I said I find this reasonable?Originally Posted by Flying Carpet
The West would find this reasonable?
What are you saying? That Gaddafi should be allowed to stay in power to avoid any revenge based incidents happening after he is toppled?
Who are you BTW?
Last edited by JMA; 03-17-2011 at 01:55 AM.
Good
David Cameron criticises Barack Obama's lack of leadership on Libya
That's fine... let it develop to the point where he can justify pulling the Brit troops out of Afghanistan.DAVID Cameron risked opening a deep rift with the United States yesterday by criticising President Barack Obama’s lack of leadership on Libya.
A policy on testicular regeneration is currently in the planning stage. It can be expected to proceed further after in depth consultations with all the stakeholders. A cutting edge process is expected to be implemented that will insure diversity and inclusion. Only the best alternatives will be considered for further consideration.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
The need to proceed with the utmost caution must be stressed under such circumstances. Even if that means the "ambulance" arrives after the patient has died.
No, I am advocating a regular handover just like we have seen in Egypt and Tunisia where the presidential family and some close associates are fired and/or prosecuted but the great majority of the party members just stay in their job. I think this is preferable above the massive cleansing in the style of the de-Baathisation policy we followed in Iraq or the firing of all Serbs in Kosovo. In both countries they don't even have regular electricity now.
We should not replace suppression by one group with suppression by another. Instead we should look for a formula in which everyone is represented - including the former oppressors.
Well, "we" is the wrong choice of a word unless you think of "we" as "mankind".
From International Crisis Group
Somehow, an in between solution proposal...Open Letter to the UN Security Council on the Situation in Libya
Brussels, 16 March 2011:
Excellency,
In light of the grave situation in Libya, we urge Security Council Members to take immediate effective action aimed at achieving a ceasefire in place and initiating negotiations to secure a transition to a legitimate and representative government. This action should be backed by the credible threat of appropriate military intervention, as a last resort, to prevent mass atrocities.
We welcome the steps taken thus far by the Security Council, including an asset freeze, arms embargo and the threat of prosecution for war crimes. These were adopted in response to widespread abuses against civilians and were meant to prevent a humanitarian disaster. But the situation has now evolved into a full-scale civil war. The most urgent goal now must be to end the violence and halt further loss of life, while paving the way toward a political transition, objectives that require a different response.
Imposing a no-flight zone, which many have been advocating, would, in and of itself, achieve neither of these. It would not stop the violence or accelerate a peaceful resolution. Nor would it materially impede the regime from crushing resistance. Government forces appear to be gaining the advantage mainly on account of their superiority on the ground, not air power. In short, a no-flight zone under existing circumstances would not address the threat of mass atrocities it purports to tackle. The debate over this issue is inhibiting the necessary reflection on the best course of action.
If the objective is, as it should be, first and foremost to end the killing, there are only two genuine options. One is an international military intervention explicitly on the side of the revolt with the avowed goal of ensuring its victory or, at a minimum, preventing its defeat. Given widespread lack of knowledge of the situation on the ground, it is unclear what it will take to achieve this. At a minimum, however, this would involve providing the rebel forces with substantial military assistance and taking action against Qaddafi's forces. Should those measures not suffice, it could well require direct military involvement on the ground. It is incumbent on those pressing this view to think through its logical imp lications;=2 0it would be reckless to enter a military confrontation on the optimistic assumption that it will be ended quickly, only to see it turn into a bloody, protracted war.
