Our politicians need to understand that getting elected (under a very dubious electoral system) here does not give them the right to say who should run other people’s countries.

“which also means that Gaddafi and his goons have no motivation to accept defeat and slink away with their tails between their legs.”

I am pretty sure that NATO and the UN would let Gaddafi slink away if he offered to, but they won’t allow him to have dictatorial power over Libya again or to divide it into a private fiefdom and another bit. I don’t really see that that is unreasonable intransigence on the part of NATO and the UN.

The war is messy and unpredictable as we all knew it would be but the alternative was an indefinite period of continuing brutal Gaddafi family rule and we shouldn’t forget that part of the calculation.

We seem to have the worst of all possible worlds where we don’t have the courage to finish the job or the willingness with withdraw and let them get on with whatever it is they will do when someone finally wins.

However surely that is an argument for ground troops and doing it properly?

1. Chris – “Our politicians need to understand that getting elected (under a very dubious electoral system) here does not give them the right to say who should run other people’s countries.”

I am afraid it does, kind of. What they really need to understand is while past generations of British people have given them the ability to change other country’s governments (despite their best efforts to degrade this ability), they should not do so because they look bad on TV saying we can do nothing, but only do so if there is an actual genuine British interest involved.

They also need to understand that whether they stay or whether they go, they need to have a clear, precise, well thought out plan for what they want our soldiers to do. Based on what is actually feasible. Not some vague, imprecise, hand waving wishful thinking about what they might do in an ideal world.

“We seem to have the worst of all possible worlds”

I don’t quite agree. It would surely be worse (and I agree it is very bad) if Gaddafi had suppressed the rebellion completely and returned to the status quo ante plus renewed political persecution.

“They also need to understand that whether they stay or whether they go, they need to have a clear, precise, well thought out plan for what they want our soldiers to do. ”

They need this at the tactical level (and they seem to have it) but not necessarily at the strategic level, because wars are by their nature and notoriously unpredictable no matter how much technocrats like Powell would like to render them otherwise.

Once again, Flying Rodent is LC’s lone voice of sanity among the OPs about Libya.

NATO’s hands are somewhat tied by international legal system and thus if NATO does anything to alleviate the situation, it is by nature speculative. They are doing as much as they can under the guise of protecting civillians – but this action is speculating that eventually Gadaffi will dissapear. Whether this happens through him giving up, the rebels position improving or Gadaffi doing something more serious which would then give NATO legal grounds to take more decisive action.

How it will pan out isn’t clear – and you are right that it is speculative. But most war is.

Having said that, I don’t at all share your analysis that we currently have the worst of all possible worlds. If NATO had done nothing then Gadaffi would have killed an awful lot of people and the situation for the Libyan people would be worse as the above comments mention. This is turn would damage relations between Gadaffi and the West, further isolating him and making him more hostile to the West – which itself has serious consequences given the important geopolitical position Libya occupies.

What is needed is more action, not less. I’d prefer it to be legal – but requires a more widespread acceptance of the fact that sovreignty is sacrificed when there are widespread attacks on civillians.

Gaddafi was our friend.

He had done some dodgy stuff, like all dictatorial megalomaniacs but, for now, he was our friend. We supplied him with weapons and even gave him back his most vile terrorist, a man who had murdered innocent British citizens. Then, in line with what was going on elsewhere in the ME, there was a civil uprising within Libya based on old tribal attachments and fuelled by Islamic fundamentalism.

So then someone, somewhere, decided Gaddafi was no longer to be our friend and we were sold the justification for intervention, in what had become a civil war, on humanitarian grounds. But that was months ago and nobody seems to have noticed that the agenda has changed completely.

We saw that there was a bloodbath about to happen and we had hours to stop it. We could not stand idly by and watch. We would impose a no fly zone to prevent the bloodshed. We would bomb one side’s troops to prevent bloodshed. We would not put in ground forces, but helicopters fly, don’t they?.We will ensure one side in the conflict wins. We will get rid of Gaddafi. We will kill Gaddafi, if we can, and install a government beholden to us and that might do our bidding.

Let’s be absolutely clear. This war has nothing to do with us and we should not be participating in it. The UN resolutions, on which we rely for justification, are wrong in principle.

But if the British public are really too stupid to have noticed the sleight of hand involved in the process, I’d say we pretty much deserve the disingenuous, manipulative politicians we’ve got.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hizb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/blair-gaddafi.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/change-has-come-to-libya&usg=__yuxRmYaDNPTC

Bring on Oceania!!!!!

“This war has nothing to do with us and we should not be participating in it”

Why has it got nothing to do with us? Are Libyans so unlike us that we should be indifferent to their fate? But that requires that we think of them as a different species and, presumably, a lower one. I think what you must really mean is ‘I would prefer that we had nothing to do with Libya’ or something.

I recently saw the video with Gaddafi playing chess in one of his shelters while innocent people are dying in the streets. It really seems that the leaders of foreign countries involved in the conflict want to find a solution which would suit Gaddafi’s future plans. I hope he won’t be allowed to flee the country without being held responsible for the atrocities he has committed over the last few months.

Let’s be absolutely clear. This war has nothing to do with us and we should not be participating in it.

But it does have a lot to do with us. The UK like most other countries is dependent on oil. A stable and affordable oil supply requires a stable middle east. Similarly the middle east continues to be the greatest direct security threat to the UK. Instability and dissatisfaction with a leader breeds further instability, and is even more dangerous since there are instances of Gadaffi being supported by the UK in recent years. A stable Libya (and middle east in general) is very important to the UK, not to mention the other NATO countries around the medditeranean. In terms of self interest – there is a very strong argument for the fact that we have direct interests and should be participating.

Then there is the moral question – which I think is pretty clearly born out.

But it does have a lot to do with us. The UK like most other countries is dependent on oil.

If our politicians were honest enough to say this I would respect them more. But when it is clear that they lie about their motives, what do they say that we can trust?

– there was very clearly no plan at all for victory or unexpected contingencies, and there still isn’t.

Really? How would you know?

I seriously doubt whether NATO military planners give no thought to such matters. In fact, I’d expect them to be concentrating on just these tasks day in, day out.

Whether they should share the fruits of their ruminations with bloggers is another matter.

Its because that oil or resource/geo political factors aren’t the legal grounds for military action. In legal terms, NATO is only entitled to create strategy and actions in support of the UNSC resolution – which is for the protection of civillians. The execution of that resultion will also bring other benifits – but there is no point in talking about these other benifits because it is illegal for the strategy to be based around them. The tactical and operational decisions NATO are adopting have to be seen to be contributing to the protection of civillians – and while there is room for some poetic interpretation – this room is reduced if states are constantly framing the conflict in terms of oil or similar.

The legal grounds are for the protection of civillians – but in my view what consitutes protecting civillians isn’t well enough developed in international law. Some NATO members quickly adopted the position that Gadaffi’s continued rule was incompatible with the protection of civillians – but this isn’t the wider concensus. Personally I’d prefer this notion to become more widespread – if a leader commits gross abuses of his own people he sacrifices the leigtimacy of his regime. There should then be an international effort to affect regime change. The sad thing in Libya is that there are too many other rights abusing regimes that worry that they might be next – so inhibit the development of this principle to preserve their own abilities to abuse their peoples.

In my view, if one wants to support the oppressed and the helpless, it is change in the international sovreignty conception. If a ruler knew that he’d be facing a line of other states keen to remove him as soon as he committed gross human rights violations against his own people – you’d see a certain reduction in such crimes. If this was the norm, I dare say you’d see other states ‘competing’ to provide the most benificial solutions.

FR: I do admire your willingness to address inconvenient questions which the partisan and ideologically-blinkered wilfully ignore. However, on this occasion, I find I disagree with you. Perhaps I can make the following 4 points:

1. Morality apart, the EU (and ergo the UK) has a strong interest in preventing a huge refugee problem if the gangster Gaddafi regime remains in power and continues to slaughter its people. That is our reason for being involved. We intervene militarily where morality and the national interest converge.

2. Our EU ‘partners’ are largely unwilling to help, leaving the job to France and the UK under the NATO umbrella to defend EU interests. Given the swingeing military cuts of the Blair/Brown era, followed by the Coalition’s pathetic back-of-an-envelope defence review, the UK is militarily very over-stretched. If as a people we want to make these interventions and defend the national interest, we need to be able to fund our contribution properly AND to ensure our other allies take their share of the tab. It’s in their interest: so Germany, Italy, Spain etc, where are you?

3. “there was very clearly no plan at all for victory or unexpected contingencies, and there still isn’t”. You overstate; and how do you know? And how can anyone plan for “unexpected contingencies”, if they are unexpected? As I see it, the strategy is slowly to degrade the regime’s miltary potential, so that the rebels can win.

4. Arguably, we are in the end-game. The Gaddafi regime seems to be fatally weakened, as its command-and-control centres are taken out, it forces desert, its armour increasingly destroyed…My prediction is that it will be over by September….

4. Galen10 and the others on here who supported miltary intervention, where are you?

” As I see it, the strategy is slowly to degrade the regime’s miltary potential, so that the rebels can win.”

I think they have been assuming that show of strength political and military by NATO would weaken Gaddafi politically too, causing the regime to collapse from the inside, but they might have been too optimistic there.

…even gave him back his most vile terrorist, a man who had murdered innocent British citizens…

Allegedly.

@16 paul ilc

“4. Galen10 and the others on here who supported miltary intervention, where are you?”

I’ve been out of the country for the past few weeks, and prior to that was a tad busy with work.

