U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Air Strikes Against Libya...is this appropriate for the US to do at this time?

I’m torn. The non-interventionist libertarian side of me is screaming that any support we offer will inevitably come back to bite us in the ass and we can’t afford and shouldn’t get involved with this sort of thing. The gung-ho giant pair of balls half of me is saying that Qaddafi is a piece of shit, the rebels are losing, and we need to go put our boot up his ass to help them out.

I guess there is a reason why I don’t work in foreign policy… ...yet.

I’ve been ambivalent about this and it seems the administration has been too. On the one hand, I don’t think the United States should begin another military intervention; on the other, I think of genocides that have happened while the world stood by. I definitely don’t think the US should intervene on its own. However. at this point, I think the world is a day late and a dollar short; it seems like Qaddafi is winning. The time to act was two weeks ago..

Now? We wanna get involved now that the rebels are losing?

I am very much in two minds about it. It seems wrong to leave people who simply want freedom to the mercy of Gaddafi’s army but at the same time it is an internal Libyan affair. Whatever we do or don’t do is going to be wrong.

No.

Great. More money to fight for U.S. business’ interests.

A no fly zone won’t do any good. Qaddafi’s land and sea forces are now reorganized and are more than capable of beating the rebels without air power. The air power would make it easier and less costly to his soldiers.

If we are not willing to support an immediate ground campaign against Gaddafi, a no fly zone won’t change the outcome.

A no-fly zone requires first that you wipe out their anti-aircraft capability. Doesn’t that mean you pretty much have to wipe out their ground forces?

This could be like Iraq in the 90s where a large part of the country was effectively taken out of Saddam Hussein’s hands.

I’m completely torn on whether or not we should be involved, and @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard explained it better than I could, so I’ll leave that there.

The part I’m grateful for is that we’re actually discussing it with other countries and the UN before just charging in guns blazing. Having some sort of international consensus (even a disputed consensus) and discussion with other parties can only be a good thing in my opinion.

No, it’s not.

Part of me wants to support the rebels. Qaddafi is clearly an insane despot.

On the other hand, Libyans did not have to violently rebel. Qaddafi hasn’t used more force than (for example) the US used against rebelling Iraqis. This would also set a terrible precedent that if you violently rebel against a dictator, America will save you.

Also, and just as important, it’s not clear at all that a no-fly zone or any sort of air power maneuvre will be successful in driving Qaddafi out of power, and even if it is successful, I haven’t heard jack shit about what our forces are supposed to do if (or more likely when) the resulting power vacuum explodes into civil war.

This op-ed makes a good point: nonviolent resistance in the middle east has worked much better than violent resistance. The Libyans did not have to violently rebel. That was their choice, and now they have to live with it.

Nonviolent rebellion only works when the government security forces are unwilling to use the necessary force to quell the rebellion. The other arab countries drew their military from the population, and most were unwilling to fire on their friends and neighbors to quell the resistance.

Egypt, Tunisia and the other arab countries are not the same as Libya or to a lesser extent Yemen. Yemen is using force to put down the resistance also, they are just going about it more quietly than Libya.

The loyal Gaddafi forces are built around cadres of mercenaries from outside the country. They have no vested interest in the well being of the civilian population. As long as they get paid they will carry out their orders.

If we were “bad-assing” it we would have gone in without asking anyone else. It’s not the US involved in this. However, it may be too late.

Yes.
A complaint from the population in the Middle East is that the US tends to support any king or moron despot as long as they satisfy the American oil ambitions in the area. This approach worked for a while. Now it does not.

The US should get behind the rebels against the status quo. Otherwise, we will be forced to drill for oil in our own reserves. And God forbid, the left side of American politics would ever concede to sign on to that.

So, a left leaning American president simply MUST authorize a move that will keep Middle Eastern oil fields accessible to the Western interests.

Otherwise, he will have no choice but to harvest our own resources. But if he does that, he loses an election.

So lets get ready to shoot Libyans.

