At least Juan Cole thinks

    By Flavius on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:00pm |

    Obama got it right in Libya.

    As referenced by artappraiser ,in his blog today he expands on these items (condensed and with slight revisions -for the exact text follow the link)

    o The participation of the Muslim world in the United Nations no-fly zone over Libya was secured and is lasting.

    o Turkey, , has agreed to use its navy to help enforce the boycott 

    o Qaddafi’s air force  effectively “no longer exists.” :

    o Tobruk and Benghazi have been saved

    o Misrata, was given a brief reprieve  and an aid ship  landed with medicines.!

    o Zintan, , also gained a brief respite

    o Instead of being a base for Qaddafi’s  attacks Ajdabiya has been turned into a contest.

    o Now that Benghazi is not being besieged the liberation movement’s leadership has met and announced a transitional governing council

     

    And Juan’s summmary with which I agree

     Pundits who want this whole thing to be over with in 7 days are being frankly silly. Those who worry about it going on forever are being unrealistic. Those who forget or cannot see the humanitarian achievements already accomplished are being willfully blind


    http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-accomplishments-of-the-un-no-fly...

    Comments

    Factually, that's all good news. Emotionally, having my opinion supported by Juan Cole doesn't make me feel that much more confident. Nothing specific against him ... we just often have a pretty different take on stuff.

    I'm thinking about impact on the wider region too. No way to establish cause-effect, but Yemen at least made some overtures (rejected, I think). I'm sure Saudi Arabia saying they would not provide military support has a bit to do with it. And what's the impact on Syria's thinking? Can't call it a stand-down just yet, but the Syrian government certainly seems to be softening it's stance ... 20,000 protesters and nobody shot (pretty much for the first time since protests started, I think). It's kind of hard to say what is causing what at the moment. This is a very complicated case. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous....

    Also pondering what this says about Qatar's role in the ME. Al Jazeera is a state enterprise ... but then so is the BBC. AJ has had a lot of content from the rebel side, but that probably has a lot to do with the fact that the Libyan gov. is holding some of their reporters in captivity. They covered a group asserting to be peace envoys from the pro-government side taking a bus to Surt(?sp ... how come everything in Libya has like 5 different spellings?) and then planning to walk to Bengazi. So, that's interesting.

    I was watching some of the captured soldiers (unclear if they were mercenaries or regulars ... all appeared ethnically African) assert they had to fight or they would have been killed themselves - said they saw soldiers shot and others burned. Now, I genuinely think Qaddafi is a very brutal person. As I watched all those caskets with asserted casualties being buried on those Libyan state TV videos, I had some very grim thoughts regarding how someone trying to cover up war crimes might dispose of evidence.

    It's going to be impossible to tell what's really true until we can get human rights monitors/investigators' boots on the ground.

    So, if there is an international war crimes arrest warrant, does that trigger a process to possibly move to apprehend him legally independent of the UNSC resolution? Not sure that is such a good idea ... pretty high stakes on the downside if something like that failed (hello, Jimmy Carter?) ... just wondering about the procedures around the war crimes part.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:14am

    Interesting. You're clearly  better informed than I. Which of course acts as an antidote for strong convictions.Or at least ones easily arrived at.


    by Flavius on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 7:10am

    So is Juan Cole right if the rebels turn out to be jihadist Islamists who institute Sharia law?

    Is Juan Cole right if Qaddafi sets all the oil fields on fire before leaving?

    Is Juan Cole right if the revolution happens, and the next leader is worse?

    Is Juan Cole right if China uses suppression of the Fuking people as justification to change Taiwan's leadership? Or if China decides to install its own puppet in North Korea?

    Is Juan Cole right if the UN never ever uses this again to remove a barbaric government that's tormenting its own people, for example the Burmese government that's killed a lot more of its own and its indiginous Karin people, while putting the democratically elected leader under arrest for 20 years?

    You can list international support, but I still don't see an enduring principle, some model we can repeat.