However, events over the past few months (in my view… I hardly expect died in the wool opponents of intervention to agree of course) simply demonstrate that what many pro-intervention people were saying was true:

1) we should have gone in earlier, and harder;

2) yes, there should have been a plan. No huge surprise given the lamentable example of Iraq and the Balkans before it that we were hopelessly ill-prepared;

3) again, no huge surprise that our over-stretched and under resourced armed forces are being asked to do the almost impossible by their political masters…. stun us with another; you are right, the rest of the spongers in NATO will sit back and let the US, UK and France take the lead…. it’s what they have always done, sponge off those who were actually prepared to defend them, so they could spend less on defence, and carp from the sidelines about how we shouldn’t be involved, or if we should, how crap we are at doing it on their behalf;

4) there are still thousands of Libyans alive today who would be dead if we hadn’t stopped Gaddaffi occupying Benghazi. Even more would be alive now if we had ensured his defeat; whether we did that directly or indirectly is another matter. As is often the case, if we had done things like use helicopter gunships and air strikes earlier, and/or supplied the rebels with arms earlier…. things would look a lot better than they currently do.

5) I doubt the war will drag on indefinately. If reports are true that the rebels are seeing supplies come thru Tunisia, hopefully Gaddafi is toast in the long term. FR and those opposed to intervention (whether under any circumastances, or just in this particular case) can’t have their cake and eat it. Toppling this regime quickly would have necessitated us being more involved, more quickly, even if it stopped short of “boots on the ground”. Nothing else would have achieved that aim, and claiming otherwise is simply casuistry. This debate is NOT new… the same things were said about the Balkans. We COULD have prevented much of the killing there, instead we stood by and let the Serbs (mostly… tho often the Croats were no better) have at it, until it was much too late. All this shows is that people and their governments rarely learn the lessons of history.

The preferred outcome is obvious isn’t it? A free, democratic Libya… hopefully joining Egypt and Tunisia.

@ FR

“Recall the atmosphere at the time, which was thick with the implication that opposition to a fresh bombing campaign was a ridiculous, childish concept, far outside the boundaries of political acceptability, and quite possibly tantamount to de facto support for Gaddafi’s goons”

As I recall it, the pertinent point at the time was in fact pretty stark: do nothing and allow Gaddafi’s forces to over-run Benghazi, or intervene to prevent it. Opposition to intervention isn’t ridiculous or childish. It is however incumbent upon those promoting that viewpoint to explain how they feel the imminent threat of a humanitarian catastrophe and the crushing of the rebels could have been prevented by other means. I have yet to see ANY such explanation.

I don’t equate non-intervention with support for Gaddafi; I do however question the moral compass of those who would happily have sat back and done nothing.

I think we had to stop the retaking of Benghazi. So I was glad to see the aerial bombing stop that. But after that it’s all been a bit more confused. Dropping bombs on Gaddafi’s HQ seems to be widely abusing the UN sanction for this action. It’s not really a Headquaters run operation, but more local commanders on the ground doing what they see fit. So it seems a bit ”unfair” for NATO pilots to be judge, jury and excecutioner as to who deserves to have a bomb dropped on them or not.

The rebels will surely fire into areas they are trying to take too. Endangering civillians. Would NATO defend the Gaddafi supporters in his home town from attack by the rebels? If they hold out and make it clear that they don’t want their town taken and the rebels bombard it from the outskirts?
It’s how the Americans took Iraq in the first place. Arrive at a town and just blow the hell out of it and pour fire on anyone defending the town, regardless of civilians in harms way.
It’s what they did to retake towns like Falluja too. Pretty hypocritical really …. but Gaddafi does have to go.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the Libyan spokesman Moussa Ibrahim.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=moussa+ibrahim+libya&FORM=AWRE

It always strikes me that one problem the West always has is the demonisation of regime leaders. I don’t know if it’s something we have inherited from the US’s black and white view of the world. Or if it is something we had to do in 1945 to move on after the Nazi’s were over thrown and we “de-Nazified” Germany.
We now seem to have a belief that if Sadam /Gadaffi /al_Assad is removed the population will rise up in a mixture of ecstasy and gratefulness throwing flowers under the feet of the West’s brave soldiers.
Where as in reality a large portion of the population have a stake in the regime, many people are dependent on these dictators and wed to the status quo. They are also worried of the retribution of the oppressed if the regime falls. These people make regime change difficult and the immediate aftermath unstable.

Yet again we seem to have started a war under the impression that everyone in Libya wanted regime change.

“Yet again we seem to have started a war under the impression that everyone in Libya wanted regime change.”

Not true at all. Opposition to Gaddafi need not be based on some idealised consensus. even if a majority of Libyans supported him we would be justified in seeking his removal because he is a criminal.

@ 23

Well said. Presumably there were plenty of fervent Nazis around even when Hitler topped himself…. that’s hardly a rationale for not intervening. In more recent times, plenty of Serbs and Bosnian Serbs were passionately in favour of their regime.

I actually find it interesting how many people here don’t seem to “get” that the Arab spring is overwhelmingly the result of ordinary Arabs in their respective countries demanding the rights which should be theirs as a matter of course. It isn’t about the Muslim Brotherhood, militant Islam or any of the other bogey men so beloved of fringe elements here.

Why else do you think that Hamas and Iran are so opposed to these movements..? It is precisely because they are NOT led by extremists, and represent a grass roots attempt to (finally) deliver democratic, accountable, civil societies across the region. Of course we should be pleased at this development, but we should also be actively promoting it.

“Well said. Presumably there were plenty of fervent Nazis around even when Hitler topped himself…. that’s hardly a rationale for not intervening.”

But is it a rationale for intervening in Libya?

@25 vimothy

I refer you to post #23 above.

It is vanishingly unlikely that “most” people in Libya supported Gaddafi, though obviously he has his adherents.

The fact that there have been (and are now) situations in which “we” have not intervened, does not mean that the correct default position in every case is therefore non-intervention. I think it is shameful that the regimes in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain have been able to kill their own people with relative impunity.

The same might be said of the Chinese regime post Tienanmin Square, the Iranian regime over previous decades, the military regime in Myanmar, Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe….it’s a long list. Every one of these regimes has supporters, but that doesn’t mean they should feel they have a free hand.

Right, let’s plough through this. There must be a pony in this thread somewhere, although I’ll be damned if I can see where it might be hiding.

It would surely be worse (and I agree it is very bad) if Gaddafi had suppressed the rebellion completely and returned to the status quo ante plus renewed political persecution.

Very possibly. Let’s remember however that the costs of war – especially civil war – aren’t just measured in blood and treasure. As all too many examples have shown, civil war is actively cancerous – it eats away at every area of national life, causing massive dropoffs in health, education, law and order, economy, infrastructure, the works. Civil war vastly increases the likelihood of atrocities and, as we’ve seen, both sides have intentionally targetted civilians; it increases the likelihood of postwar repression and extremism, regardless of who wins. If Libya looks bad now, what is it going to look like in five years’ time? We have no idea.

We might also ask how dragging out this conflict achieves our declared aim of “protecting civilians”. It certainly hasn’t predicted the people of, say, Misrata or Zawiya, who have had battles rage back and forth over their territory for months. Plus, let’s note that the “refugee crisis” that Paul @16 mentions has in large part actually happened anyway.

In short, protracted conflict lets a whole lot of toothpaste out of the tube that can’t be shoved back in. It’s discouraging to see that so many people regard the possibilty of a long and bloody civil war as a reasonable gamble, worth a punt for the hell of it. Let’s hope none of us are ever in a situation whereby an external force decides that what our own countries need is more intercommunal warfare, for our own good.

I’ll pick up some of the other points in a minute…

@26. Galen10,

But the following statement is bat-sh*t insane:

“even if a majority of Libyans supported him we would be justified in seeking his removal because he is a criminal.”

Wait, wait, wait–wut? We’re entitled to overthrow rulers of foreign countries–*even legitimate rulers governing with the consent of their citizens*–if we decide with no due process or legal proceedings that they are criminals…?

@27 FR

” If Libya looks bad now, what is it going to look like in five years’ time? We have no idea.”

As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is pure sophistry; demanding to know the eventual outcome, and what’s more a guarantee that it will be positive, before taking any action, is a recipe for doing nothing…. which is of course what many in the interventionist camp actually want.

Sitting back in comfort and saying that, on balance, “we” have decided that actually those Libyans would all just be a lot better off tolerating their current odious regime / conditions, because well… the alternatives could just be so much worse….. isn’t a stance I’d like to defend.

@28 vimothy

No, it isn’t insane…because like so many things, where you stand depends on where you sit.

If a government with majority support in a population is, for example, butchering a particular ethnic, religious or political group…would you still feel THAT meant no intervention was permissible?

The Nazi party in Germany did have huge amounts of support; would you have felt it was OK for them to enact their policies with no intervention if (for the sake of argument) they hadn’t invaded Poland and gone to war?

Another (less “alternative history”) example from more recently relates to Bosnian Serbs, and Serbs in Serbia proper…. many, perhaps at times even a majority, supported the actions of their respective governments… were we wrong to oppose that?

“It’s discouraging to see that so many people regard the possibilty of a long and bloody civil war as a reasonable gamble, worth a punt for the hell of it. ”

And so many of them are Libyans. I think it is a little insulting to dismiss the Libyan rebels, after decades of political oppression by a notably murderous and vicious regime (even for the ME) as ‘punters’, messing about ‘for the hell of it’.

We can’t know the result of resisting a tyrant like Gaddafi with arms, but unless you are saying that despots must never be resisted at all, on principle, I don’t see how this objection carries much force except in situations where the resistance is patently futile (and this isn’t such a case). Of course there is a chance of a terrible outcome. Not resisting Gaddafi guarantees a terrible outcome though, so your objection can be thrown back at you thusly:

“It’s discouraging to see that so many people regard the certainty of a protracted and bloody campaign of murder and torture within Libya as an acceptable political outcome, worth defending for the hell of it.”

surely that is an argument for ground troops and doing it properly?

