No Fly Zone over Libya - Rhetoric/Implications

[AtLast]

The rhetoric in the US concerning a no fly zone over Libya has been turned up high the last couple of days by President Obama. A vote in the UN is scheduled within a couple of hours. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/03...authorizes-pl/

Speaking at a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama said he had instructed the Departments of State and Defense to present him with a "full range of options," explaining that he did not want the United States to be "hamstrung" in any possible situation.

Like many, the idea of further US military action in this region is quite troubling for many reasons. Obviously, a US action of any kind without Arab nation support would be negative.

It would be great to get the thoughts of members from all over the world (we have a very geographically diverse geographic membership). Certainly those with military backgrounds (and family members serving) might have a lot to say.

Separating rhetoric and news "bite" angles is important- so, post your thoughts, ideas and sources. I would like to hear what others have to say about this.

[AtLast]

http://www.nypost.com/Page/Id/5.4.41...C7F81F8229C72E

More Print The United Nations Security Council authorized military strikes on Libya Thursday evening, as US and European officials said air attacks against Col. Moammar Khadafy's forces were possible "within hours."

The Pentagon was already fine-tuning military options for "serious" strikes against ground and air targets should the White House order them, said US defense officials.

They said options included using cruise missiles to take out fixed Libyan military sites and air-defense systems.

President Barack Obama late Thursday spoke to UK Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy about the UN Security Council resolution authorizing military strikes on Libya.

A Libyan rebel loads ammunition in the center of Benghazi.
In the phone calls, the leaders agreed to coordinate closely on the next step to take and to continue working with Arab and other international partners, the White House said.

Manned and unmanned aircraft could also be used against Khadafy's tanks, personnel carriers and infantry positions, with sorties being flown out of US and NATO bases in the southern Mediterranean.

"There is significant, serious planning going on right now," a US official said. The options would be "more aggressive than a show of force."

The assertive US posture marked a turnaround from the early days of the month-old Libyan crisis, when President Barack Obama's administration seemed reluctant to embrace military action.

The president appeared to have found himself facing two unpleasant possibilities: Adding a third military commitment to the wars already underway in Afghanistan and Iraq, or watching Khadafy defeat -- perhaps brutally -- a rebellion sparked by regional pro-democracy uprisings.
"If Gadhafi stays, he will do terrible things to Libya and her neighbors," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a visit Thursday to Tunisia, Libya's neighbor to the west.

The UN vote came on a day in which Gadhafi's forces advanced amid heavy fighting towards Benghazi, the de facto capital of rebels.

Officials said the goal of international military action would be to protect civilians in Benghazi, push the government's forces back, and sow enough confusion and disorder within Libyan military ranks that officers would turn against the longtime dictator.
"The US doesn't want a war," an Obama administration official said. "But we want to prevent a slaughter."

Celebratory gunfire erupted in eastern Libya after satellite TV channels reported the approval of the Security Council resolution, with rebel supporters chanting "God is Great" and the Arab revolutions' slogan, "The People Want the Downfall of the Regime."

The US, UK, France, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Colombia, South Africa and Portugal all approved the resolution.
Dr. Khalid Kaim, Libya's Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, appeared before the media in Tripoli after the vote to thank China, Russia, Brazil, Germany and India -- the five counties that abstained.

Kaim said the resolution threatened the unity of Libya and said any country that armed rebel forces was inviting Libyans to kill one other.

In Benghazi, under threat by Khadafy's troops, the rebel administration unleashed fireworks seconds after the vote. In the port city of Tobruk, tracer bullet volleys lit up the sky.

The US has enough planes and military assets in place to begin strikes almost immediately, a defense official said. A European official said the rapid advance of Gadhafi's forces on rebel strongholds meant that allied nations would need to move quickly.

The officials said this would include both the establishment of a no-fly zone to neuter the Libyan government's air force and offensive attacks to push back loyalist positions approaching Benghazi.

"We will have to take action within hours, not days," said the European official.

The status of Arab participation in any military action in Libya was unclear. US and European officials stressed the importance of having Arab states take part in any coalition, both logistically and financially, after the Arab League backed the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.

Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were among countries that discussed the possibility of assisting the US and French governments in Libya, according to Arab and European diplomats.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...#ixzz1GudM6uZW

[AtLast]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=13164938

Obama Gives Gadhafi the Ultimatum: Stop Violence or Face International Military Action
U.S. President Stressed that Europe, Arab States Would Lead Military Action Against Libya, if Needed


-----

Other news says there has been a cease fire.