    Instead it's like the 2000 Supreme Court decision - "to be used only this once, don't try to draw any precedents from this".  Or perhaps the "oil well exception clause", or just that we know Qaddafi so create a special class for him by his lonesome.


    by Desider on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 9:48am

    You throw out so many "what if" statements that it's hard to know what the real complaint is. At face value, it seems that your real complaint is a lack of consistency. No one paying attention can disagree with the fact that we're inconsistent. However, a lack of consistency shouldn't prevent us from doing the right thing (if it is the right thing), even if that lack of consistency strongly suggests it is for the wrong reason.

    So, I think it's more useful to discuss whether this is the right action to take, rather than whether we're doing it for the right reasons (something that is neither helpful nor possible to prove). In that regard, since it's impossible to know the final outcome at this point, you have to ask yourself, is something right because of its expected (in the statistical sense) outcome or because of its actual outcome? Although the former is impossible to completely agree on (far too many variables to apply a rigorous statistical model), the latter is currently unknowable.

    So, what do you think the odds are that "the rebels turn out to be jihadist Islamists who institute Sharia law", and what do you think the costs are? What do you think the odds are that "Qaddafi sets all the oil fields on fire before leaving" and what do you think the costs are? What do you think the odds are that the rebels will be elect a democratic government that is better than Qaddafi, and what do you think the benefits are? Those are the types of questions one must ask to attempt to arrive at a cost/benefit analysis of the expected outcome.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 9:59am

    It's a lack of fucking principles, isn't that clear?

    It's the lack of premeditation and cognition, that like in Iraq, like in Iran, like in the US, it can get worse, not better.

    What are the odds that "the rebels turn out to be jihadist Islamists who institute Sharia law"? Pretty damn high, actually - because even if there are only 3 right now, typically the crazies and most extreme win out in any time of crisis. Costs could be horrendous having a petrol-financed Islamofascist state a short distance from Sicily, Malta, Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria.

    What are the odds that "Qaddafi sets all the oil fields on fire before leaving"? Probably as good as Hussein setting Kuwait ablaze, or Milosevic pushing all the Albanians towards the border. Reagan already killed one of his kids in a bombing - if the West is attacking him again, why wouldn't Qaddafi do something bizarre to sabotage the new occupiers?

    What are the odds that "the rebels will be elect a democratic government that is better than Qaddafi"? Well, pretty damn slim, frankly, despite all my hope. Where has democracy blossomed in the Middle East with elections? It's a new experience. Lebanon is certainly mixed - frankly I admire Hezbollah for taking care of the people's needs, but I certainly have mixed reactions to launching rockets into Israel. Iraq had "elections", but it's basically who should control the assassination teams, choose 1 out of 3. I actually think Ahmadinejad won his election pretty fair and square, by appealing to and spreading largesse on the backwards portions of the country, including the Azeri parts where he held a strong following - does that make him enlightened?

    Will Qaddafi hold on despite the attempts to remove him, or will he be replaced by a henchman just as bad that we can't automatically remove? Odds are pretty good. So what do we do then?

    Revolutions aren't cakewalks. The Communist PKI tried a coup in Indonesia in 1965, and the backlash was a half million or more dead. Of course the Czechs and Hungarians tried their uprisings too, with disastrous results, and the Iranians during the 1990's had a promising opening dashed. 

    Polyannish diplomacy is not a good development, and ad hoc diplomacy is no better. That's not to encourage real politik, the Kissinger brand of hanging on to status quo through self-enrichment and lack of imagination. But yeah, try a bit of intelligent foresight and a recognition that world events are typically a crapshoot, and then you might see a bit more contemplative planning than just invading countries and expecting they'll put flowers in your rifle barrels.


    by Desider on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 2:55pm

    Maybe it's just me, but I find your 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th paragraphs more convincing than your first two. Of course we should have principles (fucking principles, if you must). But, as Dr. C (and you) alluded to, principles without pragmatism does us no good. Of course, applying pragmatism to one's principles might lead others who disagree with your pragmatism to believe that you have no principles.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 3:08pm

    Maybe I was just getting warmed up, consider paragraphs 1 & 2 clearing my throat...

    "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

    There's no problem to have a pragmatism that informs your already laid out principles.

    There are times to make exceptions to principles, but even there it helps to know why, whether it's for a gut feeling or something more tangible.

    But there's a huge difference between make exceptions and acting arbitrarily.

