PDA

View Full Version : The new Libya: various aspects



Pages : [1] 2

davidbfpo
08-21-2011, 02:17 PM
There is a main thread 'Libya goes on' with just under 1k posts and 31.6k views, which ws locked when this thread started and remains locked (January 2012):http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=12610

Now as it appears the rebels are near, even in, Tripoli is the end for the Gadafy regime in sight? So a new thread is appropriate IMHO; a note has been added to the other thread.

As this thread concerns the new Libya I have today changed the title from 'Libya: nearing the end? Towards a new Libya' to 'The new Libya: various aspects'

I commend (again) http://www.enduringamerica.com/ which has several maps of Tripoli, with district names and a link to a Google map showing reported activity:http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/8/21/libya-syria-and-beyond-liveblog-endgame-in-tripoli.html

Marc
08-21-2011, 06:38 PM
There is a main thread 'Libya goes on' with just under 1k posts and 31.6k views:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=12610

Now as it appears the rebels are near, even in, Tripoli is the end for the Gadafy regime in sight? So a new thread is appropriate IMHO; a note has been added to the other thread.

I commend (again) http://www.enduringamerica.com/ which has several maps of Tripoli, with district names and a link to a Google map showing reported activity:http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/8/21/libya-syria-and-beyond-liveblog-endgame-in-tripoli.html

David,

Sorry for this critical note, but I think that "nearing the end" is not an appropriate title for this new tread. Ok, Gadafy will be gone soon. But experience shows that this simply means that the cause that held the rebels (and NATO) together will soon be gone. What will come next may be pretty, or not. I suggest changing the title of this tread to "towards a new Libya".

Rex Brynen
08-21-2011, 07:21 PM
Sorry for this critical note, but I think that "nearing the end" is not an appropriate title for this new tread. Ok, Gadafy will be gone soon. But experience shows that this simply means that the cause that held the rebels (and NATO) together will soon be gone. What will come next may be pretty, or not. I suggest changing the title of this tread to "towards a new Libya".

Good point, Marc.

davidbfpo
08-21-2011, 08:07 PM
OK, title amended and currently a compromise. If it is the end of Gadafy's regime it can be changed again.

SWJ Blog
08-22-2011, 12:40 AM
Libya News Roundup (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/libya-news-roundup)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/libya-news-roundup) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo
08-22-2011, 01:48 PM
Amidst all the reporting, which is dominating UK TV news today, were a couple of interesting points made:

Libya had the two advantages of oil and no standing army
The bulk of the rebels in Tripoli are well disciplined Berbers
A couple of references to Special Forces presence
The TNC President calling for no reprisals, that all party leaders had agreed to this, but some of their followers were not complying

Rex Brynen
08-22-2011, 03:11 PM
The bulk of the rebels in Tripoli are well disciplined Berbers


Certainly, the breakthrough from the Nafusa Mountains to Zawiyya, and then along the coast into Tripoli was essential to the regime's collapse--and the Berbers (I wouldn't call them "well disciplined") were essential to that.

However, it isn't the case that "the bulk of the rebels in Tripoli" are Berbers—not everyone in Nafusa is Berber, volunteers from Zawiyya joined the push, the NTC had relocated its Tripoli Brigade (consisting of fighters originally from Tripoli) to the west for the offensive, fighters from Misurata arrived from sea and from the east, and many Tripoli neighbourhoods were seized by local rebels before outside columns arrived.

This isn't in any way to denigrate the remarkable contribution of Libyan Berbers to the struggle against Qaddafi. They had been treated very poorly by the regime for 42 years--and clearly in this case "what goes around, comes around..." :D

Marc
08-22-2011, 04:25 PM
Hereafter an interesting view on the outcome of the Libyan revolution:

http://abcclio.blogspot.com/2011/02/libya-another-power-bank-subjected-to.html


Thursday, February 24, 2011
Libya: Another Power Bank Subjected to a Stress Test

By Erik Claessen


Revolutions are unpredictable, dynamic, and stirring, but they tend to follow a small set of simple rules. Drawing on Talcott Parson’s sociological theory, Charles Kurzman concisely explains why: “Coercion, he suggests, is like the reserves of a bank. So long as the demands on it are limited, the reserves can be meted out effectively. When there is a run on the bank, however, the reserves are quickly overwhelmed. No matter how great the reserves of coercion may have been, no state can repress all of the people all of the time.”(1) Revolutions are to an autocratic regime what stress tests are to a bank: a method to check their credibility.


The rules — Revolutions temporarily upset the balance between mobilization power and organizational skills. People like stability. When offered a choice between an acceptable status quo and a better, yet uncertain alternative, most people will opt for the former. The status quo only loses its appeal when people realize it has become unsustainable, but even then revolutions do not start spontaneously. Someone or something needs to mobilize the people to start them. The occurrence of revolutions revolves around mobilization power. Conversely, their outcome revolves around organizational skills. Put differently, the actor with the highest mobilization power leads the revolution, but the actor with the best organizational skills wins it. Organizational skills generate the capacity to create a new, acceptable, and stable situation. Mobilization power revolves around a rallying message and access to media that allow its dissemination despite the regime’s countervailing efforts. The media can be anything as long as they escape state control, but the rallying message has to fulfill specific requirements. It needs to bring about a run on the Power Bank. The message has to focus everybody’s courage and anger simultaneously on one cause. An autocratic regime can only be overthrown by overwhelming its reserves of coercion with a defiant mass.


The players — A classification by role:
•The focal point. The revolutionaries focus their mobilizing message on the autocrat and his immediate entourage. In Libya, the focal points are – of course – Qadhafi himself and his sons, primarily his eldest son, Sayf Al-Islam.
•The regime’s wannabes. The military and security top of the regime are undoubtedly capable of taking power. That is why Qadhafi created overlapping security institutions and appointed people on the basis of tribal affiliation. Until now, the survival of the regime’s wannabes depended on their ability to conceal their ambition. That is why it is impossible now to identify them.
•The tolerated, but organizationally capable opponent. Though not as powerful as their Egyptian brethren, the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood is a capable movement. Its charitable activities demonstrate their organizational power but they have to shed the doubt concerning their relation with the regime that tolerated them. Recently, Qadhafi sought an accommodation with the brotherhood by releasing a lot of imprisoned members. Sayf Al-Islam also publicly reached out to the organization. That the Brotherhood gradually shifted from confrontational to influencing strategies may have alienated part of the population. The fact that its leader, Suleiman Abdel Qadir, currently resides in Switzerland and does not participate in the revolution is probably not helpful either.
•The emerging, but organizationally incapable opponents: These primarily consist of those who lead the revolution. As an emerging movement they lack organizational experience and structure. They will try to close their organizational gap as quickly as possible. Alternatively, revolutionaries may try to mask this gap by claiming symbols of a political model that worked before, like the monarchy that was ousted by Qadhafi in 1969.


The tricks — As in any game, the tricks fit the rules. Their application can be observed in endless variations throughout the Middle East:
•Discrediting the message or the messenger. Regime rhetoric routinely depicts the opposition as Israeli or western lackeys, but this trick lost all effectiveness.
•Denying access to the media. Revolutions used to be won by the group that gained control of the national television station. However, media denial is an exercise in futility when revolutionaries exploit modern, uncensored communication technology. This is not new. During the Iranian revolution, regime opponents used audiocassettes – then a new technology – to circumvent state censorship of radio broadcasting. Now opponents use cell phones and social networks on the internet.
•Remove the focal point of the mobilizing message. This is by far the best trick in the regime’s toolbox. Replacing the autocrat with someone who can at least claim the benefit of the doubt may stifle mobilization and reduce resistance to a level manageable by the regime’s reserves of coercion. Any regime wannabe can play this card.
•Await chaos and offer an alternative to it. This is a dangerous move that is only feasible for an actor with sufficient organizational skills to offer an acceptable alternative. It is unsure whether the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood is capable of this.


The outcome — The ultimate outcome is not determined by how many people the actors mobilize, but by what their organizational skills can provide. Each possible outcome has advantages and drawbacks. Democracy will bring freedom and economic opportunities, but also inflation and income inequality. Islamism will bring social justice and religious purity, but also social rigidity. A new autocracy will merely turn back the clock. For Libya, the problem is that democracy and oil do not mix well. Russia has shown that in oil economies, economic liberalization gives rise to the emergence of oligarchs resulting in a call for a strong regime. A Libyan democratic government will most probably be unable to combine freedom and social justice. In an oil economy there are but few methods to re-distribute wealth. The two most likely foundations of a new social contract are either a patronizing system granting government jobs on the basis of subservience or a social security system based on the Islamic duty to help the poor. The former could evolve into a new autocracy. The latter would tend towards an Islamist state.

Ken White
08-22-2011, 05:22 PM
The Gospel according to the furrin policy establishment as an OpEd titled "Libya Now Needs Boots on the Ground" in the Financial Times...:D

LINK (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/559804f8-cc7f-11e0-b923-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1VlZZZauN).

That "boots" bit is as overused and Upper West Side hokey as the 'Warrior' shtick. :wry:

Six months later, I still contend there is not an ounce of real as opposed to presumed or wanna-be assumed US interest in Libya. If Europe has a problem there, then Europe should address it. None of our affair. Could be a US domestic politics and budget influencer, though. Surely those wouldn't be considerations...:rolleyes:

davidbfpo
08-22-2011, 06:21 PM
During the day, I think it was a junior UK foreign minister, there was a hint that 'experts' from the UK Stabilisation Unit who'd been planning for this day for moths were ready to go.

Their website:http://www.stabilisationunit.gov.uk/

Here there has been no mention today of any additional UK military presence and several times the media have skirted round referring to those special "boots on the ground" today.

The only reference to "boots" has been the TNC's desire to have the Jordanians train the new army.

Ken White
08-22-2011, 07:00 PM
The only reference to "boots" has been the TNC's desire to have the Jordanians train the new army.Far more than some enlightened and well educated if ignorant western government types seem to be showing. Glubb Pasha's spiritual descendants would be far more appropriate and beneficial than US over reactionary efforts...

SWJ Blog
08-22-2011, 08:24 PM
Libya News Roundup # 2 (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/libya-news-roundup-2)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/libya-news-roundup-2) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Dayuhan
08-22-2011, 10:43 PM
Democracy will bring freedom and economic opportunities, but also inflation and income inequality. Islamism will bring social justice and religious purity, but also social rigidity. A new autocracy will merely turn back the clock. For Libya, the problem is that democracy and oil do not mix well. Russia has shown that in oil economies, economic liberalization gives rise to the emergence of oligarchs resulting in a call for a strong regime. A Libyan democratic government will most probably be unable to combine freedom and social justice.

Interesting that democracy is equated here with economic liberalization, as if the two were synonymous. Interesting also that income inequality and the absence of "social justice" are seen as the principal problems facing a Libyan Democracy.

I suspect that the problems facing an attempt to develop democracy in Libya are likely to be far more severe and immediate than income equality and "social justice" (whatever we take that to mean). Possibly a bit of projection in the picture there.

The most immediate obstacle will be finding a way for government to function at all. Transitions from dictatorship - especially extended dictatorship - to democracy are extraordinarily difficult. Political parties often coalesce around tribal, sectarian, or personalistic lines, offering little real choice in policy or ideology. In many cases elections see positions contested by large numbers of candidates, leaving winners with questionable mandates and very limited popular support. Without clearly established rules and procedures gridlock often sets in, with most debates over the process, rather than the outcome. Popular frustration is often intense, as unrealistic expectations meet reality. At the same time, there are huge and critical decisions to be made: the structure of the oil industry, the extent of foreign involvement, justice vs reconciliation for members and supporters of the old regime, hundreds more.

The first problem will be simply putting a government together that is capable of making a decision, any decision. That's difficult enough.

Rex Brynen
08-22-2011, 11:09 PM
Six months later, I still contend there is not an ounce of real as opposed to presumed or wanna-be assumed US interest in Libya. If Europe has a problem there, then Europe should address it. None of our affair. Could be a US domestic politics and budget influencer, though. Surely those wouldn't be considerations...:rolleyes:

Although, in fairness, it was Europe that did most of the lifting on this. By my count, the US conducted perhaps 30% of the sorties over Libya, and perhaps 20% of the combat sorties.

Certainly the rest of NATO couldn't have done it without US support. However, in some of the media commentary I've seen you would think this was a US operation with European (and Canadian support), not vice-versa.

SWJ Blog
08-22-2011, 11:40 PM
This Week at War: The Libya Model (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-the-libya-model)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-the-libya-model) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Ken White
08-23-2011, 01:35 AM
Although, in fairness, it was Europe that did most of the lifting on this. By my count, the US conducted perhaps 30% of the sorties over Libya, and perhaps 20% of the combat sorties.That's a good start. Perhaps for the next such effort, we can cut that small percentage of ours even more.
Certainly the rest of NATO couldn't have done it without US support. However, in some of the media commentary I've seen you would think this was a US operation with European (and Canadian support), not vice-versa.I think they could have done it with no US support, though it might've been a bit -- just a bit, seriously -- harder in spots.

Perhaps it's a perspective thing but I don't get that US centric sensing from things I read -- I only very rarely watch television -- and most of the visuals I've seen have been of other nations (Canada well represented...).

BTW, I meant the Euro-centric bit for any ground effort. Neither we nor Canada have much business being involved in that IMO. YMMV.

davidbfpo
08-23-2011, 12:42 PM
Hat tip to FP Blog for this commentary looking forward:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/22/imagining_libya_a_decade_from_now?page=0,0

The author is an optimist:
My prediction is that Libya will be messy -- but closer to the democratic end of the spectrum than to the chaotic, autocratic, or partitioned outcomes.

Fuchs
08-23-2011, 05:51 PM
How much "Europe" can do militarily is a question of will / interest / necessity.

We COULD have invaded Libya with three million soldiers if we WANTED.

We COULD have created additional airfields on Sicily and Crete and massed more than a thousand combat aircraft there for operations over Libya if we WANTED.



The Libya drôle de intervention was really done with a very low amount of willpower/interest, with the small finger of the left hand.

Graycap
08-23-2011, 08:31 PM
IMHO the construction of a "solid" libyan future will depend very much from western and arab approach to what we call "support".

For Europe it could be a very good test if we europeans are able to conceive a unitarian foreign policy. If Italy, France, GB, Germany will have their "man in Tripoli" (with his own gang of armed individuals, tribe etc...) the outcome is predictable: total caos.
Everyone who knows the Libyan character knows that everyone will scramble to find a way to gain some power (and money) in the business of restarting the country. Corruption will be rampant and now we have a bunch of weapons to add tothe normal burocratic means to manage a power base and gain some backshish.

When the NATO will exhaust his military role there will be no political steering with such a strong legitimacy. Then the EU should kick in but we sould find the Ashton ghost.... (Anyone where is she?)

Italy seems topoint to Jalloud, France to Jalil, maybe Great Britain is in touch with someone in Bengazi. If European politician doesn' understand that only a unified approach could achieve something the future will be bleak.

Italy has tried this strategy: it backfired at the first occasion because we could not offer any kind of political shield with this US administration.
France (if Sarkozy could be called France) seems to have a better understanding of this strange "Obama doctrine" but without Italy is very difficult to stabilize Libya. The same for GB.

Let's hope for a european awakening. It's the only real strategic way out.

M-A Lagrange
08-24-2011, 07:16 AM
ICG just issued a letter on post Qaddafi Libya. It resumes well most of the worries and challenges for future Libya:

As Libyans prepare for the Qaddafi regime's imminent demise, the country faces a pivotal moment of historic proportions. Steps taken in the next few days and weeks will decisively shape the post-Qaddafi order. The new, still nascent, Libyan leadership, faces a dual, difficult legacy which it will need to overcome: four decades of an autocratic regime that failed to build genuine state institutions and six months of a civil war that, together with inevitable human and material losses, exposed old divisions and fissures while prompting new ones. The challenge for that leadership, as well as for international actors who enabled its drive into Tripoli, is threefold: to establish a broadly inclusive and representative transitional governing body; address immediate security risks; and find an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the search for accountability and justice and, on the other, the imperative of avoiding arbitrary score-settling and revenge.
As rebel fighters stream into Tripoli, they will come upon the collapse of a quasi-state, the Jamahiriya, or so-called "state of the masses" - a somewhat jerry-built contraption created by Muammar Qaddafi that, however sincere it might have been at its revolutionary inception, became a vehicle to advance his personal and political ambitions. It is this twin challenge - replacing an autocratic regime and rebuilding a new state from the ground up - that will be so daunting for the new leadership.
Further complicating this task are the inevitable difficulties in establishing the national legitimacy of Libya's new leaders. The Transitional National Council (TNC), created in rebel-held Benghazi in March 2011, could stake a clear claim to representing Libyans in areas free of regime control, and it has done a remarkable job in constituting basic institutions to manage civic life in those areas and attract international support. Yet the TNC never could claim to represent all Libyans, even if it broadly reflected their aspirations, for the simple reason that most Libyans, especially in the capital Tripoli, were not in a position to freely voice their opinions or participate openly in the TNC, whose membership was therefore wei ghted, by default, toward those in liberated zones. The TNC will now have to reflect in its membership all of Libya in its full diversity, and merge its administrative operations with those of the remaining, functioning public sector institutions.
Six months of insurgency, while ultimately successful, created, laid bare or exacerbated divisions - both within the country at large, along regional, ethnic or tribal lines and within the rebel leadership, as evidenced in the 28 July assassination, apparently at rebel hands, of rebel commander Abdel Fattah Younes. A clash of competing legitimacies - between forces based in the east and those based in the west, those who fired the first shots, those who first entered Tripoli, those who remained in Libya throughout the Qaddafi era (and, in some cases, worked for the former regime) and those who return from the diaspora - is virtually inevitable. There will be, too, tensions between secular and Islamist forces. None of t his suggests that it will be impossible to create a unified government, or a single military force under civilian control, merely that much hard work will need to be done very quickly to reduce the real risk of the country slipping into chaos.
In this context, Libya's rulers will need to urgently turn their attention to the following areas:
Political legitimacy: Libya's new leaders, led by the TNC, should convene, at the earliest opportunity, an inaugural council meeting in Tripoli, inviting representatives from all parts of the country and all strands of society and the opposition - various rebel groups, as well as local underground resistance groups in Tripoli and elsewhere - to participate. Indeed, the TNC should strive to be fully inclusive, embracing qualified former-regime elements who were not direct perpetrators of human rights abuses, lest their exclusion create the conditions for a future insurgency of the kind that blighted post-2003 Iraq. The TNC should strive to be transparent in its actions and, along with local leaders and rebel groups, should c ommunicate its decisions clearly, explaining its motivation for each step in a situation where people can be expected to harbour an innate distrust of authority. Particularly important to Libyans is transparency in contracts and provision of services. The expanded council should continue to make clear it is a strictly provisional body charged with managing day-to-day affairs. Its focus should be on providing law and order and ensuring proper delivery and functioning of essential services until elections can be held.
Security, law and order: How the new leaders deal with law and order will be essential in determining popular perceptions of their qualifications to run the country in the interim period. In the critical first days, the erstwhile rebel groups should fill the security vacuum left by the surrender or disappearance of the former regime's security forces. They should stop distributing arms to the population and instead begin collecting and securing them. They should integrate whatever viable elements of the former regime's security forces can be retained into a new structure led by commanders appointed and supervised by the interim ruling council. The disparate, mostly community-based rebel movements and their various leaders= 0and commanders should take steps to protect and ensure the well-being of all Libyans, with special care for internally displaced people, Libyans and non-Libyans. Particular attention should be paid to protecting citizens of sub-Saharan nations who were swept up in the conflict, whether as hapless victims, paid mercenaries or misplaced migrants. There is also a risk that Libyans of Saharan or sub-Saharan African origin could be victimised by retributive or retaliatory actions. In this respect, every effort should be made to protect groups such as the Mashashia, the Twergha and other native Libyans from the country's centre and south.
Transitional justice and reconciliation: One of the most glaring omissions of Iraq's transition from tyranny was the new rulers' failure to establish a mechanism to hold to account those who committed major crimes, while allowing others to clear their record or obtain pardon on condition they provided full disclosure of their participation in the regime. Instead, de-Baathification became a political instrument of disenfranchisement and retribution. This explains Iraqis' enduring inability to reach a degree of closure about the past and accounts for the continuing impetus toward insurgency.
Libyans should not be led down this destructive track of politicised score-settling and witch-hunts. One of the interim ruling council's immediate tasks should be to urge fighters under its command and the population at large to foreswear any reprisal against former-regime elements, including members of the Qadhafi family, who should be treated in accordance with principles of international law. Those suspected of crimes should be detained and brought to justice before proper judicial institutions. The council also should establish a special commission, comprising independent Libyan figures of impeccable qualifications and reputation, charged with processing persons accused of crimes with a view to integrating most back into society while= 0handing the worst offenders, including Qadhafi's inner circle, over to the courts (and those indicted by the International Criminal Court to the ICC in The Hague).
All of these priorities - whether calling together a truly representative interim council; ensuring law and order along with efficient weapons collection; or putting in train transparent justice mechanisms - will require clear, consistent messaging on the part of the emerging leadership. In fluid situations such as prevail now in Libya, the risk of misinformation - and consequent panic - is acute. Emphasis must be placed, from the start, on effective communication. In this respect, initial statements emanating from the TNC leadership to the effect that all Libyans should show self-restraint, respect the rule of law, avoid street justice and accord due process to figures from the Qaddafi regime are to be welcomed - and put into effect.
Members of the international community should match their military campaign with a new and commensurate political, diplomatic and reconstruction/development-focused effort. In this context, the UN should be given a central role in the transition process. In providing assistance to Libya, however, international actors they should steer clear of any overbearing tendency to dictate terms for international aid, instead working jointly through the UN to deliver assistance requested by the interim ruling council and eventually its elected successors. In the short term, there is the risk of a humanitarian crisis, and - in addition to the lifting of sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council -- significant international work should go into 20helping provide sustenance and shelter to those in need.
As the struggle to bring an end to the Qadhafi regime comes to a close, the effort to build a new Libya whose government is representative, which meets the basic aspirations of its people and avoids the settling of past scores begins. Amid today's understandable euphoria, the magnitude of tomorrow's challenge ought not be underestimated.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/media-releases/2011/libya-ensuring-a-smooth-and-peaceful-transition-into-the-post-qaddafi-era.aspx

TDB
08-24-2011, 09:41 AM
IMHO the construction of a "solid" libyan future will depend very much from western and arab approach to what we call "support".

For Europe it could be a very good test if we europeans are able to conceive a unitarian foreign policy. If Italy, France, GB, Germany will have their "man in Tripoli" (with his own gang of armed individuals, tribe etc...) the outcome is predictable: total caos.
Everyone who knows the Libyan character knows that everyone will scramble to find a way to gain some power (and money) in the business of restarting the country. Corruption will be rampant and now we have a bunch of weapons to add tothe normal burocratic means to manage a power base and gain some backshish.

When the NATO will exhaust his military role there will be no political steering with such a strong legitimacy. Then the EU should kick in but we sould find the Ashton ghost.... (Anyone where is she?)
Italy seems topoint to Jalloud, France to Jalil, maybe Great Britain is in touch with someone in Bengazi. If European politician doesn' understand that only a unified approach could achieve something the future will be bleak.

Italy has tried this strategy: it backfired at the first occasion because we could not offer any kind of political shield with this US administration.
France (if Sarkozy could be called France) seems to have a better understanding of this strange "Obama doctrine" but without Italy is very difficult to stabilize Libya. The same for GB.

Let's hope for a european awakening. It's the only real strategic way out.

I saw part of an interview with her on BBC/Sky news. She spoke a lot but didn't really say anything if you get me. I won't get into an Ashton rant. It seems the EU are the best vehicle for the post conflict Libya, security sector reform, soft power policies etc. All about how long it takes to find Big G (Gaddafi) whether or not those around him will no defect.

Marc
08-24-2011, 10:47 AM
Interesting that democracy is equated here with economic liberalization, as if the two were synonymous. Interesting also that income inequality and the absence of "social justice" are seen as the principal problems facing a Libyan Democracy.

I suspect that the problems facing an attempt to develop democracy in Libya are likely to be far more severe and immediate than income equality and "social justice" (whatever we take that to mean). Possibly a bit of projection in the picture there.



Dayuhan,

In an oil economy, "social justice" would mean that the large majority of the population, rather than a small elite benefits from the country's natural richness. A democracy functions according to the principle of "no taxation without representation." A dictatorship financed by oil revenues puts this principle on its head: "no taxation, therefore no representation". A dictator buys the acquiescence of the people with government jobs and subsidies on necessities like food, fuel and housing. The oil economy cannot provide jobs for everyone, but it can generate more than 90% of the national GDP. Claessen's article holds that it is difficult to reconcile this reality with democracy and economic liberalization, but that it is easy to reconcile this reality with a social contract based either on
a patronizing system granting government jobs on the basis of subservience or a social security system based on the Islamic duty to help the poor. The former could evolve into a new autocracy. The latter would tend towards an Islamist state.

Dayuhan
08-24-2011, 12:02 PM
In an oil economy, "social justice" would mean that the large majority of the population, rather than a small elite benefits from the country's natural richness. A democracy functions according to the principle of "no taxation without representation." A dictatorship financed by oil revenues puts this principle on its head: "no taxation, therefore no representation". A dictator buys the acquiescence of the people with government jobs and subsidies on necessities like food, fuel and housing. The oil economy cannot provide jobs for everyone, but it can generate more than 90% of the national GDP. Claessen's article holds that it is difficult to reconcile this reality with democracy and economic liberalization, but that it is easy to reconcile this reality with a social contract based either on

The term "social justice" means lots of things to lots of people, which limits its utility. Certainly the presence of oil or other resource wealth poses certain complications for a transition out of dictatorship, as does the absence of resources.

The challenge facing Libya now is to transform a loose coalition united only by opposition to the dictator into something resembling a government that is able to provide the basic rudiments of governance. Where it goes from there - if that can be achieved - can be managed after that is achieved.

Rex Brynen
08-24-2011, 01:56 PM
The challenge facing Libya now is to transform a loose coalition united only by opposition to the dictator into something resembling a government that is able to provide the basic rudiments of governance. Where it goes from there - if that can be achieved - can be managed after that is achieved.

One refrain I heard quite often in Libya was that the prolonged struggle to overthrow Qaddafi may have helped to build a stronger sense of national identity and purpose. This isn't to say the challenges aren't serious--they are, given the factionalism that already exists. However it was striking to hear people say "perhaps its a good thing we didn't win in a week, and instead had to work together to achieve this outcome."

