Thread: The Libyan Crisis

with the Iraq precedent, why would NATO follow the UN route once they got a legal pretense ? it's a perfect repeat of the 2002 deception conducted by the deceiving Americans, except this time the Europeans, including old Europe, is on the game.

Allies Defending Actions in Libya After Airstrike - NYTimes.com

"Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain told the BBC that the airstrike fell within the Security Council mandate to stop a “loss of civilian life by targeting Qaddafi’s war-making machine.”

NATO officials say that the intense bombing in Tripoli is designed to batter Col. Qaddafi’s military apparatus. Such a strategy is freighted with risk for the already fragile coalition. In Libya, the officials argue, the boundary between legitimate military targets and residential compounds is often blurry.

Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, said that the strikes on the command posts are “clearly” beyond the mandate of the Security Council resolution"

It appears that NATO are "legitimately" allowed to "batter Col. Qaddafi’s military apparatus" but the Libyan Government when doing likewise in Misrata it is a "crime against humanity". Our current Prime Minister concurs with the NATO position "targeting Qaddafi’s war-making machine" .

The Russians, Chinese, UN and African Union disagree but they voices currently go unheard

Lingering stalemate bodes ill for Libya crisis

Lingering stalemate bodes ill for Libya crisis

BEIJING, May 2 (Xinhua) -- Famous British author Agatha Christie's words from decades ago seem painfully accurate to what is unfolding in Libya today: One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one.

More than 40 days after American, French and British warplanes began raining bombs and missiles on Libyan soil, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi still clings to power, the anti-government forces still lack the punch to press forward, while the flames of war take an increasingly heavy toll on Libyan civilians -- precisely those NATO's intervention is supposed to protect.

Whether the Western powers admit it or not, the war in Libya has plunged into a protracted stalemate -- an unbearable situation given its staggering potential costs not only to themselves but also to Libya.

The Libya crisis, Professor Giuseppe Sacco of the Rome-based Luiss University told Xinhua, risks turning into a "prolonged conflict" with no desirable exit out of it.

STUCK IN STALEMATE

Currently, neither Gaddafi's troops nor the anti-government forces are able to make significant gains on the front lines, as reflected by recent seesaw battles in places such as the western coastal city of Misrata.

Libyan government troops have suffered extensive losses in weeks of air strikes, now led by NATO. Their air defense capabilities and command and control systems have been significantly impaired and they have also been effectively prevented from making any major progress toward the rebel-controlled, oil-producing east.

The air campaign had degraded Gaddafi's ground forces by 30 to 40 percent, according to Admiral Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But Gaddafi and forces loyal to him have proven more resilient than anticipated. The embattled Libyan strongman has vowed to fight to the last drop of his blood and he has shown no intention of quitting or waiting to be toppled like his counterparts in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia. His troops retain the advantage on the ground over the ragtag insurgents.

Meanwhile, the rebel forces, rudimentarily trained, sketchily equipped, loosely organized and clearly fragmented, remain unable to advance further toward Tripoli, although NATO has been trying to tilt the battles in their favor with daily air raids on government targets.

The two rival parties now control much the same territory as they did at the onset of the foreign intervention, and there are no imminent signs of any change in the intervention force's modus operandi that would make a difference on the front lines any time soon.

"And what we are witnessing today is not a reduction in the level of violence in Libya, but in fact a stalemate, a continuation of the struggle," Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota said.

To a large extent, the deadlock is an outgrowth of mission creep -- a trap into which the intervening countries have locked themselves.

The Libya intervention was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973, adopted on March 17. The aim of the resolution is to protect Libyan civilians, for which it sanctions all necessary measures, including the imposition of a no-fly zone but excluding foreign occupation.

However, the mission soon mutated. Western policy-makers began demanding Gaddafi's ouster. In a joint article published two weeks ago, U.S. President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron said Gaddafi "must go and go for good."

In the eyes of many experts, what the Western powers claim as a humanitarian intervention has actually morphed into a politically charged effort to help rebels topple a government still recognized by the United Nations and the international community as a whole.

