Libya

[Monte Carlo]

Oil is a really, really good reason to go to war. How did you get to work this morning?

[213374U]

Oil is a really, really good reason to go to war. How did you get to work this morning?

I don't work.

 

Other than that, I don't really disagree with you. Try finding a UN legal doctrine that supports launching a war for oil, though.

[Purkake]

This isn't so much about "getting oil" but making sure that the oil keeps coming. A civil war isn't particularly healthy for infrastructure and the oil industry, especially when Gaddafi started targeting some of the oil production facilities.

 

Stability is the key here.

[Walsingham]

Can we please stop the entirely specious nonsense about how we have to fight every dictator at once or none at all? Does a surgeon have to cure everyone at once? Do I have to eat all my bacon at once?

Frankly, if there's anything specious here it's your high-calorie analogies, old boy. See how many people you can convince that the full weight of the law should only fall on the weak - and only when the judges stand to benefit directly from dispensing punishment. It's not about "at once" either - rather, it's about "at all".

 

I'd rather have some justice than no justice. And bacon.

 

Joking reluctantly dimmed for a moment, the justice you're talking about costs money. Lots and lots of money, and blood. And oil, now I think about it. Point being you can't expect a prolonged pattern of uneconomic interventions in the name of justice. It's fundamentally unsustainable. Unless, I guess, you had a situation where there was a glut of money from other economic behaviour, or you massively lowered the cost of the interventions. Improving available funds might arguably come directly from some sort of cold-blooded drive to secure cheap energy. While cheaper interventions would probably come from using less trained forces, or less accurate weapons. Neither course strikes me as going to win the popular vote.

 

BTW, before I forget, I have to applaud Russia for standing by their principles and obstructing any action which would lower the price of the oil and gas they export to Europe. A 'you too' point, which I know won't impress Numbers, but isn't aimed at him.

[Gorgon]

So what happens when it becomes obvious that the rebellion can't be won with air assist alone. Are we hoping to cut another deal with Ghadaffi in the vein of Bosnia here ?

 

What about the French foreign legion, seems like a good match for training and troop bolstering purposes. I'm sure we would all prefer for the Libyans not to have foreign troops om the ground, but they are not equipped to defeat Gadaffis forces as of yet, and we have already picked a side and got stuck in, can't sit on the fence now.

[Purkake]

The UN declaration clearly states that there's no foreign ground intervention. They'd need a new one and it would probably get vetoed.

 

If the rebellion fails, everyone is somewhat more screwed.

[Monte Carlo]

If you're gonna amputate a leg just do it before it starts to smell. J-DAM the Colonel and let the locals get on with it. OTOH A division or two with total air superiority would ace Ghadaffi's forces in a week a la Iraq in 2003. Britain and France could just about do it, although the UK would struggle big time. Maybe a brigade at a push.

 

Problem is, that's when the trouble starts. Regime loyalists aren't going to give up the ghost and then you've got Baghdad-on-Sea for another ten years. These rebels, marvellous though they are, have no hierarchy or proper agenda.

[Gorgon]

We tried bombing him several times before, didn't take.

[Walsingham]

My key points:

 

1. As Monte, myself, and Stratfor.com have pointed out more or less from the start, the rebels haven't the organisational arms, or discipline to win the ground war by themselves

2. The public, in their infinite wisdom regarding military and political reality insisted that something muts be done about the atrocities I think ane can be fairly sure were happening.

3. The various navies and airforces, under budgetary pressure licked their lips and announced that they were fully up for some sort of nice tidy lathering at long range

4. The notion that a short sharp smack with a rolled up cruise missile would bring those naughty Africans to heel appealed to a political class who seem violently opposed to learning anything about military history. So we kicked off.

5. Without a credible ground force, the extent of effects the navy and airforces could deliver were always going to be limited to big ugly targets, and that in turn could only continue so long as Ghaddafi Inc. behaved like cretins. They've learned as fast as one might expect, and we can expect the utility of long range fire to diminish to almost nil in the next few days.

 

Total result: abortive action in which hundreds of millions have been spent on munitions and civilians have almost certainly died in addition to what could have been expected. With the only effect being that we can expect the civil war to continue at a slower and consequently more bloody pace.

[Masterfade]

The UN declaration clearly states that there's no foreign ground intervention. They'd need a new one and it would probably get vetoed.

 

If the rebellion fails, everyone is somewhat more screwed.

 

The no boots on the ground clause was really for Western and Arab domestic consumption. Russia has no strategic interests in Libya and would gladly see oil price skyrocketing. China hates Gaddafi with a passion plus they're well oiled by the Saudis. Also both countries would LOVE to see America being tied down in another ground war.

 

So those two countries will pay lip services to non-interventionism and seize this opportunity to stir up domestic anti-Western sentiments, but they will not use their veto powers.

[Meshugger]

Well, well, well. The big boys want to play some Realpolitik again. Is it completely impossible for us citizens to elect people into office that are not interested in playing the global game of geopolitics? Or have a missed some sort of prime directive here?

