Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

I don't think anyone is - and if anyone is concerned about gadaffi being in a postion to crush the rebels they should consider whether these attacks are going to leave him in a stronger position to act when 'western' interest and eyes have moved elsewhere. Gadaffi was praying for this intervention - he's been massively shored up by them and is no the de facto rallying point for those non-rebels who were either previously a bit ambivalent or waiting to see how things play out, any chance of them moving into the rebel camp are probably now definitively gone.

In this thread certainly there have clearly been people who have opposed any western intervention on the principle that it is western intervention and this has included sentiments that it would be better if the rebellion is crushed (along with the inevitable slaughter that would accompany it) then for the west to do anything. Your argument is a different one and it is certainly something that should be factored in and is one of the main reservations I have about western action. But whether it is the case that western intervention helps or hinders a regime depends on a complicated mixture of factors and depends strongly on the dynamics of the situation. And those that have 'no to any intervention' as a starting point are clearly not basing their position on this.
 
I think you may be slightly underestimating the way in which the popular aspects were forced back onto tribal or other approaches - they were undeniably present at the start. Just a passing point.

BTW Peter Tatchell has just compared these state led attacks to the volunteers who went to fight for the revolution and the Republic on Spain (BBC1 now). The barrage ofg moral blackmail i've seen this morning alone is astonishing...
 
In this thread certainly there have clearly been people who have opposed any western intervention on the principle that it is western intervention and this has included sentiments that it would be better if the rebellion is crushed (along with the inevitable slaughter that would accompany it) then for the west to do anything. Your argument is a different one and it is certainly something that should be factored in and is one of the main reservations I have about western action. But whether it is the case that western intervention helps or hinders a regime depends on a complicated mixture of factors and depends strongly on the dynamics of the situation. And those that have 'no to any intervention' as a starting point are clearly not basing their position on this.

To be honest, i've missed pretty much the whole of the last weeks posts, so i shouldn't really have said that no one was arguing that.
 
Bean confusion .

By standing with Gaddafi you are only supporting a different form of tribalism and regionalism to the West. You are just the other side of a coin. Both the cheerleaders for Western intervention and the sickening apologists for the dictatorship can offer the Libyan people nothing but more repressive regimes. Neither of you can offer any solution based on national self determination because you are both trapped in the logic of tribal division. Gaddafi regime is a tribal dictatorship. The regime the West hopes to place into power will be a tribal dictatorship. A genuinely national representative government can only come as the result of a genuinely national democratic mass movement and that possibility has now been crushed by Western intervention
 
This is exactly what will not happen. Shepherding the rebels into power will impose a tribal victory onto the country and result in a tribally loyal regime, not a regime with national identity. As such we can expect a recreation of the repressive regime albeit with repression aimed at different population sectors. The East oppressing the West. A Cyrenaica and Senoussi led regime, inevitably acting against other regional and tribal interests such as the Qadhadhfa and Sirte and like Gaddafi using force brutality and repressive means to bully the country's other tribes and regions into loyalty. In this context dreams of parliamentary democracy or even nationally focussed regime is merely wishful thinking and betrays a fatal misunderstanding of Libyan society. There are sociological reasons why Libya is a dictatorship and those sociological conditions won't disappear because we wish them to.

This is absurd logic. So you've gone from blanket assurances that this is a popular revolt that will inevitably win. Then when calls for western assistance started to grow then that must have come from the monarchists, the tribalists and other counter revolutionaries. Then when support for western actions becomes almost unanimous then it must not have been a popular revolt all along and you have suddenly discovered that they are waving the old monarchist flag so it is all tribal anyway.
 
It's interesting that the RAF effort was launched from frigging Norfolk. It probably took most of the RAF's tanking force to get them to Libya and back and can only therefore be an unsustainable token effort. I think Cameron is trying to be the anti-Blair and have a "good war".

The French forward leaning posture is easier to understand when you remember that they are desperate to get an export order for the Rafale and are in bitter competition for the Brazilian FX2 and Indian MRCA programs.
 
I think you may be slightly underestimating the way in which the popular aspects were forced back onto tribal or other approaches - they were undeniably present at the start. Just a passing point.

BTW Peter Tatchell has just compared these state led attacks to the volunteers who went to fight for the revolution and the Republic on Spain (BBC1 now). The barrage ofg moral blackmail i've seen this morning alone is astonishing...