@WestRiverrat, I have yet to see any strong evidence that the bulk of pro-Qaddafi forces are foreign mercenaries. The rebels alleged this, apparently on the basis of skin color more than anything (black people also live in Libya). I have serious doubts that the well-formed forces attacking Benghazi now are mostly foreign mercenaries.

Also, despite his rhetoric (and frankly Qadaffi’s rhetoric is always insane), he hasn’t actually used all that excessive force against the rebels. He’s instituted a media blackout, he’s probably tortured a few people. But there has not been anything approaching outright ethnic cleansing (which was the justification for us bombing Bosnia).

I mean, compare Qadaffi’s actions to Bahrain. They actually did get foreign mercenaries (1,000 troops from Saudi Arabia, apparently their special forces), who violently put down the protests. What happens if the protesters in Bahrain turn into an armed rebellion and call for NATO airstrikes?

@josie, I’m not really sure what your position is from your comment. Are you saying that you personally think we should bomb Libyans so we don’t have to drill for oil on American soil? Or are you claiming that this is Obama’s line of reasoning?

@josie How do US oil reserves compare to Libyan?

As for US money being squandered into another front, I don’t think it will add that much. Probably already a US carrier group within striking distance and those pilots will be back before dinner. A no fly zone would have been more useful a couple weeks ago since Qaddafi’s fighters pretty much have the opposition where they want them now.

The French and British will be joined by Jordanians, Egyptians and 3 other Arab states taking lead roles. The US will likely provide satellite surveillance, AWACS Air Traffic Control and precision strikes with drones and cruise missiles.

I hate war and hate seeing people have to get blown up when they are hopelessly outgunned, but if we stand by and let an egomaniac like Qaddafi crush the opposition, which he has the power to do, he will then round up and torture to death millions of his own people to death. Anyone whom he suspects of having been involved in opposing his dictatorial rule will be killed. Women and children related to anyone on the list will not be spared. Even Russia and China, nations who may want to use military force on their own people, didn’t want that much blood on their hands for sitting back and letting genocide unfold.

+ 1 on the rebels receiving no quarter. Qaddafi says they can just quit and run away and they’ll be good to go, bullshit. They are going to be hunted down just to make examples of them. There will be a purge.

The U.N. is doing too little too late. If the Libyan military was blocked a few days ago, the rebels would have kept what they won. Now, I think it will turn into a blood bath like Iraq and Hungary when the U.S. encouraged revolution but failed to back up their words with action. I predict that in a year or so, we will be sending ambassadors trying to get back on Gaddafi’s good side.

Never trust the State Department of any administration.

@Ron_C Time will tell. The UN Authorized “All necessary force.” So once a no fly zone is imposed, the ground radar and triple A is out, the allied forces will have total air supremacy over Libya. That means they are free to take out Qaddafi’s tanks and artillery, and fly cruise missiles into his various known locations if need be. I think you underestimate the resolve of the Egyptians. Libya is on their Western border, and they will be flooded with a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions unless Qaddafi’s forces are turned back from Benghazi.

@ETpro you are a true optimist. I’m rooting for your side but I’m planning to be on the losing side again.

In my opinion, a NATO force of British, French and German troops in combination with Arab forces e.g. from Egypt and Saudi-Arabia would be ideal. I disagree with my government’s decision abstaining from the UN Security Council vote.

There are also US interests involved. I think the main reason for supporting the resolution was the fear that other Arab dictators could follow Gaddafi’s example slaughtering peaceful protesters creating unrest in the whole region. A good example is Bahrain right now. Iran is a serious danger (far more serious than Iraq was in 2002) and Bahrain is a key ally.

So the US will join this effort. It might not be ideal, but from my point of view it’s appropriate. The effort will potentially save thousands of lives of citizens in Bengasi.

Well, I will eat my words. Qaddafi has just declared a ceasefire in response to the resolution.

If this statement reflects reality, this is basically the best possible course of events.

What the UN needs to do now is help ensure the rebels also stop shooting and take Qaddafi up on his offer of doing a “fact-finding mission.”

