11th hour intervention in Libya

[ASH]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

The most troubling part for me is the seemingly schizophenic foreign policy of the UK and France towards Libya.......in fairly short order they both went from getting down on bended knee to kiss Qaddafi's ass to supporting aggressive regime change?

How do you explain THAT to a questioning citizenry?

Particularly for the UK and the al-Megrahi Affair and Tony Blair's visit.....just embarrassing.....

Or is it just increasing desperation by fading powers attempting to secure their future energy supply?

Just my 0.02c

Some of this surely has to do with the political embarrassment of the UK and French leadership over their recent treatment of Gaddafi. Once Gaddafi was officially rehabilitated, Western access to Libyan oil and money became politically possible. The European fawning over Gaddafi was, no doubt, driven by desire for that access. But as you point out, that fawning is highly embarrassing to UK and French leaders, now that Gaddafi is behaving in a way European voters are likely to find unsympathetic. Also, as things stand now, retaining access to Libyan oil and money -- and maintaining political face at home -- requires that the UK and France be zealous in going after Gaddafi. So I think the motivations for the about-face are pretty straight-forward. The leadership must feel that an about-face is easier to explain to their voters than continued accommodation with Gaddafi.

American interests in the Libyan revolt seem much more dilute. It seemed to me that the military was actively trying to discourage intervention, since it would be a strain on resources, and a distraction. I got the impression that the push to intervene was being led mainly by the Department of State, and the same branch of American politics that wanted to intervene in Somalia and Kosovo.

[don]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Scanning the headlines it appears, which may be a media distortion, that US demands now include regime change. So familiar . . . .

[ASH]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Scanning the headlines it appears, which may be a media distortion, that US demands now include regime change. So familiar . . . .

That might be shooting a little high, given the means on the table.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Some of this surely has to do with the political embarrassment of the UK and French leadership over their recent treatment of Gaddafi. Once Gaddafi was officially rehabilitated, Western access to Libyan oil and money became politically possible. The European fawning over Gaddafi was, no doubt, driven by desire for that access. But as you point out, that fawning is highly embarrassing to UK and French leaders, now that Gaddafi is behaving in a way European voters are likely to find unsympathetic. Also, as things stand now, retaining access to Libyan oil and money -- and maintaining political face at home -- requires that the UK and France be zealous in going after Gaddafi. So I think the motivations for the about-face are pretty straight-forward. The leadership must feel that an about-face is easier to explain to their voters than continued accommodation with Gaddafi.

American interests in the Libyan revolt seem much more dilute. It seemed to me that the military was actively trying to discourage intervention, since it would be a strain on resources, and a distraction. I got the impression that the push to intervene was being led mainly by the Department of State, and the same branch of American politics that wanted to intervene in Somalia and Kosovo.

Funny you mention Somalia and Kosovo....particularly Somalia....on a trip to East Africa a year and a half ago it was pretty hard to miss the amount of western military traffic flying in and out.

It's my understanding that Somalia has recently been dealt with via Ethiopia/Djibouti/Kenya.

Boots on the ground in Somalia measured mostly in minutes/hours/maybe days.......a direct "virtual intervention" if you will as well as by proxy(Ethiopian forces supported by USSF and the resources they represent).....if you aren't there fulltime, if you only leave a few bootprints blown away by rotorwash and the desert winds...does it qualify as an intervention from the mass media's perspective? Especially since it's largely in non-permissive environments hard to reach by media.

I'm thinking the US response will be somewhat similiar in Libya......using Egypt and maybe Chad to stage out of.......low footprint kind of stuff.....USSF "diplomats with guns".....not so much "deniable" and the melodramatic hollywood perceptions......as discreet

I could imagine a fair bit of anxiety on the part of UK/France/US in trying to measure the rebel opposition.....as displayed by a bunch of UK intelligence and close protection folks getting recently pinched.

The last thing the rebels would want to present themselves as being is infidel haters, tired of being the perpetually punished pawns of global energy geopolitics....if the rebels don't play ball, and if deemed unwinnable against Qaddafi's energy money army...I'm guessing Qaddafi may potentially be reinvented as a good guy again?

How many lives does one dictator get? I think Qaddafi is entering new territory......he could give lessons to Dostrum.

In a way I wonder if public perceptions of pro-environment policies and opposition to distasteful realpolitik will shift as those perceptions become increasingly unaffordable to have as energy prices ratchet north over time.

