Doctor Fate wrote:I'll be listening for a plan Monday night. I'm not optimistic. There is no reason for me to be.

There might be one. Since the allies have intervened, while Ghaddafi certainly hasn't surrendered or stopped shelling civilian areas, it seems he has stopped shelling oil installations and threatening to do so, and the rebels have retaken Ajdabiya, which is an important oil terminal city. If I am correct about protection of oil flow being the #1 motive of the EU (and without their urging the USA would never have intervened), it's possible that before long the threat to the eastern infrastructure will be so reduced that we can stand down. Only 20% of Libya's output comes from the western fields and pipelines (which connect up through Sicily directly to Italy). A divided Libya, where 80% of the oil flows from a semi-stable east and 20% from the Ghaddafi-controlled west, might be sustainable for a while. In other words, one way or another, the critical "war aims" of the US-EU-Etc group might be achievable. If not a partition, perhaps a situation where the fighting is limited to the center of the country, where there are no oil installations. Or maybe a sub-rosa understanding that fighting will avoid the oil.

I don't envy Obama's task. Do you recall how the Bush Admin. came up with many good reasons to invade Iraq? And how Bush and others spoke often to the question of justification? Yet at no time could they spell out a truly convincing case. They couldn't lay it on the line and give some of the real reasons behind the action: 1) Saddam had finally made enough mistakes that the UN had to vote some hard resolutions - we had a small legal opening but that window would soon close; 2) strategic location of Iraq relative to all the other sensitive parts of the region; 3) Saddam's amazingly increasing popularity across the Muslim world due to his (up 'til then successful) thumbing of his nose at the USA and the resultant loss of respect for American power; 4) France and Germany were about to completely drop out of the sanctions regime, making a farce of our continued efforts to enforce it. It would have taken a communicator better than Reagan, Obama, FDR and Demosthenes combined to explain all that accurately and thoroughly but without destroying alliances and getting impeached.

How is Obama supposed to explain Libya if I'm correct about oil-for-the-EU being the main reason we're there? You wanna' write that speech?

But that's not the good news. The good news is that I'm working on a Diplomacy variant based on this crisis.

Minister X wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll be listening for a plan Monday night. I'm not optimistic. There is no reason for me to be.

There might be one. Since the allies have intervened, while Ghaddafi certainly hasn't surrendered or stopped shelling civilian areas, it seems he has stopped shelling oil installations and threatening to do so, and the rebels have retaken Ajdabiya, which is an important oil terminal city. If I am correct about protection of oil flow being the #1 motive of the EU (and without their urging the USA would never have intervened), it's possible that before long the threat to the eastern infrastructure will be so reduced that we can stand down. Only 20% of Libya's output comes from the western fields and pipelines (which connect up through Sicily directly to Italy). A divided Libya, where 80% of the oil flows from a semi-stable east and 20% from the Ghaddafi-controlled west, might be sustainable for a while. In other words, one way or another, the critical "war aims" of the US-EU-Etc group might be achievable. If not a partition, perhaps a situation where the fighting is limited to the center of the country, where there are no oil installations. Or maybe a sub-rosa understanding that fighting will avoid the oil.

I can't see Ghaddafi agreeing to this or stopping fighting. I think there is a reasonable chance you are right about the oil. However, he would be equally interested in controlling the oil. Money is all that keeps his dictatorship functioning. Plus, what's the downside to Ghaddafi continuing the war? The rebels don't seem able to take him out.

Furthermore, who is going to govern the proposed East Libya? We have good info that a branch of AQ is active there.

We might use this as an excuse to leave, but the blood bath will surely ensue. What? UN peacekeepers?

