Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

[flintlock]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

There's been rumors of an ammo shortage with NATO/"Rebels".

What next.

Time off for Spring Break?

[flintlock]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Western hypocrisy being exposed for what it is.

[oddlots]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Re. the apparent (?) hypocrisy implicit in the UN report, I don't see this as a fatal argument. How do you act consistently in a changing situation? Or as Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

My point has been that the conditions on the ground in many of these countries have changed radically recently. In such a circumstance I would expect policy to change and be more surprised if it did not.

In other words, if you can praise progress on human rights assuming that the Gadaffi regime is the only game in town and then find that there is suddenly an opposition to Gadaffi that might provide better prospects, how is changing sides inconsistent? (My point is one of logic rather than contested fact here: I'm trying to understand how the hypocrisy argument works.)

What am I not understanding here? (Still puzzling over your other points.)

[c1ue]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

How do you act consistently in a changing situation?

What exactly has changed?

You say Gaddafi is a repressive monster.

That was true 20 years ago, as it is true today.

You say he was "the only game in town" - yet he's still in town.

And what exactly has the UN, the US, the UK, and France done exactly? They've bombed some tanks from 5000 or more feet up using technology literally decades more advanced.

They've lip synced their support for the 'freedom fighters'.

The entire argument boils down to: We'll do a little to remove Gaddafi, as long as it doesn't make us look bad via dead boys returning home. If not, then we'll cut deals with him because we want oil and someone to keep the pesky refugees from piling up in Italy.

Let's not forget Gaddafi was persona non-grata 2 decades ago due to state sponsored terrorism.

Yet somehow his regime wasn't worth removing then.

[oddlots]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Again, the difference is that there is an apparently viable internal opposition all of a sudden, care of the same wave that has crashed across Tunisia and Egypt (both flanking the country.) That changes everything in my mind: you can either watch it get crushed (because it doesn't by it's very nature, have the resources of the state) or support it (thumb the scales by providing air cover at the least.)

Was there such an internal opposition that was capable of taking on Gadaffi 20 years ago? No. So it wasn't a real question. I simply can't imagine a world that would provide the kind of simple moral calculations that your charge of hypocrisy implies. It's all - particularly now, fluid in the extreme.

Or here's another tack, if you think western positions on this are hypocritical what do you think of the Libyan diplomats, administrators and military that have abandoned ship? Are they being hypocritical by - to my mind - seizing on an opportunity for change? If their collaboration was forgivable given the political reality how can their interlocutors in the west be guilty of some viler form of hypocrisy? If you would condemn them now for switching sides are you really willing to say you would have been brave enough to oppose Gadaffi with no chance of winning as an individual with no support simply out of principle.

I just don't understand where the sting in your argument is: the situation is fluid.

[Shakespear]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

That was true 20 years ago, as it is true today.

Exactly.

The one difference that I see is that there is less oil in the ground. I think Momo was not playing "as requested" and ran afoul of his "friends" who need the stuff.

[c1ue]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Was there such an internal opposition that was capable of taking on Gadaffi 20 years ago? No. So it wasn't a real question. I simply can't imagine a world that would provide the kind of simple moral calculations that your charge of hypocrisy implies. It's all - particularly now, fluid in the extreme.

To say that opposition to Qaddafi just arose now is ludicrous. You can't seriously think this? For one thing, Qaddafi came to power via overthrow of the previous king (and associated tribe).

The opposition is the same as it always was, and always will be: the tribes on the bottom are unhappy with the tribes on top.

As there are at least 6 major tribes and innumerable smaller tribes in Libya, I consider your view that 'opposition just arose now' to be ridiculous.

Or here's another tack, if you think western positions on this are hypocritical what do you think of the Libyan diplomats, administrators and military that have abandoned ship? Are they being hypocritical by - to my mind - seizing on an opportunity for change? If their collaboration was forgivable given the political reality how can their interlocutors in the west be guilty of some viler form of hypocrisy? If you would condemn them now for switching sides are you really willing to say you would have been brave enough to oppose Gadaffi with no chance of winning as an individual with no support simply out of principle.

I just don't understand where the sting in your argument is: the situation is fluid.

Libyan diplomats doing this or doing that is meaningless without context.

Are they of the same tribe as Qaddafi? In a normal power sharing arrangement - even in a top down society as Qaddafi's Libya - you portion out some positions for leaders of lesser tribes. Because otherwise the leadership of said tribes have nothing to lose by openly opposing you.