    I don't give a rat's ass about Qaddafi per se, but it just feels like the international community finally found a dog it could and wanted to kick, while the street's streaming with mongrels and mean junk-yard dogs and pitbulls and pedigrees and what not.

    The only lesson I draw is not about good vs. evil, but simply that they didn't like this dog and he had the extreme misfortune to be defanged and out alone. Well he's their bitch now, but that's hardly a halo on their heads.


    by Desider on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 7:28pm

    Just dumping this Peggy Noonan link here, mainly for the novelty of her being eminently reasonable, but also she asks some of the right questions of this administration which seems to be pretty much just winging it, without much effort at explaining - what happens now...?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

     


    by Obey on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:02am

    I think the phrase we've heard so often with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan is "exit strategy". It's tempting to say that it's too early to be asking that question, but any military action should not be started until one has mapped out several possible exit strategy. I'm hoping that our (and UN/NATO's) military forces have done just that, but do not find it unreasonable to ask them to share at least one of those with us.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:13am

    Multiple exit strategies should be planned *BEFORE* any entrance.

    If you won't be able to get out of a burning building, you shouldn't go in, no matter how many you'd like to rescue.


    by Desider on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 2:57pm

    I'm not sure if you know you're agreeing with me, but that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Just because I'm ambiguous on our actions, it doesn't mean I don't recognize the value of a solid plan.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 3:04pm

    I think had glossed over 1 key word on way back from a beer.

    Yes, you could be advisor to the US military - "how to plan to duck and run, or avoiding fiasco from the get go".

    And actually it's not the military so much - none of these engagements are hard to win. They're hard to stay won.

    Or as Keith Richards famously said, "Anyone can quit heroin. It's staying quit that's the tough part."

    America's a junkie fixed on shitty engagements. Not every dalliance should be a marriage - one night stands are sometimes just what was called for.


    by Desider on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 7:34pm

    Funny title to choose, IMO.  I assume you either mean that a) he thinks as you do, or b) that those of who don't agree with Juan's NOW support of the enactment of 1973 don't think.  Anyway, when I saw it last night it gave me some chuckles.

    Stephen Walt has a compilation of studies about the results of foreign intervention in aid of democratization up at FP mag, and he says the results are pretty dismal.  Different studies used different time-frames and methodologies, but his favorite study concludes, in part that:

    "The best and most relevant study I have yet read on this question is an as-yet unpublished working paper by Alexander Downes of Duke University, which you can find on his website here. Using a more sophisticated research design, Downes examined 100 cases of "foreign imposed regime change" going all the way back to 1816. In particular, his analysis takes into account "selection effects" (i.e., the fact that foreign powers are more likely to intervene in states that already have lots of problems, so you would expect these states to have more problems afterwards too). He finds that foreign intervention tends to promote stability when the intervening powers are seeking to restore a previously deposed ruler. But when foreign interveners oust an existing ruler and impose a wholly new government (which is what we are trying to do in Libya), the likelihood of civil war more than triples.

    Why? According to Downes, because deposing an existing regime and bringing new leaders to power "disrupts state power and foments grievances and resentments." To make matter worse, the probability of civil war in the aftermath of foreign imposed regime change increases even more when it is accompanied by defeat in inter-state war, and when it occurs in poor and ethnically heterogeneous countries." This isn't reassuring either, given that Libya's is still a poor society (because the Qaddafi family monopolizes the oil revenues) and it remains divided into potentially fractious tribes."

    Just more food for thought.

    http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/24/social_science_and_the_libyan_adventure

     


    by we are stardust on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:27am


    The title is pretty literal. Means lots of thoughtful people like you are critical of Obama's handling of Libya but at least Juan agrees.

    I admit to short term thinking  when lives are at stake. Whatever the possible  long term negative consequences discussed by Downes, the immediate actual effect of Odyssey Dawn was to avoid the very probable occurence of terrible scenes of rape and murder as Benghazi was occupied .

    Obama get's a second bite at the apple. There is still time in which he can try to avoid the dangers with which you're concerned. Benghazi residents killed during the occupation wouldn't have had a second chance.

    As to Juan, I respect his knowledge of the area and his attempt to somewhat balance his overall support of the Palestinans with some acknowledgement of the needs of the Israelis.

