Michael Maiello's picture

    The Ongoing Lies In Libya

    "NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Monday that Qaddafi's 'reign of terror' was coming to an end, underscoring western countries' ultimate goal of removing him from power." -Foreign Policy Magazine morning e-mail for 5/31/2011.

    Interesting.

    Because when this whole thing started, deposing Qaddafi was not a stated goal of the NATO operations authorized by the United Nations.  The goal, by which I mean the whole, entire goal, was to "protect civilians."

    This was always problematic since we all basically knew that the civilians in need of protection were, in fact, rebels trying to overthrow Qaddafi's dictatorship.  the UN authorization and subsequent NATO actions clearly amounted to the global community taking sides in a civil war.

    Which is okay, I suppose, so long as the global community is honest about what it's doing.  But we're not getting honesty.  We're getting statements like "we're not trying to kill Qaddafi but we wouldn't mind if a bomb fell on him," and "We're not involved in Libya's civil war, but Qaddafi has to go."

    We're also at a point where, as I argued recently, the U.S. involvement in ongoing operations very likely violates U.S. law.

    NATO has decided that there will be no ceasefire until Qaddafi steps down.  But that's partly because the Libyan rebels will accept nothing less than that.  If he stays in power, they keep fighting.  Since they're the civilians that NATO was sent to protect, that means NATO has to keep fighting too.  In effect, NATO is now an arm of Libya's rebellion.  What bothers me about this is not NATO taking sides against Qaddafi, it's that these rebels in Libya, with unclear political agendas, are really making the policy decisions for NATO, while citizens of NATO countries will get stuck with all of the costs.

    America's citizens never had a public debate about supporting a military action to depose Qaddafi.  Instead, they were told that fast action was needed to avert a humanitarian disaster. That was no doubt true at the time, but it masked what was really going on.

    America should have been told right from the start that the purpose of these operations was to push Qaddafi out of power.  NATO should ask the UN for a new, more honest, resolution.  The President should seek Congressional approval for this new goal.

    I can live with the operation continuing, it's the little fibs and half truths that irk me.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    Lies?  Or kinetic goals?

    "Meanwhile, armed westerners have been filmed on the frontline with rebels in the first apparent confirmation that foreign special forces are playing an active role in the Libyan conflict. A group of six westerners are clearly visible in a report by al-Jazeera from Dafniya, described as the westernmost point of the rebel lines west of Misrata. Five of them were armed and wearing sand-coloured clothes, baseball caps and cotton Arab scarves. The sixth, apparently the most senior of the group, was carrying no visible weapon and wore a pink, short-sleeve shirt. He may be an intelligence officer. The group is seen talking to rebels and quickly leaving on being spotted by the television crew.

    There have been numerous reports in the British press that SAS soldiers are acting as spotters in Libya to help Nato warplanes target pro-Gaddafi forces. In March, six special forces soldiers and two MI6 officers were detained by rebel fighters when they landed on an abortive mission to meet rebel leaders in Benghazi, in an embarrassing episode for the SAS. The group was withdrawn soon afterwards and a new "liaison team" sent in its place.

    Asked for comment on Monday, a Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said: "We don't have any forces out there."

    The subject is sensitive as the UN security council resolution in March authorising the use of force in Libya specifically excludes "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory".

    Prolly contract forces, eh?  But just a few.  And with several tries last week, they didn't hit Gadaffi, but killed civilians, though reports disagree on how many.

    I'm racking my brain to remember where I recently saw the video about Libya, Syria and Yemen being on Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force plan to invade and conquer liberate for democracy.  Any idea?


    Maybe this one.

     


    Well once again: How lame is Stardust's Brain?  (Don't answer that!)  I must have been all of two whole days you posted it, my friend.  Thanks for having my back, lol!

    So: are we running the same energy program, or is this a Whole Different Kettle of Fish?  Keep reading about ME pipelines...cripes.  Time to check in with Pepe Escobar, non?   Cool


    I don't know if it's the same energy game or the same old game, where the government runs whatever damned foreign policy it wants and makes it impossible for its citizens to offer informed consent by lying about what we're doing and why.