Are they gunning for posts in the 'new' Libya? Some may look to Iraq as an example: the quickest to abandon Saddam are now in the 'new' Iraq government.

Are they seeking a couple of decades in Virginia without apparent means of support? Hifter being a prime example - what's the downside to jumping ship if you don't have much upside?

The facts of the matter are quite simple:

1) When the 'opposition' first arose, the West did not come out in support of the 'freedom fighters'

2) Even once the UN resolution was passed and aircraft started bombing Qaddafi's forces, the West decided not to risk nasty casualties despite saying 'Qaddafi must go'

3) Qaddafi is still there. Fighting is still going on. The 'freedom fighters' aren't making any progress.

Democracy is great so long it doesn't cost votes at home.

[oddlots]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

To say that opposition to Qaddafi just arose now is ludicrous. You can't seriously think this? For one thing, Qaddafi came to power via overthrow of the previous king (and associated tribe). The opposition is the same as it always was, and always will be: the tribes on the bottom are unhappy with the tribes on top.

No clue I said viable opposition. There has I would imagine always been dissidents, especially after the honeymoon period was over, the failed wars with Chad etc.... But are you seriously suggesting that there has been a time in Libya's history that has seen this level of both protests across the country and an armed rebellion following the inevitable crackdown? Re. the overthrow of the king, my understanding was that it was a military coup, quite a different animal from what's been unfolding here.

Re. the tribal issue, what or whose expertise are you bringing to bear here? As I've admitted before, from what I've been reading it's a factor, but not the only factor. I think you are really taking a very reductionist approach to the way this society works. I've seen nothing to suggest that tribal loyalties are as decisive as you suggest and plenty to suggest that the apparent cohesion of Libya's west is a function of how intact his regime's apparatus of intimidation is. See for instance here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...g-2274078.html

I've also read plenty of interviews with Libyans that voice demands that seem pretty straightforward to me. They want freedom and dignity. Dangerously abstract (no wonder they're popular) but they are exactly the same demands as in Tunisia and Egypt. Again, how could tribal allegiance explain this phenomenon breaking out across a whole region? Doesn't it make more sense to look at the commonalities: living under repressive, authoritarian, thuggish police states / economies?

Libyan diplomats doing this or doing that is meaningless without context.

I think you've missed my point (or I've missed yours.) My original point was to ask in what way is it hypocritical to change sides in a conflict if the political possibilities on the ground are suddenly radically altered. You were critical of the fact that the world praised Gadaffi's "progress" on human rights and then turned around and put him in their sights. That seemed a very weak argument to me. It just completely ignores the fact that, in the interim, his forces were gunning down protesters in the streets. But beyond that it just ignores that anyone - from a Libyan diplomat to a human rights campaigner - has to make strategic decisions about what's doable given the realities at any one time. How hard can you push? Is making a deal with the devil better than doing nothing? Would standing on principle cause unnecessary hardship to powerless civilians? You seem to be criticising on an abstract basis that resists any truck with the messy realities of engaging with the world. Would any action here make you happy?

Are they gunning for posts in the 'new' Libya? Some may look to Iraq as an example: the quickest to abandon Saddam are now in the 'new' Iraq government. Are they seeking a couple of decades in Virginia without apparent means of support? Hifter being a prime example - what's the downside to jumping ship if you don't have much upside?

I really think there's a bit of contempt showing through here. I'm sure there are better places to look for moral courage than Libya's diplomatic corps but I also know that in totalitarian / authoritarian regimes there's no place to hide. I think it's unjust to rush to an assumption of venal motives, especially given the fact that these people undoubtedly have family in Libya against whom retribution can be taken (and I don't doubt the preparations for this were always at the ready.) I can't imagine how agonising such a decision would be. I think you're not showing much imagination here. I'm sure there are people in this group that have managed through skill and historical luck to actually do some good for Libyans in their posts abroad. Why would you again be so dismissive?

Re. Hifter's implied co-option by his hosts in Virginia, yeah that's a chicken that could come home to roost... or not. (As I pointed out, he's the third caommander of the rebel forces, which hardly argues for an ersatz rebellion: he wasn't even in country.)