Marc
08-24-2011, 02:21 PM
The challenge facing Libya now is to transform a loose coalition united only by opposition to the dictator into something resembling a government that is able to provide the basic rudiments of governance. Where it goes from there - if that can be achieved - can be managed after that is achieved.

Dayuhan,

Sorry, but that sounds like a recipe for yet another failure to get phase 4 right.

Marc

Ken White
08-24-2011, 03:33 PM
Probably just as well, we also apparently do not... :rolleyes:

A rather chaotic and somewhat spontaneous lurch into an unexpected revolt was highly unlikely to have developed US-like mathematic and simplistic phaseology. That's a plus for them. They'll work it out and they have -- quite wisely IMO -- rejected offers of Western aid and advice (less money, of course...) and are apparently requesting military training assistance from the Kingdom of Jordan. Pretty smart of them... :cool:

Events often do not cater for 'efficient' design and 'proper' planning; often one has to do what feels right and make it up as one goes along. Surprisingly, that generally yields results far better than those obtained using straitjackets, matrices and metrics... :D

davidbfpo
08-24-2011, 03:46 PM
I am aware that Libya identified a large shortfall in management capacity approx. 18 months ago, for all sectors and were seeking externally validated training leading to a qualification (not MBA). It will be interesting to see if Libyan exiles and those who have been absent now return. There were numerous BBC TV news clips of families returning, even to Misrata during the siege. I concede some will now want to leave too. A number of Libyan families have sat out the war in Malta.

Fuchs
08-24-2011, 03:48 PM
For Europe it could be a very good test if we europeans are able to conceive a unitarian foreign policy. If Italy, France, GB, Germany will have their "man in Tripoli" (with his own gang of armed individuals, tribe etc...) the outcome is predictable: total caos.

I guess we'll do something similar as we did with the Palestinian authorities, except with a bit more personal attention by the French president.




Now some relevant humour...
http://img01.lachschon.de/images/114660_cnn_ftw.jpg

Tukhachevskii
08-24-2011, 04:47 PM
I guess we'll do something similar as we did with the Palestinian authorities, except with a bit more personal attention by the French president.




Now some relevant humour...
http://img01.lachschon.de/images/114660_cnn_ftw.jpg

Gives new meaning to the phrase "the CNN effect"!;)

Marc
08-24-2011, 05:01 PM
Lots of smileys and lots of jokes in this thread.

After the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan the Taliban emerged.

After the PLO defeat in Beirut, Hezbollah emerged in southern Lebanon and Hamas emerged in Gaza.

After Saddam Hussein was ousted, Moqtada Al-Sadr emerged in Baghdad.

Lots of smiles and lots of jokes in 1988, 1982 and 2003 respectively, lots of tears and gnashing of teeth afterwards.

Are we to assume that democracy will emerge naturally in post-Gadhafi Libya?

Fuchs
08-24-2011, 05:05 PM
You might want to check the timelines.

There were multiple years, many events of relevance between your seeming cause-effect dates.

Bill Moore
08-24-2011, 05:24 PM
The conflict isn't over and the rebels are not united, so this can still play out in a number of ways.

Posted by Rex,


One refrain I heard quite often in Libya was that the prolonged struggle to overthrow Qaddafi may have helped to build a stronger sense of national identity and purpose. This isn't to say the challenges aren't serious--they are, given the factionalism that already exists. However it was striking to hear people say "perhaps its a good thing we didn't win in a week, and instead had to work together to achieve this outcome."

Intentional or accidental I agree that the duration of the conflict (it is still going on) allowed elements of the resistance to form a quasi-government and hopefully plans for a future that will no doubt be challenged by others seeking power, but without this organization it most likely would have been pure chaos.

I really can't imagine what would have happened if Qadafi fell in say two or three weeks, maybe a day or two of celebration and then a collective now what following by anarchy?

Ken White
08-24-2011, 06:33 PM
Lots of smileys and lots of jokes in this thread.Laughter OTOH is generally beneficial. ;)
... the Taliban emerged...Hezbollah emerged in southern Lebanon and Hamas emerged in Gaza...Moqtada Al-Sadr emerged in Baghdad.And, lo, the world is still here. :D

A world that survived the Romans, Sassanids, the Khans and World War II didn't even blink at any of the post 1980 stuff. Nor should it have; they were small things. Very small. Not terribly significant until we made them seem to be...
Are we to assume that democracy will emerge naturally in post-Gadhafi Libya?I don't know who constitutes your "we" but I certainly do not assume that -- nor do I care whether it emerges or not. That's the Libyan's affair and no concern of mine. Nor should any American really be that concerned, none of our business and our foolish attempts to 'foster democracy' here and there over the past 60 or so years have done more harm to the world and people in it than have any of the post '80 events cited. :wry:

Marc
08-24-2011, 07:18 PM
Laughter OTOH is generally beneficial. ;)And, lo, the world is still here. :D

A world that survived the Romans, Sassanids, the Khans and World War II didn't even blink at any of the post 1980 stuff. Nor should it have; they were small things. Very small. Not terribly significant until we made them seem to be...I don't know who constitutes your "we" but I certainly do not assume that -- nor do I care whether it emerges or not. That's the Libyan's affair and no concern of mine. Nor should any American really be that concerned, none of our business and our foolish attempts to 'foster democracy' here and there over the past 60 or so years have done more harm to the world and people in it than have any of the post '80 events cited. :wry:

Ken,

I'm not sure how to read your post. In the "any of the post '80 events cited" I included the emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the late nineties (who later hosted AQ, who later conducted the attacks on the WTC). According to you, "A world that survived the Romans, Sassanids, the Khans and World War II didn't even blink at any of the post 1980 stuff. Nor should it have; they were small things. Very small. Not terribly significant until we made them seem to be." Does this mean you consider the AQ attacks on the WTC to be QUOTE "Very small. Not terribly significant until we made the seem to be"UNQUOTE? Could you clarify your position on all this?

Best regards,

Marc

Ken White
08-24-2011, 09:36 PM
Does this mean you consider the AQ attacks on the WTC to be QUOTE "Very small. Not terribly significant until we made the seem to be"UNQUOTE? Could you clarify your position on all this?Compared to the carnage of WW II for just the most recent, yes. Quite small.

Bad, unforgivable and harmful no question but relatively minor to all except those involved in those attacks and their families with whom I can and do empathize. Still, the attack and its results really had comparatively small impact -- unlike the War which killed millions and affected many more millions of people worldwide. A response to those attacks in 2001 was required and was executed with initial good results. Results that we unfortunately squandered by the making of where we were as those results were obtained into a still ongoing campaign as well as a series of efforts in this country to 'enhance' security that give far more significance to the attacks and subsequent events than is or was IMO warranted. Every year more American are killed in automobile accidents OR medical misadventures than have been killed over the past ten years as a result of those attacks and our subsequent actions worldwide.

Many for whom those attacks were a defining event will not agree and I understand that and respect their position. Fortunately or unfortunately, viewpoint dependent, my defining moment was the attack on Pearl Harbor; fewer total US casualties but vastly greater costs in the long term. My wars were long ago but I do have a son currently on his fifth tour in this one who also thinks we did and still are over reacting. Maybe he's just old before his time... :wry:

To return to the thread and Libya, a democracy there would be nice but it is for many reasons really sort of unlikely and, as I said, it will in reality make little to no difference to most Americans. In the event, it is up to the Libyans and not to us. Hopefully, those in DC who are overly prone to 'do something' will realize that and not set out to do good and end up doing more harm as we too often do...

Marc
08-24-2011, 09:43 PM
Compared to the carnage of WW II for just the most recent, yes. Quite small.

...

Ok, Ken, I understand your position now, although I disagree with it. What I do not understand is why you want to post on a "small wars" website if you think that anything smaller than WWII is too small to be significant.

Best regards,

Marc

Dayuhan
08-24-2011, 10:22 PM
One refrain I heard quite often in Libya was that the prolonged struggle to overthrow Qaddafi may have helped to build a stronger sense of national identity and purpose. This isn't to say the challenges aren't serious--they are, given the factionalism that already exists. However it was striking to hear people say "perhaps its a good thing we didn't win in a week, and instead had to work together to achieve this outcome."

I remember citing this possibility, back in the early days of the other thread, as a reason to avoid external regime change, on the grounds that the need to overthrow the regime themselves would force the opposition to develop some degree of organization and coordination. I think the opposition is certainly better equipped to govern now than it would have been if NATO had simply removed the dictator. Whether or not it's enough... time will tell. Forming a government will be difficult, actually governing far more so.

The extent to which post-Daffy political groupings coalesce among tribal or individualist lines, and the ability of such groups to cooperate, or at least to compete without armed conflict, is something I'm not sure anyone can reliably predict at this stage. We'll see.

Dayuhan
08-24-2011, 10:35 PM
Ok, Ken, I understand your position now, although I disagree with it. What I do not understand is why you want to post on a "small wars" website if you think that anything smaller than WWII is too small to be significant.

I think the question is not whether or not they are significant, but whether or not the response is proportional to the scale and significance of the events. I'm not convinced that it is, and I suspect that the overreaction is not doing us any good and may be doing us harm.

SWJ Blog
08-25-2011, 12:22 AM
24 August Evening Libya News Roundup (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/24-august-evening-libya-news-roundup)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/24-august-evening-libya-news-roundup) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Ken White
08-25-2011, 12:59 AM
Ok, Ken, I understand your position now, although I disagree with it.I'm sure many do and that's okay. OTOH, I do not disagree with your position -- but I do not share it. That's not quite the same thing...:wry:
What I do not understand is why you want to post on a "small wars" website if you think that anything smaller than WWII is too small to be significant.That's not what I wrote. This is:

""A world that survived the Romans, Sassanids, the Khans and World War II didn't even blink at any of the post 1980 stuff. Nor should it have; they were small things. Very small. Not terribly significant until we made them seem to be...""

That was an apparently poor attempt to say that all things are relative. Compared to the costs and violence of the things I mentioned, those more recent items were far smaller in costs and scale. To clarify a bit, Korea was significant, mostly because it still bumbles on due to our failures more than anything else. Viet Nam was significant due to its costs (in all respects and now as well as then...). The initial effort in Afghanistan was significant (the earlier rise of the Taliban was not particularly so) and Iraq was and is significant -- but not due to Sadr who is insignificant (which doesn't mean he isn't a bother, just that he isn't a major bother). Afghanistan and Iraq will always exist in one form or another, the Talibs and Mokey not so much, they're transients on the scene...

In most of those latter cases, the events and characters rise to more prominence (as opposed to significance) because of OUR actions, not due to much they did or do. So, if those things have significance in the eyes of some -- or many -- it's due to our habit of making things into possibly more than they might have been. Dayuhan has that bit right...

I post here because folks are civil, most are well informed and all facets of warfare and the politics thereunto pertaining are discussed without much effort being wasted on other political foolishness. Those are things that have been of interest (and employment) in a fairly long life.

I can discuss small wars, been to a few. I can and do advise against US participation in them unless all other options fail because in my experience the American psyche does not and will not ever do them well; we aren't ruthless enough (I have no problem with violence -- but many, particularly politicians, seem to...)and don't have the patience for (or a governmental / election process and cycle that supports) the long term approach. We can do them, have done a bunch marginally well -- mostly smaller efforts without huge troop commitments -- but we do not do them really well, the bigger they are, the worse we do...

Instead of seeking small wars, we should put the Intel folks and DoS to work and let Special Forces do their FID thing early and often while avoiding small wars, SFA and / or COIN support because the GPF will never do those things well.

Nor should they... :cool:

Rex Brynen
08-25-2011, 01:23 AM
Are we to assume that democracy will emerge naturally in post-Gadhafi Libya?

No one is assuming this, least of all the Libyans who want it who are well aware of the magnitude of the task.

We can, however, say that the chances of some form of representative and responsive government are infinitely higher than they were when Qaddafi was ruling the place.

Marc
08-25-2011, 08:07 AM
Ken, Dayuhan, Rex,

Ok, thanks for putting things in perspective.

Marc

Graycap
08-25-2011, 10:00 AM
I guess we'll do something similar as we did with the Palestinian authorities, except with a bit more personal attention by the French president.



The situation is quite different. Palestinians have no oil, and there is no Israel with its own power and policy.
In Libya (and Tunisia) the only international player with great opportunities and great risks is Europe and european countries. Europe could start a narrative closing its past and building better future.




Now some relevant humour...
http://img01.lachschon.de/images/114660_cnn_ftw.jpg

To see what CNN has become is really depressing.



One refrain I heard quite often in Libya was that the prolonged struggle to overthrow Qaddafi may have helped to build a stronger sense of national identity and purpose. This isn't to say the challenges aren't serious--they are, given the factionalism that already exists. However it was striking to hear people say "perhaps its a good thing we didn't win in a week, and instead had to work together to achieve this outcome."

Strongly concur. In another forum I wrote some months ago that I thought better for everyone a very slow evolution of miliary operations that could make possible a poltical manouvering of differet actors internal and external. We should also sayy that slowness is possible oly if risk of retaliation is little. This lack of any retaliation is the piece of the puzzle that is difficult to understand.
Rex do you know anything about the central bank situation? It seems strange to me that TNC, with its need for money, has not occupied it and take possession of the caveau.

motorfirebox
08-25-2011, 01:40 PM
From my understanding, it seems unlikely to me that the future of Libya is going to be determined by anyone who actually lives there. Gaddafi did a really thorough job of pacifying most of his population--primary evidence for which being the hilarious ineffectiveness of the 'revolution'. The rebels had to be wheeled into Tripoli like an invalid. Now that they're there, I don't see them suddenly getting the healing power of Jay-sus and miraculously being able to walk again. The only question is who's going to be the power behind the wheeled throne. Given the US's disinterest, it seems like it'll come down to Britain and France versus the Arab League. And the AL has the money...

I mean, granted that running a war and running a country are two very different things--but if you can't beat the guys who couldn't beat pickup trucks with tanks, I'm not sure what you're going to have what it takes to run a country, either.

Fuchs
08-25-2011, 03:12 PM
To see what CNN has become is really depressing.

Some 'relief' after all that depression... (http://failblog.org/2010/12/15/epic-fail-video-cnn-fail/)

CNN and Fox News are regular contributors for screenshots (http://maptd.com/cnn-mapfail/) with geography (http://www.wimp.com/thishawaii/) or science fails (http://failblog.org/2008/02/08/cnn-physics-fail/).


BBC World News and German TV News ain't immune to that, either.

**************

Again: Look at Kosovo and the Palestinian authority.
Now subtract the transfers and look only at the know-how transfer (since Libya can pay its bills with oil).
We will send policemen for police training, lawyers, judges, bureaucrats, 65-80 yrs old politicians, some corporate CEOs...

I doubt that France's government is dumb enough to become heavily involved. It's more likely that they will do just enough to get some special relationship and a good reputation in Libya - and some photo ops for the French president.

Quite the same for Britain.

Berlusconi is probably too busy to care much about Libya (unless he gets a faible for bellydancers, of course).

motorfirebox
08-25-2011, 04:58 PM
But will "just enough" be enough? It seems like Libya, with its proven inability to mount a real revolution, is ripe pickings to be somebody's pet oil field. Will whoever ends up running the place be willing to share with anybody that doesn't take a continuing active role?

Rex Brynen
08-25-2011, 05:24 PM
But will "just enough" be enough? It seems like Libya, with its proven inability to mount a real revolution

What does a "real revolution" look like? I imagine it's seeming pretty real at the moment to Qaddafi.

carl
08-25-2011, 06:13 PM
Six months later, I still contend there is not an ounce of real as opposed to presumed or wanna-be assumed US interest in Libya.

Libyan forces possess, or possessed, SA-24s. It is very much in our interest that those missiles be gotten control of. I imagine it would be easier for us to do that given that we are involved in an important way. This may not be a big picture consideration, but if those things showed up in the wrong place it would be bad.

Ken White
08-25-2011, 07:39 PM
Libyan forces possess, or possessed, SA-24s. It is very much in our interest that those missiles be gotten control of. I imagine it would be easier for us to do that given that we are involved in an important way. This may not be a big picture consideration, but if those things showed up in the wrong place it would be bad.France, Italy and the UK are fairly trustworthy -- in the eyes of many, more so than is the US... :wry:

Given the net costs to us thus far even if those Grinches got into the hands of the Evil Enema and were to down a bird or a few, I doubt the cost benefit ratio works out well. That without adding any US efforts on the ground, post conflict (After the screaming about the US getting others to do their dirty work then stepping in at the end to hog glory, credit --and Grinches :rolleyes: <--[the eyeroll is for those 'others' folks, not the Grinches...]). As I said, real as opposed to assumed... ;)

Fuchs
08-25-2011, 07:55 PM
Libyan forces possess, or possessed, SA-24s. It is very much in our interest that those missiles be gotten control of.


Oh my god.

Where does this obsession with ManPADS come from?

This is by far not the only example.

It's just a display of a badly, badly, terribly, ridiculously distorted view of the world to even think of these things in this context.

Rex Brynen
08-25-2011, 08:04 PM
Oh my god.

Where does this obsession with ManPADS come from?

Because a single MANPADS against a fully loaded 747 at LaGuardia would have dramatic effects on US policy, and a single MANPAD used successfully against an Israeli civilian airliner at Ben Gurion could have regional strategic effects for a decade or more.

There are lots of psychological, political, and other reasons for that. But we have to deal with realities as they are, and no amount of "more people drown in their bath tubs" would make any difference.

Fuchs
08-25-2011, 08:10 PM
... so could a swarm of geese. So what?

I'm so tired of irrational people doing stupid things.
Especially so if it leads to people killing each other, or accepting poverty.

carl
08-25-2011, 08:49 PM
Given the net costs to us thus far even if those Grinches got into the hands of the Evil Enema and were to down a bird or a few, I doubt the cost benefit ratio works out well.

That is just a tad glib, especially to the crews of the bird or two, especially if the bird was a C-17 climbing out of Kandahar with load of wounded soldiers. Preventing that kind of thing seems a real US interest to me. The cost benefit ratio you can argue with others. It is a US interest.

Fuchs:

That's me, looking at the world through thick lens' of distortion, thinking that a very sophisticated shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile, that was designed by some very proficient people to defeat our countermeasures, in the hands of people who would do us ill, might actually do us ill. Talk of context mystifies me. All I can think of is our ops throughout the world depend on unfettered air ops and that possession of a sophisticated missile in the hands of insurgent forces had some pretty profound consequences in the past.

There now that I've vented my spleen, I really don't understand why you think concern about this is irrational.

Rex Brynen
08-25-2011, 09:02 PM
... so could a swarm of geese. So what?

You and I both know that a swarm of geese downing an airliner would not have the same political effects as some AQ wannabe doing it.

(Unless, of course, they were jihadist geese.)

Ken White
08-25-2011, 10:46 PM
...especially to the crews of the bird or two,That's focused...:D
especially if the bird was a C-17 climbing out of Kandahar with load of wounded soldiers.
That would be most regrettable. Particularly as I've got a son working out of KAF as we write but unfortunately, things like that happen in wars. It goes with the territory. He knows and accepts that and so do I.
Preventing that kind of thing seems a real US interest to me.Of course it does. Regrettably, while it is a minor interest, it is also virtually impossible to prevent that sort of thing. One should try to preclude things like that but this:
The cost benefit ratio you can argue with others.gets in the way of the precluding effort.

It's a question of priorities and of scale. As I mentioned elsewhere yesterday, we kill more people in automobile accidents OR medical misadventures in the US every year than we've had killed in 10 long years of this so-called war on whatever. Rex Brynen's 747 or your C-17 would be bad and unwanted events but either could happen if all the Grinches were scuffed up and accounted for by the French. Conversely, even if none of the missiles were located, those events might not ever occur. You may not like the cost benefit ratio but it must be considered and will be. No need for anyone to argue it, it is what it is and the decision makers are unlikely to listen to me or to you.

I too worry about thing like loose missiles but I can do the math -- and that does not favor putting US forces on the ground in Libya. It does not preclude it but it certainly doesn't make it desirable...
It is a US interest.As you said, it is -- to you. More correctly, it is a US interest that to you merits our intervention on the ground. The problem with which you're confronted is that the planners and policy maker will look upon that as an ancillary issue if there is a decision to send folks in. It is an item to consider if force are there, it is not significant enough to justify a big effort on its own merits. Add all the potential issue and IMO, there is not adequate interest to send troops to Libya. YMMV.

I do not propose to speak for Fuchs but this merits a response based on your perception of my comment.
I really don't understand why you think concern about this is irrational.it's not irrational, it's sensible but like it or not, you bump into the cost-benefit ratio. You're suggesting certain and relatively easily calculated costs and impacts be absorbed to possibly prevent a possible harm. Two possibles don't outweigh a negative.

motorfirebox
08-25-2011, 11:06 PM
What does a "real revolution" look like? I imagine it's seeming pretty real at the moment to Qaddafi.
I think what's real to Gaddafi is the NATO intervention that carried the revolution forward.

Rex Brynen
08-25-2011, 11:55 PM
I think what's real to Gaddafi is the NATO intervention that carried the revolution forward.

Both widespread domestic rebellion and external support (NATO and Arab) were necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for toppling Qaddafi.

But foreign support for successful insurgencies is hardly atypical. Indeed, part of successful insurgency is framing your struggle to external audiences in such a way that wins support and/or neutralizes support for the insurgent regime. Insurgents who do that and win are still successful insurgencies. Certainly the NTC enjoys a great more authenticity and legitimacy from having had to fight for liberation than either the Afghan or Iraqi governments initially enjoyed, post-US intervention.

The NTC faces enormous challenges. They may well find them too much. However, I don't think that the history of NATO air support necessarily makes them less able to succeed. Leaving aside Ken's wholly appropriate question of whether this was in the Western or US interest (reasonable people can disagree on that), I'm happy that the Libyan people have a chance to try to succeed. It's more than they've had the last 42 years.

Rex Brynen
08-26-2011, 12:04 AM
I too worry about thing like loose missiles but I can do the math -- and that does not favor putting US forces on the ground in Libya..

I would go further, Ken--I think putting US forces on ground would actually be counterproductive. The Libyans certainly don't want them (a point that seems to have escaped some recent commentators (http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-now-needs-boots-ground/p25683) on the issue).

Instead, I think we're likely to see a lightweight, integrated MILOBS/CIVPOL mission similar to MINUGA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINUGUA), complemented by bilateral assistance from the French, British, Qataris, Jordanians, and others. Whether the security situation comes together or falls apart will be in large part a function of adroit local politics, not boots on the ground. In this respect, the rather anomalous Iraqi and Afghan cases have rather skewed perceptions of how post civil war transformations are usually facilitated (which is NOT through a large US or NATO presence).

Rex Brynen
08-26-2011, 01:22 AM
...and then there is the real reason the NTC won: the secret AQ-NATO alliance (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26118):


Then, a NATO warship sailed up and anchored just off the shore at Tripoli, delivering heavy weapons and debarking Al Qaeda jihadi forces, which were led by NATO officers.

Fighting stared again during the night. There were intense firefights. NATO drones and aircraft kept bombing in all directions. NATO helicopters strafed civilians in the streets with machine guns to open the way for the jihadis.

I thought this was supposed to be kept a secret, dammit! What is it with all the OPSEC violations these days?

Ken White
08-26-2011, 01:40 AM
Where do you guys find these porn sites??? :D

P.S.

Agree with you, Rex, on personal pleasure that the Libyans are in process of removing Qaddafi. I'm even happier that Sarko and Cameron -- as well as the Dutch, Qataris and others including you Great White North types, the RCN and the RCAF (think that's the first time I've written that in over 40 years... :wry:) stepped up and aided. I do not object terribly to the fact that we assisted a bit even though I believed and still do that we had no pressing interest there, as opposed to the Europeans who did and do...

Rex Brynen
08-26-2011, 02:58 AM
Instead, I think we're likely to see a lightweight, integrated MILOBS/CIVPOL mission similar to MINUGA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINUGUA)...

That should be MINUGUA, of course.

Dayuhan
08-26-2011, 03:10 AM
I would go further, Ken--I think putting US forces on ground would actually be counterproductive. The Libyans certainly don't want them (a point that seems to have escaped some recent commentators (http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-now-needs-boots-ground/p25683) on the issue).


Agree with you, Rex, on personal pleasure that the Libyans are in process of removing Qaddafi. I'm even happier that Sarko and Cameron -- as well as the Dutch, Qataris and others including you Great White North types, the RCN and the RCAF (think that's the first time I've written that in over 40 years... :wry:) stepped up and aided. I do not object terribly to the fact that we assisted a bit even though I believed and still do that we had no pressing interest there, as opposed to the Europeans who did and do...

I agree with Rex on the counterproductivity of US boots on the ground, and I share the sense of satisfaction at seeing Qaddafi fall to a Libyan resistance. Of course that satisfaction has to be tempered by a realistic assessment of the difficulties that will follow, but those difficulties would be there in any post-Qaddafi scenario. Those with unrealistic expectations will be disappointed, and some will blame NATO or the US or the Libyans. Better to keep the expectations realistic and avoid the need to blame anyone.

Building a functioning government to replace the 40-year absolute rule of a lunatic dictator is extraordinarily difficult, but it was going to happen sooner or later. Doing too much or too little would make matters worse; that was true durting the rebellion and it will be equally true in the phase to come. hopefully the interested outside parties can come in somewhere in between.

M-A Lagrange
08-26-2011, 11:11 AM
...and then there is the real reason the NTC won: the secret AQ-NATO alliance (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26118):



I thought this was supposed to be kept a secret, dammit! What is it with all the OPSEC violations these days?

Rex,

Reading the article, I realised it was from "Reseau Voltaire". I would like to point out that Reseau Voltaire is extremely controversial, including and mainly about the sources and accuracy of facts related on it.
Just an exemple: in 2001, after 9/11, reseau voltaire supported (And still is) that it was a jewish plot and that Pentagone was a fake attack organised by CIA.
If what is said on that article is partially true, I would recommend great suspicion on the AQ and other interpretation/analyse of the events related on Reseau Voltaire.

Rex Brynen
08-26-2011, 12:22 PM
Reading the article, I realised it was from "Reseau Voltaire". I would like to point out that Reseau Voltaire is extremely controversial, including and mainly about the sources and accuracy of facts related on it.

Yes, I do realize that NATO officers weren't leading jihadist troops in Tripoli. :D

Fuchs
08-26-2011, 02:05 PM
Why do I bother to write forum posts on this?