    Oh, and I'm sure we have boots on the ground there even though everyone assures us we don't and that when those facts are revealed, nobody will get into any trouble for it at all.  We tolerate lies, we get lied to.


    Yeah, they are targeters. It's either that or trust the Lybian rebels to call in strikes .... not sure that would be a preferable situation.

    The problem I have with the "we wanted Lyba's oil" is that Qaddafi was the *perfect* strongman who was totally playing ball. This was not really the case in the days of Cheney's task force. Western companies were deeply involved in the oil fields before the uprising. How do western powers gain anything they didn't already have? If this is some kind of conspiracy to steal their oil, we carried out a military operation who's mechanics were to entice the Libyan citizens into protesting, hope Qaddafi attacked them, hope they fought back, ????, profit. I'm skeptical.


    I am still wondering what Qaddafi did to alienate global bankers enough that they so openly sided against him.  A functional central bank requires access to the global banking system.

     


    Well, when Goldman Sachs managed a $1.3 billion sovereign wealth fund for Qadaffi, they lost 98% of his money.  Qadaffi had a meeting with some Goldman reps who were so scared by what they were told that Goldman had to hire them security until they were out of the country and Goldman offered Qadaffi the chance to buy preferred shares (discounted price, paying a high dividend) to try to make his money back.

    Silly, Q-Man.  When Goldman loses all your dough you're supposed to just shrug it off and mutter "that's capitalism!"


    Did not know those details.  Thanks for the fill in.  Silly, Q-Man, indeed. 


    I don't disagree with any of this. Just to note that most powers have been reasonably consistent that Qaddafi must step down from very early on in this. The caveat was that we aren't going to intentionally kill him.

    I know it's popular for some folks to insist they know for certain that every bomb is an assassination attempt, I just am not buying it. Qaddafi's entire infrastructure is built around a series of personally owned hardened palaces with command centers and prison complexes built in to them. We got a virtual tour of some of these "homes" in Bengazi. That's one of the ways he ensured control was his and his alone. Maybe we are targeting him directly, but I don't think this can be explicitly inferred from NATO targeting Qaddafi compounds nestled in residential neighborhoods.


    The lying has kindof gotten up in my grill as well, Destor. It's like, OH GOD, A HUMANITARIAN CRISIS - and that set off a whole world of emotional reaction, during which we forgot every single goddamn oath we'd sworn NOT to be taken in AGAIN, after decades of fake attacks on boats and incubators and WMD's and on and on and on with the lies to get things started.

    Because when push comes to shove, we all already knew 3 things: 1) Gaddafi was a monster. 2) We could probably do something about it. And, 3) It's bad when civilians are massacred by monsters. ALL of us tended to agree on that.

    But even with all that in place, and led by a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, and with International allies, and an immediate history of incredible lying to the people by Bush/Cheney... we got lied to some more. It's like, if the case is so goddamn cleancut, can we just have the facts out in the open, say what we want, get democratic support, and go in and do it??? 

    Apparently not. Not... ever. That's what's really being said.

    So it's not the rebels we're backing, it's civilians we're saving... And we're reluctant ohhhhh so reluctant, other than having had plans to do this for years.... And nope, it's not the US, it's Canada and the Europeans... And nope, we're not even really fighting anymore... And these rebels look great, regular Democrats... And oil's not a factor.... And we're not wanting to target Gaddafi.... And....

    Fuckit.

    And then people pile in, even here, to argue over... whether it's a "war" or not... or whether the US is actively involved.... and definitional nonsense that just makes it impossible to even discuss sensibly the core questions. Like...

    -- Can we remove Gaddafi without ending up in a long-lasting Civil War killing large numbers?

    -- Are the rebel leaders that we're backing, in ANY way likely to be better? Or are they thieving crackhead monsters who used to run Gaddafi's own show?

    Convince me that it can be done in short order, and that our guys are better, and frankly, I'm pretty much good to go on smoking Gaddafi. I know enough about him, and haven't really got big qualms about taking out tyrants. So, yes, I'd vote for it, support politicians leading it, etc.

    But as is??? I'm unconvinced. And worse, fairly significant chunks of the info coming out through the wall of lies are... disquieting.