The facts of the matter are quite simple:

1) When the 'opposition' first arose, the West did not come out in support of the 'freedom fighters'

2) Even once the UN resolution was passed and aircraft started bombing Qaddafi's forces, the West decided not to risk nasty casualties despite saying 'Qaddafi must go'

3) Qaddafi is still there. Fighting is still going on. The 'freedom fighters' aren't making any progress.

Democracy is great so long it doesn't cost votes at home.

I really don't understand how this is supposed to neatly summarise your argument. Re. 1, who cares? I wouldn't expect any government to rush to judgement even on strategic, realpolitic grounds. Re. 2, I think it's a virtue that the "West" (as we both keep saying - we should think about that) "decided not to risk nasty casualties despite saying 'Qaddafi must go'." Clearly it wasn't what was asked for and it would also de-legitimise the struggle that had gone on and is ongoing on the ground. Re. 3, good summary: stalemate. The question is, will it last? I really think time is on the rebels' side now. A few months for them to get organised does not seem too much to ask.

Ultimately I think it will end, after a pause of a month or so, with a stronger more co-ordinated push from rebel strongholds and a relatively quick implosion of the regime in Tripoli as the resources to both terrorise the west's population and wage war become hopelessly strained.

[Shakespear]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Libyan diplomats doing this or doing that is meaningless without context.

They have been "promised" a seat at the "steering wheel" of Libya and a nice bank account if they joined the Team of Righteous. Or simpler yet, opportunism.

Libyan's will be the losers in the end, as is so well demonstrated in Iraq. The politicians will be the winners.

[flintlock]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

What exactly has changed?

You say Gaddafi is a repressive monster.

That was true 20 years ago, as it is true today.

You say he was "the only game in town" - yet he's still in town.

And what exactly has the UN, the US, the UK, and France done exactly? They've bombed some tanks from 5000 or more feet up using technology literally decades more advanced.

They've lip synced their support for the 'freedom fighters'.

The entire argument boils down to: We'll do a little to remove Gaddafi, as long as it doesn't make us look bad via dead boys returning home. If not, then we'll cut deals with him because we want oil and someone to keep the pesky refugees from piling up in Italy.

Let's not forget Gaddafi was persona non-grata 2 decades ago due to state sponsored terrorism.

Yet somehow his regime wasn't worth removing then.

Exactly! If anything he has been behaving himself more recently! You can't expect to be considered sincere when you demand someone behaves better, he complies, and then you still go after him opportunistically.

[flintlock]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

They have been "promised" a seat at the "steering wheel" of Libya and a nice bank account if they joined the Team of Righteous. Or simpler yet, opportunism.

Libyan's will be the losers in the end, as is so well demonstrated in Iraq. The politicians will be the winners.

Of course its opportunism. Isn't this obvious? Apparently not to some.

[Jay]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

Libya supports human rights????????????? May I remind everyone that Libya gave refuge (and cheers) for the bomber of Pan Am Flight 103, the plane that crashed into Lockerbie, Scotland.

A central bank with new ideas??????????? Yes, Islamic banking? Instead of compound-interest, the lender takes a share of the borrower's home or business.

I think the dead-beats in the U.S. wouldn't even know what hit them with Islamic banking, and if they would complain and threaten the lender, they might find themselves in an Islamic court and headed for the gallows. Miss a payment or two to the lender, and the bank takes over a larger percentage of the home or business. When the bank owns the entire venture, the dead-beat is OUT. No free rides for dead-beats in Libya, or am I mistaken? Would the dead-beat trash the house or venture property, the Islamic court would deal justice to the dead-beat.

Or am I wrong? Would there be a free ride for dead-beats under Islamic Law? And if there would be a free ride for dead-beats, why would anyone lend to them? Again, I am confused. Let's read about this thousand (plus) year old idea of Islamic banking and how great it would be in the new Libya of the rebels, especially with $110 per barrel oil.

If all banks took an equity stake as a portion of their debt issuance, it would cut down on sham loans a ton. You would actually have loans designed to create economic growth and given to competitive companies, not that sucked the life out of a community. Banking would then actually involve risk and it would take intelligence to make a profit.

[Jay]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

So Libya is the international North Dakota! When do we invade to take out those pesky North Dakotan terrorists?

[c1ue]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

No clue I said viable opposition. There has I would imagine always been dissidents, especially after the honeymoon period was over, the failed wars with Chad etc.... But are you seriously suggesting that there has been a time in Libya's history that has seen this level of both protests across the country and an armed rebellion following the inevitable crackdown?