[AtLast]

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...tml?id=4470418

[AtLast]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42164455...ica/?gt1=43001

Allies launch first attacks against Gadhafi forces in Libya
French jets fire on alleged military vehicle as West seeks to halt advance on key city

[AtLast]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...72J47020110320

[iamkeri1]

A L H
I don't think you intended this thread as a place to which you alone will return on a fairly regular basis to post news about the Libyan situation, so I'm going to post - and interject my opinion.

I am unequivocably opposed to this intervention. I am opposed to any intervention by the US in another countries political situation. No matter how it turns out, we will be vilified by the Arabic press and nations while it is going on, and long after it is over. I do feel for the people of Libya. My usual desired cure for a deranged leader of the likes of Khadafy is assasination, preferrably by a member of his own government. It eliminates the problem quickly while reducing the number of lives lost.

In addition to my predictable, reliable, historic, constant, lifelong, opposition to interventions of this kind, there are other considerations at this time.

We are already enmired in two other military actions in the mid-east. Our Army is weary and over-worked. Our legislators, after having extended huge tax cuts to the ultra rich, are fighting over which non-military programs to reduce or defund altogether. Most safety nets for the poor and middle class are targeted for reduction or elimination. The actual targets, or course are medicaid and medicare, and then on to Social Security. No cuts are acceptable to military spending, however, even cuts recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff are being fully funded.

So my question is this - it is certainly a familiar question.
How are we going to pay for this intervention?
How are we going to pay for this intervention?
How are we going to pay for this intervention?
?????????????????
Smooches,
Keri

[mustangjeano]

Keri,
I am on the same page with you. I was holding my head and talking to the TV when I heard the news. Our country has ignored horrible situations in other parts of the world but we must intervene in Libya? It strikes me as hypocritical.

[EnderD_503]

I'm opposed to Western military involvement in Libya at all. Perhaps if it was as simple as "fighting for democracy," but I don't think the West's intent is as kind hearted as that.

It once more smacks of Western imperialism and don't think that UN should be taking sides here. I find it beyond coincidental that Western nations are particularly interested in Libya's "fight for democracy" when Libya possesses the largest oil reserve in Africa. Additionally, over 80% of Libya's crude oil is exported to Europe. As far as why France and others are opposing Gaddafi rather than the rebels, there might be a few reasons and I don't particularly believe that the UN is all that interested in democracy in Libya (probably about as "interested" as the US was in democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq). One could be that Misratah is one of Libya's major ports.

What supports the theory of oil once more being of more importance than democracy is the fact that the West did not see fit to involve itself in any other of the revolutions or rebellions that occurred throughout Africa and the Middle East. Oddly enough, Libya seems to be one of the only locations of Middle Eastern/North African rebellion where democracy is actually threatened by organised Islamic extremists posing as "freedom fighters" (Afghanistan/Taliban all over again?) moreso than the present leader (in this case Gaddafi).

Bahrain is currently going through a similar upheaval, and yet the West obviously doesn't give a shit enough to get involved there (or anywhere where oil isn't threatened for that matter). I suppose Bahrain is not a strategic enough location for the West. But it is apparently important to other Arab states with oil interests in Bahrain, who entered Bahrain for the specific reason of protecting oil interests. Rather telling. The difference between the two approaches is likely that the West likes to add a little decorum to its greed.

So why get involved in the only country with significant amounts of oil to export. Why support potential Islamic extremists?

I honestly do think it all comes down to economic greed. The West, despite having the resources, has yet to come up with an alternative form of energy that is as immediately convenient as oil. Because of this greed, I'm not sure that the Middle East will develop into democracies any time soon largely due to Western involvement and continuous unsettlement. Iraq was one example of the West completely disrupting an Arab nation that was growing closer to becoming a democracy. With the Middle East still being ridden with Islamic extremists that want to take the region backwards, men like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and others were what was necessary to keep them at bay and to move the Middle East forward. And it was working.

While I fully support democracy in the Middle East, I'm not sure many nations are really at the point where they can have leaders who will not take an iron fist to Islamic extremists (the kind Hussein was charged with killing/trampling on their "human rights." The truth is, that's part of what was bringing Iraq toward progress. Even Christian Iraqis were saying that they'd never felt safer than when under Saddam...but he wasn't playing the role the US wanted him to play, heaven forbid).

Additionally, the unfortunate side of many of these revolutions (and past rebellions in the Middle East) is that it is a mix of average people who just want to live in a democratic nation, leftists and, the most organised of them all, Islamic extremists (who are unfortunately among those calling themselves Freedom Fighers in Libya) like the Islamic Brotherhood. It's unfortunate, but true, hence why Gaddafi may be much better for Libya than the alternative.