    But what are we left with? Our hands are full of lies, and if Gaddafi falls, the worst goddamn thing is that IT'S GOING TO JUSTIFY MORE OF THE SAME, ONLY IN MUCH WORSE SITUATIONS. We'll get more "humanitarian interventions" and "European-led" initiatives and lies about our levels of engagement and....

    Th-th-th-that's all folks! 


    I'm a bit bugged about how it's being handled. I disagree with you about some aspects of it; but it's totally a war.

    The Libyans are in a civil war. I don't see how Qaddafi's presence could possibly serve to make it any shorter. There are real indicators tribal unity is decently strong. That, at least, is in favor of a reasonable transition from chaos. I don't know how functional it is, but the council seems to also be broadly inclusive and has not had any major disagreements totally erupt. The anger is strongly personality based and laser-focused on Qaddafi. It doesn't seem like rebels are pointing to a specific loyalist demographic that must be defeated in order to prevail. There is an arguable case for cautious optimism although skepticism isn't unwarranted either.

    Al Jazeera should also probably be noted. They seem to have a prominent role in documenting this - clearly right in the midst of the rebel camps. And they do indeed occasionally highlight crappy stuff done by the rebels. But they certainly have a sympathetic slant, especially that blonde dude. If they are giving sincere coverage, I would call their generally positive view a good point in favor of the rebels.

    Both the rebels and their leaders are Libyan so they have obviously been involved in most aspects of Libyan life. But unlike in Egypt where the military hierarchy peeled, Qaddafi's core largely stayed loyal. It seems like whatever new pecking order emerges, the specific thieving crackhead monsters who have run Qaddafi's show are rather late to the party as it is - if they can even get through the door. So, at very least the Libyan people will get NEW thieving crackhead monsters.

    Some disturbing things happened on the rebel side, especially in the chaos around securing Bengazi. And I guess there are some recent cases of POWs shot in the foot. But there sure doesn't seem to be any of the systemic torture type abuses. The POWs are seemingly well fed and mostly talk of trauma in terms of the fucked up stuff they were being asked/forced to do by Qaddafi. This gets back to Al Jazeera and the quality of information we have, of course, but we aren't seeing the systemic torture or mass executions. Again, I think there is an arguable case for cautious optimism that at the end the Libyan people would have less oppression rather than more.

    I don't know for sure we are directly targeting Qaddafi currently. I tend to think we aren't, but it wouldn't surprise me. If we really go all in for a targeted kill I think it would go relatively quickly. But that assumption kind glosses over some important issues if this is not really the current operation.

    What about the official case? If the near misses have been random chance due to Qaddafi's habit of putting military installations in the basement of every home he owns, we're really in a very different discussion. For instance, are you saying that it would be better to just target him rather than carry on the UN resolution more or less as it's been interpreted?

    And if we don't target him, what is appropriate in support of a longer effort by the rebels under the UN mandate? It seems like eliminating tanks and rocket launchers just shooting randomly into towns would fit the bill, for instance. Some of the land targets make sense such as the facilities making attack boats. They need to establish a better policy for reporting details and explaining attacks on non-lethal targets before this goes on much longer. I don't think traditional military secrecy should apply in the same way with a war being conducted under a UN humanitarian mandate.

    I prefer not trying to kill Qaddafi directly. I'm not convinced it would be faster, would far prefer to see him stand trial, and think the potential for unnecessary collateral damage makes it not worth it. Although it really doesn't bother me if he thinks we're targeting him. I'm OK with a few NATO folks targeting from the ground so helicopters can finish clearing out the remaining heavy armor - particularly where towns are being attacked daily, which should be NATO's A#1 priority as far as the mandate goes.


    Article on war crimes possibly committed, mostly by Gaddafi, some by rebels.

    As for your main points, I pretty much take it as a given that we're individually targetting leaders such as Gaddafi. I wouldn't have assumed that was so, even 10 years ago, but since Saddam, Osama, the drones, I think it's pretty much part of the storyline now.

    I'm not necessarily even against it, so long as we understand the likely implications (which I don't pretend to.) But frankly, when I hear people get on the high horse about rule of law and such when we target a leader, and yet we're fighting a "war" in which we fairly casually accept the deaths of civilians by the hundreds of thousands - in order to eliminate said despot - and then people talk about how we "draw the line" at murdering that individual, to me it just sounds like a load of elite self-serving shit. (Not saying this is your argument, just that on the whole, I'd be happier saving a couple of civilians than most political leaders.)

