The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    Why We Shouldn't Intervene In Libya

    By Michael Maiello on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 2:57pm | World Affairs

    While my wife and I were gallivanting in Barcelona, which is a heck of a town, some pundits here at home and even some world powers, began beating the war drum once again.  To be fair, nobody is calling for an outright invasion of Libya (right?) but they do want the U.S. to impose a no fly zone, to bomb Gadhafi's air defenses and to basically use its might to tip the balance of power in favor of Libya's rebels.

    All of that sounds great on the surface until you consider the two facts that intervenionists always ignore when they make their arguments.  The first is that U.S. soldiers will surely die in the effort, even if it seems simple and even if we're assured that every precaution is taken and that our superior technology will protect the people we send over.  In Somalia, in the 90s, we had aircraft shot out of the sky by rag tag militias.  The battle to extract trapped soldiers was so fierce that it was memorialized in the book and movie Black Hawk Down.  Later on, during our intervention in the war between the Serbians and the Croatians, a stealth fighter was shot out of the sky.  We also lost aircraft and pilots enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq.  Nothing is risk free in terms of lives and equipment.

    The second thing the interventionists keep ignoring is cost.  Keep in mind that we're already paying $120 billion a year just for Afghanistan.  What does Libya add to the bill?  Now, I think that some of these people would tell you that even another $100 billion would be a small price to pay for getting rid of Gadhafi.  But a lot of those people are also telling me that we face "tough" budget choices right now.  So if that's the calculus, I'd like to see a bill in advance for a Libya operation and then I'd like the government to just put that money into the Social Security trust fund instead.  Or, heck, print it up as hundred dollar bills and give it to the poorest 20% of Americans, tax free.  Just don't tell me that we have to tighten our belts at home while at the same time pushing a third Middle Eastern military conflict on the U.S.

    This is the topic of my "The Daily" column this week, where I go more in-depth into why I think a Libya intervention could turn out to be far riskier than advertised.  Now, it goes without saying that I don't know anything about Libya except what I read in the news and that I know even less about war fighting.  But it also seems to me that the "experts" pushing intervention in Libya have a pretty bad track record.  Christopher Hitchens and Ann-Marie Slaughter, to take two examples from the interventionist left, both support action in Libya.  They were also both Iraq war supporters.  Neither of them, back in 2003, said anything about 8 years, thousands dead and a trillion dollars vaporized in that adventure, and neither has apologized for that.  So why trust them now?

    Of course, the idea of sticking it to Gadhafi and using military magic to free an oppressed people has a certain appeal. It's just that nothing ever seems to work out so simply.

    Topics: 
    World Affairs

    Comments

    Any fiscally conservative hawk should insist that any spending required to impose a no-fly zone in Libya be offset by increases to taxes, right?


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:52pm

    Since you said conservative, my guess is that they would finance the no-fly zone by cutting taxes on wealthy Libyans.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 4:43pm

    I'm going to throw in a real politik concern that you didn't mention in your column. Many experts are skeptical that a no-fly zone will stop Gadhafi's advance in any case. If the no-fly zone failed to stop Gadhafi, what options would that leave us?

    a) Invasion

    b) A crazy, oil-rich Arab despot who hates us (again)

    I used to be more idealistic in my beliefs about the benign use of U.S. military power, but I've come to believe that short of stopping genocide, intervention costs too much (in money and lives, ours and theirs) and produces too little.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 5:23pm

    I'm generally wary of saying a military operation will or won't work since I'm just guessing.  But, boy... the people who say it will work don't have the best track records of accuracy by my accounting.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 6:10pm

    The money is on you not having to worry; from Juan Cole:

    "Washington, for its part, was reportedly suspicious of the character of the Libyan protest movement, fearing that Qaddafi was right to describe it as heavily Muslim fundamentalist in character. Having a victorious such government in Libya might in turn have affected the outcomes of the new political processes in Tunisia and Egypt, given Libya’s oil wealth and resources. While the Benghazi provisional government is made up of political unknowns, however, the discourse deployed by the rebels has tended to be nationalist and tribal, and does not resemble that of e.g. al-Qaeda. Washington appears to have decided it slightly preferred the devil it knew, and that may well be what it gets– though now a wounded devil talking crazily about global jihad against the West if things don’t go his way."

    http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/qaddafi-threatens-to-join-al-qaeda-as-his-forces-advance-on-rebel-strongholds.html

    And the US/Pentagon dealings with Bahrain are worse; it's our weapons slaughtering the protestors.  The figures are simply staggering, the agenda clear.  It deserves its own blog, but it makes my stomach too sick to write it just now. 

    http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175367/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_the_pentagon_and_murder_in_bahrain/#more

    The French apparently want to just bomb the airports (or wanted to) so they couldn't bomb the rebel forces, but they've done an awful lot of damage with tanks, too, blowing buildings to smithereens, plus the people inside.

    And Hillary is sayin the same things about Bahrain, 'urging restraint'.  You are correct, I think, about the danger of interference, but blocking others?  Dunno.  It may be that Obama is making up his foreign policy as he goes, and reversing it at will.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 5:36pm

    We basically agree that the U.S. shouldn't intervene in Libya, destor. Then you lost me.

    All of that sounds great on the surface until you consider the two facts that intervenionists always ignore when they make their arguments. 

    The two key facts are risk to American lives and cost to American taxpayers? That's a rather narrow focus. Both true, but they should be the least of anyone's considerations.

    1. The slippery slope: As Gates and co. keep saying, a no-fly zone implies taking out Libyan air defences -- an act of war. Plus, nothing says a no-fly zone tips the balance. Gaddafi's forces are on a roll, and I think it will take trained, organized, well-equipped boots on the ground to stop them. Who's up for that? Because the alternative might be having a no-fly zone in effect, and nobody left alive to protect.

    2. Political blowback: Tunisia and Egypt have inspired millions because they occurred without overt western interference. If the U.S. acts militarily to force Qaddafi out, any successor regime will be popularly seen as tainted, even illegitimate. The U.S. will get no credit: its motives will be seen as self-serving (oil) and hypocritical (Bahrain, Saudi, Yemen). The only worse reaction could come if it were a former colonial power (France, Britain, Italy) that intervened.

    3. International law: Perhaps only important to people who value international law. But we may need it again one day. Only a UN Security Council resolution can render a no-fly zone legal, and Russia and China have shown no interest. Even in Iraq (where the no-fly zones were totally illegal) there was at least a pretense that earlier UN resolutions had given implied authorization. In Libya, even that fig leaf is missing.

    So the U.S. can do something illegal, that is bound to escalate and not guaranteed to succeed even then, for absolutely no strategic gain in a region where it's already lost enormous clout. Plus, as you say, it would cost American lives and dollars.


    by acanuck on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 6:15pm

    We do agree, and I think everything you say is true.  So why my narrow focus?  Well it's because the intervenionists, from America and abroad, all argue that this is primarily a U.S. responsibility.  You know, France wants a no fly zone.  Fine.  I'd like to see France pay for one and execute it.  I realize that in a lot of ways, the U.S. wanted to be the primary arm of global security after World War II.  But I can't vote for the president of France so I'd prefer he not dictate our foreign policy.  As for the Americans -- too many of them are the same people who are trying to sell us Social Security cuts and the like.  Every time they suggest we undertake an operation in Libya that will cost tens of billions they should be asked why we shouldn't just set aside that money to shore up public worker pensions instead.

    I guess I take the narrow focus on American lives and treasure because... nobody else seems interested in making the argument. Which is odd to me.  You'd think that kind of thing would be so obvious that you wouldn't need a guy like me making a fuss about it.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 6:53pm

    Seems to me that they have a giant military that they need to keep busy.


    by Donal on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 6:55pm

    Can't we just give them wine and tapas?  That's how I deal with my downtime.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 7:10pm

    Probably not billable time.


    by Donal on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 7:18pm

    I think this is sort of  a moot argument, as it doesn't get at what is really going on.

    First I suspect everything being said by all world powers that be, including the U.S. and including conflicting reports and changing their minds back and forth, is basically to insure the "all cards on the table" effect.

    They all have to worry about the world economy now with the Japan effect thrown in. Very seriously It's not about idealistic support of the freedom of Libyan rebels they are thinking about anymore, it's about trouble Gaddafi could cause outside of Libya.

