similar to how they did the guy in Somalia who they said was behind the Nairobi embassy bombing, pew pew him with the AC130 and scoop the body up for confirmation.

Obama, I'm sure, doesn't want the egg of having supplied AQIM guys with guns on his face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...