And I still have no idea what to do about Yemen and Bahrain, especially if the protesters start fighting back in earnest.

He might have declared a ceasefire, and grounded his planes, but according to the State Department his ground troops were still advancing towards Benghazi.

@Qingu Remember also that Qaddafi denied all knowledge of Pan Am 103 before he admited he ordered the plane downed. A few days ago, he claimed that outside instigators including the Americans and al Qaeda working together were spiking the young people’s drinks with osychadelic drugs to make them pour into the streets in demonstration. His cease-fire just means “Doesn’t bomb us, we need more time to kill everybody in Benghazi.” The French are hosting an emergency meeting of the allies tomorrow. I expect they will believe their own lying eyes seeing the shelling continue more than they believe a honest hombre like Qaddafi.

@ETpro, my problem with your statement is that you are assuming that Qaddafi will kill everyone in Benghazi.

The strongest argument by far for intervention is that bombing Libya will prevent a genocide. But I have yet to see evidence that Qadaffi actually intends to commit genocide.

He is dealing with an armed rebellion against his government. It’s a rebellion he instigated through decades of illegitimate dictatorship, but he certainly hasn’t acted worse than Saddam Hussein did against Iraqis. My problem is that I am failing to see any sufficient justification for our attack on Libya beyond what was used to justify invading Iraq.

I don’t think this is the end of the world, or even nearly as bad as invading Iraq was. I’m not opposed, in theory, to the idea of a World Police, or America playing that role. The UN’s unanimity on this gives our intervention some legitimacy. More importantly, if it works, it works—and it might. I’m just uncomfortable with the risk, and with the justifications.

Also, it’s certainly possible, probable even, that Qadaffi is lying about the ceasefire; it would be naive not to expect him to cling to power with force.

On the other hand, I don’t think it’s entirely clear cut. He did give up his nuclear program after Iraq. He does seem to fear American power; he also has shown a desire to cooperate with Europe. (I also remember reading somewhere that he is a fan of Obama.)

He’s a megalomaniac, and he’s certainly a little insane, but he’s not as crazy as he is often portrayed. At least, he doesn’t act irrationally, just bizarrely. I suspect many of his speeches sound less bizarre in Arabic, (considering that the holy text and literary foundation of Arabic is, like much of what Qadaffi says, also a series of rambling diatribes). He has not acted irrationally in response to the protests/rebellions.

Like most dictators in the region, he has tortured people and committed atrocities. I suppose you could argue that his material support for terrorists puts him beyond the pale even of someone like Mubarak or al-Khalifa. But, he seems to have recanted of this in his cooperation with the Bush administration after Iraq.

So basically, I’m not sure that all adds up to “let’s bomb him no matter what he says.”

@Qingu Qaddafi has a long history of using secret police and paid snitches to sniff out any opposition to his prepetual rule, having the entire family arrested, tortured and eventually killed—sometimes in gruesome public displays. We can just sit back and wait to see if he plans to be a nice guy now that there has been a rebellion. Let’s remember that this didn’t start as an armed rebellion, it started as peaceful protests in the streets. It turned into an armed rebellion when Qaddafi ordered the army and security forces to fire on unarmed protesters.

Would you trust him to play nice, and then take action only after he kills hundreds of thousands of his own citizens? He, of course, will say all the while that nobody is being killed and that the missing people have just gone on a trip to some far-off resort. And of course, he will not invite Al Jazeera reporters into his torture chambers to verify his story.

Qaddafi is most certainly lying about the ceasefire. Reporters in Libya have been sending out live video all day of the shelling. Ambulances could not even get into Ajdabiya to evacuate the wounded because the shelling was so heavy..

His forces fired on protesters and they turned into a violent rebellion. It should have surprised no one that he would then use military force on the rebellion.

What if this happens in Bahrain or Yemen? (Yemen forces just killed several dozen protesters; Bahrain employed a thousand foreign mercenaries to use force against the protesters). What if the protesters start burning government buildings and using artillery, and the governments respond with military force? Are we supposed to intervene then, as well?