In fact, I do say there has always been a viable opposition to Qaddafi.

From wiki:

The most serious challenges came from the armed forces, especially the officers' corps, and from the RCC. Perhaps the most important one occurred in 1975 when Minister of Planning and RCC member Major Umar Mihayshi and about thirty army officers attempted a coup after disagreements over political economic policies. The failure of the coup led to the flight of Mihayshi and part of the country's technocratic elite. In a move that signaled a new intolerance of dissent, the regime executed twenty-two of the accused army officers in 1977, the first such punishment in more than twenty years. Further executions of dissident army officers were reported in 1979, and in August 1980 several hundred people were allegedly killed in the wake of an unsuccessful army revolt centered in Tobruk.

More recently:

Hifter fled Libya despite being one of the top generals under Qaddafi. This was 1987:

Khalifa Belqasim Haftar (sometimes spelled Hifter, Hefter or Huftur) is a senior military officer in Libya. Formerly one of Muammar Gaddafi's army commanders in the Chadian–Libyan conflict, he fell out with the regime when Libya lost the war, and sought exile in the United States. In 2011 he returned to Libya to support the uprising. On March 24, 2011, it was announced that he would be taking command of the rebel army.^[1][2][3]
Some sources have reported ties with the US Central Intelligence Agency. After falling out with the Gaddafi regime, Haftar set up his own militia financed by the CIA, according to the 2001 book Manipulations africaines, published by Le Monde diplomatique. After entering the United States in the 1990s, Haftar took up residence in Vienna, Virginia, five miles outside of Langley, Virginia.^[4]

Then there's the post-US round 1 attacks, again from wiki:

On 14 April 1986, the United States carried out Operation El Dorado Canyon against Gaddafi and members of his regime. Air defenses, three army bases, and two airfields in Tripoli and Benghazi were bombed. The surgical strikes failed to kill Gaddafi but he lost a few dozen military officers. Gaddafi then spread propaganda how it had killed his "adopted daughter" and how victims had been all "civilians". Despite absurdity and variations of the stories, the campaign was so successful that a large proportion of the Western press reported the regime's stories as facts.^[46] Gaddafi announced that he had won a spectacular military victory over the United States and the country was officially renamed the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah".^[28] However, his speech appeared devoid passion and even the "victory" celebrations appeared unusual. Criticism of Gaddafi by ordinary Libyan citizens became more bold, such as defacing of Gaddafi posters.^[28] The raids against Libyan military had brought the regime to its the weakest point in 17 years.^[28]

Then there was the '90s:

Libya was accused in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland; UN sanctions were imposed in 1992.

I categorically reject your statement above as being wrong.

I've also read plenty of interviews with Libyans that voice demands that seem pretty straightforward to me. They want freedom and dignity. Dangerously abstract (no wonder they're popular) but they are exactly the same demands as in Tunisia and Egypt. Again, how could tribal allegiance explain this phenomenon breaking out across a whole region?

Do the interviews mention the anger against sub-Saharan guest workers?'

If not, then they are suspect. Because there have been several independent reports of over 1 million sub-Saharan black African guest workers brought in by Qaddafi (vs. existing population of 6.5 million).

Maybe the prospect of the war in Libya being due to racism and ethnic conflict isn't quite so sexy as 'freedom' and 'democracy'.

My original point was to ask in what way is it hypocritical to change sides in a conflict if the political possibilities on the ground are suddenly radically altered.

If there were a real change in the political background, then this might be true.

But you've failed to demonstrate this. Qaddafi has been a clear dictator ever since he got into power, and has provided more than enough reason for 'regime change' in the first 3 decades of his rule. Furthermore there were all sorts of countercoups, direct US and UN actions, and provocations.

Thus your notion that 'its different this time' is a house of cards.

I think it's unjust to rush to an assumption of venal motives, especially given the fact that these people undoubtedly have family in Libya against whom retribution can be taken (and I don't doubt the preparations for this were always at the ready.

Given what you see around you now, and what the historical record shows, you seriously think you can convince me that people in the higher levels of government act more from altruistic motives than venal?

Well, dream on my friend.

Ultimately I think it will end, after a pause of a month or so, with a stronger more co-ordinated push from rebel strongholds and a relatively quick implosion of the regime in Tripoli as the resources to both terrorise the west's population and wage war become hopelessly strained.

