Slashdot Mirror
UN Intervention Begins In Libya
maliamnon writes "US, French, and British forces began enforcing a UN resolution (1973/2011) to defend civilians in Libya today. French aircraft are attacking tanks, while the US and possibly UK are supporting the operation with cruise missiles from sea."
Update: 03/19 22:34 GMT by T :
Adds reader bloggerkg: "More than 110 Tomahawk missiles fired from American and British ships and submarines hit about 20 Libyan air and missile defense targets in western portions of the country, US Vice Adm. William Gortney said at a Pentagon briefing. The US will conduct a damage assessment of the sites, which include SA-5 missiles and communications facilities. A senior US military official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the missiles landed near Misrata and Tripoli, the capital and Gadhafi's stronghold."
FTFA: "The UN Security Council has passed a resolution authorising "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya from pro-Gaddafi forces."
The goal of it is to assist the anti-Qaddafi rebels; they are the 'ground forces'.
Or so it seems based on the resolution.
The people against Bush were against the questionable intelligence of WMDs by the Hussein regime. This UN-sanctioned action is to protect civilians against a violent quelling of a peaceful uprising. Can you see a difference there?
...is like fucking for virginity!
Yeah, yer right, the nerve of the West to attempt knock over a ruthless dictator who has supported the worst sort of despots throughout Africa and who decided his people should have no right to self-determination. What were they thinking? What were you thinking?
The mandate for action and the goal seem clear. Clear the way so the Lybians themselves can march into Tripoli. Much better outcome than having US troops on the ground not knowing who to shoot. Added bonus, we -start- to make a clear break from the ruthless dictators we've supported in the name of the cold war and later the phantom menace, er, I mean the war on terror.
It was going to be France, UK and Italy, but for some reason the US did not want to miss the party.
In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
Well, Italy is letting the UN forces use their ports and airbases, Denmark and Norway have both sent fighters.
Not to mention that the first planes that went into Libyan airspace were French and British. Oh, and various shared NATO resources, and the french have the Charles de Gaulle parked off the Libyan coast and...
Oh sorry, you wanted to rant about how Amurka(!) is always called upon to play the world police only to be bashed by the world community. Feel free to continue.
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
We aren't wanted there? Ask the protesters. They want us there.
What, we aren't wanted there by the Libyan government? The leader who has said he has no problem killing as many people as it takes to retain control over his country? The government that has been gunning down peaceful protests with machine guns (sure, the protests aren't very peaceful now, but that's why)? The government that was sending fighter jets against chants and flags?
When innocent people are being murder by the hundreds and thousands for doing nothing more than speaking their minds...we have a responsibility as human beings to take action to help them. I can agree that military action is not always the best choice. If you have some alternative proposal, I may agree with you 100% after hearing it. But at the moment, I see no other option.
On a related note, it could be said that France wasn't wanted in the American Revolution either. But they got involved. And without their involvement, it is quite likely that the US would not exist as a nation.
> Humanitarianism is not a factor in the equation
Have you ever actually met UN prosecutors? Or policymakers? There are a lot of bottom-dwellers on the world stage, yes, and a lot of really self-involved people in power throughout the world. But there are also a lot of really good people involved in the work, and a lot of really competent people who believe in what they're doing, and there are people who--though they are self-involved--genuinely care about whether or not other people are dying.
Humanitarianism is a factor in the equation. It's just not the only factor. Wars cost a lost of money and lives, and UN intervention is sometimes good and sometimes bad. If you think they don't care whether their presence helps or hurts, you don't know them at all.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible
No, but sometimes the use of force is the only way to stop someone like Gaddafi from continuing to use force as he slaughters his own people. I realize that you think he should just stop doing so because several Important People have used Really Stern Language telling him that he must stop doing so. But (shockingly!) he just keeps on dropping bombs on those civilians, and using artillery to kill them. What part of that are you not actually understanding? Or when say that we're "believing lies," do you mean that the Gaddafi regime's statements about the nature of what they're doing is actually the correct body of information? That all of the international press on the ground - who are sending us video of Gaddafi's aircraft attacking people on the ground - that they're all part of the conspiracy?
And you're calling other people deluded? How much money are you getting from Gaddafi to astroturf on behalf of his regime, anyway? Do tell.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
We are effectively playing the role of the French in the American Revolutionary War - keeping the powerful weaponry at bay so that they can liberate themselves. In the Revolutionary War, the French helped keep the British Navy at bay, something we could not do for ourselves. Similarly here we are keeping the planes/armor that the Libyans can't deal with themselves at bay.
The fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about how big of a pussy Obama really is.
I really don't think the states needs to flash the size of its dick again quite so soon. If it's going to be done, it should be done right, and welllll, America doesn't exactly have the best reputation for taking charge and doing it right at the moment.
Just to note, I'm in the UK and to be honest I'd say the same for our country right now. Also, I recommend you actually read the quick analysis on the bbc website. The most important phrases in the analysis I feel are this:
Crucially it excludes any "foreign occupation force" in sweeping terms. This is a message to the Arab world - this is not another Iraq.
and this:
[] a final settlement to the crisis in Libya must be political and reached by the parties to the conflict themselves
This is not the same as what Bush did. Libya UN Resolution 1973: Text analysed
Who need's speling and grammar?
