US Military Action in Libya?

[General_Tao]

Well, we know what it wont be: a qaddhafi-style dictatorship.

saxi said:

"Your lie about the poverty of libyans is like ask your previous blowhard puke in this thread ... Libyans have free housing, healthcare, a $50,000 marriage allocation, just for starters."

Fact: Libya, despite being extremely wealthy in resources, ranks 63rd in pr capita GDP, behind Mexico, Botswana and Belarus. Given their natural wealth and small population they should be in the top 20 at least, if they had semi-decent leaders who didn't waste the country's money buying up european soccer teams as their personal trophies. Qaddhafi bought up shares in Italian teams just so that his inept son could play football in Serie A:

http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/2 ... r-of-money

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

As far as prisoner executions, if you're a mercenary hired to supress the popular uprising and kill locals, you can't expect clemency if you get captured. Qaddhafi hired a lot of foreign mercenaries from west Africa because he doesn't trust his own people (why should he...) Frankly I'm not going to shed any tears over the plight of those mercenaries once captured.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, a lot of your questions would have been perfectly valid and salient in Iraq..

My questions are perfectly valid and salient in any issue concerning national security, so your dodge is totally unfounded.

Seeing that you can't really answer them should illuminate to yourself that you presume too much; therefore, your conclusions become more difficult to validate.


The point of all those questions is to challenge the way you perceive and interpret events. As a good analyst, one of your goals should be gauging the integrity of information in order to produce good intelligence.


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=139185&view=unread#p3329660

[BigBallinStalin]

Just read the following pdf provided by the State Department.

It explains much about Libya, and although it will tend to overlook positive aspects of Libya, it's still reliable enough and useful in order to understand Libya's history, it's economic hardships, its splintered "nationality," why the US got involved, etc.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/68810.pdf

*Note, Libya's government provided many goods to its people. It's a great way of maintaining order coupled with severe coercion, but for being such a "terrible" country, ranking 60th of roughly 150+ nations isn't nearly as bad as being "terrible." It may be run by a dictator, but at least the country and its people are generally doing better than 90 other countries...

[Qwert]

Wait... you think Libya is going to be a western style liberal democracy?

why not,they get "teachers" from US,Britain,France, dont say that these is all ready failed project from NAto(us) kitchen. Ofcouse these will have high price, i wonder what will US,France<britain get for these help?

As far as prisoner executions, if you're a mercenary hired to supress the popular uprising and kill locals, you can't expect clemency if you get captured. Qaddhafi hired a lot of foreign mercenaries from west Africa because he doesn't trust his own people (why should he...) Frankly I'm not going to shed any tears over the plight of those mercenaries once captured.

You realy belive in everything, now you think that they execute only mercenaries, but they kill everybody,goverment soldiers, civilians. Even in begining they hung 2 policemen in benghazi. Like in end of WW2, its time for payback. Ofcourse Criminal court on hague,will not intervene in these situation, and war crime its war crime, and anyone who commite crime need to be in prison. If soldiers surender,then you need to take hem into custody,not to execute hem, its against geneva convention. Ofcourse its against to bombard civilians,but NAto(us) its above geneva convention,and these criminal act you can not bring to justice.

[thegreekdog]

why not,they get "teachers" from US,Britain,France, dont say that these is all ready failed project from NAto(us) kitchen. Ofcouse these will have high price, i wonder what will US,France<britain get for these help?

I'll bet you $10 Libya does not become a western style liberal democracy with things like free speech, freedom of religion, and equal rights.

[Qwert]

why not,they get "teachers" from US,Britain,France, dont say that these is all ready failed project from NAto(us) kitchen. Ofcouse these will have high price, i wonder what will US,France<britain get for these help?

I'll bet you $10 Libya does not become a western style liberal democracy with things like free speech, freedom of religion, and equal rights.

So what its purpose of NAto intervention in libya? Oil maybe?

[spurgistan]

The cynic in me thinks that NATO intervention in Libya could be explained by other things going on in Europe right now - think Clinton intervening in Bosnia (as I'm sure you are). Also, Gaddafi was relatively international-consequence free to topple - a secular despot with sizable popular opposition. Given that Gaddhafi was very good to international oil markets, I have a hard time seeing the war-for-oil argument.

[thegreekdog]

why not,they get "teachers" from US,Britain,France, dont say that these is all ready failed project from NAto(us) kitchen. Ofcouse these will have high price, i wonder what will US,France<britain get for these help?

I'll bet you $10 Libya does not become a western style liberal democracy with things like free speech, freedom of religion, and equal rights.

So what its purpose of NAto intervention in libya? Oil maybe?

Of course oil! For France I think.