How willing will the UK/France/US citizenry be to accepting 3rd world slaughter if they perceive it as being directly connected to the maintenance of their declining standard of living?

I suspect that if energy prices spike high enough and hurt sharply enough, citizens en masse will turn the other way with unpalatable realpolitik.

I thought the 70's Ogaden War was bizarre with the 2 Superpowers swapping pawn partners midway thru.....what's occurring in Libya may eventually top that for dark satire.

So where is China in all of this?

As I understand it, China has significant influence over Sudan bordering Libya...with an embassy there roughly the size of the CBD of the city I live in.....China has successfully supported a VERY nasty finish to the Sri Lankan Civil War in order to gain control of its Sea Lines of Communication.

I wonder if there is much to stop China from exerting some influence over Libya......surely Qaddafi must be looking at his sponsor options?

And China must appear to be an attractive sugar daddy for Libya to woo.

China doesn't have the power projection capabilities....but could certainly advise Libya on how to make life difficult for the EU/US NFZ as well as provide diplomatic top cover and support thru China's presence in Sudan to possibly grind down the insurgency.

China uses North Korea as a buffer for a number of reasons.....maybe it could use Libya as a virtual buffer...keep the west distracted and unfocused on the long-term....low cost...potentially high reward.

I just don't see how having a very high public profile role in Libya's domestic problems(granted with potentially HUGE regional/global implications) can lead to anything good.

I'd like to see him go, but think anything but discreet and carefully thought out support would be a recipe for likely failure....in case Qaddafi has to be our "friend" again.

[ASH]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

China doesn't have the power projection capabilities....but could certainly advise Libya on how to make life difficult for the EU/US NFZ as well as provide diplomatic top cover and support thru China's presence in Sudan to possibly grind down the insurgency.

China uses North Korea as a buffer for a number of reasons.....maybe it could use Libya as a virtual buffer...keep the west distracted and unfocused on the long-term....low cost...potentially high reward.

I just don't see how having a very high public profile role in Libya's domestic problems(granted with potentially HUGE regional/global implications) can lead to anything good.

I'd like to see him go, but think anything but discreet and carefully thought out support would be a recipe for likely failure....in case Qaddafi has to be our "friend" again.

I'm thinking that the most efficient opportunity for China to sponsor Gaddafi passed when they abstained from the security council vote. Perhaps China has concluded that there isn't much of value to be gained by antagonizing the West over Libya, given China's investment in Africa. Business as usual means China gets to continue developing economic inroads in Africa without much of a peep out of the West; opposing the West in Libya might invite opposition from the West to China's aims there. I think China becomes more assertive the closer you get to China's borders, so they might not be interested in starting a contest out in Africa.

A buffer between China's actual border and relatively prosperous, relatively strong South Korea -- a close American ally with American bases -- is one thing. Making mischief in Africa might feel more like an unnecessary source of tension than a security buffer to a Chinese planner.

Of course, I'm just speculating.

It doesn't seem to me like we're on a path to a big footprint. To some extent, I wonder if the plan is to separate Gaddafi from his revenue source, in the hopes that regime change follows from a lack of cash. Otherwise, I don't really see how regime change will happen. (Then again, neither do I see how a re-rehabilitation could come about. But as you said, he does seem to have 9 lives.)

[chr5648]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Obama endorses military action to stop Gadhafi

WASHINGTON – After weeks of hesitation and divisions among his advisers, President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed military action against Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, saying U.S. values and credibility are at stake to stop "the potential for mass murder" of innocents.

The U.S. military, which is already stretched thin by two wars and an expanding effort to assist disaster victims in Japan, would take a supporting role, Obama said, with European and Arab partners in the lead. He explicitly ruled out sending American ground forces into the North African nation.

A wide range of U.S. firepower stood ready, including Navy ships and submarines capable of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles with high-explosive warheads that could destroy air defense sites and other potential targets in the earliest stages of any allied military action.

In solemn remarks at the White House, Obama never used the word "war," but that is what U.S. forces could face if Gadhafi refuses to comply with United Nations demands. It is widely anticipated that a first step in imposing a no-fly zone over Libya — a tactic aimed at keeping Gadhafi's planes from attacking — would be assaults on the country's coastal air defenses.

Obama offered a string of reasons for committing to military action.

"Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Gadhafi would commit atrocities against his people," he said. "Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners. The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun."

That marked a major shift from the public caution expressed until recent days by Obama's top national security advisers, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen. All had said that a no-fly zone or other military action would be a difficult undertaking tantamount to war, or that it could have unintended consequences.

European leaders have been keen to show support for the Libyan rebels, but the United States had hung back until this week.

The administration was divided for weeks over how to address the situation in Libya, which differed from other Arab revolts when it moved from a political uprising to an armed insurrection against a strongman.

Military leaders were most cautious, arguing that a rush to show solidarity with the rebels might be shortsighted. Clinton and some other top diplomats were in the middle, with some White House advisers and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice apparently most ready to back the use of force.

In remarks to Congress earlier this month, Gates spoke skeptically of the wisdom of military intervention in Libya. He argued that because imposition of a no-fly zone would require attacks first on Libyan air defenses, the operation would be tantamount to going to war.

The Gates view seemed to resonate in the administration until the Arab League last weekend called for U.S. authorization of a no-fly zone. At that point the prevailing U.S. sentiment seemed to shift in favor of pressing for a U.N. Security Council resolution and subsequently giving Gadhafi an ultimatum.

Obama said he was dispatching Clinton to Paris for a meeting Saturday to discuss with British, French and other partner countries the next steps in Libya. The president said he directed Gates to coordinate military planning, which has been in the works for weeks while the administration pondered the ramifications of getting involved militarily while also fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The president made no reference to a Libya's declaration of an immediate cease-fire on Friday — a statement that a rebel spokesman said was fiction.

Instead, Obama listed a series of demands for Gadhafi, including the halting of all attacks against civilians, a stop to military action against the rebel-controlled city of Benghazi and other cities and permission for international humanitarian supplies to reach civilians displaced by the violence.

"Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable," he said.

The president was equally clear that the U.S. would not act alone.

"American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone -- it means shaping the conditions for the international community to act together," he said.

Even more explicitly: "We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone." He seemed to verbally underline the word "enabling," to emphasize the U.S. support role.

Analysts say Libya's air force and air defense systems, while not negligible, are decrepit by Western standards and unlikely to stand up to assault.

Defense analysts said Libya's military has been weakened by years of neglect, armed with outdated aircraft and weapons, and directed by a radar and communications system that may have limited capabilities.

They cautioned, however, that it is difficult to give an exact assessment of Libya's military abilities, particularly in the wake of the recent uprising that saw some troops defecting and taking their weapons and aircraft with them.

An assessment prepared by the Congressional Research Service this week said greater worries could come after a no-fly-zone was in effect and the U.S. and its allies had to deal with a heavily armed populace in disarray.

"The apparent proliferation of small arms, man-portable air defense missile systems, and some heavy weaponry among fighters on both sides also is leading some outside counterterrorism and arms trafficking experts to express concern about the conflict's longer term implications for regional security," the new report said.

The uprising against Gadhafi is only one of many struggles being played out in the region as long-time autocratic regimes come under pressure. Protests in Tunisia and Egypt have led to the ouster of long-time rulers, and there have been demonstrations in Yemen, Jordan and Bahrain. Protests erupted in at least three parts of Syria during the day Friday, according to state television and other source

Before his public announcement that U.S. forces would join in military action against Libya, Obama met at the White House with congressional leaders of both parties to discuss his thinking.

"The U.S. military will be playing a supportive role in this action. We will not have troops on the ground; instead we are providing strategic support where we have unique capabilities to the Arab and European nations that are taking the lead," said Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee. He took part in the Obama session by telephone.

Speaking earlier, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he believes Obama has authority to commit U.S. forces to participate in imposing a no-fly zone without congressional approval, but he expressed hope that Congress would bless the move.

If the U.S. military is ordered to establish a no-fly zone, a wide variety of high-tech weapons and aircraft would be sent from bases in Europe and the United States to shut down or disrupt Libya's Soviet-era air defense systems and its communications networks, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told Congress Thursday.

He said it would take about a week to establish the no-fly zone. If such a mission is ordered, he said, he expected the supersonic F-22 Raptor — a jet fighter yet to be used in combat — to play a prominent role in the initial wave. With its stealth design, the F-22 can evade radar and has advanced engines that allow it to fly at faster-than-sound speeds without using gas-guzzling afterburners.

