According to the Daily Mail, not only is Libya's air force strafing and bombing protesters, the navy is shelling Tripoli (!). And security forces have lost control of Benghazi.
When you can't stop an uprising even by bombing and shelling your own capital, I think it's pretty safe to say the game is up.
There's been virtually no reliable information coming out of Tripoli, but a source close to the Gaddafi regime I did manage to get hold of told me the already terrible situation in Libya will get much worse. Among other things, Gaddafi has ordered security services to start sabotaging oil facilities. They will start by blowing up several oil pipelines, cutting off flow to Mediterranean ports. The sabotage, according to the insider, is meant to serve as a message to Libya's rebellious tribes: It's either me or chaos.
Two weeks ago this same man had told me the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt would never touch Libya. Gaddafi, he said, had a tight lock on all of the major tribes, the same ones that have kept him in power for the past 41 years. The man of course turned out to be wrong, and everything he now has to say about Gaddafi's intentions needs to be taken in that context.
Obvious in hindsight: change was coming soon pretty much no matter what. I'd call the article a bit calorie-light, except that I haven't really seen much discussion on the subject. Guys like Khamenei and Mugabe (and Mubarak and Gadhafi) seem like fixtures. Worth reading if only for the final line.
motorfirebox, that's definitely one of the most interesting aspects of this very intersting situation. I have a very feeble grasp of African history, and reading the news the last couple of weeks, I've been wondering what happened in the 1970s. Seems like a lot of the current status quo happened, to be specific.
I apparently also have a feeble grasp of human nature. I was truly surprised when Mubarak stepped down with so little fuss. Why? I was surprised again when Qadaffi opened fire on his own people. Libya's going nowhere good. I wonder what will happen to Egypt. I wonder what will happen to the Ivory Coast... remember them, with their election results disputed?...
Ateh said:
Also, are they really going to call it the Republic of South Sudan? Is it wrong of me to find that terribly derivative?
My thoughts exactly. Certainly not very original, though I'm sure they are proud to be Sudanese, once they are not being murdered and having their hands cut off.
Ateh said:
Also, are they really going to call it the Republic of South Sudan? Is it wrong of me to find that terribly derivative?
My thoughts exactly. Certainly not very original, though I'm sure they are proud to be Sudanese, once they are not being murdered and having their hands cut off.
They could sell the naming rights similar to what is done for stadiums and raise a bit of much needed cash. The Republic of Walmart or The United States of Bank of America
Of course this is a joke to most of you. This could have been solved with the quickness by implementing a no fly zone. Contrary to imbecile media belief, half a US carrier could carry this out with no problem. But now its too late. This could have been an easy thing where the people overwhelmed the Gov't with very little help from the US instead of a 2003 invasion. Our leader has no spine. Sad sad sad.
spinhouse247 said:
Of course this is a joke to most of you. This could have been solved with the quickness by implementing a no fly zone. Contrary to imbecile media belief, half a US carrier could carry this out with no problem. But now its too late. This could have been an easy thing where the people overwhelmed the Gov't with very little help from the US instead of a 2003 invasion. Our leader has no spine. Sad sad sad.
spinhouse247 said:
Of course this is a joke to most of you. This could have been solved with the quickness by implementing a no fly zone. Contrary to imbecile media belief, half a US carrier could carry this out with no problem. But now its too late. This could have been an easy thing where the people overwhelmed the Gov't with very little help from the US instead of a 2003 invasion. Our leader has no spine. Sad sad sad.
If the US got directly involved it would likely backfire and cause the rest of the Arab world to turn against the protesters. Instead, we're supporting international calls for a no-fly zone, which Libya's neighbors are now asking for. It's a delicate situation requiring subtle diplomacy if we don't want to totally fuck it up, and pushing hard for a no-fly zone (or worse, imposing one ourselves) would turn those protesters against us faster than anything else imaginable.
If you don't like our government butting into your business (even if it's just trying to "help"), what makes you think Libyan rebels want our government butting into their revolution?
Any scenario where "this could have been an easy thing where the people overwhelmed the Gov't" is a bullshit cowboy action movie fantasy. That was simply never a realistic scenario, under any circumstances.
Oh, go teach your gramma to suck eggs. Unlike previous administrations, this one chooses to work with the international community instead of haring off on its own. The issue isn't whether or not it's possible, or whether the administration thinks it's possible--Gates has outright said we could do it. The question is whether or not intervention is a wise idea.
motorfirebox said:
Oh, go teach your gramma to suck eggs. Unlike previous administrations, this one chooses to work with the international community instead of haring off on its own. The issue isn't whether or not it's possible, or whether the administration thinks it's possible--Gates has outright said we could do it. The question is whether or not intervention is a wise idea.
