Just reading through this New York Times article, I found validation for pretty much every concern I expressed about getting involved in Libya. But one thing leapt out at me.
The French government, which has led the international charge against Colonel Qaddafi, has placed mounting pressure on the United States to provide greater assistance to the rebels. The question of how best to support the opposition dominated an international conference about Libya on Tuesday in London.
This is not the way to go. What the French should do is disregard the restrictions placed on them by the UN resolutions and go roust Gaddafi out of Tripoli. It really shouldn’t be that hard, and it will certainly have many benefits when compared to the prospect of arming the rebels. Not only do the rebels have ties to extremist groups like al-Qaeda, but they would need trainers for any equipment they’re given, which would, in itself, violate the prohibition on ground troops of any kind. Most of all, however, a prolonged civil war will do tremendous damage to Libya’s infrastructure and economy, lead to hard-to-resolve bad feelings, and cause a major loss of life and many injuries. Is it really worth all that just to pretend that foreign powers haven’t put any boots on the ground?
It will much easier for Libya to move forward if they can avoid a civil war that rips their country apart and leaves it awash with weapons and thousands of battle-weary young veterans trained in little but killing their fellow countrymen.
I said as emphatically as I could that it was a bad idea to get involved in Libya, but I believe the best outcome now that a commitment has been made is to get Gaddafi out of there as soon as possible. In won’t be with American troops, nor should it be, but someone ought to do it because it is actually the humanitarian thing to do at this point.
Another edition of What Digby Said:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/value-betrayal.html
This is the problem with making the argument that doing nothing in Libya is “a betrayal of who we are,” and saying that “some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries but the United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” The plight of Ivory Coast proves that we “betray ourselves” every day and brings the whole concept of our alleged values into sharp relief.
There are reasons to be in Libya. But the idea that we couldn’t live with ourselves if a massacre unfolded clearly isn’t one of them. So the the question remains, why Libya?
Because the entire area is aflame. From Libya in he west to Pakistan in the east. Those flames threaten much of the world’s oil delivery.
Why Libya specifically?
It happened, and it looked…still looks, actually….like a good bet.
That old joke?
It pertains here.
Along with its little-known (and rarely understood) corollary, of course.
Yup.
AG
French troops put their asses on the line?
Ain’t happening, Booman. The America-as-world-cop thing is now an addiction. I seriously doubt that here is another NATO country (or even a workable combination of NATO countries) beside the U.S. that has sufficient troops, equipment and expertise to go in and do that kind of job. And Obama isn’t going to let U.S. troops get involved. Not enough for it to be public knowledge, anyway. He’s got an election to win.
It’s like some upper class suburb has suddenly been told that the police force will no longer do any more than patrol the streets and sound their sirens once in a while in the neighboring ghetto. They’re not getting out of their cars. Neighborhood Watch time. So these sleek fashionista mamans et papas are going to have to arm up and go rout the Crips and Bloods next door?
Ain’t happening, Booman.
Result?
Stalemate.
Watch.
There was a reason that we were called in when the French couldn’t handle the Viet Cong. That was the beginning or our world cop rôle. Unless of course you consider that beginning to be World Wars I + II. The Maginot Line just about defines the predominant French approach to war in the post-19th century.
Now…lest I be accused of francophobia…mais NON!!! In point of fact, I love the country, the people, the food, the wine and the culture in general. They are a very savvy bunch. Let some other fool get fucked up et passez le paté, mon cher.
So it goes.
Cela continue.
Bet on it.
AG
P.S. The only possible way that Obama will publicly commit more troops in he Middle East/North Africa? Another massive terrorist attack in the U.S. And since the so-called “ter’rists” who were actually responsible (directly and/or indirectly) for allowing 9/11 to happen and then using it as an excuse for a Blood For Oil war are no longer in complete control of the U.S. PermaGov apparatus…they were basically deposed for incompetency in 2008…that’s not likely to happen either.
Stalemate. As long as the oil continues to flow at prices that will not cause a world economic breakdown? Stalemate.