"American policymakers erred in calling explicitly early on in the crisis for Gaddafi's removal," Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank, said at a U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing earlier April.

"Doing so made it far more difficult to employ diplomacy to help achieve U.S. humanitarian goals without resorting to military force. It removed the incentive Gaddafi might have had to stop attacking his opponents," he said.

Echoing such concerns, Anthony H. Cordsman, a senior security analyst with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, has warned that the prolonged conflict would make the current humanitarian crisis even worse.

Cordsman's warning is already being reflected in reports from aid agencies in the field. A UN World Food Program official said Thursday that, due to the lingering conflict, Libya was likely to suffer a large-scale food crisis within two months, which would affect children, the pregnant, the sick and the elderly most.

While inflicting immeasurable suffering and misfortune upon the Libyan people, a prolonged war is also likely to raise a tough question for the intervention camp to answer: who is going to foot the hefty bill, given its staggering potential risks -- human, political, economic, military, security, and electoral as well.

It is particularly true as many intervening countries are still tightening their belts in the wake of the international financial crisis, and their electorates are increasingly weary of being dragged into another long-running conflict on the heels of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But is there a quick fix? None is in sight. And unfortunately, no solution appears to be cost-free, due not only to the resilience of the Gaddafi government and the ineffectiveness of the rebel forces, but also the misgivings of the intervening countries.

In their latest bid to break the deadlock, France, Britain and Italy have decided to send military advisers to help the Libyan rebels, while the Obama administration has authorized 25 million dollars in non-lethal aid for the insurgents. But such incremental measures are apparently far from enough to change the situation on the ground.

"There have been cases in history when it all started with sending in military advisers, and then it dragged on for years and resulted in hundreds and thousands dead on both sides," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who dubbed these moves "extremely risky."

The most effective way to ensure a quick end to Gaddafi's 42-year rule and the installation of a stable new leadership is to deploy ground troops and keep them there for an adequately long term, say many analysts and military officers, including Haass, an opponent of such a deployment.

However, the major Western powers, still haunted by the specter of their painful involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, have all ruled out putting their boots on the ground in another Islamic country. The tag "Western occupation forces" per se would turn many in Libya and the broader Arab world against them.

Ma Xiaolin, a Chinese expert on Middle East affairs, told Xinhua that such a move also ran counter to the very UN resolution that authorized this intervention and was therefore unlikely to garner much international support, even within NATO.

Other options being floated include arming and training the rebels, but this will take time and carries the risk that some weapons might fall into the wrong hands. U.S. Senator John McCain and many others have already warned of terrorist infiltration of the Libyan rebels.

Ma said the best way for the Western powers to end the current stalemate is to reach a compromise through political negotiations, as history proves that war alone never solves any crisis.

In a similar vein, Haass suggested a diplomatic initiative to hammer out a broad cease-fire deal bound by a set of political conditions and possibly allowing Gaddafi to remain in office "at least for the time being."

But the Libyan rebels, with the obvious support from their Western backers, have categorically rejected any peace deals that would allow Gaddafi to stay in power, even for a transitional period

No matter how the current dilemma is solved, many experts caution that Libya's future is gloomy, at least in the near term.

Among the scenarios likely to play out in Libya, one is that the NATO-led coalition succeeds in bringing about Gaddafi's demise, whether physical or political, either through a beefed-up military campaign or by a so-called "palace coup."

While NATO has denied that it is making any attempts on Gaddafi's life, it has bombed Gaddafi's residence in Tripoli twice. And the Libyan government has said that a NATO air strike on Saturday night destroyed a house where Gaddafi and his family were staying, killing the youngest of Gaddafi's sons and three of his grandchildren.

However, getting rid of Gaddafi obviously needs more than just air raids. The Libyan government said its leader and his wife survived the Saturday bombing and were in good health.