    So, beyond the lying, and our thuggish European allies (whom I regard as wannabe fascists), my main problems with the Libyan adventure have been the fact that the rebels aren't actually all that convincing as a new democratic force; but mostly, that if we don't kill Gaddafi - and maybe even if we do - what would have been a short-lived rebellion (harshly snuffed out) will turn into a long, draw-out, civil war where many many thousands will die.

    Because already the scoreboard seems to read 10-15,000 dead. And that's in a country with a small population. (i.e. It's already the equivalent of 500-750,000 dead in the US.) Remember when we were aiming to avert a humanitarian crisis? And save all those women and children? We may well end up supporting a process with a lot more deaths than those we aimed to save. And we already have a track record in this sort of thing, where we don't end up on the happy side of this ledger... as with Hussein.... Afghanistan.... etc. 


     as with Hussein.... Afghanistan.... etc.

    We are liberators, (not occupiers...).and the Iraqis and Afghans are a bunch of fuckin' ingrates (at least the ones who are still alive--we have not been successful in polling the others...)

    I am pleased that I have been able to clarify your thinking...


    Quinn, I just deleted about nine paragraphs as not zeroing in on what bothers me about this.  I guess the shortest version would be that I just don't get who these folks are you think are all prissy about not assassinating leaders but are okay with all the other deaths.

    I'm signing off for the night.


    The people who are prissy about assassinating leaders, while not so much caring about the civilians, tend to be the... political leaders and their associates, and the apparatus and media around them! I can't tell you how many discussions I've had with elite types who felt great outrage at the very idea of assassinating leaders, but who wouldn't even blush at discussions of large-scale "collateral" damage.

    My view was that the deaths of political leaders should also be considered to be "collateral."

    This view apparently makes me a bad person. ;-)


    "This view apparently makes me a bad person. ;-) "   Well, yes dear; but only at dagworld.  Innocent

    But thanks for unwinding it for me; I had thought you had meant those of us who reference the Rule of Law when we object to assassinations, whether of leaders or targeted drone kills, whatever, and assumed we didn't care about collateral civilian deaths, etc.

     Mike Mullen warned Obama and the world that a no-fly zone wouldn't solve anything, but would lead to a stalemate, and that was March 20.  We have no idea what the conversations were like that led to step by step mission creep, but some of the NATO leaders and heads of state began parsing their words pretty carefully, and it seemed some of them had agreed that killing Gadaffi was one way out.  There have been plenty of bombs dropped on his residences, and I don't buy the 'command and control centers in residential areas'.  Why?  The man had decades of ultimate power with no one breathing down his neck, so I can't see building pockets of command in urban houses.  They're killing his family members.

    I'm just sick of the coy language they use; maybe some of the indirect threats they hope will cause the Gadaffis of the world to abdicate, but given that the man's full-blown psychotic, they might have guessed who they were dealing with.  And the idea that the West can decide who should get snuffed is pretty abhorrent to me, as though we're the Good Guys and can make the call.

    But now the Libyan Oil MInister has gone to Italy, and says he'll throw in with the provisional government.  Hmmm.  What does that signal? 

    And our eyes are on this prize and Anthony Weiner's weiner, and Afghanistan is blowing up and costing more: lives, bad-will, money, oh, god; and protesting Iraqis are being killed by Malaki's forces with no interference from the 100,000 troops we have there....

    Do I seem depressed?  Yep; I am.  And I'm pissed as hell, too.


    And Quinn, speaking of Rule of Law, a trip down memory lane...with Emptywheel.   Innocent


    I'm not as convinced the ultimate outcome is going to be protracted civil war. It's in large part because I can't figure out a region or people or tribe that can be pointed to as "THOSE GUYS are the ones who support Qaddafi." It seems like "support" depends largely on if Qaddafi has enough assets in proximity to suppress a city.