I don't envy Obama's task. Do you recall how the Bush Admin. came up with many good reasons to invade Iraq? And how Bush and others spoke often to the question of justification? Yet at no time could they spell out a truly convincing case. They couldn't lay it on the line and give some of the real reasons behind the action: 1) Saddam had finally made enough mistakes that the UN had to vote some hard resolutions - we had a small legal opening but that window would soon close; 2) strategic location of Iraq relative to all the other sensitive parts of the region; 3) Saddam's amazingly increasing popularity across the Muslim world due to his (up 'til then successful) thumbing of his nose at the USA and the resultant loss of respect for American power; 4) France and Germany were about to completely drop out of the sanctions regime, making a farce of our continued efforts to enforce it. It would have taken a communicator better than Reagan, Obama, FDR and Demosthenes combined to explain all that accurately and thoroughly but without destroying alliances and getting impeached.

Bush should have hired you to write the speech. In one paragraph, you've made a more cohesive argument than he ever did.

How is Obama supposed to explain Libya if I'm correct about oil-for-the-EU being the main reason we're there? You wanna' write that speech?

No thanks.

Worse for him, he tends to thrive as a speaker before a receptive audience. If this is from the Oval Office, he will come off as stiff.

I'm not sure Abraham Lincoln could write a speech that is going to convince many Americans for long. He might get a bump after Monday night. However, if this thing lasts longer than a month or two, or if anything goes wrong, it could have a serious impact on his re-election.

But that's not the good news. The good news is that I'm working on a Diplomacy variant based on this crisis.

You are, without question, the best variant designer here, imnsho.

steve

Furthermore, who is going to govern the proposed East Libya? We have good info that a branch of AQ is active there.

Its interesting that 2 weeks ago when everyone on the right was howling for a no-fly zone the AQ faction in Libya wasn't a factor. Now it is...
And the Muslim Brotherhood was considered a huge threat, but with Mubarek gone there's less talk about the organization as a threat to security or democracy. Could it be that they were a worth while straw man for Mubarek?

One of the problems with the concept of self determination and democracy. People get to choose their own representative governments. Do you beleive in freedom Steve?
One of the great problems for the West is that until recently Israel represented the only real democracy in the region. And the dictators and Monarchs were fully supported in most of their countries by the West. Mainly for oil, and also so that Israel could have security.
That oil came with a huge mark up. And the security was largely illusory as the Dictators had to keep the Israel/Palestine pot simmering to deflect from their own theiving and butchery. Maybe its time to keep involvement in the region as limited as possible without active support for the thieves and butchers and let Arabs determine the outcomes for themselves. In Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen they seem to be making progress.... And frankly Libya has a pretty good chance to resolve itself without Ghaddsffi surviving. Let the Libyans take that chance on their own now that the weapons are more even.

Of the 22 members of the Arab League (18 really, if you ignore Comoros, Mauritania, Djibouti and Somalia), eight are monarchies — Jordan, Morocco and the six members of the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council. They are all American/western allies. They are described by our politicians and pundits as “moderate.” But they are tyrannies, in varying degrees. Six of them use torture. There are eight other autocratic states — Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan and the Palestinian Authority. Six and a half (Mahmoud Abbas being only half the PA) have been western allies. Most maintain torture chambers, which the U.S. has rented for anti-terror interrogations.
All seven have had entrenched dictatorships, five of them western allies at some point or another (Hosni Mubarak, 30 years; Moammar Gadhafi, 42 years; Abdullah Saleh, 33 years; Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, 23 years; Abdelaziz Bouteflika, 12 years). Saddam Hussein also belonged in that club until he invaded Kuwait in 1991.
Our friends are all corrupt. The monarchs treat the state treasury as their own and won’t divulge the dividing line between state and personal funds. Others have found ways to monetize power and amass fortunes (Mubarak $5 billion; Gadhafi $10 billion; Ben Ali $8 billion). We winked and nodded, as though the deal was that we’d enrich them for services rendered.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/962173--siddiqui-our-dance-with-arab-dictators
The problem with many on the right is that they have to tie themselves up in pretzels to find a way to be on the opposite of Obama...
Newt Gingrinch has even more trouble than you in maintaining his opposition to anything Obama does Steve. He's flip flopped publicy 4 times.. link to very funny tv compilation.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/25/gin ... air-power/

For everyone who was clamouring for the US to get involved in past events like Georgia and Ossetia, and Egypt - perhaps the telescope of time offers support for the concept of patient careful action rather than over reaction. Wait to see what happens before jumping in with both feet.
And Isn't it odd, that the same people who think that the govenrment can't properly manage the affairs in their own country, should be able to micromanage what happens in foreign lands?