[Phatscotty]

U.S. Boots on the Ground in Libya, Pentagon Confirms

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... z1XmQg5CnE

Despite repeated assurances from President Obama and military leaders that the U.S. would not send uniformed military personnel into Libya, four U.S. service members arrived on the ground in Tripoli over the weekend.

According to Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby, the four unidentified troops are there working under the State Department's chief of mission to assist in rebuilding the U.S. Embassy.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... z1XmQQ58mb

[BigBallinStalin]

U.S. Boots on the Ground in Libya, Pentagon Confirms

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... z1XmQg5CnE

Despite repeated assurances from President Obama and military leaders that the U.S. would not send uniformed military personnel into Libya, four U.S. service members arrived on the ground in Tripoli over the weekend.

According to Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby, the four unidentified troops are there working under the State Department's chief of mission to assist in rebuilding the U.S. Embassy.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... z1XmQQ58mb

Dude, that's nothing. The US has got 100s--possibly 1000s--of "advisers" there.

[saxitoxin]

Something really big is happening in Libya right - and Libya is supposed to be last month's news - but as long as headlines keep overflowing with 200 people having a barbecue in a park in New York no one's gonna hear about it.

An entire BCT-equivalent sized unit of the NTC was routed outside of Sirte yesterday and it got a dismissive bottom-of-the-page mention on CNN.

This morning major sections of Tripoli came under attack from Emergency Action Team commandos of the Militia of the Masses that penetrated the city perimeter.

So many shoulder-mount SAMs are being moved out of Libya to European destinations that Obama has just deployed 100 ground troops (called "advisors" just like Vietnam ...) to Libya to try to get things under control.

People in Libya realize the NTC is basically impotent thugs and the alternative is Al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism. They want the Green Revolution back. A video by a young fellow who declares "No Sharia Law in Libya! Victory for the Brother Leader!" - http://www.twitvid.com/B2I0R

[BigBallinStalin]

The WSJ (today or yesterday) described the NTC as having minimal influence in the civil war--including "NTC"-personnel and funding compared to the other Libyan factions.

[Phatscotty]

U.S. Boots on the Ground in Libya, Pentagon Confirms

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... z1XmQg5CnE

Despite repeated assurances from President Obama and military leaders that the U.S. would not send uniformed military personnel into Libya, four U.S. service members arrived on the ground in Tripoli over the weekend.

According to Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby, the four unidentified troops are there working under the State Department's chief of mission to assist in rebuilding the U.S. Embassy.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... z1XmQQ58mb

Dude, that's nothing. The US has got 100s--possibly 1000s--of "advisers" there.

Yah, I know. It's just a post about how Obama lied when he said we wouldn't send ground troops

[Qwert]

i bet that these adviser will only try to ocupy and defend oil resourses,nothing else,because these is primarly task in libya "Defend unarmed oil areas"

[Phatscotty]

i bet that these adviser will only try to ocupy and defend oil resourses,nothing else,because these is primarly task in libya "Defend unarmed oil areas"

Yup. The only difference is the media would not blare it on a continuous loop, and nobody will be able to make the correlation that is is basically the same as Iraq (war for oil) and also that we "only defended the oil fields". I'm sure a great deal of people could tell you all about how we were greedy for oil in Iraq and that was all we defended. The power plants and water mains and electrical grids and museums were looted and we didn't care. (I care because the Sumerian Sanskrit tablets were taken from the museum )

[BigBallinStalin]

The various rebels are already doing that, qwert, so there's no need to waste valuable advisers on that.

Ideally, the advisers will connect certain desirable rebel groups with armaments and organizational know-how to prepare them for the end of this current game. Unfortunately, I'm not sure they know who to trust and who will best fulfill the CIA's, State Departments, Pentagon's, or the Obama Administration's objectives, which tend to be conflicting...

Obama ignored the advice of Robert Gates and his National Security Adviser about getting involved in Libya, and instead chose the advise of his humanitarian interventionists: Hillary Clinton, UN ambassador: Susan Rice, and Senior Advisor: Samantha Power.

So, this is what happens when key individuals strongly act on moral sentiments. They ignored good advice, and now they'll indirectly pay the consequences. But people are short-sighted, and this will be overlooked for the next election. Already, some Libyan factions are turning on each other to fill the power vacuums in various towns and cities, so more people will die--without Gaddafi in power.

This is mainly because Obama said that they can't allow Gaddafi into Benghazi, or they'll be a massacre (which wasn't certain, and the extend of that "massacre" wasn't certain either). Instead, he and his people will distribute the violence on pro-Libyan supporters (civilians included) and unintentionally enable rebels to kill other rebels and of course civilians.

[Phatscotty]

The various rebels are already doing that, qwert, so there's no need to waste valuable advisers on that.