    I guess a lot of it will have to do with the predominant makeup of the pro Qaddafi forces. If they are largely mercenaries, the chances seem far lower. I'm not getting a feel for that either way from the coverage. I've seen interviews with POWs that were mercenaries and Libyans. On the Qaddafi side there are reports of soldiers who wouldn't do stuff being killed and some POWs seem to refer to becoming POWs as "escaping". Looks like there is some degree of issue with loyalty.

    I think the fact that I'm optimistic on this point whereas you are pessimistic probably has a lot to do with our different perspectives on it.

    I've got to be honest though, everyone seems to have much loftier goals than I in all of this. In the past Qaddafi executed like 2500 people from Bengazi in one sitting for disloyalty. There are 650,000 residents of the city. The Qaddafi family had vowed bloody revenge against the city - on Video - and was coming with the force of tanks and rockets far heavier than Grads. It was going to be a bloodbath - with a strong potential to far exceed the deaths we have seen in the conflict so far. I really don't think the Libyan rebels are being put up to this by an outside force - it doesn't feel like the CIA revolutions in Central America to me. I think there is broad support within the country. Maybe it's just because I'm warped by the legend of our own revolution down here in the US, but I think the fight they are fighting is worth it. I had picked my side before tanks ever rolled on Bengazi, so I'm glad my team isn't a bunch of corpses even if that means a war instead of less chaotic suppression into peace (or asymmetric guerrilla conflict).

    I'm not really looking for the Libyan rebels to be some democratic force. When all this started, the people were protesting just asking for the government to make a few changes so life didn't suck so bad. I'm kind of burned on the whole evangelical democracy thing; if they end up with pretty much the same thing they had but government largely embracing the changes they were asking for and eliminating the torture and stuff ... that seems fine to me.

    I'm with Destor though, from the US side we should be doing it correctly within the laws. There is a really weird dynamic emerging. The House withdrew Kucinich's war power vote at the last minute (he claims because it would have passed). Boehner brilliantly said: "I think we decided that the House wasn't ready to decide the question," he thinks Obama needs to better define the mission but also told reporters that "technically" he did not think Obama had violated the War Powers Resolution. Looks like the GOP establishment is giving cover on this ... or at least buying a bit of political time.


    I'm not convinced it will be long either. I've been hoping from the start that we peel off the inner circle and the key tribes from around Gaddafi, and wrap this thing the hell up. The problem is, there's no guarantee on that, and every day it lasts means more death, which means more anger afterward, more retaliation, etc. From my understanding of tribal and clannish societies, and the whole "honour" thing that we psycho Scots carry around as well, if this thing gets in and gets nasty, then it could run and run and run. That's all. Right now, I have no idea if it'll end tomorrow or never. 


    Totally agreed. I'm just not seeing it yet ... hoping not to.


    Hey. I just noticed. Kucinich floated a War Powers resolution that comes up for a vote tomorrow.

    Never pass the Senate, I imagine ... but apparently, there is a chance it will pass the house.


    Crazy; I dropped in DD's link about it around noon yesterday and it never showed up it seems.  Operator error?  Or....an X-file....?

    Meanwhile:

    "NATO has agreed to extend its military campaign in Libya until late September, keeping up pressure on Muammar Gaddafi still in power after 10 weeks of air strikes.

    Hours after NATO aircraft launched new raids on Wednesday morning on the Libyan capital, Tripoli, alliance ambassadors, meeting in Brussels decided to renew the mission for another 90 days.

    "This decision sends a clear message to the Gaddafi regime. We are determined to continue our operation to protect the people of Libya," Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary-general, said."

    But a New Rationalization Emerges: Weapons, and the Magic Words: Al Qaeda

    "Meanwhile, the United States said it had real concerns about weapons from Libya ending up in the hands of al-Qaeda.

     

    "There is a very real concern for all the regional partners, and the United States shares this concern, about the proliferation of weapons from Libya to other places, including those under the control of al-Qaeda and others," General Carter F Ham, commander of the US military's Africa Command, told a news conference.

    Libya's neighbour Algeria has said it believes the chaos inside Libya, and the large quantities of weapons circulating there, is being exploited by al-Qaeda's North African branch, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

    A senior Algerian security source told the Reuters news agency that convoys of pick-up trucks carrying weapons had been crossing the border from Libya to Niger, and from there to northern Mali where AQIM has bases in the desert.