    And his consistency when the British academic union voted to oppose invitations to Israeli professors and Juan vigorously opposed  the resolution.


    by Flavius on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:42am

    I get it now; you meant the title would have included: Obama got it right!  I had forgotten to add: c) At least Juan Cole thinks ____________.  But I see now that you filled in the blank; I'd thought they were stand-alone sentences.  They did read that way.

    I read Juan a lot, and respect him, and think he turned the corner to supporting all this once it was a wider coalition.  I care about the loss of life, as do all others here; I think that should go without saying, but I'll say it again.  But I think it's important to take a wider view, too, and look to what's to come later, and if we trust The Deciders.  If we've learned anything about this 'operation' so far, it's that the coalition 'partners' have been throwing elbows at one another from the get-go, and it may be getting worse in Brussels as we speak.

    I hope the gods smile on all parties involved, and help to bring out all their better angels.


    by we are stardust on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:21pm

    Well stated.

    We need no 'exit strategy' as we are not in Libya. Along with France, Britain, Italy, Spain, Canada, Qatar and other countries what has been done is:

    (1) Establish a no-fly zone.

    (2) Freeze the dictators accounts and embargo arms.

    (2) Severely degrade Qadaffi's, (or anyone Q-wannabe who replaces him) ability to kill people and raise havoc by destroying millions or billions in Libyan heavy (killing) weaponry....

    At the same time the reduction in heavy weapons puts the locals on a more even playing field to defend themselves. The fact that the locals in Benghazi are not executing captured prisoners on sight is encouraging that they have some sense of justice and responsibility for doing what is right.


    by NCD on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:52pm

    We need no 'exit strategy'

    As far as I remember, most of the discussion from '93 to 2000 concerning Iraq was about how to exit

    (1) the no-fly zone policy, and

    (2) the eventually dysfunctional oil and finance embargo.

    And that exit strategy turned out to be... WAR.

    One we are now, 20 years later, still not finished with. After 1.5 million iraqi deaths. Obviously, none of that is our fault. Just bad luck.

    So, yes, awesome. Let's not think this over. Let the next nutball administration (and there will be one) "handle" it.

    ;0)


    by Obey on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 1:09pm

    We absolutely need an exit policy and it should be along the lines of what we were promised -- a handing off of responsibility to France and Britain.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 1:25pm

    Sure. Hand it over to the Keystone Kops. That can't go wrong...


    by Obey on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 1:45pm

    Seems only fair. France handed a country to the US back in the 50's, if I recall. 

    Wonder how that worked out.


    by quinn esq on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 4:00pm

    Swimmingly. As in "Swimming to Cambodia".

    And it made Dominos (Dominoes? Dan? Dan Quayle?) a high-power strategy game for the think-tank elite.

    Of course we gave Iraq back to the Iraqis and Afghanistan back to the Afghanis and Haiti back to the Haitians - no problem stuffing geniis back in bottles and toothpaste back in tubes.


    by Desider on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 7:39pm

    Lord, Obey; you hate the French or something?  Lookit these smoothe dealings of Sarkozy, et.al.:

    "But he also hoped to draw a veil over earlier disarray in his government's response to the "Arab spring." When demonstrators in Tunis faced the armed forces of another dictator, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, then Foreign Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie proposed sending French riot police to Tunisia to help train their Tunisian counterparts in crowd-control techniques. She also vacationed in Tunisia in the rebellion's early days and accepted transportation on the private jet of a Ben Ali crony with whom her elderly parents had entered into a business deal.

    These revelations eventually forced Alliot-Marie's resignation and led to the appointment of Alain Juppé, a man of vast experience as well as an old rival of Sarkozy, as foreign minister. But the president then stunned Juppé by deciding to recognize the rebels and bomb Libyan airfields while his foreign minister was in Brussels, negotiating with European partners. Juppé had not been told of this decision in advance and was visibly dumbfounded when informed by reporters. To add insult to injury, the announcement of France's policy was made on the steps of the Élysée Palace by the playboy philosopher and gadabout humanitarian [my personal friend] Bernard-Henri Lévy, an acquaintance of Sarkozy who had developed his own private contacts in the rebel camp. Juppé reportedly threatened to resign over this affront to his authority, but to date he remains in his post."

