France and Britain were so keen to intervene in Libya and now they’re stuck with a stalemate and are reduced to bitching at NATO to do more to try to oust Gaddafi. I’m sorry, jackasses, but I told you so. I also told our president not to put our prestige on the line or involve our troops unless he was going to make sure Gaddafi was removed from power. This half-ass intervention isn’t solving anything and it just makes everyone look ridiculous. Meanwhile, Gaddafi’s former intelligence chief who defected to the UK has a request:
“I ask everybody to avoid taking Libya into a civil war. This would lead to so much blood and Libya would be a new Somalia,” Mr. Koussa said in his statement late Monday, according to a translation from Arabic provided by the BBC.
That’s exactly what we risk doing to Libya if we refuse to do the hard work of removing Gaddafi and instead just start arming the rebels. I also warned about that.
I’m not some expert on North Africa. But it wasn’t hard to see that the rebels lacked the strength to oust Gaddafi. Air cover does nothing to solve that problem, and it isn’t humanitarian to turn a country into Somalia just so you can pretend that you don’t have any boots on the ground.
I do think that for all practical purposes the US is out of it until asked by NATO for specific help. And it is only a six weeks old. The Gaddafi camp argued from the beginning that it would become a civil war and has worked mightily to make that come true on the ground.
There is certainly more that NATO could do in Misurata. They evacuated some people with a Turkish ship, but there is a camp of foreign nationals at the port of Misurata who also need evacuating by ship. That ship could resupply the hospital with medical supplies, a clear humanitarian activity.
The question is who is the audience for British and French complaints. If it really is NATO, that can be done without public notice.
I don’t think that we are going to be arming the rebels. All of that information about CIA, special forces, and training units has been debunked. The NATO countries so far are sticking very closely to their UN mandate and have not discouraged efforts to broker a deal by Turkey and the African Union.
The NATO forces are slowly degrading Gaddafi’s inventory of tanks, self-propelled artillery, and rocket launchers. The rebels are securing the oil field south of Benghazi, despite Gaddafi-force sabotage and have sent out a $100 million shipment of oil to be sold to Qatar. They will be free to buy arms with that money.
Having a stalemate east of Sirte is not necessarily a bad thing strategically. It draws heavy weapons, personnel, and supplies out of western Libya into the desert where NATO can strike them without a large risk of civilian casualties (except for any civilians embedded in the convoy as human shields). That this seems to be working is shown by Gaddafi’s sudden interest in receiving peace missions at his tent in Tripoli. And because loyalty to Gaddafi is either bought or compelled through threats, over time morale among Gaddafi’s elite troops will decline.
There is no evidence that the conflict is anything other than a liberation struggle at this point. There is no evidence that anyone other than Gaddafi’s elite troops are involved in the fighting. There is no evidence of popular support of Gaddafi by almost anyone free to speak their mind.
The rebels have the strength to oust Gaddafi as they break his grip on town after town. So far, his advantage is highly trained troops and heavy weaponry. And an estimated 10-to-1 troop strength advantage. Prolonged stalemate erodes his troop strength, not that of the rebels.
The UN resolution aims to reduce civilian casualties by reducing the number of heavy weapons through air strikes, to prevent the use of aerial bombardment through a no-fly zone, and to provide humanitarian relief from the sea to the string of coastal cities. And to take steps to deal with refugees at the Egyptian border and the Tunisian border, allowing civilians to leave to zone of fighting.
The debate between UK-France and NATO command is a nuanced one. How closely to settled areas should strikes on heavy weapons occur and how embedded in the civilian population do they have to be to make it contrary to the UN resolution to strike them. This is a debate about the situation in Misurata, which has been under continued shelling for a month now. At what point do the civilians saved by not striking heavy weapons become more than offset by the civilians lost through the shelling from embedded heavy weapons? It is not an easy decision.
The extreme version of the debate on intervening at all hinges on whether you see the worst case as Somalia, Rwanda, or Cambodia.
Save calling them jackasses until August.
who are the rebels we’re supporting? what are their aims? are they our friends?
how is it that we can afford air strikes in Libya, but we can’t afford to provide health care to our own people? Just askin’.
Let me take these in turn. The Transitional National Council is a broad group of many different groups in Libya that broke with Gaddafi over the fact that he was using mercenaries to kill his own people. It doesn’t matter whether all of them are our friends or not. They are not our enemies. The second point is that we are not supporting them but are enforcing a UN resolution that mandates the protection of civilians. The third point is that the US actions at the moment are minimal and are under the command of a Canadian general (even though the commanding general of NATO forces is US). And what NATO has been doing is destroying the heavy weaponry in the country, which reduces the fight to “small” arms.
How is that we are still in Iraq, where folks don’t want us to stay, but hinting that we might stay–a move that is counterproductive as hell? How is it that we are in Afghanistan (whispered and Pakistan) although the first wants us to leave as soon as possible and the second wants us to butt out completely?