The 'quick campaign' has been going on for 1 2 month(s) so far - with no signs of implosion.

If Qaddafi doesn't go down in 6 months or less, the political price for the US, France, and the UN will be catastrophic.

Equally so if US/UN/French/whatever armed forces are needed to do the job - as was done in the Ivory Coast.

But by all means continue your wishful thinking - that the 'free and democratic' rebels will overcome the Goliath.

The American Revolution succeeded only because Great Britain was preoccupied with France - in fact the French directly intervened in the final battles.

The French Revolution succeeded significantly due to foreign support - which was then surprised by the resurgence under Napoleon.

The Russian Revolution - the Germans sent Lenin back the Russia and also provided arms and money.

While I am always hesitant to paraphrase Starving Steve - nonetheless he is correct in that the standards of living in Libya are far better than anywhere else in North Africa:

Mean wages were $9.51 per manhour in 2009

Of course these are Libyan dollars, which prior to the 'revolution' were around 1.22 to the USD, but nonetheless hardly the characteristic of a starving, economically oppressed people.

Again, it isn't that Qaddafi is some wonderful human being. He is a nut bag.

But simply throwing out one nut bag doesn't guarantee not getting another one - or worse, whereas the timing on this specific 'freedom and democracy' play is particularly suspect.

[flintlock]

Re: Libya: Curiouser & Curiouser

In fact, I do say there has always been a viable opposition to Qaddafi.

From wiki:

More recently:

Hifter fled Libya despite being one of the top generals under Qaddafi. This was 1987:



Then there's the post-US round 1 attacks, again from wiki:

Then there was the '90s:

I categorically reject your statement above as being wrong.



Do the interviews mention the anger against sub-Saharan guest workers?'

If not, then they are suspect. Because there have been several independent reports of over 1 million sub-Saharan black African guest workers brought in by Qaddafi (vs. existing population of 6.5 million).

Maybe the prospect of the war in Libya being due to racism and ethnic conflict isn't quite so sexy as 'freedom' and 'democracy'.



If there were a real change in the political background, then this might be true.

But you've failed to demonstrate this. Qaddafi has been a clear dictator ever since he got into power, and has provided more than enough reason for 'regime change' in the first 3 decades of his rule. Furthermore there were all sorts of countercoups, direct US and UN actions, and provocations.

Thus your notion that 'its different this time' is a house of cards.



Given what you see around you now, and what the historical record shows, you seriously think you can convince me that people in the higher levels of government act more from altruistic motives than venal?

Well, dream on my friend.



The 'quick campaign' has been going on for 1 2 month(s) so far - with no signs of implosion.

If Qaddafi doesn't go down in 6 months or less, the political price for the US, France, and the UN will be catastrophic.

Equally so if US/UN/French/whatever armed forces are needed to do the job - as was done in the Ivory Coast.

But by all means continue your wishful thinking - that the 'free and democratic' rebels will overcome the Goliath.

The American Revolution succeeded only because Great Britain was preoccupied with France - in fact the French directly intervened in the final battles.

The French Revolution succeeded significantly due to foreign support - which was then surprised by the resurgence under Napoleon.

The Russian Revolution - the Germans sent Lenin back the Russia and also provided arms and money.

While I am always hesitant to paraphrase Starving Steve - nonetheless he is correct in that the standards of living in Libya are far better than anywhere else in North Africa:



Of course these are Libyan dollars, which prior to the 'revolution' were around 1.22 to the USD, but nonetheless hardly the characteristic of a starving, economically oppressed people.

Again, it isn't that Qaddafi is some wonderful human being. He is a nut bag.

But simply throwing out one nut bag doesn't guarantee not getting another one - or worse, whereas the timing on this specific 'freedom and democracy' play is particularly suspect.

One of your better posts c1ue!

I kept reading and ding, ding, ding. The good points just kept adding up like the numbers on a gas pump.

How many Americans DON'T know that French troops served in large numbers on American soil? More than a few. Some still think minute men sat behind trees and picked off the British from 100 yards to win the war. French men, French ships, French arms. The Revolution was going nowhere without them. And like you mentioned, most rebellions are the same. They require external help. I just don't think Predator drones are going to be enough do you?

Most people care less about freedom and liberty than they do about food and housing. Its best to have them all, but lets face it, most in that region never have and never will.

I still don't buy that this is all about democracy, etc. There has to be more to it. Has to be.