    Yesterday Gaddafi's son, in the Euro News interview which I saw on the tube and which David Seaton posted on the news thread here, went on and on about Egypt. He said they aren't going to kill the rebels, they are just going to chase them "home" to Egypt. He's nuts, he holds grudges (and there's a report I posted that his envoy was snubbed by the Egyptian miilitary) he could seriously destabilize the new Egypt just by sending a mass of refugees there, if there are continued attacks on his regime, he could blame Egypt and start a war with them. He could do a lot of things we can't imagine. Throw in the Saudis in Bahrain problem.. And that Chavez is sympathetic. You've got the potential of a super mess brewing, like war allover the area and $500 a barrel oil. Remember, Japan has to rebuild and will need energy replacement. Their lack of manufacturing just since the earthquake is already causing prices to shoot up for parts in certain markets already.

    Nobody with any smarts in the international diplomatic community is going to send out a laissez faire or isolationist message at this time. Doesn't mean they plan on doing anything , they just have to sound like they might, depending on what happens. Because sounding like they might do something could do a lot just in itself. I think they are watching what happens and they have to be ready to do all kinds of things.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 9:23pm

    Super mess indeed, appraiser. Just to deal with one part of your scenario, I'm not too worried about what Gaddafi (and by that I'm beginning to mean Seif, not his dad) can do to Egypt. We're talking populations of 6.5 million vs. 80-plus million; militaries of maybe 10,000 reliable troops vs. 1 million. The Egyptians could take Tripoli in 24 hours.

    Plus, the Libyan regime has been weakened, fractured, discredited. The Swiss have frozen its sovereign fund, and no oil is being shipped. Gaddafi may be able to retake Benghazi militarily, but that doesn't solve any of his problems.

    The U.S. and Egypt (unlike those silly French) didn't rush to break relations, so I suspect there will be some "frank discussions," as the diplomats put it, on quid-pro-quos. Egypt won't stand for a million refugees in permanent camps on its side of the border, and that will require a general amnesty for rebels. Maybe Seif will be forced to become the moderate reformer he always pretended he'd be. Alternatively, like I said, Egypt can take Tripoli in a day.


    by acanuck on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 1:18am

    Things are just so up in the air tinderbox right now, involving so many oil-providing countries. The points I made were just the half of it There is a lot of tension between Sunni and Shia rulers right now.. I took a quick glance at the world news and saw that Iran is outraged about the Saudi move and there are protests among Iraqi Shia  and Saudi Shia over it too.

    We in the west haven't seen that side of the Bahrain story so much because the reporters we read and listen to were trying real hard to make it look like it was just another non-sectarian people power movement. But lots of conservatives Sunnis aren't seeing it that way and haven't been seeing it that way.

    Look at what the relatively-liberal-for-Saudi-Arabia Arab News wrote on as their editorial Wednesday: Helping Bahrain, that it's all basically been caused by Iranian agitation of the Shia in Bahrain and needs to be calmed down.

    Even Nick Kristof is now admitting there is a big Sunni vs. Shia problem involved, in his most recent piece, he recounts this from another reporter:

    ....they were about to shoot when he pulled out his passport and shouted that he was an American journalist. Then, he says, the mood changed abruptly and the leader of the group came over and took Mr. Slackman’s hand, saying warmly: “Don’t worry! We love Americans!”

    “We’re not after you. We’re after Shia,” the policeman added. Mr. Slackman recalls: “It sounded like they were hunting rats.”....

    Now of course all Arab News' editorials are written so as to not fly too afoul of the Saudi government, if they did so, as one commenter on that thread notes, they wouldn't be allowed to exist. But I have seen them go pretty far in disagreeing before, I think they are given some leniency that way because they are in English for an English-speaking audience (not also the comments on that thread don't seem to too that censored.) I suspect that editorial reflects a lot of of opinion in the Sunni gulf states.

    Don't forget this is the same Gulf States Council that wants a no fly zone on Libya. And that they did this little police action a day after Sec. Gates' visit which purportedly surrprised the latter and all his friends in the American government..

    I think to think of what the Gulf Council did is as just protecting any local dictator's ass and not see their fears about Shia and Iran is to misread what's going on. They really just fear the instability, they are thinking world war style instability, And they really fear Iran. It might be totally irrational, but that's what we are dealing with. And they have the big oil, the Gulf Council. IWhen I go back and review what the reaction of the Saudis were to the way the Obama handled Mubarak, I see it a bit differently now.

