Wow. I had forgotten that, Tom. Whoever could it have been that said that?

Tom, you seem to be arguing against hypotheticals and strawmen, and even hypothetical strawmen.

I say the US uses air power and doesn't land on the ground. If anti-aircraft batteries are hidden in schools, you make a facts and circumstances judgement.

You may be confusing Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003. In Iraq 2003 the US was going in with ground forces unless Hussein gave up power, which basically had less likelihood than me being struck by lightening right now. In Libya we are not even contemplating sending in ground troops.

As a general rule, one can only protest non-violently when power has a conscience. It worked in Egypt; not so much in Libya.

and Gaddafi is going to willingly hand over the reins to his government?
In Libya we are certainly not thinking of sending ground troops ...yet
What I did state was "what if" and those what if's are very very possible

Ray Jay wrote:Tom, you seem to be arguing against hypotheticals and strawmen, and even hypothetical strawmen.

I say the US uses air power and doesn't land on the ground. If anti-aircraft batteries are hidden in schools, you make a facts and circumstances judgement.

You may be confusing Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003. In Iraq 2003 the US was going in with ground forces unless Hussein gave up power, which basically had less likelihood than me being struck by lightening right now. In Libya we are not even contemplating sending in ground troops.

As a general rule, one can only protest non-violently when power has a conscience. It worked in Egypt; not so much in Libya.

It will be interesting to see if Ghadaffi can be removed with just rebel ground forces and UN-sanctioned airpower. I am dubious.

If I'm right, then what? A split country with an on-going struggle for power? Mission creep?

Rickyp,

I'm keenly interested in hearing more about the points you've presented regarding the distinction between Iraq and Libya. Of course, I think we recognize that the logistics of both campaigns are distinct. For the most part, however, we’ve been discussing the objectives of the initiatives.

I apologize for asking so many questions, but I find it quite useful in coming to better understand your thoughts on the subject.

I earlier posed the question regarding the legitimacy of intervention if it had been conducted in favour of Gaddafi and at the expense of the rebels. You responded:

No. Especially without the stamp of approval by the Arab league and the UN.

So I then ask: Had the Security Council authorized intervention in favour of Gaddafi, would that be legitimate in your opinion?
While the Security Council is a highly esteemed body, to claim that the largely political body – which is perhaps more devoted to preserving entrenched interests rather than advancing the cause of international law— unquestionably determines what is and is not a legitimate course of action seems, to me at least, to suggest that the Council is infallible.
Do you think the UN SC is inerrant?

The ground forces in Libya are the Rebels or revolutionaries or whatever

The mandate of the UN Resolution is to prevent the loss of civilian life, not to support an insurgent group in seizing power. Even in the absence of Western ground forces, I don’t think we can call our action a humanitarian intervention if the outcome is to aid in the revolutionary overthrow of the Libyan Government.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that it is illegitimate to intervene in a Civil War. If intervention is in our interest, I’m all for it. (After all, I’ve been trying to make the yes case on the basis on self-interest)

The key difference is that in Libya the revolutionaries have invited and beggeed for an intervention

Those who are losing always plead for help. In your opinion, what makes the voices of the revolutionaries more legitimate than those of Gaddafi supporters? That is to say: what gives strength to the voices in favour of intervention versus the voices calling for non-intervention?

BTW, why did you guys give up on capturing OBL and bringing him justice? Here's a great little blast from the past, almost down the memory hole so to speak.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that it is illegitimate to intervene in a Civil War. If intervention is in our interest, I’m all for it. (After all, I’ve been trying to make the yes case on the basis on self-interest)

I was planning on deleting this portion of the post but in case anyone read it it would be improper of me to suddenly remove the section. That being said, I wish to correct this comment.

Having never experienced any sort of military combat -- the loss of life, the destruction etc.-- it is not really my place to make a broad statement such as the one above. At any rate, I apologise for this crass remark.

magister

So I then ask: Had the Security Council authorized intervention in favour of Gaddafi, would that be legitimate in your opinion?
While the Security Council is a highly esteemed body, to claim that the largely political body – which is perhaps more devoted to preserving entrenched interests rather than advancing the cause of international law— unquestionably determines what is and is not a legitimate course of action seems, to me at least, to suggest that the Council is infallible.
Do you think the UN SC is inerrant?

Of course the Security Council is a political body. What organization representing many many different stakeholders isn't? Particularly in governance issues. Since we evolved from the forests, governing has always been about finding better and better ways to resolve conflict (minor and major) . The imperfect body that is the UN represents but one more step in this evolution. None we've taken so far have been perfect, and I doubt, that we will ever achieve perfection in this or any matter. But we can also seek to improve...

The idea that the UN and the Security Council provide legitimacy to the Libyan intervention is only because the community of nations affords the organization and its institutions credibility by supporting and abiding by its admittedly creaky and imperfect mechanisms.
However, the stamp of legitimacy has been granted. As has the assent offered by the Arab League. An even less "perfect" body with an even patchier history.
It isn't often accomplished. The Korean War was the first example . But when it is, it can help resolve problems. The resolution of peace between Egypt and Israel was achieved after years on involvement by UN peace keepers along those borders. The conflict in Cyprus benefitted from many years of UN peace keeping.
This intervention isn't perfect and we can't know the out come with certainty. But to deny the attempt to stop a genocide because we don't know with certainty what the final resolution will be would be particualrly cowardly.
The concept of the UN is that we do owe our fellow humans certain basic protections. That the UN hasn't always acted upon them in the past is also not a reason to discredit this particular effort.
We make progress where we can, and take the good when we can ... All the time knowing that though we seek a perfect solution some good is better than sitting on the sidelines and witness our failure to intervene have devastating consequences. (Think of General Daillaire and Rwanda)

Magister Equitum wrote:Having never experienced any sort of military combat -- the loss of life, the destruction etc.-- it is not really my place to make a broad statement such as the one above. At any rate, I apologise for this crass remark.