I wrote this text years ago (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/11/worst-case-scenarios-and-preparations.html) to deal once and for all with this kind of stupid thinking.


Economics is about allocating resources wisely.
####ting your pants at a random fantasy and throwing resources at countermeasures without a coherent and purposeful system for proper resource allocation is a recipe for waste.
A six-year-old can do better.

ganulv
08-26-2011, 02:06 PM
I’m watching a reporter on Galavisión tour Gaddafi’s compound and a guy wearing a shirt that said <Strength Through Christ> was just standing in front of the camera yelling, “Allahu Akbar!” As second hand clothing moments go I think that tops even my girlfriend’s story of being at an Eid sacrifice in Burkina Faso where one of the participants was wearing a White Power t-shirt.

Fuchs
08-26-2011, 02:09 PM
Why? Jesus is one of their prophets, and not necessarily a lesser one than Mohammed.

ganulv
08-26-2011, 02:27 PM
Why? Jesus is one of their prophets, and not necessarily a lesser one than Mohammed.

Jesus is certainly important in Islam but there is no Resurrection tradition in Islam ergo no Christ. But trust a Southerner, it was an über-Evangelical t-shirt. Jesus has a place in Islam but Mohammed has no place in Evangelicalism. Well, Apostate #1, maybe. :D

There is a great moment in Of Gods and Men (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/movies/25gods.html) that touches on exactly what you’re talking about, though.

carl
08-26-2011, 07:57 PM
Ken:

I have to learn to write more clearly. People seem to misunderstand me a lot. I will strive to do better.

Please notice that in post #44 I used a phrase something like "are involved in an important way." That means we already paid our dues and have a lot of clout which will make it easier for us to definitely track those missiles down if that can be done. I did not advocate increasing the level of our involvement escpecially when it comes to putting ground troops down. I don't believe I ever advocated that beyond a very limited number of trainers, log guys and maybe some secret JTAC types, none of which I would be surprised to see we have already done. Next time I will get my words in agreement and use "will" where I used "would".

I actually think that up to now, we have handled this thing pretty well and it is working out well for us. That may change tomorrow but it is looking OK now. We took care of the heavy weapons and the rebels did the rest as they should have. Now come the long frustrating part and it is for them to handle.

People tend to underestimate the effect of SA-24s getting out could have. The Russians use it themselves and have only sold it to two other countries. It is my understanding they generally only do that with things that really work well. A publication of the Society of Old Crows, ''Of Arrows and Needles'', says those things are scary good missiles:http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-851272/On-arrows-and-needles-Russia.html. If they ended up in Afghanistan the impact they would have would be far beyond a morale effect or giving aircrews justification for combat pay. They might threaten the ability of our forces to operate with the help of all the low level slow movers, to include helos, ISR assets, fixed wing gunships and maybe even A-10s. That is a big thing. That is a huge thing.

Fuchs:

You seem a bit testy. Those missiles are actually present in Libya. The situation in Libya is chaotic. It can be reasonably concluded that they may end up here, there, anywhere and should be gotten control of. This is hardly in the realm of contemplating equiping all civil airliners with anti-missile systems which is what I assume you were talking about in your blog post.

Steve Blair
08-26-2011, 08:02 PM
Obligatory "keep it civil" warning round, folks.

Fuchs
08-26-2011, 08:06 PM
Missiles are in many places. So what?


The concerns about Libyan ManPADS don't even stand a "so what" test.
You can buy ManPADS on the black market. There was one a Chechen warband in platoon strength destroyed by the Russians that had several ManPADS with them as if they were M72s.

To deal with Libyan weapons that got into the hands of irregulars (or whoever) requires idiotic, preventively expensive measures that are in no sane relation to the probability of those missiles actually being put into effective use against an airliner.

The whole 'being concerned' about those tiny missiles is a path to stupidity.

The world is already stupid enough.


edit: I meant this EXACTLY as I wrote it. This is my 'civil' mode. Anyone who disagrees that I gave a factual description can feel free to challenge me on it.

Rex Brynen
08-26-2011, 08:25 PM
Missiles are in many places. So what?

The concerns about Libyan ManPADS don't even stand a "so what" test.
You can buy ManPADS on the black market.

It is actually rather harder than you think to buy a working MANPADS with a functional seeker head, coolant, and battery, and it is certainly quite difficult to get a later generation weapon. Moreover, the buyback programs both increase the price and, in some cases, generate useful intelligence on the black market.

AQIM, for example, hasn't deployed them in the Sahel, although they would be very useful. Prior to that, they weren't used in Algeria at all during the civil war (so far as I'm aware--I stand to be corrected). The ones used in Mombassa in 2002 were old, poor quality SA-7s.. indeed, it isn't even clear the attackers had managed to fire functional missiles (see my comment on "working" MANPADS). There has been no confirmed used of them by Hamas, in part because they previously couldn't be easily obtained on the black market (I suspect the Iranians were worried about chain-of-custody, since they largely smuggle through black market intermediaries; now there are reports that Hamas has them via Libya). Neither the Hawthis nor AQIP appear to have used them in Yemen.

No one is suggesting MANPADS be a driver of policy in Libya, nor have they been. Ought it be one of the (many) things the IC and NTC address? Of course.

carl
08-26-2011, 08:34 PM
I second what Rex says and would add that missiles are missiles are missiles does not apply to the SA-24. According to the Old Crows, it is a whole 'nother animal.

Fuchs
08-26-2011, 08:51 PM
No one is suggesting MANPADS be a driver of policy in Libya, nor have they been. Ought it be one of the (many) things the IC and NTC address? Of course.

Short of having the starship enterprise stored in Area 51, there's still nothing they can do about it without going well over the cliff in terms of resource allocation.

It's neither rational nor good nor advisable nor anything else positive to be bothered by things you cannot change.


This is clearly a no win situation - no matter what you do. Be a man and stand reality. There are some missiles somewhere, someone might get the idea to use them. So what.

It's total hubris to think that this should bother a government on a different continent. There is nothing that you can do about it that is not stupid.

Besides -there are millions of possible concerns with as much (little) 'importance' as this. You can't change that. get over it. Don't spend any valuable attention on such nonsense.
You need the attention for issues that can actually addressed in a 'win' fashion.

Ken White
08-26-2011, 09:03 PM
Please notice that in post #44 I used a phrase something like "are involved in an important way." That means we already paid our dues and have a lot of clout which will make it easier for us to definitely track those missiles down if that can be done...Sorry for misunderstanding, I took "I imagine it would be easier for us to do that given that we are involved in an important way" as suggesting possible increased involvement and, more pointedly, that only we could or properly should exercise such control.
People tend to underestimate the effect of SA-24s getting out could have... That is a big thing. That is a huge thing.Perspective again. To a Flyer, it is understandably huge. To a grunt, present or former, it's a "Okay, for your clean sheets at night and decent food, you may get shot at with better weapons. Wow. Poor Baby.." That is NOT being glib, that is perspective, exaggerated perspective, hyperbolic perspective but perspective. Nor is it downplaying the capabilities of the Grinch; similar ground oriented capabilities have been available to many since the 70s.

Perhaps as is often the case, the truth wobbles about somewhere between my possible underestimation and your equally possible overestimation. The crux of the matter, I think is that, hopefully, someone responsible; Libyan NTC, British, French, even the US if we do have folks there now (as You Tube suggests... :D ) get control if it is possible -- I hope we can agree on that. We seem to agree that additional US forces are not necessarily required.

carl
08-27-2011, 07:48 AM
Ken:

Maybe we were talking past one another again. I find little to disagree with in your last post. The effect of those things getting out is probably somewhere in the middle as you say. I do think it would be more rather than less though if only because there aren't that many of certain critical airplanes available, AC-130s for example. Unlike wars past we only have a handful and there is no fully cranked up production line. If a system that might reliably penetrate its' defenses existed in theatre, I suspect the USAF would severely curtail ops, not because the airman are nervous in the face of danger, but because they just couldn't afford to lose any airplanes that basically can't be replaced. If those ops were curtailed, it would very much effect the ground guys in an important way.

We do agree, more of us aren't needed on the ground. In their own eyes, the Libyan rebels are covering themselves with glory and still like us some, more of us would spoil that.

davidbfpo
08-27-2011, 10:35 AM
Carl,

Being a SWC member whose feet stay on the ground I tried to find the cited
Society of Old Crows, ''Of Arrows and Needles''[/quote and found only a 2002 close match, which does not refer to the SA-24. Have you got a link or pointer please?

In searching I found this Aviation Week article:[quote]the Libyan Strelets fire Igla-S missiles but they can not be used as man-portable air defense (manpads). “To fire Iglas as a man-portable weapon you need a separate trigger mechanisms that were not supplied to Libya”..

Link:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:e6d7cd5f-8bef-4f72-a64f-c98fdf99a7a0

TDB
08-27-2011, 11:08 AM
Sorry to go off trend here, the current sub-topic being missiles and all.

I'm really curious to see what the civil order situation is like Tripoli. Having studied at length policing post-conflict cities (Alice Hills), I'm interested to see if a natural form of order has emerged. People not looting stores etc, the looting seems to be confined to buildings owned by the regime unlike in Baghdad. I'm sure if such looting was going on the media would have seized upon it just to shove it in the face of the international community and say "YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN!". So again unlike in Baghdad, people do not seem to be running amok after years of oppresion, perhaps because the fighting is still ongoing. Or is it just that people have a common understand along the lines of "we nearly have freedom, lets not ruin it". I know they were asking police to return to their jobs, as they did in Baghdad in 2003. These after all are the best people for it, with a little bit of SSR they should be ready to roll. I'm not really versed in the tribal schisms of Lybia, does anyone know if they run as deep as in say Afghanistan?

Rex Brynen
08-27-2011, 02:54 PM
I'm really curious to see what the civil order situation is like Tripoli. Having studied at length policing post-conflict cities (Alice Hills), I'm interested to see if a natural form of order has emerged. People not looting stores etc, the looting seems to be confined to buildings owned by the regime unlike in Baghdad. I'm sure if such looting was going on the media would have seized upon it just to shove it in the face of the international community and say "YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN!". So again unlike in Baghdad, people do not seem to be running amok after years of oppresion, perhaps because the fighting is still ongoing. Or is it just that people have a common understand along the lines of "we nearly have freedom, lets not ruin it". I know they were asking police to return to their jobs, as they did in Baghdad in 2003. These after all are the best people for it, with a little bit of SSR they should be ready to roll. I'm not really versed in the tribal schisms of Lybia, does anyone know if they run as deep as in say Afghanistan?

There has been a great deal of spontaneous community organization in Libya, which has offset much of the institutional disorganization (or even lack of institutions, which was a hallmark of Qadaffi's rule). There is also a widespread sense of 'ownership" of the revolution by the people themselves--a sharp contrast to US regime change in Iraq. Most of the "looting" has involved carting off souvenirs from Qaddafi palaces or regime security installations.

In Benghazi, I was struck by 1) how little formal SSR had been undertaken, although by that point the NTC had been in control for 5 months--most of the policing was still volunteer; 2) how well it worked--the place seemed considerably safer than a great many non-conflict cities.

Unlike Egypt (or even Iraq), the regular civil police do not seem to have been associated in the popular mind with domestic repression, which undoubtedly will help in reconstituting them.

Graycap
08-27-2011, 03:56 PM
There has been a great deal of spontaneous community organization in Libya, which has offset much of the institutional disorganization (or even lack of institutions, which was a hallmark of Qadaffi's rule). There is also a widespread sense of 'ownership" of the revolution by the people themselves--a sharp contrast to US regime change in Iraq. Most of the "looting" has involved carting off souvenirs from Qaddafi palaces or regime security installations.

In Benghazi, I was struck by 1) how little formal SSR had been undertaken, although by that point the NTC had been in control for 5 months--most of the policing was still volunteer; 2) how well it worked--the place seemed considerably safer than a great many non-conflict cities.

Unlike Egypt (or even Iraq), the regular civil police do not seem to have been associated in the popular mind with domestic repression, which undoubtedly will help in reconstituting them.

Sorry Rex if I ak you again the same question that maybe you have not seen (or maybe you chose to not to reply... ;) ) but since you have been on the terrain (I was in a delegation organizing a visit in Bengazi too but we were sopped) and you say that no widespread looting has taken place.

Do you have any information about Central Bank and banking system?

I think that this kind of critical points are rather overlooked in the coverage. Libyan dinar has always been a currency with a complex history.
Its future value could have a strong influence in reconstruction (and debt settlements for Libyan state)

Fuchs
08-27-2011, 04:39 PM
Its future value could have a strong influence in reconstruction (and debt settlements for Libyan state)

Their external debt is most likely not documented in their national currency, but in USD or another currency.

Most of their trading will be in foreign currencies as well, so their domestic currency value/exchange rate has little bearing on their trading.

The government will draw most of its revenues from oil after a short (1-3 years) period of establishing itself and re-establishing regular oil trade. There's thus no real reason for using the printing press for revenues, and as a consequence the printing press is unlikely to be an inflation driver in the medium term (many forms of demand might be, though).


Overall I don't agree that their currency will have a strong influence on their future. It'll likely be a quite boring and ordinary background thing.

Rex Brynen
08-27-2011, 06:48 PM
Do you have any information about Central Bank and banking system?

I'm afraid I don't know. I do know that the UN reconstruction team had concerns about currency stabilization and liquidity shortages, as well as longer terms concerns about corruption and financial management.

Graycap
08-27-2011, 07:11 PM
Their external debt is most likely not documented in their national currency, but in USD or another currency.

Most of their trading will be in foreign currencies as well, so their domestic currency value/exchange rate has little bearing on their trading.


That's not correct Fuchs. Especially in the italian trading experience.

You have to understand that Italy has a very long history of commercial trade with Libya and this history has witnessed different phases and the presence of a big number of very small little actors in both side of th bargain.
Small business selling small business buying.

In this framework the problem of libyan dinar conversion has played a role. Sometime a very lucrative role. Payments made in nature could open the way to make great business. During embargo there was a complex system to make receive payments.

Think only about this problem: there are big enterprises that have credits for million of dinars. The dinar had a different value in black market and official trade. The credits are from the eighties and are part of the strategic agreement signed in 2008. In the eighties there were libyan dinar for external payments and dinar only for internal use.
The conversio that will be applied will make a very relevant role in the evaluation of these credits/debts (those could become billion of euros!!)

Thanks Rex for reply ;)

Fuchs
08-27-2011, 07:20 PM
6.5 million inhabitants, annual GDP equivalent 75 billion USD.

You're talking about peanuts that won't change the overall picture.
I was talking about the medium term and stand by my somewhat educated guess.

TDB
08-27-2011, 10:51 PM
There has been a great deal of spontaneous community organization in Libya, which has offset much of the institutional disorganization (or even lack of institutions, which was a hallmark of Qadaffi's rule). There is also a widespread sense of 'ownership" of the revolution by the people themselves--a sharp contrast to US regime change in Iraq. Most of the "looting" has involved carting off souvenirs from Qaddafi palaces or regime security installations.

In Benghazi, I was struck by 1) how little formal SSR had been undertaken, although by that point the NTC had been in control for 5 months--most of the policing was still volunteer; 2) how well it worked--the place seemed considerably safer than a great many non-conflict cities.

Unlike Egypt (or even Iraq), the regular civil police do not seem to have been associated in the popular mind with domestic repression, which undoubtedly will help in reconstituting them.

Thank you very much for this insight. I think as you point out this idea of ownership is key. Is it odd that the more I watch event unfold in Lybia the more I think "I'd really like to visit". There is something about the people, whether it is simply romanticism, I don't know. Lybians just strike me as a nice bunch of people, the Gaddafi clan aside. Tripoli, from its skyline at least looks to be booming (honestly no pun intended). So hurry up NTC I want to come on holiday.

Surferbeetle
08-28-2011, 05:08 AM
Post Q-Daffy led Libya has a number of issues, some of which have been covered in the thread to date and some which haven’t. Q-Daffy’s ability to run, hide, and engage the international and Libyan audiences on a number of miso themes speaks to a certain level of internal and external support. Any follow on government will be judged, strength wise, on their ability/inability to capture/judge/exile/kill him and his network. A process limited to the battlefield runs the risk of calling into question the follow on governments commitment to individuals, institutions, and governments being held accountable to law (Sharia, or otherwise). Q-Daffy’s willingness/encouragement to turn off the potable ‘Great Man-Made River’ and disrupt electrical and fuel deliveries speaks to his disregard for the welfare of the people of Libya while simultaneously speaking to the follow-on government’s inability to provide for basic human needs for noncombatants. Where is the GCC or similar with a desalinization plan? Although political instability and certain ideas may be considered catching, while actions taken in Libya might even be judged by actions not taken in Syria, nonetheless there are still a few days of Ramadan left and one would hope the spirit of the times would lead to regional efforts to provide some level of basics to noncombatants. Bodies found of late seem to point to retributionary killings and politically motivated assassinations. Perhaps it not too early to think about, as Rex mentions in a previous post, policing. Partnering with existing forces, vetting, training, and supervising police forces are very political activities that ideally would have civilian (not military if it can be avoided) primacy. Ideally the follow on government needs to provide just policing service; however previous multinational/regional policing models used in Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Cambodia, and El Salvador might be something to look at. The Economist 2011 world in figures provides a figure of 93.2 billion USD for Libya’s 2008 GDP. This estimate covers the legal economy and does not address the magnitude nor the incentives of the illicit economy. As always, there are many more items to think about, but from my armchair the overall trend at this time points toward Libyan civilian primacy being needed to solve Libyan problems.

As to control of Q-Daffy’s armaments, open source reporting seems to indicate that the ‘international community’ have taken the lessons of Iraq to heart; which is a very good thing to see. :D

Graycap
08-28-2011, 03:18 PM
Thank you very much for this insight. I think as you point out this idea of ownership is key. Is it odd that the more I watch event unfold in Lybia the more I think "I'd really like to visit". There is something about the people, whether it is simply romanticism, I don't know. Lybians just strike me as a nice bunch of people, the Gaddafi clan aside. Tripoli, from its skyline at least looks to be booming (honestly no pun intended). So hurry up NTC I want to come on holiday.


Been there a number of times (everytime in gheddafian era) and I know a good number of old hands that have lived there before 1970.

Before Gheddafy Libya was something very similar to a little unknown paradise. Libya people are very friendly and with oil there was no need at all to work. The agricuture was very rich (the best fruit that I ever ate) and life was easy. Libya relied heavily on the west.

Libya without Gheddafy could have become a sort of Qatar or Dubai in the Mediterrean. A paradise fo us italians ;) (and for the Libyans first of all)

With G everything changed. Sometime it could be quite dangerous to be in Tripoli. No tourism was allowed until a few years ago and you were followed from the first minute you arrived.

Anyway let's hope for the future. If you go to Libya don't forget to visit the roman antiquities. Something unforgettable.

Rex Brynen
08-28-2011, 04:01 PM
I'm not sure why we're even discussing post-Qaddafi Libya... apparently the whole thing was faked in an al-Jazeera TV studio in Qatar (http://metrogael.blogspot.com/2011/08/from-makers-of-gaddafi-is-killing-his.html). :D

Try googling "Libya + fake + Qatar" and you'll see how much play this particular conspiracy theory is getting on the fringes of the internet. Russia Today carried the story too in its Spanish language broadcasts.. which may explain why Chavez claims the Libyan revolution was a hoax too (http://avn.info.ve/node/74507).

SWJ Blog
08-29-2011, 08:25 AM
US Tactics in Libya May Be a Model for Other Efforts (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-tactics-in-libya-may-be-a-model-for-other-efforts)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-tactics-in-libya-may-be-a-model-for-other-efforts) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo
09-01-2011, 08:20 PM
A interesting commentary from RUSI's main expert on the action taken; which ends with:
In Paris, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy will find themselves feted by the Libyans. They may even find time for a few self-congratulatory moments. But growing powers have growing vetoes. Further down the road, it is these states that will write the rules of the game and set its tacit expectations. Advocates of full-throated humanitarian intervention should not be surprised if Libya is one of its last hurrahs.

Apart from the theme some interesting points, e.g. the Chinese and Indian presence.

davidbfpo
09-01-2011, 08:46 PM
A long title 'Post-Gaddafi Libya: a police force trained by Britain; and an Islamist militia backed by Qatar' and just a short article:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robcrilly/100102755/libyas-future-a-police-force-trained-by-britain-and-an-islamist-militia-backed-by-qatar/

A little detail on the UK's help:http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=6287

davidbfpo
09-03-2011, 01:30 PM
Now you may ask who is this man, who is the commander of the Tripoli Brigade?


Mr Belhaj was a leader in the now dissolved Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which sent fighters to Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he was detained in 2004 in Malaysia and sent to a secret prison in Thailand, where CIA agents tortured him. Then he was sent by the United States to Libya and sentenced to death by Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi's regime, before his release last year.


Libya is a moderate Muslim country. We call and hope for a civil country that is ruled by the law, which we were not allowed to enjoy under Gaddafi. The religious identity of the country will be left up to the people to choose. The February 17th revolution is the Libyan people's revolution, and no-one can claim it, neither secularists nor Islamists. No-one can make Libya suffer any more under any one ideology, or any one regime.

Link:http://www.scotsman.com/news/Rebel-leader-in-Tripoli-claims.6830108.jp?articlepage=1

The story is on the web, with many similar versions; Wikipedia has a very slim entry.

Bob's World
09-03-2011, 02:14 PM
This is what I have been telling people on this forum for years. Not the details of our furtive actions in our threat-centric, intel-driven, CT-focused approach to the attacks of 9-11; as I have no real interest or much knowledge of such actions. But rather in the nature of who these men are that we lump under broad labels, such as "AQ" or "Terrorist" and why it is they challenge governance at home, and why it is they travel to engage Western powers in ways that they hope will ultimately facilitate the changes they seek at home.

The Intel community and the ideological fear mongers, as well as the COINdinistas and Nation builders, do not grasp the fundamental, nature of this diverse, though common in many ways, problem across the Middle East. This problem is neither complex nor wicked. it is a fundamental quest for good governance and the very universal and unalienable rights we proclaim so boldly in our own Declaration of Independence.

This is a transition to be guided and mentored, but not one to resist and suppress. To take a leadership role on the former validates our professed principles and makes us stronger and more influential. To take a leadership role in the latter places a stain on our heritage, burns our influence faster than Wall Street burns our investments, and leaves us weaker.

We must evolve our own understanding and decide what kind of nation we want to be. Then we must act to be that nation. I understand our approaches to date and the rationale behind them, but I do not agree with them.

Fuchs
09-03-2011, 03:14 PM
Been there a number of times (everytime in gheddafian era) and I know a good number of old hands that have lived there before 1970.

Before Gheddafy Libya was something very similar to a little unknown paradise. Libya people are very friendly and with oil there was no need at all to work. The agricuture was very rich (the best fruit that I ever ate) and life was easy. Libya relied heavily on the west.

Libya without Gheddafy could have become a sort of Qatar or Dubai in the Mediterrean. A paradise fo us italians ;) (and for the Libyans first of all)

With G everything changed. Sometime it could be quite dangerous to be in Tripoli. No tourism was allowed until a few years ago and you were followed from the first minute you arrived.

Anyway let's hope for the future. If you go to Libya don't forget to visit the roman antiquities. Something unforgettable.

Sounds like a lot of whit-washing to me, since oil prices did only rise beyond "ridiculously low" in 1973 and Libya in 1970 was therefore hardly close to paradise. On top of that, its oil production peak in the late 60's (http://www.manicore.com/documentation/petrole/pic_graph27.jpg) was unsustainable.

Graycap
09-03-2011, 03:49 PM
Sorry Fuchs but it seems that we are talking about different issues.

I was only trying to communicate my personal experiences to a forum member curious about Libya and wondering about traveling there.
I Know Libya and Libyans first hand (do you? your impressions?) and the only thing that I can speak of is what I have seen and heard.

I confirm: Libya has been a wonderful place to live and do business until 1970 and partially until 1978. Very dangerous after 1982. This has nothing to do with statistics about oil production that didn't have a direct impact in Libyan life (anyway never put your faith in anything about Libya that you don't know firsthand).
Everything related to oil was separately managed in Libya and it was pretty much a private Gheddafy deal masquerated as nationale enterprises.
THe impact of oil in everyday life has been through an incredibly mismanaged public social wealth distribution absolutely disconnected from oil price and market fluctuations since only a relative little fraction of oil income had that use. The other was personal Gheddafy business. Maybe oneday it will be known how many journalists, politicians, bankers he has simply bought.

Fuchs
09-03-2011, 05:08 PM
So you did not speak about oil, huh?


Before Gheddafy Libya was something very similar to a little unknown paradise. Libya people are very friendly and with oil there was no need at all to work. The agricuture was very rich (the best fruit that I ever ate) and life was easy. Libya relied heavily on the west.

(my emphasis)


I guess you can understand how that 'misunderstanding' came into being.

Graycap
09-03-2011, 05:55 PM
Pissing contest? No thanks. :)

I've my experiences and my knowledge and I've tried to share them with the limits given by the use of a language that is not my native one. That's all.
Too laborious, given my poor english, to try to explain my words when primary intentions don't seem to be constructive. You have quoted my words but I don't understand where I should find inconsistencies (pls let me in my ignorance... ;) )

Anyway, reading this amazing forum, I've come to know your nickname for one of the most interesting and non-conventional member. For these reasons let me sketch you very little aspects: a country of minus than 3 million people with very little expectations and very friendly (the only arabs italian speaking and doing it very well...), no real taxation thanks to oil, senior levels run by European and Americans, no central power to speak of (and maintain through work and taxes) until the King has his "toys" in the europeans casinos, absolute cosmopolitan (a very big jew community for example), people work just as they found useful, fantastic weather and historic legacies of roman era that only Italy has.

Name it as you like and let's knock it off. :)

If I remember correctly one of the forum member used to have a citation in his signature that sounded something like that: real knowledge is experience.
Amen. :eek:

AdamG
09-03-2011, 07:02 PM
China offered huge stockpiles of weapons to Colonel Moammar Gadhafi during the final months of his regime, according to papers that describe secret talks about shipments via Algeria and South Africa.

Documents obtained by The Globe and Mail show that state-controlled Chinese arms manufacturers were prepared to sell weapons and ammunition worth at least $200-million to the embattled Col. Gadhafi in late July, a violation of United Nations sanctions.