Also known as a win-win situation.
Watch.
Regimes may change and leaders may be killed and/or banished, but this particular match in the ongoing Great Game will continue until we are free of oil dependency.
Watch.
Let’s assume that this is basically accurate:
That’s not a fair fight and making it into a fair fight is going to take forever. Everyone’s ass is on the line now, Arthur, and no one wants to look like a dope.
So, you tell me. How’s this gonna be a stalemate? Gaddafi either wins or he loses. Right now, he ain’t losing.
Ain’t no “fair” fights.
Just fights.
As long as the NATO air armor is in place…stalemate. After the NATO populations get tired of the game? (I mean, even the effects of the hypnomedia only go so far…) Then it’ll be an economic decision. Probably some form of continuation of the stalemate. Gotta keep that oil flowing north. Europe can barely handle Portugal’s economic troubles. Italy is Libya’s biggest oil customer. Italy starts to fall economically? HOO boy!!! Dominoes start shaking. Qaddafi? Maybe he gets bought off. Maybe he gets off-offed. Whatever. But the oil flow remains paramount.
Watch.
AG
I’ve had more arguments than I can count with my liberal friends, many of whom are from Britain and India, or work for the UN or in international affairs in some capacity. It’s basically split half of us in two: half of whom are interventionists, all of which opposed the Iraq and Afghan Wars.
But this is what I told my friend Vinay a few days ago:
More people will die if we arm these rebels enough to where they can fight a civil war against many of Gaddafi’s sympathizers. Contrary to popular Western opinion, the rebels are not some overwhelming majority opinion. The country is split in half over who to support.
And if this is done, will you please…PLEASE…for the love of god…admit that this was NOT a humanitarian mission. We are choosing sides in a civil war, possibly actively arming them, where more will die in that civil war than would have if Gaddafi had just shut it down at once.
We’re clearly trying to oust Gaddafi without doing it ourselves. Doing it this way is haphazard, it will kill far more people, will possibly result in a stalemate, prolong the conflict, and shit…god knows what else.
And on that note, let’s end with Bill Hicks:
“You know we armed Iraq, I wondered about that, too. During the Persian Gulf War those intelligence reports would come out: “Iraq, incredible weapons…incredible weapons!” ‘How do you know that?’ Heh, well, we looked at the receipt. But as soon as that check clears, we’re going in!”
And how are you so certain of this?
Under the current situation, I don’t think we know what the majority opinion is.
Well, exactly. WE DON’T KNOW. Yet everyone keeps acting as if the country wants Gaddafi out full-stop. I don’t believe that’s the case. I don’t think Gaddafi has majority support either, but if I had to guess from the reports I’d put it at 60-40 one way or the other.
“The country is split in half over who to support. “
I don’t know if it actually “in half,” but yeah, it’s split.
The rebellion was not started by outsiders. But, as in a lot of other places in the Middle East, it started. And then some of us suddenly remembered, “Hey, we don’t like Qadafi either.” Maybe it was his extremely brutal response to the opposition.
It’s not surprising that he has some genuine support, even if is purely tribal or if he bought that support. Would you think it was only right to fight him if he had no support? If he had nos support we wouldn’t need to fight him.
Which is why the administration is gambling that we won’t have to fight him with boots on the ground.
The regime seems to be crumbling down to the Gaddafi family itself. How extended that family is won’t be known until the rebels take Sirte, if they ever do.
So far the strategy by the coalition seems to be: shut down his sources of funds to pay people; shut down his sources of new ammunition and weapons; destroy all existing stockpiles of weapons and ammunition that you can locate; strike convoys resupplying the front in geography demonstrably devoid of civilians; strike his command and control capabilities so that his commanders can neither receive orders nor report results; allow refugees from Ras Lanuf, bin Jawad, and Abjibiya to retreat to Benghazi or Tobruk; protect the rebels against flanking maneuvers to the east of Benghazi; let the rebels conduct a minimal war–and wait. Eventually more commanders flip, more troops flip, more ministers flip, and the regime crumbles as it runs out of money, weapons, and ammunition.
