The new Libya: various aspects

[Dayuhan]

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]

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]

You elected not to answer them. That's your right.

My right is to ignore your comments.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Mike:

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

[Ken White]

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...

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

I can do dat...

[motorfirebox]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...east_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]

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/article..._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]

.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._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]

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]

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]

Qatari soldiers, not Green Berets, execute UW campaign in Libya

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Dayuhan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.