If you say “yes,” I wouldn’t think you were an evil warmonger, but I’m also very uncomfortable setting the bar that low for airstrikes, which cause tremendous damage and typically end up killing lots of civilians. At minimum, there would need to be worldwide cooperation and some indication that airstrikes could actually drive out the government, but that’s like the bare minimum.

If he is stalling for time with a fake ceasefire, I don’t blame him. It’s not an honest move but it’s fairly rational if he is actually preparing to wait out the airstrike campaign.

I think we have to look at each situation for what is actually going on there, not make broad-brush parallels. In Yemen, the protests are intended to overthrow the government and replace it with a fundamentalist Islamic one under Sharia law and sympathetic to al Qaeda. Such a new government would offer al Qaeda a new safe haven. In light of that, it makes perfect sense to me not to help the protesters achieve their objective. I do think that the US State Department will being pressure on the government to refrain from deadly force unless attacked. Today’s shootings were by people in civilian clothing firing from rooftops. President Saleh claims that he gave no such order, and that these were just people loyal to him taking the law into their own hands. We will see about that.

Bahrain is a sectarian struggle. The government is Sunni, and the protesters are Shiia. Saudi Arabia provided troops to help the government maintain control because they, as a Sunni state, already feel pressed by having Iraq now a Shiia state allied with Shiia Iran and on their border. That “improvement” in Iraq was thanks to our intervention in there. So it is clear this area is a tinderbox and can blow up in our faces when we intervene.

In truth, I don’t know what we will get in Libya if the rebels prevail. Some countries truly cannot be ruled by anything short of a strong-arm dictator or monarch. I think that Iraq may be one such country and know that Afghanistan is. So I am not as sanguine about this as I may sound. But I also know, after having made statements of support for the protests in Tunisia and then Egypt and Libya; the whole world would say Obama had blood on his hands if we stood by and watched Qaddafi carry out a genocide.

Yesterday, Gaddafi said he would honor the resolution. It’s early Saturday morning over here and his troops are still attacking Benghazi. Enforcing the resolution will probably start today.

http://www.fluther.com/115277/enforcing-un-resolution-1973-in-libya-which-military-strategies-will/

The press conference in Paris is about to begin.

French fighter jets have already entered Libyan airspace to conduct reconnaissance missions.

@ETpro, is that really what’s going on in Yemen? I know that there is an al-Qaida safe haven there, but I was not under the impression that Yemeni protesters were largely fundamentalists. I also seriously doubt that Saleh is as benign as you say.

Calling Bahrain a sectarian struggle misses the more important point: like Iraq, the country is ruled by a Sunni minority through despotic means. There are many more Shia in Bahrain but, through oppression, they are an underclass.

I also don’t see why American foreign policy needs to ensure that Sunnis win over Shia in the area just because we don’t like Iran. Iran’s theocracy isn’t any worse than the Saudis’ anyway.

And there is no good evidence that Qaddafi was going to carry out a genocide. There had not been genocides in the cities he already conquered. Brutal strikes and civilian casualties, yes, and his rhetoric is scary, but genocide is another level entirely.

But, I’m glad you’re not as sanguine as you might sound, and I’m also probably not as opposed as I might sound. If it ends up working, then that will be good.

On the other hand, the more I think about it, this entire military strike seems to have been through the pressure of two very conservative, very stupid people (Sarkozy and Cameron) and Hillary Clinton, who never met a war resolution she didn’t vote for… and the fabled Arab League and African League who supposedly supported the airstrikes are now nowhere to be found. I can’t help but think this is a clusterfuck in the making.

@Qingu I made no claim about President Saleh being a benevolent leader. I simply said that his claim that the shootings were not on his orders may prove to be true, and that we should wait and see. Saleh is a strong-arm leader who was elected by the North Yemeni Parliament in 1978 and has ruled since. In one of the many wars and political intrigues between North and South Yemen, he was responsible for killing over 10,000 Yemeni people but this was in open warfare. While he is no cream puff, I seriously doubt a Pollyanna President would survive to do any good if elected in that nation. Read up here on the tribal and religious rivalries that divide that nation.

