Libya

12:31 Mar 23, 2011 175

There has been some demand for a discussion of the UN Security Council authorisation of a no-fly zone over Libya and the subsequent air attacks. I've love to oblige in depth, but a brief bout of the flu and a TV deadline today leaves me without the time. So …

I'm basically down with Juan Cole's Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003, and simultaneously harbouring qualms about where this will go -- not least because we don't really have a very clear idea of who exactly the rebels are and what they really want. It does seem true that Gaddafi had essentially lost the country up until the point that he began his present campaign of slaughtering and torturing civilians.

The Guardian's roundup of Middle East opinion suggests relatively broad support for the intervention, and claims that in Egypt, "support for the western military intervention seems close to overwhelming."

And I'm mindful of this Saudi-American blog's reiteration of what a no-fly zone actually is:

A no-fly zone is, by definition, a military action, not a political statement. If a country upon which a no-fly resolution is imposed does not accede to the demand, then it must be enforced. To be enforced means that aircraft and pilots must go in and shoot down offending aircraft. Before they do that, they want to ensure that they themselves will not be shot down. That means attacks on anti-aircraft installations, the rendering of airfields unusable, the destruction of all likely threats (such as radar) to their own aircraft. That means bombs and missiles will be used. Bombs and missiles create big explosions; explosions are not precise in destroying only equipment. Anyone near the equipment being destroyed is likely to be injured, if not killed. Just what did Amr Moussa expect here?

And that President Obama, who has spent two weeks being harangued from all sides for allegedly dragging the chain on the imposition of such an order, is now facing criticism at home and abroad for backing it. But if it's very clear that this is not another Iraq -- what exactly is it?

175 responses to this post

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last

Che Tibby, 13:17 Mar 23, 2011

But if it’s very clear that this is not another Iraq – what exactly is it?
another Kosovo?*
which is far preferable to "another Bosnia".
*am prepared to be corrected.

the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report
Russell Brown, in reply to Che Tibby, 13:32 Mar 23, 2011

another Kosovo?*
It would be good if the goals could be as well summed-up as "Serbs out, peacekeepers in, refugees back", in the words of one NATO spokesman. Not sure if that's the case though.
which is far preferable to “another Bosnia”.
Which was the risk.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Rich Lock, 13:32 Mar 23, 2011

another Kosovo?*
Ah, but...
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict
So..
what exactly is it?
Perhaps something entirely new that needs to be engaged with on it's own terms?

back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report
Neil Morrison, 13:37 Mar 23, 2011

8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict…
Gaddafi has exploited tribal divisions within Libya to his own advantage in exactly the same way Saddam did in Iraq so there are similarities - not differences - there.
Perhaps no. 8 could have been “There’s a different French President”.

Since Nov 2006 • 932 posts Report
Che Tibby, 13:41 Mar 23, 2011

i meant kosovo in a "dictator not butchering part of population" kind of way.

the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report
Danyl Mclauchlan, 13:43 Mar 23, 2011

8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict
That's not quite true. When you visit Libya pretty much every local you meet explains that they're not Libyan, but part of some tribe, and that they hate the rest of Libya.

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 927 posts Report
Aidan, 13:45 Mar 23, 2011

The squealing from squeamish arab league countries is likely a butt-covering exercise to distance themselves from images that prove unpopular among their populace.
Grain of salt.
Witness the difference between the public pronouncements and the private conversations with respect to Iran as revealed by Wikileaks. Nothing can be taken at face value.

Canberra, Australia • Since Feb 2007 • 154 posts Report
Rich Lock, 13:58 Mar 23, 2011

Gaddafi has exploited tribal divisions within Libya to his own advantage in exactly the same way Saddam did in Iraq
Would love to know a bit more about this - can someone point me in the direction of some further reading?

back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report
Neil Morrison, in reply to Rich Lock, 14:02 Mar 23, 2011

Would love to know a bit more about this - can someone point me in the direction of some further reading?
This Guardian opinon piece touches on the issue.

Since Nov 2006 • 932 posts Report
BenWilson, 14:36 Mar 23, 2011

I'm quite surprised that a UN resolution for no-fly actually got through the security council. It would have helped if it had been several weeks, ago, but even still, I can't see how it's really going to help the outgunned rebels. It won't prevent a conventional massacre and it won't enable the rebels to bring Gaddaffi's reign to an end.
I don't know what should be done. If the UN could agree that getting rid of the dictatorship there is a good idea, it should be done fast and hard, after a very short period of threats. I hate the idea of sanctions, which pretty much entrench the power of the dictator. But I find it incredibly hard to believe that Russia and China would support such a thing. Why would/should such a policy stop at Libya? There's still dictatorships all through the Middle East.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report
Gary Elshaw, 15:10 Mar 23, 2011