Ideally, the advisers will connect certain desirable rebel groups with armaments and organizational know-how to prepare them for the end of this current game. Unfortunately, I'm not sure they know who to trust and who will best fulfill the CIA's, State Departments, Pentagon's, or the Obama Administration's objectives, which tend to be conflicting...

Obama ignored the advice of Robert Gates and his National Security Adviser about getting involved in Libya, and instead chose the advise of his humanitarian interventionists: Hillary Clinton, UN ambassador: Susan Rice, and Senior Advisor: Samantha Power.

So, this is what happens when key individuals strongly act on moral sentiments. They ignored good advice, and now they'll indirectly pay the consequences. But people are short-sighted, and this will be overlooked for the next election. Already, some Libyan factions are turning on each other to fill the power vacuums in various towns and cities, so more people will die--without Gaddafi in power.

This is mainly because Obama said that they can't allow Gaddafi into Benghazi, or they'll be a massacre (which wasn't certain, and the extend of that "massacre" wasn't certain either). Instead, he and his people will distribute the violence on pro-Libyan supporters (civilians included) and unintentionally enable rebels to kill other rebels and of course civilians.

I wonder just how much of this benefits the Clinton Global Initiative?

[Symmetry]

The various rebels are already doing that, qwert, so there's no need to waste valuable advisers on that.

Ideally, the advisers will connect certain desirable rebel groups with armaments and organizational know-how to prepare them for the end of this current game. Unfortunately, I'm not sure they know who to trust and who will best fulfill the CIA's, State Departments, Pentagon's, or the Obama Administration's objectives, which tend to be conflicting...

Obama ignored the advice of Robert Gates and his National Security Adviser about getting involved in Libya, and instead chose the advise of his humanitarian interventionists: Hillary Clinton, UN ambassador: Susan Rice, and Senior Advisor: Samantha Power.

So, this is what happens when key individuals strongly act on moral sentiments. They ignored good advice, and now they'll indirectly pay the consequences. But people are short-sighted, and this will be overlooked for the next election. Already, some Libyan factions are turning on each other to fill the power vacuums in various towns and cities, so more people will die--without Gaddafi in power.

This is mainly because Obama said that they can't allow Gaddafi into Benghazi, or they'll be a massacre (which wasn't certain, and the extend of that "massacre" wasn't certain either). Instead, he and his people will distribute the violence on pro-Libyan supporters (civilians included) and unintentionally enable rebels to kill other rebels and of course civilians.

I think a lot of posters are kind of overestimating the role of the US in this. The real issue is how much influence a nation will have over the government that emerges. The US is playing a weird game on this one, with support for Gaddaffi at least in terms of a strongman to keep Islamists at bay, a weird kind of non-interventionism while intervening elsewhere, and a policy on Israel that looks increasingly anti-Arab.

Obama probably played this about right, and American soft power- facebook, blackberry and twitter, will be remembered as influences, but they might not be remembered as specifically American, which would be a shame.

[Phatscotty]

We are tearing down the old order and setting up a new middle eastern chess board for the world to play on with new rules and politics.

[Symmetry]

We are tearing down the old order and setting up a new middle eastern chess board for the world to play on with new rules and politics.

Chess is kind of a tired metaphor for the situation in the middle east, but you're right that a new set of politics and rules will emerge. This isn't the Cold War anymore, and the regimes that were established as clients to the players in that game are falling, and the states have a potential to become autonomous.

It won't be a chessboard unless the US decides to see these new states as pawns working for or against them. The people of the middle east would prefer to be allies, rather than pawns.

[Phatscotty]

We are tearing down the old order and setting up a new middle eastern chess board for the world to play on with new rules and politics.

Chess is kind of a tired metaphor for the situation in the middle east, but you're right that a new set of politics and rules will emerge. This isn't the Cold War anymore, and the regimes that were established as clients to the players in that game are falling, and the states have a potential to become autonomous.

It won't be a chessboard unless the US decides to see these new states as pawns working for or against them. The people of the middle east would prefer to be allies, rather than pawns.

except.....we all want oil, and a lot of different kinds of people want to control that oil and be the ones who are selling it, not to mention the powers that be who might have a certain agenda as to what currency they will accept for their oil. And then of course we have the environmentalists......oh wait nevermind. It's always a game of chess.

[Symmetry]

We are tearing down the old order and setting up a new middle eastern chess board for the world to play on with new rules and politics.

Chess is kind of a tired metaphor for the situation in the middle east, but you're right that a new set of politics and rules will emerge. This isn't the Cold War anymore, and the regimes that were established as clients to the players in that game are falling, and the states have a potential to become autonomous.