Although there are legitimate arguments for a swift and massive military intervention on the opposition's behalf, it presents considerable risks. Besides the obvious downsides entailed in what could well come to be viewed as another Western military engagement in a Muslim country and the Middle East and North Africa region, it could also lead to large-scale loss of life as well as precipitate a political vacuum in Libya in which various forces engage in a potentially prolonged and violent struggle for supremacy before anything resembling a state and stable government are reestablished. Such a situation could lead to wider regional instability and could be exploited by terrorist movements, notably Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
The alternative option, which Crisis Group has advocated, is to engage in a vigorous political effort to achieve an immediate ceasefire in place to be followed by the prompt opening of a dialogue on the modalities of a transition to a new government that the Libyan people will accept as legitimate. To that end, we urge the Council to delegate a regional contact group composed of officials or respected personalities drawn from Arab and African countries, including Libya's neighbours, to initiate discussions with the regime and the opposition without delay. Their mandate would be to secure agreement on:
•An immediate ceasefire in place, which respects international humanitarian law;
•Dispatch of a peacekeeping force drawn primarily from the armed forces of regional states to act as a buffer, operating under a Security Council mandate and with the support of the Arab League and African Union;
•Initiation of a dialogue between the regime and opposition aimed at definitively ending the bloodshed and beginning the necessary transition to representative, accountable and legitimate government
To enhance the credibility of the threat to use all necessary means -- including military steps beyond the imposition of a no-flight zone – to protect against mass atrocities, member states should begin planning for such an eventuality. The Security Council has a responsibility to live up to its commitments, even and especially if a member state does not.
Crisis Group’s proposal addresses head-on the overwhelming priorities of stopping the bloodshed and initiating the necessary political transition in a way that avoids the dangerous prospect of a political vacuum and is in line with both the African Union’s proposal for African mediation and the Arab League’s recognition that Arab countries have a role to play. It further backs up the vital and long overdue political effort we have called for with the only kind of military deployment that can help end the violence rather than aggravate it. We urge the Security Council to adopt this proposal and to take immediate steps to put it into effect.
Sincere regards,
Louise Arbour
President and CEO
International Crisis Group
Part of the problem is the legitimacy of Gaddaffi's 'government', and this open letter needlessly recognises him as leading the state (something that's very important to the UN, which is more a united states than a united nations).
France recognised the rebel government one or two days ago, and this (as problematic as it is - see Yugoslavia, Georgia) could be a way around the legal issues in this case.
Russia and others fear that a UNSC-legitimised intervention in favour of rebels would create a precedent and cause them trouble (see Chechens, Uigurs). They do not fear that anybody would ever recognise a tiny minority's government as representing their whole country, though.
Another obstacle to intervention on behalf of rebels right now is the Charter of the UN, but again, this doesn't apply if the rebel government is recognised as the country government.
Maybe the author(s) recognised Gadaffi's rule intentionally - in this case my remarks should have added a facet for the interpretation of the letter.
For no other reason than the fact that the US has IMO recently tread very heavily in the path of world affairs (and typically to our detriment) and is experiencing larger issues as a result, it would be nice to see us stay out of what is a Libyan affair.
Last edited by jcustis; 03-17-2011 at 11:55 AM.
I don't think ICG is inhabiting the same reality as the people in Libya:
"The alternative option, which Crisis Group has advocated, is to engage in a vigorous political effort to achieve an immediate ceasefire in place to be followed by the prompt opening of a dialogue on the modalities of a transition to a new government that the Libyan people will accept as legitimate."
As I read it, she takes the traditional pacifist approach based on "jaw-jaw" is better then "war-war." Somehow the people who advocate this always overlook the fact that their approach also says "go-go" to dictators whose preferred solution to any opposition is "kill-kill." In this particular case, Qaddafi knows quite well that once he's killed the rebels the rest of the world will express outrage, maybe to the level of a "strongly condemn," but will also quietly return to business as usual. (Those seized assets? The crisis started with Qaddafi as the recognized ruler, it will end with Qaddafi as the recognized ruler, and the assets will be returned.)
The West won't intervene, and the Arab street will (already has begun to) claim that the non-response is all about oil. Of course, if the West had intervened, the Arab street (and the Western babbling class) would have claimed it was all about oil. Only a fool sits down to a game where the first rule is: you aren't allowed to win. Which is why, reading the debate between Ken and Carl (isolationism vs. interventionism), to my surprise I found myself agreeing with Ken.