Meanwhile, the chance of sparking a rebellion within Gaddafi's inner circle through increased military pressure and sanctions is also difficult to determine, given the absence of any accurate way to gauge how much loyalty Gaddafi enjoys.

Even if Gaddafi did fall, the crisis would by no means go with him. No one is now on the radar who appears able to fill the political vacuum left by Gaddafi and lead the country to meet the demanding challenges of post-war reconstruction, according some analysts.

Given the current standoff, a seemingly simpler solution would be partition, official or de facto, into Gaddafi-governed Tripolitania and rebel-ruled Cyrenaica, something both Gaddafi and the anti-government camp have said they are against.

Some experts also see major dangers in this course. "The historical record shows that partition is a bloody business, particularly when the parties are armed and loathe each other. Don't expect a velvet divorce in Libya akin to what the Czechs and Slovaks were able to fashion," said Rajan Menon, a widely quoted U.S. international relations expert.

Also striking a cautionary note in this regard, Chinese expert Ma stressed that Libya has about 140 tribes and clans and a history of wars and coups caused by resentment over unequal sharing of resources and wealth among them.

Other scenarios are also possible. But no matter which possibility becomes reality, the fog of war in Libya seems destined to haunt the NATO-led coalition for a long time to come."

that Cameron dude is even more twisted than Blair in his arguments, blatantly dishonest

typical British dishonesty,

Бортовой журнал - Cruise missile carrier Democracy in deep spiral

Cruise missile carrier Democracy in deep spiral

"Western intelligence services for so long have been preparing a coup in Libya, that the total failure of the so-called "insurgents" looks like something unexpected. That embarrassment looks even more striking during the armed clashes with the regular Libyan army which is still fighting after the NATO intervention with no aircraft or heavy weapons. The price for this embarrassing information war and direct military agression is alredy much higher than the NATO forces have forseen.

Two sides of different medals

Reasons for the success of the Libyan regular army lie primarily in the fact that it is the army. IN other words, the structure is largely prepared to conduct combat operations. In addition, the Libyans are Bedouins. Bedouin tribal military units are, for example, serving in the Israeli army. Their main specialization is intelligence and sabotage activities. The Israeli military say that among those in the Arab world, the
Bedouins are the only people who really know how to fight, providing quality troops. However, this estimate refers only to the Bedouins who lead a nomadic or semi-nomadic way of life far from the cities, keeping a truly traditional way of life.

On the other hand, the rebels population base is dominated by those from urban areas, and are mostly migrant workers who arrived in Libya on earnings from Egypt. A small number of Libyans actually in the ranks are hastily huddled together in gangs and in the opinion of witnesses are rather pampered and lazy.

Libyan army is fighting for it's homeland, it's legitimate authority and for the high quality of life enjoyed by Libyans, which can not be boasted by the inhabitants of any neighboring country. The rebel mob themselves are not fully aware of that fight. "Kill Gaddafi!" - This is the purpose for which the rebels hang out in a drugged stupor. Portrayed in front of photo and video cameras, a "revolution of migrants" in all its glory, hopes for the promised reward from looting. In a drug intoxicated state, the "revolutionaries" in the early day's of the coup, were responsible for kiling Libyan soldiers in Benghazi, publicly cutting the throat of one. For such entertainments the energy of the slogan "Kill Gaddafi!" is enough. But this is not the purpose for which the so-called "insurgents" will risk their lives seriously in open combat.
In the army, Gaddafi has officers trained in Russia.

For example, the son of Libyan leader, Khamis Gaddafi, finished the Military Academy of Frunze in Moscow. I do not have reliable information that officers from Mali, who studied at the Ryazan Airborne School, are now helping the Libyan army. However, given the influence Gadhafi has among African countries, I can not exclude this possibility. Moreover, in the case of a true NATO invasion of Libya, this kind of assistance will come from the south for certain, and is likely to be sufficiently skilled as well.

