Ray Jay wrote:Min X, to answer your question, we only intervene if a) one side tries to institute some form of crimes against humanity or b) Libya threatens to become a terrorist state. Other than that, we recognize our limitations, both military and financial.

And do you doubt, if civil war breaks out in Libya, that crimes against humanity would be committed? I think you could quite prudently take it for granted. Though, on second thought, since the definition is

particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion.

...it's possible that nothing which occurs there would meet these standards: a tribe or faction in control of a single city needn't be considered a "de facto authority;" what occurs in one city or region need not be deemed sufficiently "widespread;" what occurs ubiquitously but with no good reason or paper authorization need not be considered "systematic". One way or another it's possible to overlook almost anything. But if one were inclined to call a spade a spade, I'll lay you three-to-one odds right now that a civil war in Libya will entail more than a few instances. So then, according to you, we "intervene". What might that look like, RJ?

(I'm just being Socratic with these questions. Don't assume I'm entirely as cynical as I sound.)

Before I wrote "crimes against humanity", I tried "ethnic cleansing". That also didn't feel right. There's a lot of distance between the policies of "never again" and "the U.S. cannot be the world's policeman". Khadafy was threatening to go house to house and kill people. He has a history of terrorism, and I bet he's mad in some degree or another. He was going to do it. This one was a no brainer for me. The minions of the State Departments are going to have to figure out the right line. My view is that Bush erred in one direction and Obama almost erred in the other as it relates to Libya. Facts and circumstances. This is the real world.

As I said before, we intervene in the air with our allies as we are doing now. But some bad stuff will happen with rifles and guns. What can you do? The army should sit this one out.

x

You've got to be kidding. The Iraq alliance was much larger

]Well, there was a list of countries like Iceland and Paulau. But the US was well over 90% of the force. Especially during shock and awe.
Thats simply not the case this time. Plus, symbolically important, French Planes were first into action.
And also importantly, nations aren't lined up criticizing the invasion. French and German opposition to the Iraq invasion was quite blunt. Many smaller nations were also lined up critically and one can't say that the Arab world was supportive to the extent the Arab league made a request for an invasion. Can we?.
x

That's precisely what US military planners were saying to each other before Iraq.

Nonsense. They were fairly certain that they would be welcomed with flowers... Dick Cheney told them so.
The difference here is that there is a limited intervention, and that there are no boots on the ground.
Its an actual occupation that will create another Iraq or Somalia. One can't be ceertain what will come of a Libya left to its own devices to sort out, but that's self determination for you - unpredictable.
The intervention is really damned if you do, damed if you don't. Muddling along hoping for a positive out come where the Rebel forces win after Ghaddaffi forces collapse is perhaps optimistic. But the down side of not invervention is a blood bath followed by the continued presence of Ghaddaffi after his success.
There are lessons to be learned from Iraq. But in Iraq there was a manufacture of reasons for invasion, there wasn't a very popular uprising that was having early success. After Kuwait, there were doomed uprisings by the marsh arabs and the khurds but nothing that was as demonstrably popular as the current Libyan uprising.
But the last Iraq invasion ... the rationale was manufactured. This one, at least has occured without significant doubt. That there will be critics who were once supportive when there are casualities is a given, They have no right to expect a bloodless, perfect intervension.

So enforcing UN No Fly Zone sanctions is a "manufactured Reason"
But a no fly zone sanction is acceptable
Enforcement of the sanction is the problem?
So we allow the Iraqi's (Or Libyans now) to shoot at planes and boldly flaunt sanctions without fear of any reprisal? That's how it works?

The difference here is that there is a limited intervention, and that there are no boots on the ground.

Please could you expand on this thought? What makes this intervention limited? Involving ourselves in a civil war by protecting one faction and bombing another doesn’t seem too limited in my mind, but I’m willing to be convinced.

The difference here is that there is a limited intervention, and that there are no boots on the ground.

If by the situation in Iraq and Somalia we mean “chaos”, then I must say that the suggestion that aerial bombings without a corresponding deployment of ground forces does not lead to a similar situation is an interesting one.

Should we be intervening in the Libyan Civil War?

(I haven’t really made my mind up on the goings-on in Libya, but for the sake of discussion and as I begin to through the events and their consequences, I’m writing some reasons for why we should intervene.)

Let’s try and make the yes case.