Looks like somebody was asleep for the last ten years, specifically during that whole years-of-inter-ethnic-massacre in Iraq. What was it about the Baghdad experience that makes you think a NATO army would be able to pacify and keep the peace in Tripoli, if it couldn’t do so in Iraq? What is it that makes you think anyone would provide troops for such a hare-brained scheme?

Remember, post-war Iraq had infrastructure problems due to neglect, but it also had a highly educated and skilled professional class and social structures in place to absorb the worst of the shock after the Ba’ath Party’s fall. It didn’t have a recent history of serious inter-ethnic violence but it did have large groups of people who could organise at neighbourhood level to maintain basic order… And it still turned into a superviolent sectarian bloodbath.

Libya, on the other hand, hasn’t had a robust civil society for decades, because Gaddafi wouldn’t allow political organisation on any level. It already has extreme tribal conflict and atrocities, and we know for a fact that a huge chunk of the population would greet invading NATO forces with open fire! rather than open arms.

What is it about this situation that leads people to conclude that invasion and occupation would be a good idea?

Honestly, when Iraq melted down into a horrific catastrophe, we were told that it was a disaster because the Yanks didn’t paint enough schools and because Al Qaeda ate our homework; in short, because we invaded with no plans for contingencies. Now that Libya looks like a fuck-up, we’re told it’s because… We didn’t invade Libya with no plans for contingencies!

This is genius stuff. A big slow-handclap for pro-invasion types, you’re impressive logical thinkers.

And, for various people who want to know why I think “there was no plan” – how about, NATO hadn’t even formally decided who was in charge two weeks into the operation? How about, our war aims have massively expanded when nobody was looking, meaning that we’ve unintentionally backed ourselves into a corner where we can’t negotiate ceasefires or accept mediation, because of our political statements? Or how about, NATO is now at each others’ throats and everyone is blaming everyone else for our troubles? How about, the European countries forgot to bring enough bombs and some of them are bugging out because they can’t maintain an effective military presence in the region? Or that we’ve actually had to order our allies to stop targeting civilians, and back it up by bombing them? Or that we’ve tried repeatedly to assassinate the enemy leader and goofed it, or that our “allies” in the Arab League have quite blatantly taken advantage of our distracted state to launch a fresh round of repression in their own countries?

How about, one of the main reasons we started bombing Libya – in order to deter other dictators from initiating crackdowns – now looks like a bad joke?

I mean, I could go on and on here. Does this situation strike you as one that was meticulously planned, wargamed, strategised and studied? Does it arse.

This is a telling response:

“As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is pure sophistry”

It’s nothing of the sort. We seem to have learned little from the last ten years of foreign policy mistakes. It’s no wonder that we don’t have a coherent strategy in Libya. Advocates of intervention can’t even elucidate a goal, let alone a coherent military and political framework that will produce it. And when asked whether this goal is achievable or worthwhile, they tell us that to even ask questions about it is “pure sophistry”.

“Advocates of intervention can’t even elucidate a goal, let alone a coherent military and political framework that will produce it.”

But they can and do. The goal is the replacement of the Gaddafi regime with another, legal regime. The military strategy is the one you are watching. I hope it succeeds (I assume we all do) but it may not. That does not mean there is no strategy.

I do like the idea that “We are now in the endgame”, though. Nothing can be predicted accurately – Gaddafi’s regime could collapse tomorrow, or he could stay in power for months. Let’s hope it’s the former, but the distressing thing here is the extent to which we’re dependent on good fortune if we’re to avoid the latter.

The preferred outcome is obvious isn’t it? A free, democratic Libya… hopefully joining Egypt and Tunisia.

Oh, yes. Until that happens, I suggest we devote ourselves to the hunt for Iraqi liberals, “genuinely free markets”, golden unicorns and other such mundane, everyday sights.

Honestly. You know what would help “protect civilians”, guys? Less vicious house-to-house fighting and artillery bombardment in Libya. Maybe Gaddafi will fall tomorrow and I’ll be shown for the craven pessimist I am, but maybe not. Call me nuts, but I suggest that anything that leads to a significant ratcheting down of violence will be beneficial, at least in the short term.

I think it is a little insulting to dismiss the Libyan rebels…

Truly, this is a devastating rhetorical gambit, on a level with “Won’t somebody think of the children” or “Give me a tenner or the kitten gets it”.

“What was it about the Baghdad experience that makes you think a NATO army would be able to pacify and keep the peace in Tripoli, if it couldn’t do so in Iraq?”

This is a classic example of ‘always fighting the last war’. I don’t support a ground force in Libya (yet) but not becuase it is too like Iraq to be justifiable. The situations are not at all alike and we can’t extrapolate much from Libya by looking at Baghdad.

Not resisting Gaddafi guarantees a terrible outcome though, so your objection can be thrown back at you thusly:

“It’s discouraging to see that so many people regard the certainty of a protracted and bloody campaign of murder and torture within Libya as an acceptable political outcome, worth defending for the hell of it.”

It is not a case of the campaign being an “acceptable” outcome, it is a case of there not being an adequate plan to oppose the campaign.

“Honestly. You know what would help “protect civilians”, guys? Less vicious house-to-house fighting and artillery bombardment in Libya.”

But you mean to achieve that by leaving Gaddafi in powerand with complete control over those citizens lives so it is as uncertain (to say no more than that) a ‘protection’ as that afforded by the war.

“Call me nuts, but I suggest that anything that leads to a significant ratcheting down of violence will be beneficial, at least in the short term.”

But what do you mean by that? We might agree, but not if you mean accepting the legitimacy of the Gaddafi regime and restoring him to to absolute power in Libya./ Otherwise what? A divided Libya? Do you imagine that would lead to less bloodshed and more stability? Would Gaddafi send the tanks home and just get on with his new neighbours? Would YOU believe him if your life was on the line?

“It is not a case of the campaign being an “acceptable” outcome, it is a case of there not being an adequate plan to oppose the campaign”

But there is a campaign and it is in process. It may succeed or fail but it has certainly curtailed Gaddafi’s power.

@33 vimothy

On the contrary, the goal is quite clear as stated by TM @ 34; a free, democratic Libya whose population enjoy the type of civil society we take for granted, hopefully in conjunction with Egypt and Tunisia.

Why *MUST* we have detailed plans for every possible contingency? I’m sure the governments and military folks of the intervening powers have plans a plenty….. but plans drawn up in advance have to make certain assumptions, no? Thus, when events turn out not to match your assumptions, the plans have to change.

It is hardly surprising that events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere caught our governments on the hop. History is littered with such examples.

It is supremely easy (as Flying Rodent so amply demonstrates @32 above), to be wise after the event, and insist that a given outcome was inevitable. It is rarely the case.

It IS sophistry to demand an impossible standard, and that the hurdle which must be jumped prio to ANY intervention is some magical plan, guaranteeing success. You have to play the odds… sometimes they will work out, and sometimes they won’t.

Gah.

To the extent that Galen 10 represents the thought of those with genuine operational and strategic command in Libya, they ought to be taken outside and disposed of quietly.

When so much blood and treasure is at risk, let us at least pay lip service to rationally formulating strategy.

@34. Torquil’s Mum

“But they can and do.”

Perhaps but they didn’t in this case. flyingrodent asked the quite reasonable (some might say obvious) question, what will Libya look like in five years time, to which Galen 10 responded: “this is pure sophistry”.

But go on. The goal is the replacement of Gaddafi’s regime with another regime, different across some dimensions (you suggest being “legal”, though I’m not sure what this would mean exactly–democratic, perhaps). Please explain our strategy, then.

It is supremely easy (as Flying Rodent so amply demonstrates @32 above), to be wise after the event…

I realise that you may have missed this, but the thrust of this post is “How I was wise before the event and actually predicted that lots of this stuff would happen”. On my blog, there are links to me saying some of this stuff in February and March.

This may be an amazing coincidence. After all, even a stopped clock, and all that. On the other hand, perhaps those good guesses it means there’s something to commend my analysis. Take your pick.

“But go on. The goal is the replacement of Gaddafi’s regime with another regime, different across some dimensions (you suggest being “legal”, though I’m not sure what this would mean exactly–democratic, perhaps). Please explain our strategy, then.”

The strategy, right or wrong, is to support the Libyan uprising against Gaddafi and, presumably, to use the political influence they gain by this support to press for a democratic, legal post-Gaddafi regime. This may work or it may not. But if you want certainty you must back Gaddafi, that is the only truly known aspect to this conflict. In fact, it is interesting that you can only rally answer the question ‘what will this place look like in 5 years time’ in totalitarian states. I think we can be sure what will be happening in Pyonyang in five, but Los Angeles, not so much.

@ 35 FR

So you’re another one of those who have decided that a free, democratic and secular Libya isn’t possible? On what evidence? Perhaps you’re one of those who thinks that Arabs can’t really “do” deomocracy…? Or maybe you beleive they can do it, you just don’t think we should actually do anything to help them bring it about when they stage uprisings against their odious leaders…because, well… we don’t know the outcomes, it might all go wrong.

You can’t continually use the cluster-fuck that is Iraq as a trump card to close down any future intervention. What happened there wasn’t inevitable.. it was the product of deeply flawed neo-cons lunatics being given control of the asylum. Iraq =/= Libya.

@32. flyingrodent,

Yes, it’s not hard to imagine where this is going. If planning for obvious contingencies is reactionary cynicism and our strategy is (literally, it seems) *hope*…

mod, thanks for fixing my previous post!

Toquil’s Mum,

“It is not a case of the campaign being an “acceptable” outcome, it is a case of there not being an adequate plan to oppose the campaign”

But there is a campaign and it is in process. It may succeed or fail but it has certainly curtailed Gaddafi’s power.

I thought @37 you were talking @31 about Gadaffi’s campaign, not ours.

