Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[MellySingsDoom]

^^^I don't hold out much hope for this being resolved anytime soon - looks like "at least 1000" troops will be off to Libyaland v soon: http://www.prisonplanet.com/eu-prepares-to-invade-libya-with-ground-troops-under-humanitarian-hoax.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Y'know, I said on another Libya thread "Boots on the ground, mark my words", and others said "No chance". It gives me zero pleasure to be proved right, should it kick off.

My next prediction - NATO troops to protect Oil ministries and installations as a prioriity. [Before y'all think I've been knocking back the conspiraloon sherry, remember Iraq? The first (of very few) ministries to be "liberated" by the coalition was the Oil Ministry - guarded by Special Forces, whilst the other ministries were ransacked...]

e2a: Whoops! - this post is in answer to CR's #4859. Re CR's #4860 - I wish i could share your optimism, but do you honestly think NATO will pay any attention to the UN? Really?

 

[Divisive Cotton]

wow Gadaffi's anti-imperialist heroes are so brave:

http://livewire.amnesty.org/2011/04/18/misratah-the-spiralling-human-cost-in-a-city-under-fire/

Here in Misrata, Libya's third city, we have just experienced four more days of relentless shelling by Colonel al-Gaddafi's forces. In just two of the residential neighbourhoods I have been able to visit in the past four days – Qasr Ahmad in the east of the city and Zawia al-Mahjoub in the west – hundreds of rockets and mortar shells have rained down, literally all over the place. I have lost count of how many homes I've seen that have been hit in these clearly indiscriminate attacks.

Medical clinics, schools, mosques, factories and the port – where thousands of foreign workers are stranded and waiting to be rescued – are just some of the locations that have come under attack. Fortunately, many of the residents of the houses that took direct hits escaped injury but others were not so lucky. Adults and children alike have been killed and injured in their homes and on the streets by flying shrapnel from these projectiles.

In the centre of town, where the "frontline" between Colonel al-Gaddafi's forces and opposition fighters keeps shifting from street to street, the devastation is extensive. In this area I found cluster bombs all over the place – they present an enormous danger, not least because these munitions have a high "dud" rate, meaning that unexploded bombs litter the area.

 

[elbows]

Further good news for the Brother Leader .Looks like he may well have pre-empted the invasion plan for now . He's negotiated a deal with the UN permitting them a safe corridor to evacuate stranded migrant workers and other refugees from the city as well as letting humanitarian aid in . In return the UN will heavily increase its presence in Tripoli were Gadaffi has been demanding they properly investigate the bogus claims of air and naval assaults on the population as well as investigating the targets of NATO bombing .

Even without the Brother Leader bullshit thats twisted spin. The UN gaining a large presence in Tripoli isnt something Gaddafi is getting in return for letting them do some other stuff, its central to the UN mission.

Although it is hard to be completely certain of anything right now, the idea that the threat of sending in troops was to put pressure on Gaddafi to let the UN have proper access was something I mentioned last night.

In any case this development does not rob the EU etc of sending in some troops if thats what they really want to do. For a start Gaddafi actually has to stick to his word regarding the UN stuff, and secondly the news is already going on about how the UN mission cant operate in Misrata unless there is a ceasefire, and that Gaddafi has not agreed to such a ceasefire.

 

[MellySingsDoom]

British officers to be sent as military liason to Benghazi:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13132654

Also here at the Graun - general Arab uprisings update atm - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/apr/19/libya-middle-east-syria-gaddafi-misrata?commentpage=all#start-of-comments#block-22

 

[audiotech]

Three B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers ($2.1bn each) were sent on a bombing mission at the very outset of the Libya bombing campaign. This aircraft has the mandate under UN Security Councill resolution 1973 to "protect the lives of civilians". Reports suggest that the three B-2s were carrying bunker buster bombs with conventional warheads. The Daily Mail report said that the B-2 Stealth bombers 'dropped 45 one ton satellite guided missiles on Libya, which represents an enormous amount of ordnance.'

More here on this 'Instrument of Peace'.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24243

 

[Spion]

Brother leader, lol.

Absolutely fucking hatstand.

You'll be saluting his indefatigability next

 

[audiotech]

The Pentagon's Plan to Nuke Libya

The B61-11 tactical nuclear weapon was slated by the Pentagon to be used in 1996 against the "Qadhafi regime":

Senior Pentagon officials ignited controversy last April [1996] by suggesting that the earth-penetrating [nuclear] weapon would soon be available for possible use against a suspected underground chemical factory being built by Libya at Tarhunah. This thinly-veiled threat came just eleven days after the United States signed the African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty, designed to prohibit signatories from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against any other signatory, including Libya." (David Muller, Penetrator N-Bombs, International Action Center, 1997)

Tarbunah has a population of more than 200,000 people, men, women and children. It is about 60 km East of Tripoli. Had this "humanitarian bomb" (with a "yield" or explosive capacity of two-thirds of a Hiroshima bomb) been launched on this "suspected" WMD facility, it would have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, not to mention the nuclear fallout...