Edit: Also wanted to add that I find it very interesting that Germany has decided to diverge with their usual ally on this one (France). Continues to confirm my suspicions that the German government has had more of a head on its shoulders with Angela Merkel in power than neighbouring France under Sarkozy. Also, reading some of Putin's comments I find myself agreeing there, and I think it's important to listen to what Russia's saying here.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

A L H
I don't think you intended this thread as a place to which you alone will return on a fairly regular basis to post news about the Libyan situation, so I'm going to post - and interject my opinion.

I am unequivocably opposed to this intervention. I am opposed to any intervention by the US in another countries political situation. No matter how it turns out, we will be vilified by the Arabic press and nations while it is going on, and long after it is over. I do feel for the people of Libya. My usual desired cure for a deranged leader of the likes of Khadafy is assasination, preferrably by a member of his own government. It eliminates the problem quickly while reducing the number of lives lost.

In addition to my predictable, reliable, historic, constant, lifelong, opposition to interventions of this kind, there are other considerations at this time.

We are already enmired in two other military actions in the mid-east. Our Army is weary and over-worked. Our legislators, after having extended huge tax cuts to the ultra rich, are fighting over which non-military programs to reduce or defund altogether. Most safety nets for the poor and middle class are targeted for reduction or elimination. The actual targets, or course are medicaid and medicare, and then on to Social Security. No cuts are acceptable to military spending, however, even cuts recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff are being fully funded.

So my question is this - it is certainly a familiar question.
How are we going to pay for this intervention?
How are we going to pay for this intervention?
How are we going to pay for this intervention?
?????????????????
Smooches,
Keri

LOL... nope, I so want other people to weigh in. I was thinking- "Shit- doesn't anyone care?"

[AtLast]

I have to say that my usual response to such events do tend to be about western oil concerns, interfering with other nation's sovereignty, tribal contingencies, etc. However, recent events in the Middle East wherein the common people are standing up to tyrants and for human rights issues- has me doing a lot of thinking and doing research. There are numerous Face Book pages by just folks in these countries that have not been around before.

The role of social media and youth in these countries in terms of movements against oppressive governments/leaders and even religious ideology feels different to me. Consequently, I am trying to gain new perspectives and not fall back on some of my past opinions.

Also, I do live in an area in which there are several middle eastern family businesses and new neighbors. talking with them does bring me to re-thinking global interventions. I have not yet formed any particular stance with the No-Fly Zone in Libya and the UN resolution. I am finding that I just can't revert to my usual stance- which would be more left-wing in nature.

Yes, I am concerned about the US getting into yet another quagmire military situation, the cost to us and I don't trust the fact that Libyan sweet crude is the major type of oil used for heating in western European countries (the ones joining in this action). Yet, I don't want to dismiss the social movements that have been rising in the Middle East. What is changing in these countries? Why are these movements robust at this time? Am I understanding fully what a people that have been ruled under such oppressive regimes live with? What are international obligations here in terms of these movements? Or, am I falling prey to just another brand of propaganda?Anyone else have feel this way? Or, have helpful links, etc.? Guess my jury isn't out yet. I need to think further- read material- guess just kick it around more!

So- any an all thoughts on these subjects are welcome!

[Glenn]

Well uh..I thought we only imported 17% of our oil from the middle east??? I think we are living in a time of great fear, and the rest of the civilized world should swoop down on these petty dictators wherever they pop up.. Last I heard it's France, US, Britain,? Russia told US and the others, to stop attacks on Libya cause it's allied with red china now?..china now,is nearby to showcase it's naval might. www.cnn.com-Fareed Zakaria reports. This may turn into WWII!... honest, Folks.

[EnderD_503]

@AtLast,

Personally still not thinking the UN is as benevolent as it claims to be, and I continue to think this is all about oil. If Sarkozy and David Cameron were so concerned about Gaddafi they wouldn't have been so friendly as to be selling him weapons/weapons systems a few months back (again, are we not seeing a pattern here?). And if it wasn't, then why would the West only be extending military aid to a country with a rich oil supply that exports 83% of its crude oil to Europe? Why not get involved in Egypt? Why not get involved in Tunisia? What about Syria? What about Algeria? Apparently Libya is the only one worth taking a military stance on. Again, the West benefits from a destabalised Middle East/North Africa.

I also wonder if the French elections are playing any role on Sarkozy's stance, which is something else to consider.