(you wrote @31, “It’s discouraging to see that so many people regard the certainty of a protracted and bloody campaign of murder and torture within Libya as an acceptable political outcome, worth defending for the hell of it.”)

Galen10,

You can’t continually use the cluster-fuck that is Iraq as a trump card to close down any future intervention.

It’s not any future intervention.

@44. Galen10,

That’s why you need that thing called strategy. A liberal democracy will not magically appear simply because we kill Gaddafi. The latter is a relatively trivial task. The former is about as non-trivial as it gets, if past experience is any guide.

@42 FR

As you say…even a stopped clock……..

I don’t recall anyone much at the time “guaranteeing” that Gaddaffi would go quickly. It was earnestly to be hoped of course, and it is at least arguable that if the “west” had reacted more forcefully at the start of the uprising / rebellion / revolution, Gaddafi may have gone the way of the leaders of Tunisia and Eqypt.

Instead of course, we all sat on our hands, and waited to see what would happen. I happen to agree that a lack of planning (+/or political will) largely explains this missed opportunity.

Elements of your analysis can be right, but your overall conclusion still seems flawed to me.

uk, I wrote ‘campaign’ for ‘plan’, you read it right, I think.

Vimothy, there IS a strategy, even if you disagree with it. But I would be interested to know in a little more detail which strategic elements you think are missing. What specifically would you like to see NATO doing at the moment in Libya, or is it just ‘withdraw and a plague on both their houses’.

@48 vimothy

I’m not underestimating the challenges facing any country moving from authoritarian regime to secular democracy, whether Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan or anywhere else.

I’m assuming that most of us would agree that promoting the growth of secular, liberal democracies should be a strategy “we” pursue. There are different ways of doing it… but in this particular case, non-intervention wouldn’t seem to be much of a strategy, nor indeed would it appear to be good tactics.

By all means, feel free to explain why non-intervention in Libya would have been “a good thing”, or indeed what the strategic and tactical pluses of doing nothing would be.

You can’t continually use the cluster-fuck that is Iraq as a trump card to close down any future intervention.

I agree. If you’re going to cast doubt on the worth of regime change there are so many other examples…

A 2006 study by Jeffrey Pickering and Mark Peceny found that military intervention by liberal states (i.e., states like Britain, France and the United States) “has only very rarely played a role in democratization since 1945.” Similarly, George Downs, and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita of New York University found that U.S. interventions since World War II led to stable democracies within ten years less than 3 percent of the time, and a separate study by their NYU colleague William Easterly and several associates found that both U.S and Soviet interventions during the Cold War generally led to “significant declines in democracy.” Finally, a 2010 article by Goran Piec and Daniel Reiter examines forty-two “foreign imposed regime changes” since 1920 and finds that when interventions “damage state infrastructural power” they also increase the risk of subsequent civil war.

Pro-interventionists assume that had Libyan troops taken Benghazi or other opposition-held towns, there would be widespread massacres. Not a possibility but a certainty. And this they state with an assuredness that only the wholly convinced can have. And of course the Nato air-raids have prevented this. Therefore the Nato intervention is a Good Thing.

I don’t think that things are that clear-cut, and that one cannot assume that such atrocities would inevitably take place on the level blithely predicted by many commentators. Looking at the opposition, and in particular the amount of former regime types in it, one cannot rule out that some atrocities will occur if or when they take over formerly government-held towns, but I somehow feel that the strong hand of Nato will not be used in such an eventuality.

It seems to me that such dire predictions of widespread massacres and atrocities have been made specifically to justify a military intervention.

@43. Torquil’s Mum

“The strategy, right or wrong, is to support the Libyan uprising against Gaddafi and, presumably, to use the political influence they gain by this support to press for a democratic, legal post-Gaddafi regime.

“This may work or it may not.”

Indeed.

Anyway, your plan has two constituent elements:

1, Support the rebels against Gaddafi;
2, Pressure for a democratic govt.

One quibble: This is not really strategy.

What actually is our strategy in Libya? Anyone know? Genuine question.

“I don’t think that things are that clear-cut, and that one cannot assume that such atrocities would inevitably take place on the level blithely predicted by many commentators. ”

Nothing is clear cut and it is the interventionists on this thread who keep making that point: it is not and cannot be clear cut. But I think you need to explain why Gaddafi might suddenly take a different and more lenient direction with regard to torture and murder after successfully suppressing a rebellion. Is there a single example in history of a dictator becoming less repressive after an uprising? Gadaffi is a known quantity.

“What actually is our strategy in Libya? Anyone know? Genuine question.”

The military startegy is as I explained it unless someone knows different: we support the rebellion with air attacks in the hope that they can drive out Gaddafi. Why is that not a strategy? What strategic elements do you think are required?

@47 ukliberty

“It’s not any future intervention.”

Possibly not… but for some people it IS “any”, or as argued above, their view of the level of certainty about future outcomes required prior to any intervention taking place would make them functionally impossible in most cases. They are either naive or disingenuous.

@53 Dr. Paul

I think it was a near certainty that (at the time the first belated air strikes took place) a massacre was averted. It is of course impossible to prove, but on balance I think the majority of people, however wary they were of intervention, felt it was the right decision.

As TM notes above @ 55, it seems to be those in favour of intervention in this particular case who are saying that nothing was certain, but on balance intervention was “the right thing to do”, whereas those arguing against intervention are arguing from a position that since “success” cannot be guaranteed, it is preferable to err on the side of caution and leave well alone.

Even if Gaddaffi’s men hadn’t simply gone on the rampage, how many do you think would have disappeared afterwards? The Bosnian Serbs managed to murder 8000 Bosnian Muslims in a matter of days in 1995…. like TM, I find it hard to believe that Gaddafi and his men were going to roll into Benghazi and declare an amnesty.

The military startegy is as I explained it unless someone knows different: we support the rebellion with air attacks in the hope that they can drive out Gaddafi…

This is actually NATO’s entire plan, by the way – Bombs away, fingers crossed. After all, planning isn’t necessary because…

You have to play the odds… sometimes they will work out, and sometimes they won’t.

In other words, you can’t make a freedom omlette without smashing a few thousand eggs on the off-chance they fall into the pan. You do have to wonder what it was about the last decade’s military hijinks that makes the laptop bombardiers so very plucky about rolling the dice on further airstrikes-for-victory with other peoples’ lives.

Seriously – is there a single area of public policy that has fucked up as badly as aggressive foreign interventions? If the NHS was killing 50,000 people a year, it’d be junked before you could say “Shipman”. If traffic regs were resulting in daily 35-car pileups, only a sociopath would defend them.

Surely calling for more wars is like an elderly polar bear in the zoo, one that’s gone do-lally after years of drinking its own urine, and now spends its time banging its head off the bars of its cage morning noon and night. It might work this time! Bonk! A free and democratic country (x)! Bonk! Nobody could have predicted that this no-plan, bomb-first-then-don’t-ask-questions-at-all scheme could lead to unintended consequences! Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

And yet, though our recent wars and bombing campaigns have been bloodbaths, disasters, horrifying catastrophes, opposing them on those grounds is still regarded as some kind of inhuman treason. This doesn’t make any sense.

What happened (in Iraq) wasn’t inevitable.. it was the product of deeply flawed neo-cons lunatics being given control of the asylum.

No, of course it wasn’t inevitable! It would’ve worked if we’d invaded on a Tuesday instead and painted those schools olive rather than beige! BONK!

Supporting the rebellion is not a strategy, but a platitude. Strategy is the link between operations and political objectives.

According to their site, the MoD rationalises its actions as follows:

Our goal in Libya is to protect the civilian population and allow them to “pursue their legitimate aspirations for more open and democratic government.”

Our means are:

A no-fly zone (the principal military-operational objective);
Sanctions

The UK military has therefore carried out strikes against Libyan air assets, supply dumps, command and control and armour (Operation ELLAMY).

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/MilitaryOperations/LibyaOperationEllamyQuestionsAndAnswers.htm

That’s basically it!

In other words, what everyone would like is for Gaddafi to be replaced by a liberal democratic government, but the MoD has no strategy (no means or clue–no one does) whatsoever for making this happen beyond preventing the decisive and speedy victory of Gaddafi over the rebels. And we describe this engineered stalemate as “protecting the population”.

@59 FR

I used to think you had something serious to say, even when I heartily disagreed with it… now I just think your’re a berk.

“This is actually NATO’s entire plan, by the way – Bombs away, fingers crossed. After all, planning isn’t necessary because…”

So… go on then….stun us with your military and political strategic genius! What strategy (other than “sorry guys, you’re on your own”) would you actually have suggested? You seem curiously unwilling to actually come up with something (anything even….) in the least plausible.

Given the situation on the ground at the time, what do you think the options actually were? Freezing Gaddaffi’s assets, telling him he couldn’t travel, referring him to the ICHR at the Hague?

It seems to me that the “strategy” referred to above (which you already feel went too far) was the best that could be operationalised at the time, and more importantly sold to the politicos and public in the countries taking part in the intervention. Time in this instance was the crucial factor, as we didn’t have months to wait for the UN, or EU or NATO to get it’s act together…. we’d already sat on our hands too long and let Gaddaffi off the hook.

What doesn’t make sense is your continual and facile insistance that it will, always and everywhere, end in tears.

The problem is that 1, the rebels are not a unified or competent fighting force and so are incapable of defeating Gaddafi, and that 2, the rebels are not a unified or coherent political group and so are incapable of replacing Gaddafi, in the even of his defeat.

That aside, everything is fine.

“This is actually NATO’s entire plan, by the way – Bombs away, fingers crossed. After all, planning isn’t necessary because…”

The same could be said for the D Day landings and it would be equally silly. The claim that the air attacks in Libya are ‘unplanned’ is childish. That the outcome is uncertain, and that this uncertainty is threatening to a certain psychology is in no doubt, of course.