In a world where the U.S. leads, we might have gotten some effective intervention in time for it to matter. But leadership involves risks and costs, so that world involves the risk of a war, and as sure as God made little green apples, the U.S. would be pilloried for it. In a world where the U.S. doesn't lead, we get Rwanda, Darfur, and now Libya, because deploring a crisis is cheap, safe and free moral posturing that allows people to pretend they've done something because they care so deeply and use harsh language.
As far as Libya goes, it's all over but the rape and murder of the reprisals. As for others suffering under a third world dictatorship, they would do well to look hard at this and remember that the Western babbling classes support them only insofar as they can use them to advance their domestic political agenda. Take them at their word, and you wind up in the same position as Qaddafi's soon to be dead enemies.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
"Neocons Want War with Libya"
http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.co...ith-libya.html
Unfortunately I've to agree. And that's the limit of ICG at the moment, they are not in Lybia not before neither after.
Also, I agree on the fact the actual ICG agenda is basically a pacifist one. But they did immediatly ask for a NFZ or more pressuring measures against G.
But when you're an advocacy councelling organisation, you can go only as far as the people actually in power want to go.
I personnaly diseagree with the idea that isiolationism would work. I believe that it was an opportunity to send a message to the arab populations that would have been benefiting on the long term.
The recognition by France of the rebel gov will change nothing except may be raising up the level of anti terrorist alert in France. Sarkozi is still a "friend" for G and if Dassault propose him new planes, he will most probably say yes.
The real problem in fact is his sons who did not had to lead a revolution to free their people to acces power, unlike their father.
By the way, in "civil war" there is always a winner and a looser. And who ever it is: the looser is just erased from the surface of earth. The idea that rebel would be bad guys because they would take the opportunity to advenge former crimes is, IMO, just a short mind view. This does not make a foreign policy and even less a foreign politik.
Last edited by M-A Lagrange; 03-17-2011 at 01:48 PM.
A minor point
I do not advocate isolationism, far from it. I think we need to be more active in the world --but we could sure be smarter in how we do that...True but the method of intervention and who does it are the important things. We need better Intel, we need better diplomatic --and better resourced diplomatic -- efforts worldwide. We can employ limited military training and logistic support to assist but it should not be the first choice and it should be constrained.In a world where the U.S. leads, we might have gotten some effective intervention in time for it to matter.
We should get DoD and the Armed Forces out of the 'diplomacy' business; the CoCom CinCs should be significantly reined in. We do need, can afford and can obtain a more capable intervention capability for those really rare instances where required and that should include a robust strategic raid capability. The real issue is that military intervention should be the last choice, not one of the first.Very true. I simply suggest that is in large measure due to our failures to obtain good intelligence due to excessive reliance on technology and trying to gather HumInt by being nice; by our failure to apply adequate economic and diplomatic efforts before a crisis erupts and then reacting militarily -- and doing that rather poorly. We have frittered away our leadership capability by inconsistency and mediocre to poor performance.But leadership involves risks and costs, so that world involves the risk of a war, and as sure as God made little green apples, the U.S. would be pilloried for it. In a world where the U.S. doesn't lead, we get Rwanda, Darfur, and now Libya, because deploring a crisis is cheap, safe and free moral posturing that allows people to pretend they've done something because they care so deeply and use harsh language.
That is mostly due to our size and wealth. We're spoiled, we gaze at our navels and we execute foreign policy based almost solely on domestic political considerations. We have intervened excessively and poorly -- we can do better. We should do better.
Last edited by Ken White; 03-17-2011 at 02:29 PM.
And in Libya this will be achieved how?