Firstly, we may save some people from being brutally suppressed, which is a nice addition that lends some legitimacy to our action.

Arguably, more importantly, however...

The uprising and subsequent Civil War in Libya presents an opportunity for Western powers to gain substantial influence in an oil producing state. Its proximity to Europe as well as its easy oil-extraction process makes it a lucrative state to hold.

This is not to say that the purpose is to invade and conquer Libya in the fashion that colonial empires acquired states. It is an endeavour to install a government which is amenable to opening the Libyan economy to greater degrees of foreign participation and control. The Heritage Foundation lists Libya as a “closed” economy, but if a new government is in place then this could change. After all, the National Oil Company (NOC) if left intact would be a considerable war-prize for whichever business tycoon is able to acquire it. Then we can also replace the fine technology that has been damaged in the air-strikes, perhaps giving the new government a discount.

So what, we have mix-motives? Saving lives and having some people get rich.

Hey, Ricky...

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions...

Aren't these guys your heroes?

(Sorry... couldn't resist. Ignore me as I suggest you ought the next-to-previous post.)

Here's the real issue: you say Iraq had a manufactured rationale but imply our intervention in Libya is solidly grounded in sincere and legitimate motives - presumably of a non-mercenary, non-imperialistic nature. However, what Ghaddafi is doing isn't substantially different than what's occurring in Yemen or Bahrain. The differences are 1) a matter of scale and visibility, 2) the fact that we don't like Ghaddafi (much as we didn't like Saddam) but "can work with" Saleh and Hamad, and 3) the rebels in Libya are Sunni but in Yemen and Bahrain are mainly shi'a and thus threaten to increase Iranian influence. Another key difference is that oil shipments from Libya have been curtailed. No EU government seemed anxious to intervene before that became true. It's irrelevant in Yemen but important to note is not the case ion Bahrain. Also, it wasn't the case with Saddam prior to the invasion. Libya provides fully 10% of the EU's oil. When the left was saying Iraq was all about oil and the right was denying it I said to my fellow conservatives, "of course it's about oil - and rightly so." Now I say to the left: this too is about oil. Prediction: concerns about civilians and the desire to spread freedom and democracy will begin to recede quickly as soon as full oil shipments are restored. I mean, are we seriously expected to believe that the French are acting because they care about the kind of life led by poor people in Libya???

All this is important because the facts on the ground are sure to change and our governments will be altering policies as that happens. What you support today will influence where they go tomorrow. By supporting intervention today you're going quite a ways to giving them the freedom to alter course a bit as things evolve, and not only is there no guarantee that you'll like the new direction as much as you like what you think the present one is, history has shown IMHO that you're much less likely to support the evolved mission. No one has gone out on a limb predicting how things will evolve, so just know that by encouraging your government to intervene you're pointing them toward unknown territory. How quick will you be to do an about-face if/when you cease (or should cease) liking their rationales so much? It can be hard to admit error. It's definitely hard to end a military intervention once it's begun. We're still in Kosovo.

By pointing up similarities with Iraq and other events I'm not trying to pull an "I told you so" or score some "ain't you a hypocrite" points. I'm trying to make sure we don't fail to learn history's lessons because we feel the need to harden partisan positions and resist suggestions or points being made by those with whom we usually disagree. I usually disagree with all those far-left legislators listed in my quote, but I can certainly appreciate the point they are making. In order to justify intervention the UN had to find that the events in Libya "constitute a threat to international peace and security." But do they? If so, hows can it be that events elsewhere - we can all name many places - don't qualify for intervention? Libya is (or was) a member in good standing of the UN. (Very good standing - a prime spot on the Human Rights Council!) As such they have the right to govern their own internal affairs. The UN Charter: "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..." And in the critical Article VII we can read that the Security Council can authorize military forces to "take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations." Nothing there about interfering in a member's abilities to police the activities of its citizens, within its borders, which are illegal according to the laws of the member nation.

The lessons of history. If you can't be sure about what you're getting into, if you can't define "victory" clearly and easily, if the Prez and Sec'y of State publicly differ on war aims, and if you're about to do something in an oil-exporting nation that you'd probably not do in an oil-importing nation, THINK TWICE BEFORE ACTING.

----

Ricky: you posted a quote of me saying "That's precisely what US military planners were saying to each other before Iraq," and replied "nonsense." I'm not sure what you find nonsensical. Here's the full context of what I'd written:

"QUESTION: what do we do if/when Ghaddafi and his loyalists surrender and the rebels start fighting each other for control of the country?" The only semi-direct answer so far is Ricky saying: "as the situation changes the next move can be calculated." That's precisely what US military planners were saying to each other before Iraq.

Wasn't "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" what US military planners said? And didn't we all criticize them for lack of foresight? Poor preparation for post-combat activities? Failing to consider that the conflict might morph?

note: cross-posting with Magister Equitum.

I mean, are we seriously expected to believe that the French are acting because they care about the kind of life led by poor people in Libya???

Between 2008 and 2009 France went from being the top exporter of arms to Libya to falling behind Italy, Malta and Bulgaria in terms of the value in Euros. Of course, the initial spike the year prior (2008) is due, in a large part, to considerable acquisition of French aircraft (contracts worth 80€m) which was surpassed in 2009 by a contract worth 107€m which went to Italy.

In 2009 alone, Italy sold over 2€m to Libya in bombs, rockets and missiles and over 107€m in military planes. Germany sold over 9€m in Ground Vehicles and over 43€m in Electronic Equipment, while France and Portugal sold 17€m and 14€m in military aircraft respectively.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... libya#data

Continuing with the Yes case, let’s say we happily destroy the valuable equipment we’ve sold them and then re-negotiate contracts with the new government (the Government officially recognized by France) for quite a sum. Who knew that fighting for democracy could be so profitable?

x

No one has gone out on a limb predicting how things will evolve, so just know that by encouraging your government to intervene you're pointing them toward unknown territory

Not to get all Zen master but, "Who can be cerrtain of any future?"

I think the major difference with Libya is that the lesson of Iraq and Somalia was that you can't successful occupy a country with a hostile population unless you have absolutely overwhelming force. And maybe not even then. And, barring immediate and majorly positive improvements in living conditions and hopes for the future, you should expect any nation that is occupied to become hostile to the occupiers in a fairly short period of time.
You can, however, with superior weapons tip the balance in a war. Which is what the situation in Libya is...
I don't think the contradictions of supporting Libyan rebels and not supporting Yemen or Bahrain are lost on anyone. However, there is something to be said for letting people fight for their own freedom.
Again, a contradiction with Libya, except that in the case of Libya the outcome was pretty much determined until the intervention... And except that in Yemen there seems to be progress being made .
Bahrain? A situation where Saudi Arabian oil is TOO important.
Again, with the need for energy independence... (How long has this failure gone on? You can blame Carter, Reagan, BUsh, Clinton and Bush for a failure to free the US nation from dependence on a despotic Medieival society. Muslims too! Odd isn't it, that the US isn't free to act on its democratic instincts because it really isn't economically free?)

x

Wasn't "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" what US military planners said? And didn't we all criticize them for lack of foresight? Poor preparation for post-combat activities? Failing to consider that the conflict might morph

?
All true. But in the case of Iraq it was, "let's invade and occupy anyways."
In Libya its, "well lets bomb a few of Ghaddaffi's thugs and see what happens."
I'd say the second reflects a cautious approach and the former arrogance.
In other words, a lesson has been learned from Iraq and before it Somalia.

You can, however, with superior weapons tip the balance in a war. Which is what the situation in Libya is...

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that prior to the United Nations’ action, Colonel Gaddafi was losing the Libyan Civil War. If some country (let’s say Russia or China) decided to intervene by supporting Gaddafi, would that be appropriate?

In Libya its, "well lets bomb a few of Ghaddaffi's thugs and see what happens.

If Saddam’s thugs had surrendered after an aerial and naval bombardment and the country had maintained a sense of order the Coalition wouldn’t have had to send in ground forces. We know, of course, that this wasn’t the case. The objective being regime change in Iraq, it was recognized that ground forces would be needed. The objective – though not mentioned anywhere in the UNSC Resolution – is largely the same in Libya. A recurrent theme in the speeches delivered by many world leaders is that Gaddafi has to go. In the event that he doesn’t succumb to repeated bombardment, what course of action would you recommend?


Amongst its chief concerns, the UN Resolution focuses on the protection of civilian life. This means little unless we have a working definition of what constitutes a civilian. Are the rebel forces – armed and fighting – considered civilians?

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that prior to the United Nations’ action, Colonel Gaddafi was losing the Libyan Civil War. If some country (let’s say Russia or China) decided to intervene by supporting Gaddafi, would that be appropriate?