Once again, can I ask those people claiming that there is no strategy or that it is inadequate explain what elements are missing? What should the strategy cover that it doesn’t? What would satisfy you that there was an adequate (even if incorrect) strategy? I ask because I have a feeling that FR, for example, doesn’t actually understand what ‘strategy’ means and this is leading him into confusion.

“Seriously – is there a single area of public policy that has fucked up as badly as aggressive foreign interventions?”

But there won’t be by definition, because these are the most risky and uncertain things that can be attempted. But are you really saying that no despotic regime should ever be opposed by force on principle? There was already an uprising in Libya. The eggs were already smashed. The choice was support it or allow it to be crushed by Gaddafi. Must we support Gaddaffi because to support the rebels leads to unknowable outcomes?

“If the NHS was killing 50,000 people a year, it’d be junked before you could say “Shipman”. If traffic regs were resulting in daily 35-car pileups, only a sociopath would defend them.”

Which should help you understand that running a war is nothing like running a health service or regulating road traffic. Not being able to see that might be what gets you so confused.

Surely calling for more wars is like an elderly polar bear in the zoo, one that’s gone do-lally after years of drinking its own urine, and now spends its time banging its head off the bars of its cage morning noon and night. It might work this time! Bonk! A free and democratic country (x)! Bonk! Nobody could have predicted that this no-plan, bomb-first-then-don’t-ask-questions-at-all scheme could lead to unintended consequences! Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

And yet, though our recent wars and bombing campaigns have been bloodbaths, disasters, horrifying catastrophes, opposing them on those grounds is still regarded as some kind of inhuman treason. This doesn’t make any sense.

What happened (in Iraq) wasn’t inevitable.. it was the product of deeply flawed neo-cons lunatics being given control of the asylum.

No, of course it wasn’t inevitable! It would’ve worked if we’d invaded on a Tuesday instead and painted those schools olive rather than beige! BONK!

“So… go on then….stun us with your military and political strategic genius!”

So there is no plan for making this work beyond dropping a few bombs on Gaddfi’s armoured columns. But don’t dare suggest that a strategy more serious that hope is needed to produce the outcomes we do actually want because then we might have to face up to the fact that what we’re doing now–hoping for the best–isn’t likely to work. And maybe, just maybe, no one knows how to produce the outcome we do want in Libya. And having to face up to that would be especially bad, because we all prefer acting for the sake of it.

“Once again, can I ask those people claiming that there is no strategy or that it is inadequate explain what elements are missing?”

The elements that are missing are the elements that link current strikes on Gaddafi’s military assets to an eventual democratic government in Libya. I mean, really. What are they? Where are they? Shirley someone knows, right?

It’s fairly obvious that the rebels are not going to win any conventional military conflict with Gaddafi’s forces. Hence, the air strikes.

The air strikes can prolong the conflict but they cannot, as currently construed, end it, because although enforcing a no-fly zone will prevent Gaddafi from quickly destroying the rebels, it will not enable the rebels to destroy Gaddafi. The rebels do not have any columns of armour or artillery batteries. They do not have combined arms capability. They do not have a command structure. They do not have logistical networks.

NATO will have to defeat Gaddafi, if that is what it wants to happen. Then NATO will have to occupy the country, if it wants to prevent a humanitarian disaster. We will all have to do a lot more hoping for the best, before this is played out.

So… go on then….stun us with your military and political strategic genius! What strategy (other than “sorry guys, you’re on your own”) would you actually have suggested?

Ye Gods man, there probably is no strategy that would guarantee or even greatly improve the chances of success! Hurling missiles at Gaddafi’s forces with our fingers crossed is the only game in town.

Look, I realise you may not have been paying attention this last ten years, but here’s the bottom line. Just because the Baddies are bad doesn’t mean that we, the Goodies, get to win. Just because we’re the Goodies, that doesn’t mean that our actions won’t horribly misfire.

Am I getting my terms mixed up here? I always thought that the belief that the reality will automatically obey our perceptions of it was called “delusion” or “Narcissism” or something. Given the number of times we’ve had to relearn the same lessons this last few years, I think we’d need to slap the word “pathological” in front of them.

The same could be said for the D Day landings…

Jesus Christ man, the D-Day landings were the most carefully planned, heavily rehearsed and well-supported military operation in human history, into which two of the world’s leading powers poured every resource they could possibly scrape together! They agonised over every single detail for years!

Are you seriously comparing Operation Overlord, the most glorious success of western arms against one of the greatest threats humanity has ever faced, to a couple of Norwegian warplanes chucking rockets at a tinpot dictator in North Africa?

The elements that are missing are the elements that link current strikes on Gaddafi’s military assets to an eventual democratic government in Libya. I mean, really. What are they?

Here are the elements that link “bombing Libya” to “eventual democratic government” –

1) Let’s bomb Libya
2) (Cough, cough, mumble)
3) …An eventual democratic government in Libya!

Chuck in some accusations that doubters of this magnificent scheme are pro-Gaddafi and want to see Libyans machine gunned, and that’s it. That’s the whole plan. Seriously.

Exactly. Our strategy in Libya can apparently be best approximated by the waving of metaphorical hands.

Oh, what’s that, you mean [waves hands] isn’t a strategy? Nice one buddy–you just made the baby Jesus cry.

Re 56 and 59, I did not say that atrocities would not take place, what I said was that something — atrocities committed by the government forces — that was possible at various levels of intensity was presented as absolutely inevitable in its worst possible form, and presented in order to justify a foreign military intervention.

It is quite possible that a government assault upon Benghazi might have failed with the opposition beating off the attackers, or a stalemate stand-off might have occurred. One cannot tell.

The same thing was said about Kosovo, to justify air-raids, although the given figures of Kosovo Albanian killed by Serb forces were subsequently found to be vastly inflated.

As for Srebrenica, it has been mooted by Muslim survivors that the town was surrendered to the BiH Serb forces by the Sarajevo government in order to bring on a US military intervention. Ibran Mustafich, a leading member of the main Muslim political party in the town was convinced of that, as was a leading French general, Morillon. Orich, the Muslim military commander in the town, had been recalled and was not present, and no orders were given in respect of the Muslim soldiers resisting a smaller number of Serb soldiers, who entered the town without encountering resistance, and without the former having any plans about defending themselves.

In contrast to this situation, where nothing had been done about preparing to resist forces which, even if not suspected of wishing to massacre several thousand men, would have been seen after three years of a vicious civil war as liable to commit atrocities, from reports that I read and saw I believe that the Libyan opposition was ready to put up a strong resistance to the state forces.

The sad thing with the Libya affair is that an uprising with at least some democratic content against a repressive regime has been hijacked by the big powers, and wedged into their — albeit unclear, even incoherent — agenda. It reminds me of the Chicago schmutter merchant who was bothered by crooks and faced with official indifference, and asked Al Capone to defend him, which he did — at a price.

@19

“I’ve been out of the country for the past few weeks, and prior to that was a tad busy with work.”

Understood, and thank you for your rational and insightful contribution. I have nothing else to add.

The Bosnian Serbs managed to murder 8000 Bosnian Muslims in a matter of days in 1995

I think you’ll find that was after we’d stuck our noses in and promised to protect them.
So that was some result for intervention, wasn’t it Gallen? Almost as good as Iraq.

There are two schools of thought here.

One believes they can solve all the problems of the world on the basis of their superior moral compass. The other understands that, by trying to do good by intervening in the affairs of others, we risk unintended and unfortunate consequences that can result in very much worse outcomes.

Gallen wanted credit for saving the inhabitants of Benghazi from atrocities. I take it he will accept the opprobrium for the atrocities that will ensue if the rebels ever reach Tripoli?

67. flyingrodent: “Are you seriously comparing Operation Overlord, the most glorious success of western arms against one of the greatest threats humanity has ever faced, to a couple of Norwegian warplanes chucking rockets at a tinpot dictator in North Africa?”

Might not be the answer: yes.

Is the foe a psycopath or sociopath: yes.

Is the foe unpopular in the land that s/he wishes to conquer: yes.

Can NATO drop bombs on the foe: yes.

Can NATO try to prevent the evil foe from killing his/her fellow civilians: yes.

Do the neighbours welcome this intervention: yes.

I am not entirely satisfied by results thus far, but it seems that more people are alive in Libya today than without intervention.

As I am currently attempting to pursue a career with BAE I would like to announce that I am now in full favour of the war with Libya and retract any previous misgivings I may once have had. In fact we could do well to buy a few more Jet fighter-bomber planes to help out the poor rebels. If you could just mention my name while purchasing that’d be great.

9. pagar – “Gaddafi was our friend.”

No he was not. Never. This is a myth the Left needs to believe but it is not true.

“He had done some dodgy stuff, like all dictatorial megalomaniacs but, for now, he was our friend. We supplied him with weapons and even gave him back his most vile terrorist, a man who had murdered innocent British citizens.”

This is a remarkable example of cognitive dissonance. Yes, he had murdered innocent British citizens – and you call this “dodgy”? How precisely did that make him our friend? We supplied him with, in the main, tear gas and other riot control gear. Gear we should be wishing he was using right now. His real weapons were and are Soviet. Or French.

“Then, in line with what was going on elsewhere in the ME, there was a civil uprising within Libya based on old tribal attachments and fuelled by Islamic fundamentalism.”

We think. It is not certain. But you’re probably right.

“So then someone, somewhere, decided Gaddafi was no longer to be our friend and we were sold the justification for intervention, in what had become a civil war, on humanitarian grounds. But that was months ago and nobody seems to have noticed that the agenda has changed completely.”

I agree. We have gone in because our leaders are not fit to be Lord Mayor of Milton Keynes much less run a real country.

