Uprising in Libya

[General Zod]

What kind of idiot thought up that law? It seems like it'd be a bit difficult to enforce it without the cooperation of any other militaries in the region. Are you sure it's not some kind of UN regulation instead?

Ink Spots

Here's the catch with U.S. involvement: if we provide troops (in this case planes and naval vessels), command and control of the operation may fall to the U.S. Title X of the U.S. Code dictates that the chain of command for U.S. forces will never deviate from the President to operational commanders. In the 1990s, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 25, which states that if the U.S. is involved in UN operations, U.S. forces can be placed under the operational command of competent UN force commanders. It also states that as the proportion of U.S. forces in the command increases, it is less likely that U.S. forces would fall under foreign command. At the moment I can't find anything that supersedes this PDD (if our readers do know of anything please post in the comments), so it seems that it is the most liberal document on this topic and can likely be ignored, leaving the default deciding factor as Title X.

Which goes back to possibly Obama not wanting to take ownership of War #3.

EDIT: So not quite "mandated", but still...

That doesn't sound quite the same as the US taking over. It just sounds like that as the amount of US troops increases the amount of direct control the UN has over their troops decreases.

[Lonestar]

That doesn't sound quite the same as the US taking over. It just sounds like that as the amount of US troops increases the amount of direct control the UN has over their troops decreases.

Errr...did you not live through the 90s? That law was totally written to assuage people that the EVIL UN won't take over America, and nowadays it provides an easy out as a way to avoid ownership of War #3.

[General Zod]

That doesn't sound quite the same as the US taking over. It just sounds like that as the amount of US troops increases the amount of direct control the UN has over their troops decreases.

Errr...did you not live through the 90s? That law was totally written to assuage people that the EVIL UN won't take over America, and nowadays it provides an easy out as a way to avoid ownership of War #3.

I wasn't paying attention to politics in the 90s aside from Jay Leno blasting Clinton for getting a blowjob.

[erik_t]

Arab League is grumpy

CAIRO, March 20, 2011 (AFP) - The Arab League on Sunday criticized Western military strikes on Libya, a week after urging the United Nations to slap a no-fly zone on the oil-rich North African state.

"What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians," Arab League secretary general Amr Mussa told reporters.

On March 12, the Arab League urged the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone on Libya and said Moammar Gadhafi’s regime had "lost legitimacy" as it sought to snuff out a rebellion designed to oust him from power.

In the West’s biggest intervention in the Arab world since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, US warships and a British submarine fired more than 120 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya on Saturday, the US military said.

French warplanes also carried out strikes.

The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 on Thursday authorising military action to prevent Gadhafi’s forces from attacking civilians.

© Copyright (c) AFP

Yes, we'll protect the civilians against air strikes but let Q bombard cities with rocket launchers all day long. THIS BRILLIANT STRATEGY CANNOT FAIL. Perhaps we have some insight into the (usual) profound incompetence of the region's military forces.

[Spoonist]

This does feel very different from Iraq. Here in Sweden there was a huge public outcry against the Iraq-invasion before it started, there were large demonstrations in all the big cities. This time, even the most extreme left newspapers are having a hard time denying that there will be a gruesome genocide unless foreign intervention occurs.

Crackpots are crackpots.

link

Obama is a liar and a terrorist!
Postat av Astrid Boman | Postat i Inrikes | Postat 2011-03-20 Posted by Astrid Boman | Posted in Domestic | Posted 2011-03-20
So when Obama has declared war without congressional consent. U.S., France, Britain, Norway, Denmark has violated the agreement on no-fly zone.

The Arab League criticized on Sunday the military attack against Libya. It deviated from the plan - to maintain a no-fly zone, according to Secretary General Amr Mussa. Now he calls an emergency meeting.

This war is just as illegal as the war on Iraq started during the same false flag. The oil and control of the Middle East is probably the root causes. West goes outside its powers. This is terrorism!

A large proportion of people actually support Gaddafi. The streams now in Bab al-Azizia in southern Tripoli to act human shields. True or not. I do not know. We ll probably get propaganda from all sides. But the truth is that Obama is a liar and a terrorist!

And in the US-supported dictatorships now murdered unarmed civilians. Mr Gaddafi rebels as he shoots at an arsenal of heavy weapons.

[Sarevok]

At the end of the day what matters is saving lives. Taking away Gaddafis tanks and artillery will do that. That matters more than pleasing dissenters outside Libya. If they (the Arab league or any other group) don't like it then so be it.

