Asmo's Libya rant

[Asmodean]

...So the UN finally got somewhere, authorizing "all the means necessary" to "prevent further civilian casualties".

And yet...

As far as I understand, the Libyan rebels took up arms against their legitimate (however dislikeable) and internationally recognised government, but the countries currently leading the operation have sided with the named rebels, officially or otherwise, and not with that legitimate government. Is that how the UN is supposed to be used? To bring democracy to the world at the point of a cruise missile, however indirectly the intent is worded?

If you are the UN, you dislike the evil dictator and therefor can not do the lawfully right thing and support him in ending the rebellion, and if you STILL mean to go in with military force, is it not better to delegate the military part to a party which doesn't give a rat's ass about who takes control as long as civilian casualties are kept at minimum?

I have no love for crazy dicators, but neutrality should be... Neutral.

 

[Davin]

Freedom is the only way, yeah!

I like the democratic republic in which I live, the concept is very well thought out and can work very well to protect the freedoms of everyone. However as has been seem several times, trying to remove another form of government and force people into democracy has yet to produce a lasting change. I don't expect Iraq to be any different unless US soldiers remain there permanently to help enforce it. Anyway, that's just my speculation and tiny rant.

[Asmodean]

Oh, I like my democratic government too, but I wouldn't presume to tell another souvereign state how to govern itself or how to deal with armed rebels within its bloody borders. And I sure as hell would not side with those rebels - directly or otherwise. Protecting non-combatants is well and good - the rest is an internal affair.

That's how I see it.

No more respect for the UN here. None at all.  

[SSY]

It makes more sense if you ignore the moralistic hot air expelled by most of the windbags comprising the international community. They all have their own agendas, which is why certain places (Zimbabwe for example) get ignored, while others get invaded and democratised with extreme prejudice. Having no expectations of sensible behavior helps me to avoid disappointment.

[The Magic Pudding]

French jets are whacking tanks which is OK by me, I haven't forgotten Lockerbie.  France's murder of an innocent and the sinking of a civilian boat in a friendly country hasn't been forgotten either.

[Davin]

@Asmodean: From the limited knowledge I have of the situation, that is my conclusion as well. Also with current little respect for the U.N..

@SSY: I agree, the trend since WWII seems to be that we must democratise all nations. An irony is that the U.S. who is a big supporter of democracy everywhere, in the great red with hunts stated that they needed to fight communism everywhere because communists wanted to wipe out and take over all free nations. Because who could possibly conceive of a free government invading other countries and destroying governments? I find that reading up on history also removes ones optimism for a governments altruistic invasion intentions and meddling in other countries bidness.

@The Magic Pudding: It's good to not forget a governments (and peoples for that matter), biggest mistakes. It's not likely one can remember all mistakes, but the big ones should be avoided in the future.

[Will]

As far as I understand, the Libyan rebels took up arms against their legitimate (however dislikeable) and internationally recognised government, but the countries currently leading the operation have sided with the named rebels, officially or otherwise, and not with that legitimate government. Is that how the UN is supposed to be used? To bring democracy to the world at the point of a cruise missile, however indirectly the intent is worded?

UN Resolution 1970 (Feb., 2011) recognized that there's outrageous violence being perpetrated by Muammar Quaddafi and his government on his people and demanded there to be ICC investigations. What started out as peaceful protest in Libya only became violent due to the Quaddafi government suppressing through violence dissent against his government. The Libyan government has, during this conflict and before, been responsible for arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture, and summary executions. While this is clearly a Libyan civil war, part of the reason the UN exists is to globally protect human rights. In short, this is a gray area, but the UN is erring on the side of human rights at the expense of not recognizing Libya's national sovereignty.

[Asmodean]

UN Resolution 1970 (Feb., 2011) recognized that there's outrageous violence being perpetrated by Muammar Quaddafi and his government on his people and demanded there to be ICC investigations.

Except, of course, the violence doesn't seem to be all that outrageous from what I can dig up. Somewhat... Boring for a mad dictator, I'd say.

What started out as peaceful protest in Libya only became violent due to the Quaddafi government suppressing through violence dissent against his government.

What I have seen in the media, slightly simplified, is the following: Peaceful demonstrations with a lot of fist shaking > The government says "NO." > Armed rebellion.

The Libyan government has, during this conflict and before, been responsible for arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture, and summary executions. While this is clearly a Libyan civil war, part of the reason the UN exists is to globally protect human rights. In short, this is a gray area, but the UN is erring on the side of human rights at the expense of not recognizing Libya's national sovereignty.