Yes, I am concerned about the US getting into yet another quagmire military situation, the cost to us and I don't trust the fact that Libyan sweet crude is the major type of oil used for heating in western European countries (the ones joining in this action). Yet, I don't want to dismiss the social movements that have been rising in the Middle East. What is changing in these countries? Why are these movements robust at this time? Am I understanding fully what a people that have been ruled under such oppressive regimes live with? What are international obligations here in terms of these movements? Or, am I falling prey to just another brand of propaganda?Anyone else have feel this way? Or, have helpful links, etc.? Guess my jury isn't out yet. I need to think further- read material- guess just kick it around more!

I totally share your concerns about people taking a stance on the oppression they face. But unfortunately there is a danger to it. Most of the people protesting against their respective dictatorships right now are not members of organised groups, and there are no real organised groups ready to replace Gaddafi should he step down or be forced out. The reality is somebody has to take his place if he's to step down. The only organised groups ready to step in and take control of the country are Islamic extremists. So yes, I think people should want to free themselves from dictatorship. However, the problem is that they may be freeing themselves of one dictator that is leading the nation to some semblance of prosperity and eventual democracy, and may very well lend themselves in the hands of religious extremist dictators who would be far, far worse and, instead, be leading them backward. What is worrying is that, at least in Egypt there seems to be a clear intent about the direction the protestors want to go that won't be likely to allow the Islamic Brotherhood to take hold of the country. Particularly interesting is that there are some women's rights groups who are speaking out particularly loudly at this point. What is worrying is that doesn't seem to be the case in Libya, and it seems more likely to fall to religious extremism rather than further toward democracy.

Do we really need more Middle Eastern and North African nations in Iraq's/Afganistan's shoes? If the West were actually concerned about democracy in Libya or any other such country there would be far better ways to support it than to go in guns blazing...that much is for sure. Right now the West just seems set on destabalising another North African/Middle Eastern oil nation.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

@AtLast,

Personally still not thinking the UN is as benevolent as it claims to be, and I continue to think this is all about oil. If Sarkozy and David Cameron were so concerned about Gaddafi they wouldn't have been so friendly as to be selling him weapons/weapons systems a few months back (again, are we not seeing a pattern here?). And if it wasn't, then why would the West only be extending military aid to a country with a rich oil supply that exports 83% of its crude oil to Europe? Why not get involved in Egypt? Why not get involved in Tunisia? What about Syria? What about Algeria? Apparently Libya is the only one worth taking a military stance on. Again, the West benefits from a destabalised Middle East/North Africa.

I also wonder if the French elections are playing any role on Sarkozy's stance, which is something else to consider.



I totally share your concerns about people taking a stance on the oppression they face. But unfortunately there is a danger to it. Most of the people protesting against their respective dictatorships right now are not members of organised groups, and there are no real organised groups ready to replace Gaddafi should he step down or be forced out. The reality is somebody has to take his place if he's to step down. The only organised groups ready to step in and take control of the country are Islamic extremists. So yes, I think people should want to free themselves from dictatorship. However, the problem is that they may be freeing themselves of one dictator that is leading the nation to some semblance of prosperity and eventual democracy, and may very well lend themselves in the hands of religious extremist dictators who would be far, far worse and, instead, be leading them backward. What is worrying is that, at least in Egypt there seems to be a clear intent about the direction the protestors want to go that won't be likely to allow the Islamic Brotherhood to take hold of the country. Particularly interesting is that there are some women's rights groups who are speaking out particularly loudly at this point. What is worrying is that doesn't seem to be the case in Libya, and it seems more likely to fall to religious extremism rather than further toward democracy.

Do we really need more Middle Eastern and North African nations in Iraq's/Afganistan's shoes? If the West were actually concerned about democracy in Libya or any other such country there would be far better ways to support it than to go in guns blazing...that much is for sure. Right now the West just seems set on destabalising another North African/Middle Eastern oil nation.

Thanks for your take on these things- I know, it is damn hard to justify these actions with such a history about oil and politics and religious extremism.

And I have been thinking about why the US and other western nations never went into African nations slaughtering people like ants in the past. With Libya, it is obvious that western European nations have a direct link to the "sweet crude" in Libya.

It does make me crazy that leaders in these countries have ruled with iron hands and ripped off the people taking oil money and common people live in poverty. No social services, intra-structure. Nuts, when you think about how much money is involved which is a resource of the people. They end up without education and opportunity and these ruling families stash the money away.

So hard to trust politics!