As to Bahrain, I do recognize that the Shiia are the majority there and that they have been repressed by a ruling Sunni minority. I just don’t think that is of such concern of the US government or the world community that we should contemplate armed intervention there as well as in Libya. The impact of such a move would be devastating to US interests in the Middle East and relations with the Arab world, which is predominantly Sunni. I hope you do not believe we invaded Iraq to free the poor, oppressed Shiia from Sunni oppression. And what of the oppression the Shiia are now visiting on the Sunnis in retribution? Wouldn’t the same be the likely result of an intervention to install a Shiia government in Bahrain?

I am saddened to see brother killing brother over stupid religions arguments about who should be the successor of Mohamed. It is beyond clear that neither side knows what their own Koran says or they wouldn’t behave so violently toward one another, or toward other ’‘People of the Book’’. But I think that the dispute is one best worked out among themselves in Bahrain’s case. And we may well have made a bad situation much worse with our intervention in Iraq—at least from the viewpoint of the average Iraqi. Emir Bremmer made the situation there wonderful for Western oil interests and the IMF and World Bank.

@ETpro, I think we invaded Iraq to rid the world of a cruel dictator who committed atrocities against his own people. At least, this is the only legitimate reason that remains after all of the other justifications proved based on bullshit and hysteria. I also think the fact that Saddam was sunni and the majority of Iraqis are shia is probably incidental to this (i.e. if Saddam was Shia and the majority was Sunni the justification would have been the same… though of course then we wouldn’t have the support of Saudis).

And hence my whole problem with Libya. The justification for invading Libya is the exact same as our justification for invading Iraq.

Now, in Bahrain, you warn that toppling the Sunni dictator would lead to massive retribution by the oppressed Shia (and certainly this is what happened in Iraq). But this could also happen in Libya. Granted there isn’t religious sectarianism at play, but you don’t need religious sectarianism to fuel a campaign of retribution post civil war… and the racial aspects are equally troubling (the rebels are mostly Arab, while the loyalist forces and “mercenaries” seem to have many more black Africans).

I just think that when it comes to intervening in other countries, there needs to be some kind of consistent reasoning. I am worried that the takeaway of our Libya adventure for the average middle eastern protester is “If you burn government buildings, seize arms, and violently rebel against your dictator, the UN will bail you out if you start to lose.”

@Qingu – The justification for invading Iraq was the development of WMDs. Libya is different.

Ridding the world of a cruel dictator was also floated as a justification for Iraq along with WMDs, and after it turned out there weren’t WMDs was repeatedly cited as the justification by the Bush administration.

@mattbrowne Libya’s development of WMDs was nearly as advanced as Iraq’s in the 80s. After Desert Storm, Libya renounced WMDs in exchange for US aid and unfreezing of Libya’s assests in the US.

If he survives this incident, I expect him to resume his research.

@Qingu I recognize the risk that the Libyan situation may devolve into a de factp military coup with a new evil dictator replacing the old. But I do not think that justifies watching perhaps a million people be slaughtered by Qaddafi. And the stated justifications for Iraq weww elimination of a WMD program we already knew didn’t exist, stoping a nuclear development program we knew didn’t exist, and breaking up an al Qaeda connection that didn’t excist till our destabilization of the nation enabled it. Since then, sectarian violence and al Qaeda violence has arguably killed more Iraqis per year than Saddam ever did. I don’t expect an outcome anywhere near that grim in Libya.

Libya is 96% Sunni. There are tribal loyalties, and Qaddafi’s tribe may suffer reprisals. Particularly the hard-core loyalists who help him carry out his torture and human rights violations. I can only hope we prevail on whoever wins to take such actions through the world court where possible. As to the mercenaries , I haven’t much sympathy for them. Most will high tail it over the broder if they see the regeime is about to fall.