It's ridiculous to talk about military training of REBEL MOBS. Russian correspondents, who were brought into their ranks, speak about these crowds with undisguised pity. These randomly moving groups of armed men in general do not have a clue about strategy or even tactics. Al-Qaeda militants, some of which who were transferred to Libya from Iraq and Afghanistan in January-February 2011, also have no experience in regular army combat. Their main profile is sabotage and terrorist attacks, but even these insurgents fall silent when faced with a Libyan regular army tank brigade. Therefore, when an operation against a hastily armed mob is called a civil war, it sounds ludicrous."

Continues....

It appears that a UK cleric, the archbishop of Canterbury, disagrees with two hats willy.

He has stated that the illegal murder attempt on the Libyan Government leader and the extra-judicial killing carried out on Bin laden by the "wild west" US government has no legal or moral justification. The civilised world demands that "justice is seen" to be done.

I presume with that statement he is implying that a legally constituted court appearance be created and a verdict be decided by a group of citizens. The verdict would then be carried out by reference to a judge and a defined scale of "punishment"

The "Bullingdon Bullies", Obama and Clinton are straying from the text even with the UK clergy now. What will the religious Americans make of this?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

typical British dishonesty,

Perfidious Albion.

Anyway, heres some atypical British honesty. We're after Q's head- we're getting him out of there. We carnt afford to let him stay now- and surely you know how prickly we Brits are when we get our backs up, ami.

So are you, and so are the yanks. Enjoy your quiche.

Originally Posted by OhOh

It appears that a UK cleric, the archbishop of Canterbury, disagrees with two hats willy.

Men who wear dresses as their everyday attire probably feel some kind of empathy towards each other....
The ol Archbiship wears a beard too.....mmmmmm

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Butterfly

typical British dishonesty,

Perfidious Albion.

Anyway, heres some atypical British honesty. We're after Q's head- we're getting him out of there. We carnt afford to let him stay now- and surely you know how prickly we Brits are when we get our backs up, ami.

So are you, and so are the yanks. Enjoy your quiche.

We?

Surely the British public didnt give a dam what happened in Libya until the uprising in the east and the British government picked a side. I mean Blair forgave Gaddafi for Lockabe and we were all friends again for a while. Now some Libyans in the east of that country are mounting a revolution and all of a sudden Gaddafi is back to being public enemy number one again. Its all a bit confusing. One day friend and allie, next day a mortal enemy without doing anything at all to Britain.

Originally Posted by sabang

Enjoy your quiche

you sound jealous ?

Originally Posted by Panda

Surely the British public didnt give a dam

The British public despise Qadaffi, for obvious reasons. That alone is not sufficient reason to oust him though. Neither, in the first instance, was the popular uprising. When he started bombing his own people, and Nato warned him to desist, well of course then we stepped in. I have no grief about removing this power crazed, ugly despot from power- does anybody? Most of his people want him gone too, and quite a few of his top people have already defected. I certainly hope this doesn't become another 'mission creep' though, as has happened in Afghanistan. Basically, we've taken sides- and now we can not afford to let his regime survive. His history of supporting and instigating terrorism against us is well known.

Not swiping at you in particular, but I'm a bit cynical about some of the rhetoric here. I mean, Qadaffi and bin Laden are universally loathed- I'm one of the few that has actually had a decent word to say about Q, specifically that in terms of social welfare and poverty, Libya isn't too bad compared to some 'western friendly' regimes we happily supported, like Egypt. But bin Laden is taken out, and Q is almost certainly on his way out- and all of a sudden it's like they are folk heroes.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Panda

Surely the British public didnt give a dam

The British public despise Qadaffi, for obvious reasons. That alone is not sufficient reason to oust him though. Neither, in the first instance, was the popular uprising. When he started bombing his own people, and Nato warned him to desist, well of course then we stepped in. I have no grief about removing this from power- does anybody? Most of his people want him gone too, and quite a few of his top people have already defected. I certainly hope this doesn't become another 'mission creep' though, as has happened in Afghanistan. Basically, we've taken sides- and now we can not afford to let his regime survive. His history of supporting and instigating terrorism against us is well known.