[Covenant]

I'm frustrated with just how much the normally red-meat loving American media is poo-pooing this extremely limited engagement on our behalf. If you're looking for a good way to do power projection, working as part of a multinational organization to prevent outright genocide and humanitarian crisis is about as White Hat as you can get. Maybe I'm only getting part of the picture, but I'm simply aghast at how badly these people seem to turning into strawmen for the weak liberal stereotype.

I can understand a Republican political objective to this, but I don't get why some Democrats are whining--except in that they weren't consulted. I may be a bit more of a militarily muscular liberal, but these have got to be the same guys who'd be watching Hotel Libya in five years and sobbing while saying "Why didn't we do more! Why did we wait!" Well, we're doing more, and we've not even landed ground forces yet, right? So what's the big deal?

Going to Congress about this current level of engagement is a stupid formality, which at best would only delay necessary assistance to our allies in stopping something any sane person would realize we can easily stop with the barest exercise of our power.

And anyone who feels hurt that he broke a promise in order to aid in a crisis needs to get over themselves.

[Eulogy]

Perhaps a few interviews with some Libyans who lived through the violence and terror will change the know-nothings' small minds. Perhaps there could be a documentary showing the effect stopping Gaddhack had on Libya, and what likely would have happened had there been no intervention.

There will be some lost causes, sure, but tipping the neutral people off the fence will do some good.

And yes, the Arab League are idiots who apparently forgot about the existence of armour and rocket launchers.

[MKSheppard]

Going to Congress about this current level of engagement is a stupid formality, which at best would only delay necessary assistance to our allies in stopping something any sane person would realize we can easily stop with the barest exercise of our power.

After so long of listening to the thunderous blasts of the Iraq War being described as illegal, it's interesting to note that Bush took his time for Iraq/Afghanistan; dotting the i's and crossing the t's legally as U.S. Law required.

Going to war against Afghanistan, when the case was easily open and shut -- Bush took the time to legally set it up through PL-107-40 Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Bill Content Here

House: 420-1
Senate: 98-0

Then later in Iraq, he waited for Public Law 107-243 -- Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Bill Content Here

House: 297-133
Senate: 77-23

The Libyan Uprising began around 15 February. It's now 20 March. Obama pretty much had 15-20 days to set up the legal framework for US action with Congress, but he didn't, instead relying on the United Nations as the sole arbiter of legality.

This is what **I THINK** Obama's train of thought was:

"Instead of getting in a messy conflict with Congress, I'll use the War Powers Act as my legal authorization to get the 30-60 days I need before I need to go to those bastards.

We should be in and out of this place before the 30-60 days are up, with the Europeans doing the heavy lifting while we just provide logistical support."

**JCS walks in**

"Sir, the European militaries are hopeless. You're going to need to provide a lot more than logistical support. Like say over a hundred cruise missiles from the US Navy to defeat Gadhaffi's air defense network, along with B-2A strikes."

So on, etc. So yeah, things should get...interesting for Barack Hussein Walker Bushbama in about thirty days.

VERY interesting.

I saw on the blotter that there's already a small group of liberal progressive democrats who are calling for Barack Hussein Walker Bushbama's impeachment.

[Prannon]

Before you read on, consider that I'm playing devil's advocate.

I get the feeling that there are a lot of gung-ho people in here with no reservations about what this intervention might mean for us in the future. I think Shep raises a valid point, not necessarily that this intervention will be a bad thing down the road, but that it MIGHT be. And there MIGHT come a time when we all look back and think "Geez, how the fuck did we get ourselves into this mess? Why did we support those people?"

So, just for the sake of argument and consideration and a full development of our thoughts, what would be the worst-case scenario of this intervention? Plausible or no, let's consider it, and consider it also in the context of the wider Middle East.

[Covenant]

I saw on the blotter that there's already a small group of liberal progressive democrats who are calling for Barack Hussein Walker Bushbama's impeachment.

I wouldn't be surprised. Those idiots seem to have an unlimited capacity for making themselves look uselessly ineffectual. I may vote democrat but I am always crying for someone with backbone and pragmatism to go along with liberal/progressive domestic policy goals.

I get the feeling that there are a lot of gung-ho people in here with no reservations about what this intervention might mean for us in the future. I think Shep raises a valid point, not necessarily that this intervention will be a bad thing down the road, but that it MIGHT be. And there MIGHT come a time when we all look back and think "Geez, how the fuck did we get ourselves into this mess? Why did we support those people?"

