35
   

military action against Libya

 
 
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 10:06 pm
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-17/un-approves-military-action-by-u-s-allies-against-libya.html


March 18 (Bloomberg) -- The United Nations Security Council authorized a no-fly zone and other military action to prevent Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi from making good on his threat to conquer the rebel capital, Benghazi, and “destroy” the opposition movement.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 35 • Views: 47,787 • Replies: 1,074

 
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 10:25 pm
Hello? Why is this somehow boring?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 10:55 pm
@ossobuco,
Probably because we suspect that by the time something actually happens, it will be way too late.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 11:05 pm
@roger,
I don't just disagree, but, also, urgh.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 11:11 pm
@ossobuco,
Probably because it is being hotly debated over in the Tunisia thread.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 11:17 pm
@Butrflynet,
I don't know about that.
A link, or do I have to chase it? I follow a lot and missed it.
Meantime, I consider them different places.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 11:27 pm
@ossobuco,
http://able2know.org/topic/167119-150#post-4543384
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 11:31 pm
@Butrflynet,
Here's another, separate topic, where it is being debated:

http://able2know.org/topic/169143-4#post-4543053
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 11:37 pm
@Butrflynet,
Thank you, as I was just starting to look for a Tunisia thread.

I probably won't want to keep this thread open, but I'm not sure.
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2011 11:54 pm
@ossobuco,
Ah, well I had followed that. I'd jarringly missed some explication.

so far, I agree with Robert.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 01:40 am
@ossobuco,
There are two significant issues here.
1. The politics of the resolution.
2. Whether there is the political will to continue to engage militarily. given the de facto reluctance for that engagement seen in Bosnia.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 02:03 am
@ossobuco,
This will halt the assault on Benghazi in the short term, but what happens next is very unclear.

Gaddafi is probably going to switch gears here, and make any subsequent resolutions that could actually call for regime change (remember, this resolution only gives the mandate to protect civilians) difficult. After all, the legal basis for this resolution is the R2P norm but there is no legal basis for toppling a tyrant outside of this (R2P is relatively new as a legal concept itself). So if Gaddafi simply stops the military assault on the rebels there is still an underlying stalemate that is not resolved and that this resolution doesn't have the mandate to change. He can't crush the rebels but the rebels can't topple him militarily without help.

The next steps here are going to be interesting. This revolution can't be put back in the bottle, but it's very unclear what will break this standoff. This resolution doesn't do it, it preserves the standoff (as the rebels were about to be overrun). If Gaddafi does continue to attack, he could even be directly attacked and I think he knows this I personally think he's going to throw a curveball now and try to make the next steps very difficult to get consensus on.

The key questions I have for the next 24 hours are:

1) Which Arab countries are going to do exactly what. This was held up partly to secure this and apparently it has been, but nobody has told us which countries have committed to do what. For the sake of appearance having them start it would be nice, and I'm wondering if they will (I think US involvement will be as late and little as possible).

2) Will they start attacking to enforce a no-drive/no-fly zone or will they wait for troop movements to react to?
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 02:47 am
@Robert Gentel,
Wouldn't it be bloody amazing if it worked?

I have been very impressed to see the US finessing UN and NATO involvement, and the UN and NATO finessing its own involvement.

Dare one hope?

And what of the Arab states?

I mean, we have the bloody Saudis helping the unspeakable Bahrain regime (it was heart-breaking to hear the calls for world help as the brutal arrests were made this morning) but can the Arabs do better?
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 04:28 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
Wouldn't it be bloody amazing if it worked?


What do you mean?

I think it will work and how well it works is the question I have. If you mean regime change I think that is a matter of when and how and I do not see it surviving a year (even if it's not ousted militarily this buys time that the other measures like sanctions and asset seizures need to choke it off).

Maybe you mean whether this will work insofar as not being a pyrrhic victory. That'd make a lot of sense to worry about as even if the intervention goes smoothly the nation building might not, and there are a lot of ways that the intervention itself could go wrong. But I think even so, this regime will eventually fall because the revolution has let a genie out of the bottle that you can't put back in, and that the regime now can't kill.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 04:37 am
@roger,
Best answer.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 04:48 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
This will halt the assault on Benghazi in the short term, but what happens next is very unclear.

Gaddafi is probably going to switch gears here, and make any subsequent resolutions that could actually call for regime change (remember, this resolution only gives the mandate to protect civilians) difficult. After all, the legal basis for this resolution is the R2P norm but there is no legal basis for toppling a tyrant outside of this (R2P is relatively new as a legal concept itself). So if Gaddafi simply stops the military assault on the rebels there is still an underlying stalemate that is not resolved and that this resolution doesn't have the mandate to change. He can't crush the rebels but the rebels can't topple him militarily without help.


I figured they were planning to exceed the mandate of protecting civilians, and plan to give the rebels close air support as they fight against the government. I don't know if that is truly their intent though.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 04:59 am
as insane as all the "nuke them back to the stone age" crap was after 9/11, you have to kind of think if america had flattened everything south and east of europe, and west of japan and north of australia, the world might be in a better place today

plus with all the radiation we might all have really cool mutant powers
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 05:24 am
@oralloy,
Whatever they do, they'd better do it within the next 24 to 48 hours, or it will all be moot. It's probably too late now to save the situation.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 08:53 am
@Robert Gentel,
The second more. Most concerning to me is if it goes wrong, and, indeed, what will be born from it.

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 09:52 am
Kadaffi has come off pretty well. Does the UN intend to partition Libya? Do they undertake to protect the people who have rebelled indefinitely from his vengeance? So long as he controls the oil fields and the petroleum production and distribution system, he can stay in business.

Too little, too late.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » military action against Libya
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/15/2020 at 11:38:18