“We will kill Gaddafi, if we can, and install a government beholden to us and that might do our bidding.”

Projection.

“Let’s be absolutely clear. This war has nothing to do with us and we should not be participating in it. The UN resolutions, on which we rely for justification, are wrong in principle.”

But that does not make them any less UN resolutions. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too – we can’t act without them, but if you don’t like them, we can’t act with them. This war does have nothing to do with us and we should not have gone in. But we are there now and we need to finish it.

@72

“The Bosnian Serbs managed to murder 8000 Bosnian Muslims in a matter of days in 1995

I think you’ll find that was after we’d stuck our noses in and promised to protect them.”

quite so. in fact I seem to recall (when studying this kind of thing many years ago) that most academics think the genocide of Bosnian Muslims actually increased in pace as a direct result of NATO intervention. Put simply – the Serbs wanted to get it done quickly once they’d been rumbled. In the future (say, 80 years from now – if humans survive that long) it’ll be seen as a failure rather than the weird flag-waving victory that pro-interventionists make it out to be.

@72 pagar

Better to be silent and thought a fool, than open your mouth and prove it m8. You obviously know squat about the Balkans, and Srebrenica massacres. The point of them being brought up in this context, is that they would never have happened if the international community had acted more firmly and earlier to stop the Bosnian serbs and their serbian allies.

The massacres at Srebrenica and elsewhere (though hardly the first) were of such a scale, and so monstrous that they are generally regarded as the proximate cause of NATO airstrikes against the Serbs which prevented the realisation of their dream of a Greater Serbia cleansed of non-serbs.

The massacres, and indeed the Bosnian and later Kossovo conflicts as a whole don’t support your view that the outcomes can be worse, they show that failure to act can lead to genocide. Of course there are counter examples, but I’d challenge you to find many Bosnian Muslims, Kossovar Albanians, Kurds, or anti Gaddaffi Libyans who share your views.

It isn’t a matter of taking credit; saving the people of Benghazi was the right thing to do… it’s not rocket science. The chances of thousands being killed if that happened were high; anyone with half a brain could see that. It is certainly vastly more likely to have happened than your posited bloodbath of Gaddaffi’s supporters when and if the rebels succeed. The opprobrium in that case would lie with those carrying out the deeds, not with me personally, or NATO, or anyone else.

@74. Cylux: “As I am currently attempting to pursue a career with BAE…” Chuckles.

I tried that once and failed negative vetting. My political opinions at that time were not so different from those @73.

32. flyingrodent – “Looks like somebody was asleep for the last ten years, specifically during that whole years-of-inter-ethnic-massacre in Iraq. What was it about the Baghdad experience that makes you think a NATO army would be able to pacify and keep the peace in Tripoli, if it couldn’t do so in Iraq? What is it that makes you think anyone would provide troops for such a hare-brained scheme?”

Partly because of Iraq. Iraq has killed Islamism as a popular cause. It has shown the Arab world what insanity their leaders’, intellectual and political, views have given them. They have rejected that – and so are now out on the streets demanding democracy. Anti-Western hatred can only go so far, and that is not very far at all in intellectual and economic terms. What is more, when the price of that hatred is brought to your TV screens every night, you tend to change your thinking. Which the Arab world has done.

But also Libya is much smaller in terms of population. It is much smaller in terms of armed forces and territory. It is less complicated in that it does not have large sectarian divisions. Nor does it have neighbours on either side who are willing to stir up trouble.

“Remember, post-war Iraq had infrastructure problems due to neglect, but it also had a highly educated and skilled professional class and social structures in place to absorb the worst of the shock after the Ba’ath Party’s fall.”

Because it had highly educated people it had terrorism. Terrorism is not a game for peasants. It, or at least its leaders, are found only among the educated.

“It didn’t have a recent history of serious inter-ethnic violence but it did have large groups of people who could organise at neighbourhood level to maintain basic order… And it still turned into a superviolent sectarian bloodbath.”

Except it did have recent history of serious inter-ethnic violence. The fact that Saddam’s violence and censorship kept a lid on it does not mean it did not exist. Saddam’s violence was mainly aimed at Shia and Kurds after all. The former being distinctly sectarian. Quasi-totalitarian societies like Iraq, and Libya unfortunately, make sure there are no groups of people who can organise at the neighbourhood level. Who do you have in mind?

“Libya, on the other hand, hasn’t had a robust civil society for decades, because Gaddafi wouldn’t allow political organisation on any level.”

Exactly as Iraq.

“What is it about this situation that leads people to conclude that invasion and occupation would be a good idea?”

Nothing on my part. I think it would be dumb. But we are there now and we have to have a solution. One that does not involve Gaddafi staying in power and launching terrorist attacks on London. One that does not give the anti-Western forces of the world a boost. We must win.

35. flyingrodent – “Oh, yes. Until that happens, I suggest we devote ourselves to the hunt for Iraqi liberals, “genuinely free markets”, golden unicorns and other such mundane, everyday sights.”

So then we need to opt for a second-best solution and support a military strong man who likes the West. I don’t think democracy is viable in the modern world but where does that leave us? Especially in Libya.

“Honestly. You know what would help “protect civilians”, guys? Less vicious house-to-house fighting and artillery bombardment in Libya.”

Well on strictly historical terms I am not sure you are right. Conventional war tends to kill far fewer people than governments do. Mao’s government killed twice as many Chinese people as Japan’s Army did. The Ukrainians suffered much more from Stalin’s peacetime than they did from Hitler’s wartime. Pol Pot managed to kill more people than America probably did in the entire Vietnam War and so on. We don’t know what Gaddafi would do if he won. We don’t know what the rebels will do if they win. But we can be pretty sure it will be worse than the fighting going on now.

76. Mr S. Pill – “in fact I seem to recall (when studying this kind of thing many years ago) that most academics”

Name three.

“think the genocide of Bosnian Muslims actually increased in pace as a direct result of NATO intervention. Put simply – the Serbs wanted to get it done quickly once they’d been rumbled. In the future (say, 80 years from now – if humans survive that long) it’ll be seen as a failure rather than the weird flag-waving victory that pro-interventionists make it out to be.”

Can you explain to me how it would be a failure to end genocide that was, allegedly, carried out as quickly as possible, as opposed to sitting back and watching a more thorough and slow genocide take place while we did nothing?

All the Balkans Wars prove is that many on the Left hate the West so much they will believe any irrational piece of nonsense if they think it makes the West look bad.

@76 Mr s Pill

Errm…no, sorry. The Serbs planned to liquidate all the Muslim males, the west and UN basically stood by and watched, and were so feeble that Mladic, Karadzjic and his mates felt they could get away with anything. The operation was meticulously planned.

I’ve never heard any pro-interventionist trumpet Bosnia as a victory; as I’ve already argued it is a fine example of how not to do things, and if anything argues strongly against those who think we should sit on our hands in “difficult” cases in countries far, far away of which we know nothing. The EU, NATO, and the UN should be eternally ashamed that they failed the people of the Balkans, and that failure is simply being replayed in Libya.

flying rodent,

Are there circumstances where you do think an international intervention into a sovereign state would be justified?

Do you think that a UN resolution – missing for Iraq – would be a start?

Do you think a resistance within the country – exterminated by the CIA in Iraq – would be a positive?

Do you think that a clear and present danger – y’know Ghaddafi wanting to murder the folk in Benghazi – might justify an intervention?

Do you think that R2P doctrine is breached in the Libyan intervention?

Perhaps you will argue against all of that.

But I’d like to see it. You argue from a perfected world position that would still allow dictators to kill people. Perfection sir is not given to humans.

It is however in the technical specification for crash diving bats….

The Rwandan and Bosnian genocides were conducted in front of UN peace keepers who were powerless to prevent them. It can be argued that western governments were complicit, but that is an obnoxious stance towards soldiers in an impossible situation. Civilians were killed around peace keepers because there were not enough peace keepers, and the peace keepers who were there will have terrible memories because of that.

And in the conduct of war or life, there is no little to compare with what happened in Bosnia and what is happening in Libya.

@66 vimothy

1. “It’s fairly obvious that the rebels are not going to win any conventional military conflict with Gaddafi’s forces. Hence, the air strikes.”

True upto a point; the situation may however change if NATO strikes degrade Gaddaffi’s forces to the extent that the rebels can make progress. There are reports that the rebels are getting arms supplies thru’ Tunisia. If NATO knock out enough of Gaddaffi’s heavy weapons, it will at least ensure he can’t simply overwhelm the rebels. The parallels with the Balkans are there to be drawn; the UN and west basically left the Bosnian Muslims swinging in the wind, facing what was in effect most of the former Yugoslav army’s heavy weaponry.

Air strikes may not always be the answer, but they can be effective as the Serbs can attest, tho other factors were also at play in that case. By the time of the NATO airstrikes in Bosnia, much of the damage had already been done, because…yes, you guessed it, we didn’t intervene early enough, and when we did it wasn’t enough.

2. “The air strikes can prolong the conflict but they cannot, as currently construed, end it, because although enforcing a no-fly zone will prevent Gaddafi from quickly destroying the rebels, it will not enable the rebels to destroy Gaddafi. The rebels do not have any columns of armour or artillery batteries. They do not have combined arms capability. They do not have a command structure. They do not have logistical networks.”

Not automatically the case, as seen in the Balkans..not that it’s a great experience to emulate. Pretty soon Gaddaffi won’t have the capabilities you’re talking about either.. so maybe the rebels will have a better chance.

3. “NATO will have to defeat Gaddafi, if that is what it wants to happen. Then NATO will have to occupy the country, if it wants to prevent a humanitarian disaster. We will all have to do a lot more hoping for the best, before this is played out.”