Appendices stapled to the memo, and scattered nearby, show the deadly items under discussion: truck-mounted rocket launchers; fuel-air explosive missiles; and anti-tank missiles, among others. Perhaps most controversially, the Chinese apparently offered Col. Gadhafi’s men the QW-18, a surface-to-air missile small enough for a soldier to carry on his shoulder – roughly similar to a U.S. Stinger, capable of bringing down some military aircraft.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/china-offered-gadhafi-huge-stockpiles-of-arms-libyan-memos/article2152875/

Backwards Observer
09-03-2011, 09:10 PM
“Algeria played an important role, helping Gadhafi get his Chinese weapons,” Mr. Badi said. “That’s okay,” he added, with a mischievous grin, “because we will send weapons back for the revolutions in their countries.”

China offered Gadhafi huge stockpiles of arms: Libyan memos (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/china-offered-gadhafi-huge-stockpiles-of-arms-libyan-memos/article2152875/) - Globe and Mail - Sept 3, 2011.

...


The CIA worked closely with Moammar Gadhafi's intelligence services in the rendition of terror suspects to Libya for interrogation, according to documents seen Saturday by the AP, co-operation that could spark tensions between Washington and Libya's new rulers.

Documents show close ties between CIA, Gadhafi regime (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/documents-show-close-ties-between-cia-gadhafi-regime/article2153005/) - Globe and Mail - Sept 3, 2011.

...


"America played an important role, helping Gadhafi maintain his security apparatus," said an unnamed rebel source, "But that's okay..."

M-A Lagrange
09-07-2011, 06:37 AM
Gaddafi 'Tracked Heading For Libyan Border' Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was last tracked heading for Libya's southern border, the man leading the hunt for the deposed leader has said.
Miltary official Hisham Buhagiar said reports indicated Col Gaddafi may have been in the region of the southern village of Ghwat three days ago.
The village is some 190 miles north of the border with Niger.

"He's out of Bani Walid I think. The last tracks, he was in the Ghwat area. People saw the cars going in that direction," Mr Buhagiar said.

"We have it from many sources that he's trying to go further south, towards Chad or Niger."
The news follows reports that some of Col Gaddafi's top officials, including security chief Mansour Daw, were riding in a convoy of vehicles which has already entered Niger.
Col Gaddafi's spokesman Moussa Ibrahim insisted the ousted dictator remained in Libya and that he and his sons were ready to fight to the death.
US officials also said they doubted Col Gaddafi had crossed the border yet and urged Niger to detain any senior officials from the regime.
US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has said that, while Col Gaddafi is still on the run, there is no clue of his whereabouts.
Meanwhile anti-Gaddafi troops appear poised to take one of the colonel's last remaining strongholds by force after talks with tribal elders broke down.
The National Transitional Council (NTC) had been in negotiations for a peaceful handover of Bani Walid, currently occupied by armed Gaddafi loyalists.
But Sky's Emma Hurd said tribesmen had apparently come under fire from pro-Gaddafi fighters as they returned from the talks with a message of peace.http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16064185

According to French newpapers, Burkina Faso denied they welcomed or might welcome Mr Gaddafi.
French news papers also report a convoy of approximately 10 vehicles with gold, $ and euros crossing the Niger border yesterday. NCT is claiming this is stolen reserves from Syrte central bank.

"Tard hier soir, dix véhicules chargés d'or, d'euros et de dollars sont passés au Niger via Djoufra avec l'aide de touaregs d'un tribu nigérienne", a déclaré Fathi Badja, président de la commission pour les affaires politiques et internationales du CNT. Ces richesses auraient été volées à l'agence de la Banque centrale libyenne à Syrte, selon le CNT.
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/un-convoi-libyen-au-niger-tentative-dexil-kadhafi-161030932.html
Late yesterday evening, 10 vehicules loaded with gold, euros and dollars passed to Niger through Djoufra with nigerian touareg tribe support, reported Fathi Badja, the president of NCT political and international affairs commission. According to NCT, those values might have been stolen from Libyan central bank in Syrte.


The hunt is still on.

AdamG
09-12-2011, 01:41 PM
As the dust settles -



The U.S. launched 97 percent of the Tomahawk cruise missiles that crippled Gadhafi's air defenses at the start of operation. And throughout, the U.S. also provided about 75 percent of all the aerial refueling and reconnaissance flights and supplied key targeting and intelligence assets such as unmanned drones.

"Without critical American assets this would not have been possible and I suppose one could argue that if the operation had to go on too much longer it also would not have been possible," says Ian Lesser executive director of German Marshall Fund's trans-Atlantic center in Brussels.

"Clearly Europe was very, hard pressed," Lesser adds, "They were running out of stocks. The lesson really is that the US and Europe together need to refine their defense planning and procurement so they can get more for the amount they can spend."

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/12/140292920/natos-intervention-in-libya-a-new-model



In Libya, there's growing concern over the vast arsenals of weapons that have flooded on to the streets since Moammar Gadhafi's ouster. Warehouses of surface-to-air missiles, mortars and anti-tank mines have been looted.

Soon after the rebels overran the headquarters of Gadhafi's much feared Khamis Brigade on the south side of Tripoli, rebels and ordinary citizens scavenged through a bombed-out warehouse on the base.

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/12/140388721/fears-terrorists-could-land-looted-gadhafi-weapons

Steve the Planner
09-12-2011, 03:41 PM
Sadly, as history tells us, the Libyan matter is just beginning.

As Robert Haddick reminds us in a piece for Foreign Policy:


As we have seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, the greatest threat to the civilian population may come in the "post-war" period when the real fighting for resources and political power is likely to begin. It would be a bitter tragedy if the ouster of Qaddafi -- done in the name of protecting the population -- resulted in Hobbesian chaos afterward. If this occurred, the duty of "responsibility to protect" would seem to fall heavily on NATO. And that might result in pressure to deploy a large stabilization force into Libya, the very outcome the Unified Protector strategy was designed to avoid.

The campaigns in Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, and Libya in 2011 show that it takes surprisingly little military power to overthrow brittle authoritarian regimes. It takes more than air power -- in all of these cases, indigenous or outside ground forces were an essential element of military success. What has yet to be demonstrated in recent memory is whether there can be a relatively bloodless transition to a new political order without a large outside stabilization force. NATO leaders are hoping that Libya will be the first such case, or at least that they can keep thousands of NATO boots out of Libya. We'll see.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/22/this_week_at_war_the_libya_model

While wishing the Libyan people well, our lessons of history teach that the hoped-for final defeat of all opposition only marks the opening of the next and far more complex one.

Already, we see the emergence of potential fault lines (East versus West Libya and their relative contributions to success, turncoats versus long-term opponents, and, the lack of tribal/regional agreement for what comes next (power, influence, resources, control).

These are the threads that need to be joined into a fabric for a positive future. History shows this is a difficult process.

Jedburgh
09-23-2011, 02:16 PM
CNS, 22 Sep 11: Can Libya be Locked Down? (http://cns.miis.edu/wmdjunction/110922_libya_lockdown.htm)

In a post-Qaddafi era, who will secure Libya's chemical and biological weapons materials?

....Should Libya's emerging leaders prove incapable or unwilling to secure the chemical and nuclear materials, there is a moderate to substantial risk of proliferation, given the state of chaos in the country and the fact that its borders with Algeria—where al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has a strong presence—are relatively insecure.

It is difficult to assess how the rebel movement will handle the transition once the fight against Muammar Qaddafi is over. However, it is possible that many of the international community's concerns—including stemming proliferation and terrorism—may take a backseat to the opposition's own domestic political priorities....

Fuchs
09-23-2011, 03:09 PM
"Clearly Europe was very, hard pressed," Lesser adds, "They were running out of stocks. The lesson really is that the US and Europe together need to refine their defense planning and procurement so they can get more for the amount they can spend."

This appears to be a huge example of loss of contact with reality. This person is living in fantasyland.

To be honest, the fact that this quote hasn't been questioned or refuted so far suggests a loss of contact to reality among readers here, too. Well, either that or disinterest.


How could a sane person believe that European powers were hard pressed by this left small finger operation over Libya? We could wipe the whole country with a single index finger.

The European military bureaucracies were not hard pressed by the Libya thing. They barely moved. Some very specialised ammunitions may have run out, and some unusual fancy electronics support may have lacked - indeed, there was even a shortage of tanker aircraft (oh my god, they might have been forced to deploy to more close forward airfields without more tankers!!!).

Yet, if we really had bothered to be serious and actually flex more than one of the very small muscles, we'd have deployed many dozen times as much combat power in a much shorter timeframe.
Fact is, there was no need for it, there was no motivation for it, there was nothing really to be gained in it, cooperating with the U.S. is widely considered to be a nice gesture and not a sign of an own shortcoming and we didn't care seriously.


How absolutely dumb does a person need to be in order to conclude on basis of this left small finger twitch that "Europe" much of which wasn't even involved(!) was "very, [sic!] hard pressed" ?!?


Question: Is dumbness a requirement for getting into mass media news and commentary???


Another question: How dumb does a journalist need to be in order to take a pro-cooperation's lobbyist's opinion on whether more cooperation is necessary seriously?

ganulv
09-23-2011, 03:56 PM
Question: Is dumbness a requirement for getting into mass media news and commentary???

The problem is much more likely to be the structure of the industry than the intelligence of individual journalists. To wit, everyone is on a deadline. And they really are. But that fact is an awfully nice readymade excuse to not ever do analysis or even simple fact-checking.


Another question: How dumb does a journalist need to be in order to take a pro-cooperation's lobbyist's opinion on whether more cooperation is necessary seriously?During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq any mainstream news story about WMDs in Iraq made me turn progressively redder in the face. Some people saw and see media/government collaborationism there. What I saw was tantamount to journalistic malpractice, mostly through laziness and an effort to boost reader-/viewership rather than adherance to any particular political ideology.

I had a university classmate from Kenya who was the son of a journalist. He would bristle a bit when he heard Americans say, “If you love your freedoms, thank a soldier.” He would say, “Don’t journalists have something to do with them, too?” and I would explain to him that nowadays in the States that was just a job, not a vocation.

Marc
09-23-2011, 05:54 PM
To be honest, the fact that this quote hasn't been questioned or refuted so far suggests a loss of contact to reality among readers here, too. Well, either that or disinterest.


How could a sane person believe that European powers were hard pressed by this left small finger operation over Libya? We could wipe the whole country with a single index finger.

Wow, what's the fuss? Why can't we agree that the Libya operation was a terrific example of trans-atlantic cooperation?

motorfirebox
09-24-2011, 06:32 AM
Wow, what's the fuss? Why can't we agree that the Libya operation was a terrific example of trans-atlantic cooperation?
Agreement or disagreement on that statement has next to nothing to do with what Fuchs said.

AdamG
09-28-2011, 04:10 PM
The White House announced today it planned to expand a program to secure and destroy Libya's huge stockpile of dangerous surface-to-air missiles, following an ABC News report that large numbers of them continue to be stolen from unguarded military warehouses.

Currently the U.S. State Department has one official on the ground in Libya, as well as five contractors who specialize in "explosive ordinance disposal", all working with the rebel Transitional National Council to find the looted missiles, White House spokesperson Jay Carney told reporters.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nightmare-libya-20000-surface-air-missiles-missing/story?id=14610199

Reading music :-/ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXiBLwZqvlM)

davidbfpo
10-09-2011, 04:30 PM
Hat tip to Abu M for an interview with a combat photographer and the answer to:
The conflict turned nasty quickly. But the rebels improved over time. You had previously spent a lot of time with seasoned U.S. troops in Afghanistan and know the difference between well-trained regular units and the kinds of citizen militias that were fighting in Libya. Talk the readership of this blog through what you were able to witness in terms of battlefield learning and innovation.

Link:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2011/10/special-abu-muqawama-qa-bryan-denton.html

In summary:
..absolute belief in his cause...the belief one has to have in their cause to charge a tank with a grenade? You can't buy, train, or equip a soldier with that ...

ganulv
10-20-2011, 03:52 PM
I guess a life in cushy exile just doesn’t appeal to some people. LINK (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/muammar-gaddafi-has-been-killed-says-libyan-pm-2373368.html) from The Independent.

Ray
10-20-2011, 06:27 PM
Gaddafi is DEAD!

SWJ Blog
10-20-2011, 07:51 PM
Libya Update Roundup (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/libya-update-roundup)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/libya-update-roundup) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

motorfirebox
10-21-2011, 12:22 AM
I love the narrative, here. "We found him in a drainage ditch and accidentally shot him a few times. Then we put him on a truck, and somebody accidentally shot him again and he died!"

M-A Lagrange
10-25-2011, 11:16 AM
MI6 role in Libyan rebels' rendition 'helped to strengthen al-Qaida'
Britain is already facing legal actions over its involvement in the plot to seize Abdul Hakim Belhaj, leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who is now the military commander in Tripoli, and his deputy, Sami al-Saadi. Both men say they were tortured and jailed after being handed over to Gaddafi.

The documents reveal that British intelligence believe the pair's rendition boosted al-Qaida by removing more moderate elements from the insurgency's leadership. This allowed extremists to push "a relatively close-knit group" focused on overthrowing Gaddafi into joining the pan-Islamist terror network.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/24/mi6-libya-rebels-rendition-al-qaida

Dayuhan
10-25-2011, 11:54 AM
I love the narrative, here. "We found him in a drainage ditch and accidentally shot him a few times. Then we put him on a truck, and somebody accidentally shot him again and he died!"

Having been around groups of armed, angry, effectively unsupervised young men when that mix of adrenalin and testosterone starts firing off, I don't see that narrative as anything unlikely or incredible. It's probably a reasonably accurate description of what happened. If there had been a credible acknowledged authority figure with the will to intervene on the spot at the moment it might have worked out otherwise, without one things went as one would expect.

You can fault the rebels for not having fought their war with a properly organized and properly trained army, but I'm not sure how realistic that is. Hopefully they can develop those structures and impose some kind of discipline in the future - one hopes fairly quickly - but expecting that to appear out of nowhere is unreasonable. What do you think would have happened if a Kurdish or Shi'a militia unit had pulled Saddam Hussein out of a pipe just after his regime's fall?

If the US and allies had decided to go in with troops and remove MG, things might have looked different and a lot of bad things might not have happened. A lot of other bad things might very well have happened: as we learned in Iraq, that model has its own share of problems.

jmm99
10-25-2011, 05:08 PM
at least to me, from the methodologies employed by the "Libyan Oppositon" (in quotes because it's not a monolith), is that the massive "lawyerly" volumes of International Humanitarian Law (e.g., as promulgated by the ICRC) mean spit to irregular forces wrapping up the first phase of a revolution.

One conclusion (reinforced from this incident) is that tightening the rules (as some suggest) will only result in handcuffing regular forces who generally follow the ICRC guidance; and will have no significant effect on irregular forces (e.g., the LRA or the Libyan "militias").

Another conclusion (also reinforced from this incident) is that rules of engagement (if they are to be effective) must be trained in, not legislated. The "Book of Genesis" here is Mark Martins, Rules of Engagement for Land Forces: A Matter of Training, not Lawyering (Military Law Review - Volume 143 - Winter (January) 1994 (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/1994.htm); 295 pp.). Back then, he was a MAJ.

--------------------------------
It seems there will be more of this story - at least from Human Rights Watch:

Libya: Investigate Deaths of Gaddafi and Son, New Evidence Heightens Concerns of Summary Executions (http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/10/22/libya-investigate-deaths-gaddafi-and-son) (October 22, 2011)

Libya: Apparent Execution of 53 Gaddafi Supporters, Bodies Found at Sirte Hotel Used by Anti-Gaddafi Fighters (http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/10/24/libya-apparent-execution-53-gaddafi-supporters) (October 24, 2011)

And, analysis will continue of whatever cell phone videos are available - e.g., in GlobalPost, Gaddafi sodomized: Video shows abuse frame by frame (GRAPHIC), An analysis appears to confirm that a rebel fighter sodomized Gaddafi with a knife (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/111024/gaddafi-sodomized-video-gaddafi-sodomy) (Tracey Shelton October 24, 2011), into the mainstream via CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20124758-503543/globalpost-qaddafi-apparently-sodomized-after-capture/). You can make your own analysis.

Regards

Mike

Dayuhan
10-25-2011, 10:10 PM
the massive "lawyerly" volumes of International Humanitarian Law (e.g., as promulgated by the ICRC) mean spit to irregular forces wrapping up the first phase of a revolution... rules of engagement (if they are to be effective) [B]must be trained in, not legislated

I'd like to think that's obvious to anyone, but I suppose it's not...

jmm99
10-25-2011, 11:58 PM
both points are "obvious":


from Dayuhan


(JMM snip)
... [1] the massive "lawyerly" volumes of International Humanitarian Law (e.g., as promulgated by the ICRC) mean spit to irregular forces wrapping up the first phase of a revolution... [2] rules of engagement (if they are to be effective) must be trained in, not legislated ...

I'd like to think that's obvious to anyone, but I suppose it's not...

but, in truth, I don't think that's the case.

For example, 1977 Additional Protocol II (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/475?OpenDocument) (not acceded by USA; acceded by Libya, 7 Jun 1978):


Part I. Scope of this Protocol

Art 1. Material field of application

1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.

This AP then goes on to spell out in detail rules to be followed by both parties. And, if AP II doesn't apply (if the armed conflict is considered "international"), then AP I (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/470?OpenDocument) (not acceded by USA; acceded by Libya, 7 Jun 1978) applies with even greater vigor.

I happen to believe that much (but not all) of IHL is based on an idealized dreamworld, where those IHL rules will be honored much more in their breach than in their performance. However, I can find all kinds of folks who believe the opposite.

Regards

Mike

motorfirebox
10-26-2011, 01:50 AM
Having been around groups of armed, angry, effectively unsupervised young men when that mix of adrenalin and testosterone starts firing off, I don't see that narrative as anything unlikely or incredible. It's probably a reasonably accurate description of what happened. If there had been a credible acknowledged authority figure with the will to intervene on the spot at the moment it might have worked out otherwise, without one things went as one would expect.
It's certainly possible the official line is exactly what happened. But who can tell? If they'd straight out executed him, would the official line be any different? If he hadn't been accidentally shot to death--assuming that's the case--do we expect that he wouldn't have been executed in the back of the first convenient truck?

Dayuhan
10-26-2011, 05:28 AM
It's certainly possible the official line is exactly what happened. But who can tell? If they'd straight out executed him, would the official line be any different? If he hadn't been accidentally shot to death--assuming that's the case--do we expect that he wouldn't have been executed in the back of the first convenient truck?

I guess you could draw some sort of distinction between a spontaneous, thus "accidental", execution and a planned execution, but I'm not sure whether there'd be much point in it. He's dead, he reaped what he sowed, end of story. Next chapter in progress...

M-A Lagrange
10-26-2011, 07:26 AM
Mike,

I do not think that what happened to Gaddafi can be used as a generality.
Look what happened to Bagbo: trained troops arrested him and followed orders.
Look what happen to anyone with FARDC (DR Congo) and SPLA (South Sudan) (two conventional armies): you get tortured and executed without any legal ground, just for fun. And they receive training, at least for FARDC, from 5 major military powers; US, Belgium, France, South Africa, China, Angola.

The world is better with the rules than without. Application is, at least for the momment, to be perfected.

motorfirebox
10-26-2011, 07:38 AM
I guess you could draw some sort of distinction between a spontaneous, thus "accidental", execution and a planned execution, but I'm not sure whether there'd be much point in it. He's dead, he reaped what he sowed, end of story. Next chapter in progress...
That's my point--I think this is indicative of the sort of "progress" we can expect. Well, this and other clues (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/world/middleeast/libyas-interim-leaders-to-investigate-qaddafi-killing.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all).

Dayuhan
10-26-2011, 11:54 AM
That's my point--I think this is indicative of the sort of "progress" we can expect. Well, this and other clues (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/world/middleeast/libyas-interim-leaders-to-investigate-qaddafi-killing.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all).

Lots of people love the idea of revolution... noble populace stands up and expels the despot, all very pretty. The reality is often less pretty. This is to be expected.

TDB
10-26-2011, 12:33 PM
Well the Western media are up in arms over his death, no shock there. Lets face it though, for the people who were actually there when it had happened, as people have said with no real clearl sense of command, pumped up and angry are we shocked? The people of Libya are clearly chuffed to bits, seeing his bruised and bloody corpse in a storage container has been cathartic, they can see for themselves that he's dead. It will help to close that chapter for Libya. As this article of Foreign Policy nicely sums up (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/25/libya_international_law_qaddafi_nato page two), the length process of an ICC trial would have proved painful for the people. Does this muddy the waters? I wouldn't say so, what is far more important is how the next few months pan out, how the country moves on.

Ken White
10-26-2011, 03:00 PM
What was the question??? :confused:

JMM has it right. 'Idealism' has killed and will kill more people then will unfettered evil. There really are some evil folks in the world but there aren't that many; the idealists believe that they can pass a law that will restrain that evil. It will not. Better to just dispose of the evil types and not try to legislate niceness, morality -- or warfare, an act which by its very nature is the antithesis of restraint. From Thomas Jonathan Jackson:

"People who are anxious to bring on war don't know what they are bargaining for; they don't see all the horrors that must accompany such an event."

The idealists are not anxious to bring on war. They are anxious to define and restrain those horrors -- but their view will always be superficial and thus their goal never achieved. War isn't nice but it will occur and as Billy Sherman said a long time ago, you cannot refine it. That's reality and it strikes me as rather hypocritical to call for or support violent efforts to change the behavior of some evil types and then bemoan the type and degree of violence that may ensue. As ye sow, so shall ye reap and all that jazz... :rolleyes:

How Moammar died, what the 'Rebels' did or didn't do is really sort of irrelevant and it became that way once NATO and Europe, assisted by the US, decided to be Idealists and remove the regime -- with the support of a cheering section of other Idealists.

Bob's World
10-26-2011, 03:10 PM
Important to remember that recent events in Libya are "merely" a milestone in what has been, and will continue to be, a centuries long journey of cultural/governmental evolution. Reducing external manipulations has been, and will likely continue to be, an difficult challenge. Romans, Muslim Caliphs, Ottoman Sultans, European Colonists, Modern day "helpers", etc. will always seek to exert their will and interests into the process. Within all of this the ideas of "nation" and what form of governance best serves that idea will continue to evolve, be hijacked, devolve, etc in a rollercoaster effect that is naturally chaotic. This is true everywhere.

The US challenge is to resist our impulse to exercise too much control over what takes place there, while at the same time somehow being helpful where appropriate and if possible helping to guard against those who would sieze upon this opportunity (internal or external, state or non-state, friend or foe) for their own interests in a manner that would excessively retard this process.

To date, we have not proved particularly adept at that.

Bob's World
10-26-2011, 03:14 PM
Lots of people love the idea of revolution... noble populace stands up and expels the despot, all very pretty. The reality is often less pretty. This is to be expected.

Noble all the same. The sad truth however is that the populace is almost always the net loser in this game. Government abuses populace, populace generates motive and will to resist, self-serving party hijacks populace for own agenda, new government abuses populace...(repeat as necessary)

Ok, so "noble" is not the best word. I prefer "natural." Insurgency is natural, but those who leverage those conditions are rarely noble.

carl
10-26-2011, 04:01 PM
JMM has it right. 'Idealism' has killed and will kill more people then will unfettered evil. There really are some evil folks in the world but there aren't that many;...

This is just a point of philosophical disagreement. It makes little difference in the real world; if you see a poisonous snake you kill it, it isn't important if you get the genus and species right.

That being said, boy are you wrong. There are a lot of evil people in the world, all around you. You (the rhetorical you) know a lot of them and deal with them daily. Most all are restrained by societal controls, mainly the fear of getting caught, so you don't see the evil that is there, unless you are a police officer or in a similar line of work. Then you see it, because you work with people for whom the societal controls have no meaning or who miscalculated their chances of getting caught.

The other times you will see it is when those societal controls break down or are perverted in some way. Then the evil comes out, the little, cruel, smirking, for the fun of it evil that M-A mentioned. You can go on and on listing those occasions.

Then of course we have the historically significant major killers. It is true there aren't many of those guys because there just aren't that many people who have the manifold genius to pull that off. They aren't primarily motivated by idealism. Their primary motivation is the acquisition and maintenance of personal power, and what I believe is just the plain old simple satisfaction of offing people you dislike.

There is evil. Getting modern Americans to really accept that is a hard thing to do because they can live their whole lives without having to come face to face with it.

Ken White
10-26-2011, 04:09 PM
To date, we have not proved particularly adept at that.The first rule of holes; stop digging. Do not violate the hockey law -- if it's not yours, don't puck with it. One cannot do what one does not know how to do...:wry:
The US challenge is to resist our impulse to exercise too much control over what takes place there, while at the same time somehow being helpful where appropriate...(emphasis added / kw)That's okay...
and if possible helping to guard against those who would sieze upon this opportunity (internal or external, state or non-state, friend or foe) for their own interests in a manner that would excessively retard this process.That, however, becomes meddling and will absolutely lead to our ignoring your excellent advice that I placed in italics above. Once again, you're in conflict with yourself. Can't have it both ways... ;)

Ken White
10-26-2011, 04:32 PM
This is just a point of philosophical disagreement.It happens to be an historical fact. Too many wars have lasted too long and done too much damage to all involved because of a misplaced idealistic vision. Afghanistan and Iraq -- as well as Libya -- are just the latest examples.
It makes little difference in the real world; if you see a poisonous snake you kill it, it isn't important if you get the genus and species right.Bad simile. Lot of folks can't tell poisonous from non-poisonous. There you go, advocating the killing of innocent and helpful types... :D
That being said, boy are you wrong.That would be different... :eek:
There are a lot of evil people in the world, all around you... unless you are a police officer or in a similar line of work.I've been a cop; left that line of work because I saw too many old guys who had that attitude and were excessively convinced the thin blue line was the only route to salvation. It is not. Nor are Cops the only good guys. I also have two sons who are Cops and have been for 35 and a little over ten years and on the West and East Coasts respectively. They acknowledge there are those they work with who believe as you do -- both contend they do not so believe. One does not have a thin blue line sticker on his vehicle, the other does. Different strokes.

It should also be noted that any soldier with much combat experience is likely to see more raw evil in a year or so than many Cops will in a lifetime. It's all relative.
There is evil.Of course there is evil, tons of it. Bertrand Russell had it about right I expect. So did Pareto. The evil 20% are out there. The other 80% are less evil and are restrained by laws -- and society -- and themselves...
Getting modern Americans to really accept that is a hard thing to do because they can live their whole lives without having to come face to face with it.I'd say not most, just some Americans, perhaps 20% or so. Those would be the unfettered idealists... ;)

carl
10-26-2011, 04:59 PM
It happens to be an historical fact. Too many wars have lasted too long and done too much damage to all involved because of a misplaced idealistic vision.