People tend not to vote for candidates who have "I am a huge sap, please take advantage of me" stamped across their forehead.

 

I think that i painted you the wrong picture there.

 

Since when is having a domesticly-oriented policy being equal to a weak character? Or are those people who put the interests on effective defense (as in defensive weaponry) and the benefits of their own citizens first inheritly weak people? What i am suggesting is a head of state that do not give two squats about a civil war in a country far away from theirs. Their damn problem. Oh, they got oil? They have a key strategic geographical position? Well good for them. Let them sort it out and we'll establish trade when the situation is more calm.

 

I think that there are more than enough people who would vote for those kinds of people, but correct me if am wrong on people actually vote because of the other alternative.

[Purkake]

The UN declaration clearly states that there's no foreign ground intervention. They'd need a new one and it would probably get vetoed.

 

If the rebellion fails, everyone is somewhat more screwed.

 

The no boots on the ground clause was really for Western and Arab domestic consumption. Russia has no strategic interests in Libya and would gladly see oil price skyrocketing. China hates Gaddafi with a passion plus they're well oiled by the Saudis. Also both countries would LOVE to see America being tied down in another ground war.

 

So those two countries will pay lip services to non-interventionism and seize this opportunity to stir up domestic anti-Western sentiments, but they will not use their veto powers.

That is a good point. I can see Russia and China continuing their trolling.

[bigcrazewolf]

Sorry but no. Taking sides in the civil wars of other countries is not only against one of the founding principles of the UN (Charter art. 2.7), it's also something very likely to backfire, immediately or down the road. Further, in this particular case, the rebels are just about defeated and all the allied strikes have achieved is prevent government forces from dealing the coup de grace. How do you figure we help them "seek freedom"?

 

Well if the UN can't help protect the people of Libya that have tried to rise up and remove a crazy dictator -not a government because it's definition doesn't exist in Libya- what good is the UN. Weather you support it or not the change going on in the ME will continue, and it will be for the better....I truly believe that's what these people are fighting and dieing for better lives more freedom. They did ask for the worlds help and we answered to little to late, they should just go after the head and remove him. I guess Ron Reagan was more of a visionary than thought not only did he help remove the Berlin Wall he tried to kill Moammar Gadhafi , shame it didn't happen then.

Edited March 24, 2011 by bigcrazewolf

[Walsingham]

Sorry but no. Taking sides in the civil wars of other countries is not only against one of the founding principles of the UN (Charter art. 2.7), it's also something very likely to backfire, immediately or down the road. Further, in this particular case, the rebels are just about defeated and all the allied strikes have achieved is prevent government forces from dealing the coup de grace. How do you figure we help them "seek freedom"?

 

Well if the UN can't help protect the people of Libya that have tried to rise up and remove a crazy dictator -not a government because it's definition doesn't exist in Libya- what good is the UN. Weather you support it or not the change going on in the ME will continue, and it will be for the better....I truly believe that's what these people are fighting and dieing for better lives more freedom. They did ask for the worlds help and we answered to little to late, they should just go after the head and remove him. I guess Ron Reagan was more of a visionary than thought not only did he help remove the Berlin Wall he tried to kill Moammar Gadhafi , shame it didn't happen then.

 

I think the main purpose of the Un is to keep at least some public component to Great Power relations. It lets them trash talk rather than trash shoot. So, in that respect it's pretty good.

 

The only problem with the UN is the notion some people have acquired that it's an atheist Vatican, dispensing truth and justice. It's like trying to phone your mum on a shoe. The problem isn't the shoe.

[213374U]

I'd rather have some justice than no justice. And bacon.

Call me naive, hell, call me an idealist, but I'm of the opinion that justice and fairnes are if not one and the same, inextricably linked. When you propose that justice applies only when it's convenient, you are proposing a double standard dictated by economic reasons. This is fundamentally unfair, and so what you are doing is no longer "justice"... it's something else. It is my opinion that you cannot have "some" justice - you either have justice or you don't. This is the crux of the disagreement and I'm happy to let it rest.

 

And, again, it was not my intention to suggest that Russia or the PRC need to be next in line. You got fixated on the wrong part of the argument.

 

 

China hates Gaddafi with a passion plus they're well oiled by the Saudis.

I wish I could remember where I read it, but IIRC this isn't so. The main factor presently constraining further Chinese economic growth is, heh, their inability to acquire all the fossil fuels they need.

 

 

Well if the UN can't help protect the people of Libya that have tried to rise up and remove a crazy dictator -not a government because it's definition doesn't exist in Libya- what good is the UN.

The UN was conceived in the wake of WWII as an international forum, with lessons learned from the spectacular diplomacy failures that led to the war, in an attempt to prevent past mistakes to lead to a new world war that would most likely involve nuclear exchange. And the fact that we're here discussing this shows to what extent it was successful in that role.

[WDeranged]

I'm of the opinion that justice and fairnes are if not one and the same, inextricably linked. When you propose that justice applies only when it's convenient, you are proposing a double standard dictated by economic reasons.