Wow. Political, military, and historical ignorance plus a gratuitous anti-French slur all in four lines! (Not counting whitespace.) You must have worked really hard to pack that much small-mindedness into such a short post. Um, congratulations, I guess.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Be careful when you tell other people they're getting their history wrong. The UN authorized force to deal with Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. He never complied with the terms of the "cease fire" that saved his skin as he pulled back from that invasion, and he continued to shoot at the allied aircraft enforcing the UN-approved no-fly zone set up to prevent his ongoing slaughter of innocents in the north and south. He never stopped fighting following his invasion of Kuwait. All the rest is beside the point, and demanded the use of force to finally stop his regime. On top of that, of course, he never complied with the UN mandates that he allow proper inspections to find out what he did with the mountains of VX gas and other goodies that UN inspectors saw on the ground.
Combine that with Saddam's ongoing construction of the long-range missiles he promised to stop building/importing, his publicly announced cash payments to suicide bombers, his smuggling operations with places like North Korea, his violation of the terms of the financial aid packages intended to feed and care for his citizens (he used the money for weapons, cash for cronies, and more palace building) and you have the conditions that led to the UN authorizing force to remove him. Don't know how you forgot that part, but apparently you did.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
the rest of the UN nations are doing what exactly to support this?
That's just what I could quickly dredge up from BBC News
Pirate Party UK
War is the solution to everything for you people. Horrible
War is the solution to nothing for you people. Delusional.
It is easy to say that the US should not interfere with other countries, but: "with great power comes great responsibility".
Like it or not: the US are the world police. They have a big army and lots of fancy military equipment, and most of the time I believe they are really trying to do what is best for everybody, and prevent bloodshed etc. etc. With an army as big as theirs, they have a moral obligation to intervene when people are being killed for no apparent reason (or for "bad" reasons, whatever that means). It is however not so easy to decide when to intervene, because it is often not clear what exactly "good" and "bad" reasons are: wars and international politics are not as straightforward as movies (I wish they were. It would either make the movies more interesting or the politics easier to understand).
And yes, they will sometimes decide to intervene when it should not have been done. That is always easy to say afterwards. How many times have you made wrong decisions in your personal life (or in your MMORPG if you prefer)? Often enough, I bet. The consequences may be smaller in case of personal decisions, but should that be a reason for a country to sit back and do nothing? No.
But Libya doesn't have that much oil, only about 1% of world production. I was 100% against the invasion of Iraq, but in this case there is a home grown up rising that needs some help. If all we do is destroy Libyan military forces that are murdering civilians, but otherwise leave the revolution to the locals I support this action.
Anarchists never rule
I respectfully disagree. I believe the decision is based in large part upon whether intervention stands a substantial, realistic chance to do any good. Military intervention in places like Somalia would accomplish nothing productive; it's been tried. There often is no central government oppressing and attacking people, it's dozens (or more) bands of irregulars, led by warlords working mostly from drug money, fighting each other and taking the opportunity for the occasional tribal massacre. In some cases there *is* a central government oppressing and murdering people, but the alternative would be another Somalia.
In the case of Libya, it seems clear that the citizenry wants the current regime out, and the current regime is willing to kill a substantial percentage of the population to hold onto power. It's also a fair bet that, once the smoke clears, Libyans will be willing and able to establish a new government and bring things back to some semblance of normalcy.
If the decision were based solely upon maintaining a cheap oil supply, we could just as easily help crazy-ass dictators like Gaddafi restore order and suppress the rebellion, in exchange for a few price and production promises.
Why does everybody talk shit about the French? Their military history is ancient, they were the British empire's primary enemy, and without them America would probably have been crushed during the revolution.
Maybe this is for the best, but I have a queasy feeling about how it's going to turn out.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why are they not demanding the bombardment of Bahrain military, or better, Saudi Arabia military?
I know that RTFA'ing is not well received around here, but in this case reading the second one would be a good thing.
First of all, the resolution only gives the different countries permission to defend civilians, not to depose Gaddafi.
Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity... ...
Analysis: These first two highlighted sections emphasise that this is all about defending the civilian population in Libya from attacks by its own government. One of the conditions for action set out by Nato countries has been "a demonstrable need" to intervene.
1. Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
Analysis: The overriding stated aim is to halt the fighting and to achieve a ceasefire. It does not explicitly call for the removal of Col Muammar Gaddafi though one can assume that this is what the countries promoting this resolution would like. Many of their leaders have said so quite explicitly.
Also, other countries are barred from putting in occupation forces and so on. Current attacks seem to be aimed at anti-air defenses so their forces can start enforcing a no-fly zone without having their planes shot down.
They'll probably target sites shelling other cities and so on.
And a shitload of empty desert that can be used to harvest solar power.
But more importantly - Libya is right smack in the middle of the shortest route for transportation of electricity from North Africa to Europe.
Electricity should start flowing from North Africa to Europe by 2020. By 2050, North African and European renewable sources should provide 100% of EU and NA power needs.