Other fighters, such as the F-15 and F-16, would also be used, as would bombers, airlifters, refueling tankers and highly specialized aircraft such as the RC-135 Rivet Joint and the EC-130H Compass Call. The Rivet Joint is loaded with sophisticated intelligence gathering gear that allows the U.S. to spy on the enemy from the air. The Compass Call is an electronic warfare plane that disrupts an adversary's communications.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/...us/us_us_libya

Is this a gift to the neocons and fox news? Is "human rights" really going to be the reason for this "war"? Is this how the left will justify this bloodshed? Is there going to be any media source that will provide some facts and rational analysis?

This will turn out into a disaster. I somehow have a feeling this will lead to Europe being over run with more non-European immigrants/refugees, another demographic disaster for the motherland.

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Obama endorses military action to stop Gadhafi

Chalk up another victory for the Nobel 'Peace' Prize...

[don]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Chalk up another victory for the Nobel 'Peace' Prize...

Damn straight, c1ue. The Dems have eviscerated any anti-war forces, one of their principal functions in our "2" party fandango.

[iyamwutiam]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

From a cynical perspective the reason for intervention is clear. Libya is the lever to destablilize both Egypt and Tunisia. It lies between both and controlling Libya will allow the 'newly' "elected" government puppet to be the front for staging terrorist acts in Egypt and Tunisia under the guise of 'counter-insurgency'.

This is logical -because Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen etc are just extreme examples of western capitalism sucking the life out of people. Egypt for example was praised as an 'economic' powerhouse posting growth of 7 percent! Yeah -wow -another growing economy thats jobless in a nation that must join the race to the bottom. Go through the Chomsky clip and reference the April 6th.

The bottom line is from Bangkok to Kalamazoo -people are rejecting this brand of globalism or whatever it is called. In America -it's the Tea Party in Europe the 'Nationalist-No Immigration enuf already -parties.

The other reason is BP which acquired the rights to a lot of the stuff under the ground - a people's revolution has to managed -since Libya is still one of the few 'light sweet crude' producers and BP needs that money to pay off the US and UK.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

I'm thinking that the most efficient opportunity for China to sponsor Gaddafi passed when they abstained from the security council vote. Perhaps China has concluded that there isn't much of value to be gained by antagonizing the West over Libya, given China's investment in Africa. Business as usual means China gets to continue developing economic inroads in Africa without much of a peep out of the West; opposing the West in Libya might invite opposition from the West to China's aims there. I think China becomes more assertive the closer you get to China's borders, so they might not be interested in starting a contest out in Africa.

A buffer between China's actual border and relatively prosperous, relatively strong South Korea -- a close American ally with American bases -- is one thing. Making mischief in Africa might feel more like an unnecessary source of tension than a security buffer to a Chinese planner.

Of course, I'm just speculating.

It doesn't seem to me like we're on a path to a big footprint. To some extent, I wonder if the plan is to separate Gaddafi from his revenue source, in the hopes that regime change follows from a lack of cash. Otherwise, I don't really see how regime change will happen. (Then again, neither do I see how a re-rehabilitation could come about. But as you said, he does seem to have 9 lives.)

I absolutely agree that China would not overtly wish to get in a proxy spat with the US/EU so far from home......but it would be incredibly easy for some Chinese advisors to make their way into Libya to render some quiet assistance...and build relationships in case Qaddafi retains power....as possibly a precedent to exerting it's UNSC veto which could come across as a bit too overt so far from home....but China has not been reluctant to wield it right next door.

The folks I know who spent time in Sudan over the last 5 years have returned with stories of being absolutely staggered by growing Chinese influence...and the sheer number of Chinese men in their 20's-40's armed with toughbooks and satphones operating out of every nook and cranny as part of an integrated Chinese government/military/intelligence/commerce network.

I think I'm leaning towards your thought that State is pushing harder than the DoD.......as well as better means to bring Qddafi to heal(severing or moderating the connection between him and his money)...the devil we know is better than the devil we don't?

A serious intervention I think would require a significant contribution from Arab nations...ops tempo for the UK/US is already quite high...France a bit less.

It will be interesting to see how Qaddafi responds......he survived well enough under sanctions for quite a few years.