    "To control this proliferation of weapons will require the co-operative efforts of all involved and I have been encouraged to note the meetings that have occurred between Algeria, Mauritania, Mali and Niger," Ham said."

    TaDa!



    and yet the U.S. STILL, wonder of wonders, needs congressional authorization to act in that capacity.  Nice to see that they keep on finding new reasons, though.


    Hard not to wonder if the 'Algerian security official' is one of this War's versions of Yellow Cake from Niger, or...never mind the list.


    The US could probably run interdiction operations to counter weapons going to AQ under the near-infinitely mailable AUF. Although this seems to be Libya's neighbors talking here, not NATO or US officials.

    I'm still missing the logical leap whereby this can be considered a "reason" .... isn't this a "negative result" of the conflict?


    Are you sure "rationalization" is the right word for to describe the article you highlight?

    The article describes decidedly negative outcomes resulting from this conflict, which it casts as *the* causal factor that is allowing regional militant groups to access weapons which are now in circulation from this conflict. Isn't that an observation that should be seen as critical of the outcomes? I don't see how that could possibly be construed as a "rationalization" to give more weapons to the rebels.

    If I recall, this was one of the outcomes some critics of the operation were worried about ... and you have promoted every point ever raised by anyone remotely critical. Shouldn't your reaction be more like "SEE. We TOLD you this would happen!" or something? What am I missing here?


    I think the idea is that NATO will want to use it as a rationale to control the arms so they don't get into Al Qaeda hands.  Let's see where it goes from here.  Pandora's Box has been opened, and it seems that by now no one seriously knows who the rebel forces are, or what their aims are.  I nver inagined them as Al Qaeda, myself, but I never saw this as a strictly humanitarian mission, either. 

    Though I sure haven't 'promoted every point reaised by anyone remotely critical', mainly because I don't know enough to have done so. 

    To me, the Open Sesame term is always Al Qaeda.  Whether or not it's warranted.  If they are so worried about that angle, they wouldn't simply declare another 90 days of bombing, would they?

    And I guess you're assuming that these weapons are the same ones given to the Rebel Forces; maybe, if any of this is so, they are coming from Gadaffi's arms stashes, no?


    And I guess you're assuming that these weapons are the same ones given to the Rebel Forces; maybe, if any of this is so, they are coming from Gadaffi's arms stashes, no?

    I imagine it's a little of both. There is a strong profit motivator and not a whole lot of oversight on either side. On the one hand, Qaddafi is probably hurting for cash; on the other he is also looking at resupply issues where the rebels are significantly augmenting their supply lines. I can't decide if I think generating cash or keeping weapons would be his primary motivator. Most of his generals must be thinking about how they are going to finance life post-Qaddafi though.

    I wasn't trying to be snarky there; you have been a pretty strong critic, you must admit. I thought it was a valid point raised when people were criticizing possible negative outcomes, and I'm not surprised to see it starting to manifest. I personally hope that the nations highlighted (and raising the concern) are coordinating effectively to reduce the impacts.

    I never viewed this as a strictly humanitarian mission either. The idea of "humanitarian bombs" seems a bit much of an oxymoron to me. I think there are strong humanitarian motivations though (although I don't think motivations are exclusively humanitarian).

    At this point there is an EU mission in Bengazi, the Libyan transitional council has been holding international meetings and the media is embeded with front line forces both on the Eastern and Western fronts and largely seem to have free access to all rebel controlled areas ... at what stage can it be said the world community has gotten to know the rebels?


    Well hell, kgb; I'd admit it in a Milwaukee minute if I remembered it!   ;o)  I will admit that I trusted Mike Mullen on it when he said it wouldn't be a feasible fix, and that I don't see us getting into military ventures just for humanitarian reasons, and that the last one may have been Clinton in Kosovo, but surely not in Somalia, which made me sad because I like the Somalis best of all African nations, for complicated reasons...

    But it took some genius finding out that Somalia had bauxite or some moneral we need for some metal manufacturing, sooooo.... but then when we pulled out after mucking about, what a mess.