Your first point. I think you are right. I have no doubt that the uprising that began on the 15th of February was a genuinely popular revolt inspired by the events across the region. It had the possibility to transcend tribalism and regionalism and in the early days we did indeed see demonstrations in Tripoli. Unfortunately the fact that the movement was forced very quickly to become a military struggle and victory began to be perceived as a military victory by the East over the West with Benghazi fighting its way to Tripoli, further mitigated against the national democratic dynamics and further alienated the population in Tripoli against the rebellion. The rest, the use of hated tribal symbols etc, increased those trends and the call for western intervention sealed the loyalties of those in Tripoli who may have been won to the uprising
 
This is absurd logic. So you've gone from blanket assurances that this is a popular revolt that will inevitably win. Then when calls for western assistance started to grow then that must have come from the monarchists, the tribalists and other counter revolutionaries. Then when support for western actions becomes almost unanimous then it must not have been a popular revolt all along and you have suddenly discovered that they are waving the old monarchist flag so it is all tribal anyway.

You are deliberately misunderstanding me. I have always said that this began as a popular revolt but one that has always shown regional and tribal dynamics. As the struggle became more deadlocked and as the struggle became increasingly military these dynamics played against the possibilities for the movement to become a nation wide democratic struggle and increasingly fell back on tribal and regional symbolism and language. Identity is not fixed or static it is a fluid and dynamic process. Victory was always conditional on the degree to which national and democratic identity transcended strong regional and tribal identities and it is to these identities that the struggle has fallen back on.

As for inevitably win. I think that was true (at least before the West stuck its nose in) I think victory is not assured solely by events around Benghazi alone but by events that are shaking the entire region, events that are still an ongoing process. The fate of the Libyan revolution is intimately tied up with the events in Cairo, Tunis and the success or failure of events in other Arab nations of the region. And this revolutionary process is unstoppable
 
Robert Fisk echoing some of the points I have made.

Note how, at this most critical moment, we are no longer talking about the tribes of Libya, those hardy warrior people whom we invoked with such enthusiasm a couple of weeks ago. We talk now about the need to protect "the Libyan people", no longer registering the Senoussi, the most powerful group of tribal families in Benghazi, whose men have been doing much of the fighting. King Idris, overthrown by Gaddafi in 1969, was a Senoussi. The red, black and green "rebel" flag – the old flag of pre-revolutionary Libya – is in fact the Idris flag, a Senoussi flag. Now let's suppose they get to Tripoli (the point of the whole exercise, is it not?), are they going to be welcomed there? Yes, there were protests in the capital. But many of those brave demonstrators themselves originally came from Benghazi. What will Gaddafi's supporters do? "Melt away"? Suddenly find that they hated Gaddafi after all and join the revolution? Or continue the civil war?

And what if the "rebels" enter Tripoli and decide Gaddafi and his crazed son Saif al-Islam should meet their just rewards, along with their henchmen? Are we going to close our eyes to revenge killings, public hangings, the kind of treatment Gaddafi's criminals have meted out for many a long year? I wonder. Libya is not Egypt.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...-wests-favourite-crackpot-tyrant-2246415.html
 
It's interesting that the RAF effort was launched from frigging Norfolk. It probably took most of the RAF's tanking force to get them to Libya and back and can only therefore be an unsustainable token effort. I think Cameron is trying to be the anti-Blair and have a "good war".

The French forward leaning posture is easier to understand when you remember that they are desperate to get an export order for the Rafale and are in bitter competition for the Brazilian FX2 and Indian MRCA programs.

i rather get the impression that its because the RAF transport fleet is so hammered with A'stan that it has a real problem with moving the required people/equipment/spares/munitions to any of the available FOB's.

SDSR looks like its hit the buffers - Tornado, Sentinel and Nimrod all in action...
 
Are all those so keen to cheer Western inspired regime change in Libya really prepared for the possibly awful consequences? Remember in Iraq, the defenders of the war argued that "nothing could be worse than Saddam." After a million deaths and the destruction of Iraqi society not many of them say that now

Iraqi society has not been destroyed and I do still say "nothing is worse than Saddam."
 
Which just begs the question. If it is possible for Gaddafi to crush the Eastern revolt so easily and if the rebels are incapable of mobilising mass support in other areas of the country such as Tripoli then perhaps the revolt is not a widespread and genuinely popular as we were led to believe. Those claiming it is have to answer the question why Tripoli has seen no mass demonstrations and simply claiming this is solely because of regime oppression is simplistic and smacks of wishful thinking. I think this is a popular revolt but a popular revolt with significant regional and tribal dynamics. A revolt of the East concieved as against oppression from the West, with isolated pockets of support in a few western towns.