All of that depends on the accuracy of knowledge about internal divisions in the government, available funds in country, effectiveness on asset freezes and arms embargoes, knowledge of weapons stockpiles, and the breaking of the unit cohesion of elite, highly trained, and paid (?) troops who have a lot to lose if they lose.
Neither side knows what the actual situation currently is.
Well, at least that’s a strategy. And it doesn’t sound that far-fetched. Only time will tell.
Obama has not said he is sending arms to Libya.
It doesn’t matter what France wants.
I don’t know why the hell those goddamn cheese-eating surrender monkeys can’t arm the rebels themselves if that’s what they want — other than that it’s illegal. We’re the ones that have to do all the illegal stuff? That puts an interesting light on things.
Given the situation that existed before the first UN Security Council resolution, there are and have been no good ideas with respect to Libya–just worse and worst.
And because Sirte has not yet been taken, it is not clear whether the population there are pro-Gaddafi or just captive by military and security forces. In short, it is still not clear whether the possibility of a civil war actually exists. Unless one persists in calling resistance to a dictator’s security forces a civil war.
As of today, once again the rebel forces are being thrown back by Gaddafi’s units through the mostly desert areas between Sirte and Ajdabiya. Reports say that the Gaddafi forces are now operating in small mortar teams instead of using heavy artillery. And that the civilians have be fleeing toward Benghazi as Gaddafi troops approach. Report are that Misurata is almost lost and the Gaddafi troops have been trying to secure control of the area between Tripoli and the Tunisian border.
Even using small units and mortars, Gaddafi still has a supply line from somewhere (Sirte, Tripoli?) to the front line. That supply line is still subject to coalition air attacks regardless of what further decisions are made. And as the coalition forces discover other ammunition dumps and distribution centers, they have been attacking them, including some large ones in Tripoli.
The issue of boots on the ground is a politically sensitive one. And I think that actually troops assaults by non-Moslem forces on Gaddafi’s location (if we even know it accurately) would make it easier for the Gaddafi regime (regardless of whether Muammar himself has any contact with them) to portray this as an imperialist effort and make it into an actual civil war. And my reading of US experience over the past decade is that boots on the ground is the surest way to mission creep and long-term civil war.
The issue of supplying the rebels with arms depends on whether one has evidence that the rebels do in fact represent the views of the majority of the Libyan people, a task that is hard to do under the sever repression of the Gaddafi regime. France, having recognized the Interim National Council as the legitimate interim representatives of the Libyan people is in a tough position if the Gaddafi regime retakes the country.
And there is the question of whether the rebel forces would use supplied arms any better than they have captured arms. Also, will a strategy of destroying Gaddafi’s supply lines reduce the possibility of rebels continuing to supply themselves with captured arms and ammunition?
Yes, the best way is to get the Gaddafi regime out of power as quickly as possible, but I not sure that trying to do that directly will be any quicker that liberating the country from his regime.
What we do know is that as long as people within his sphere of control feign obedience, as long as refugees from battle zones have somewhere to go, and as long as Gaddafi forces do not retake Benghazi, civilian casualties will remain low.
Libya is not Afghanistan; it has had 42 years of dictatorship not 30 years of opposition to invading troops and 10 years of civil war. Libya is not Iraq; there are not the religious divisions present in Iraq or the strong ethnic tensions. Libya is not Egypt; the elite units of the military in Libya are the security forces and the military has no tradition of independence.
What is going on now is doing exactly the opposite of leaving the country awash with weapons; the number of weapons decreases each day the battle goes forward. Unless the arms embargo on Gaddafi is not working. And if there are identifiable countries supplying Gaddafi in the face of an embargo, there is a diplomatic route and arms interdiction authorization in place through the UN Security Council resolutions.
Diplomatically, it all comes down to what “protect the civilians” means.
No.