Myself, I am only so-so over the no fly zone. I see the reasons both good and bad for it. However, this has very rapidly (almost immediately) turned into something very different, it is not about protecting the innocents from the military but rather as air support for the rebel side, we have done exactly as Russia is charging, we have taken sides in another countries civil war. To take sides when we don't even know who is going to emerge as the leader is foolish, and assuming we do not send boots to the ground, how can we assure anything better than they now have will emerge? For those who criticized Bush for not having a clear exit strategy, this current situation seems far worse. In Iraq at least we had a clear goal and a clear reason for doing as we did. In Libya even the start is foggy, this mess has no semblance of being "clear" in the least. Who is in charge? Who will emerge as leader? How will we exit if internal strife continues?Why did we choose sides? Will the Arabs continue to support this action (it appears to be NO). I can see this possibly simply fading away, the rebels take control and peace ensues, but let's remember what area of the world we are talking about, is this really all that likely? While it is possible things work out very quickly, it is much more likely that this turns into as big a mess as Iraq/Afghanistan.

rickyp wrote:...2 weeks ago when everyone on the right was howling for a no-fly zone...

LOL. This is so typical of Ricky and yet at the same time one of the more extreme examples of his tendency to mistake an event that takes place between his ears for one that took place in the real world.

rickyp wrote:One of the problems with the concept of self determination and democracy. People get to choose their own representative governments. Do you beleive in freedom Steve?

This is a slightly more serious point - at least it's a point worth discussing. If one "believes in freedom" (and what does that mean?) yet works against popular expression via balloting is one a hypocrite? I think Ricky is putting the cart before the horse. Why do we like the ideas of self determination, democracy, representative government, and elections? Answer: because we see them as the best method in most cases to ensure that people get to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But what about those rare cases when an electoral process produces a result that causes a net decline in freedom and happiness? Do we sacrifice the interests of the people simply because ballot boxes were involved?

Liberal democracy isn't an easy form of governance to erect, get functioning, and maintain. Many attempts have ended in failure. And even where the greatest success has been achieved there are still problems. Churchill: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

An ideologue might place superficial form above the welfare of people, and insist that means take precedence over ends no matter what. A humanist looks to the people and asks what would be most in their interests over both the short and long term. A realist, recognizing that democracy is hard to "pull off" even when you've had a lot of practice at it, will side with the humanist over the ideologue.

One can "believe in freedom" without being so rigid about how to maximize it that people end up with only the belief and none of the real stuff. Freedom to vote is only one freedom, and in a place where freedom of conscience is not guaranteed, the freedom to vote probably doesn't rank very high. If one "believes in freedom" when it comes to peoples who've never experienced much of it, one should ask whether freedom can be achieved for them simply by setting up a ballot box, or whether the change will require an evolutionary process wherein the institutions that support successful liberal democracies are nurtured and strengthened before blind faith is placed in elections-for-election's-sake.

So Ricky: do you believe in freedom? Or only in trying to make those who often disagree with you look like hypocrites?

rickyp wrote:Its interesting that 2 weeks ago when everyone on the right was howling for a no-fly zone the AQ faction in Libya wasn't a factor. Now it is...
And the Muslim Brotherhood was considered a huge threat, but with Mubarek gone there's less talk about the organization as a threat to security or democracy. Could it be that they were a worth while straw man for Mubarek?

Four days ago in that bastion of conservatism The New York Times:

CAIRO — In post-revolutionary Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.

The article reports a leader/spokesman for the MB criticizing "intellectuals, liberals and secularists". Here in the West, where intellectuals, liberals and secularists frequently see religion as a force not conducive to progress, freedom and welfare of the people, the MB seems to get a free pass. In Egypt, where they know better, the intellectuals, liberals and secularists fear and criticize the MB. Ironic, huh?

For everyone who was clamouring for the US to get involved in past events like Georgia and Ossetia, and Egypt ...

