dagblog - Comments for "Nothing's Ever Simple In War"

I received this comment over

David Seaton — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:56:20 +0000

In reply to Nothing's Ever Simple In War

I received this comment over at my home blog that I thought to share with y'all here:

Why do you think the Brits choppered in spies, excuse me, diplomats protected by commandos in the first days of the "rebellion," rather than to wait and see which way the cookie would crumble?

Might it just have been that they wanted undertakings about present and future oil and Sovereign Wealth Fund deals before the "world community" decided who the "reformers" and "moderates" were.

At present prices, Libyan oil production is about $185 million a day. Amortising the development costs of weapons that are mostly exported at $100 million a day for a month is a bargain if it gets you hooked up with $200 million a day for the next 3 decades.

Thanks AA. That's clearer to

Obey — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:06:00 +0000

In reply to Yes I know. That was my

Thanks AA. That's clearer to me. Yes, we need a nuanced view - not just manichean good vs bad. Yes, liberals (like everyone) are suspicious of reporting that goes against ... their suspicions. But just to push back against some of what you say: I think the appropriate level of nuance on the Islamist question as regards Libya involves a compare-and-contrast with the Muslim Brotherhood, where they come out, imo, as much more dangerous - (i) dominated by their armed militant wing, (ii) active involvement in Iraq jihad, and (iii) based on tribal as well as religious cohesion. I don't find the MB remotely as threatening. So, sure, lets be careful not to pigeon hole them as 'islamists=al qaeda', but let's also not dumb it down to 'just another popular islamic party like the MB'. Yes?

Then there is the additional worry about how a foreign military intervention alters the balance of power between the different forces in the rebel camp. I think Sarkozy and co are running on the theory that their support for the transitional council - euro and us-friendly professional class types - will help swing the balance of power away from the islamists. What it does do is set up a sharply bifurcated opposition between islamists on the one hand and professionals/ex-Qaddafi types on the other, and the original youth movement largely caught in the middle, which means a likely more complicated civil war where the west will be openly the enemy of Islam. I think it is what lies behind Turkey's very forceful interference in the Libya operation. They don't want to have to choose sides in that kind of conflict.

That would be The Devil's

AmericanDreamer — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:36:47 +0000

In reply to I saw "Inside Job" Saturday

That would be The Devil's Casino, by Vicky Ward, that is out in paperback, not All the Devils are Here, which indeed is scheduled to come out in paperback at the end of August. Hard to keep those financial meltdown books with the word "Devil" in them straight, for me, at least.

Yes I know. That was my

artappraiser — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:00:37 +0000

In reply to I'm surprised at your take

Yes I know. That was my point, the nuance of all radical Islamists are not the old "Al Qaeda" bogeyman. This why I didn't like Destor's post suggesting as it does "we could be getting in bed with the bad guys" without much evidence. There's no evidence that he's a "bad guy" now, there's only evidence he went on a jihad in the past, one against George Bush's foreign policy.

A significant part of radicalization of more Islamist youth was our invasion of Iraq, it titled them towards jihadism and Al Qaeda theory.Now we have a western intervention, supposedly on behalf of Arab spring self-deterrmination movement (especially if following the UN resolution, and I am keeping a skeptical mind about that, thank you--though it's clear Juan Cole has been convinced.) And we have things like an avoidance of demonizing choices like the Muslim Brotherhood party in Egypt except by conservatives. And other hopeful understanding of the nuances going on.

In the minds of those like Sarkozy I imagine he thinks he is counteracting the Islamist demonizing of him, i.e., we are not as intolerant of Islamism as you might think. (Not that I don't think he probably still is as intolerant as he ever was. ) That's why it's important not to use this stuff for simplistic point making. If we ever want to get away from the war of civilizations thing, it is important not to paint all Islamists or even all jihadis with the same broad brush. If we ever do, it will actually kill actual Al Qaeda theory like that of Bin Laden for good-real dustbin of history of W's speech this time. It is very important to recognize differences in motives between all these actors, and especially to recognize ones that fought the west in the past because they thought the west was taking away from self-dertermination rather than promoting it. In the end, it's the good Taliban vs. bad Taliban story, etc. And to get back to my original point, Sarkozy's recent experiences would suggest he knows more about good guys/bad guys/inbetween guys in the neighborhood than many others involved. And that he is the only one that's not afraid to recognize them. So where's the beef in destor's point? Sarkozy/France should be the last one to want to recognize the rebels if this fear has any basis in reality, instead, they are the first one.

P.S. You remind me, I often used to post a lot of stories from EU press on intel about jihadis from Europe and Africa going to fight in Iraq quite a few years back on another board. Ironically, back then many lefties didn't like hearing it, would give me a lot of grief about it, tey would question the sources. They didn't like hearing about things like the idiosyncracies of the problems with the various Islamist groups in Denmark, how some were with "the terrorists" sometimes.and sometimes not. It muddied the propaganda wars between Bush and not Bush. It was particularly controversial info. when the left was trying to prove that there were no foreigners fighting in Iraq, because they wanted to make it a story of only Iraqis fighting the U.S. occupation, some just didn't want to hear it, it was like the idea of foreign jihadis had to be fought for ideological reasons because the Pentagon and Bush wee saying it was true. Well, they were there. Now some want to fight to prove for ideological reasons that they were there.