Not so. there is no appetite in NATO or amongst the Libyan rebels for NATO to occupy the country… pure fantasy on your part. The way to have prevented the humanitarian disaster was to have acted sooner; instead we sat on our hands and allowed Gaddaffi to regroup. There are lots of other things that can be done to help the rebels short of NATO boots on the ground.

:@80,

“ll the Balkans Wars prove is that many on the Left hate the West so much they will believe any irrational piece of nonsense if they think it makes the West look bad.”

Maybe a lot of these people on the left don’t actually hate the West, but just hate the never-ending lust for war, wrapped up in the cloak of false piety, humanitarian concern and allusions to Munich 1938, with which the self-proclaimed guardians of Western values cover their bloody agenda.

Perpetual war for perpetual peace.

Trooper Thomson @ 85,

You too should answer the questions I put to the bat at 82. Is there ever a case for humanitarian intervention, or not?

@ Gallen

But it does have a lot to do with us. The UK like most other countries is dependent on oil.

Your moral arguments are naive claptrap. History tells us unequivocally that this kind of intervention will cost lives in the medium term, not save them.

If you want to propose an honest pro-interventionist argument, base it on the above. You might even convince me.

Then you can explain to me why we’re killing Afghans……………

85. Trooper Thompson – “Maybe a lot of these people on the left don’t actually hate the West, but just hate the never-ending lust for war, wrapped up in the cloak of false piety, humanitarian concern and allusions to Munich 1938, with which the self-proclaimed guardians of Western values cover their bloody agenda.”

Perhaps so, but then they would have to explain why the world is at an all-time low point for armed conflict, especially organised, State-level armed conflict. The truth is this is about as delusional as thinking Jews kill Christians to make their Passover bread. The West simply does not fight wars any more. We could. But we don’t.

So we are back to the point about believing any delusional rubbish.

@80/81

The point was that with the Balkans we did too little too late, and when we did get our arses in gear we used the wrong tools for the job.
I’ve always been on the fence with a NFZ in Libya so I’m uncomfortable discussing this subject anyway – I can quite honestly say I see both sides equally. On the Balkans, we should have gone in sooner with a lot more than a mere bombing campaign IMO – as pointed out the bombing campaign may have cost lives that needn’t've have been lost, but that’s another debate and for the history books to decide.

I think enforcing NFZs in general though is a bit of a cop-out.

*runs away*

Oh and no, I don’t hate the west at all. We’ve done some stupid, horrific things but right now (at this moment in time) we have the best deal currently on the table with liberal democracy etc. I’d love other countries to get on board but only when the populace want to – revolution (because that’s what it is) can only IMO legitimately come from below, it cannot be dropped from a NATO bomber.

@87 pagar

The quote you attribute isn’t mine.. but feel free to recant any time when you discover who actually said it.

You may find my arguments naive, but you seem adept at avoiding questions rather than answering them, so it’s par for the course I guess.

I’m not sure your “body count” morality is a great way to plan policy; as I’ve argued above, and did earlier I’m convinced (as I think are the majority of the general public, and the overwhelming majority of people who actually know what they are talking about) that many thousands more would have died if we had done nothing.

Of course, I’m sure you aren’t suggesting that we should enact policy on the basis of some calculation beforehand about how many more people would die if we did A rather than B are you? Perhaps you are?

History will have examples both ways I reckon. In the example of the Balkans discussed above, the lack of intervention caused the biggest loss of life in a conflict in europe since WW2. The belated intervention there, and in Kossovo and Iraqi Kurdistan in the first Gulf War saved many lives… in all those cases many more than they cost.

In general it is Afghans killing Afghans. If you think things would be better if we’d left the Taliban in place, it’s unlikely you’ll be convinced by any contra argument.

Perhaps you’d like to answer Douglas’ points to FR too? Since you are so convinced of the evils of intervention…. when exactly can it be justified?

@87. pagar

Libya sold ~2% of world oil in 2009. So it does not take an awful lot for the rest of the world’s oil producers to fill the gap. Which they are doing now, given that Libya is effectively a non oil producing nation.

One person, the main one, who benefitted from Libya’s oil production was Gaddafi. And he shared the benefits with those he liked. Until this year when a few thousand Libyans concluded that they had been robbed for too long.

When Gaddafi gets kicked out, hopefully a few more Libyans will share the economic benefit of oil. And I dare say that the oil industry creeps will be back, serving new government masters. I’d like to do something about that — breaking down the chain of crude oil/gas extraction to consumer delivery — but for the Libyans and their neighbours, I’ll be happy if a thug is removed from government.

@86 Douglas Clark,

“You too should answer the questions I put to the bat at 82. Is there ever a case for humanitarian intervention, or not?”

There may be, but I will not ignore the relevant facts, that pretty much every time such a case has been made in recent times, it turns out to be based on lies and propaganda, covering other agendas, and that such interventions usually result in humanitarian disasters.

I am a member of the public, and as such I am not permitted to know the basis of the decisions made in these matters, so I cannot condone them.

@88,

“Perhaps so, but then they would have to explain why the world is at an all-time low point for armed conflict, especially organised, State-level armed conflict. The truth is this is about as delusional as thinking Jews kill Christians to make their Passover bread. ”

This answer doesn’t touch on the point I made, which regarded leftwing attitudes to “the West”, and how certain war-mongering people like to use the defence of ‘Western values’ to justify wars of aggression. It’s not delusional to think these people wrong and to reject their justifications, and to treat with scepticism their claims.

“The West simply does not fight wars any more. We could. But we don’t.”

I don’t really know what to make of this comment. Have you heard of a place called Iraq? Certainly the death toll of British forces does not measure up to the carnage of Passchendale, but the casualties amongst Iraqis run into the hundreds of thousands, and when you consider the deaths under the sanctions regime which preceded the invasion, God alone knows how many Iraqis have died, but who’s counting, eh?

To protect civilians ha ha ha ha

so you can fool all of the people all of the time.

@ 84. Galen10

“True upto a point; the situation may however change if NATO strikes degrade Gaddaffi’s forces to the extent that the rebels can make progress.”

NATO’s stated aim is to protect the population. It doesn’t think of what it’s doing as picking sides. But obviously, it could pick sides. In the comment you’re responding to here I’m suggesting that if NATO wants the rebels to actually win, then it will have to, eventually. Probably this will occur in the form of gradual but monotone mission-creep. But who knows? It’s an interesting world out there, and anything is possible.

And naturally there’s a good bit of wriggle room in the wording of UNSCR 1973.

Anyway, aren’t you, basically, agreeing with me?

“The parallels with the Balkans are there to be drawn; the UN and west basically left the Bosnian Muslims swinging in the wind, facing what was in effect most of the former Yugoslav army’s heavy weaponry.”

Yes, but that happened in the past. You can’t change that by making bad policy in the present. You can’t even change that by making good policy in the present. And it’s a misleading analogy: Gaddafi is fighting to consolidate power. He’s not fighting an ethnic Eastern European race war. This isn’t Yugoslavia. When we eventually get rid of Muammar, his replacement will fight to consolidate power. That’s what governments do: consolidate power—hold territory.

What you’re preventing Gaddafi from doing to the rebels is what the rebels want to do to Gaddafi. And eventually that’s what they’ll have to do—unless the current regime helpfully vanishes into a peaceful vacuum in a puff of desert smoke, of course.

Unfortunately, the ability of the rebels is not that great. Again—NATO air strikes, etc. How will they govern Libya? Perhaps NATO will do it for them. Or will it persuade the current regime to remain in place with a new leader? Perhaps a bit of both.

“Air strikes may not always be the answer, but they can be effective as the Serbs can attest, tho other factors were also at play in that case. By the time of the NATO airstrikes in Bosnia, much of the damage had already been done, because…yes, you guessed it, we didn’t intervene early enough, and when we did it wasn’t enough.”

But in that case it is obvious that there was something very bad that we could have prevented from happening. In this case it’s not so black and white: we have a civil war and what we’re preventing is one side—the government—from defeating the other. We’re preventing the war from ending. That’s the strategy, that’s how we’re protecting the population.

“Not automatically the case, as seen in the Balkans..not that it’s a great experience to emulate. Pretty soon Gaddaffi won’t have the capabilities you’re talking about either.. so maybe the rebels will have a better chance.”

Not sure what’s “not automatically the case”. Certainly agree that the more we hit Gaddafi, the weaker he’ll be.

“Not so. there is no appetite in NATO or amongst the Libyan rebels for NATO to occupy the country… pure fantasy on your part.”

I never said anything about appetite.

“The way to have prevented the humanitarian disaster was to have acted sooner; instead we sat on our hands and allowed Gaddaffi to regroup. There are lots of other things that can be done to help the rebels short of NATO boots on the ground.”

Yeah, right, we could bomb Gaddafi and his forces into the earth. Then what?

5. Torquil’s Mum – “It would surely be worse (and I agree it is very bad) if Gaddafi had suppressed the rebellion completely and returned to the status quo ante plus renewed political persecution.”

If he had done it before we got involve, the world would be no difference. He has been quietly torturing people for decades and no one cared. If he crushed them after we got involved, then I would agree. That would be worse. We have got involved now so he needs to lose. He needs to go.

6. Torquil’s Mum – “They need this at the tactical level (and they seem to have it) but not necessarily at the strategic level, because wars are by their nature and notoriously unpredictable no matter how much technocrats like Powell would like to render them otherwise.”

Sure but you can’t ask soldiers to do something that is in a Clauswitzian sense contrary to the logic of their being. There is an inherent grammar of war that is unavoidable. You cannot really ask soldiers to be peacekeepers much less human rights workers. So yes, war is unpredictable, and yes, the leaders of this war should be prepared for those unknown unknowns. But they have to have some feeling for the soldiers, for battle, for war so that they do not ask our soldiers to do what it utterly unrealistic.