...And because it is a gray area, I'm ok with the UN being there - just not with who is doing the damned thing. In the interest of neutrality, I'd at the very least keep France as far out of it as I could for being openly partisan. For instance, would the French attack a rebel force if they were putting civilian lives in danger? Would the US? Great Britain? If no, then they are technically not so much there protecting the civilians as fighting the regime, yes?

[SSY]

...And because it is a gray area, I'm ok with the UN being there - just not with who is doing the damned thing. In the interest of neutrality, I'd at the very least keep France as far out of it as I could for being openly partisan. For instance, would the French attack a rebel force if they were putting civilian lives in danger? Would the US? Great Britain? If no, then they are technically not so much there protecting the civilians as fighting the regime, yes?

I am interested in how far this will go, particularly whether this will turn out to be a regime change.

I am also really surprised the DC has committed British forces to this effort. The Afghan an Iraqi wars are like political poison over here. The last thing he wants to do is send in ground troops.

[fester30]

I personally feel that the UN is assuming a lot based upon what is obviously not a great human rights record on Gaddafi's part.  What if the rebels are really the ones who started the violence this time, and Gaddafi is just trying to quell the rebellion to save innocent lives?  While that seems very unlikely, I think it just speaks to the fact that the international community is sticking its nose into Libyan affairs because they like democracy and cheap oil.  In other conflicts, the UN is more interested in humanitarian assistance and less interested in armed intervention, especially on the African continent.  Also, I understand China is a really big nation with a really powerful military, but the UN's protests at China's human rights record (much worse than Gaddafi could dream of) is no more than a quiet whisper so as not to offend Beijing too much, else they fly off the deep end and start dumping the world's bonds on the market.

As an American service member who continues to give up my time with family to protect American interests abroad, something I'm proud to do, I look at the situation in Libya and I think that perhaps we see the coming drawbacks in Afghanistan and fear not having a war to fight somewhere.

Oh yes, and with the French on our side I wonder how long before we surrender.

[Asmodean]

Oh yes, and with the French on our side I wonder how long before we surrender.

I just hope they get their noses bloodied for their trouble. A couple of French fighter jets shot down would appease me a little  

[Jolly Sapper]

If the protesters did turn violent, why would Gaddafi need to use Libyan fighter jets to put down the protesters?  Wouldn't the police or maybe conventional ground forces be enough?

Maybe a no fly zone, wouldn't be such a bad thing.  Its not like the protesters have their own air force right?

[fester30]

If the protesters did turn violent, why would Gaddafi need to use Libyan fighter jets to put down the protesters?  Wouldn't the police or maybe conventional ground forces be enough?

Maybe a no fly zone, wouldn't be such a bad thing.  Its not like the protesters have their own air force right?

Air Force makes things easier for ground forces.  Rebel forces have control over a couple main cities in the east of the country.  The air forces can knock out electrical power, bridges, major highways, and rebel strongholds before the ground forces get there to occupy it.  Gaddafi would want to regain power quickly before the rebellion can spread to territory that is, at this point, loyal to him.  There's no quicker way for him to crush the rebellion than to get his entire armed forces in on the act.

[Jolly Sapper]

If the protesters did turn violent, why would Gaddafi need to use Libyan fighter jets to put down the protesters?  Wouldn't the police or maybe conventional ground forces be enough?

Maybe a no fly zone, wouldn't be such a bad thing.  Its not like the protesters have their own air force right?

Air Force makes things easier for ground forces.  Rebel forces have control over a couple main cities in the east of the country.  The air forces can knock out electrical power, bridges, major highways, and rebel strongholds before the ground forces get there to occupy it.  Gaddafi would want to regain power quickly before the rebellion can spread to territory that is, at this point, loyal to him.  There's no quicker way for him to crush the rebellion than to get his entire armed forces in on the act.

Assuming that the Gaddafi Air Forces stuck to attacking infrastructure only.  Does anybody think that Gaddafi would hold his Air Force back to killing infrastructure only and not protesters?

[Tom62]

My 2cts. Are we betting on the right guys? I remember that in the 80's, we supported the Muhadjedin in Afghanistan.  They turned out to be not the kind of people, you'd like to have as your neighbours. So, it might well be, that we are now supporting the next generation of Osama Bin Ladens in Libya.