Transported by HVDC transformers like the ones Siemens built for China along the link like the one Abengoa Group will build for Brazil.
Abengoa Group will also build the Solana Generating Station in Arizona - to the tune of 2 billion dollars.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I fully support the military action in Libya, because nothing short of that is going to stop mass murder of civilian population that is perpetrated by Gaddafi forces in rebelling parts of the country. Good for them that they've acted swiftly enough, too (one month sounds like a lot, but when it comes to world diplomacy it is remarkably fast).
However, I'm afraid that UN forces will make the same mistake that NATO did in Bosnia and especially Kosovo - acting as peacekeepers in name, but picking a side and sticking with it in reality. In Kosovo this was most prominent - when Serbs were burning down mosques, killing Albanians and driving them out into Albanian, NATO was quick to intervene. But when Serbian army and paramilitaries withdrew, and the only force remaining in the province was KLA, the latter started burning down churches, killing Serbs, and driving them out into Serbia - and KFOR stood aside and watched.
Now, if the rebels prevail, I don't think anyone is going to shed tears if the "colonel" hangs, trial or no trial. But the sides in this civil war are largely arranged around tribal identity - Qadhadfa vs the rest of them. We say that the rebels are "pro-West", but so was KLA, by their own words - which did not stop them to partake in genocide themselves when they had the upper hand. So if the rebels win, and start massacring Qadhadfa - would the West also intervene militarily to stop that? Somehow, I doubt it, which is too bad, and would discredit the whole operation. I hope I'm wrong.
You're right... it doesn't work like that... here is how it works:
Popular uprising begins in a country, popular uprising controls half the country. Dictator starts rolling over the people who have formed their own democratic government, UN drops a no fly zone over dictator and starts bombing the crap out of their military resources so the rebels can continue to free themselves.
It works a lot better like that than it did the Neo-Con way which wasted over a trillion dollars and over ten thousand lives of US service members.
Are you seriously suggesting you don't know why the US got involved there?
Pretty much can be summed up in three words: Charles de Gaulle. The entire "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is just a cheap shot and did not originate during WW2 as far as I can tell. I happened later after the cold war was underway due to policy set by France and de Gaulle. First, de Gaulle thought that NATO didn't have what it took to win the cold war and the heartless Soviets would win the day, so they withdrew from NATO and went their own way. Two, France was in a big hissy to prove that they were a world power and could do anything the US could while Britain was just a US puppet and only had importance because they rode on the US coattails. They insulted Great Britain a lot, tried to throw their weight around, and did things like unilateral nuclear testing after everybody else had agreed on a ban. All of this after the Allies had freed France and given it back to the people because it was expected that we'd all be friends. It was pretty much felt as a big betrayal, so the surrender remarks are the cheap shot that is easy to make without having to actually get into real issues.
How do you know it's indiscriminate? I mean other than from what they tell you on TV?
Firing artillery at residential city blocks is kinda indiscriminate by definition. If you want to see an example of what it looks afterwards, have a look at the photos of Grozny circa 1995 or 2000.
Last I checked, Gaddafi did not deny that he's using artillery in his attempt to take over Benghazi (and other rebel cities).
How is NATO bombing any more "discriminate"? You can't hit 112 targets and not hurt any civilians.
Yes. There is a difference between dropping a precision guided bomb at a tank and hitting one or two civilians that stood within 10 meters of it, and firing an artillery barrage that hits a bunch of apartment buildings and kills several dozen.
Of course this depends on what will actually be done. NATO was also claiming to be using precision munitions in Kosovo, but they have classified railroad bridges and TV stations as "military targets" and bombed them (in one case, hitting a civilian train as it was crossing a bridge). That kind of thing is a war crime no less than what Gaddafi is doing. So far, however, the talk has been only about 1) shooting down planes, 2) hitting individual artillery and armor units, and 3) bombing army bases and munition depots. If they stick to that plan, it's good enough, and civilian deaths would be minimal.
Why not just let Gaddafi re-establish law and order in the country?
Because he said, in a public and televised speech, that "those who do not love me do not deserve to live", and so far has been consistently implementing that. Consequently, the only "law and order" he can possibly reestablish is the kind where dissenters are massacred en masse.
you still aren't fixing the shit conditions that allow one to take power in the first place.
Absolutely! Before the UN or anybody else intervenes, there should be some clear sign that the people are ready for change! Maybe a mass uprising or something...
we got too many of our own problems to go around playing world police.
That's why we have several people, in several places, each doing their own jobs. The Department of Labor doesn't give a damn about Libya. Likewise, the Department of Defense doesn't care if you have a job right now. Government is a part of society, which is a group of people who have realized that people can work together, each doing their own jobs, to accomplish many things at once.
Do you also expect the President to not sleep tonight, because some kid in Oregon broke his leg?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
In WW2, there were a lot of french people in Great Brittain and some have memories of wanting to pay in say a restaurant and being told "the bill has been paid" referring to the French soldiers protecting the British retreat at Dunkirk.
Now cowardly comedians who never fought for anything and would shit themselves if asked to defend their country claim the French are cowards.
But then we have taken coward actors over real heroes for a long time.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.