[DomnNC]

The fact of the matter is that the military never releases all the pertinent facts for going into another country. There are things that we do not know, that are not put out to the general public, as in Iraq, I know a couple officers who have served over there, one I think is going back. He very plainly stated to us one day NOT to believe what we hear on the news or in the papers, that we'd never know the truth, it's a freaking classified mission for petes sake, however he did state the reason that we went in was indeed the truth, that WOMD were indeed found, that was all he would say about it. Heck, Hussein was gassing his own people with chemical warfare (chemical warfare is WOMD). Do you know what a freaking painful death that is? As far as Iraqi's claiming they felt safe with Hussein, I ain't buying it, I never heard that, matter of fact the people I know that served in the military state just the opposite, they would run up to the US guys and tell them they were glad to see the US come in there and rid the country of him. Heck their own people couldn't wait to execute his lousy ass and they did, that wasn't the US doing it. His own people tried, convicted and executed him.
Just like Gaddafi, shooting on his own people, dropping bombs on civilians, killing kids. The US just doesn't decide to go roaring into a country on it's own, it's UN sanctioned whether you like it or not, again, they really don't give all the reasons and the details of the mission because that stuff is classified, it's not for public consumption, else it's passed onto the "enemy" so to speak. Gaddafi was given numerous chances to stop firing on innocent civilians, he refused, he lied and said he did but he didn't, he wasn't just fighting and shooting/bombing the rebels. He was given days to comply. Clinton did the same thing in Bosnia, sent a few bombers over and the genocide stopped. We didn't go in with ground forces, there was no need to do so. I'm sure this was the intended reason for bombing Libya's air bases, to stop them from dropping bombs on cities and killing tons of civilians, and as far as has been reported that's all that has been hit, air bases and army bases. We haven't gone in with ground forces and as far as they've said there is no intent to do so. Then again, we the general public, are never privy to the full scope of the mission, ever. So people can hypothesize and speculate all they wish.
We have no idea or not if there are people ready to step in and lead the country if Gaddafi chooses to leave, that'd be a little silly saying well so and so is going to temporarily take over when he does leave, who do you think Gaddafi or some other extremist group will go after upon hearing that news? There was no one planned to step in for Hussein either, they held elections and elected their officials after the fact.
I was in the military, you go on missions blind, they sometimes don't even tell you what the mission is til you get there. They just tell you to pack up and be ready to deploy, a lot of times you don't even know where you're going til you get there. It's just the nature of the beast.

[DomnNC]

I think that sometimes the reason we don't go into other countries, like some of the smaller nations is that they don't have a military per se, they don't have the bombers, the tanks, the missles etcetcetc to use against their people.

[Words]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

It does make me crazy that leaders in these countries have ruled with iron hands and ripped off the people taking oil money and common people live in poverty. No social services, intra-structure. Nuts, when you think about how much money is involved which is a resource of the people. They end up without education and opportunity and these ruling families stash the money away.

So hard to trust politics!

This doesn't apply to Libya.

I worked in Benghazi for almost a year way back in the early 80s and I can vouch for the fact that although Ghadaffi is indeed a total head case (don't even get me started on his 'Little Green Book') - http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...0-quotes/full/ - he has done a lot of good for the Libyan people as a whole.

True, there's not much in the way of democracy, Ghadaffi being the power hungry nutcase that he is, but even way back when I was there, there was plenty of education and opportunity. Libya actually has quite a long history of spending small fortunes on educating its new generation of young graduates abroad, all expenses paid, to ensure that they get the best possible education. Obviously, it has motives for doing so but even so, it would be wrong to say that educational opportunites have never existed/do not exist today.

As to poverty, to the best of my knowledge, all Libyans have access to food, healthcare, and shelter - which is a lot more than can be said for many living elsewhere, democracy or no democracy.

Words

[Words]

Libya's education record...(note: highest literacy rate in the Arab World).

http://www.infodev.org/en/Document.412.pdf

[AtLast]

Something that is continually on my mind concerning this action (and what is going on throughout many nations in this region) is if what women endue everyday in many Arab countries will be addressed in some global manner. Stats for Eqypt show that over 83% of women across socio-economic lines are sexually abused and harrassed throughout their lives.

I have reservations about this action, yet there is a part of me that wonders about how Libyan (Eqyption as well) women view the possible collapse of this regime. Women are raped and harrassed in these countries on a regular basis. I don't accept the concept of cultural relativity as an excuse/reason for the treatment of women as shit in any nation.

Do women in Libya and throughout the Arab world see that they their daughters may have a different life if this tyrant is removed? Or, do the rebels even think about women's rights and treatment?

If Libyans are better educated, how does this apply to women? And are women included in living a freer life within more democratic Arab nations? Will they be part of future social and political institutions?