dagblog - Comments for "Why We Shouldn't Intervene In Libya"

If Sarkozy wants to act, pay

Michael Maiello — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:16:12 +0000

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.

It all depends upon what the

artappraiser — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 01:14:38 +0000

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.....

The Guardian says the RAF is

artappraiser — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:50:51 +0000

In reply to It passed: UN Security

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

...

Resistance — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:46:52 +0000

In reply to I've argued pretty

...

What say Gaddafi, and the

artappraiser — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:38:24 +0000

In reply to It passed: UN Security

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....

Yeah, I heard it on Cenk's

Donal — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:34:54 +0000

In reply to It passed: UN Security

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

It passed: UN Security

artappraiser — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:31:06 +0000

In reply to I've argued pretty

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.....

I've argued pretty

acanuck — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:22:46 +0000

In reply to Why We Shouldn't Intervene In Libya

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.

You probably didn't read the

we are stardust — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:08:00 +0000

In reply to Part of the issue is that we

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?

Obama made a big mistake by

Michael Maiello — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:38:27 +0000

In reply to I don't want the US to put

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.