dagblog - Comments for "Libya: That Was Quick"

The Viagra bit was definitely

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:58:59 +0000

In reply to So, wait. Are you disputing

The Viagra bit was definitely nonsense.

The real threat of genocide to a population were overhyped.

Qaddafi like most asshole leaders gave enough to the people to keep them complacent and himself safe and in luxury, with force and torture/incarceration as the 2nd ingredient. Though compared to Mubarak, the average Libyan seems to have been better off, except more freedom of speech in Libya, and I can't compare the 2 prison systems precisely.

"Mass graves Qaddafi has been dumping his victims into" Oh God help me - haven't we been down this road before? Viagra-equipped rape soldiers, babies pulled off incubators, mass graves....

Supposedly when we fought in Kosovo, there were 100,000 or more Albanians spirited into mass graves.

Numbers actually found were one 250 person cache, and perhaps 3000 total over 6 sites, not necessarily civilian. Not to make fun of their plight, but the hysterical exaggeration of numbers and atrocities is a hallmark of every conflict. 100,000+ predicted vs. 3000 actual. In the case of Sierra Leone they actually hacked off limbs by the thousands, and we all know about Rwanda.

Was this really a Rwanda, or a serious threat of one?

Look, the West wanted to get rid of Qaddafi and is happy to have his oil (Brazil, China and Russia lost out). The rebels set up their own bank in the middle of their rebellion, clever lads that they are. We hyped our way into regime change, and we didn't even have to supply troops or planes this time - just drones and communications interception - we're getting more clever. But then I say this is more of UK & French initiative, not the US, but we certainly participated. (After all, who drives NATO?)

Numbers from major media in

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:41:41 +0000

In reply to For the record. Of course

Numbers from major media in April were about 1000 rebels. A recent article said 1000 as of 2 months ago, and noted African mercenaries and Qatari troops plus various foreign advisors.

"The idea that 2000 people could take and hold as much territory as has changed hands in the face of an unwilling populace while also proceeding to take more ground can not be explained by NATO bombing alone."

Of course not - no one said that.

There was quite a bit of willing populace to protest, but that doesn't mean they were willing to get up off their asses and fight.

Standard of living in Libya was much more comfortable than in Egypt or Iraq. (though no girls' volleyball team in short-shorts - a plus for Hussein I presume).

Libya's army was about 50-75,000 troops - good enough with control of airspace to handle an easily visible Sahara desert, but without control of airspace, very difficult. And when NATO airstrikes knock out half of them or more, well, forget it.

Qaddafi's army wasn't designed to invade neighbors. Hussein's army in Gulf I was a million men. In Gulf II, it was still 375,000. And Iraq's terrain is difficult, as rebels/terrorists have proven.

As for reconstruction, we'll see how much airstrikes knocked out. But really, re-building wasn't the problem in Iraq - it was re-building, having it re-blown up, re-building and so on.

For the record. Of course

Lazy KGB — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:04:07 +0000

In reply to As a general rule I oppose

For the record. Of course without NATO bombing at the very least removing Qaddafi's heavy armor advantage, the revolutionaries would have been toast. If this were not the case, the need for intervention would not have existed ... obviously.

However, that does change the fact that the revolutionary uprising was a truly homegrown populist movement and the resulting civil war is, at it's heart, a Lybian conflict to be resolved among internal parties, not a Western war of aggression requiring us to build a national infrastructure for a people under military occupation.

We didn't start this one, and this one is not even primarily about us.

As for the other stuff. IMO, your assertions either defy basic logic or don't really match the reporting from the ground I've seen on AJE, The Guardian, etc. Are you seriously arguing that Qaddafi didn't have the resources to win and control territory at the time NATO intervention started? How can that even be true at the same time you assert that without NATO assistance the revolutionaries would have been toast? Is this some brand of toast I have been hitherto unaware of?

Seriously. PP's troop level assessment is entirely based on counting the largest number of rebel vehicles he's ever seen on TV at one time and multiplying by four or some shit. Does that really count as making a point about troop levels? How many American soldiers are generally killed in a skirmish while taking or defending an area? Seems if the number goes above four there is a media freak-out (as there should be). Could it be that you are getting real war confused with what you see in the movies?

And shouldn't we at least figure out the real answer of how many revolutionary forces were active across Libya before proceeding as if a blog assertion based on nonsense becomes somehow factual? The idea that 2000 people could take and hold as much territory as has changed hands in the face of an unwilling populace while also proceeding to take more ground can not be explained by NATO bombing alone. A simple logistics analysis renders that idea laughable.

Qaddafi has maintained power by filling his army with mercenaries ... specifically because he has been paranoid an army led by his own people might turn on him. Hence Qaddafi's heavy reliance on the brigade under the iron-control of his elder son. Again, that's been pretty widely documented and analyzed by now. For the most part, I think it would be pretty unrealistic to expect a bunch of mercenaries to join up with the revolution. There have been reports that in the instances where unit leadership disintegrated, mercenary troops were not only sitting out the conflict ... if they could escape, many were trying to get the hell out of Libya and go back home.

I don't think Sirte is going to go the way you envision. IMO, that will be siege and attrition as the loyalist team negotiates for participation in the new order. The Sirte elders have already been negotiating with the NTC over it if AJE reports are accurate (and Sirte has also been sending reps to the contact group meetings and such throughout the revolution).