As for why we can’t provide health care to our own people, ask all those Democrats in Congress with big healthcare industry contributions.
My judgment is that given the chance, the Transitional National Council provides a framework that can add to the broadbased coalition against Gaddafi’s regime and that if Gaddafi leaves will provide the vehicle to maintain stability during a transition to a new constitution. Libyans have a memory of non-autocratic, non-colonial rule. They know how to do it. And the more stable transformations in the Middle East, the less likely the US will need to use military action there. But it’s going to be a long (years) and dicey process. The transformation of Eastern Europe looks easy today but it took years and Belarus has not yet joined the fold of non-autocratic states.
Another question: How is it that you can afford air strikes in Libya to aid what began as a violent uprising, and yet cannot even spare a word for the Bahrayni and Yemeni determinedly non-violent rebels who are also being slaughtered – by Saudis in the case of Bahrayn.
Oh wait. I think I just answered my own question.
That is an interesting question. Briefly after Mubarak fell, it looked like US behind-the-scenes pressure had restrained Bahrain suppression of the protests at Pearl Roundabout. With the US turning attention to Libya, that restraint by the Khalifas evaporated.
Unlike Libya, the US can continue behind-the-scenes private conversations advocating against violent repression, but it is not clear from the outside who the siting of the Fifth Fleet HQ benefits most–the US strategic position or the Bahraini economy.
And for Yemen, no matter how sympathetic the US might be a pro-democracy movement there, there are too many fears about how that will unwind. I don’t know about how realistic those fears are, but likely a transition from autocratic rule by Saleh will suck the oxygen out of al Quaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s armed struggle. And most of the diverse spokespeople of the pro-democracy movement seem to have built a strong coalition, which speaks toward a good probability of stability post-Saleh.
The same statement about private behind-the-scene conversations applies as between Yemeni officials (and not just Saleh). There is something restraining the Saleh security forces and army with widespread and well-armed repression such as that that Gaddafi regularly used. My guess is that it is the critical mass of Yemeni citizens involved in opposition to the Saleh regime.
In short, I don’t know how true the “cannot spare a word for the Bahraini and Yemeni non-violent rebels who are being slaughtered” is. Unless you mean spare a public word.
But even without bringing in Saudi influence, it is not clear how strong a hand the US has. It seems that the US needs Yemen and Bahrain’s cooperation more that they need ours. And the Saudis are capable of intervening in both Yemen and Bahrain without the blessing of either the US or the Gulf Cooperation Council.
I have advocated to my friends concerned about both Yemen and Bahrain to write personally to the ambassadors to the US of Bahrain and Yemen. I have seen situations in the past in which individual letters have had a positive result. It can be estimated that for every American who writes a letter to an ambassador to the US, at least a thousand agree but for whatever reason do not get a letter written.
Going back to a past conversation, I’m curious as to whether Bashir al Assad can stay ahead of events in Syria.
As for Libya, it is so far back but the uprising began as a peaceful protest in imitation of Egypt and Tunisia. In Benghazi, the violent response to repression succeeded on overwhelming the Gaddafi security forces and troops–eventually causing military forces to flip. And that a completely peaceful protest in Green Square in Tripoli was attacked mercenaries in “technicals” equipped with anti-aircraft guns, which they fired pointblank into the crowd. It was the Green Square event that caused the defection of Libya’s ambassador to UN, who lobbied for UN Security Council resolution 1970.
As I have said, Syrians by and large do not see Bashshar Al Asad as the problem. They like him. It is the leftover dregs of his father’s regime they want rid of. Virtually every Syrian I know, including a few who dislike Bashshar, agrees that if a free and fair election were held for President today, he would win hands down. Syria experts, some very well-connected (as opposed to the usual hacks, who tend to have a agenda) tend to agree. As someone who has spent quite a lot of time in the Syrian “street” I have the same sense. Of course, if the U.S. chooses to get involved, all bets are off.
As I have pointed out before, Bashshar Al Asad is a very West-friendly guy, is intelligent and reasonable, and has made a number of overtures to Europe, the US, and Israel, and has been rebuffed every time. Bashshar Al Asad is not the problem.
He appears to be a problem to me.
I’m more interested in how it seems to Syrians, and people who really know about Syria.
I haven’t heard any calls for regime change yet from the protesters, but if he doesn’t get a handle on the violence against and arrests of protesters, they are likely to spread and frustration grow to demand regime change. He still has the room to transform Syria the way Juan Carlos transformed Spain. But he is going to have to move quickly.
If he’s trapped by the “dregs of his father’s regime” in what changes he can make, my sense of what is going on in the region is that they will drag him down. His popularity is the major guarantee of stability during transformation that Syria politics seems to have.
The Syrians I know want to change the form of government, and the regime. That does not mean they want to get rid of Al Asad.
I guess you don’t know the Syrians he’s aiming his guns at presently.