I can't recall any here who "clamoured" for US involvement. Obama's handling of the situation was called in to question no doubt, but I can't recall any who suggested we intervene.

And Isn't it odd, that the same people who think that the govenrment can't properly manage the affairs in their own country, should be able to micromanage what happens in foreign lands?

actually it makes perfect sense, I don't get where you are going here?
We can't manage our own affairs, so we should indeed stay out of others.

Lessons learned in Iraq, no clear objective, no exit strategy, no clear idea who would be in charge afterwards, no idea if democracy is wanted or will be embraced
...same here

I think this is telling: President Obama doesn't need Congressional approval because . . . the UN is good enough? Constitution? Bah!

Tapper asked Clinton, “Why not got to Congress?”

“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don't think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

As for the "clearly defined mission," I would defy anyone to read the UN resolution and find out where we are to destroy Libyan tanks and army formations.

The right wing wasn't clamouring for a no fly zone or other intervention?
Not Newt Gingrinch? Not McCain? Not Anne Marie SLaughter? C'mon X, read a little....Expand your horizon...
From February 27....

The appeal, which came in the form of a letter signed by 40 policy analysts, including more than a dozen former senior officials who served under President George W. Bush, was organised and released by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a two-year-old neo-conservative group that is widely seen as the successor to the more-famous – or infamous – Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
Among the letter's signers were former Bush deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Bush's top global democracy and Middle East adviser; Elliott Abrams; former Bush speechwriters Marc Thiessen and Peter Wehner; Vice President Dick Cheney's former deputy national security adviser, John Hannah, as well as FPI's four directors: Weekly Standard editor William Kristol; Brookings Institution fellow Robert Kagan; former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor; and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and Ambassador to Turkey, Eric Edelman

.
source:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/fe ... 65756.html

x

Why do we like the ideas of self determination, democracy, representative government, and elections? Answer: because we see them as the best method in most cases to ensure that people get to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But what about those rare cases when an electoral process produces a result that causes a net decline in freedom and happiness? Do we sacrifice the interests of the people simply because ballot boxes were involved?

Would you explain to the people of the middle east why they can't have democracy? Why they aren't up to the task?
The concept that "stability" is more important than the expression of free will through democracy has lead to western support for tyrants in Saudi Arabia and 18 other nations in the Middle East.
Who gets to decide whether there is a "net decline" in freedom and happiness? At what point is it right for foreign intervention and what happens as a result of that foreign intervention? Event after event indicates that the West usually doesn't give a damn about self determination freedom and democracy if it interferes in their commercial and strategic interests.

X

Do we sacrifice the interests of the people simply because ballot boxes were involved?

This question is particularly pernicious. Who gets to decide what is in the interest of the people if not the people through their ballots?
This is the kind of expression that represents a colonial attitude. They aren't ready for democracy?
It may be true that countries evolve their societies and that laws and institutions can take time to evolve, and strengthen. But this fact doesn't diminish the right of people to control their own destinies. And because they should have the freedom to choose they should also have the freedom to fail,
The very fact that western money and power has largely supported dictatorships in the Middle East, and notably in places like Latin America is not lost upon the citizens of those people. They understand that when The West has decided their freedom can be sublimated to their economic or political agenda that they are valued less as human beings.
In Libya, the rebellion may not lead immediatly to a perfect democracy. I doubt that it will. But the limited and controlled foreign intervention involvement to date has saved countless Libyans lives, and may soon help end the reign of a savage. Without direct on the ground involvement.
If what follows isn't at least a clear step towards a freer more democratic society I'd be shocked. But the Libyans deserve the chance to find out for themselves.