One thing I'd love to know is any offers of negotiated safe exile guarantees to Qaddafi and his family/mob.......that's one bit of realpolitik I'd love to know more about.....does it get offered as serious consideration to the likes of Hussein, Mugabe, Qaddafi, etc.?

While incredibly distasteful.....it could go some way in helping to prevent or mitigate regime changeover violence and instability and a potentially smoother transition...or do dictators fall into the same trap of mafioso? And preferring death over being a nobody? Or in their cases, mere multi billionaires?

I suspect Qaddafi's last day alive will be as leader of Libya, with the next day being regime change to "whatever come's next".

And will that be next month, next year, or next decade?

I'm just speculating as well......from a cocktail napkin approach Libya seems simple, but I think it's fairly complex.....I don't see any easy answers.

From watching President Obama's speech, I get the impression they are drawing a line in the sand between Qaddafi's forces and the rebellion...if that's the case I can easily see Egypt being the hub for US efforts to shape "what's next".

All those billions spent in Egypt and relationships developed.....now the US will probably be making a big withdraw from that karmic bank account.

Because the only two thing I know for sure are:

1.)A No Fly Zone alone isn't going to do anything but ultimately embarrass the EU/US.

It will have to be matched with at least a few quiet professional boots on the ground....hopefully the quieter the better.

2.)It's obvious the EU and to a lesser extent the US(due to overreach elsewhere) believe Libya clearly forms part of their strategic sphere of influence/control due to energy and proximity...an energy rich Balkans perhaps?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

From a cynical perspective the reason for intervention is clear. Libya is the lever to destablilize both Egypt and Tunisia. It lies between both and controlling Libya will allow the 'newly' "elected" government puppet to be the front for staging terrorist acts in Egypt and Tunisia under the guise of 'counter-insurgency'.

This is logical -because Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen etc are just extreme examples of western capitalism sucking the life out of people. Egypt for example was praised as an 'economic' powerhouse posting growth of 7 percent! Yeah -wow -another growing economy thats jobless in a nation that must join the race to the bottom. Go through the Chomsky clip and reference the April 6th.

The bottom line is from Bangkok to Kalamazoo -people are rejecting this brand of globalism or whatever it is called. In America -it's the Tea Party in Europe the 'Nationalist-No Immigration enuf already -parties.

The other reason is BP which acquired the rights to a lot of the stuff under the ground - a people's revolution has to managed -since Libya is still one of the few 'light sweet crude' producers and BP needs that money to pay off the US and UK.

Personally, I think that in the case of Egypt.....any act of aggression launched from Libya, or even suspected as such, would lead to an overwhelming response from Egypt.

The Egyptian military has full spectrum overmatch against Libyan forces...and has proved as much in past border clashes when the onesidedness wasn't nearly as overwhelming as it is today.

Personally, I think pretty much every government and diplomatic corps in the region would prefer nothing more than to see the next generation of strong men presenting a thin vaneer of shallow democratic reform brought into power.

Just my 0.02c

[oddlots]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

The most troubling part for me is the seemingly schizophenic foreign policy of the UK and France towards Libya.......in fairly short order they both went from getting down on bended knee to kiss Qaddafi's ass to supporting aggressive regime change?

How do you explain THAT to a questioning citizenry?

Particularly for the UK and the al-Megrahi Affair and Tony Blair's visit.....just embarrassing.....

Or is it just increasing desperation by fading powers attempting to secure their future energy supply?

Just my 0.02c

It's a good observation. I've been thinking a lot about this issue in general terms and I think the key issue is lurking somewhere in this earlier point by you:

Personally, I'd be supportive of the US using very low footprint unconventional forces to make contact with Libyan rebel groups to assess their capabilities, their realistic chances to win, and their willingness to play ball moving forward.If there is a strong opportunity for them to succeed, I don't see a huge problem with supporting them via the same very low footprint as well as via more open support thru Egypt if there is deemed to be a high likelihood of success.