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24049

 

[dylans]

A. "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it,

B. It’s up to the them to undertake this political process, define it and see it through. It’s they who will choose their future, their political regime, and certainly not the international coalition. However, we can help them

Quiz Question. What is the difference between the two statements above?


Statement A was made by John F Kennedy in 1963 and the subject was Vietnam

Statement B was made by William Hague in 2011 and the subject was Libya.

A joint British-French military team of advisers is to be sent to Benghazi
Officials stress that the team consists of advisers
The UK-French team will advise the rebels on intelligence-gathering, logistics, and communications.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Gadaffi is no Ho Chi Minh

It's lazy and shrill analysis that places the two on an equal footing

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Let's not big up Hi Chi Minh too much, remember all those dead peasants. There may yet be circumstances in which a Gaddafi victory over western ground forces would be the lesser evil.

 

[dylans]

Gadaffi is no Ho Chi Minh

It's lazy and shrill analysis that places the two on an equal footing

Well of course he isn't and that is not the intention of the analogy. However the step by step march towards full on military commitment cannot be ignored and neither can the the fact that the iniitial ground troop involvement is heralded as "advisor only".

Vietnam also began as "advisors" and was never a declared war. Vietnam was a war based on an overly optimistic belief in air power. Vietnam was a war based on a stated belief in "freedom" and Vietnam was a war based on a massive underestimation of the capacity of Americas enemy.

 

[elbows]

I was amused to see that the BBC story managed to cover that point!

Former Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell warned against becoming bogged down in Libya, in similar fashion to what happened to the US in Vietnam.

He said: "Sending advisers for a limited purpose is probably within the terms of [United Nations] Resolution 1973, but it must not be seen as a first instalment of further military deployment.

"Vietnam began with an American president sending military advisers. We must proceed with caution."

 

[dylans]

I was amused to see that the BBC story managed to cover that point!

So does the guardian here

Such was the case in Vietnam, where President John F Kennedy's decision to increase the number of US "military advisers" to the south Vietnamese regime opened the path to all-out war. Mission creep struck again after the US intervened in Somalia in the early 1990s, producing another debacle. In fact the term was coined at that time by the distinguished Washington Post columnist, Jim Hoagland. Afghanistan since 2001 has been not so much creep as rapid crawl into a military never-never land.

Britain's announcement that it is sending a "military liaison advisory team" of experienced officers to Benghazi to assist the rebels' national transitional council looks like another outbreak of the disease. Foreign secretary William Hague was adamant the British army was not taking charge of the campaign against Muammar Gaddafi. The "advisers" would not be arming, training or directing the rebel forces, he said. To which the world-weary response must be: just give them time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team

I guess they all share my "lazy and shrill" analysis

 

[dylanredefined]

And which super power is backing Gaddafi? Vietnam was one of the proxy wars of the cold war

 

[dylans]

And which super power is backing Gaddafi? Vietnam was one of the proxy wars of the cold war

Yes but that's not the purpose of the analogy is it? Vietnam is raised as an example of the inevitable logic of mission creep, and the need to follow initial steps deeper and deeper into war, nothing more.

 

[Casually Red]

And which super power is backing Gaddafi? Vietnam was one of the proxy wars of the cold war

China and Russia may well continue to supply arms through one route or another , I'd be very surprised if they didnt . The latin american leftists seem quite prepared to offer diplomatic support to varying degrees . Africans too remian pretty supportive . While divorced from the Arab league he's not exactly what you'd call isolated . And very much in there alive and kicking .
It must be emphasised again though without pretty solid support from his own population and army he'd have been toast long ago .

 

[Casually Red]

Yes but that's not the purpose of the analogy is it? Vietnam is raised as an example of the inevitable logic of mission creep, and the need to follow initial steps deeper and deeper into war, nothing more.

Mission creep so far . Bombing houses and trucks to implement a no fly zone to put a stop to a non existent genocide which involved his army and navy flattening Tripoli with mercenaries mopping up those civilians who escaped the barrage . Which he cunningly concealed from satellites , video cameras , mobile phones and a million witnesses .
The cunning bastard .
With sneakiness like that it would be advisable for NATO tread carefully .

 

[Casually Red]

Brother leader, lol.