The line should be divided between 'supporting' them and thereby making ourselves responsible for them, in some ways, and simply depleting Q's ability to blow his own people to fuck and gone. I don't feel all rah rah gung ho about obliterating some antiquated Libyan weapon systems, but this is the kind of situation that--when we ignore it--makes us looks like the giant Evil Empire. You have a guy who everyone considers a batshits insane Dictator promising to kill everyone who opposes him, and unlike North Korea, it's not that hard for us to knock his shit out. Like Shep says, this is more than just letting the French borrow some satellite photos, but within the sphere of American military might, throwing Cruise Missiles off of navy vessels is child's play. Expensive, but within our easy reach.

I'm glad I wasn't claiming the Iraq war was illegal, I'd have some egg on my face now. Maybe that's why some of these goof-offs are complaining about this.

Am I crazy? Is there really an ethical argument (besides isolationism) for not getting involved even in a relatively small way? Assuming, of course, we can indeed allow our aid to remain small and that the French don't get bored and leave it all to us.

So, just for the sake of argument and consideration and a full development of our thoughts, what would be the worst-case scenario of this intervention? Plausible or no, let's consider it, and consider it also in the context of the wider Middle East.

Well, Q's forces could continue to win despite all the missiles we throw on him, forcing the European+American forces to either wash their hands of a failure and watch as he obliterates his own people and razes the cities and salts the Earth--and then calls upon his buddies within the Vast Terrorist Conspiracy to blow up more of our people. That would either force the current coalition to commit to another Iraq, possibly with other nations angry at us, and could put us on the wrong side of this revolution. Possibly both wrong sides of it (rebels across the ME angry at us for being useless/taking over and dictators angry at us for aiding). Or maybe the rebels win and then go behead a thousand Qadaffi supporters and build a shrine temple to Cthulhu out of their femurs or something to make it look like we managed to be useless again. But I'm just some doofus with no real understanding of international politics.

[MKSheppard]

I get the feeling that there are a lot of gung-ho people in here with no reservations about what this intervention might mean for us in the future.

I personally think that the time to intervene was about 15~ days ago, executed by the US Air Force's Covert Ops units, flying in weaponry that the rebellion needed, but couldn't get access too, like semi modernish ATGMs to counter Gadhaffi's tanks.

Also, extend that to having a Reaper drone flying over Libya at night and selectively intervening, by firing a missile or two a night at random Gadhaffi tanks.

Totally deniable, and it's all classified until 2030.

Publically, Obama could have come out in much stronger terms than he actually did, to line up European support for the rebels. All the talk about recognizing the rebel government does nothing if you then....do nothing in regards to foreign aid to the rebels.

[MKSheppard]

Well, Q's forces could continue to win despite all the missiles we throw on him, forcing the European+American forces to either wash their hands of a failure and watch as he obliterates his own people and razes the cities and salts the Earth--and then calls upon his buddies within the Vast Terrorist Conspiracy to blow up more of our people.

That's a very strong possibility -- he continues to win despite us enforcing the "no fly zone" on tanks -- how's that for mission creep?

I would also worry a bit about his buddies within the VTC [tm]. It's worth noting that Gadhaffi basically ordered the bombing of PanAm 103 in response to El Dorado Canyon. What makes you think he hasn't already ordered retaliation on the Crusader States?

[Prannon]

Regarding Obama, I honestly don't have that big of an objection to how this was handled. Yes, I think the rest of the world should have intervened sooner. It kinda smacks of cowardice and last-minute-ism the whole way everyone suddenly rushed to intervene only after Qaddafi was knocking on Benghazi. I mean, yeah, if you were gonna intervene then, why not intervene sooner if it's about helping them out? But, one has to acknowledge that humans don't have the benefit of hindsight before hand, and everyone was really nervous about intervening after the Bosnia/Somalia/Iraq debacles.

In terms of international law (ignoring domestic issues for now) this is about as legal as it gets with the UN Security Council authorizing action. There are questions of state sovereignty at play, and Qaddafi's government goons aren't wrong that this is largely an internal matter that they should be able to answer on their own. Indeed, if any Western state had rebellions, they'd probably answer with the same methods, albeit without the purposeful killing of civilians angle. Indeed, just look at the US Civil War. That's a whole different debate though. Ultimately, the reason Western states decided to intervene here is because the Rebels seem to stand for something we like, while nobody likes Qaddafi at all.

[Lord Woodlouse]

I honestly don't think the US was seriously planning to involve itself until relatively late in the game. At the end of the day though, what he did is still legal as of now. It's premature to complain about how illegal this conflict is. At the moment it's simply bad etiquette.

The UN thing is a pretty practical concern. It helps mitigate the diplomatic fallout a conflict like this can have and helps shoulder the load financially and militarily (the US has mentioned a number of times it's "unique assets" (sounds like a pair of triangular tits, but whatever) so I'm not getting any vibe about the part the US military plays here being unexpected).