I know I have a problem conceptualizing, in any useful way, situations that are subject to time. It's easy enough to declare a policy or a set of moral principles in abstract form and quite another to interact with the world over time where one's actions affect the situation and vice versa. I thought about this a lot when I lived in Czechoslovakia as the revolution occurred. One of my clients was the director of a psychiatric hospital and the friend I was staying with was a complete refusenik. The latter came from an old Czech intellectual family that had owned theatres in the Old Regime. She had nothing but disdain for anyone who made any accommodations to it including an estranged brother who had joined the party in, as far as I could tell, a purely formalistic way in order to secure quite a harmless job. As a result she was relegated to very menial tasks and wore her comparative poverty with great dignity. The director of the psychiatric institute was a good deal better off, was able to set his son up in business as soon as the opportunity arose... and was slightly anxious to convince me that he "protected" those dissidents who the state had entrusted to him because of their obviously deranged political beliefs. (And I think actually that's probably quite true: the country was full of people whose "resistance" was basically to fulfill the minimum requirement to get along while obviously not believing any of it. Since largely the people supposedly enforcing the system were doing the same thing it's not surprising it all simply fell apart. So I definitely gave the professor a pass.)

My point in bringing this up is to say I think you can apply the same logic to the behaviour between states. People dealt with Gaddafi (I'll have to spell-check that) in various ways over the years. Those dealings are a mess of accommodations between competing interests: some stick here, some carrot there, some enriching deals when these were in national interests, some bombs when his behaviour was too out-of-court. I'm sure some of those deals enriched arms-dealers and manufacturers, others provided food-stuffs that were critical to the well-being of the population that always needs to be fed, housed, financed... whatever.

To my mind what's important is the phase-changes that affect immediately all these kind of secondary accommodations and that one recognise the phase-change for what it is. To my mind the fact that thousands and thousands of Libyans are willing to commit absolutely to overthrowing this regime is a very significant feature on an almost entirely new landscape. It seems slightly obtuse to fixate on the history here - as Chomsky does in Don's post above. The whole point is that the landscape in which past compromises, accomommodations or complicities made some sense has crumbled.

It's in this spirit that I welcome resolution 1973. (Cue trumpets.)

[oddlots]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

I think you're going to be very disappointed when you see what kind of people end up running the place if Khaddafi is deposed. They're not going to be nice European-style social democrats. They will be corrupt, they will pack into their Swiss bank accounts the ample foreign aid we send to buy their friendship, and they will adopt the same iron-fist policies to maintain control that Khaddafi did. That's just how it works in that part of the world. They get the kind of government that suits their characteristic personality/worldview. They ain't a bunch of Icelanders, they're Libyans. They will get Libyan-style government regardless of who sits in the Presidential palace.

I'm really mystified by the intense animosity expressed here. As an example the Egyptian protesters have at least, pro-forma, managed to effect the dissolution of the Egyptian secret police. (Read Stasi) They've done it through peaceful expression in great numbers and while experiencing a withering onslaught of violence from the state's most ruthless, craven dependants (the "enforcers", in hockey terms.) And yet you still can't recognise the achievement because

They're not going to be nice European-style social democrats.

They. That's your whole problem right there.

[Prazak]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Dems have a long history of starting and escalating wars and armed conflicts. Isolationism, which used to be the province of the Republican Party, hasn't mustered much enthusiasm within either party since the 1930s. The anti-war strain in the Democratic Party was brief, coinciding with anti-colonialism of the left in the 1970s and 80s, and reappearing in opposition to Bush and the neo-cons. Now that it's a Dem president who is warrior-in-chief again, the Dems are mostly quiescent about AfPak and Iraq, and ready to start pointing guns at new targets.

The U.S. is a violent nation at home and a war-mongering nation abroad, and always has been. It's in our DNA, like it or not. Neither party carries out much of an anti-war function.

[chr5648]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Gadhafi strikes rebels as diplomats mull action

By RYAN LUCAS and HADEEL AL-SHALCHI, Associated Press
11 mins ago


BENGHAZI, Libya – Moammar Gadhafi took advantage of international indecision to attack the heart of the 5-week-old uprising on Saturday, sending troops, tanks and warplanes to swarm the first city seized by the rebels. Crashing shells shook buildings, and the sounds of battle drew closer to Benghazi's center.

"Where is France, where is NATO?" cried a 50-year-old woman in Benghazi, where a doctor said 27 people were killed Saturday. "It's too late."

Leaders from the Arab world, the United States and other Western powers are holding urgent talks in Paris over possible military action, and France's ambassador to the United Nations, Gerard Araud, told BBC Newsnight that he expected military action to begin within hours of the meeting. In an open letter, Gadafhi warned: "You will regret it if you dare to intervene in our country."