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

The objective being regime change in Iraq, it was recognized that ground forces would be needed. The objective – though not mentioned anywhere in the UNSC Resolution – is largely the same in Libya.

The ground forces in Libya are the Rebels or revolutionaries or whatever. There was no internal resistance of note in Iraq so no "ground force". (There was a shiite militia hiding out in Iran, but they weren't very powerful and being aligned with iran weren't acceptable. Of course many now hold positions of authority in the new Iraq govenrment.)'

The key difference is that in Libya the revolutionaries have invited and beggeed for an intervention. In Iraq at the time of the invasion there was no such internal plea from a viable alternative. Indeed exiles like Allawi had to be put forward by the proponents of invasion. And they ended up being percieved as outsiders and became not unlike carpet baggers.
Put it this way, if the french who intervened in the American revolution (There were more French at Yorktown then Americans) had decided to stay and occupy the Americas would they have been welcomed? Probably not. Same thing in Libya. The less the outsider is involved the better.

and what happens if (when?) gaddafi starts hiding antiaircraft guns in schools, mosques and hospitals? What then? Pack up and go home or take them out accepting the civilian casualties? Or take them out with ground forces?
If you expect him to play fair you live in a dream world.

tom

and what happens if (when?) gaddafi starts hiding antiaircraft guns in schools, mosques and hospitals? What then? Pack up and go home or take them out accepting the civilian casualties? Or take them out with ground forces?
If you expect him to play fair you live in a dream world.

It wasn't as if Ghaddaffis forces were a paragon of military ethics before the intervention.

If the Ghaddaffi ground forces, having been bombed by the french, fold - then what? reports from outside Benghazzi were that the Ghaddaffi forces ran, many leaving uniforms. There's every liklihood that much of his support will crumble. And that the rebels may be adequate to deal with the rest, especially if the rebels can freely advance with close air support
If Gahddaffis forces hole up and fight it out house to house in Tripoli it could indeed get ugly. But that was a prospect before the bombing too.Bombing hasn't changed that possibility.
And again, if its Libyan revolutionaries fighting on the ground to take the hardliners...the collateral damage from that event will be bad, but they'll own it.
I doubt either side will play fair.... right now I'll bet the Ghaddaffi forces don't think its fair they have missiles and bombs landing on them. .

and I still ask
How is this different from Iraq?
Those soldiers also fled
the same prospects were there before the Iraq bombings as well

The similarities are so much the same yet you support one but not the other?
and more and more Arabs are siding against us, what happens when they start siding in greater numbers? Will you flip your position at that time?

Tom, aren't they simply different because we landed troops in Iraq whereas we are just in the air with Libya?

If Iraq was violating the no fly zone in 2003, then the correct response was to shoot down their planes, and not to invade with marines and army. Do you see that?

The comparison to Iraq in 1991 is more interesting to me. Aftwer Kuwait was liberated, the US instituted a no fly zone and encouraged the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds, and maybe the Shia to rebel against Hussein. Schwarzkoff appealed to GHWB to include Iraqi helicopters in the no fly zone restriction, but Bush refused. As a result, Hussein was able to fire on his own people with helicopters and the rebellions was crushed and the rebels were killed in an unfair fight.

Fortunately or unfortunately, we are all learning when and how to intervene in the Arab world and we are gathering more data all the time. Using hindsight, it seems to me that a correctly policed no fly zone with international support including the destruction of mechanized armour (when it will be used to fire on people) is just right. We don't allow slaughters, but we don't put boots on the ground, unless it is to liberate a country (e.g. Kuwait).

so far
But Iraq started with only air, it required troops to be sent in later
What happens here if any of those other things happen?
Antiaircraft batteries are hidden in schools? A power vacuum leads to unrest? Gaddafi takes all humanitarian aid and keeps it from the rebels? Etc etc
The differences are so slim and the way things are going, it';s getting more similar by the day. The only difference is France backs this one, what about Russia? They are against this, I guess they don't matter? And if/when they continue to flaunt UN rules, how do react? Simply go on and let Gaddafi do what he likes until when? Until how many more are killed? What about when Arabs hate us for being there?

Also funny
This rebellion is suddenly just and fair, the people are armed to fight the government, why it was just a few days ago we heard how rebellion can never be right, a populace with arms can never be right, peaceful demonstrations are the only answer?