    (Another reminder for those who needed it to believe things were this way and that Israel wasn't the only problem:: the wikieaks revelations of what the gufl countries think of Iran! And also too there is the Hairii indictment hanging out in the background as to Lebanon. I wouldn't be suprised if the UN comes up with some excuse to put that on ice fro a long long time.)

    Gadafi is just such a bad wild card in all of this right now. And the most current news is reporting that the U.S. is now pushing for a no fly zone. But I am a little skeptical that is anything but preparation for god-knows-whatt may happen given what Hillary said in her interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN today. She stressed the "well you know Wolf, there are troubles all over the world right now we'd love to be able to fix...Ivory Coast, Congo...." thing.

    P.S. I think one has to approach Al Jazeera on the Bahrain topic now with the same skepticism as one approaches Arab News. They are owned by the government of Qatar, and Qatar sent troops along with the Saudis. But looking on the bright side, both outlets are certainly better than what we have available to figure out what's going on in the heads of the rulers of Iran right now. Surprised


    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 5:10am

    This is the headline story at the Iran state news agency IRNA website right now:

    Tehran, March 17, IRNA – A group of ulema and foreign students residing in Tehran here on Thursday gathered in front of the Bahraini Embassy to voice their protest against the savage massacre of oppressed Bahraini people....
    Here are their other top stories:
    IRNA chief in Spain to amend media agreement
    Syrian Foreign Minister to arrive in Tehran today
    Iran, Venezuela ink MoU on media cooperation
    Headlines in major Iranian newspapers
    Ban stresses support for transition to greater Afghan responsibility
    UN official deplores curtailment of trade union activity in Bahrain
    There is nothing on the home page about Japan or Libya, nothing, nada, zip. There are, however, more stories on Bahrain down the page.

    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 5:33am

    I don't want the US to put troops in Libya.  And I doubt that a no-fly zone would be effective.

    But I do wish that in the first few days of this revolution, when Gadaffi was backed up completely against the wall with his regime collapsing and rapidly defecting around him, someone had dropped a bomb on his head, or shot him dead with a sniper rifle.  That would have put an end to that sick fuck and dispersed his coterie - and his regime would have collapsed forthwith.  Instead he was allowed to regroup and reverse the momentum.

    I also wish that Barack Obama hadn't shot his mouth off about how Gadaffi "must go" and "must leave now" - not if he wasn't prepared to back up his talk with action.  The President of the United States is not just some wanker talk jock or pundit.  He's the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces and the de facto leader of Nato, the most powerful military force and military alliance in the world.  Cognizant of that role, he shouldn't say much about what "must" or "has to" happen.  But when he does say these things, he damned well ought to be prepared to make them happen.  Now Obama just looks like a feckless dick and coward.  And he has made our country look that way too.

    And he has just given a big, bright green light to every country in that region to crack down upon, shoot up, lock up and harass their own pro-democracy defenders.

    Before, the enemies of the democracy movement were in some doubt about what the US might ultimately do if they got too rough with their protesters.

    Now they know: we'll do jack shit.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 10:33pm

    Instead he was allowed to regroup and reverse the momentum.

    Are you suggesting Obama the pragmatist thought the two sides could work out their differences?

    Obama the Peace Prize Winner....the answer to every perplexing problem is..... "cant we all just get along"  Bi- Partianship


    by Resistance on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 8:05am

    Obviously not in this case.  Obama didn't call on the two sides to work out their differences.  He said Gadaffi must go.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 9:23am

    I was being sarcastic.

    When Obama and his army of supporters had defeated the Republicans, he allowed them to regroup and now they are coming after the democrats.   


    by Resistance on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 9:45am

    Part of the issue is that we (whoever that "we" is) don't know exactly what the rebels would be imposing in place of the current regime.  And while they might even go as far as say nice things about democracy because that is what the Western powers want to hear, the true intentions of the leadership of the rebels are unknown.  So it is a bit of a stretch in assessment to call "pro-democracy defenders."  In the end, had the US gone in with bombs a droppin', all we might have done is replace a tyrannt with a group of tyrannts (who might just as easily start turning on one another once their side was installed in place of the current regime).