    You think the reason the French defied our President and flew jets over Libya on Friday instead of waiting was about oil and gold and cash, not helping the rebels or something??  These folks clowns know what side their bread might be buttered on...


    by we are stardust on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 5:58pm

    Yup. Sarkozy's inner circle is a bunch of rappers, actors and pseudo-intellectuals. Reassuring, innit...?


    by Obey on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 7:32pm

    You're down with Levy? You're more than stardust, you're supernova!

    Goldhammer's whole piece is worth reading (and referencing): "Finally, there is the matter of the European Union, where Sarkozy's initiative has already proved problematic. His hasty recognition of the rebels, just as talks with European partners were getting under way in Brussels, and in the absence of any clear indications of who the rebel leaders are and what political forces they might represent, made a mockery of the idea of a common EU foreign policy -- an idea that Sarkozy championed back in the days when he was crusading for the Lisbon Treaty."

    And as I think Quinn implied, what could go wrong or be misinterpreted by French planes unilaterally (okay, bilaterally) bombing targets in North Africa? They're all old amis there, n'est-ce pas? Think of it as the old cotton fields back home.

    The worst in my eyes though is that all this foreign intervention overrides the aspirations of normal people who ARE PROTESTING AGAINST THE CONTINUAL COCKUPS OF GOVERNMENTS, THEIRS AND OURS. Jesus, all of this started with Wikileaks reports showing how much dickheads like Sarkozy are in bed with assholes like Qaddafi, and how little the people get off the inevitable money-rape.

    The thing that pushed Bradley Manning over the edge is that normal Iraqis were coming to complain about people in their government stealing money, and Manning's superiors responded by telling Manning to shut up and help the corrupt leaders round up more complainers as "terrorists" for questioning/torture.

     


    by Desider on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 8:03pm

    From the Guardian:  (Tunisia being next door to Libya undoubtedly had strong influence in later events, and the bombshell about Qaddafi's Ukrainian blonde bombshell helped get the riots going in that country. But mostly it's that America's status in the Arab world has been *IMPROVED* by Wikileaks, in contrast to all the expensive bombing campaigns and occupations that have only weakened our image. Bradley Manning is the key to the US balancing its budget by reining in outrageous defense costs)

    .....

    The Tunisians were the first people in the Arab world to take to the streets and oust a leader for a generation. But, of course, they already knew their ruling family was debauched; they didn't need WikiLeaks for that.

    Extraordinary effect

    There was, however, a genuinely extraordinary WikiLeaks effect. "Sam", a pseudonymous young Tunisian writing on the Guardian's Comment is Free website in mid-January, specifically referenced WikiLeaks as he described how a resigned cynicism about the regime under which he'd grown up in his country turned to hope:

    "The internet is blocked, and censored pages are referred to as pages 'not found' – as if they had never existed. Schoolchildren are exchanging proxies and the word becomes cult: 'You got a proxy that works?' … We love our country and we want things to change, but there is no organised movement: the tribe is willing, but the leader is missing. The corruption, the bribes – we simply want to leave.

    "We begin to apply to study in France, or Canada. It is cowardice, and we know it. Leaving the country to 'the rest of them'. We go to France and forget, then come back for the holidays. Tunisia? It is the beaches of Sousse and Hammamet, the nightclubs and restaurants. A giant Club Med. And then, WikiLeaks reveals what everyone was whispering.

    "And then, a young man immolates himself. And then, 20 Tunisians are killed in one day. And for the first time, we see the opportunity to rebel, to take revenge on the country's 'royal' family, who have taken everything, to overturn the established order that has accompanied our youth.

    "An educated youth, which is tired and ready to sacrifice all the symbols of the former autocratic Tunisia with a new revolution: the jasmine revolution – the true one."

    Corruption

    Paradoxically the leaked comments by the US ambassador in Tunis, widely read across the region, played a major role in boosting Washington's image on the Arab street. Ordinary Tunisians liked the way in which the Americans – unlike the French – had so frankly highlighted corruption.