Well in the early days our media downplayed the chances of anything kicking off in Tripoli, and acted surprised when there was some evidence that things had kicked off there. We cannot judge the scale of the uprising within Tripoli, save to say that stuff was happening in some parts of town, and many of the reports of Gaddafi cracking down hard were centred on some of the poor neighbourhoods of Tripoli which is another area of interest to me.

Gaddafi may have considerable support in places, but if so I do wonder why they have had such trouble making convincing pro-regime protest propaganda. I watched the state tv a fair bit and I really struggled to see any pro-regime demos that looked real. Now it could just be that pro-Gaddafi people had a reason not to protest on camera, or the propaganda machine was so used to faking stuff that they failed to capture the real pro-Gaddafi support in a convincing way, but we cannot tell. Now that we have started to bomb, we should expect to see more genuine-looking pro-Gaddafi protests if he has lots of real support, lets see if that happens, it might.

The defections are another interesting factor. Lots of Libyan diplomats abroad defected rather quickly, and some of Gaddafi's most long-serving pals at home also switched sides. I'd love to know more about the tribal affiliations of these people.

All I know for certain is that I've seen a small fraction of the big picture, and should therefore not make any assumptions about the will of Libyans in the west. We cant even properly judge how much Gaddafi support was left in the east, never mind the west.
 
I don't want to derail further but where does the million dead come from? That's a massively high number

Well projects such as Iraq Body count, which rely on a variety of sources for news of deaths, puts the civilian toll in Iraq up to this point at somewhere in the 100,000 region. At one point the wikileaks revealed around 15,000 deaths that had not previously been documented or counted by iraq body count. So the real figure may well be a fair bit higher than their numbers, but I dont know how people get up to figures such as a million or a million and a half deaths.
 
I don't want to derail further but where does the million dead come from? That's a massively high number

I really don't want to play the numbers game here. It smells of holocaust denial but for the record


The estimate of more than one million violent deaths in Iraq was confirmed again two months ago in a poll by the British polling firm Opinion Research Business, which estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths since the US invasion. This is consistent with the study conducted by doctors and scientists from the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health more than a year ago. Their study was published in the Lancet, Britain’s leading medical journal. It estimated 601,000 people killed due to violence as of July 2006; but if updated on the basis of deaths since the study, this estimate would also be more than a million. These estimates do not include those who have died because of public health problems created by the war, including breakdowns in sewerage systems and electricity, shortages of medicines, etc.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18765.htm

Several household surveys were conducted between 2004 and 2007. While there are differences among them, the range suggests a congruence of estimates. But none have been conducted for eighteen months, and the two most reliable surveys were completed in mid-2006. The higher of those found 650,000 "excess deaths" (mortality attributable to war); the other yielded 400,000. The war remained ferocious for twelve to fifteen months after those surveys were finished and then began to subside. Iraq Body Count, a London NGO that uses English-language press reports from Iraq to count civilian deaths, provides a means to update the 2006 estimates. While it is known to be an undercount, because press reports are incomplete and Baghdad-centric, IBC nonetheless provides useful trends, which are striking. Its estimates are nearing 100,000, more than double its June 2006 figure of 45,000. (It does not count nonviolent excess deaths -- from health emergencies, for example -- or insurgent deaths.) If this is an acceptable marker, a plausible estimate of total deaths can be calculated by doubling the totals of the 2006 household surveys, which used a much more reliable and sophisticated method for estimates that draws on long experience in epidemiology. So we have, at present, between 800,000 and 1.3 million "excess deaths" as we approach the six-year anniversary of this war.

his gruesome figure makes sense when reading of claims by Iraqi officials that there are 1-2 million war widows and 5 million orphans. This constitutes direct empirical evidence of total excess mortality and indirect, though confirming, evidence of the displaced and the bereaved and of general insecurity. The overall figures are stunning: 4.5 million displaced, 1-2 million widows, 5 million orphans, about 1 million dead -- in one way or another, affecting nearly one in two Iraqis.

http://www.alternet.org/world/123818/
 
A million dead. You are simply wrong and Iraqi's will tell you that you are wrong

Not all of them. I have students from Iraq who regularly go back to Iraq to see relatives and they say it's still very difficult there, but things are slowly getting better.
 
Back
Top Bottom