The rebels can't call in an

Michael Maiello — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:23:42 +0000

In reply to The Pentagon as of this

The rebels can't call in an airstrike, but come on, double A! We're not lobbing missiles at random. I'm also confused as to what this can possibly mean. That we can stop bombing and firing and Gadhafi runs out of equipment to blow up? That we stop when we get bored? When does it stop?

I'm surprised at your take

Anonymous Obey — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:16:23 +0000

In reply to Well, while you and others

I'm surprised at your take AA. I realize you're well-read, but this is just 'fear-mongering' to you?

In European coverage, I was getting the impression that it was utterly uncontroversial that the Islamist LIFP - who recruited and organized the shipping out of suicide bombers from Libya to Iraq - are one of the three pillars of the rebel movement, along with the youth movement and the professional class 'human rights' movement (to which breakaway Qaddafi regime elements have attached themselves). And sadly it seems like the youth movement has gotten quickly sidelined in that internicine power struggle. That is the rough impression I'm getting from reading across French and German sources, citing the usual high-profile Libya scholars and Libyan rebel sources as well. I'm travelling without my bookmarks here, but if this is surprising to you, I'll try to dig the links up again when I get home.

I think the coverage and the

we are stardust — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:14:18 +0000

In reply to I'm sorry you feel I

I think the coverage and the protests are good too; I was glad that some covered the Egyptian army or secirity people raping (if i remeber right) seven women is a good thing. Some have already used it a s evidence of the failure of the revolution.

I also would want people to spotlight the LA Times story about how crap the rebel forces were treating their captives, as well as the story that many were making war on Africans due to the fact that Gadaffi had hired African mercenaries.

I didn't know that the Libyan womwn story was doubted before you said it. It's also still true that most women in this country won't report rape since they go on trial as much or more than the defendants in so many cases.

Anyway: fuck Gadaffi; he's an evil pig any way you slice it.

The Pentagon as of this

artappraiser — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:13:27 +0000

In reply to Nothing's Ever Simple In War

The Pentagon as of this afternoon is still mouthing the UN position, that they are not.working with the rebels. (If Obama says different tonight, that will be news):

[4:37 p.m. Monday ET, 10:27 p.m. in Libya] U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said at the Pentagon Monday that the United States is not working in direct support of opposition forces in Libya.

"We're not coordinating with the opposition," he said, adding that any gain it makes is "tenuous."

Gortney's comments come after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov complained Monday that airstrikes by an international coalition including the United States seemed to expand beyond the scope of a U.N. resolution. That resolution, approved on March 17, created a no-fly zone above Libya and mandates the protection of civilians.

"There are reports - which go undenied - that the air forces of the coalition conduct airstrikes on (Libyan leader Moammar) Gadhafi's troops and support the military actions of rebels. There is an obvious controversy there," Lavrov told reporters in Moscow. "We believe that the interference into what is, essentially, an internal civil war is not sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council resolution."

Libyan government officials also have argued that coalition forces target only troops loyal to Gadhafi.

from CNN's Live Blog, March 28, 2011

Actually, the Italian news

Michael Maiello — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:03:20 +0000

In reply to Well, while you and others

Actually, the Italian news sources, Il Sole 24 ore has a good investigative reputation and it's something I became familiar with while I was doing some investigative pieces that they were also following back in my journalism days. So, I don't think this is some sort of crackpot theory.

But beyond that, my point is that Juan Cole doesn't know who these people are either. I supported military action in Afghanistan, not realizing that there were so many unknowns on the ground there that we would be there 10 years later. I learned my lesson and opposed Iraq partly on those grounds and think my opinion there was pretty well vindicated by the facts.

Now I suggest that the situation in Libya is similarly complicated and the more distance for the U.S. the better. Cole, who has pretty much ignored any discussion of risk and cost, has the harder case to make here. I'm making a "reasonable doubt" argument.

In Iraq the argument was "we have some inkling he's helping al-Qaeda, let's get him!" I think that should be held to a higher standard of proof than this situation which is more like, "Some of these guys have been fighting our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, are we sure we want to help them now?" But beyond that, my point is that this information has only come to light after we started military action. Would have been nice to have known before. I wonder what other surprises remain?

I'm sorry you feel I

artappraiser — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:26:03 +0000

In reply to I was certain someone would

I'm sorry you feel I mischaracterized what you wrote when I was just picking up on one part of it.

It's just that one of the main reasons women do not speak out about rape is that they fear the honor wars among men that doing so will provoke. Always being silent to keep the peace is not the solution. We can't help it that people use it as excuse to war against someone else. I just feel strongly that the coverage and the protests are a good thing. That some in the Gaddafi regime scrambled to make it look like "we don't do that" is a result of the coverage. That those contemplating doing it might think twice because of the possibility of it being used as propaganda aginst them is a good thing. Let's put it this way: I'm all for an all-out propaganda war about which side rapes less, all for it.