And this is why I am usually reluctant to be a supporter of military action. I'm not a complete pacifist, but I am not at all comfortable with being a cheerleader for a war I won't be risking my own skin in fighting.

However, I do understand that you were being rhetorical, ME.

Now, I've been a bit distracted over the past week, and a hell of a lot has happened since I last posted. Some while back, MX or JJ asked me to clarify my point about some of the opposition being recently associated with the regime. I was not thinking of the diplomats etc, but of the main guys on the National Transitional Council. The head, and several others are all ex-ministers or ex-military. Omar Hariri was with Gadaffi when he launched the 1969 coup. Now, it may be that they've all had an attack of conscience, or were always uncomfortable with Muammar's ways and saw a chance to be open, but there may be more to it.

What we have now is not just a No Fly Zone. We (mainly the French, who have the capability and importantly the political capital as opposed to the US and UK, but under US leadership and at some point maybe under NATO) are also attacking Libyan units on the ground which are nothing to do with air defence or attack. We have chosen a side. It looks like the good side, and it may well be. But there are other potential conflicts where our choice in Libya may conflict with our desires - Bahrain and Yemen are places where the protesters/insurgents are perhaps less clearly our pals, but are also being violently repressed.

And then there is the other problem. UN 1973 is fairly broad but does have limits. If the conflict is quick and if the rebels win, then all would seem to be fine. But if Gadaffi still wins, or if the war becomes a stalemate, mission creep is a real issue.

(I'll avoid the UK-centric debates about whether it was right for the UK to be pressing for action despite not having an aircraft carrier or Harriers any more, and about how come with all these austerity cuts we can afford to send Tornadoes on 8-hour round trips to chuck millions of pounds worth of military hardware about)

danivon wrote:But there are other potential conflicts where our choice in Libya may conflict with our desires - Bahrain and Yemen are places where the protesters/insurgents are perhaps less clearly our pals, but are also being violently repressed.

Did you mean to cast Bahrain protesters in that light? Maybe I missed a news story relating to them, but as far as I was aware they are basically peaceful protesters being violently repressed by the government. Libya by contrast is an armed civil war.

They are largely peaceful, but they are also Shia, and there are links to Iran (in Yemen, the leader is Shia and the opposition Sunni, with some of them being linked to Al Qaeda).

Oh, and some of the same countries who called upon us to intervene in Libya have sent troops to back up the Bahraini regime.

Quagmire.

off-topic
Found this just now in a story at web site of ABC News:

U.S. partners like Italy want NATO to take charge but some of its members, like Russia and Turkey, have expressed skepticism about the goal of the U.N.-backed air strikes and the potential of civilian casualties

I welcome Russia to NATO membership!

HERE is the link but they'll probably correct it soon.

Minister X wrote:off-topic
Found this just now in a story at web site of ABC News:

U.S. partners like Italy want NATO to take charge but some of its members, like Russia and Turkey, have expressed skepticism about the goal of the U.N.-backed air strikes and the potential of civilian casualties

I welcome Russia to NATO membership!

HERE is the link but they'll probably correct it soon.

Interestingly, there have been several calls to allow Russia in--a few examples.

LA Times

Der Spiegel

American Thinker

However, it seems to me that until/unless Russia is at least not a thugocracy we would be wise to keep them outside the only multi-national structure we can occasionally rely upon.

I know you (MX) are not calling for it. I do find it borderline insane that anyone would think this is a good idea. The Russians have no problem opposing us--even on what should be basic issues like non-proliferation.

Of course, the ABC writer was likely just engaging in wishful thinking. In his/her worldview, all countries are equally benign. In his/her next article, North Korea is a permanent, veto-carrying, member of the UN Security Council.

Here is an interesting article from The Atlantic that discusses the increasing probability that Egypt is headed towards a continued military dictatorship. From the article;

In the last two months, that regime has made clear how strong it feels. In September, in quick succession the military extended the hated state of emergency for another year, effectively rendering any notion of rule of law in Egypt meaningless; unilaterally published election rules that favor wealthy incumbents and remnants of the old regime, and that disadvantage new, post-Mubarak competitors; indefinitely postponed presidential elections, and refused any timetable for handing over authority to a civilian; reinstated full media censorship, threatening television stations and imposing a gag order on all reporting about the military; and the country's authoritarian ruler, Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, unleashed a personal public relations campaign on state television odiously reminiscent of Mubarak's image-making. Furthermore, the government advanced its investigation of "illegal NGOs" that allegedly took foreign money, including virtually every important and independent dissident organization.

Now the article doesn't say it is definite. The author specificially says there is still a chance the Liberal activist maybe able to pull it out but the probablity is diminishing quickly.

Considering the fact that the military used violence to quell Christian demonstrators this past weekend seems to lend the article some veracity.

It is a worry. What is also an unknown is how the people who demonstrated earlier this year will react if the military do crack down.

It looks like the military decided to stave off popular unrest by making it look like they were changing things (and ousting Mubarak was a crowd-pleaser). I also wonder if events in Syria have emboldened the military as well. They may well have looked at Libya and been worried that too much of a reaction would bring a forceful response, but given that Syria has done just as much now and not been stopped (and that the Libyan regime was far less popular in the West than the Egyptian one), think that a crackdown and re-establishment of military control (as per Sadat and early Mubarak years) will not be challenged much.

I expect that if they combine that with a continuation of not-particularly-anti-Israel policies, they'll be expecting no challenge at all from the US.

The one that has gone very quiet is Tunisia, where it all started.