Absolutely fucking hatstand.

You'll be saluting his indefatigability next

Thats his title , he resigned the presidency in 1977 . And its less hatstand to be saluting his indefatigability today than cheering at his imminent demise 2 fucking months ago . Much less his departure to Vene - fucking- zuela

hatstand...ppfftt

 

[bolshiebhoy]

You are pretty craven. Did you attach yourself to the biggest bully at school and laugh at all his jokes too?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Yes but that's not the purpose of the analogy is it? Vietnam is raised as an example of the inevitable logic of mission creep, and the need to follow initial steps deeper and deeper into war, nothing more.

The analogy you used is so stuffed full of meanings (some of which are not at all useful e.g. Gaddafi=Ho Chi Minh or Libya+proxy war), that in the context of arguing an anti-war position (a context in which Vietnam is iconic) it is on balance probably more trouble than it's worth. I did the same sort of thing over on one of the AV threads and afforded the pro-AVers something of an own goal. You'd be better off sticking to talking about mission creep - which is definitely on the cards - than invoking unruly ghosts, or for that matter calling the BBC and Vince Cable to your aid.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Thats his title , he resigned the presidency in 1977 . And its less hatstand to be saluting his indefatigability today than cheering at his imminent demise 2 fucking months ago . Much less his departure to Vene - fucking- zuela

hatstand...ppfftt

You're Ernie Wise and I claim my five pounds.

Louis MacNeice

 

[dylanredefined]

China and Russia may well continue to supply arms through one route or another , I'd be very surprised if they didnt . The latin american leftists seem quite prepared to offer diplomatic support to varying degrees . Africans too remian pretty supportive . While divorced from the Arab league he's not exactly what you'd call isolated . And very much in there alive and kicking .
It must be emphasised again though without pretty solid support from his own population and army he'd have been toast long ago .

Selling him weapons is one thing and probably quite hard to deliver them.Its not like the shipments would not be considered targets unlike vietnam when such things were considered off limits at times other times they could mine the harbours.Hard to judge if the support is genuine or just the regime has a good control
on its population.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

And which super power is backing Gaddafi? Vietnam was one of the proxy wars of the cold war

Quite. He has backing from Algeria and Chad - wow. He's sitting on a lake of oil that he can't sell to anybody. It's only a matter of time before he runs out of money and there's no way he'll be able to smuggle out oil in breach of the embargo.

What happened in Vietnam was part of a world-wide anti-colonial struggle that took place in every continent. The Vietnamese victory has to be read in that context.

Gaddafi and his family - has been pointed out by Dylans repeatedly on this thread - are going against the grain of history and one which is currently being written in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen and Bahrain.

Gadaffi is finished. It's now only a question of how determined he is to bring the rest of country down with him - or if those near to him will let him do so

 

[TomUS]

Hard to judge if the support is genuine or just the regime has a good control on its population.

Well, yea. Some of the most viscious tyrants retain power decade after decade because they are clever at control, not because they have support of their people. I like the idea of the UK, France & Italy getting some advisory boots on the ground & doing some mission creeping & not allowing this particular dictator to survive the wave of revolt sweeping much of the Arab world.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21photographers.html?_r=1&hp

That's sad:

Tim Hetherington, the Oscar-nominated film director and conflict photographer who produced the film “Restrepo,” was killed in the besieged city of Misurata on Wednesday, and three photographers working beside him were wounded.

The wounds to two of the photographers — Chris Hondros and Guy Martin — were grave, according to a colleague at the triage center where they were being treated Wednesday night. Their prospects for survival were not immediately clear.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Tim Hetherington's last tweet today:

In besieged Libyan city of Misrata. Indiscriminate shelling by Qaddafi forces. No sign of NATO.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

I've been quite affected by that actually

 

[weltweit]

I've been quite affected by that actually

Shame the photographer was killed but it is not the first time a photographer went too close to a war zone and paid the ultimate price.

 

[MellySingsDoom]

I like the idea of the UK, France & Italy getting some advisory boots on the ground & doing some mission creeping

Would you be saying the same if it was US advisory boots on the ground? Personally, having any NATO military there is bound to be a boon for Gadaffi - he can play the "crusader Westerners" card, and possibly unite disparate/disaffected Libyans around him. And the Arab Street of Tahrir Square, Damascus and Bahrain are hardly going to see this escalation in conflict as a postive act by the West. As for mission creep, well, we'll be having full troops there sooner or later, and then the "fun" can begin, and we'll undoubtedly have the blood of innocent, uninvolved Libyan civilians on our hands, just like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[weltweit]

All these different advisors, all their different languages ...

Should be clear as mud