Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[elbows]

As I said, everyone wants oil, everyone is willing to buy oil and don't really care who owns it or who we buy it off.

We are all oil junkies. We will pay double, triple, the current prices. And we would stuff the money in the pocket of Satan himself to get it.

Oversimplified bunk. We care very much about the money side of things, our balance of trade is bad enough as it is, we want a good percentage of the money we give to other countries for their oil, to come back to us. And we care about our own oil companies continuing to gain access to lucrative reserves, especially as the traditional fields in non-OPEC countries are mostly on the decline.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course 'we' care about the money side of things. It was a spike in the price of oil that triggered the credit crunch.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

There is not a scrap of evidence that the Capital supports the rebellion. In fact, apart from a few districts, all the evidence suggests the opposite. Therefore the rebels taking the Capital will be against their wishes.

Areas of the capital did rise up but not enough. Of the ten most populace cities and towns in Libya, eight out of ten sided with the rebels, but unfortunately Tripoli wasn't one of them

I guess we'll have to have an election to see what side they are on, oh, hold on...

But yes, there may well have to be some sort of political solution rather than a military one

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If we hadn't intervened and Benghazi and the country were brought once again to heel by Gaddafi, urban, and indeed the world would be full of voices saying how we didn't care, didn't want to upset our pet dictator, only cared about oil not lives, etc. And I'll bet they would be the same people complaining as are complaining now.

That's not to say that the west is acting for purely noble motives. Nor that they are going about things in the best way. Just that it's a messy old world, and it's often hard to make decisions that are more than 60% right.

This is also a very naive post. You've fallen for the propaganda, I'm afraid, and it is depressing that 'we' intervening has to take the form of bombs. I'm royally sick of the UK and others 'intervening' with their bombs. The world would be a better place if 'we' desisted.

 

[dylans]

You are overstating your case here. There have been instances of rebellion in Tripoli, and we have to take into account the weight of repression there.

Yes there have been some and I have argued this myself but we have to be honest and recognise that there has been no really significant uprising in the Capital and the lack of such an uprising cannot simply be explained by repression. I think there is probably no love for Gaddafi in the Capital but that is not enough. There doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for the rebels either, not before the Western intervention and certainly not since and I think it is this, the incapacity of the regional uprising to capture the imagination of the nation and become a truly national uprising that has been its weakness

What I am saying is that it is perfectly possible in fact highly likely that anti Gaddafi feeling exists across the nation, noone likes living under a repressive police state but that the nature of the rebellion is such that it has failed to capitalise and mobilise that possibility. It is this, the failure of a regional uprising to appeal to the national interests of all Libyans that is the rebellions fatal weakness and led it to the blind alley of relying on Western support.

That was then and now is now. The question now is how the residents of the Capital feel about a historically antaganistic province marching its troops into the streets and liberating them in their name. Some may celebrate, I am betting many will not

 

[Idaho]

This is also a very naive post. You've fallen for the propaganda, I'm afraid, and it is depressing that 'we' intervening has to take the form of bombs. I'm royally sick of the UK and others 'intervening' with their bombs. The world would be a better place if 'we' desisted.

Ok - please tell us your preferred flow of events from early Feb onwards. What decisions should have been made?

 

[Kaka Tim]

Of course its about oil.

When the rebellion stalled with Gaddafi damaged but not defeated, the west was looking at the prospect of prolonged conflict in Libya - which could very likely lead to disruptions to oil supply and damage to oil production infrastructure. They want a stable regime in the country to run the oil ASAP - thats why they've chosen to bomb gaddaffi's forces as they see this as the quickest way to achive this.

If Gaddaffi had suceeded in crushing the rebellion quickly they would still be happy to deal with him.

And they will be quite happy to deal with whatever regime replaces Gadaffi - no matter what sort of democratic crednetials it may or may not have or however many Libyans it kills and imprisons in its turn.

I fear that what we will end up with in Libya will be another despotic, oppressive regime - but minus the mad colonel.

 

[newbie]

Oversimplified bunk. We care very much about the money side of things, our balance of trade is bad enough as it is, we want a good percentage of the money we give to other countries for their oil, to come back to us. And we care about our own oil companies continuing to gain access to lucrative reserves, especially as the traditional fields in non-OPEC countries are mostly on the decline.

yes but, and I think it's an important but, UKPLC is not prepared to enter into independent military disputes for direct control of the oil. Coalition military action, yes, but not unilateral and not in direct, military, competition with other major players. At times in the last century that was not the case.

Now, it appears to me, there is a global understanding that the ownership of the oil and into which sphere of influence new Lybia falls are of lesser importance than that it's a stable state tied in to the modern global web of trading. That's why China, Russia, India, Germany, Brazil didn't veto, they want to be part of the carve up.

The new Lybia will not be a wholly owned subsidiary of BP, TOTAL or AMACO.

 

[Idaho]

That was then and now is now. The question now is how the residents of the Capital feel about a historically antaganistic province marching its troops into the streets and liberating them in their name. Some may celebrate, I am betting many will not

Many in the capital will have their livelyhoods inextricably bound up with the state. And the Libyan state is run as a personal posession of the Gaddaffi family. I'll bet they will strongly resist any rebellion.

 

[dylans]

Areas of the capital did rise up but not enough. Of the ten most populace cities and towns in Libya, eight out of ten sided with the rebels, but unfortunately Tripoli wasn't one of them

Yes but we should remember that half the Libyan population live in the two Cities of Tripoli and Benghazi. one and half million people live in Tripoli and slightly more in Benghazi. That makes this battle a battle of two cities basically. Without Tripoli this is not a national uprising.

 

[camouflage]

France has basically declared war on Libya, according to Alja. Well, you can easily interpret it that way if so inclined.

 

[dylans]

On the question of "its about oil". I think we should resist the tendency to explain all things by one or two motives. Foreign policy, especially involving a variety of different actors doesn't work like that. Rather I think there are several different motives involved, some of which explain the motives of some actors and others which explain the motives of others.

Oil is one. I think access to the oil markets is motivating France and Britain to a great extent. They played a wrong card by backing the rebels and now have no choice but to see their victory. A victorious Gaddafi is not going to be too keen to play nicely with those who backed the rebels.

The US is different. It doesn't have a significant economic motivation and indeed was the one player in this who dragged his feet a little. In the US case I think there is something else going on that has more to do with the logic of a narrative that is being constructed by the Obama administration in relation to the regional events as a whole. The US was caught off guard by the events in Egypt and has been forced to reformulate a response to events in the region and i think in Libya we are starting to see the emergence of that narrative.

This narrative is one that explains all the events of the region as an example of the desire across the region, not for self determination, but as a desire to emulate the US. Specifically the events are being defined as a desire for liberal democratic regimes in the Western model with their associated free market economies. This seems to be the emerging narrative and in this sense it is not so different to the old neo con "new American century" narrative of the Bush years but with several important differences.

Most important difference is that intervention is portrayed not as US imposed regime change but UN imposed humanitarian assistance. one of the reasons such care was taken to get 1973 and the support of the Arab league was the desire to separate the Obama doctrine from the Bush doctrine. This is the significance to the repeated emphasis that "this is not Iraq" and the often tortured attempts to wrap this war in legalese

So instead of being portrayed as the USA intervening to impose democracy as in the Bush narrative, it is spun as the UN intervening to "protect civilians". Instead of regime change by invasion, it is regime change by shepherding a rebel group to power. Of course this is massively hypocritical, ignoring as it does, Bahrain and Israel etc, and that contradiction is one that is not lost on the world. The Western world is walking a tightrope, precariously balancing the ideological support for the regional democracy movements with the totally contradictory support for some of the very regimes drowning their own democracy movements in blood.

In addition there are various other motives. I think the Arab regimes are motivated by a fear of a declining US power in the region and hope Libya will be the catalyst for stemming the (perceived or real) decline in US power and serve to reinforce the US role across the whole region

 

[Idaho]

Oil Reserves by Country

So when is the US going to declare war on Canada?

 

[Random]

DP

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ok - please tell us your preferred flow of events from early Feb onwards. What decisions should have been made?

Made by whom?

 

[Random]

Oil Reserves by Country

So when is the US going to declare war on Canada?

As soon as market access to those reserves is seriously threatened.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Oil Reserves by Country

So when is the US going to declare war on Canada?

Do you want to debate at an intelligent level or not?

 

[dylans]

France is now claiming that the job can't be done without boots on the ground. Mission creep in practice.

 

[phildwyer]

Now we have a civil war and we are on one side. We aren't the protectors of civilians against a tyrant, we are backing a revoultionary/rebel army.

To be accurate, we are backing a volunteer army against a conscript army. Killing conscripts is no better than killing civilians.

 

[phildwyer]

I also don't discount the genuine intent to protect civillians by some politicians. I think some of them, deep in their black hearts, do actually give a shit, and genuinely want/hope for some kind of democracy in Libya.

Sucker.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

France is now claiming that the job can't be done without boots on the ground. Mission creep in practice.

France's turn to take the lead, then.

 

[phildwyer]

Bring me the severed head of Muammar Qaddafi and we'll talk politics.

See how effective it is to create these hate figures. A certain section of the population will always get carried away.

 

[phildwyer]

However it all got very sticky and complicated when the rebellion prooved not to be popular with everyone. They know that intervening too little will be a disaster, and intervening too much will be a different kind disaster. Which is why we have this strange halfway house.

"Strange halfway house" be buggered.

You and people like you seem to think the Western nations are staffed by bungling incompetents. They are not. We have anarchy and chaos in Libya because that is what the West wants. Just as we have it in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You are a textbook instance of a liberal propaganda victim.

 

[Lock&Light]

Five Live say that the French have shot down a Libyan jet. I just hope it wasn't a rebel one again.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

France is now claiming that the job can't be done without boots on the ground. Mission creep in practice.

We should probably use another term, mission creep seems to imply a change in circumstance creating new responses not a clear push to have the situation they want.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In that arrogant post-empire European way, the French consider Africa to be 'theirs'. I expect the UK to take a fairly minor role in this particular war.

 

[phildwyer]

France is now claiming that the job can't be done without boots on the ground. Mission creep in practice.

"Mission creep" be buggered. You think this wasn't planned from the beginning?

 

[Spion]

We have anarchy and chaos in Libya because that is what the West wants.

Turned up any evidence of this yet? "Permanent warfare and chaos" was what you said they wanted yesterday. Are you backpedalling from that?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I find it rather depressing that they seem to be getting away with this 'humanitarian intervention' guff yet again. ffs people.

 

[Lock&Light]

"Mission creep" be buggered. You think this wasn't planned from the beginning?

It's Charles de Gaulle's Master Plan finally coming to fruition.