It all comes down to what “protect the oil” means. And not just Libyan oil, either. The entire region’s oil. Libya is just one theater in a war that is now threatening to engulf the entire area from Libya westward right on into Pakistan. Decisions made regarding Libya by the NATO forces are of necessity colored by this fact. And by the looming presences of Russia and China, too.
We’re well into the middle game here. It started with Afghanistan and the Russians in the late ’70s. And it’s not looking like a simple middle, either. Muddle rather than middle, actually. On all sides.
Endgame?
Not even on the horizon.
Not even close.
AG
Protect the oil doesn’t swing one way or the other in this case. Gaddafi is probably more compliant than a democratic regime (if that is where the opposition is) might be. So, on oil, it’s a wash and the chips are on ending the uncertainty quickly. In balance, concern about oil tilts toward Gaddafi.
The key word there is “diplomatically”. Meaning the polite arguments about what the UN resolutions do and do not limit.
If US policy is fixated on Russia and China, it’s beyond shortsighted. Neither are stable for the long term (nor is the US for that matter, given the Republican coup at the state and local levels). The future of “the game” is wide open right now in a way that it hasn’t been since the period between World War I and World War II. That is both danger and opportunity for ordinary people. The danger is chaos or the stability of a new hegemony by a single nation (likely in the global economy to be supported by corporate financial power). Even China has become corporatist in nature. And truth be told, Libya was and is “Gaddafi Family Industries, Inc.” But the B and I terms of the BRIC nations are not going to go quietly into a new hegemony.
The significance of oil in the strategic equation is not about heating homes and running cars. It is about powering military aircraft, non-nuclear surface ships, tanks, personnel carriers, self-propelled artillery, supply trucks, helicopters, and in materials for ordnance and defense that require petroleum precursors. There is an ouroboric dynamic about the strategic value of oil.
But diplomatically, it’s not nice to talk about that.
That said, not nations motive are unmixed, even their motives for supporting international institutions. All national regimes benefit from general stability. Which means that all those strategic capabilities are best used when no one is challenging them and everyone believes they are as represented by the bullet-and-tank counters.
In the global sense, there never is and endgame, Mr. Fukuyama.
You write:
Short-term I suppose that this might be true, although relying on a creature like Qaddafi is never a good idea.
Long-term, however…I think that the NATO powers see the graffitti on the wall. The entire North African/Middle Eastern area is going to at least make an attempt to free itself from dictatorships. Being perceived as helping the correct side of a movement like this…in realpolitik terms the correct side being the winning side, of course…offers long-term benefits that would greatly outweigh the benefits of a short- term alliance with a supposed “ally” like Qaddafi.
And I believe that this is where they’re placing their bets. They are hedging them some, but there it is. Helping the Libyan rebels in an attempt to secure some sort of goodwill in the area and simultaneously…undercover, I am sure…working overtime to stop the rise of more militant fundamentalist Islamic movements.
As far as the need for oil being primarily a matter of “powering military aircraft, non-nuclear surface ships, tanks, personnel carriers, self-propelled artillery, supply trucks, helicopters, and in materials for ordnance and defense that require petroleum precursors,” I once again beg to differ.
The massively oil-consuming so-called developed world is only a few weeks of serious oil shortages away from the beginnings of seriously frayed social systems.
Frayed as in food and fuel riots.
Hell, Tarheel…there were estimates of 250,000 to 500,000 people demonstrating in London just last week about “cutbacks.” Some of the rougher folk trashed goodly parts of London in the process. If oil was say half of the price that it is now, would there even be any “cutbacks”? And if it was twice the current price? Say $8/gallon in the US.? How long do you think it would take for food and fuel oil shortages to drive people into the streets in scuffling cities like Newark, Detroit, Philadelphia or Buffalo?
How long?
During a good January weather sequence?
I give it two weeks, max.
UH oh!!!
Who’d put the riots down? The military? They’re all getting their asses shot off in Iraq and Afgahnistan. The National Guard? The ones still in the U.S.? I wonder.
So do the movers and shakers wonder.
Bet on it.