Granted it is a messy situation, but the messiness of doing nothing seems far worse than stepping in, particularly since in was under the invitation of the arab League and the UN Resolution 1973. That’s a very far cry from the cowboy diplomacy that Bush used in Iraq.

Oh, and the Saudis are Sunni, so they would have been all for overthrowing a Shiia Saddam, but were not at all happy with creating a client Shiia state for Shiia Iran so close to them.

@ETpro, a million? The country only has 6 million people.

Again, I don’t really disagree with your points, just with your hyperbole. I think it’s very important to keep Qadaffi’s brutality in perspective, and not exaggerate it—since this brutality is the de facto reason we’re using military force.

(It’s a shame we have so many threads about Libya – it’s hard to keep up.)

One parallel no-one has drawn is with the NATO intervention in Bosnia and the imposition of a no-fly zone there. In its multi-lateralism and lack of ground war, this seems so far to be more of that kind of military action. I hope it will stay that way.

@Qingu I make no claims to being a fortune teller, but there were over a million people in Benghazi, Misrat and surrounding areas alone. Many would have died in the shelling, bombing and door-to-door fighting he would have used to regain control of the Eastern cities. There are well over one million living in threatened areas. Benghazi’s population is about 670,797. Misrata has 507,069 and Ajdabiya 108,771. There are a strong of smaller Eastern cities as well with populations of 50,000 to 90,000 +.

Based on his past performance, Qaddafi would likely round up everyone he suspected of sympathizing with the rebels, torture them till they named others, then kill them and repeat the process on all those they named. He siad he would show them no mercy, and on that point, I would take him at his word.

The world community failed in Rwanda. I’m hopeful that we have learned this lesson.

@mattbrowne I find it strange that the U.N. resolution specifically says that they don’t want to capture of kill Qaddafi. The simplest and quickest resolution to the problem would to be to capture the leadership. I have already heard that a power plant and oil lines have been destroyed as a result of U.N. action. It looks like this is going to be another Iraq. We are again involved in a middle-eastern civil war. Thank goodness Bush is not in charge, I fear, however that we may end up with ground troops in the country and take on another nation building project while we ignore nation building in our own country. It seems that there is only so much democracy to go around. Every time we attempt to build a democratic country, our own democracy diminishes.

@Ron_C – We should respect the wishes of the Libyan revolutionaries. They want to capture Gaddafi. We also need the support of the Arab League.

@mattbrowne I wouldn’t mind if we were just supplying air support for an Arab League strike on Qaddafi, I do have a problem when we seem to be leading the attack.

I hate the idea that an American soldier would die to protect freedom in Libya when liberty in this country is under an extreme attack from within. We may need our own military to control the extremists that took power during our last election. We especially need the National Guard to come home.

@Ron_C – The Arab League does not have the military experience to lead a multi-national engagement. America will transfer the leadership to NATO over the next couple of days. NATO will then include the Arab countries that offered to participate like Qatar and UAE.

@mattbrowne I hate the idea of us becoming involved in another middle-east situation, it never ends well. We either get entangled with another dictator selected by the moneyed interests or we expend our man-power and money building a country. Neither choice is acceptable. Remember what happened in Iran. They had a democratically elected President but he wouldn’t follow the American lead. We deposed him and installed a CIA trained butcher who could follow orders. I can easily see similar things happening in Libya and all of the countries over there. If we really wanted democracy, why didn’t we go after Saudi Arabia. They actually financially support extremist sects? This, like all of our moves are mercenary acts supporting international big business. The U.S. military has now become the enforcement arm of international business. Our soldiers are fed a brainwashing diet of patriotism and democracy and die for the financial gain of the richest people in the world.

@Ron_C – I agree that non-American NATO forces and Arab forces should take over a large part in this. I understand your concern. But we need to keep in mind that the engagement has avoided a humanitarian catastrophe.

Of course @mattbrowne you are correct but I have a lot of trouble trusting U.S. “diplomacy”, I keep having flashbacks on the Bush administration. We can only hope that Obama isn’t as big a liar.