So, wait. Are you disputing

Lazy KGB — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:16:58 +0000

In reply to Yeah yeah yeah, Qaddafi

So, wait. Are you disputing that columns of armor, missiles and grad rockets had been sent to Bengazi and were starting operations on the outskirts? Or are you denying the population of Bengazi is around 600,000 people? Or are you disputing the orders it has been widely reported were given to the Qaddafi troops (reported by the troops themselves)? Or are you denying that Qaddafi troops were given Viagra to help facilitate the rape aspect of their orders? Or are you denying that this combination of circumstances would reasonably be expected to result in tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of civilian deaths?

See, there is an interesting thing about intervention. Typically one wouldn't wait until after the city of Bengazi had been decimated before acting. Usually interventions work better when you do it that way ... waiting until after everyone is already dead kind of makes intervention sort of pointless. A lower civilian death toll from murder at the hands of Qadaffi would actually be a sign of success in this case. But I don't see how we're going to get an accurate death toll until all of the mass graves Qaddaffi has been dumping his victims into have been found. The videos I have seen of two that had been discovered were pretty gruesome - and pretty extensive.

If you want to go out arguing that Qaddafi was a benevolent leader who took care of his people and was wrongly victimized by less than 2000 Libyan citizens somehow brought under the mesmerizing thrall of Western imperialism ... go for it. Kind of makes you look like an idiot though.

You make an interesting

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:35:39 +0000

In reply to As a general rule I oppose

You make an interesting point.

I bet in Egypt there would have been no problem gathering 50,000 rebel fighters, based on their peaceful occupation of the center square over weeks and their passive resistance across the country.

As a general rule I oppose

acanuck — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:46:19 +0000

In reply to Yeah yeah yeah, Qaddafi

As a general rule I oppose intervention, Peracles, so I have laid low in my well-stocked bunker. But I think you're fighting the good fight. People can argue whether intervention was right or wrong, but no one should even dare to argue that "we" had nothing to do with the imminent regime change. Without NATO bombing, the rebels were toast.

I think your point about troop levels is very telling. The vast majority of Libyans did everything they could to sit this fight out. After 42 years of Qadhafi rule, people obviously had little love for their "brother leader." Even in the military, few were ready to die to preserve his tired dynasty.

But few flocked to the rebel cause either. Generals defected, but their units mostly went home to wait for a winner to be announced. This didn't feel much like a popular revolution; more like a somewhat botched palace coup.

Early reports were surreal. A small town would change hands, and the rebel spokesman would say, "Yeah, it was a pitched battle. We lost six men." Or 13. The point is, before NATO stepped in, neither side could mass a sizeable enough force to win and hold territory. In a country with the population of Israel. And it was clear from the battlefield videos the rebels were not turning any volunteers away.

Now that they appear to control Tripoli, and western banks have unfrozen a few billion dollars, it's likely the NTC can attract the loyalty of many of Libya's dispersed military professionals -- at least those the Qadhafis haven't concentrated in and around Sirte. It's hard to see how such a last-ditch stand could succeed, with NATO controlling the Mediterranean and the rebels controlling all of the country's oil, but it could prove the bloodiest test yet for Libya's fledgling government.

This may be far from over.

Nobody has disputed the SEALS

Lazy KGB — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:21:17 +0000

In reply to So now we were 'handed bin

Nobody has disputed the SEALS killed him. Or that Obama ordered it to happen.

The question was if we could fly in to a military garrison with quite sophisticated air defenses, crash a helicopter, have a minor gun battle, spend about 40 minutes on the ground after, wrap up business and fly a couple hundred miles back out of Pakistani airspace all without Pakistan's knowledge and without anyone from their security forces thinking to send over a squad car or recon plane or something to check out what was happening (Yeah. That sounds totally plausible) ... or if the operation was carried out with Pakistani knowledge/cooperation. The answer increasingly appears to be yes, yes they did know we were coming and yes, yes they did indeed stand down and let the operation happen..

But there is this niggling little question if nobody in Pakistan 'handed over' OBL ... how did we find out where he was? Oooooh, in your mind someone from Pakistan who tells us where he is doesn't count as handing him over.

(Damn. Times must be rough for a die-hard supporter of such a crappy president, eh? You're waaaaaay OT trying to milk a little glory here. OK. Yes, yes ... your brave little solider went and found OBL single handed and commanded the kill mission himself ... aaaannnnd then promptly forgot what happened when it came time to explain stuff for the teevees and spent a week or so untangling a narrative clusterfuck.)

Here's a better rundown than

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:34:35 +0000

In reply to By that token, I've seen

Here's a better rundown than I could give:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH24Ak01.html

The numbers don't stack up - and people barely talk about them - except as this article notes, even 2 months ago the numbers were less than 1000. Were they supplemented with African merecenaries? Qataris? Who knows.

Typically war reporting includes troop strength, but this basic statistic seems to go lacking. All we hear is how fast rebels take stuff, and how many NATO sorties flown. Putting 2 and 2 together....

Yeah yeah yeah, Qaddafi

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 04:29:56 +0000

In reply to If the response of the

Yeah yeah yeah, Qaddafi really sent a civilian genocide patrol into Benghazi, right? Hundreds of thousands killed?

Quite a lot of international hype. What was his actual civilian toll, and what was the civilian toll from NATO bombing.

If the response of the

Lazy KGB — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:41:52 +0000

In reply to Well, "WE" are doing it by

If the response of the Federal Government to succession were to send a bunch of tanks and heavy rockets with orders to kill everyone in Dallas as brutal retribution for expressing their popular will ... wouldn't it actually be better to consider giving in to popular sentiment? I can see Argentina having a reasonable case for intervention in such an instance - provided they had the capacity of course.

Would you seriously support the death of tens of thousands of otherwise innocent Texans for the crime of democratically deciding to be their own country?