 

Hear, hear.

 

One minute we're selling them weapons and buying their oil, handshakes and publicity photos of big manly hugs, the next we're bombing them, it's the duplicity and veneer of righteousness that rubs me the wrong way.

 

 

 

 

 

It occurs to me that a handshake from these men is equivalent to a mafia kiss of death.

[Monte Carlo]

LOL Sarkozy looks like he's giving The Colonel a full-on Masonic handshake from the position of the thumb-on-knuckle.

[WDeranged]

LOL Sarkozy looks like he's giving The Colonel a full-on Masonic handshake from the position of the thumb-on-knuckle.

 

Ha, could be, I was too busy wondering if Sarkozy was standing on stepladders.

[Zoraptor]

I'd rather have some justice than no justice. And bacon.

Call me naive, hell, call me an idealist, but I'm of the opinion that justice and fairnes are if not one and the same, inextricably linked. When you propose that justice applies only when it's convenient, you are proposing a double standard dictated by economic reasons. This is fundamentally unfair, and so what you are doing is no longer "justice"... it's something else. It is my opinion that you cannot have "some" justice - you either have justice or you don't. This is the crux of the disagreement and I'm happy to let it rest.

 

I agree, there's a fundamental principle at work that justice be applied fairly, evenly and not by convenience. It's ironic, because one of the defining characteristics of 'failed' or 'repressive' regimes and countries is that they have a might makes right approach to the application of justice. A state sanctioned torturer will not face justice for killing someone, neither will someone in the ruling circle or someone who is too powerful to piss off. Some random pleb though? String him up as an example.

 

I don't think it's really too much to ask that the UN has a better philosophy of justice than the rulers of Somalia, Libya or Burma.

[Gromnir]

I'm of the opinion that justice and fairnes are if not one and the same, inextricably linked. When you propose that justice applies only when it's convenient, you are proposing a double standard dictated by economic reasons.

 

Hear, hear.

 

One minute we're selling them weapons and buying their oil, handshakes and publicity photos of big manly hugs, the next we're bombing them, it's the duplicity and veneer of righteousness that rubs me the wrong way.

 

 

It occurs to me that a handshake from these men is equivalent to a mafia kiss of death.

 

...

 

does the english sell libya arms? am asking 'cause as of 2009, the United States refused to sell libya such stuff. were kinda a big deal when the U.S. considered engaging in "non-lethal" military hardware contracts with libya in 2009 following the payment o' reparations for past transgressions. some 'o the "non-lethal" jargon were kinda silly as it included such hardware as the c-130 (a transport/arlift platform that makes for an exceedingly effective gunship) but am recalling that the actual contract that were being discussed were for humvees.

 

*shrug*

 

haven't paid much attention over the last couple o' years, but it were our understanding that libya bought virtual all their military weapons from asian and european sources... and we thought that the english were not one such supplier... but we coulds be wrong. even so, am thinking that a photo wherein world leaders does not spit in the eye o' gadhafi is hardly showing hypocrisy. is tough to have meaningful peace deliberations After you has used your bodily fluids to insult the guy on the other side o' the table.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[WDeranged]

Unfortunately the British have sold arms to Libya, along with the French, Italians, Germans and lots of other nations to a smaller degree, I honestly don't know much about U.S. arms dealings but no round-up of dodgy handshake photos is complete without an American president somewhere.

[Gorgon]

If you worry too much about where your weapons end up you obviously don't have the particular constitution you need to be an arms merchant. Same story everywhere.

[HoonDing]

Qadaffi's a Jedi. I knew it.

[Walsingham]

I haven't checked ...

 

... I have now.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/20...s-exports-libya

 

As one might expect, this is interesting reading. If anyone has divergent data can you please post?

 

~~

 

Numbers and Zor. You gave me a good belly laugh as I recalled an earlier observation that to be a really top class cynic you have to have a heart. You two seem to be dopplering with festival abandon. No offence meant.

 

It seems logical to me that any effect delivered by a multi-authority system of systems is going to be harder to deliver than one under a single agency. By which I mean that international justice is harder to deliver than national justice. Yet even in national justice there is a recognition that justice must be economical. In theory both rich and poor have recourse under law. But my received impression is that johnny pauper gets the weakest public lawyers in almost all cases. So what I am saying is that if we cannot arrange justice nationally to the standards you advocate we are being childish if we expect those standards internationally.

 

Do not get me wrong. I have been arguing for years that crimes aginst humanity should be dealt with robustly, swiftly, and inexorably. Worldwide. But especially post Afghan and Iraq I see that doing so is expensive, and democracies - the very roots of the defence of human rights - lack the awareness or conviction to see such endeavours through.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Walsingham

[obyknven]

Gumer Isayev, Middle East expert and faculty professor at St. Petersburg State University, talks to Gazeta.ru about causes behind the conflict in Libya, Jamahiriya, the Green Book, and Russia

Edited March 25, 2011 by obyknven