[Zed]

The Arab League is now criticizing the bombings:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ara ... story.html

CAIRO—The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya and said Sunday that he would call a league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention.

Moussa said the Arab League’s approval of a no-fly zone on March 12 was based on a desire to prevent Moammar Gaddafi’s air force from attacking civilians and was not designed to endorse the intense bombing and missile attacks — including on Tripoli, the capital, and on Libyan ground forces — whose images have filled Arab television screens for two days.

“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said in a statement on the official Middle East News Agency. “And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”

Moussa’s declaration suggested that some of the 22 Arab League members were taken aback by what they have seen and wanted to modify their approval lest they be perceived as accepting outright Western military intervention in Libya. Although the eccentric Gaddafi is widely looked down on in the Arab world, the leaders and people of the Middle East traditionally have risen up in emotional protest at the first sign of Western intervention.

A shift away from the Arab League endorsement, even partial, would be an important setback to the U.S.-European campaign. Western leaders brandished the Arab League decision as a justification for their decision to move militarily and as a weapon in the debate to win approval for a U.N. Security Council resolution two days before the bombing began.

As U.S. and European military operations entered their second day, however, most Arab governments maintained public silence, and the strongest expressions of opposition came from the greatest distance. Presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and Evo Morales of Bolivia and former Cuban president Fidel Castro condemned the intervention and suggested that Western powers were seeking to get their hands on Libya’s oil reserves rather than limit the bloodshed in the country.

Russia and China, which abstained on the U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention, also expressed regret that Western powers had chosen to get involved despite their advice.

In the Middle East, the abiding power of popular distrust of Western intervention was evident despite the March 12 Arab League decision. It was not clear how many Arab governments shared the hesitations voiced by Moussa, who has said that he plans to run for president in Egypt this year. But so far only the Western-oriented Persian Gulf emirate of Qatar has announced that it would participate despite Western efforts to enlist Arab military forces into the campaign.

The Qatari prime minister, Hamad bin Jasim al-Thani, told reporters that the kingdom made its decision in order to “stop the bloodbath” that he said Gaddafi was inflicting on rebel forces and civilians in opposition-controlled cities. He did not describe the extent of Qatar’s military involvement or what the mission of Qatari aircraft or personnel would be alongside U.S., French and British planes and ships that have carried out the initial strikes.

Islam Lutfi, a lawyer and Muslim Brotherhood leader in Egypt, said he opposed the military intervention because the real intention of the United States and its European allies was to get into position to benefit from Libya’s oil supplies. “The countries aligned against Libya are there not for humanitarian reasons but to further their own interests,” he added.

But the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies in the youth coalition that spearheaded Egypt’s recent upheavals took no official position. They were busy with a referendum Saturday on constitutional amendments designed to usher in democracy into the country. Similarly, the provisional military-run government took no stand, and most Cairo newspapers gave only secondary space to the Libya conflict.

When the Arab League approved imposition of a no-fly zone, only Syria and Algeria opposed the decision, according to Egyptian officials. Syria’s Foreign Ministry on Thursday reiterated its government’s opposition, as diplomatic momentum gathered for the U.S.-European operation, saying the country rejected “all forms of foreign interference in Libyan affairs.”

Al-Qaeda, which could be expected to oppose foreign intervention in an Arab country and embrace Gaddafi’s description of the Western campaign as a new crusade, made no immediate comment. This was probably due in part to the difficulty for the al-Qaeda leadership to communicate without revealing its position. But it also was brought to mind Gaddafi’s frequent assertions that al-Qaeda was behind the Libyan revolt and that he and the West should work hand in hand to defeat the rebels.

Iran and its Shiite Muslim allies in the Lebanese organization Hezbollah, reflexively opposed to Western influence in the Middle East, also were forced into a somewhat equivocal position, condemning Gaddafi for his bloody tactics but opposing the Western military intervention.

“The fact that most Arab and Muslim leaders did not take responsibility opened the way for Western intervention in Libya,” declared Hasan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah’s leader, in video speech Sunday to his followers. “This opens the way for foreign interventions in every Arab country. It brings us back to the days of occupation, colonization and partition.”

At the same time, Nasrallah accused Gaddafi of using the same brutal tactics against his opponents as Israel has against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry, which previously criticized Gaddafi’s crackdown, on Sunday expressed “doubts” about U.S. and European intentions. Like the Latin American critics, it suggested that the claims of wanting to protect civilians were just a cover for a desire to install a more malleable leadership in Tripoli and make it easier to exploit Libya’s oil.

[Tribun]

They obviously want to keep their cake and eat it at the same time. As if they still think Gaddafi thinks of the good of the libyan people. No, he's only thinking of himself.