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 9:34am

    You probably didn't read the Juan Cole link I provided, but you are thinking like Juan hears Obama is thinking now, probably aided by his foreign policy team who think or pretend to think that any ME jockeying for power is gooing to lead to Al Qaeda ascendancy.  He quotes a commenter from HRW, Peter Boukaert, who just got back from Libya:

    "PS Peter Bouckaert submitted this as a comment but I am moving it up to the text:

    ‘ I am just back from Eastern Libya, and have had extensive contacts with the transitional authorities in Benghazi, was on the phone with them this morning. Having visited the eastern cities of Benghazi, al-Baida, Dernah, Tobruk, al-Bregah, Ras Lanoof, and Ajdabiya, I certainly didn’t see any AQ influence among the authorities or among the rebels. Al-Baida and Dernah in particular have been home to strong Salafist movements (and have been subjected to bombing campaigns by Qaddafi to suppress them), but this salafism is more inward-looking and seems to be an expression of opposition to the regime, not the kind of internationalist salafism associated with AQ. And even most Islamists I met were in favor of Western intervention, remarkably. Like in Egypt, the religious fundamentalist danger is vastly overstated and used as a scare tactic by Qaddafi.

    I got to know more than half of the members of the Benghazi-based council, and they impressed me with their secular and modernist outlook. Most are academics, lawyers, and activists, and clearly dedicated to bringing Libya into the modern world.

    The rebel movement is indeed badly organized, but this is for a simple reason: it exists mostly out of young volunteers, protesters turned fighters, who have no military experience and are holding a gun for the first time in their lives. They cannot hold back a desert offensive by an army with tanks, artillery, and war planes–their weapons don’t even have the required reach or power. But that doesn’t mean that Benghazi, al-Baida, or Dernah will fall as easily. Urban fighting is very different from a series of desert battles, and the advantages of heavy weapons are diminished. It could get a lot bloodier.

    Peter Bouckaert
    Emergencies Director, Human Rights Watch" ‘

    .How many were just positive that the Muslim Brotherhood would take over in Egypt, and refused to believe that it was a largely secular movement?


    by we are stardust on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 11:08am

    Obama made a big mistake by saying that.  Maybe he made a backroom offer of that island that Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos lived on for his retirement and thought Gadhafi would go for it?  Or, more likely, he heard Republicans criticizing him for his silence on the issue and he fell right into their trap. Again.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 10:38am

    I've argued pretty consistently (above, and on related threads) against U.S. intervention in Libya. One of my basic assumptions was that China and/or Russia would veto any no-fly resolution at the Security Council. But there's been a flurry of activity at the UN, with reports of a possible vote as early as this afternoon, and a change in tone from the White House and State Dept. That suggests China and Russia may have signaled they'll abstain, or at least not exercise their vetos. That changes things a lot; legality still carries a certain amount of weight.

    We also hear more talk of Arab involvement. Basically, that has to mean Egypt, although other states might be asked to send in token forces. If the Egyptian military puts an umbrella over Benghazi, Gaddafi is in a very difficult spot. And news out of Tripoli suggests he knows that: he's just offered an amnesty to rebels who lay down their arms, and declared a supposed unilateral ceasefire. That sounds like he's trying to forestall a UN vote with teeth.

    While a U.S. or western intervention (especially one with no legal basis) would be a huge mistake, a UN-endorsed, Egyptian-led one would find little opposition, and if vigorously prosecuted would solve the Gaddafi problem. If the Saudis can act to quell "unrest" in Bahrain, surely Egypt has at least as much right to stop a human disaster unfolding next door. If Egypt is on board, I'm on board.


    by acanuck on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:22pm

    ...Undecided


    by Resistance on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 7:46pm

    It passed: UN Security Council Approves No-Fly Zone Over Libya (V.O.A. News)

    and that includes authorization for UN members to take "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.

    Just heard someone on NPR say "watch France," he basically implied they are the ones ready and waiting to act ASAP. Should that be correct, the House GOP will have to add French Freedom Fries to their cafeteria menu?

    Here's NYTimes with more:

    U.N. Approves Airstrikes to Halt Attacks by Qaddafi Force
    By Dan Bilefsky and Kareem Fahim, March 17, 2011, 12 minutes ago

    UNITED NATIONS.....The measure allows not only a no-fly zone but effectively any measures short of a ground invasion to halt attacks that might result in civilian fatalities.....