    They now wanted the US to support their ongoing jasmine revolution. They asked Washington to exert pressure on neighbouring Arab leaders, and prevent them from interfering.

    Muammar Gaddafi, the despot in neighbouring Libya, had no problem in acknowledging a link between events in Tunis and WikiLeaks – a demonic link, so far as he was concerned. Gaddafi said he was pained by Ben Ali's overthrow and "concerned for the people of Tunisia, whose sons are dying each day". He warned Tunisians not to be tricked by WikiLeaks, "which publishes information written by lying ambassadors in order to create chaos".

    The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, had previously denounced the leak of the cables, because it had "undermined our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems". But the same leak was now helping to repair America's battered reputation in the Middle East, damaged by the Iraq war, and to advance the White House's lofty goals of democratisation and modernisation.

    Assange may have regarded the US as his enemy, but in this case he had unwittingly helped restore American influence in a place where it had lost credibility. It was ironic. By increasing the amount of information in the system, WikiLeaks had generated unpredictable effects.


    by Desider on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 8:07pm

    Gosh, Des.  This was by way of an 'inside joke'.  Unlike your favorite AA, I won't chase down the comment numbers or whatever.  Feh!  Have a few shots on me;  take a few breaths.  And, uh, have a few more 'Kapows' on me, too. 

    I may not be the brilliant thinker you are, but at least I can appreciate 'teh irony'.  Feh!  (in lieu of another cuss word A-man has outlawed:

         

    IMO, it's not only Frahhhnnnce, but Cameron in Britain, and probably the good ole' USA, who want a piece of the pie, but Sarkozy's self-serving exploits over the past few years are pretty much stand in a field by themselves.  I do think that Levy does provide some absurdist humor, and at this point ist's hard to despise, in the same way that so much de facto Obama doctrine does.  If it didn't have such gigantic implications, it would be funny.  No; I take it back: it is funny, in the way that we're forced to see it all as some reality that we do';t have to choose to live with, but seems that we are somewhat addicted to.

    (Please pardon me; i am having a bad day with pain, and a couple shots of 'wodka' to get along...ergo, my lack of self-monitoring.  Also, i have been immersed in researching national solitary confinement issues and videos, which sorta put me in a spot where i required some possibly inappropriate levity, and may be about to get banned from fdl, but who cares, really?)

    Anyhoo.  I was watching AA's live-blogging of the Libyan not-war, and read Emma's link concerning some dude's reporting that the 'rebel forces' had formed (or re-invigorated) a Cental Bank in their names, and formed (or re-invigorated) an oil company: ditto, and AA going all "Oh; i'm so tired of those who keep saying it's about oil, yada yada,..." and thank the gods my friend Lulu complained...

    And I've been reading at FP about who's winning in Lybia (har-de-har-har) and how the intervention in Libya will queer things for the true Jasmine Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt (and according to Emma's dude) how sick it is that people like me think Obama can do dick for Bahrain, given the fucking practicalities of our oil needs (much like AA said). 

    So.  Here I am, being dissed by you, and incredulous at those at this site who think that Obama got it right, and that the mission is humanitarian, and that the 'rebels' are still all good guys (even Juan Cole thinks some Bad Gus may be (whattt???) changing sides here and there...and well, if you have me wrong...oh fucking well.  And sorry my comments on your blogs aren't 'pithy' enough to respond to.

    I'm gomnna take a hot bath instead of proofing this crap.  (or 'carp' as i typed first; works for me.)


    by we are stardust on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 9:21pm

    The Levy comment was supposed to be communal levity (or levyty as he spells it when we're live chatting over epistemology/ontology or the American baseball he's so fascinated with).

    Vodka and solitary, seems like you're into Darkness At Noon period, with all those Russian post-modernists, or is that post-post modernist, I never get it quite right.

    And as someone noted, Cameron at least consulted Parliament, while Sarkozy may have consulted his wife or his astrologer, but most likely just visited some 17,000 year old caves and decideda  bombing was in order.

    But frankly I still wish we were talking about the aspirations of the desert people and how their new democracy will turn out, rather than how the use of Tomahawk missiles will help our deficit situation.