Specter of Rebel Rout Helps Shift U.S. Policy on Libya - NYTIMES
The prospect of a deadly siege of the rebel stronghold in Benghazi, Libya, has produced a striking shift in tone from the Obama administration, which is now pushing for the United Nations to authorize aerial bombing of Libyan tanks and heavy artillery to try to halt the advance of forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
The administration, which remains deeply reluctant to be drawn into an armed conflict in yet another Muslim country, is nevertheless backing a resolution in the Security Council that would give countries a broad range of options for aiding the Libyan rebels, including military steps that go well beyond a no-flight zone.
Administration officials — who have been debating a no-flight zone for weeks — concluded that such a step now would be “too little, too late” for rebels who have been pushed back to Benghazi. That suggests more aggressive measures, which some military analysts have called a no-drive zone, to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from moving tanks and artillery into Benghazi.
The United States is insisting that any military action would have to be carried out by an international coalition, including Libya’s Arab neighbors ...
The false choice -
is between isolationism and interventionism - as Ken points out.
Selectivity is called for - as Jon correctly (in my eyes) sums it:
How warped we (US) have become is illustrated by the fact that the greatest amphibious force in the World has spent the last decade prowling about either desert or mountains.from jcustis
For no other reason than the fact that the US has IMO recently tread very heavily in the path of world affairs (and typically to our detriment) and is experiencing larger issues as a result, it would be nice to see us stay out of what is a Libyan affair.
Regards
Mike
Jeez, JMA... The African Dictator Method, of course
Conte de fée... When the locals begin to circle the white house, their dictators will pack their bags and take off like bats out of hell. Some will go to Dictators’ Heaven in Morocco like Mobutu Sese Seko and the rest will fade away into the sunset to quietly enjoy their stolen millions.
The sad truth -- that I have no need in explaining to most herein -- is, the morning after the fall of an African dictator, the people will be living in a trashed economy, no money at the bank, pillaged store shelves, prison chambers full of political prisoners and ...
power-hungry opposition leaders jockeying for position in the middle of a political and social upheaval.
I'm done ranting for now --- please resume your normal broadcast
EDIT:
Well said, Mike !
Might I add that we are now hamstrung by a bunch of pirates in fishing boats ?
Last edited by Stan; 03-17-2011 at 05:12 PM.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Here is an excellent conservative counterpoint. On the NRO Libya Editorial, I Respectfully Dissent
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
Morning Stan!
Works in Africa, works in many other places as well...Jeez, JMA... The African Dictator Method, of course
Conte de fée... When the locals begin to circle the white house, their dictators will pack their bags and take off like bats out of hell. Some will go to Dictators’ Heaven in Morocco like Mobutu Sese Seko and the rest will fade away into the sunset to quietly enjoy their stolen millions.
Too true.
As I survey the state of things on the 'interweb' over coffee this morning my take is that our negotiators are currently doing well.
1. We are keeping our eye on the ball with respect to the financial domino's of Japan, the EU, the US, and the rest of the financial system.
2. We are keeping our eye on the ball with respect to the status of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel & Iran.
3. We are insisting that the training wheels are coming off the shared 'international community intervention bicycle' and that if it's to be ridden it will be ridden by those currently pouting in the corner.
COL G, through this crisis, has self-identified as being weak to the sharks that swim in that part of the ocean. He may have a Sennacherib experience or he may head off to parts unknown, but his countdown clock has started.
IMHO we should be seriously preparing for a joint response which will mitigate the humanitarian and economic fallout that will result from the realignment of the Middle East. This will require a broad spectrum and long-term response which is not limited to just going out and shooting select people until some folks feel better.
Steve
Sapere Aude
"the Western babbling classes support them only insofar as they can use them to advance their domestic political agenda. Take them at their word, and you wind up in the same position as Qaddafi's soon to be dead enemies."
I think in this particular case, the people doing the rising up did not expect that Western armies will come to their aid. They expected that they will sweep Gaddafi away and hang him from a lamp-pole. Having failed to do so, they may now wish to be saved by Western armies, but to think that the Western babbling classes incited them with false promises is a bit of a stretch (in THIS case)...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks