Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[Pickman's model]

I wish you'd stay away from serious threads, ernie.

most people just wish you'd stay away

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't think the people of Bengazi could have survived any longer.

they're still alive you daft cunt.

 

[weltweit]

It seems there was not much discussion on arming the rebels at the conference in Quatar today. But without arming them at least a bit it seems they will not be able to overcome Gaddafi's forces so there will be a stalemate of some kind between the competing forces.

The German Foreign Minister is calling for a political solution, which at the moment seems to mean a partition of Libya, something that neither Libyan side seem to want.

I wonder what would happen if the contact group went back to the U.N. for a new more forceful resolution.

 

[Lock&Light]

I wonder what would happen if the contact group went back to the U.N. for a new more forceful resolution.

I don't expect Russia, at the least, to continue to abstain.

 

[ernestolynch]

Is Egypt still arming the monarchists?

 

[dylans]

Is Egypt still arming the monarchists?

I answered this on the Egypt thread why don't you read replies to your posts?

 

[Divisive Cotton]

The story about Egypt arming the rebels appeared in the WSJ but was, in turn, disputed by other journalists:

1.54pm: Martin Chulov, who was in Benghazi early on, has more on the Egyptian angle. He says Egypt is not supplying weapons to the rebels despite an earlier report in the Wall Street Journal. Here is Martin's take, with some fascinating background.

....

There has been much speculation about whether the Egyptians might send arms to Libya – whether to the regime or the rebels.

On the eve of the creation of the no-fly zone, a Libyan jet touched down in Cairo. It contained Gaddafi's chief of military supplies, Major General Abdul Rahman al-Zawi. He brought with him a blank cheque and a pledge that all past tensions would be quickly forgotten if Egypt's military rulers would sell weapons to the regime.

Gaddafi's man was politely sent packing. So too, according to Egyptian and western officials, were Libya's rebels who have made similar overtures. The rebels have beaten a regular path to Cairo, where they have met US and British diplomats and members of Egypt's high military command.

They have told all parties that the weapons they procured from Gaddafi's bases were not enough to sustain them for longer than several months. US officials recently suggested to an American newspaper that the rebels have established a weapons supply line through Egypt were denied this week by Egyptian officials and western diplomats.

"The Egyptians have been explicit about this," said one. "If they are doing it, they are doing it very quietly and we quite frankly don't think they are."

Egyptian officials contacted by the Guardian this week said the reasons to refuse both sides were rooted in the country's fragile new order. "We need to focus on our own borders and what is happening within them," said one senior official, linked to the military command. "The people would likely not respond well to us backing the violent overthrow of a neighbouring state, no matter the lack of regard people have for Gaddafi. Egypt is in a very delicate position and as transitional military rulers, we cannot be seen to be acting beyond our domestic obligations."

Western officials said Egypt was content to fall in behind consensual Arab support for the campaign in Libya, but play no active, or indirect role.

"If the rebels want weapons, they need to get them from elsewhere for now," said one diplomat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/30/libya-middle-east-syria-bahrain-yemen

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Footer allegedly taken in Misrata today:

 

[Divisive Cotton]

There's more here:

 

[elbows]

This NYT writer arrived in Misrata a few hours ago, nothing interesting yet but could be an interesting source at some point:

http://twitter.com/#!/cjchivers

 

[Divisive Cotton]

I'll follow him.

If he's landed in the port that means they've now managed to open it up. They were going appshit earlier on because they had to close it due to shelling and they needed to ship the wounded out

 

[weltweit]

I forget where I saw this but it would have been one of the news channels, I saw a soldier in charge of the rebel forces and he was talking about the next stages of the conflict. He said that this fighting along the coast road was just this stage, in the next stage there would be offensives on many fronts against many towns and this would be completely different.

I don't know where he is going to get the arms or the soldiers from, but it seems like at least someone has a plan.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

This is a quality piece of journalism:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/15/libyan-rebels-plan-geurrilla-action

He was rummaging in the boot of his car as we walked past. "Go forward," he instructed out of the side of his mouth. "I'll pick you up further on."

The car circled several times before he stopped. In a snatched conversation on the phone, he told us he feared he was being watched.

Eventually he felt confident enough to draw up. "You want to go to the fish market?" he called through the lowered window. "Get in."

No, we didn't want to go to the fish market, but as rare and highly-restricted westerners in Tripoli, we both needed a cover story for why we were getting in a Libyan's car.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

4.25pm: Tunisia's state news agency says five Libyan military officers have defected and fled to Tunisia by boat.

I wish these people would stay in Libya and organise a rebellion in their own ranks rather than defecting

 

[Lock&Light]

I wish these people would stay in Libya and organise a rebellion in their own ranks rather than defecting

They probably want to stay alive, don't you think?

 

[Deareg]

I wish these people would stay in Libya and organise a rebellion in their own ranks rather than defecting

Or at least join the rebels.

 

[Anudder Oik]

Noticed today an extremely dodgy headline to an article on the front page of the New York Post ;

"U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=1&hpw

It struggles to explain how they financed dictators and simultaneously nurtured democratic groups against them. Is that bi polar or what? Or are they just trying to claim credit for the Arab spring in order to save face.

What would Orwell say?

 

[weltweit]

What would Orwell say?

Orwell's dead Anudder Oik

Orwell's dead!

 

[elbows]

Noticed today an extremely dodgy headline to an article on the front page of the New York Post ;

"U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=1&hpw

It struggles to explain how they financed dictators and simultaneously nurtured democratic groups against them. Is that bi polar or what? Or are they just trying to claim credit for the Arab spring in order to save face.

What would Orwell say?

A fascinating article. What it describes has been apparent, albeit fleetingly, at a few moments during the Egyptian uprising. For example there was a wikileaked document that was released some months back which showed that when the US learnt that an activists video that showed some brutality had been taken down from youtube, they were looking into speaking to google to try to get it restored.

And we knew something of the protest groups having contact with the US government, because there was another leaked memo which indicated that the US had trouble swallowing some of the claims of the activists that they would manage to arrange big protests at some future point.

So to be honest, I wouldnt be surprised if the US helped these groups but never expected them to manage to overthrow any regimes. The US would help these groups for a multitide of reasons, many of which involve trying to improve the image of the US on the arab street, and to put slight pressure on regimes to reform in such a way that the USA finds it easier to do business with them. Especially during the Bush era we know that they were aware of these issues, of the double standards, of the weaknesses that backing dictators in these regions causes, not least to the central pillars of US propaganda. Other factors would heavily outweigh their desire for regime change in a lot of these countries, so the US would just pick at the issue rather gently, with some funding that kept those in the US with a fundamentalist freedom agenda relatively happy, but that wouldnt rock the boat all that much in partner countries that we wanted to keep stable. But they miscalculated, and a combination of other factors and sparks caused things to happen in a big way.

Now its certainly possible that US involvement went a lot further than that in some countries, but the above is as far as I think it is safe to really assume with some confidence. Anything beyond that is speculation, no matter how plausible it may be, and no matter what history we can drag up that shows US, UK etc-backed coups of the past in a variety of flavours. Theres still not that much that I would rule out or in for sure at this stage, and Im not sure how much I shall ever know.

Now as this is the Libya thread, where some have concluded the whole thing was a setup right from the first moment, its even harder to judge. The armed nature of things, the quantity of bullshit from both sides, the international intervention, Gaddafi's history, make for a far messier picture. Plus US-involvement prior to the uprising would have been done differently compared to countries such as Egypt , as I expect there was far less room for opposition to operate within the country. So working with emigrated/exiled groups of Libyans, while also working with the regime itself via stuff like that cheesy consultancy work some neo-cons were heavily involved with, was the form of 'backing both sides' taken here under pre-uprising conditions. Our role at the start of things in Libya, and at what point we really decided to throw our weight in with the 'rebels', remains unknown to me. Id think it was fairly early on, and its been a right botch-job, but I cant really be sure of much more than that.

Perhaps people that seem fairly certain that the whole thing was a US etc-based setup from the start, could clarify quite how wide they think this goes. The whole middle east uprising was activated as part of a deliberate plan, or something they cobbled together only once events in the region gained momentum and other leaders fell, or something they only got properly involved with only once some Libyans had risen up against the regime a bit and demonstrated the potential for regime wobbles?

 

[Greebozz]

Orwell's dead Anudder Oik

Orwell's dead!

Maybe but you can hear him spinning in his grave. Cluster bombs use real or resove stiffeing propaganda??

 

[phildwyer]

Noticed today an extremely dodgy headline to an article on the front page of the New York Post ;

"U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=1&hpw

It struggles to explain how they financed dictators and simultaneously nurtured democratic groups against them. Is that bi polar or what? Or are they just trying to claim credit for the Arab spring in order to save face.

What would Orwell say?

That's a pretty damning article, confirming what many of us have suspected for a long time. You can bet that they're active in Iran, above all. I hope people remember this the next time there's a "rebellion" in Tehran...

 

[phildwyer]

Perhaps people that seem fairly certain that the whole thing was a US etc-based setup from the start, could clarify quite how wide they think this goes.

I think it involves the entire region. It's not even particularly secret. The plan is not necessarily to establish sympathetic regimes. Obviously they'd like to do that but, failing that, they can at least be sure of leaving the middle east in chaos.

 

[dylans]

I think it involves the entire region. It's not even particularly secret. The plan is not necessarily to establish sympathetic regimes. Obviously they'd like to do that but, failing that, they can at least be sure of leaving the middle east in chaos.

It is ridiculous and insulting to millions of Arabs to dismiss their legitimate grievances to "foreign interference and to reduce their agency to the level of manipulated puppets. 100s of thousands didn't fight tooth and nail to drive the riot police off the streets of Cairo because the US wanted them to. Even the article recognises this

No one doubts that the Arab uprisings are home grown, rather than resulting from “foreign influence,” as alleged by some Middle Eastern leaders.

For sure the US from very early on manouvred (and is manouvering) to ensure the outcome was not threatening to the their geo political interests but by claiming the US instigated the events in Egypt you are ignoring the fact that Mubarak was the US client puppet for 30 years, supported and financed to the tune of billions. It also fails to note the historical record which is that the US was left completely wrong footed by the January events.

Also this

 

[elbows]

I think it involves the entire region. It's not even particularly secret. The plan is not necessarily to establish sympathetic regimes. Obviously they'd like to do that but, failing that, they can at least be sure of leaving the middle east in chaos.

Your chaos theory needs some serious work, you've taken just one aspect of how regions are 'managed' and blown it completely out of proportion. And this distorted reality, if true, would not serve US interests in a reliable way.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

It totally reads like a US-based attempt to re-write history to prove that they were on the side of the good guys after all

Reading this:

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.

So the US government is funding opposition groups against their major allies in the Middle East? It's going to take more than the evidence presented in that article to convince me that the connection was anything more than tenuous

 

[phildwyer]

It also fails to note the historical record which is that the US was left completely wrong footed by the January events.

That's not 'the historical record' at all. They've been working to undermine countries like Iran, Syria and Libya for years. They may or may not have known exactly when things were going to explode, but they were certainly working and waiting for the explosions.

 

[phildwyer]

Your chaos theory needs some serious work, you've taken just one aspect of how regions are 'managed' and blown it completely out of proportion. And this distorted reality, if true, would not serve US interests in a reliable way.

I don't see why not. Failed states can't defend their own natural resources, and they certainly can't threaten other countries. The West would doubtless prefer malleable clients, but chaos is a good second best, and certainly better than stable but hostile governments.

I'm in the UK at the moment, and once again I'm struck by the complete absence of Israel from the media discussion of the Arab uprisings. In the USA, the implications of these events for Israeli security are in the foreground of the debate. It seems to me that without understanding how important Israel's interests are to US foriegn policy, one cannot accurately evaluate what is going on in the middle east.

 

[dylans]

That's not 'the historical record' at all. They've been working to undermine countries like Iran, Syria and Libya for years. They may or may not have known exactly when things were going to explode, but they were certainly working and waiting for the explosions.

Really?

The US "assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people" hillary Clinton. January 25th 2011

 

[phildwyer]

So the US government is funding opposition groups against their major allies in the Middle East?

Even their closest middle-eastern allies were hostile to Israel. The lesson we are now seeing spelled out is that even nominal hostility to Israel is no longer acceptable.

 

[phildwyer]

Really?

You are not naive enough to imagine that the public statements of politicians accurately reflect foriegn policy.