    My thing about that news coming from an alleged Algerian source is that, while Algeria isn't a Gulf Cooperation memeber, they seem to bat for the same sort of team: dictators suppressing Arab Spring protests, and trumpeting the fears of AQIM who were backing protests in Tunisia and Egypt, so....I figured it was just another bit of leverage to keep the NATO powers involved longer. 

    Victor Kostev at Asia Times has some kinda dark thoughts and concerns, and even mentions those weapons I was alluding to, and wonders who has them, and posits that even with Gadaffi gone one day, it will take lots of peacekeeping to sort out tribal alliances and whatnot.

    Oh and this bit on why Russia may have finally called for him to step down,  Let me paste in things at will, okay?

    "Some speculated that Russia sensed that Gaddafi's downfall was inevitable, but it is hard to gauge how sincere the Kremlin shift is. Persistent reports of secret talks between the rebels, Gaddafi and possibly NATO have raised the possibility of a secret deal being in the works; some pundits suggest that such a deal may involve a transfer of power within the Gaddafi family, for example to Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam.

    Russia's diplomacy on Libya has arguably been driven by ulterior motives since the start of the crisis, [2] and we can expect the Kremlin to have extracted a handsome price for even a slight change in its position. Some analysts speculate that such a price might manifest itself, for example, in American concessions over the missile defense system in Europe.

    (pretty cynical realpolitik)

    "In the early days of the uprising, Western journalists were frequently surprised to see the same people participating in anti-Gaddafi rallies one day and in pro-Gaddafi rallies the next. It is possible that we are witnessing a similar phenomenon now, with at least some people circulating between the sides. The reports of back-channel negotiations between the seemingly irreconcilable rival governments add to these suspicions.

    It is hardly a surprise, therefore, that NATO's bombing campaign is growing increasingly desperate. On Tuesday, Libya accused NATO of having killed 718 and injured 4,067 civilians since the start of the operation. These figures are hard to verify, but the air raids have recently intensified and the potential targets have broadened, making collateral damage more likely.

    British and French attack helicopters are expected to be put to use soon, and as I argued previously, this could be seen as a precursor to a ground invasion. [3] In fact, NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen admitted on Monday that NATO might send ground forces to Libya at some point, presumably after Gaddafi's ouster. ''I would anticipate that there might be a need at some point to unfold a small force ... a small number of people there to help them in some way," he told a NATO forum in Varna, Bulgaria.

    So let's hope it can end well, but 'soon' seems a bit much to ask for, IMO.


    And egad; if Pepe's even half-right, it's pretty complicated concerning the counter-revolutions, the West and Israel. 

    I won't cut and paste.


    The link doesn't work.

    In the early days of the uprising, Western journalists were frequently surprised to see the same people participating in anti-Gaddafi rallies one day and in pro-Gaddafi rallies the next.

    I was reading an awful lot of the reports being made during that time. I don't recall western journalists reporting this, certainly not with frequency. Although, OTOH, if some guy shows up with an AK-47 and invites you to a Qaddafi rally - I imagine you might be inclined to attend. Was this sourced or just asserted?

    My problem with a lot of the more elevated concerns being expressed is they seem to be largely speculation-based or just blurted assertions given in an "EVERYONE knows THAT ... dummy!" kind of bluster but really not that well sourced ... and some of it kind of outlandish. No way in hell the Rebels would accept Saif.

    I would like to see the full statements and context on that Rassmussan quote. That seems difficult to construe under the UN resolution. Assuming the Libyans have resolved their conflict, I don't imagine foreign interests would be prohibited from visiting or doing business there (nor do I imagine the Libyans themselves would want that). We don't seem to think it's an invasion when the Italians bring their noisy-ass warplanes out to Nellis for joint training missions. OTOH, we don't let them establish an air-wing either (oh, wait ... maybe we do now - isn't that that whole Mountain Home thing here in Idaho? ... I get so confused). Depending on what they are envisioning I may or may not be pretty opposed to it.

    As for Russia. Of course they are playing their own game. Same with China. Both are geographically well insulated from the situation and have more to gain from leveraging Europe and the US than they have to lose from any connection with Qaddaffi who made himself pretty much untouchable with everything he's done anyhow. Both China and Russia are trying to burnish their human-rights image for various reasons, he is now a SERIOUS liability on that front to the point they actually may be creeped out by him too. Not much upside to him - better to play NATO like the GOP plays Obama and see what they can get.