Not swiping at you in particular, but I'm a bit cynical about some of the rhetoric here. I mean, Qadaffi and bin Laden are universally loathed- I'm one of the few that has actually had a decent word to say about Q, specifically that in terms of social welfare and poverty, Libya isn't too bad compared to some 'western friendly' regimes we happily supported, like Egypt. But bin Laden is taken out, and Q is almost certainly on his way out- and all of a sudden it's like they are folk heroes.

You make some pretty startling statements.

What makes you think the British public despise Gadaffi?

What % of the Libyan people joined in the uprising?

Which of his "own people" has he been "bombing"?

What makes you think he is a " power crazed, ugly despot"?

What makes you think "Most of his people want him gone"?

How many of "his top people have already defected"

What would you call it if not "mission creep'"

"we've taken sides- and now we can not afford" this illegal murder, surely isn't about "face" is it?

Do you advocate murdering all people who have a "history of supporting and instigating terrorism against ....... "

Does the loathing "I mean, Qadaffi and bin Laden are universally loathed" entitle illegal murder?

"I'm one of the few that has actually had a decent word to say about Q" dont see one in this posting. No there are three " social welfare and poverty". Would the British be so lucky to have the equivalent social service and welfare network.

I despair sometimes when trite like your post is written by a person who has had the advantage of an education and who has the time and wealth to really investigate.

^thanks for your reply.

Originally Posted by sabang

Most of his people want him gone too

and you have personally evidence of that ?

Originally Posted by sabang

Nothing illegal about bin Laden's killing at all

hilarious, speak of double standard, you seem to champion that concept every time you get a chance.

No wonder your are a PT and UDD supporter

Speaking of double standards, ru saying that OBL's slaying was illegal- but the mass slaughter of UDD protesters was legal??

On what grounds was OBL's despatch illegal incidentally? We are at war with AQ, you know.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

and you have personally evidence of that ?

A map of Libya suffices.

Originally Posted by sabang

Speaking of double standards, ru saying that OBL's slaying was illegal- but the mass slaughter of UDD protesters was legal??

and you dare compare the two, and can't tell their difference. JC, sab, go on a VISA run, your brain is melting

Originally Posted by sabang

On what grounds was OBL's despatch illegal incidentally? We are at war with AQ, you know.

you are mad,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

and you dare compare the two, and can't tell their difference.

Absolutely- you've been caught out, and you know it.

Originally Posted by sabang

Absolutely- you've been caught out, and you know it.

you are raving mad, sab

an army or a police force have the legal right to shoot their own people when they are facing a violent revolt. Sadly, Thailand is not alone in that regard.

OBL shooting was illegal and we all know it. But without anyone to enforce the "legality" of such things, above all when the top policeman is doing the shooting himself, it becomes "acceptable"

Originally Posted by sabang

When he started bombing his own people, and Nato warned him to desist, well of course then we stepped in.

Incorrect.

There is no evidence that Gaddafi was "bombing" his own people. The implication there is a play on words insinuating that Gaddafi was using his military aircraft to "bomb" civilians. In fact he did do a few fly overs of the advancing rebels and he did drop a couple of bombs around their perimeter, no doubt as a warning. Gaddafi never used his airforce to attack civilians. What would be the point anyway when he had a rebel army advancing on him?

The threat of a UN "no fly zone" was enough to stop Gaddafi from using his airforce to effectively neutralize the advancing rebel convoys. Gaddafi never used his airforce for anything more than a couple of warning shots around the advancing rebel force. He certainly did not ever use his airforce to bomb cities where civilians were as you imply.

The UN resolution 1973 was a bit more than just a "no fly zone" over Libya, as it was originally sold to the voting public in the west, though the no fly zone was a very big part of reducing Gaddafi's ability to resist the rebel advance. Effectively, it tied his strongest arm behind his back and gave the western backed rebels some advantage.

Lets get this straight. The UN no fly zone weren't no humanitarian action. It was purely a move to cripple Gaddafi's ability to resist the western backed rebels advance.