Pay a little now or pay big-time later.
That is the equation. They’re crunching the numbers and the numbers come up “intervene.”
So they are.
Now…they can’t come out and say this! How un-American would that be? the unalloyed truth of the matter? It just isn’t done. So they wrap themselves in the good ol’ red, white and blue and say that they are doing it for humanitarian reasons. Promoting democracy and alla that shit.
Riiiiight…
There it is, Tarheel.
As above, so below.
Just trying to survive until the next payday.
Jes’ like us.
Only bigger and much better armed.
Bet on that as well.
AG
If NATO countries were being realistic longterm, they would be working fulltilt to based military power on something more than oil.
Outside of that quibble, I think the domestic dynamics driving Western foreign policy has to do with siding with the winners. And right now, that means that Bashir al Assad, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the Khalifas, and the Sauds are probably breathing a little easier. Mohammed, Bouteflika, and Abdullah (Jordan) likely can move fast enough to reform and avoid crisis; we will have to wait and see. And Saleh has only al Quaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to use to prevent his downfall; this apparently has put the US in a bit of bind. And the big question mark is over Iraq – how quickly can the current regime respond to popular movements without opening sectarian conflict again.
“…something more than oil?”
Like what, Tarheel?
Just askin’…
And…I didn’t say that the NATO powers were making any sense. Not on that level, anyway. No powers do. That’s why they’re powers. “Sense?”
Too much to ask. Christ made “sense.” Look where it got him.
AG
Thank you for this.
The reports said that no air strikes were used on Gadaffi troops. That’s in keeping wiht the UN Resolution. That would have changed it to air support.
France is grandstanding and I’m sure the Brits are used to it.
The Allies argued all the way through WWII.
Some degree of grandstanding is helpful.
Russia also is grandstanding. But that increases their usefulness in finally telling Gaddafi that it really is time to leave.
Ambiguity among members of the UN Security Council is valuable for flexibility is creating non-military solutions.
Interesting to hear on some radio station this morning that eastern Libya has supplied both a substantial number of Al Queda leadership and recruits, particularly in Iraq.
The rhetoric about intervention in Libya strongly recalls the self serving rationalizations of drug addicts.
I would be very careful about sourcing any information any reports about al Quaeda’s involvement or recruitment in anything. No one really knows in part because the recruitment requires only small numbers from a lot of places to assemble 10,000 recruits.
What is known is that al Quaeda leadership if from Saudi Arabia (bin Laden) and Egypt (Zawahiri). And if the US is to be believed about al Quaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, from the United States itself.
There is a whiff of pro-Gaddafi propaganda being passed through allies of Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega into some of the news sources relied upon by the US left in the obsession about al Quaeda among the Interim National Council of Libya.
Not knowing the tilt of the radio station you heard, it is hard to tell whether this is a right-wing anxiety because Obama intervened, blowback of pro-Gaddafi propaganda, or a well-sourced report. Under the circumstances, it would be hard to obtain a well-sourced report.
One could well say that Fairfax County VA has supplied a substantial number of al Quaeda leadership and recruits.
NPR
Which correspondent and based on which sources?
Patty Culhane of AJE reported that an unnamed US admiral was spreading this story. But she could find no further information.
It’s likely one of those “correlation does not equal causation” type data points. I can see why Gaddafi would inspire recruitment in the past for al Quaeda. But I see no particular Islamist or al Quaeda influence in the rebel movement. And the diversity of the Interim National Council points to less risk from al Quaeda by Gaddafi losing power than continuing in power.
From the beginning of the democracy movement in Tunisia, the reflex response by the dictators is to accuse them of being inspired by al Quaeda. It is an “apres moi, le deluge” sort of argument for perpetuation of their regime. It is a complicated judgment to figure out how true this defense is.
There is a fierce propaganda war going on between the Gaddafi regime and the Interim National Council. The Interim National Council has used the strategy of embedding journalists and giving them relative freedom to report. The Gaddafi regime has depended on a media blackout and the use of its diplomatic allies to to get its message out. One is subject to independent confirmation; the other isn’t. But both are clear propaganda strategies and show be critically viewed as such.