You said, idealism kills more people than evil. You did not say idealism makes some wars last longer. I addressed what you said and I gave examples. You may disagree. Your disagreement does not constitute historical fact.


Lot of folks can't tell poisonous from non-poisonous. There you go, advocating the killing of innocent and helpful types... :D

Geesh I hate it when I have to explain things that I know you get already. But it is my own fault for not taking the time to write clearly enough. You walk around in the bush and you see a snake that you know is dangerous, because you learned somehow or other that it is so you kill it. It doesn't matter much if you can name the genus and species.


I've been a cop; left that line of work because I saw too many old guys who had that attitude and were excessively convinced the thin blue line was the only route to salvation. It is not. Nor are Cops the only good guys. I also have two sons who are Cops and have been for 35 and a little over ten years and on the West and East Coasts respectively. They acknowledge there are those they work with who believe as you do -- both contend they do not so believe. One does not have a thin blue line sticker on his vehicle, the other does. Different strokes.

Well that straw man is well and truly dead. However I didn't say anything at all about cops feeling superior to other citizens. I said that police officers and people in similar lines of work see evil face to face whereas other most other citizens don't.


It should also be noted that any soldier with much combat experience is likely to see more raw evil in a year or so than many Cops will in a lifetime.

Granted. But what does that have to do with anything? You get hit hard and you know it hurts. You get hit hard more often and you still know it hurts; if you know what I mean and I think you do.:)


It's all relative.Of course there is evil, tons of it. Bertrand Russell had it about right I expect. So did Pareto. The evil 20% are out there. The other 80% are less evil and are restrained by laws -- and society -- and themselves...

That was the point of my comment. 20% isn't "aren't that many".

Ken White
10-26-2011, 05:46 PM
You said, idealism kills more people than evil. You did not say idealism makes some wars last longer. I addressed what you said and I gave examples. You may disagree. Your disagreement does not constitute historical fact.You may wish to think about what you wrote there. I suggest my example states that idealism wrongly lengthens war and that longer wars invariably kill more people. Your examples OTOH constitute your opinions which I acknowledged have credence, particualrly in the LE community but simply countered with my own and my sons example of members or former members who do not subscribe to your opinion.

Geesh I hate it when I have to explain things that I know you get already. But it is my own fault for not taking the time to write clearly enough. Possibly. It's also possible that I don't take things as seriously as you do.
I didn't say anything at all about cops feeling superior to other citizens. I said that police officers and people in similar lines of work see evil face to face whereas other most other citizens don't.No you did not -- I did because I've seen it. I got your point, merely pointed out that I had seen that syndrome taken to excess.
Granted. But what does that have to do with anything? You get hit hard and you know it hurts. You get hit hard more often and you still know it hurts; if you know what I mean and I think you do.:)Actually, I don't know. My point was simply that evil is indeed about but that it take many forms and how or what is seen as "evil" is relative.
That was the point of my comment. 20% isn't "aren't that many".I'm sorry, I don't understand that either. If you mean that 20% is too many to be "aren't that many" and in fact constitutes your "... a lot of evil people in the world..." then we can disagree. Been my observation that 20% rule is reasonably accurate in most divisions of human behavior and performance. Thus, to me, that's pretty much a norm and doesn't approach "a lot" -- that implies to me near parity.

motorfirebox
10-26-2011, 06:08 PM
I guess you could draw some sort of distinction between a spontaneous, thus "accidental", execution and a planned execution, but I'm not sure whether there'd be much point in it. He's dead, he reaped what he sowed, end of story. Next chapter in progress...
The difference between saying "Oops!" after shooting him in the back of a truck, versus actually putting him on trial--even a kangaroo court trial--is the difference between lining up civilians against the wall versus actual integration of the winners and the losers into a whole (or wholer, or whole-ish, or not completely dominated by mass executions) society. Right now, we've got Gaddafi dead in the back of a truck... and civilians being lined up against walls.

Maybe this is just a phase, and after a while the 'noble revolutionaries'--the ones who couldn't revolt their way out of a wet paper bag--will get their stuff together and form a real, peace-oriented government. Stranger things have happened. People survive skydiving without parachutes, hurricanes leave single structures standing while everything else is flattened, and massacre squads become functioning governments.

Bob's World
10-26-2011, 06:15 PM
The first rule of holes; stop digging. Do not violate the hockey law -- if it's not yours, don't puck with it. One cannot do what one does not know how to do...:wry:That's okay...That, however, becomes meddling and will absolutely lead to our ignoring your excellent advice that I placed in italics above. Once again, you're in conflict with yourself. Can't have it both ways... ;)

Not in conflict with myself, but merely attempting to describe our national dilemma. I personally find a great deal of value in George Washington's farewell address. Certainly I cringe as hard as you when ideas like "R2P" are given serious consideration.

carl
10-26-2011, 06:43 PM
Your examples OTOH constitute your opinions which I acknowledged have credence, particualrly in the LE community but simply countered with my own and my sons example of members or former members who do not subscribe to your opinion....No you did not -- I did because I've seen it. I got your point, merely pointed out that I had seen that syndrome taken to excess.

I'll try once more, though the passive resistance is wearing me down. My opinion, just this little small point, is that police officers and those in similar lines in the US, see evil face to face more so than the average citizen. Now there may be some officers who don't subscribe to that opinion but I would guess, guess mind you, nothing else, that they work in a pretty boring jurisdiction.

That is not an attitude nor is it a syndrome taken to excess, it is an opinion.

Mr. Jones:

Now I'll deal with you.

I really liked what you wrote in the second paragraph of your 0640 post. An additional reason to restrain our impulse to exercise too much control is sometimes we don't have any control to exercise, even though we always like to think we do. In the "Arab spring" cases I think that is the case. There isn't all that much we can do even if we cared to.

I liked the being helpful when possible and if appropriate part to. If we had been able to be more helpful in Russia after WWI history would have changed for the better I think. It may have been appropriate but probably wasn't possible. Alas...

jmm99
10-26-2011, 07:03 PM
from Carl
It makes little difference in the real world; if you see a poisonous snake you kill it, it isn't important if you get the genus and species right.

Why not backoff ? Why not bypass it ? Why not capture it ?

Do you exclude those COAs ?

If you don't exclude alternative COAs, what are your criteria to select among them ?

Regards

Mike

Ken White
10-26-2011, 07:27 PM
as the Actress said to the Bishop... :D
I'll try once more, though the passive resistance is wearing me down. My opinion, just this little small point, is that police officers and those in similar lines in the US, see evil face to face more so than the average citizen.I agree with that as written. Not to be nit picky but I don't think that's very near what you wrote earlier. :wry:
Now there may be some officers who don't subscribe to that opinion but I would guess, guess mind you, nothing else, that they work in a pretty boring jurisdiction.I don't think I said any Cops would disagree with that and I doubt many if any would. I did say that some -- not in boring jurisdictions, big cities rarely provide that for any office with more than a few years service -- did agree with my stated "too many old guys who had that attitude and were excessively convinced the thin blue line was the only route to salvation." "That attitude" being that most everyone not a Cop was inclined to be evil and only the might of the law kept that -- barely -- in check. Nor did I say or think you subscribed to that though I did write that you seemed to think along those general lines

carl
10-26-2011, 08:38 PM
Why not backoff ? Why not bypass it ? Why not capture it ?

Do you exclude those COAs ?

If you don't exclude alternative COAs, what are your criteria to select among them ?

Regards

Mike

You guys remind me of a SGT I had who used to cross out "hit" and make me use "struck" or "impacted" instead.

This isn't rhetoric class and I ain't going to do the homework assignment if I feel like reading "McAuslan in the Rough", by Fraser which is a very good book by the way, as is "The General Danced at Dawn", where was I...instead.

You get it. I thought you gave up lawyering?

carl
10-26-2011, 08:40 PM
...though I did write that you seemed to think along those general lines

It may be more productive to ask me direct.

Ken White
10-26-2011, 10:42 PM
It may be more productive to ask me direct.Though it would probably save time if you wrote what you meant in the first place. Not a knock just a suggestion for your consideration. When you read something here that arouses you a bit, you tend to come across as aggressive -- not passive aggressive, just aggressive. That's okay in person but in this medium it can lead to misperceptions -- as you and I have already noted.

Good example is the JMM interchange. You suggest killing all poisonous snake and he -- reasonably, I thought, mentioned there were other options. You took it as Lawyerlike twisting of words, to me they were fair questions. Nor do I see the relationship between your Sergeant and his weasel wording with Mike asking about alternatives to your suggestion. For all Mike knew, you may have considered those things and just not mentioned them. Similarly, for all I knew initially, when you wrote "...you don't see the evil that is there, unless you are a police officer or in a similar line of work" you may have disagreed with the statement but ordinarily most of us will figure that's your position. IOW, I didn't ask if you really believed what you wrote, I took it at face value. You later clarified and refined it to this:"I didn't say anything at all about cops feeling superior to other citizens. I said that police officers and people in similar lines of work see evil face to face whereas other most other citizens don't. which is a bit different and with which I agree.

This is indeed not a rhetoric class nor is anyone passing out homework that I can see. It's okay to disagree with people but one doesn't have to be disagreeable in the process.

When all's said and done, it appears that this:
That being said, boy are you wrong. There are a lot of evil people in the world, all around you.rather condescending comment got thrown right back at you and our real disagreement in this case seems to merely be over what percentage of people constitute "a lot."

All that said I agree with you about all three G.MacD F. books in that trilogy. All three are great. If you haven't, you should also read his "Quartered Safe Out Here." IMO it's one of the best war memoirs I've read if not the best.

Dayuhan
10-26-2011, 10:54 PM
It makes little difference in the real world; if you see a poisonous snake you kill it, it isn't important if you get the genus and species right.

If you must... personally, if I meet a poisonous snake I leave it alone and avoid it. Plenty of people get bit trying to kill a snake that was pretty much minding its own business.


Noble all the same. The sad truth however is that the populace is almost always the net loser in this game. Government abuses populace, populace generates motive and will to resist, self-serving party hijacks populace for own agenda, new government abuses populace...(repeat as necessary)

True often enough... but in the death of Daffy we saw revolution in its pure state, unhijacked, unleveraged. Angry men with guns, fired up on that potent cocktail of adrenalin and testosterone, face to face with the face they despise. That's not about self-serving parties hijacking anything, that's about Daffy sticking around way too long and ending up in the wrong place at the wrong time. So it goes. One hopes a few others were observing.


The difference between saying "Oops!" after shooting him in the back of a truck, versus actually putting him on trial--even a kangaroo court trial--is the difference between lining up civilians against the wall versus actual integration of the winners and the losers into a whole (or wholer, or whole-ish, or not completely dominated by mass executions) society. Right now, we've got Gaddafi dead in the back of a truck... and civilians being lined up against walls.

You speak as though this happened by the decision was made by the NTC, or by some authority, or as though there was some conscious plan in all this. There isn't. The decision was made by an angry guy with a gun, and it's not likely he was thinking about international perceptions or trials or human rights or rules of war or what the NTC would think or say. It's likely he didn't even plan to pull the trigger until he did it.

These things are actually less likely to happen in a revolution waged by a structured movement with a military arm that's been fighting for some time: unstructured spontaneous revolt is a lot harder to control. Of course when a revolution waged by a structured movement succeeds, the structured movement almost invariably takes over as the new despot. Something similar may or may not happen in this case. We don't know: there's a lot yet to be seen. Realistically, though, trying to hold people accountable for all the nastiness that went down on both sides in the heat of the moment is probably going to be a perfunctory exercise that goes nowhere.

carl
10-27-2011, 12:43 AM
Ken:

You're right. I gotta write more clear. For example, when I initially wrote "...you don't see the evil that is there, unless you are a police officer or in a similar line of work", it was part of a paragraph that contained a preceding sentence that made it clear, I thought, that all the "you"s in the paragraph were rhetorical. That made the whole paragraph more of a comment upon a part of human nature than anything else. And in context, more applicable to America than other places, at least that is what I thought.

Edit after the initial response alert! I also should have made a new paragraph after "Boy are you...". That would have helped too.

The snake thing was a metaphor. Poorly carried out obviously enough. It was meant to illustrate that whether bad thing is done because of "idealism" or "unfettered evil" doesn't make much difference. The result is the same and you stop it if you can.

The "boy are you wrong." is just plain old colloquial American English which I still rather like. Though I will admit that telling somebody directly they are wrong is rather frowned upon in modern America.

You should actually try asking me direct. I might surprise you.

I guess I ended up doing my rhetoric homework after all.

jmm99
10-27-2011, 12:58 AM
You elected not to answer them. That's your right.

My right is to ignore your comments.

Regards

Mike

carl
10-27-2011, 01:06 AM
Mike:

If I offended you, I apologize. I though you were fooling around. Another thing I got wrong.

Ken White
10-27-2011, 01:36 AM
The "boy are you wrong." is just plain old colloquial American English which I still rather like.I have no problem with it -- in person, where expressions and nuances can be seen and felt. On an internet caht board it can come across as a flat statement. It's, as they say, an imperfect medium ...
Though I will admit that telling somebody directly they are wrong is rather frowned upon in modern America.For some maybe. Most will take it the way it's meant if they can see no hostile intent. I'm good -- but I can't quite see you... :D
You should actually try asking me direct. I might surprise you.I can do dat... ;)

motorfirebox
10-27-2011, 02:24 AM
You speak as though this happened by the decision was made by the NTC, or by some authority, or as though there was some conscious plan in all this. There isn't. The decision was made by an angry guy with a gun, and it's not likely he was thinking about international perceptions or trials or human rights or rules of war or what the NTC would think or say. It's likely he didn't even plan to pull the trigger until he did it.
I'm trying to say the opposite--that the NTC appears to be barely in control of itself. It seems somewhat unlikely (though not impossible!) that any orders passed down by the NTC regarding Gaddafi included sodomy. But to the extent that the NTC is organized, they seem to be organizing the murder of a lot of people. Which is what we went in to stop in the first place.

Dayuhan
10-27-2011, 03:23 AM
I'm trying to say the opposite--that the NTC appears to be barely in control of itself. It seems somewhat unlikely (though not impossible!) that any orders passed down by the NTC regarding Gaddafi included sodomy. But to the extent that the NTC is organized, they seem to be organizing the murder of a lot of people. Which is what we went in to stop in the first place.

Of course the NTC is barely in control of itself and not at all in control of everyone who decided to fight against Daffy. The only surprise there is that anyone would have expected otherwise.

I saw the pictures that were labelled "sodomy", and all I saw was crappy journalism. Nice headline, but... not.

jmm99
10-27-2011, 03:58 AM
of this:


from Carl
If I offended you, I apologize. I thought you were fooling around. Another thing I got wrong.

and remove it from your Words and Phrases. The "if" voids any genuine apology (and I don't like apologies anyway). That being said, the rest I accept completely as a valid explanation.

No, I wasn't fooling around. I thought your choice of the poisonous snake was a good one as a relevant discussion example. The snake is an unloved critter to most; and is perceived to be a much greater danger than it actually is.

Thus, the option "to kill" is probably overselected; and the backoff (safely observe), bypass and capture options are probably underselected. Hammers & Nails vs Screwdrivers & Screws, etc.

-------------------------------
Marc:


from MAL

I do not think that what happened to Gaddafi can be used as a generality.

Look what happened to Bagbo: trained troops arrested him and followed orders.

Look what happen to anyone with FARDC (DR Congo) and SPLA (South Sudan) (two conventional armies): you get tortured and executed without any legal ground, just for fun. And they receive training, at least for FARDC, from 5 major military powers; US, Belgium, France, South Africa, China, Angola.

You agree, do you not, that Gaddafi's execution (and the other executions of Gaddafi's followers after their capture by the opposition) were violations of the Geneva Conventions and AP II (or, worse yet for the opposition, AP I if NATO involvement made it an "international conflict") ? If so, you'd have to admit that the conduct of those opposition forces (the misconduct of Gaddafi's "regular" forces is covered in the next paragraph) is evidence of my point that irregular forces generally care spit about IHL.

As to FARDC (DR Congo) and SPLA (South Sudan) - and Gaddafi's forces, those uniformed rabbles also care spit about IHL. No doubt they are the armed forces of Westphalian states, and so technically regular forces. Whether their training by the US, Belgium, France, South Africa, China and Angola includes training in IHL, I don't know. If anyone knows, please advise. I'd surely add that to my equations if it is material.

The bottom line for FARDC, SPLA - and some other armed forces (found generally in strong authoritarian, weak authoritarian and weak democratic states) - is that their primary role is often that of providing Internal Security (or Internal Insecurity, if that is more important to their masters). As such, they will care as much for IHL (and IHRL) as the average secret policeman.

As to Bagbo, the earliest reports had him initially captured by French troopers, who then handed him off to the opposition forces. Soon, however, several high-ranking French officials denied that - initial capture was by the opposition; but the French troops were "in support". My bet is that the decision was made (by at least the French and the Ivorian opposition) well ahead of time that Bagbo himself was to be a pure capture mission. If that one was an exception, I think it is an exception that proves my general rule.

Getting back to the material issue and statistics. How many irregular forces have accepted and applied the GCs and APs (the APs only if applicable in their country) ? If a majority of irregulars have done so since 1949, I'll concede that my conclusion (that they care spit for IHL) lacks a preponderence of material evidence.

Regards

Mike

motorfirebox
10-27-2011, 04:06 AM
Mmm... having seen the video, I'm more convinced. It's not absolutely conclusive, but there doesn't seen to be anything inauthentic about it that I can tell. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to link it here; it's easy enough to find on YouTube.

What Gaddafi's death (in an illustrative way) and the fact of the massacres by rebel forces of Gaddafi loyalists (more practically) indicates, to me, is that we shouldn't have gotten involved. Mass grave were going to be filled no matter what. I don't see these as one-off incidents, I see them as the start of a new pattern that has a strong chance of being either indistinguishable from or distinguishably worse than the previous pattern.

M-A Lagrange
10-27-2011, 07:07 AM
Libya: Gadhafi son offers to surrender to Hague
On the run in the desert, fearing for his life after his father was captured and slain and despairing of any safe haven across an African border, the 39-year-old once expected to inherit dynastic power from Moammar Gadhafi now saw a Dutch prison cell as his best option, the official said.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45053170/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/


Mike,

As far as I know, ICRC conducts and has been conducting training on IHL in Colombia with FARC, in Sri Lanka with TTG, in Nepal… Many irregular forces received trainings in IHL. Does that mean they integrated it in their trainings/behavior, tactics or even took it in consideration even for 1 min: I do not know.
Let say: if there are prisoners of war on both sides, then there is some of IHL being applied. (Never said that POW are well treated.)


I agree with you on the statement that what is needed are trainings and not just legal lectures. But that’s no reason to throw away the baby with the bath water. (Ok big French language barbarism but I figure it is clear).

First: As long as facing trial for war crimes will remain linked or even depending on politic, then there will always be a temptation to explain that IHL are useless. Having known war criminal running freely their business in the open does not help to support the IHL agenda.

Secondly: 1977 additional protocols were designed after the liberation wars fought by Britain and France. They were and remain a step in the right direction, IMHO. Before, irregular groups did not have rights but there were no obligations for irregular groups neither.

What blurs the question is the shift induced from conduct of war as a practice/custom with regulations to a civilization/cultural confrontation where all from the other side is rejected. And, the temptation of radicalization, through brutality, to reach the end.

TDB
10-27-2011, 10:10 AM
Another casualty of the military intervention was human rights. To be sure, Qaddafi was a cruel dictator, and his overthrow was a victory for those who care about human rights. But human rights law does not endorse the principle that the ends justify the means -- even if the ends are humanitarian. As Amnesty International reported, the rebel groups "abducted, arbitrarily detained, tortured and killed former members of the security forces, suspected Gaddafi loyalists, captured soldiers and foreign nationals wrongly suspected of being mercenaries fighting on behalf of Gaddafi forces."

That this would happen was surely obvious to the policymakers involved. That this would happen when NATO forces commit themselves to an air war, and refuse to send ground troops that might have imposed some discipline on the rebel forces, should have been even more obvious. But the fact is that a ground campaign was politically impossible. Thus, the choice was between non-intervention, which could have resulted in massacres and the prolongation of Qaddafi's regime, or intervention along with moral, if not necessarily legal, complicity in torture and crimes against humanity by the rebels. International law provides no guidance for making this tradeoff, and thus surely did not influence the decisions of the governments.


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/25/libya_international_law_qaddafi_nato?page=0,1

This does make an interesting point I believe. Also this is the first I've heard about Gadaffi being raped, seems a bit far fetched.

JMA
10-27-2011, 10:46 AM
.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/25/libya_international_law_qaddafi_nato?page=0,1

This does make an interesting point I believe. Also this is the first I've heard about Gadaffi being raped, seems a bit far fetched.

Rape of males? It happens in Africa all the time. It is used 'break' prisoners and destroy their will to resist.

I requote from that piece:


That this would happen was surely obvious to the policymakers involved. That this would happen when NATO forces commit themselves to an air war, and refuse to send ground troops that might have imposed some discipline on the rebel forces, should have been even more obvious.

This was my point on or around the time I dropped out of the Libyan discussions. Yes it was blindingly obvious to me (and probably a lot more people) but not to the current US President the Key Stone Cops cast of characters who he surrounds himself with.

The recent Libyan campaign has been an unmitigated disaster for the people of Libya. The bottom line is don't arm a rabble because an armed rabble is uncontrollable... and capable of unspeakable brutality.

The bad news is that the US electoral system is about to return a proven idiot for a second term or produce a new 'smart' guy with all the same narcissist arrogance who will screw some other country up. Amazingly most Americans can't see this.

carl
10-27-2011, 12:37 PM
I don't understand the angst over this. This is normal when a violent civil war ends and during its' course. The times that it doesn't happen are the exceptional cases that should cause wonderment. This was almost certainly going to happen and the presence of western troops would not have stopped it. You just would have had some supremely frustrated and disgusted western troops.


The bad news is that the US electoral system is about to return a proven idiot for a second term or produce a new 'smart' guy with all the same narcissist arrogance who will screw some other country up. Amazingly most Americans can't see this.

And we probably will return arrogant narcissists (I really like that phrase) to office again and again. They do very well on TV for some reason and that is the main thing. An unrelated observation: TV has only been around in an important way for 60 years or so. I don't think its' effect on politics has been fully felt or appreciated yet. Maybe the structure created in the 18th century by the founders can't tolerate it.

Mike:

I offended you, and am sorry that I did. It was not intentional.

I used the "If I..." form because that is a convention but not a good one.

Apologies are important to me. If I unknowingly offend, I will make one. That is good manners. The other way around doesn't matter to me, but if I am discourteous, amends must be made.

TDB
10-27-2011, 02:16 PM
Rape of males? It happens in Africa all the time. It is used 'break' prisoners and destroy their will to resist.

I requote from that piece:



This was my point on or around the time I dropped out of the Libyan discussions. Yes it was blindingly obvious to me (and probably a lot more people) but not to the current US President the Key Stone Cops cast of characters who he surrounds himself with.

The recent Libyan campaign has been an unmitigated disaster for the people of Libya. The bottom line is don't arm a rabble because an armed rabble is uncontrollable... and capable of unspeakable brutality.

The bad news is that the US electoral system is about to return a proven idiot for a second term or produce a new 'smart' guy with all the same narcissist arrogance who will screw some other country up. Amazingly most Americans can't see this.

Oh I'm not saying it doesn't happen I'm sure it does, all too often. I just meant that from the timeline I've got in my head, he's found, roughed up, bungled into the back of a van and shot enroute. I haven't seen the video so I'm probably jumping to conclusions, something I try not to do.

SWJ Blog
10-27-2011, 04:11 PM
Qatari soldiers, not Green Berets, execute UW campaign in Libya (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/qatari-soldiers-not-green-berets-execute-uw-campaign-in-libya)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/qatari-soldiers-not-green-berets-execute-uw-campaign-in-libya) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Dayuhan
10-27-2011, 11:09 PM
What Gaddafi's death (in an illustrative way) and the fact of the massacres by rebel forces of Gaddafi loyalists (more practically) indicates, to me, is that we shouldn't have gotten involved. Mass grave were going to be filled no matter what. I don't see these as one-off incidents, I see them as the start of a new pattern that has a strong chance of being either indistinguishable from or distinguishably worse than the previous pattern.

Again, did you expect them to read him his rights?

Daffy had a choice: he could have elected to walk away and taken exile. He chose to fight it out. That sealed his fate and that of some of his supporters.

There's no reason why this sort of thing has to become a new pattern. Once actual combat stops, a lot of the guys with guns are likely put them down, go home, try to take up their former lives, and start rehumanizing. The heat of the moment, adrenalin and rage, drives all sorts of stuff, but the heat fades if there's no fighting to stoke it. There's every chance that if active resistance stops the NTC can gain control and start trying to put their house in order... not without some mess of course, but revolution is a messy business.

It's also possible that the country will devolve into civil war. That possibility has always been there, as it was and is in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only way to keep that possibility off the table would have been to accept the status quo ante or govern the place ourselves, which would have been worse.


Oh I'm not saying it doesn't happen I'm sure it does, all too often. I just meant that from the timeline I've got in my head, he's found, roughed up, bungled into the back of a van and shot enroute. I haven't seen the video so I'm probably jumping to conclusions, something I try not to do.

Somebody was jabbing a stick at his backside, which some creative news person transformed into "sodomy". I'm sure it sold some papers and drew some eyeballs.


This was my point on or around the time I dropped out of the Libyan discussions. Yes it was blindingly obvious to me (and probably a lot more people) but not to the current US President the Key Stone Cops cast of characters who he surrounds himself with.

The recent Libyan campaign has been an unmitigated disaster for the people of Libya. The bottom line is don't arm a rabble because an armed rabble is uncontrollable... and capable of unspeakable brutality.

The bad news is that the US electoral system is about to return a proven idiot for a second term or produce a new 'smart' guy with all the same narcissist arrogance who will screw some other country up. Amazingly most Americans can't see this.

What you've consistently omitted to recognize is that the US Government is accountable to American people, not Libyan people. The course taken may have been an "unmitigated disaster" for Libyans - though many of them seem quite content with it - but to remove Daffy ourselves, and to take responsibility for what came after, would have been an unmitigated disaster for Americans. We've quite enough of that on the table already.

The only options on the table were to stay out or do more or less what was done. Either would have been messy, but a mess with a possible future is better than a mess that's just going to repeat itself.