On Saturday, a warplane was shot down over the outskirts of Benghazi, sending up a massive black cloud of smoke. An Associated Press reporter saw the plane go down in flames and heard the sound of artillery and crackling gunfire.

Before the plane went down, journalists heard what appeared to be airstrikes from it. Rebels cheered and celebrated at the crash, though the government denied a plane had gone down — or that any towns were shelled on Saturday.

The fighting galvanized the people of Benghazi, with young men collecting bottles to make gasoline bombs. Some residents dragged bed frames and metal scraps into the streets to make roadblocks.

Abdel-Hafez, a 49-year-old Benghazi resident, said rebels and government soldiers were fighting on a university campus on the south side of the city, with government tanks moving in, followed by ground troops. In the city center, tank fire drew closer and rebel shouts rang out.

At a news conference in the capital, Tripoli, the government spokesman read letters from Gadhafi to President Barack Obama and others involved in the international effort.

"Libya is not yours. Libya is for the Libyans. The Security Council resolution is invalid," he said in the letter to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and U.N.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

To Obama, the Libyan leader was slightly more conciliatory: "If you had found them taking over American cities with armed force, tell me what you would do."

Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said the rebels are the ones breaking the cease fire by attacking military forces.

"Our armed forces continue to retreat and hide, but the rebels keep shelling us and provoking us," Musa told The Associated Press.

In a joint statement to Gadhafi late Friday, the United States, Britain and France — backed by unspecified Arab countries — called on Gadhafi to end his troops' advance toward Benghazi and pull them out of the cities of Misrata, Ajdabiya and Zawiya. It also called for the restoration of water, electricity and gas services in all areas. It said Libyans must be able to receive humanitarian aid or the "international community will make him suffer the consequences" with military action.

Parts of eastern Libya, where the once-confident rebels this week found their hold slipping, erupted into celebration at the passage of the U.N. resolution. But the timing and consequences of any international military action remained unclear.

In Benghazi, crowds gathered at the courthouse that is the de facto rebel headquarters. About 200 people were in the area, drinking tea and talking. Some brought a tank and a mounted anti-aircraft gun they said they had captured today.

"We are really surprised. When will they come? When will they stop him? It's always, 'In a few hours, in a few hours.' Then what?" said Salah, 42, a travel agent, raising his hands with a shrug. "Everybody is angry about this."

Dr. Gebreil Hewadi of the Jalaa Hospital and a member of the rebel health committee said that 27 dead had been taken to the hospital since Friday night.

Misrata, Libya's third-largest city and the last held by rebels in the west, came under sustained assault well after the cease-fire announcement, according to rebels and a doctor there. The doctor, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared reprisals, said Gadhafi's snipers were on rooftops and his forces were searching homes for rebels.

Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa said that Libyan officials had informed the U.N. and the Security Council that the government was holding to the cease-fire and called for a team of foreign observers to verify that.

"The nation is respecting all the commitments put on it by the international community," he said, leaving the podium before answering any questions about Benghazi.

In the course of the rebellion, Libya has gone from a once-promising economy with the largest proven oil reserves in Africa to a country in turmoil. The foreign workers that underpinned the oil industry have fled; production and exports have all but ground to a halt; and its currency is down 30 percent in just two weeks.

The oil minister, Shukri Ghanem, held a news conference calling on foreign oil companies to send back their workers. He said the government would honor all its contracts.

"It is not our intention to violate any of these agreements and we hope that from their part they will honor this agreement and they will send back their workforces," he said.

In Italy, which had been the main buyer for Libyan oil, six Danish F-16 fighter jets landed at the U.S. naval air station in Sigonella, Sicily, as the international military buildup mounted.

Italy has offered the use of seven air and navy bases already housing U.S., NATO and Italian forces to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya and protect Libyan civilians from Moammar Gadhafi's forces. Sigonella's size and close proximity to Libya makes it a key staging point.

Italy's defense minister, Ignazio La Russa, said Saturday that Italy wasn't just "renting out" its bases for others to use but was prepared to offer "moderate but determined" military support.

It looks to me like game theory is at play. Gadhafi has a limited amount of time to win this 'war/uprising'. It looks like he wants to keep power and he's going to bomb the crap out of the rebels over the next few days before a "no fly zone" is formed. Here's the kicker, by the time the actual no fly zone is put in place, he could have potentially won this war and maintained power. Will the 'diplomats' allow this? ground troops? iraq 2?