My partner is half Libyan, and for the last month we've barely slept and been glued to any source of media about the current situation in Libya (FWIW Twitter is king). Her father is in Benghazi and won't leave Lybia until Gaddafi is gone.
I too have the flu at the moment, so please forgive incomplete sentences and typos.
The revolt in Libya started as a peaceful protest in Benghazi and escalated after troops and foreign mercenaries indiscriminantly fired on the protesters. I have been waiting now for 2 weeks for the media to start describing Gadaffi's troops as the rebels, a number of governments have recognised the interim national council, and it is obvious that the UN response has been in concert with this council. I don't remember Gadaffi requesting the NFZ (or 'Operation Zenga Zenga' as we call it in our house) as the leader of Libya. Although he may do that shortly.
A couple of things that Juan Cole says:
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
The Libyan national council have been very specific in their requests (about 2 -3 weeks ago) that they do not want foreign troops. This is Libya's war, not any other nations. Their request for the NFZ has specifically been about evening the odds with Gadaffi, and some of us believe the 'any means necessary' clause has been included because it has taken over a month to get international agreement. Remember, there have been massacres of civilians for over a month now, disappearances, hostage-taking, brutal suppression. Gaddafi at one point took the parachutes out of his aircraft and was only fuelling his planes to a certain level so pilots couldn't cross the border or ditch them.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
Not just Tunisia and Egypt. Gadaffi has threatened everyone in the region and in the west for the last month. He was promising to shoot commercial airliners out of the sky (again) the other day, and ships in the mediterranean.
Russell says:
not least because we don’t really have a very clear idea of who exactly the rebels are and what they really want.
The anti-Gadaffi people of Libya (and i think we're talking the majority of the population) want a constitutional democracy, they want to have political parties and cast votes for those beliefs, they want the ability to say what they want about whomever. I take it for granted that i think and can say that John Key is a dick. People in Libya cannot. Don't forget, the 'rebels' are engineers, doctors, dentists, journalists, truck drivers etc. They are normal people in extraordinary circumstances. They are predominantly very young in age, mostly 20s and 30s.
If i could compare this war to any, it would be the Spanish Civil War, it's a war against fascism.
Oh, and don't underestimate foreign involvement, there are all sorts of behind the scenes deals going on: Gary's Posterous

Apia, Samoa • Since Mar 2011 • 22 posts Report
chris, 15:23 Mar 23, 2011

that this is not another Iraq – what exactly is it?
A clear restipulation that the UN is fundamentally an instrument of war, propelled by the security council’s arms industries, flexing its muscle in conflicts with the scope to
a) be justified as a fight for potential democracy.
b) serve as a staging ground for weapons testing without undue scrutiny.
c) function as a lucrative arms market for a significant enough timespan to mutually benefit UNSC members.
If i could compare this war to any, it would be the Spanish Civil War, it’s a war against fascism.
Fascism has and will continue to be tolerated in all the other countries and war torn dictatorships that fail to satisfy the above criteria.

Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report
Russell Brown, in reply to chris, 15:29 Mar 23, 2011

A clear restipulation that the UN is an instrument of war propelled by the security council’s arms industries, flexing its muscle in conflicts with the scope to
You may wish to consult the comment above yours.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Russell Brown, in reply to chris, 15:38 Mar 23, 2011

Fascism has and will continue to be tolerated in all the other countries and war torn dictatorships that fail to satisfy the above criteria.
Rather raises the question of why the UN didn't authorise the invasion of Iraq, then.
Rather than having all the answers -- or rather, the same set of answers -- in advance, would it not be more productive to actually pay some attention to someone who's been following events?

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
chris, 15:41 Mar 23, 2011

You may wish to consult the comment above yours.
Certainly Russell, there are some interesting titbits there, but fascism in itself has never been justification for any war.
Rather than having all the answers – or rather, the same set of answers – in advance, would it not be more productive to actually pay some attention to someone who’s been following events?
Had he posted before I'd written then that would have been possible. And to be fair the potential to generate profit (considering Gaddafi's $6 billion gold stash which has been recently moved to be in closer proximity to the southern borders) I'm finding your conflation of my ascribed economic motives with his more purely political motives a little dismissive. The UN tolerates fascism.

Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report
Neil Morrison, in reply to chris, 15:44 Mar 23, 2011

interesting titbits
such as having relatives in mortal danger?

Since Nov 2006 • 932 posts Report
chris, in reply to Neil Morrison, 15:50 Mar 23, 2011

interesting titbits
such as having relatives in mortal danger?
An insensitive insinuation. No, such as:
Gaddafi at one point took the parachutes out of his aircraft and was only fuelling his planes to a certain level so pilots couldn’t cross the border or ditch them.
Apologies for my misspelling of tidbit above.

Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report
Bart Janssen, 16:03 Mar 23, 2011

I was talking about this with my nearly brother-in-law who is Iranian, whose own experience of the Iranian revolution is interesting. Essentially what surprised both of us equally was not the conflict in Lybia but rather the lack of conflict in Tunisia and Egypt. Both Tunisia and Egypt underwent regime changes with very very little loss of life. That is extremely unusual in history anywhere let alone in the middle east.
The impact for Lybia is that it created an example that it's possible to oust a dictator without needing an army. That example is clearly not something the Lybian leadership could tolerate - hence the brutal response.
Quite why it has become possible to oust a dictator without military force is not entirely clear but the free/increased flow of information and knowledge that comes with it (sometimes) seems to be an obvious likely cause.
I really don't know what will happen next. It seems as though the UN will not allow Gadaffi to use force to impose his will on the Lybian population. Without that force it seems very likely that protests will increase and I can't see any other outcome than a regime change in Lybia as well. The alternative would be for Gadaffi to fight a low tech close quarters brutal war and I have no idea whether his army will be willing to do that.
One comment my brother-not-in-law made was that the years after the regime change will not be good years no matter what happens, because it takes some time to make positive changes.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report
Don Christie, 16:07 Mar 23, 2011

Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003, and simultaneously harbouring qualms about where this will go
Ditto. Another difference between this situation and Iraq 03 is this...
Before the Iraqi invasion many people, including myself, expressed grave concerns about the motives and Bush and Blair and the possible outcomes. We knew we were being lied to in many ways.
However, whilst Gadaffi was butchering his own people and the UN was procrastinating, I don't recall seeing similar statements from people who are now criticising the UN/UK/USA/France et al.
The reason being, what Gadaffi was doing was abhorrent, and to have suggested a non-interventionist approach was to support his actions.

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report
chris, 16:18 Mar 23, 2011

The reason being, what Gadaffi was doing was abhorrent, and to have suggested a non-interventionist approach was to support his actions.
On February 23, 2011, Franklin Graham appeared on the TBN Network appealing for aid for genocide victims and terrorized peoples of the south Sudan. He stated that so far the government has killed 1.3 million citizens in the south only for the reason that they are Christians
"The Sudanese government and government-backed Janjaweed militia bear responsibility for the genocide in Darfur," it said, adding that they, along with indigenous rebels, had and continued to commit atrocities as the four-year-old war rages unabated.
"All parties to the conflagration committed serious abuses, including widespread killing of civilians, rape as a tool of war, systematic torture, robbery and recruitment of child soldiers," the report said.
I'm more than to happy to listen to other reasons/ theories for the UN's selectivity in its interventions.

Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report
Neil Morrison, 16:21 Mar 23, 2011

Both Tunisia and Egypt underwent regime changes with very very little loss of life.
I was wondering if it had something to do with a society's relative homogeneity. I might be wrong about Egypt but it appears more homogenious than Libya. And the current divisions in Libya appear to reflect regional governance structures that date back to Roman times.
Yugoslavia and Iraq had large ethnic and/or religious differences in one country, that already had a history of animosity, which the dictators manipulated and hence made things a lot worse.
Libya seems to fall some where between Yugoslavia and Egypt.
Or perhaps Mubarak's regime was just less oppressive.

Since Nov 2006 • 932 posts Report
Bart Janssen, in reply to chris, 16:46 Mar 23, 2011

happy to listen to other reasons/ theories for the UN’s selectivity
To be fair I don't think France gets much of it's oil from Sudan.
It's almost certainly true that the high quality oil that Lybia produces (much higher quality than from Suadi Arabia) and the supply of that oil to France in particular might have some role in the UN actions.
But if it's the right thing to do, which based on what little I know seems likely, then who cares?

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4461 posts Report
Don Christie, 16:49 Mar 23, 2011

Chris - what's your point?
Intervention shouldn't happen in Libya because it wasn't sustained in Sudan?

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report
chris, 17:16 Mar 23, 2011

Chris – what’s your point?
Akin with what Bart just mentioned Don.
Intervention shouldn’t happen in Libya because it wasn’t sustained in Sudan?
In these types of genocidal situations, intervention should always happen with to the fullest necessary relative measure, regardless of economic incentives.

Due to the nature of the fascism here I could not open this earlier:
Oh, and don’t underestimate foreign involvement, there are all sorts of behind the scenes deals going on: Gary’s Posterous
So my apologies Gary and Russell, that was one of the issues I was intimating, simply bad timing, nothing to be lambasted for.

Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report
Don Christie, 17:21 Mar 23, 2011

Chris
The economic incentive with Libya would surely have been to let Gadaffi re-assert his control and keep the oil flowing. Instead there is now nothing but uncertainty on that front, along with a hope that some of the worst humanitarian excesses will be avoided. And it is still only a hope, for sure.
Attributing the current actions to an oil grab is very counter-intuitive.
Again, different situation with Iraq.

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report