Fighting is nasty, always has been, always will be... but sometimes people have to fight for freedom and a future to appreciate what those things are. Giving them a hand is reasonable, but if we take over and do their job for them, we do them no favors. Some things people have to do for themselves, even if that means more stuff gets broken in the process.

motorfirebox
10-28-2011, 12:31 AM
Again, did you expect them to read him his rights?

Daffy had a choice: he could have elected to walk away and taken exile. He chose to fight it out. That sealed his fate and that of some of his supporters.

There's no reason why this sort of thing has to become a new pattern. Once actual combat stops, a lot of the guys with guns are likely put them down, go home, try to take up their former lives, and start rehumanizing. The heat of the moment, adrenalin and rage, drives all sorts of stuff, but the heat fades if there's no fighting to stoke it. There's every chance that if active resistance stops the NTC can gain control and start trying to put their house in order... not without some mess of course, but revolution is a messy business.

It's also possible that the country will devolve into civil war. That possibility has always been there, as it was and is in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only way to keep that possibility off the table would have been to accept the status quo ante or govern the place ourselves, which would have been worse.
I'm not sure what you've seen that's convinced you that the NTC is, or has the capability of becoming, an effective organizing force. Whatever it is, I haven't spotted it.

I've taken a dim view of this action pretty much since the beginning, because it seemed likely to me to have a long, violent outcome that would basically invalidate anything we might accomplish. No, I didn't expect Gaddafi would be read his rights--I expected he'd get a bad death, because he didn't seem like the type to quit and he hadn't left his enemies a reason to allow him any dignity.

Steve the Planner
10-28-2011, 12:34 AM
Fighting is nasty, always has been, always will be... but sometimes people have to fight for freedom and a future to appreciate what those things are. Giving them a hand is reasonable, but if we take over and do their job for them, we do them no favors. Some things people have to do for themselves, even if that means more stuff gets broken in the process.

Dayuhan:

Couldn't tel, at first, whether this was just a one-off comment on Libya, or something with broader application (Iraq, Afghanistan)....

I like it.

Dayuhan
10-28-2011, 12:36 AM
I'm not sure what you've seen that's convinced you that the NTC is, or has the capability of becoming, an effective organizing force. Whatever it is, I haven't spotted it.

They are what's there. They haven't been there long, hence their capacity remains minimal. I don't think Libyans have any less capacity to organize or any less incentive to organize than anyone else. Whether they will or not is up to them. Now they have the choice, before they didn't. We helped bring them a choice, not salvation. How they use it is up to them.


I didn't expect Gaddafi would be read his rights--I expected he'd get a bad death, because he didn't seem like the type to quit and he hadn't left his enemies a reason to allow him any dignity.

Exactly. Karma's a bitch.

Dayuhan
10-28-2011, 12:44 AM
Couldn't tel, at first, whether this was just a one-off comment on Libya, or something with broader application (Iraq, Afghanistan)....

Meant to be generic. The theory, in general, operates on two levels...

Overthrowing a dictator from the inside requires that opposing factions organize and cooperate to some extent. In practical terms, this places them in a better position to manage after the dictator's fall. It's not necessarily a perfect position, and the danger that a coalition will fracture, sometimes violently, or that one faction will install themselves as a new despot is always there. Overall, though, it's a better position than what's left when a despot is removed by external action, leaving little or no organized capacity locally.

On a more airy-fairy level, when people have to fight for freedom, they are more personally invested in it and more likely to take personal responsibility for what happens after, even if only in their own small patch.

As with all general theories, this is not universally applicable and will see all manner of permutations. Your mileage may vary. Overall, though, I do believe that, as above, some things people need to do for themselves, at least to the greatest possible extent.

Steve the Planner
10-28-2011, 01:11 AM
Right.

I go to planning seminars on community participation--how to get a few residents to show up for anything, or, more challenging, what to do when dozens of angry residents show up. Getting them involved, diffusing their anger by meaningful participation, etc...

Th US"Failed State" efforts never quite got the drift of how essential that community engagement is, especially in times of war and strife. If they aren't going to engage then, when would they?

As a long ago blown up Iraqi provincial official once said: Concerned Local Citizens,everyone is a concerned local citizen; look at what's going on...

My interest was always about how COIN and US micro-strategies actually disrupted community engagement (although they never understood how or why)---and the natural instincts of all humans after a major natural disaster or war to rapidly get their lives back together.

I've read some very optimistic on-the-ground reports by Rory Stewart that suggest that the Libyan movement (never militarily professionalized) will be positively surprising (fingers crossed).

motorfirebox
10-28-2011, 01:30 AM
They are what's there. They haven't been there long, hence their capacity remains minimal. I don't think Libyans have any less capacity to organize or any less incentive to organize than anyone else. Whether they will or not is up to them. Now they have the choice, before they didn't. We helped bring them a choice, not salvation. How they use it is up to them.
I'm not comfortable with the way you've reframed my words. I didn't say that Libyans have less capacity to organize than anyone else, I said the NTC has displayed a distinct lack of ability to organize.

As for choices, sure, there's a chance that the rebels might not continue to massacre the loyalists. I just don't see why the chance to roll those dice was worth our time and effort to effect.

Dayuhan
10-28-2011, 02:16 AM
I'm not comfortable with the way you've reframed my words. I didn't say that Libyans have less capacity to organize than anyone else, I said the NTC has displayed a distinct lack of ability to organize.

The NTC may well be replaced by some other body. We don't know. What we know is that for better or worse Libyans are going to shape their own future, not have Daffy shaping it for them. Given the constraints the NTC has operated under and the time it's been in existence, I'm not sure how reasonable it is to expect more than what we've seen. It'll be a year or two before we have any real grounds to assess their capacity and what they're evolving into.


As for choices, sure, there's a chance that the rebels might not continue to massacre the loyalists. I just don't see why the chance to roll those dice was worth our time and effort to effect.

Possibility of mayhem vs certainty of mayhem, possibility of a better future vs certain return to a pretty ugly status quo and the probability of more disruption in the future.

Possibility is all you get... if you're looking for certainty this is the wrong world to be in. When we speak of rolling the dice that means we know that there are a variety of possible outcomes.

motorfirebox
10-28-2011, 03:44 AM
That would be a reasonable response if I'd said or implied anything about certainty. I'm not at all certain that the NTC (or those the NTC can't/won't control) will continue killing loyalists. But I give it pretty good odds, based on the NTC's past performance and current trends.

And I'd point out that very little of this would trouble me except for the way our policy towards Libya ended up being formulated. This whole "responsibility to protect" thing mandates our continued involvement if the rebels continue to be as bad or worse than Gaddafi's regime. Not to mention the innumerable reasons to not get involved in foreign conflicts just now.

Dayuhan
10-28-2011, 04:06 AM
That would be a reasonable response if I'd said or implied anything about certainty. I'm not at all certain that the NTC (or those the NTC can't/won't control) will continue killing loyalists. But I give it pretty good odds, based on the NTC's past performance and current trends.

I don't see any basis for assessment of a trend. If it's still going on months or years after the combat phase ends, that's a trend.


And I'd point out that very little of this would trouble me except for the way our policy towards Libya ended up being formulated. This whole "responsibility to protect" thing mandates our continued involvement if the rebels continue to be as bad or worse than Gaddafi's regime. Not to mention the innumerable reasons to not get involved in foreign conflicts just now.

If the responsibility to protect was absolute, we'd have had the entire US military deployed in Africa for the last few decades.

Nothing mandates continued involvement if the rebels turn out nasty. The involvement took place because an established state had adopted the policy of using its security apparatus to crush a civilian revolt. That situation was deemed sufficient to warrant intervention. Any subsequent situation would have to be separately assessed, and I doubt very much that the US or any European power will intervene if a Libyan civil war emerges.

That may be hypocritical, and some will howl, but some always howl, and policy is often hypocritical.

I personally don't think any further US involvement is needed or called for at this point, not that what I think matters in any way.

jmm99
10-29-2011, 03:55 AM
I don't have a dog in this race; but it may be interesting to see how the NTC handles its most recent change in course.

From The Guardian, Gaddafi killer faces prosecution, says Libyan interim government (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/27/gaddafi-killers-face-prosecution-libya?newsfeed=true) - NTC backs down from insistence Gaddafi died in crossfire and pledges justice for anyone proven to have fired lethal shot (27 Oct 2011) (2 snips):


Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, deputy chief of the National Transitional Council, said it would try to bring to justice anyone proven to have fired the shot to the head that killed Gaddafi.


"With regards to Gaddafi, we do not wait for anybody to tell us," he told the al-Arabiya satellite channel. "We had already launched an investigation. We have issued a code of ethics in handling of prisoners of war. I am sure that was an individual act and not an act of revolutionaries or the national army. Whoever is responsible for that [Gaddafi's killing] will be judged and given a fair trial."

Attempts to launch an investigation are unlikely to be welcomed in Misrata, where the rebels who captured Gaddafi in his home town of Sirte are based. Asked this week about the questions surrounding his death by people outside Libya, Misrata's military chief, Ibrahim Beit al-Mal, said: "Why are they even asking this question? He was caught and he was killed. Would he have given us the same? Of course."
...
The identity of the man who allegedly pulled his 9mm pistol from his waistband and shot the wounded dictator in the left temple around 20 minutes after his capture is widely known in Misrata, as is the unit he belonged to, the Katiba Ghoran.

"They won't come near us," said the rebel who pulled Gaddafi from a drain last Thursday. "They won't dare. Gaddafi was saying: 'What's this, what's this?' After nine months of blood, he was saying: 'What's this?'. What does he expect?"

A video of the alleged executioner is running in the Herald Sun, Brutalised with a knife: Attack on Gaddafi casts dark shadow on Libya's rebirth (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/brutalised-with-a-knife-attack-on-gaddafi-casts-dark-shadow-on-libyas-rebirth/story-e6frf7lf-1226175956914) (25 Oct 2011):


In the leaked video, the young man, who has not yet been identified, says: "We grabbed him. I hit him in the face. Some fighters wanted to take him away and that's when I shot him, twice: in the face and in the chest."

He then holds up what he claims is Gaddafi's bloodstained shirt and gold ring.

The videos will put the spotlight on Libya's interim rulers, who are already facing hard questions over their conduct during the war to oust Gaddafi.

And so it goes.

Regards

Mike

carl
10-29-2011, 03:30 PM
So front line irregular troops from Misrata catch the guy who tried very hard to kill them and probably killed a number of their friends and relations and they kill him on the spot. This appears an act of personal vengeance caused by high emotion. No great surprise. There will be a lot of that in the immediate aftermath of the conflict. It is a stretch to lay this at the feet of the NTC. Like Dayuhan says, if it goes for months, that is a different story.

In any event, talking heads in the west see this on their I-Pads while at Starbucks, get terribly distressed (this is not directed at Motorfirebox, it is directed at the media types) and fret. Now the NTC feels compelled to investigate and as Mike says, the show goes on. The smart thing to do would be to conduct an investigation that will go on for years and never quite reach a conclusion; or reach a conclusion, have a trial and find the guy not guilty by reason of the son of a bitch deserved it.

jmm99
10-29-2011, 05:18 PM
The Law as it reads -

No matter how you cut the doctrinal legal sausage, captured means detain under humane conditions for the duration of hostilities - subject to concurrent trial before a competent tribunal for crimes under domestic and/or international law. Since just before WWI, US military law has prohibited summary executions. Before that, some US authority existed for summary executions if ordered by a field grade officer (e.g., Tony Waller was found not guilty for Samar; at about the same time, Breaker Morant was shot in South Africa for the same thing).

The Law as it (sometimes) is applied -

You all recall the Astan PMC (Don Ayala), bodyguard for Paula Loyd who was burned to death by a Astan villager (http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf?/base/news-1/124158792126600.xml&coll=1). After the villager was handcuffed, Ayala executed him. The charge ended up being manslaughter, to which Ayala pled and was sentenced to probation by the Federal judge (post, And he got it ... (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=71559&postcount=49); and also, this prior post, Yup, (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=61043&postcount=35)).

The law on the books (doctrinal) is subject to the "law" in the decision-maker's noggin - the "quality of mercy, etc.".

Regards

Mike

Bob's World
10-29-2011, 08:55 PM
The Law as it reads -

No matter how you cut the doctrinal legal sausage, captured means detain under humane conditions for the duration of hostilities - subject to concurrent trial before a competent tribunal for crimes under domestic and/or international law. Since just before WWI, US military law has prohibited summary executions. Before that, some US authority existed for summary executions if ordered by a field grade officer (e.g., Tony Waller was found not guilty for Samar; at about the same time, Breaker Morant was shot in South Africa for the same thing).

The Law as it (sometimes) is applied -

You all recall the Astan PMC (Don Ayala), bodyguard for Paula Loyd who was burned to death by a Astan villager (http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf?/base/news-1/124158792126600.xml&coll=1). After the villager was handcuffed, Ayala executed him. The charge ended up being manslaughter, to which Ayala pled and was sentenced to probation by the Federal judge (post, And he got it ... (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=71559&postcount=49); and also, this prior post, Yup, (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=61043&postcount=35)).

The law on the books (doctrinal) is subject to the "law" in the decision-maker's noggin - the "quality of mercy, etc.".

Regards

Mike

All insurgents are by definition "outlaws."

Once you're on the block for treason, what is the additional penalty for murder?

The rule of law really only serves to deter and guide those who are not already guilty of a capital crime. Not saying I approve of the insurgents summarily executing Qaddafi, but as Mr bin Laden would attest (if still alive), these things happen in such emotionally charged encounters.

I don't think anyone should make too big of a deal out of this, as these things are impossible to control and there is really no one out there without sin to cast that first stone.

jmm99
10-29-2011, 10:12 PM
The correct phrase is: All successful insurgents are by definition "the new government".

In the eyes of that new government, our militiaman from Misrata is one of its many conquering heroes - none of whom have to worry about treason charges. That is, until they run afoul of the new government.

The issue is what (if anything) that new government decides to do about its hero - and any others involved in crimes (domestic and/or international) during the course of the successful insurgency.

Regards

Mike

Bob's World
10-30-2011, 12:11 AM
Fair enough. The victors write the history. The losers die or flee. Our own founding fathers were far more likely to end up at the end of a rope than revered by a grateful nation founded by their efforts. Insurgency is natural, but it also always a bold gamble, much like the Battle of Britain the many owe so much to so few. If they win, and if they are able to move to something better than what they had before. Perhaps the ultimate human drama.

Dayuhan
10-30-2011, 01:02 AM
Perhaps the ultimate human drama.

Unfortunately observers too easily expect actual human drama to adhere to the dramatic conventions established in works of fiction. It's sunk in our minds that the guys in the white hats fight fair and do right, and it bothers us when they don't live up to standard.

Should the new government seek out and string up the young man who in the heat of the moment perforated the ex dictator... which thousands of others would have done if they'd been in his shoes? Maybe justice - and the desire to live up to the conventions of those who weren't there - would be satisfied if they did. I'm personally not sure it's called for.

Any time a violent domestic conflict ends there's a debate between justice and reconciliation. At some point you have to draw distinctions between people (on both sides) who deliberately organized, ordered, or participated in planned atrocities and barely trained, unsupervised guys who simply pulled a trigger in the heat of a jacked-up moment.

Some very ugly stuff happened and much of it will go unpunished. That may suck, but it's a reality.

jmm99
10-30-2011, 02:48 AM
(including COL Jones and Dayuhan).

It is directed against those in my profession in the International Law field (both in the US and elsewhere) who (1) select "justice" where the US is involved - holding it to the strictest legal tests; but who (2) select "reconciliation" where insurgents are concerned - holding them to relaxed legal tests. This dichotomy in applied morality is simply a subset of the mentality that supported the development of the 1977 Additional Protocols and the "direct participation" (transitory guerrilla) doctrine.

Frankly, my dear new Libyan government, I don't really give a damn as to whether you select "justice" or "reconciliation" in this particular case, or in others that will come to light. I am interested in how the International Law Watchdogs will react to those cases. I suspect that "reconciliation" (spelled OIL) will win out in the governmental arena.

To conclude, from Salon's Daniel Williams, The murder brigades of Misrata - Gadhafi's demise was just a part of a vast revenge killing spree (http://www.salon.com/2011/10/28/the_murder_brigades_of_misrata/singleton/) (28 Oct 2011):


MISRATA, Libya — If anyone is surprised by the apparent killing of Moammar Gadhafi while in the custody of militia members from the town of Misrata, they shouldn’t be.

More than 100 militia brigades from Misrata have been operating outside of any official military and civilian command since Tripoli fell in August. Members of these militias have engaged in torture, pursued suspected enemies far and wide, detained them and shot them in detention, Human Rights Watch has found. Members of these brigades have stated that the entire displaced population of one town, Tawergha, which they believe largely supported Gadhafi avidly, cannot return home. ... (more in article)

As much as I lack fondness for Human Rights Watch, at least it so far is being consistent in this case.

Regards

Mike

Bob's World
10-30-2011, 11:35 AM
I for one am a big fan of justice, certainly see it as superior to and very distinct from the rule of law. Great to have both, but if you can only have one, justice is most important.

I also am a big fan or reconciliation. In stable countries, such as the US, with such tremendous philosophical divides between the left and the right, "reconciliation" is still difficult if measured by how well the two sides work together following a shift of power. That's something we should work on. In a country where violent, illegal means are necessary to effect a change of government reconciliation is every bit as important to moving forward, but so much harder to achieve when blood is spilled.

If oil is what lubricates the reconciliation process in Libya, then thank god for oil.

As to the "new government of Libya" and the men who took out Qaddafi; they are really one and the same, two distinct aspects of the same movement for change. I hope that those who are scrambling for power positions do not throw those who are elevating them through physical action to those positions under the bus. History shows that some degree of violent retaliation is sadly universal (though largely written out of US history books, the Loyalists suffered). Often it is horrific, and no culture or religion is immune from this aspect of human nature. This will be messy, but if they stay focused on shifting the focus from punishing the old to one of building the new as soon as possible they will have a chance at both justice and reconciliation in a new Libya.

davidbfpo
10-31-2011, 10:34 AM
A timely reminder by an Indian observer of how Gadafy upset the Middle East way back:
In 1978, Musa Sadr, Lebanese Shia Imam mysteriously disappeared during his visit to Libya. Archibald (Archie) Roosevelt, who was the first US intelligence officer posted in the Maghreb has given a vivid account of the power play in Lebanon in the 1960-70s in his book "For Lust of Knowing" (1988). The Lebanese Shia community, who generally welcomed the Israelis to get rid of the hated PLO, was then led by Musa Sadr, the founder of Amal. The US was hoping to utilise Amal to stabilise Lebanon since Musa Sadr was quite popular with the Christians. He was last seen on 31 August 1978, in Libya before his scheduled meeting with Gaddafi. Libyan authorities claimed that he had gone to Rome with his delegation. However, a former colonel in the Libyan army said that he was killed under Gaddafi's orders.

Link:http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/the-story-that-started-in-lebanon-ended-in-libya

Seems a long time ago and I do recall references to the incident, not the context or details.

davidbfpo
11-03-2011, 06:15 PM
Hat tip to the Australian think tank, Lowry Institute, for identifying this fact and oh yes, it is the UK who did it.


From the start of current operations in Libya up till 1 September 2011, UKforces have employed around 1,100 precision guided munitions, 110 direct fire weapons, 4,100 rounds of direct fire 30 mm cannon rounds, and around 240 high explosive or illumination rounds from 4.5 inch naval guns. Therefore, excluding 30 mm cannon rounds, 76% of weapons employed were precision guided. We carefully select the type of weapon in every engagement to ensure the most appropriate munition is used to deliver the required effect, while minimising the risk of civilian casualties.

The precision guided munitions used include Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone, Enhanced Paveway II, Paveway IV, Storm Shadow missiles and Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles. Direct fire munitions include Hellfire missiles and CRV-7 rockets.

Link:http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/09/parliamentary-answers-to-16-september-2011/

davidbfpo
01-20-2012, 07:55 PM
A BBC Newsnight report, with a nine minute film clip on:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16624401

Yes, I know most SWC cannot access this; the written and more detailed report is on; which opens with:
British efforts to help topple Colonel Gaddafi were not limited to air strikes. On the ground - and on the quiet - special forces soldiers were blending in with rebel fighters. This is the previously untold account of the crucial part they played.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16573516

The role of Qatar, not to overlook Emirates and Jordanian elements, is mentioned:
This Gulf emirate had taken a leading role in backing the NTC, and its defence chief was by June brokering an agreement with the UK and France to provide material back-up as well as training for the NTC....

Last October the Chief of the Qatar Defence Staff revealed that "hundreds" of his troops has been on the ground in Libya. British sources agree Qatar played a leading role - and accept it put more soldiers in than the UK - but question whether the number was this large.

The UK CDS has openly complimented the three Arab partners role in the Libyan campaign, in a speech at RUSI:
Integrating the Qataris, Emiratis and Jordanians into the operation was key. Without them and their defence chiefs' leadership, especially the huge understanding they brought to the campaign, it is unlikely that the NTC's militias could have successfully acted as the land element without which the right outcome would have been impossible.

Link:http://www.rusi.org/events/past/ref:E4EA01B5272990/

The role of Qatar more widely features in this article, headlined 'Here comes Qatar' and sub-titled:
Suddenly, the tiny Gulf emirate is the Middle East’s superpower

Which is not black & white, as the author concludes Qatar plays a double role:http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7482663/here-comes-qatar.thtml

SWJ Blog
03-06-2012, 01:11 PM
Arab Thoughts on the Italian Colonial Wars in Libya (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/arab-thoughts-on-the-italian-colonial-wars-in-libya)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/arab-thoughts-on-the-italian-colonial-wars-in-libya) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

jmm99
04-17-2012, 06:15 PM
This weekend, the NYT ran an analysis, NATO Sees Flaws in Air Campaign Against Qaddafi (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/world/africa/nato-sees-flaws-in-air-campaign-against-qaddafi.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print) (by ERIC SCHMITT, April 14, 2012), in part addressing the scope of the US involvement in NATO's air campaign.

According to the Obama Admin's position, the predicate for US engagement was that the United States, following the initial air attacks in March 2011, would transfer responsibility for operations in Libya to NATO and thereafter play only a secondary, supportive role: Pres. Obama letter to Congress (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya) - March 21, 2011; Pres. Obama speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/03/28/president-obama-s-speech-libya#transcript) - March 28, 2011; DoJ (OLC) opinion in support of the legality of the Libya intervention (http://www.justice.gov/olc/2011/authority-military-use-in-libya.pdf) - April 1, 2011; and Harold Koh’s testimony on the War Powers Resolution (http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Koh_Testimony.pdf) - June 28, 2011.

Because Congress elected not to engage the Executive in a constitutional debate, the Presidential decision to engage in Libya (whether right or wrong) could not be raised as a legal question, but stood as a political question - obviously subject to political debate then and now. Goldwater v Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter) (1979) (esp. Justice Powell's opinion):


Prudential considerations persuade me that a dispute between Congress and the President is not ready for judicial review unless and until each branch has taken action asserting its constitutional authority.... The Judicial Branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse. Otherwise, we would encourage small groups or even individual Members of Congress to seek judicial resolution of issues before the normal political process has the opportunity to resolve the conflict. If the Congress, by appropriate formal action, had challenged the President’s authority to terminate the treaty with Taiwan, the resulting uncertainty could have serious consequences for our country. In that situation, it would be the duty of this Court to resolve the issue.

The remainder of this post seeks guidance on one such political question based on military considerations.

At the time, the Wash. Post ran an article, NATO runs short on some munitions in Libya (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html) (by Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe, April 15, 2011), which made the following claim (emphasis added):


European arsenals of laser-guided bombs, the NATO weapon of choice in the Libyan campaign, have been quickly depleted, officials said. Although the United States has significant stockpiles, its munitions do not fit on the British- and French-made planes that have flown the bulk of the missions.

Britain and France have each contributed about 20 strike aircraft to the campaign. Belgium, Norway, Denmark and Canada have each contributed six — all of them U.S.-manufactured and compatible with U.S. weaponry.

Since the end of March, more than 800 strike missions have been flown, with U.S. aircraft conducting only three, targeting static Libyan air defense installations. The United States still conducts about 25 percent of the overall sorties over Libya, largely intelligence, jamming and refueling missions.

Now fast-forward a year to the NYT analysis in my opening paragraph, which is based on the confidential 28 Feb 2012 "lessons learned" report of NATO’s
Joint Analysis & Lessons Learned Centre (JALLC (http://www.jallc.nato.int/)). The NYT makes this claim re: NATO & US munitions:


The report also spotlights an important issue for the alliance that dates to the Balkan wars of the 1990s: that the United States has emerged “by default” as the NATO specialist in providing precision-guided munitions — which made up virtually all of the 7,700 bombs and missiles dropped or fired on Libya — and a vast majority of specialized aircraft that conduct aerial intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, or I.S.R. in military parlance.

Four possibilities here:

1. The WP story errs - US bombs and missiles can be fitted to British and French planes; or

2. The JALLC report errs - US bombs and missiles made up far less than "virtually all of the 7,700 bombs and missiles dropped or fired on Libya"; or

3. Belgium, Norway, Denmark and Canada flew a lot more missions than they are credited; or

4. US planes were directly involved in a lot of bombing missions.

Is there anything open-source that can can reconcile these claims ? Or, should we look at Libya as our friend Jack Goldsmith has this Sunday at Lawfare, NATO’s Role in Libya was a Joke (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/04/natos-role-in-libya-was-a-joke/) ?

Regards

Mike

davidbfpo
06-15-2012, 12:35 PM
The UK-based Quilliam Foundation, with an ex-LIFG member as an analyst, has drawn attention in a short briefing note 'Quilliam Briefing : Rising Jihadism in Libya: the Abdul Rahman Brigade’s goal in Attacking Western Targets':http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/61-press-releases/942

I do wonder how the Jihadist viewpoint has gained traction, after the Western intervention to help and protect their national interests, has so quickly waned that attacks are made. Quite clearly Libya has many problems to resolve, notably an ineffective government and too many people with guns.

davidbfpo
06-15-2012, 12:45 PM
A first-hand account of the situation, albeit a few weeks ago, by Peter Oborne and what better illustration of the lack of government:
..we visited a detention centre at Gharyan an hour’s drive south of Tripoli. The inmates were blacks, most of whom had been caught sneaking into Libya from sub-Saharan Africa in search of work. The thoughtful and engaging camp commander, a former English teacher called Emad Sagar...explained that he received no help of any kind from the government, that his militia fighters were untrained as prison guards, and that the only way he could feed the prisoners was by stealing from local businesses at gunpoint.