[Prannon]

Well, there's very likely an element of self-preservation in there as well. You know, all the western public is like "Rar yeah! Freedom!" The governments are like, "We can do something about this, and our people like what's happening, so let's go!" The Arab League is like, "Please do something about this! It's embarrassing us!" And so the west goes surging in, and all the sudden they're saying, "Oh shit! What about Arab solidarity? They're after oil! And who's next?" Probably a fair bit of paranoia, since there aren't exactly many Arab states that wouldn't come under the gun if the same standards were applied to them that are being applied to Libya.

[Hawkwings]

I can't count the number of times I've heard/read "They just want teh OILZ!" over the past few days. It's gotten to the point where although once it may have been a legitimate point to make, now it's just rabblerousing because they think it's the best way to incite anger at the "invaders" and rally support for... what, exactly?

Worst case? Well, here's my prediction: Arab League eventually says "no support for u!" and the bombing continues for a while. Then, after every tank in Libya is a steaming pile of metal, Libyan government forces continue their bloody campaign against the rebels and civilians on foot. Rebel groups, hard pressed, ask for foreign military intervention. Other rebel groups denounce those rebel groups, leading to more chaos. No foreign government actually wants to put soldiers in. Rebels get beat back to the point of collapse. Gadaffi is killed somehow, leaving a power vacuum. And a pilot from some western country is shot down, rebels and/or civilians swarm the site, a rescue team is launched, and shitstorm occurs when during the recovery operation, someone opens fire leaving many on both sides killed.

[Todeswind]

I can't count the number of times I've heard/read "They just want teh OILZ!" over the past few days. It's gotten to the point where although once it may have been a legitimate point to make, now it's just rabblerousing because they think it's the best way to incite anger at the "invaders" and rally support for... what, exactly?

Worst case? Well, here's my prediction: Arab League eventually says "no support for u!" and the bombing continues for a while. Then, after every tank in Libya is a steaming pile of metal, Libyan government forces continue their bloody campaign against the rebels and civilians on foot. Rebel groups, hard pressed, ask for foreign military intervention. Other rebel groups denounce those rebel groups, leading to more chaos. No foreign government actually wants to put soldiers in. Rebels get beat back to the point of collapse. Gadaffi is killed somehow, leaving a power vacuum. And a pilot from some western country is shot down, rebels and/or civilians swarm the site, a rescue team is launched, and shitstorm occurs when during the recovery operation, someone opens fire leaving many on both sides killed.

Wasn't that the plot of Blackhawk Down.... and Behind Enemy Lines.... come to think of it other than the Iraq wars that's been the storyline of most of our military interventions since 1980....

[PainRack]

Arab League is grumpy

CAIRO, March 20, 2011 (AFP) - The Arab League on Sunday criticized Western military strikes on Libya, a week after urging the United Nations to slap a no-fly zone on the oil-rich North African state.

"What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians," Arab League secretary general Amr Mussa told reporters.

On March 12, the Arab League urged the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone on Libya and said Moammar Gadhafi’s regime had "lost legitimacy" as it sought to snuff out a rebellion designed to oust him from power.

In the West’s biggest intervention in the Arab world since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, US warships and a British submarine fired more than 120 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya on Saturday, the US military said.

French warplanes also carried out strikes.

The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 on Thursday authorising military action to prevent Gadhafi’s forces from attacking civilians.

© Copyright (c) AFP

Yes, we'll protect the civilians against air strikes but let Q bombard cities with rocket launchers all day long. THIS BRILLIANT STRATEGY CANNOT FAIL. Perhaps we have some insight into the (usual) profound incompetence of the region's military forces.

Or their politics.
This sounds more like the usual politifest regarding Western intervention in the Arab world and its limitations.

[salm]

The head of the Arab League, Amr Mussam, has demented that they´re in conflict with the UN. Apparently they´re cool witht the bombing runs after all...

[Thanas]

^Salm, you probably mean "disputed" instead of "demenz kriegen".

As to you Shep, please limit your efforts to legitimize the Iraq war post facto to another thread. This tangent is of no value here and more likely will prompt yet another discusssion about that highly illegitimate war of aggression, so I suggest stopping that one right here.

[salm]

Yeah, i meant the German word "dementieren" which i thought translated to "to dement" but actually translates to "deny, discount, disclaim".

Grrrrrr...

[Block]

Yeah, i meant the German word "dementieren" which i thought translated to "to dement" but actually translates to "deny, discount, disclaim".

Grrrrrr...

Yeah demented is a way of saying mentally disturbed. Or warped physically, but it's much more common when talking about mental state.