It won't be a chessboard unless the US decides to see these new states as pawns working for or against them. The people of the middle east would prefer to be allies, rather than pawns.

except.....we all want oil, and a lot of different kinds of people want to control that oil and be the ones who are selling it, not to mention the powers that be who might have a certain agenda as to what currency they will accept for their oil. And then of course we have the environmentalists......oh wait nevermind. It's always a game of chess.

Chess is a bad metaphor because it implies a single opponent. Welcome to politics, where there's not always a single opponent, and you have influence rather than control.

Who do you think you're playing chess against?

[Phatscotty]

We are tearing down the old order and setting up a new middle eastern chess board for the world to play on with new rules and politics.

Chess is kind of a tired metaphor for the situation in the middle east, but you're right that a new set of politics and rules will emerge. This isn't the Cold War anymore, and the regimes that were established as clients to the players in that game are falling, and the states have a potential to become autonomous.

It won't be a chessboard unless the US decides to see these new states as pawns working for or against them. The people of the middle east would prefer to be allies, rather than pawns.

except.....we all want oil, and a lot of different kinds of people want to control that oil and be the ones who are selling it, not to mention the powers that be who might have a certain agenda as to what currency they will accept for their oil. And then of course we have the environmentalists......oh wait nevermind. It's always a game of chess.

Chess is a bad metaphor because it implies a single opponent. Welcome to politics, where there's not always a single opponent, and you have influence rather than control.

Who do you think you're playing chess against?

the board is multi-dimensional and there are many opponents. I am not playing atm

[BigBallinStalin]

The various rebels are already doing that, qwert, so there's no need to waste valuable advisers on that.

Ideally, the advisers will connect certain desirable rebel groups with armaments and organizational know-how to prepare them for the end of this current game. Unfortunately, I'm not sure they know who to trust and who will best fulfill the CIA's, State Departments, Pentagon's, or the Obama Administration's objectives, which tend to be conflicting...

Obama ignored the advice of Robert Gates and his National Security Adviser about getting involved in Libya, and instead chose the advise of his humanitarian interventionists: Hillary Clinton, UN ambassador: Susan Rice, and Senior Advisor: Samantha Power.

So, this is what happens when key individuals strongly act on moral sentiments. They ignored good advice, and now they'll indirectly pay the consequences. But people are short-sighted, and this will be overlooked for the next election. Already, some Libyan factions are turning on each other to fill the power vacuums in various towns and cities, so more people will die--without Gaddafi in power.

This is mainly because Obama said that they can't allow Gaddafi into Benghazi, or they'll be a massacre (which wasn't certain, and the extend of that "massacre" wasn't certain either). Instead, he and his people will distribute the violence on pro-Libyan supporters (civilians included) and unintentionally enable rebels to kill other rebels and of course civilians.

I think a lot of posters are kind of overestimating the role of the US in this.

Do you think I am overestimating its role?

The real issue is how much influence a nation will have over the government that emerges. The US is playing a weird game on this one, with support for Gaddaffi at least in terms of a strongman to keep Islamists at bay, a weird kind of non-interventionism while intervening elsewhere, and a policy on Israel that looks increasingly anti-Arab.

Currently, the US has frozen $30bn of Gaddafi's assets, so the US likely poses a very strong influence over the formation of Libya's future government--or the US at least has the greatest ability to maximize the chances of its most favored Libyan politicians. UK and France don't have that ability.

Obama probably played this about right, and American soft power- facebook, blackberry and twitter, will be remembered as influences, but they might not be remembered as specifically American, which would be a shame.

What's so "right" about bombing people, exacerbating a civil war, and then inevitably becoming strongly involved in the country's reconstruction efforts which will very likely fail?

Not only that, but there's the $25 increase in the prices of oil futures prior to this conflict. Since the fighting has been prolonged, the production of oil will remain lower for longer (and the prices of oil and oil futures will also increase). It's an unseen cost which inevitably is paid by European citizens. What's right about that?

[spurgistan]

What's so "right" about bombing people, exacerbating a civil war, and then inevitably becoming strongly involved in the country's reconstruction efforts which will very likely fail?

Not only that, but there's the $25 increase in the prices of oil futures prior to this conflict. Since the fighting has been prolonged, the production of oil will remain lower for longer (and the prices of oil and oil futures will also increase). It's an unseen cost which inevitably is paid by European citizens. What's right about that?

I think you can call it "right" if you take the official line, that NATO was bombing military targets which had engaged in systematic killings of civilians, and was attempting to prevent the inevitable (and awful) reprisals that would ensue if Gaddafi had taken Benghazi. I'm going to be a weasel and say that I don't agree with what I just said 100%, but if you think that a just military intervention exists, the Libyan intervention mighta been it. I'm pretty sure oil futures don't play a role in the morality of the conflict.

On a related note, I am happy we finally sent military advisers to Uganda.