I think Hurria’s point is that the regime is an oligarchy of the “dregs of his father’s regime” that places limits on what al Asad is able to do. It is the security forces of the regime who have been shooting protesters. Are they sending CYA stories up the command chain or is the top of the chain giving the orders? Unlike Gaddafi’s regime, I don’t think folks know yet.
The problem is that al Asad is seriously spending political capital by not moving fast enough on reforms and by trying to divert attention from the repression his security forces are conducting. He’s depending so far on his reputation for not being as heavy-handed as his dad.
And likely, unless Hurria knows some of the protesters, you statement is true.
I do happen to know some of the protesters, in fact. My original, and still closest friends in Syria are from/in Dar`a where it all began, and all have been involved to one degree or another. One of them is an American citizen who returned with her childern to live with her family in Dar`a last year. The husband of another one of them, who is himself a very dear friend with whom I share many memories, is an `Alawi from the coastal mountains (and oh, how I wish I were in his village now!). He is no fan of Al Asad’s, but he agrees that as things stand he would win a free and fair election, and is certainly not the worst thing that could happen to a free Syria.
I also know quite a few activists in Damascus, both Christian and Muslim. My friends in Aleppo, not so much.
I would also point out that contrary to what is claimed and hinted at in the US media, there isn’t a whole lot of anti-Bashshar stuff going on in the protests. It’s not aimed at him.
It is naive to believe that a being a dictator allows him to call all the shots, or that he could not be brought down (or worse) by members of his own regime. It has certainly happened before. It looks to me that a big part of the picture is that Al Asad is trying to navigate this very new situation in a way that will allow him to survive. He is really caught between the well-known rock and hard place in that regard. Add to that the fact that there is no real way of knowing ahead of time the consequences of any action or inaction on his part, and the spot he is in makes Obama’s worst situation look like a church picnic on a Sunday in May.
I am also guessing that he and Asma have moments, at least, when they would love to go back to being a London Ophthalmologist and his wife. It was a good life, it was not supposed to change, and would not have had big brother not chosen to wrap his Mercedes around a light post.
“I guess you don’t know the Syrians he’s aiming his guns at presently.“
I guess you don’t know who I know. And you also don’t seem to know who is aiming what at whom.
This is Obama’s Bay of Pigs. After the first air attack failed, he should have cut and run and learned a HARD LESSON about how BS intel can be.
Btw – it was Hillary Clinton who pushed hard to get Obama involved in this mess. I’m sure she was listening to the CIA, among others.
Obama’s initial instinct was to resist. But then he caved.
If the guy just trusted his instincts, he’d be a much better president.
The war in Pakistan is Obama’s Bay of Pigs. Now that it is clear that drones are incapable of the precise targeting because the drone cannot tell friend from foe, the US drone operators can’t either, and local spotters on the ground are often double agents, he should cease drone strikes immediately.
One of the difficulties about Libya is the propaganda war in my estimation makes NATO action look more devastating to civilians than it has been. However, Gaddafi’s actions against civilians have been as vicious as those of his old buddy Idi Amin.
The US did what other countries could not do, the massive use of Tomahawk missiles to suppress Libya’s air defense system and then stepped back. That is very restrained action that got the US out of being the subject of the narrative and got Europe, whose interest the action was in, the subject of the narrative.
The European interest has to do with the large numbers of refugees that would be seeking asylum in France, Italy, and the UK. For France this would increase anti-immigrant movements exactly at the time that Sarkozy faces off with Marine Le Pen of the French National Front being the likely major opposition to Sarkozy in the next election.
It really is not a situation that you can let work itself out without some serious consequences in Europe, Tunisia, and Egypt at a critical time relative to relations with the pro-democracy movements in the Middle East.
Do you have any evidence that it was CIA flunky, (lol) Hillary Clinton’s dastardly doings? Or is it yet another example of just how little Obama’s supporters are willing to call him on his actions, if at all?
The corporate media had a story about the Tuesday decision in which it was claimed that the three ladies on the national security team wanted military action and the men on the team did not. And there there was the infamous Boys v. Girls op-ed that essentially accused Obama of being pushed around — by girls.
Do you have any evidence that Hillary Clinton was a CIA flunky while she was First Lady of Arkansas? Or at Yale? Or at Wellesley? Those were the only periods of her career in which she could have been a flunky of the CIA. As First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, she had the influence to make the CIA her flunky.
I don’t know if she’s pushing CIA policy on Obama or not. The point was that it doesn’t matter who is bending his ear or twisting his arm. I’m sure there are actors far more sinister than the ever evil Hillary who exert pressure on Obama to follow their particular script.
He made the decision, period. Some die hards who still believe Obama is a victim of nefarious interests or even just a victim of his own inexperience seem to find it hard to just admit he’s fucking things up all on his own.
Or maybe what I really mean to say is that perhaps it’s time for some supporters to begin the grieving process by admitting that they got conned…again.