The NPR story is here:
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/30/134987883/looking-at-the-history-of-al-qaida-in-libya
It’s a complex story and I’m not going to even try to summarize it in 2 sentences.
Thanks.
This complex story is based on an interview with an “expert” on terrorism from the Bush administration. There are some serious credibility issues there. From not seeing al-Quaeda to seeing it everywhere in one day.
But remember the decision whether to arm the rebels has not been made. Just the assertion that it is permissible under the UN Security Council resolution–and that is in debate. And the assertion was volunteered, not leaked.
What is interesting is that all Islamic Jihad political prisoners in Egypt have been released from jail, including the brother of Ayman Zawahiri. And no one has freaked out. But this uncertain intelligence is causing a freakout.
I think that represents the understanding that al-Quaeda cannot govern and cannot bring down strong state but can operate only in political vacuums. But the Interim Libyan Council is not a political vacuum. It is an organized interim administration delivering governmental services within the area it controls.
Also, the Bush administration severely compromised the accuracy of any information about al-Quaeda gathered at Guantanamo by employing torture (which is more suited and often used in dictatorial regimes to gather false confessions and false testimony). What is true and what is fiction about al-Libi is still not clear (see the extensive work on this by Marcy Wheeler).
http://www.inhomelandsecurity.com/2011/03/presence_of_al-qaeda_seen_amon.html
Who’s freaking out? I mean, jesus, lord knows what’s going on in Pakistan. This is just a little side trip on the global GWOT cruise.
If aiding the rebels means that Qaddafi’s tanks and armor get taken out by A10s if they so much as move them, then I think that is a) within the UN mandate and b) probably enough to give the rebels cover to advance as well as the power just beneath Qaddafi to start to look at him a little funny.
I am HOPING that’s the plan. The coalition could wait that out for a long time. And if the Libyans can’t fix their own mess with that much help, then they can’t expect much more.
Imperialism is always a bad idea. It creates hatred towards the imperialist and their people. What we call terrorism against us (as opposed to the terrorism we fund and support in other countries) is a direct result of imperialist policies. Do not expect any politician or media owner to explain this to anyone.
It certainly isnt a humanitarian thing to do to invade Tripoli and kill lots more Libyan civilians than we already have. It also isnt a humanitarian thing to do to continue or to increase the bombing which is killing more civilians by the day unless you are silly enough to actually believe western propaganda, and that would be silly indeed after the propagandists just got caught lying about civilian death tolls in Afghanistan. The best option was for nobody to get involved. Now the next best option is to discontinue the operation. However, that involves too many idiotic polticians, stupid military leaders, propagandists etc losing face, so it wont happen. Saving face is more important than saving lives, as is continuing to perpetuate the myth that western imperialism and especially amercian exceptionalism are good for the world. What is good for the world is for the west to let others determine their own futures and accept their choices.
By the way, what is humanitarian thing to do in Yemen? Support the dictator as Gates has done? What is the humanitarian thing to do in Bahrain? Fail to bother reporting the mass arrests currently going on and the return to absolute monarchy as the western media does?
The whole middle east/NAf stuff on top of the wikileaks has exposed the blatant hypocrisy, facism and complete failure to live up to any ideal that they talk about by the western political structures, so called free western media and, no surprise, the imperialist militaries. This exposure is a good thing for the people of the world including the citizens of the hypocritical countries. It is also good to now be able to raise these things knowing they can no longer be denied by anyone except the proverbial blind man. Maybe the death and destruction that has been visited on so many by people in our names will now get harder to conduct in the future although that may be underestimating the power crazed lunatics that rise to the top of our systems and their death loving military commanders. Not to mention the self styled “patriots” that love to support the mass murder of foreigners.
The irony is that the democratic ideal that so many in uprisings are looking for has been totally perverted in the countries that like to export the notion. Lets hops for two things:
Both are highly unlikely