Link:http://www.spectator.co.uk/issues/2-june-2012/libya-notebook

Elsewhere he wrote:
The government is offering payments of £10,00 to each fighter in an effort to persuade them to return to civilian life. It has reportedly already paid out around a billion pounds in this way, but that hasn't bought stability. At another roadblock, furious militiamen say they haven't been paid yet and vow to fight on.

Link:http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/episode-guide/series-2012/episode-7

Dayuhan
06-16-2012, 02:03 AM
Before that, some US authority existed for summary executions if ordered by a field grade officer (e.g., Tony Waller was found not guilty for Samar; at about the same time, Breaker Morant was shot in South Africa for the same thing).

Not quite the same thing: Morant killed people with white skin, Waller killed people with brown skin. There was once a big difference; some would say there still is.

davidbfpo
07-08-2012, 01:31 PM
Dr. Omar Ashour an astute observer of matters Arabic and with time on the ground has written a short (8 pgs) Brookings paper 'Libyan Islamists Unpacked: Rise, Transformation, and Future':
The policy briefing is divided into three parts. The first section identifies the main Islamist forces in Libya and briefly overviews their backgrounds. The second part attempts to understand the salient issues facing Libyan Islamists and the effect they have on Islamist political behavior. The final section concludes with policy implications for the international community.

Link:http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/05/02-libya-ashour

davidbfpo
07-14-2012, 11:47 AM
At last some insight that explains what has happened:
Early electoral results indicate that the liberal, secular-leaning National Forces Alliance of Mahmoud Jibril, the former wartime Prime Minister of the rebels’ National Transitional Council (NTC), has swept the majority of the country’s new parliament.

Link:http://world.time.com/2012/07/10/why-the-islamists-are-not-winning-in-libya/#ixzz20UIxPP3N

Libya is clearly not in the same league as Egypt within the Arab World, but after a violent change of governance (NATO & US aided) one hardly expected to see the labels 'liberal, secular-leaning' forming a majority.

Dayuhan
07-27-2012, 07:20 AM
Foreign Affairs piece on the aftermath:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137796/yahia-h-zoubir/qaddafis-spawn?cid=nlc-this_week_on_foreignaffairs_co-072612-qaddafis_spawn_4-072612

Not a particularly optimistic view.

Of course even if "liberal, secular-leaning" groups do take over government, they may or may not be able to regain control of the country. A great deal will depend on getting back at least some of the money the old regime stashed outside, and ob being able to put together a credible enough armed force and a solid enough re-integration program to force the militias to demobilize. None of that will be easy and there's certainly a chance for a full-scale meltdown.

On the other hand, the voter turnout and the generally peaceful election, as much as the results, suggests that there is a real constituency for rebuilding. We'll see.

Items like the one cited above will inevitably lead to suggestions that some sort of controlled demolition of the Gaddafi regime would have been superior. That assumes, of course, that it would have been possible. When a long-standing dictator chooses to fight it out in the face of insurrection and the armed forces (or a large part of them) remain loyal, there's rarely going to be an orderly or attractive solution.

davidbfpo
08-07-2012, 11:17 AM
All the nuance you want on the Libyan election and what may follow:http://www.opendemocracy.net/alison-pargeter/libya-and-islamism-deeper-story

Which ends with:
Whatever happens on 8 August and beyond, it cannot be assumed that Libya has turned its back completely on Islamism - either now or for the future.

davidbfpo
09-15-2012, 04:47 PM
Not exactly a title US audiences would expect this week, Dr. Omar Ashour, a regional analyst, has provided insight on what happened this week; the full title is 'The nature of Libya’s post-revolution armed Islamist forces is by no means straightforward'.

Link:http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/opinion/omar-ashour-libyas-jihadist-minority_9544

Some key sections:
Salafi jihadism is not an organization, but an ideological trend based on the core belief that armed tactics of all kinds are the most effective – and, in some versions, the most legitimate – method of bringing about social and political change.....

The tragic death of Stevens and his colleagues has engendered wide public outrage in Libya, adding to the isolation and de-legitimization of the armed groups. Dozens of Libyan activist groups have uploaded videos paying tribute to Stevens, as well as issuing statements against terrorism and Al Qaeda. One of the Muslim Brothers’ Web sites includes such a statement, and Libya’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Sadeq al-Gheriani, also condemned the attack....

Collective punishment and targeting the innocent is forbidden in the Koran in more than 20 verses: “That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another” (The Star Chapter 53:18).

There is a main thread on Libya, so this will be merged there another day.

carl
09-18-2012, 03:09 PM
David:

Where is the main thread on Libya? I can't find it.

davidbfpo
09-18-2012, 03:54 PM
Updated

The short thread 'Benghazi and Libya's Jihadist Minority' has been merged into this main Libya thread.

davidbfpo
09-22-2012, 10:32 AM
From the BBC:
At least four people have been killed in the Libyan city of Benghazi after military police and protesters took over militia bases. The violence followed a day of protests by tens of thousands of citizens demanding an end to the armed groups. The bases include the HQ of the Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, suspected of involvement in an attack on the US consulate in the city.....Earlier, some 30,000 protesters marched through Benghazi calling for an end to the armed groups and a return to the rule of law.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785 and slightly different, more detail:http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201292205259561409.html

Will this be well covered by the US media?

Peter Dow
09-24-2012, 04:53 PM
Check out my "My plan for a secure diplomatic military base for Libya" (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=141011&postcount=2) post in my "Diplomatic security after terrorists kill US Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya" (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=16613) thread in the "Government Agencies & Officials" forum of this SWC forums.

tequila
09-24-2012, 06:43 PM
From the BBC:

Will this be well covered by the US media?

Were any Americans killed?

davidbfpo
09-24-2012, 06:51 PM
Were any Americans killed?

No, point taken though on how editors regulate what we the audience see.

Amidst all the tomes, documents and more on counter-radicalisation, even CT, the West refers to local action being best. So when it happens, as it has in Benghazi, it should be reported. No, it is not an 'awakening'. It is a good sign for Libya and others.

Steve Blair
09-24-2012, 09:22 PM
Were any Americans killed?

It's an election year. Precious little will be well-covered until sometime in December (if then).

tequila
09-25-2012, 01:34 PM
Amidst all the tomes, documents and more on counter-radicalisation, even CT, the West refers to local action being best. So when it happens, as it has in Benghazi, it should be reported. No, it is not an 'awakening'. It is a good sign for Libya and others.

I fully agree, and I think that this is a relatively good sign, though obviously follow-through is necessary. Hopefully the Libyan government can mobilize this into real support for a genuine national army.

carl
09-25-2012, 05:10 PM
Will this be well covered by the US media?

Well covered? I don't know but it was covered and you could read about it in the local paper, here anyway. That is pretty good for something that happened where no Americans were killed.

SWJ Blog
10-15-2012, 10:22 PM
White House Mulls How to Strike Over Libya Attack (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/white-house-mulls-how-to-strike-over-libya-attack)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/white-house-mulls-how-to-strike-over-libya-attack) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Bill Moore
10-29-2012, 03:26 AM
http://rt.com/news/bani-walid-libya-violence-251/

'Libyan humanitarian catastrophe ignored by Western media'


RT: There's yet been no international response to the fact that civilians are being killed in Bani Walid, especially from those states that backed the revolution in Libya a year ago. Why is that?

Neil Clark: Let’s think back to February 2011. We couldn’t pick up a newspaper in the UK or the US or put on the BBC or CNN without hearing about what was going on in Libya. The Humanitarian disaster, we were told Colonel Gaddafi’s forces were killing lots of people, there were dangers of a massive massacre in Benghazi, and because of that we went to war…that was the reason for war. And today, the situation is much worse. We’ve got a humanitarian catastrophe taking place. The number of people killed since NATO intervened has gone up by ten to twenty times. We’ve got massacres going on at the moment and there’s complete silence here in the UK and in the US.

This should be informative to all those who want to help the "freedom fighters" in Syria. Civil Wars don't just end, revenge will be extracted for a long time afterwards. It is likely more people are being killed after Qadaffi was killed than during the rebellion.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/10/199742.htm

Libya: U.S. State Department Daily Press Briefing: Libya

This is a very interesting exchange between a Russian journalist the State Department spokesperson. If it was a debate I would give the Russian the win, but more importantly it appears we suppressing more bad news coming out of Libya. Since the info comes from a .gov site we should be able to cut and paste more than two paragraphs without copy right violation issues.


QUESTION: The story in Libya and Bani Walid continues to grow in its cruel brutality. And the matter at hand is a systematic slaughter of Bani Walid’s population by what used to be anti-Qadhafi rebels for not towing the party line and not supporting Libya’s new rule and government quickly enough and with quite open heart. Only yesterday, on Wednesday, 600 local residents --

MS. NULAND: Is there a question here, or is this a political statement that you’re making here in the briefing room?

QUESTION: No, no, just a – I wondering, 600 people, local resident, were allegedly killed yesterday --

MS. NULAND: Can you tell me what news organization you’re from?

QUESTION: -- and why this – and local appealing for the international aid and an international call, but why this call? Why these massacre completely ignored by the Western community and the – particularly by the U.S.?

MS. NULAND: Where are you from, please? What news organization?

QUESTION: Vera Volokhonovich, RT.

MS. NULAND: From Russian TV.

QUESTION: Russia. Yeah. Yeah.

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, we haven’t ignored this at all. We talked about it a number of times here, and we’ve spoken about it very clearly. We have been urging restraint on all sides, respect for human rights and humanitarian law. We’ve been calling on Libyan authorities and rebel groups to provide access for humanitarian organizations who are trying to provide humanitarian assistance. And frankly, we can’t confirm any of these press reporting of what is actually ongoing there, but we are calling on all sides to exercise restraint.

QUESTION: But why Washington blocked – why did Washington block the statement – draft statement proposed by Russia for the United Nations Security Council resolution, which called for a peaceful solution for this conflict?

MS. NULAND: Well, I can’t speak to what may be going on at USUN. I’m not aware of what the Russian statement might have been. I will send you up to our people in New York to discuss that. But our position on this is absolutely clear: We support the efforts of the Libyan Government to get control of militias and to provide security throughout the country, including in Bani Walid, and to do so in a way that is respectful of the human rights of all citizens, and allows humanitarian organizations to get in. So we are watching this situation very closely.

SWJ Blog
11-03-2012, 02:10 AM
Petraeus’s Quieter Style at CIA Leaves Void on Libya Furor (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/petraeus%E2%80%99s-quieter-style-at-cia-leaves-void-on-libya-furor)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/petraeus%E2%80%99s-quieter-style-at-cia-leaves-void-on-libya-furor) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

BayonetBrant
09-06-2013, 02:09 PM
For anyone that might be interested, there's a scenario for the Lock'n'Load board game series that depicts the last stand of Kadhafi

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/1933/47xi.jpg

other Libya scenarios are here:
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/25727/lock-n-load-a-day-of-heroes

davidbfpo
09-26-2013, 07:54 PM
Bayonet Brant's previous post refers to a war game 'Game Over', after reading the linked NYRB article earlier today the situation is more like 'Game is not Over':http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/oct/10/losing-libyas-revolution/?pagination=false#.UkMc5o_Tz2i.twitter

Some classic passages, sometimes with Islam at the centre, others are legacy issues. Here is one:
Benghazi, a city that farms out refuse collection to Bangladeshi and Sudanese migrant workers, still has five thousand Libyan garbage collectors on payroll. When an overconscientious official tried to stop paying them, hundreds stormed the municipality and chased out the councillors.

SWJ Blog
10-06-2013, 08:31 AM
U.S. Raids in Libya and Somalia Strike Terror Targets (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-raids-in-libya-and-somalia-strike-terror-targets)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-raids-in-libya-and-somalia-strike-terror-targets) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo
11-16-2013, 01:55 PM
Sadly the crazies, a Misrata militia this time, reacted badly to an un-armed protest calling for them to leave the city, amidst the weapons a "technical" with a heavy machine gun - which is shown firing at the crowds.

Photo:https://twitter.com/Morning_LY/status/401617076504129537/photo/1 The photographer's FB has more:https://www.facebook.com/ejjawkolla

Some of the protestors went home and came back:
Demonstrators, some of which had been carrying white flags, fled but then returned, heavily armed, to attack the compound, where the militiamen remained holed up until early morning as fighting continued. Rocket-propelled grenades could be heard.

Link to news report:http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/15/21484827-dozens-dead-in-clash-with-libyan-militiamen-in-tripoli?lite

Libya has dropped out of view of late, although I am sure SWC readers known it is unstable.

davidbfpo
11-22-2013, 10:54 PM
An IISS Strategic Comment which IMHO describes the chaos that is the new or is it the old Libya:http://www.iiss.org/en/publications/strategic%20comments/sections/2013-a8b5/libya--paralysed-by-militias-d401

Here is an illustration:
The withdrawal of Misratan units was followed by that of other non-Tripoli militias, their place taken by the army's 151 and 166 brigades, newly trained and deploying with American equipment including tan-coloured humvees. Crowds cheered their arrival on the streets, though others remembered that the Misratans themselves had been cheered when they liberated the city two years before.

carl
01-19-2014, 08:18 AM
A Washington Post story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html?hpid=z1

about the Senate Benghazi investigation has this paragraph in it:


The report also noted, chillingly, that the FBI’s investigation of the attacks has been hampered in Libya and that 15 people “supporting the investigation or otherwise helpful to the United States” have since been killed in Benghazi. The report said it was unclear whether those killings were related to the inquiry.

Our ineptitude would be comical if it didn't result in so many people getting killed.:(

davidbfpo
02-04-2014, 11:51 PM
I noted some reporting via Twitter on the infighting in Southern Libya, but did not look further. Today this linked paper appeared and it opens with:
A multitude of armed groups and smuggling networks with transnational reach are driving southern Libya’s integration into the Sahel–Sahara region. Contrary to widespread external perceptions, the extremist presence remains a marginal phenomenon in the southwest (Fezzan), at least in relation to the political struggles. Rivalries over the control of borders, smuggling routes, oilfields, and cities, as well as conflicts regarding the citizenship status of entire communities, are of far greater significance. These conflicts are centred on southern Libya, but have a regional dimension because of the transnational links of the parties involved.

Link:http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/sana/publications/listed-in-chronological-order/dispatches/sana-dispatch-3.html

There is a section on the Tuareg's too. Yet more to read.

Bill Moore
03-09-2014, 03:59 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/08/us-libya-oil-idUSBREA2709K20140308

Libya threatens to bomb North Korean tanker if it ships oil from rebel port



Libya threatened on Saturday to bomb a North Korean-flagged tanker if it tried to ship oil from a rebel-controlled port, in a major escalation of a standoff over the country's petroleum wealth.

The rebels, who have seized three major Libyan ports since August to press their demands for more autonomy, warned Tripoli against staging an attack to halt the oil sale after the tanker docked at Es Sider terminal, one of the country's biggest. The vessel started loading crude late at night, oil officials said.

davidbfpo
03-10-2014, 10:12 PM
Bill,

I've relied on twitter for updates. First there was a report the Libyan Air Force refused to attack the tanker. Just seen a reliable source, Omar Ashour report:
Libyan navy controls oil tanker, leads to government controlled port. Finally, #GNC shows some teeth.

davidbfpo
03-11-2014, 11:33 PM
A little more reporting. AJ's headline 'Libyan parliament sacks PM after tanker escapes rebel-held port', although the story is based on Reuters, which starts:
Libya's parliament voted Prime Minister Ali Zeidan out of office on Tuesday after rebels humiliated the government by loading crude on a tanker that fled from naval forces, officials said, in a sign of the worsening chaos in the OPEC member state.

Libyan gunboats later chased the tanker along Libya's eastern Mediterranean coast and opened fire, damaging it, a military spokesman said. Italian naval ships were helping move the tanker to a Libyan government-controlled port, he said. But Italy denied any of its vessels were in the area at the time and the reported firing incident could not be confirmed.

Link:http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/us-libya-oil-idUSBREA2A0R820140311

With a backgrounder on the bubbling along civil strife in Libya:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/11/rebel-groups-libya-oil-civil-conflict-north-korea?CMP=twt_gu

davidbfpo
03-12-2014, 11:17 AM
This hitherto remote region, known as Fezzan, has become a "hot spot" with rival militias, militants, arms smuggling and oilfields. An excellent backgrounder, using open sources and field interviews comes from the Swiss-based Small Arms Survey:http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/R-SANA/SANA-Dispatch3-Libyas-Fractuous-South.pdf

They conclude:
Southern Libya is set to remain a source of regional instability for the foreseeable future, and is also likely to become a growing concern for the emerging Libyan state.

How this squares with the clear issues of control = where most Libyans live, along the coast - is not clear. The report had noted, just before this sentence:
...the Libyan government appears preoccupied with developments in the country’s northwest and east.

I was fascinated by this paragraph:
Most Tuareg soldiers of Sahelian origin stayed in southern Libya. Defectors from the Maghawir Brigade set up the first ‘revolutionary’ Tuareg armed group after Tripoli’s fall: the Ténére Brigade. The Brigade’s entry into Ubari in September 2011 was considered the town’s ‘liberation’, and the group emerged as one of the two largest units in the town. The largest was the Maghawir Brigade—renamed the Tendé Brigade—which kept its structure and its status as an official unit of the Libyan Army. According to the Tendé Brigade’s commander, the vast majority of Maghawir soldiers who escaped to Mali in 2011 have since returned to the unit. The commander cited several reasons for their return: their families had stayed in Libya, the political situation in Mali (where the MNLA was overtaken by extremist groups), and the dissipation of the threat of retaliation against Sahelian Tuareg.

If there is one takeaway it is that business is good, even if shared.

Jedburgh
03-14-2014, 12:10 AM
See also the 24 February 2014 USIP report Illicit Trafficking and Libya’s Transition: Profits and Losses (http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/PW96-Illicit-Trafficking-and-Libyas-Transition.pdf). Although it is concerned with Libya as a whole, it does tie in activities in the south with the bigger picture, and makes for a useful read in conjunction with the SANA paper.

davidbfpo
03-14-2014, 09:25 PM
Watch and draw your own conclusions - what did NATO do? Link to a short film clip and the English language used:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxB44Kii6lQ&list=UUTzyNl9WZT6N1Z_Lk8ztP_Q

JMA
04-10-2014, 08:43 AM
Carl,

Stumbled across this interview by Charlie Rose the other day.

Michael Morell, former deputy director of the CIA (http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60370139).

Covers the Bengazi fiasco and at the end touches on 'interrogation techniques' which is also interesting.

Must admit that I am still in agreement with Daniel Patrick Moynihan about the CIA.





A Washington Post story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html?hpid=z1

about the Senate Benghazi investigation has this paragraph in it:



Our ineptitude would be comical if it didn't result in so many people getting killed.:(

davidbfpo
07-15-2014, 05:42 PM
That little 'small war' which rarely gets MSM reporting, so a welcome update and hat tip to WoTR:http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/libya-hifters-stalled-anti-islamist-campaign/

davidbfpo
08-20-2014, 03:55 PM
A fascinating article 'How Libya Blew Billions and Its Best Chance at Democracy' that reveals that Libya's riches have been stolen on a huge scale amidst the chaos of militias vying for control:http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-07/libya-waste-fraud-erase-billions-in-national-wealth

A taster:
Of the nine companies to which the LIA entrusted its $70 billion bankroll, almost all appear to have lost incredible amounts of money while charging sky-high fees. According to an audit conducted by KPMG, Socit Gnrale managed to lose more than half of a $1.8 billion investment, while charging the Libyans tens of millions for its financial expertise. London-based investment management firm Permal Group, which received $300 million from LIA, lost 40 percent of it while earning $27 million in fees. BNP Paribas (BNP:FP (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=BNP:FP)) lost 23 percent: High fees have been directly responsible for the poor results, the auditor noted. Credit Suisse (CS (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=CS)) lost 29 percent of the funds that it managed. Millennium Global Investments, based in London, apparently lost all of a $100 million investment in its emerging credit fund, while a $300 million investment in Lehman Brothers vanished from the books after Lehman collapsed in 2008.

Bill Moore
08-26-2014, 11:07 PM
First this, hopefully you can access it without subscribing:

http://theweek.com/article/index/267003/how-hillary-clintons-smart-power-turned-libya-into-a-dumpster-fire

How Hillary Clinton's 'smart power' turned Libya into a dumpster fire
Another successful intervention. Another failed state riven by chaos and Islamist gangs


Clinton claimed victory for her philosophy of "smart power," the self-regarding name for bombing people on behalf of rebel groups in a war that would be cheap and easily forgotten.


The decision to launch airstrikes on Libya was made in about 96 hours, by self-described "humanitarians" who took up the emerging international norm of "responsibility to protect" as their reason for war. To the applause of Bernard-Henri Levy and other munitions-grade faux intellectuals, they argued that Western governments had a duty to use military resources to help civilians who were being abused by their governments. Not in North Korea where the masses starve, or Zimbabwe where hyperinflation was rampant and the unemployment rate was nearly in triple digits, but wherever there seems to be a winnable civil conflict, with plausible-looking good guys who can be taught to say "democracy" and "human rights."


In the most obvious form of moral hazard, this pernicious "R2P" norm lowers the price of civil war in the developing world, encouraging rebels to make provocative attacks, then lobby for Western air support when the local bad guy punishes them for it. Uncle Sam or NATO deploys resources in a civil war these rebel groups could never win with their own blood and treasure. They often fail to win even when they do get help. The expectation of Western air power has exacerbated and intensified conflicts in Serbia, the Sudan, Libya, and Syria. As an international norm, R2P adds nothing but a noble-sounding gloss on getting more people killed than usual.

This is true, yet many argue we should do the same in Syria. History doesn't hold the keys to what is possible in the future, but it should inform us if conditions are the same and the plans to change them are the same, then just maybe we'll see a repeat of the same.

Fast forward to present

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/africa/egypt-and-united-arab-emirates-said-to-have-secretly-carried-out-libya-airstrikes.html?_r=0

Arab Nations Strike in Libya, Surprising U.S.


Twice in the last seven days, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have secretly launched airstrikes against Islamist-allied militias battling for control of Tripoli, Libya, four senior American officials said, in a major escalation of a regional power struggle set off by Arab Spring revolts.


The strikes in Tripoli are another salvo in a power struggle defined by Arab autocrats battling Islamist movements seeking to overturn the old order. Since the military ouster of the Islamist president in Egypt last year, the new government and its backers in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have launched a campaign across the region — in the news media, in politics and diplomacy, and by arming local proxies — to roll back what they see as an existential threat to their authority posed by Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

American officials claim these strikes aren't helpful, but I doubt those countries that feel threatened by the Islamists give a hoot about how they feel. UAE is particularly aggressively in using military force to combat Islamists. According to some this is taking on a proxy war between UAW and Qatar which is interesting, and if you have to wonder if this extends to Syria and Iraq?

Qatar? What does Al-Jazeera say, actually very little.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/8/25/libya-tobruk-regional.html


While the Islamist forces are accused of receiving Qatari and Turkish support, the Zintan militias are seen by their foes as the chosen allies of the Emiratis. Renegade General Khalifa Haftar, who launched his insurgency in February, adopted a narrative that dovetails neatly with the one used by the Egyptian military in defense of last summer’s coup that overthrew President Mohamed Morsi — armed forces claiming to act in the national interest to oust Islamists, whom they accuse of bringing the country to the brink of disaster.

And in a weak state awash with weapons, the conflict is becoming increasingly deadly because none of the forces in the field has thus far been able to muster the strength to prevail over the others.

I suspect much of the above (all articles) is half-truths, but it does illustrate how little we really understand, yet we decide to take action anyway with little thought on whether taking action is ultimately in our interests or not. I guess with smart power you can't help but win, but winning sure looks funny sometimes.

Bill Moore
08-27-2014, 01:19 AM
Updated a little

http://www.trust.org/item/20140826210618-f9vc1/?source=search

Libyan raids herald bolder Arab action as U.S. wavers


* Some Arab states willing to police the region themselves

* Raids seen as message to Qatar to stop backing Islamists

* Arab states increasingly active in each others' crises

* UAE and Egypt deny involvement, but U.S. sees role (Adds U.S. affirmation of raids)

Emphasis is mine


"The feeling is that America hasn't stood up for its values and policies in the region," he said, referring to a common Arab view that the U.S. administration has been hesitant in supporting rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"So these states will now take it upon themselves to act. Ironically, this is, in broad terms, what Washington has been asking them to do - solve their own problems."

CrowBat
08-27-2014, 08:30 AM
...This is true, yet many argue we should do the same in Syria. History doesn't hold the keys to what is possible in the future, but it should inform us if conditions are the same and the plans to change them are the same, then just maybe we'll see a repeat of the same.
Yeah, 'great solution': describe what happened at the start, so to get the argument that's in your interest - and then black out whatever happened subsequently.

Why putting things into context: that can only disturb one, isn't that so, Bill?

The Western intervention in Libya has opened a way for reorganization of the country - which was entirely impossible during the previous dictatorship. Between others it brought to power a government that was most cooperative and supportive with the West in the entire Middle East. Thus, that intervention was start of a specific, and usually rather 'lengthy' process, yet a very successful one.

But no, you're not going to discuss that, aren't you? Similarly, you're not going to mention that two years later, and with another character in (supposed) charge of US foreign policy, you've got a situation where there was a military coup by somebody renowned as supported by specific 'other' circles within the USA.

The character in question coupped himself to power with explanation that this was necessary in order to 'battle Islamists'. But, once in power, he did nothing of that sort: on the contrary, he turned against militias that were already fighting the Islamists...

But no: let's 'blot out' the memory of the latter two facts, and return to repeating the theory that 'Libya is no good example'. Because if we ignore what happened ever since, and then repeat this nonsense only some 50-100 times, that's certainly going to make it truth...

Wow!

If now there would only be no people with memory better than that of the fish...

************

Re. (supposed) UAEAF (and/or EAF) air strikes: there is absolutely no clarity in this regards, and most of what is reported is little more than guessing.

Yeah, at the first look, 'it makes sense' if the UAE moved to use military force against Islamists. Especially so to all the excusers of US inaction: 'they're moving to do something on their own, we need not meddling'. How nice.