    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 7:31pm

    Yeah, I heard it on Cenk's show. Cripes, five countries abstained.


    by Donal on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 7:34pm

    What say Gaddafi, and the French Prime Minister?  From Al Jazeera's Libya live blog

    (All times are local in Libya GMT+2)

    • 10:41pm

      Gaddafi did an interview with RTP, a Portuguese television station, this evening. In it, he said:

      The Security Council has not got the right to interfere in the internal affairs of any state. It would be a flagrant colonisation, without any justification. A serious and grave [inaudible]. This is craziness, madness, arrogance. If the world gets crazy with us, we will get crazy too..."

      Asked what he means by 'get crazy', Gaddafi said:

      We will respond. We will make their lives hell, because they are making our lives hell. They will never have peace."

    •  10:27pm

      Francois Fillon, the French prime minister, has added his voice to French chorus asserting that his government wishes to see immediate military action of the UN Security Council adopts a resolution on Libya. 

    • 10:23pm

      A Libyan government spokesman says that any UN action against Libya would be "illegal and immoral". Mussa Ibrahim, the spokesman, said:

      That would be illegal and immoral. It's an armed rebellion. Any country would've fought against that. They are basing their decision on media reports.

      "This should not happen. It would harm the Libyan people. It would only strengthen our internal position because Libyans will have an external enemy and act as one."

    • 10:15pm

      AFP has released some excerpts from the draft UN resolution. They are reproduced below. The resolution....


    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 7:38pm

    The Guardian says the RAF is ready too:

    RAF prepares to help impose no-fly zone over Libya

    guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 March 2011 20.32 GMT

    Ministers order defence chiefs to finalise plans enabling Britain to take part in military action against forces loyal to Gaddafi

    They have lots of coverage there, including videos of the Security Council session @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/libya


    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 7:50pm

    It all depends upon what the meaning of "intervention" is. Egypt (may be) supplying small arms; Lebanon took a lead in drafting the resolution; Qatar is the rebel's best friend and UAE and Qatar will help with the no-fly zone:

    Egypt says won't intervene militarily in Libya
    Reuters, Mar 17, 2011 12:21pm EDT

    CAIRO, March 17 (Reuters) - Egypt said on Thursday it would not be involved in any military intervention in its neighbour Libya after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said discussions were under way about possible Arab involvement.

    "Egypt will not be among those Arab states. We will not be involved in any military intervention. No intervention period," Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Menha Bakhoum told Reuters....

    Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels
    By Charles Levinson, Matthew Rosenberg, Wall Street Journal, ‎1 hour ago‎

    CAIRO—Egypt's military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington's knowledge, US and Libyan rebel officials said. The shipments—mostly small arms such as assault rifles and ammunition—appear to be the first confirmed case of an outside government arming the rebel fighters....

    The shipments also follow an unusually robust diplomatic response from Arab states. There have been rare public calls for foreign military intervention in an Arab country, including a vote by the 23-member Arab League last week urging the U.N. to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

    The vote provided critical political cover to Western powers wary of intervening militarily without a broad regional and international mandate. On Thursday evening, the U.N. Security Council voted on a resolution endorsing a no-fly zone in Libya and authorizing military action in support of the rebels.

    Within the council, Lebanon took a lead role drafting and circulating the draft of the resolution, which calls for "all necessary measures" to enforce a ban on flights over Libya. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar have taken the lead in offering to participate in enforcing a no-fly zone, according to U.N. diplomats.

    Libyan rebel officials in Benghazi, meanwhile, have praised Qatar from the first days of the uprising, calling the small Gulf state their staunchest ally. Qatar has consistently pressed behind the scenes for tough and urgent international action behind the scenes, these officials said.

    Qatari flags fly prominently in rebel-held Benghazi. After pro-Gadhafi forces retook the town of Ras Lanuf last week, Libyan state TV broadcast images of food-aid packages bearing the Qatari flag.....

    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 9:14pm

    If Sarkozy wants to act, pay the bill and face his own voters, fine with me.

    But I'm pretty sure that the US will wind up doing everything and paying for it.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 9:16am