Taking away air superiority is a totally different thing than an invasion and putting boots on the ground. By giving the rebels an advantage to take this tyrant out of power seems to be in everyone's best interest. It would take little or no effort on our part and literally zero effort with NATO support. Last I checked, most middle eastern nations were backing it with the exception of Iran. I don't want boots on the ground at all to make my point clear. Let the people of his nation throw him out on his ass and do what they will with him.
motorfirebox said:
Oh, go teach your gramma to suck eggs. Unlike previous administrations, this one chooses to work with the international community instead of haring off on its own. The issue isn't whether or not it's possible, or whether the administration thinks it's possible--Gates has outright said we could do it. The question is whether or not intervention is a wise idea.
Taking away air superiority is a totally different thing than an invasion and putting boots on the ground. By giving the rebels an advantage to take this tyrant out of power seems to be in everyone's best interest. It would take little or no effort on our part and literally zero effort with NATO support. Last I checked, most middle eastern nations were backing it with the exception of Iran. I don't want boots on the ground at all to make my point clear. Let the people of his nation throw him out on his ass and do what they will with him.
spinhouse247 said:
Of course this is a joke to most of you. This could have been solved with the quickness by implementing a no fly zone. Contrary to imbecile media belief, half a US carrier could carry this out with no problem. But now its too late. This could have been an easy thing where the people overwhelmed the Gov't with very little help from the US instead of a 2003 invasion. Our leader has no spine. Sad sad sad.
If the US got directly involved it would likely backfire and cause the rest of the Arab world to turn against the protesters. Instead, we're supporting international calls for a no-fly zone, which Libya's neighbors are now asking for. It's a delicate situation requiring subtle diplomacy if we don't want to totally fuck it up, and pushing hard for a no-fly zone (or worse, imposing one ourselves) would turn those protesters against us faster than anything else imaginable.
If you don't like our government butting into your business (even if it's just trying to "help"), what makes you think Libyan rebels want our government butting into their revolution?
Any scenario where "this could have been an easy thing where the people overwhelmed the Gov't" is a bullshit cowboy action movie fantasy. That was simply never a realistic scenario, under any circumstances.
Well said. This isn't happening in a vacuum. The US has a bad reputation for fucking around with other countries with horrific results. I honestly think that going about this cautiously is for the best, if for no better reason than that the world has no reason to trust the US's motives if it got in the middle of this particular mess.
Obviously most of you have ZERO military experience. Big O has no experience in anything hence why he sends Clinton to do everything for him. Yes, I'm pulling the Obama card since the man has never even held a job let alone dealt in foreign affairs. Drill baby drill! (us further into the hole).
spinhouse247 said:
Obviously most of you have ZERO military experience. Big O has no experience in anything hence why he sends Clinton to do everything for him. Yes, I'm pulling the Obama card since the man has never even held a job let alone dealt in foreign affairs. Drill baby drill! (us further into the hole).
Enforcing a no-fly zone requires more military action than you seem to be willing to acknowledge. Gates has repeatedly noted that the first step would be a systematic attack on Libya's anti-aircraft infrastructure. Daalder, our ambassador to NATO, has likewise noted that a no-fly zone would have little military effect on Qaddafi's troops, which are predominately land forces and rely on helicopters (of which they have only 35), not fighter planes, for their air support. In other words, the use of military force against Libya necessary to establish a no-fly zone has low chances of having significant military impact but high chances of political backlash. Specifically, the US can't simultaneously claim to respect the sovereignty of Arab nations (a large bone of contention between the US and the Arab world at present) and carry out unilateral military acts against Libya. Working through the international - and more importantly, Arab - community is the most rational position for American policy goals while maintaining the kind of prestige in the region that allows us to pressure countries like Bahrain to negotiate with protesters rather than cracking down on them.
It's irrelevant whether we or Obama has military experience. We can simply read what NATO generals have to say. Likewise, the president can consult with generals and get as much input as he needs in trying to make decisions. Stop trolling.
... though I should note that obviously you've had ZERO foreign policy experience. Ironically, that's exactly what you're advocating: a foreign policy stance. It's political posturing on the part of Republicans and American conservatives to ignore the popular movements in places like Egypt, Tunisia, and Bahrain when the president vocally supports them, then demand immediate military action in Libya while the president is carefully trying to work through the Arab League and NATO to get international backing before acting. The only consistent strain in the conservative response to events in the Middle East is to offer a knee-jerk opposition to whatever Obama tries to do.
PointBlank
New York, NY
November 2004
FEB 21, 2011 01:38 PM