And X, I'm aware that upon occasion democracy has lead to surprises like Hezbollah in Gaza. There are indeed groups out there like Hezbollah who believe in democracy until they win. Then, not so much. But if one does believe in the superiority of liberal democracies then one also believes that people eventually make the sacrifices necessary to move their country back on the path to that form of government by their own effort. Even in Gaza.
Iran is a great example. After years of a dictator that came in to power himself with US aid, they rebelled. A form of democracy was installed that hasn't met the peoples wishes. There is a desire for greater change, greater freedom. And eventually the Mullahs will be forced to accept the changes the people want. Will that be a "perfect" society ? Doubtful. But if it is a freer democracy its likely to be more focused on improving itself within then expressing its political will through the region. And that will mean stability. No one would argue with their quest for democracy?
Why would it be different in Libya or Saudi Arabia or Bahrain just because those dictators are supposedly helpful to "western Interests"?
And I'd argue that the "Stability" that has supposedly come with dictators and monarchs in the region isn't really all that stabile. There's far more likelihood that a democratic Arab country will come to recognize and live with Israel than a loony Mullah or a Monarch seeking to distract his citizens from their problems...

Analogies fail me.

Maybe this one: as an alcoholic is to a liquor store so rickyp is to Minister X: he can't resist the urge even when he knows the end will be him laying in the gutter, bruised and battered.

First...

rickyp wrote:Its interesting that 2 weeks ago when everyone on the right was howling for a no-fly zone the AQ faction in Libya wasn't a factor. Now it is...

Then...

The right wing wasn't clamouring for a no fly zone or other intervention?

With... a letter from four weeks ago signed by forty people. HERE is the actual letter. I suppose they plus misc. pundits constitute "everyone one the right". I don't think any of the rightists here were clamoring, however. But now one little mention of al Qaeda brings out the rant in Ricky. (Forget that the NYT is concerned about AQ!)

Worth noting: the letter Ricky cites and to which I linked is from FPI. As I type THIS is the "featured story" on their main page - an opinion piece. All about Libya. Not one mention of al Qaeda. Fox News Sunday - transcript of interview with D. Cheney. Only one mention of AQ and that not in connection with any AQ forces in Libya.

I'm confused. First he says that "everyone on the right" wanted intervention in Libya but AQ has only become a factor recently, whereas in Egypt the right was talking about MB earlier but is not now. I can't figure out what these assertions have in common, or what Ricky's problems with the right are (too much concern with them moooslums? or just inconsistent timing in concern?), or why I should care.

Ricky says "And the Muslim Brotherhood was considered a huge threat, but with Mubarek gone there's less talk about the organization as a threat to security or democracy." Yet HERE is a story in yesterday's Wash. Times headlined "Rumsfeld worries Brotherhood will hijack Egyptian revolution".

It's between your ears, Ricky. It ain't real. Egypt and Libya are both difficult, confusing, rapidly-moving situations. To try and find in "the right's" commentary about them some evidence with which to besmirch is silly. All sorts of people have said all sorts of things, right and left, that have proven to be silly, untrue, inaccurate, et cetera. No one (except you) has gotten it right 100% of the time.

Look at me. Here I am pointing out that Ricky's critique of the right is faulty, and trying to convince him to be more circumspect with such efforts. Does anyone reading these words think Ricky's critiques of the right hold much water? And does anyone think he'll ever become more circumspect? I could be doing something useful...

Minister X wrote: And does anyone think he'll ever become more circumspect?

It is theoretically possible, but has yet to be demonstrated in a laboratory.

I could be doing something useful...

Yes, but without your selfless intervention, who could possibly mentor the poor lad?

Minister X wrote:Egypt and Libya are both difficult, confusing, rapidly-moving situations.

Throw in Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the PA (rumors of Abbas joining with Hamas), two ongoing wars, and it's like putting dynamite, nitro, and plutonium in a blender. We simply don't know what is going to happen.

I would suggest we might want to have a strategic plan in place rather than deal with each situation piecemeal. Yes, each outcome will be different, but if we don't have a coherent set of goals and standards, it appears will just be running from one brushfire to the next, with a few forest fires in between.

GMTom wrote:popular in a poll?
Iraq was very popular in the early polls as well.

Why is it the US must join in a western alliance in Libya but France, Germany, etc were no big deal not taking part in Iraq?

The similarities are astounding yet ignored.

Umm, the obvious one is that Iraq was not agreed to under the UN, but Libya was. Thus allies are easier to come by.