The problem I have with this is that all of this babbling is not explaining a single atom of military aspect of this - supposed - UAEAF involvement. Is there anything about threat perception? About target intel and recce? What about clear identification of targets? What to hell was actually the target? What is with over-flight rights (there might be a few countries and thus a few borders in between the UAE and Libya, perhaps it's also so that there is some distance between these two countries...but who knows), refuelling or forward-basing? And what about results, and military- and security-political gains - whether for the UAE (all provided it was the UAE), and/or Egypt etc.?

And what about those who say the strike was actually flown by Algerian Su-24s?


UAE is particularly aggressively in using military force to combat Islamists.Interesting news. Mind offering a single example?


I suspect much of the above (all articles) is half-truths, but it does illustrate how little we really understand...Please define 'we' - first.

Dayuhan
08-27-2014, 10:39 AM
The Western intervention in Libya has opened a way for reorganization of the country - which was entirely impossible during the previous dictatorship.

That's true, but the reorganization has to be done by Libyans... and anyone who expected that process to be quick, easy, or peaceful was barking at the moon from the start.


Between others it brought to power a government that was most cooperative and supportive with the West in the entire Middle East. Thus, that intervention was start of a specific, and usually rather 'lengthy' process, yet a very successful one.

Would you care to enlarge upon that rather peculiar sentence? What exactly was "very successful" about the process?


But no, you're not going to discuss that, aren't you?

I don't think it's possible to discuss it until you tell us what it means.

CrowBat
08-27-2014, 10:56 AM
That's true, but the reorganization has to be done by Libyans... and anyone who expected that process to be quick, easy, or peaceful was barking at the moon from the start.And where did I say anything else?

You're like a horse with blinders: so insistent on your own ideas and excuses, that you entirely missed my point about origins of support for Haftar (provided by 'other' circles in the USA).

The rest has been discussed too - and that to the length. No surprise you're coming back to ask for it for 50th time, though.

My dear... why is there no 'ignore' function on this forum...?

Dayuhan
08-27-2014, 11:23 AM
you entirely missed my point about origins of support for Haftar (provided by 'other' circles in the USA).

I didn't miss it, I ignored it. Such claims mean exactly nothing until the supposed "other circles" are identified and the claim is supported with a credible citation.

Bill Moore
08-27-2014, 12:08 PM
posted by Crowbat


Please define 'we' - first.

You are certainly in that category, and the rest of your post was largely unintelligible and overly emotional. I'm responding to what I think you're saying, but to be frank it isn't clear.


Yeah, 'great solution': describe what happened at the start, so to get the argument that's in your interest - and then black out whatever happened subsequently.

Explain? I think I focused on what happened subsequently, and don't pretend to claim what would have happened if we intervened, but I can refer to recent history and point out our interventions have made the situation worse, which to me makes claims that "we" have to intervene seem unfounded in logic and bit hubristic. Intervene to accomplish what?


The Western intervention in Libya has opened a way for reorganization of the country - which was entirely impossible during the previous dictatorship. Between others it brought to power a government that was most cooperative and supportive with the West in the entire Middle East. Thus, that intervention was start of a specific, and usually rather 'lengthy' process, yet a very successful one.

I agree with you to a large extent, and I'm not ignoring the fact that we removed a dictator and stopped him from using his mercenaries to slaughter his own people. However, I think our mingling in the political process afterwards didn't achieve its goals, and this is where I'm arguing we don't understand the region. Military arts are military arts, we know how to defeat most adversaries militarily, it is the political and social dynamics we don't understand, and our nave approach of insisting on immediately establishing a democratic government in the midst of post war chaos that has resulted three times in recent history in pulling defeat from the jaws of military victory (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). Democracy is a long term objective that doesn't need to be pursued immediately. Non democratic governments can be both good and effective and ultimately enable a peaceful transition to democracy if that is the way the people desire to be governed.


Similarly, you're not going to mention that two years later, and with another character in (supposed) charge of US foreign policy, you've got a situation where there was a military coup by somebody renowned as supported by specific 'other' circles within the USA.


The character in question coupped himself to power with explanation that this was necessary in order to 'battle Islamists'. But, once in power, he did nothing of that sort: on the contrary, he turned against militias that were already fighting the Islamists...

Show your facts, I'm not familiar with this, and blogs on the internet where kids and imaginative adults make wild claims are not facts. Furthermore, if this is true, it would support my argument that we don't know what we're doing, so even if the intentions are good we won't be effective, which calls our desire for intervention into question.


If now there would only be no people with memory better than that of the fish...

Enlighten us, where we have we in recent memory intervened with our military and attempted to reform a country's government that resulted in a better peace?

CrowBat
08-27-2014, 07:20 PM
I didn't miss it, I ignored it.Thanks. You finally admit you're ignoring my answers.

So, no 'ignore function' on this forum, but means not I cannot simply ignore your posts entirely in the future too, troll.

CrowBat
08-27-2014, 07:59 PM
...You are certainly in that category...I'm in category 'knows not what's going on'?


...and the rest of your post was largely unintelligible and overly emotional.
And, 'very sarcastic' yes, 'emotional' - definitely not: I don't recall my pulse accelerating any in quite some time.


Explain? I think I focused on what happened subsequently, and don't pretend to claim what would have happened if we intervened, but I can refer to recent history and point out our interventions have made the situation worse, which to me makes claims that "we" have to intervene seem unfounded in logic and bit hubristic. Intervene to accomplish what?'Removal of a dictator so to enable a complete reform of the country, society, economy etc.'. That aim was achieved, hands down.

The country was then - largely - left on its own (and, a lil' bit, to Europeans plus the UAE). At least for the next two years.

Then came Qalifa Haftar.

Do you know who is Haftar? Guess not - and that, plus your indications of me not having a clue what's up there in Libya and similar places - is what's making me as sarcastic here. Haftar was the C-in-C of Libyan troops in Chad, back in the second half of the 1980, until his major force was utterly defeated (by US-French-supported, trained and armed Chadian insurgency-cum-army) at Martan as-Sahra (major oasis and air base in SE Libya) and he captured (together with better parts of two of his mechanized brigades), back in 1988.

While still in Chadian captivity, he fell out of favour with Q and in 1990requested - and was granted - asylum in the USA, and became a US citizen over the time too. And where did he settle there: in Vienna, outside DC. One is left to guess: why so close to Langley...?

And in 2011, and all of a sudden, he re-appeared in Libya, with pockets stuffed full of money to claim himself a commander of the revolutionary military - which nobody between revolutionaries, but foremost nobody within the NTC (provisional government) was ready to accept. And when his repeated efforts to impose himself in command all failed, then he coupped himself to power.

Bottom line: I've got no clue who to hell in the USA is backing him, but this somebody has helped Haftar remove a legal government and impose himself in power, and I strongly doubt that this was undertaken with any kind of consent from the WH.

Bottom line: the US intervention was 'good', in terms of immediate results it brought, and in terms of outlooks it opened for Libya. But then, there was another, unofficial intervention that ruined two years of reforms. That is no fault of Libyans, and especially: it's no fault of the US (and NATO + friends) intervention from 2011.

We can discuss all the things that got botched up there in Libya by their own authorities/government of the last two years, to full extension if you like. The point is: like always in similar cases, left on their own and with enough time, they would've sorted things out - and do so in their own fashion.

But, no: a US citizen with obvious backing from unknown circles within the USA came in between to impose his own, military dictatorship. And then, instead of doing what he said was the reason for his coup, namely fighting the Islamists, Haftar didn't move against these. On the contrary, he moved against Zintanis and Misuratis, and opened the doors wide open for Islamists: before his coup, the latter were nobody in Libya. They wouldn't have had a single vote in the national government/parliament without buying even that one (a publicly-known fact in Libya). But since Haftar is in power, you can meanwhile find the Islamists in control of Tripoli IAP... Except for a sort of 'buffer zone' to the Egyptian border, Haftar can't say he's in safe control of the capital any more.

And that's why I say: PLEASE, do yourself a favour and don't explain something like 'see Libya, you can't know what might have happened in Syria if we intervened there', or 'we shouldn't because we don't know what are we doing'. Libya of 2011 is an excellent example for what was possible to do with Syria too (up to, say, mid-2013). Libya of 2014, on the contrary, is an entirely different pair of shoes - one that has nothing to do with 'military intervention' of 2011 any more: it's connected with private interests of who-knows-what circles in the USA, perhaps Egypt too.


Enlighten us, where we have we in recent memory intervened with our military and attempted to reform a country's government that resulted in a better peace?Oh my... what's with Bosnia (1995), Serbia (1999), Libya (2011).... Nothing of this ever happened, or the situation in all these places 'worsened' meanwhile...?

Bill Moore
08-27-2014, 10:00 PM
And that's why I say: PLEASE, do yourself a favour and don't explain something like 'see Libya, you can't know what might have happened in Syria if we intervened there', or 'we shouldn't because we don't know what are we doing'. Libya of 2011 is an excellent example for what was possible to do with Syria too (up to, say, mid-2013). Libya of 2014, on the contrary, is an entirely different pair of shoes - one that has nothing to do with 'military intervention' of 2011 any more: it's connected with private interests of who-knows-what circles in the USA, perhaps Egypt too.

As I said I thought what we did in Libya worked also as far as removing a dictator and chasing his brutal mercenaries out of the country. I don't think we had a lot of time to think about the morning after, much like Afghanistan, so we rushed in and as usual sort of hoped it would work out for the best. I definitely don't think we should have more than SOF on the ground, but the arguments about the negatives are now we have a failed state (as you said it will have to rearrange itself overtime), which allowed a massive amount of weapons to spread to other parts of Africa according to some empowering a number of groups such as AQ in Mali and enabled the BH to be better armed than the Nigerian military. It also enabled the Islamists to vie for power in Libya, which apparently is prompting Egypt and QAE to intervene to protect their interests based on fear of the Islamists getting a base in the region where they can support rebel groups in their countries.

I have no idea how Libya will sort things out in the midst of this chaos and interest groups with widely divergent interests, and numerous external actors interfering. At the end of the day we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we want it to be.

In short I think the way we supported the Libyan rebels was a classic use of our military in a relatively modest way to achieve a strategic impact, but we'll be hesitant and with good reason if we don't develop the doctrinal approach subsequent to removing a dictator for promoting conditions that enable the people to sort out their future. That becomes especially difficult when it is the Islamists that are the best organized (politically and militarily) and they threaten our interests and the interests of others in the region. It is something we helped enable and now we can't escape it, and yes I think we would see a similar result in Syria and that mess would threaten Iraq even more and also Turkey and Jordan. Act yes, but after thinking through it. Frankly that should have been done by now, but instead we're responding to Iraq like it is a crisis (it is) instead of deliberately. That is what happens when you have a country that has divorced itself from strategy.

As for Haftar, the following might be of interest to others following this thread. Have I heard of him? Yes Did I did know his background? No.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/13354-haftar-arab-troops-may-take-part-in-operations-in-libya


The retired Libyan General Khalifa Haftar said in a taped speech Friday that seeking the help of Arab troops in Libya is "no longer unlikely."

Haftar addressed members of the Libyan parliament, urging them to make necessary decisions to support his "Karama Operation".

"We have to be aware of the conspiracy planned against our army," he said.

Haftar added that "the army will not interfere in the political process, and will always maintain its impartiality."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/24/libyan-renegade-general-khalifa-haftar-war


Hafter estimates that, with his current capabilities, the operation will take six months. "But if we receive military supplies from friendly countries the time will be less," he says, an indication that such help has perhaps not yet materialised despite talk of Egyptian, Emirati and Saudi support. "We have not asked Egypt to conduct air raids in Libya, but if we need this we will ask for it without any hesitation."

He claims to have "indirect contacts" with the US, and hints he believes support may be forthcoming. "I don't think the Americans will stay away from this fight against terrorism. We are battling an enemy hated by the whole world."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27492354


After Gaddafi's downfall, Mr Haftar appeared to have faded into relative obscurity, like other former regime figures who joined the revolution.

That remained the case until February 2014, when TV channels posted a video of him outlining his plan to save the nation and calling on Libyans to rise up against the elected parliament, the General National Congress (GNC).

CrowBat
08-29-2014, 07:13 AM
Re. 'failed state': one can't know without giving Libyans the necessary time. Measured by experiences from much more favourable situation in the Eastern Europe (i.e. ex-members of the Warsaw Pact), reform of such countries, their society and economy can easily take 20 years. Libya hasn't got even a quarter of that - but is already declared a 'failure'?


...which allowed a massive amount of weapons to spread to other parts of Africa according to some empowering a number of groups such as AQ in Mali and enabled the BH to be better armed than the Nigerian military....This is one of funniest parts of this affair: everybody is talking about 'massive amount of weapons spread' from Libya, but nobody can show any.

Surely, several shipments of Libyan small arms, ammo and even some light artillery have reached Syria, but with one exception every shipment containing MANPADs was intercepted while underway there. Actually, only a handful of ex-Libyan MANPADS ever surfaced anywhere abroad (in Syria); half of them were spent to shoot at SyAAF fighter-bombers and helicopters, the other half was non-operational. Re. AQIM and Mali: I've seen photos of their armament captured by the French and Algerians and sorry, but nothing of what I've seen was from Libya - rather captured from the collapsing Malian Army. I'm following the little-known campaign vaged against local extremists in southern Tunisia too (as usually: whenever there is an 'obscure' air force involved, I'm tracking what's going on): perhaps few AK-47s there are from Libyan stocks, even that's not sure.

Which is making me wonder: where is evidence of these 'massive amounts of Libyan weapons' being spread around Africa and similar places?

If we would be talking about Q's times, when he was delivering L-39s to Uganda (and deploying even Tupolev Tu-22s bombers there), MiG-21s to Mali, MiG-23s to the DR Congo and Zimbabwe etc. (not to talk about his deployment of an entire brigade of Chadian Army into the DR Congo, back in 1998), 'sure'. But since his fall?

Whatever, the point remains that the intervention of 2011 was successful in its aim - removal of dictator to open the country for reforms. The fact that these reforms were crudely interrupted by a military coup, means not that the intervention was 'wrong', or its results 'poor'.


That becomes especially difficult when it is the Islamists that are the best organized (politically and militarily) and they threaten our interests and the interests of others in the region. It is something we helped enable and now we can't escape it, and yes I think we would see a similar result in Syria and that mess would threaten Iraq even more and also Turkey and Jordan.Say, an intervention resulting in a group like the IF coming to power in Syria wouldn't have threatened security of Turkey, because there is an equal Islamist in power there. On the contrary, it would be 'better' for Iraq, because IF is at odds with the ISIS.


Act yes, but after thinking through it. Frankly that should have been done by now, but instead we're responding to Iraq like it is a crisis (it is) instead of deliberately. That is what happens when you have a country that has divorced itself from strategy.Agreed.

Jedburgh
10-31-2014, 01:19 PM
Small Arms Survey, 30 October 2014: Politics by Other Means: Conflicting Interests in Libya’s Security Sector (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/F-Working-papers/SAS-SANA-WP20-Libya-Security-Sector.pdf)

....a new Working Paper from the Small Arms Survey’s Security Assessment in North Africa project, examines the rise and fall of hybrid security sector institutions in Libya, and the political interests at stake in security sector reform. It charts the evolution of the post-Qaddafi Libyan army, the SSC (the transitional government’s attempt to co-opt revolutionary fighters), and the LSF (the revolutionary fighters’ attempt to exert control on the transitional government), as well as their interaction with the transitional authorities.
Published earlier this month by NOREF, Stealing the Revolution: Violence and Predation in Libya (http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/Tabib_Clingendael_NOREF_Stealing%20the%20revouluti on_Violence%20and%20predation%20in%20Libya_October %202014.pdf), is an excellent - and brief - backgrounder on the fragmentation addressed in greater detail in the SAS paper.

davidbfpo
11-21-2014, 11:22 AM
A short BBC News commentary, that rightly ends with:
His legacy is awful to behold. The Gaddafi disease was terrible. The cure has not been found.
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30093893

Almost like Zimbabwe, even in Mugabe and cronies remain in power. I fear the West, if not many others will "wash their hands" of Libya and it will implode, like the Lebanon did. Who stopped that civil war, enforcing stability for a long time? Syria under Assad Senior, not to overlook Israel's contribution or others.

AdamG
01-06-2015, 01:39 PM
Planes taking off from airfields in Libya and bombing Greek tankers sounds like a rerun of 1941.


CAIRO (AP) — Fighter jets dispatched by Libya's internationally recognized government bombed a Greek-owned tanker ship at an eastern city controlled by Islamist extremists Monday, killing two crew members and wounding two, Libyan and Greek officials said.

The bombing highlights the chaos that's gripped Libya since its 2011 civil war that deposed and killed dictator Moammar Gadahfi. Libyan officials apologized for the bombing as the Greek Foreign Ministry demanded compensation for the victims' families and punishment for those behind the attack.

Libyan military spokesman Ahmed al-Mesmari said jets struck the Liberian-flagged Araevo twice in Darna before his government learned the vessel was commissioned by the local power station. Darna is a base for Islamic extremists who have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group.

http://news.yahoo.com/2-dead-unknown-aircraft-bombs-greek-tanker-libyan-092718995.html

davidbfpo
01-13-2015, 07:55 PM
Provided by the Oxford Research Group:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers_and_reports/briefing_libya_proxy_battlefield


On the eve of UN-brokered talks between rival Libyan leaders and militia due to convene in Geneva this briefing sets out the various rationales for intervention from Libya’s neighbours and other international actors and how these may impact on the case for peace through dialogue and reconciliation. It argues that now is a moment of opening that has the potential to save Libya from descent into full-blown civil war.

davidbfpo
02-12-2015, 01:15 PM
That is my sad conclusion after reading this excellent summary of the position today in The Atlantic:http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/the-battle-for-libyas-oil/385285/

It is now four years since the 'revolution' and there is no sign that the men with guns and pick-ups are ready to stop.

My only question after reading the article is whether the Libyan people are leaving. Again, as many left slowly whilst Gadafy was in power for decades.

davidbfpo
02-16-2015, 01:51 PM
The result of touring around a long article in the New Yorker:http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/unravelling

I was wondering what happened to those Libyans who went home to oust Gadafy, the author says:
Many of the young Libyans I met during the revolution are now in Tunisia, Egypt, Bulgaria, London—anywhere but Libya. The exiles who came back to build a new country have largely left.

AdamG
02-16-2015, 03:02 PM
Dual posting -


Sixty-four Islamic State fighters have been killed and dozens wounded in Egyptian-Libyan military airstrikes on Libya, announced the spokesperson of the Libyan military, reported Al-Ahram.

http://egyptianstreets.com/2015/02/16/64-isis-members-killed-as-egypt-launches-first-foreign-strikes-in-24-years/

davidbfpo
02-18-2015, 02:09 PM
Some of the recent reporting on Libya (not linked here) reminds me of the WW2 British slogan 'Don't Panic, Stay Calm and Carry On'.

Caveat aside there is a report by the London-based Quilliam Foundation, based on:
On 23 January 2015, a prominent supporter of Islamic State (IS) – the group that now controls much of Iraq and Syria – uploaded an essay, written in Arabic, entitled “Libya: The Strategic Gateway for the Islamic State”, on why jihadists needed to urgently flock to Libya to assist supporters of the so-called caliphate in their jihad.

Link to report, note the actual ISIS document is only 6 pgs in 15 pgs:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/publications/free/libya-the-strategic-gateway-for-the-is.pdf

Whilst Quilliam do not name the author, the Daily Telegraph do:
The Isil propagandist, who uses the alias Abu Arhim al-Libim...
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11418966/Islamic-State-planning-to-use-Libya-as-gateway-to-Europe.html

davidbfpo
03-15-2015, 08:59 PM
An excellent BBC World Service podcast 'Who Wants What in Libya?' and not a single UK or US expert cited. It lasts 24 mins:http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/inquiry

Nice comparison drawn between the Paris peace talks on Vietnam and the UN talks with Libyans, akin to:
There's no table yet, we have not got that far.

davidbfpo
03-25-2015, 10:54 PM
A short explanation by Carnegie of the Islamic State’s Strategy in Libya; an example:
..the Islamic State’s strategy in Libya seems to be directed instead at hastening state failure and fracturing the population’s sense of common nationhood. Meanwhile, it is also intensifying the conditions that will allow it to deepen its influence and form a national-religious identity in line with the caliphate’s own views.
Link:http://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2015/03/25/islamic-state-s-strategy-in-libya/i4w6

davidbfpo
05-24-2015, 03:04 PM
The civil war, now with a dash of ISIS, does get some attention in the media, albeit with rare in-country reporting. Instead the consequences of the absence of a working Libyan state is seen in the number of emigrants, refugees and possible terrorists transiting the country to get a boat north to Europe - invariably Italy - are well reported here in Europe.

Just whether anyone will intervene in Libya is a moot point. One Italian minister has murmured about 'protection', but Italy has a rather violent history pre-1939 when it occupied and colonised the country. Egypt and another Gulf kingdom sometimes launch air strikes.

Just whether this headline is justified, even true is debateable and it is in The Daily Mail, albeit by a Franco-Algerian Muslim journalist:
Britain is 'helping turn Libya into a cradle of terrorism' exporting killers to Europe amid thousands of illegal immigrants
Link:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3094893/Britain-helping-turn-Libya-cradle-terrorism-exporting-killers-Europe-amid-thousands-illegal-immigrants.html

smellthebeans
07-18-2015, 06:09 AM
Anyone here actually been watching what has been occurring in Libya (Sirte, Derna, Benghazi) over the last 45 days?

davidbfpo
07-18-2015, 10:41 AM
Anyone here actually been watching what has been occurring in Libya (Sirte, Derna, Benghazi) over the last 45 days?

Like others in Europe I have watched the civil war develop, now with ISIS on the prowl and sadly recoiled from too close a watch. Civil wars are rarely simple and invariably horrible.

There is relatively little reporting on Libya, in part as I suspect most media outlets rarely venture there, so one relies on agency and other sources.

The increasing flow of migrants via Libya across the Mediterranean to Italian territory gets more attention than the civil war, aided by the ability to report and of course endless pictures.

If you have been watching perhaps you can help to explain what has happened?

davidbfpo
07-22-2015, 07:47 PM
A short comment by blogger Kyle Orton, it starts with:
An Islamic State (ISIS) commander was killed in Libya in mid-June, The Daily Beast reported (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/19/town-shames-isis-chief-cersei-lannister-style-and-then-executes-him.html?via=desktop&source=twitter) yesterday, after being “paraded … through the streets amid the taunts of onlookers, and then walked … to a gallows, where he was hanged.” This occurred in the eastern city of Derna, long a hotbed of Islamic militancy (https://twitter.com/KyleWOrton/status/623270448281862144). The crucial thing about the “executed” ISIS operative is that he was an Iraqi and an FRE—a former (Saddam) regime element—who had been dispatched to Libya last year to oversee the cultivation of an ISIS branch.
Link:https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/demise-of-an-ex-saddamist-in-libya/

davidbfpo
07-27-2015, 09:05 PM
Just two posts away I said:
There is relatively little reporting on Libya....

This AM John Simpson, the BBC's Chief Foreign Correspondent, was on the radio from Tripoli:
The main airport has been destroyed, all the main embassies have been closed down, the big international hotels all stand empty. There are long and frequent power cuts. And yet Tripoli appears entirely calm.

It is quiet because the city has been carved up by two rival warlords, and their forces are so finely balanced that it is not in the interests of either of them to attack the other. And directly you look below the surface, you start to find the problems that afflict people here.
No TV footage yet:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-33673034

SWJ Blog
07-31-2015, 02:15 AM
‘Confronting ISIS in Libya: The Case for an Expeditionary Counterinsurgency’ (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/%E2%80%98confronting-isis-in-libya-the-case-for-an-expeditionary-counterinsurgency%E2%80%99)

A SWJ article which includes a review of recent history regarding the civil war / insurgency, plus a few maps. A good read too.

davidbfpo
08-27-2015, 07:23 PM
Dr Omar Ashour's latest paper for Brookings: 'Between ISIS and a failed state: The saga of Libyan Islamists' (15 pgs):http://t.co/zeHpp4EfON

The summary:
Libya’s diverse Islamist actors played a substantial role in the 2011 armed revolution against Moammar Gadhafi and the subsequent collapse of Libya’s democratization process into armed conflict. The advances of ISIS in Libya and the breakdown of Brotherhood electoral activism in neighboring Egypt, however, present an ideological and recruitment challenge to Libya’s Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi factions.

davidbfpo
09-08-2015, 04:45 PM
Catching up, a three week old article from The Spectator, by a journalist who went there. With the title and sub-title:
Cameron’s talking to the wrong Libyan government. He should call my old driverThere are real reasons to worry about Libya Dawn – but also real reasons to try to work with them
Link:http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9607062/camerons-talking-to-the-wrong-libyan-government-he-should-call-my-old-driver/

Near the end:
It’s not the first time the West has walked away from a land they supposedly liberated, leaving a mess, I pointed out. At some point, Libya will have to sort out its problems on its own.

smellthebeans
10-23-2015, 07:14 AM
A short comment by blogger Kyle Orton, it starts with:
Link:https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/demise-of-an-ex-saddamist-in-libya/

If this did indeed occur where are all the photographs? Social Media would be blown up with this. Especially when you consider the Mujahideen Shura Council Derna's recent public affairs blitz.

CrowBat
10-29-2015, 10:51 AM
By far not everything is caught by the 'social media'; and 90% of what is reported on social media in Arabic never reaches English-language 'areas'.

smellthebeans
12-03-2015, 01:01 AM
Good point!

But there are a couple of reliable observers on Twitter. Charlie Winters, Daniele Raineri, Mary Fitzger to name a few.

smellthebeans
12-03-2015, 01:06 AM
Much of the news reporting recently has pointed to this U.N. report.

Dash's long term prospects not good because they are seen as a foreign entity. True and when compared to AQ tied leaders & brokers the deficit looks pretty big.

http://untribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/MT-report-on-Libya-ENG.pdf

CrowBat
01-05-2016, 07:01 AM
Ex-Egyptian MiG-21MF '18' of the Free Libyan Air Force, only recently overhauled by technicians at Gamal Abdel Nasser AB (ex RAF el-Adem, south of Tobruq), was shot down by Islamists over Bo Atni district of Benghazi, yesterday morning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRa8GBoV4Cg

Pilot ejected safely.

In line with what all the air forces seem to do in recent conflicts, LNA/FLAF declared the loss as caused by technical problem.

SWJ Blog
01-09-2016, 09:42 AM
IS Foothold in Libya Threatens Europe, West Africa (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/is-foothold-in-libya-threatens-europe-west-africa)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/is-foothold-in-libya-threatens-europe-west-africa) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.