    Anyway, enjoy your hot bath with carp. Count your toes afterwards.


    by Desider on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 9:33pm

    Didn't grok the funny; sorry.


    by we are stardust on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 10:38pm

    Whether you want to call it an "exit strategy", an "end game plan", or just "thinking ahead", we need to consider how to know what conditions are required for us to know that this strategy is finished, whether as a success or as a failure from which we should cut our losses.

    Edit to add: I say this as someone who, while not completely committed to our involvement in Libya, also doesn't think this is necessarily a bad idea. (How's that for wishy-washy?)


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 1:40pm

    Actually, Cole's new post today argues beyond you--i.e., not just saving the population of Benghazi:

    The “No-Drive Zone” policy pursued by France, Britain and the United States is already bearing fruit on the ground. There were three major aggressive campaigns being waged by the Qaddafi forces as the UN allies began intervening– Zintan in the southwest, Misrata just to the east of Tripoli on the coast, and Ajdabiya in the east, south of rebel HQ Benghazi. Two of them ceased on Thursday, forestalling further massacre of civilians in these major population centers and allowing supporters of the liberation movement to come out of hiding. Ajdabiya remained an arena of contest, but the liberation movement now controls most of th is oil city and there were reports of negotiations.

    What I see in all the statements from the UN, too a major concern was possibility of massive flight from all those places, upsetting Tunisia and Egypt, if there would be no safe haven within Libyan borders.  And also then the resistance to Gaddafi would be lead from outside the country, also destabilizing of others. And the Tunisians and Egyptians do not have jobs for emigres to spare, actually I read several pieces that the Egyptians do not have jobs for the Egyptian workers in Libya who left Libya when this started.

    I suspect the major reason it's so controversial among participants to say whether the goal is to get rid of Gaddafi is because that's not the goal of the UN proper, not at all. They are not as pro-rebel as Juan Cole. The UN is still calling for ceasefire on all sides. They see it as the no fly zone in Iraq previous to the Bush invasion was or the one used in Kosovo. But unlike Iraq one that doesn't have to be continued indefiinitely because if there are two LIbyas for a while, and Gaddafi's Libya has few major weapons left and zero access to funds to replenish them, and few real friends, and is not recognzied as official Libya, it is just low grade civil war until his natural "death," not massive death and destruction followed by continual chaos and fear. They do not want to make it look like they support  the rebels continuing to fight as well, since the UN does not know who they are or who they will become. Some of the defectors from the regime who could grab power could be nearly as bad as him. It's all about preventing massive crisis and not at all about nation building. The nation building is left to the Libyan populace after the big weapons are destroyed, eventually including those that may have liked Gaddafi. That there had to be an answer to him dissing the UN is very important too, as far as other bad players of the future are concerned. The continued freezing of the money and a weapons blockade is a very important part of making the UN plan work.

    Edit to add: with UN intervention, I am always reminded of the "stop the insanity!" phrase from the TV commercials. After struggling for decades to get created, it got created from the impetus to avoid another world war, hence it's main mission is to stop escalating insanity leading to wider wars. Their role as a supporter of human rights is secondary and more controversial (and notably separated) and doesn't  always have as much support because it often means interfering in stuff that doesn't involve war, but does involve sovereignity--to one person what might be a crackdown on human rights is to another necessary steps for maintaining law and order (see for example, arguments over the death penalty or  certain interpretations of sharia.)


    by artappraiser on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 1:29pm

    As an opponent of U.S. involvement here, I'm trying to take care not to be willfully blind of the humanitarian achievements.  But I guess even if everything goes perfectly, I'm not going to change my mind about supporting the action.  I think Obama took some hard to forgive shortcuts to get this done and that he's lucky that risks have so far broken in his favor.  I also think that the President took his eye off of more pressing domestic matters at just the wrong time.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:37pm

     I think Obama took some hard to forgive shortcuts to get this done and that he's lucky that risks have so far broken in his favor

    I agree the shortcuts are hard to forgive. 

    Not sure he's been lucky about the risks breaking in his favor. It's at least worth considering that they broke in his favor because he/his Administration did a number of things right ,one of which was taking those shortcuts. And being clear thinking about its goals.........and its strategy for revealing them.. 


    by Flavius on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 4:27pm

    Latest Comments