    Soon is relative; my totally non-expert guess is months rather than years. I'm glad to see the authorization is 90 days (I'd have been happy with 60).


    Try this.         http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MF03Ak01.html

    I clipped the other straight from the piece, so no source linked.  No more time just now; maybe later.  RL is calling...

    Quick google has Ramussen speaking of 'a small force' on the ground.  Anyway.  You're a better strategist than I for sure.


    And Boner pulled Kucinich's bill, so no vote for now; possible to probable he and a couple other R's don't want it to pass.  And Kerry and someone are sponsoring an 'Okay Libyan MisAdventure bill in the Senate, which technically, Obama never asked for; just sent a letter to Leadership explaining his thinking...


    I agreed with intervening to protect Benghazi. Then we should have stopped.

    The UN resolution rather than calling for us to protect the Libyan civilians should have been to protect the ones Benghazi.

    As for the lies, of course.

    Anecdote I've quoted before.. From an interview with Lady Violet Bonham Carter I heard on the nine o'clock news ,  sitting in a small country inn trying to get a balance sheet to balance. .

    In July 1914 the British Cabinet was split about entering the War.Prime Minister Asquith promised the pacifists not to declare war untl/unless the Germans shot first. They didn't. Meanwhile other stuff was going on and Asquith was under increasing pressure . Finally he made the decision, and a note was sent to the  German Ambassador declaring war, for various not very impressive reasons.

    Just after it was dispatched,a ,cable .from the equivalent of the AP :a german machine gun nest had fired into Belgium. It had done some damage according to the reporter who  filed the story.

    A new declaration was drafted basing the decision on this intolerable German action and Harold Nicholson was  told to deliver it personally to the German ambassador AOBTW get back the first one.

    The news of the declaration had been announced and as Nicholson crossed London church bells were ringing and drinkers were singing patriotic songs in the Pub gardens.

    Nicholson knocked on the door. He was known to the butler,since he'd dined there often The ambassdor in fact was part of the London social scene.. And was pro British and anti war and had been attempting to head off a declaration .

    The Butler told Nicholson the Ambassador was upstairs in his bed room. Nicholson said that he would go up. He knocked on the door . From inside a muffled question of why he was there. Nicholson said he had a message from the UK Government. The Ambassador replied "I  thought I had already received the last message I would get from Lord Grey" ..

    Nicholso entered. From outside the sounds of the bells and the songs. The Ambassador lying face down on the bed,crying. The first letter, unopened, on his desk. Nicholson took it and left the revised official explanation of why millions of british soldiers would spend the next 4 years in the trenches. 


    House Rebukes Obama for Continuing Libyan Mission Without Its Consent
    By Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times, June 3/4, 2011

    [...]

    The resolution, which passed 268 to 145, was offered by Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, to siphon off swelling Republican support for a measure sponsored by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, which calls for a withdrawal of the United States military from the air and naval operations in and around Libya.

    The resolution criticizing the president passed with the support of 45 Democrats and all but 10 of the Republicans who were present. The measure from Mr. Kucinich, one of the most liberal members of the House, later failed by 148 to 265, with 87 Republicans voting in favor.

    As a legislative matter, Mr. Boehner’s resolution has no practical effect, and is little more than an expression of opinion. A decision by the Supreme Court more than two decades ago suggested that Congress is not empowered to enforce a resolution or other directive that, unlike a bill, the president has no chance to veto.

    But as a political matter, the resolution is an unusually blunt confrontation with an American president during a military conflict, and it underscores a bipartisan distaste among members of Congress for attempts to bypass their authority when waging war. Over all, roughly two-thirds of the House members who voted Friday backed one or two measures disapproving of the president’s actions. (Mr. Kucinich voted for both.)

    Mr. Boehner’s resolution demands that the administration provide, within 14 days, detailed information about the nature, cost and objectives of the American contribution to the NATO operation, as well as an explanation of why the White House did not come to Congress for permission to continue to take part in the mission. The language suggests that the House may consider funding requests for the Libya operation in a harsh light if not satisfied with the response to its requests for information.

    The issue is unlikely to be taken up by the Senate....

    [....]


    Latest Comments