93. Trooper Thompson – “There may be, but I will not ignore the relevant facts, that pretty much every time such a case has been made in recent times, it turns out to be based on lies and propaganda, covering other agendas, and that such interventions usually result in humanitarian disasters.”

Why is that even relevant? Yes, I will agree it makes our leaders and our cause look bad, but so what? Did any of those lies mean one fewer Bosnian boys died? Does the fact that Blair was wrong about WMDs mean that Saddam was really a good guy all along?

Yet again this is the real problem with the Left’s anti-War critique – it is focused on hating the West and not on the suffering of people in the Third World. You all but admit you don’t give a damn about the murder of people in Bosnia and Iraq given your distaste for Western governments.

Humanitarian disasters? Where? In Bosnia? No. In Kosovo? No. In Afghanistan? No. Even Iraq was not really a humanitarian disaster so much as terrorism run wild.

“I am a member of the public, and as such I am not permitted to know the basis of the decisions made in these matters, so I cannot condone them.”

An odd view to take.

“This answer doesn’t touch on the point I made, which regarded leftwing attitudes to “the West”, and how certain war-mongering people like to use the defence of ‘Western values’ to justify wars of aggression. It’s not delusional to think these people wrong and to reject their justifications, and to treat with scepticism their claims.”

Except it does, you just can’t see it. There are no war-mongering people. Not in the West anyway. It is a figment of your imagination. There are no wars of aggression by the West either. That too is a figment of your imagination. It is delusional to think there is some vast conspiracy to run the world when there is not. Nor is it obvious to me that they were wrong in the bigger picture even if they were wrong about details. But there are logical grounds for rejecting wars in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. I did myself. Just that you have not produced one

“I don’t really know what to make of this comment. Have you heard of a place called Iraq? Certainly the death toll of British forces does not measure up to the carnage of Passchendale, but the casualties amongst Iraqis run into the hundreds of thousands, and when you consider the deaths under the sanctions regime which preceded the invasion, God alone knows how many Iraqis have died, but who’s counting, eh?”

Sanctions are not war. Indeed they are the alternative to war. But the war with Iraq simply proves the point. Britain was defeated in Basra because we could not face a minor skirmish with a gang of pantomime thugs. We withdrew rather than fight the Mahdi Army and left the city to the Americans to clean up. Great. The casualties in Iraq have been high because we have not had the guts to fight. We have withdrawn from conflict leaving the field open to thugs, terrorists and other assorted criminals. Those Iraqis deaths are the result of Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. They have the courage to fight. But they took our measure early on and realised that the field was open for them to do what they liked because we did not, and do not, have the courage to use force to stop them. The turning point came in Fallujah where the Americans proved they did have the balls, although not big ones, to fight and so the Sunnis went over to them.

I don’t equate non-intervention with support for Saddam; I do however question the moral compass of those who would happily have sat back and done nothing….sorry, slip of the tongue,
I don’t equate non-intervention with support for Assad; I do however question the moral compass of those who would happily have sat back and done nothing..almost there..
I don’t equate non-intervention with support for Gaddafi; I do however question the moral compass of those who would happily have sat back and done nothing about his lovely oil.

Gadaffi was the West’s friend. We trained his killers and supplied his weapons, Blair hugged him while signing oil deals and Cameron was only too happy to buy his delicious oil.

Gadaffi is being accused of war crimes but so are the rebels. This doesn’t end well and never would.

Those who have forgotten about the cost of protracted and bloody civil wars and are cheerleading this oil folly should go out there and fight for the rebels instead of trotting out Blair’s and Bush’s tired olf warmongering speeches.

98. the neconservative idiots are back – “Gadaffi was the West’s friend. We trained his killers and supplied his weapons, Blair hugged him while signing oil deals and Cameron was only too happy to buy his delicious oil.”

No he was not. He was never our friend. He was a friend of the British Left who tried to disembowel Reagan for doing anything about Gaddafi’s terrorism. But he was not the friend of Britain. Ever. We did not supply him with any significant number of weapons. Some tear gas – was this wrong? As with all other mass murderers, he was and is armed by friends of the Left – the Soviet Union, China and France. Not by the British or Americans.

I am sure Blair hugged him while signing oil deals. It is called engagement. If we can’t overthrow him, what precisely do you think we should do?

“Gadaffi is being accused of war crimes but so are the rebels. This doesn’t end well and never would.”

I agree.

“Those who have forgotten about the cost of protracted and bloody civil wars and are cheerleading this oil folly should go out there and fight for the rebels instead of trotting out Blair’s and Bush’s tired olf warmongering speeches.”

Just as people who have forgotten the price of indulging mass murderers and their torturers ought to volunteer to go to Gaddafi’s prisons and get some of that blood on their own hands.

This is nonsense. Some campaigns lead to protracted and bloody civil wars. Some do not. We do not know which Libya will be. But when we remember Iraq or Afghanistan, we should also remember Sierra Leone.

@97

“There are no war-mongering people. Not in the West anyway. It is a figment of your imagination.”

I think you need to add; “three, two, one, back in the room” for this to work.

“But there are logical grounds for rejecting wars in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. I did myself. Just that you have not produced one”

I haven’t been asked to produce any such thing. What I am disputing with you is your use of the rhetorical trick that leftwing people oppose wars in far-flung countries because they hate ‘the West’.

“He was a friend of the British Left”

Because Blair and his friend Bush were leftwing were they ? Bullsh*t.
McCain went out there to sign oil deals with Gaddafi and praised him lavishly. Now he’s out there to sign oil deals with the rebels. The rightwing warmonger message is consistent in that oil is still delicious.

“It is called engagement.”

It’s called hypocrisy.

Those who train the middle east dictators killers, sell their regimes weapons and finance their brutal regimes with oil deals are hypocritical fools who then throw up their hands in mock horror as the dictators slaughter and oppress their people.

“Just as people who have forgotten the price of indulging mass murderers and their torturers ought to volunteer to go to Gaddafi’s prisons”

That would be the Western governments again. I haven’t indulged him by selling him any weapons or trained his troops or signed corrupt oil deals for billions.

So when are you volunteering to go to Syria’s prisons? You aren’t trying to regime change Assad with missiles and bombs so you must support his torturers.
Try your Blair and Bush neoconservative ‘appeasement’ horses**t where there’s someone gullible enough to still believe it.

“Some campaigns lead to protracted and bloody civil wars.”

Wakey f**king wakey!
This is a civil war and it’s already been going on for months with no plan for the future other than having Qatar act as the middleman to sell the oil for the rebels. Telling us exactly what the priorites for this folly are.

Are there circumstances where you do think an international intervention into a sovereign state would be justified? …Do you think that a UN resolution – missing for Iraq – would be a start?

I do indeed. On the other hand, I think the track record of international intervention is so bad, such a succession of horrifying fuck-ups and bloodbaths, that the bar for intervention should now be raised so high that it would be effectively impossible to send in the jets and troops except in absolutely the most dire of circumstances.

Let’s not forget here, Rwanda and Bosnia are not examples of what happens when third parties don’t intervene. The French intervened in the former, the UN in the latter, and both were muddled, badly planned and executed and ultimately botched. In other words, they were standard, fucked-up international interventions, as those things tend to be.

What those clamouring for even more humanitarian wars are saying is, ignore all those other massive disasters – this time, it will totally work. Well, the record suggests that nine times out of ten, it’s going to either a) fail or b) make the situation much worse.

Notice if you will how quickly those who sought to cast the Iraq debacle as a humanitarian exercise backtracked from that position when it turned into a years-long massacre, and began telling us instead that it was some freakish, unrelated species of no-brain adventurism. Notice how those who clamoured for intervention in Bosnia now tell us that the ensuing horrors prove we need to intervene more, not less.

Bottom line – your opinion on international intervention should be based upon 1) whether it works and 2) that’s it. Well, the evidence in front of us suggests that it doesn’t in a majority of cases. All talk of “moral imperatives” etc. is low, pulsating narcissism that amounts to “Bombing the shite out of this country will make me feel better”.

Do you think a resistance within the country – exterminated by the CIA in Iraq – would be a positive?

Insofar as the “resistence” in Iraq was “exterminated”, it was done in a superviolent interethnic slaughter that killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis while the Americans sat on their hands. As far as I’m aware, the CIA’s involvement was to step in towards the end and put everyone, all of the psychotic murderers they could find, on the US payroll. It should also be noted that Moqtada Al Sadr’s boys are still there, lying low with their RPGs buried in their back gardens, waiting to see how the politics work out.

So no, I’m not a fan of “resistance” any more than I am of “Chucking western munitions at countries in the hope of a favourable outcome”. Both tend to result in massive loss of life for innocent civilians. Bottom line, remember?

Do you think that R2P doctrine is breached in the Libyan intervention?

More to the point, I think it’s likely that the Libyan intervention is the operation that will bury R2P under a pile of corpses. NATO invoked R2P, gained UN authorisation to “protect civilians” and is now engaged in an active policy of intentionally dragging out a vicious civil war that is killing thousands, in the hope that this will somehow effect regime change.

You’d better believe that in future, people are going to identify “R2P” with “Telling porky-pies to achieve political goals, regardless of the consequences for civilians”. I try and fail to see how this is a plus for international law enforcement.

You argue from a perfected world position that would still allow dictators to kill people. Perfection sir is not given to humans.

Yes, the one thing we can say about our interventions – boy, they don’t allow dictators to kill people. Like, remember how we said this war would work because the Arab League endorsed it, then they took advantage of our distracted state to brutally crack down on their own populations?

The really entertaining thing here is, you think it’s me that’s the crazy, perfection-seeking idealist. Wonk wonk.

@102 fr

“….that the bar for intervention should now be raised so high that it would be effectively impossible to send in the jets and troops except in absolutely the most dire of circumstances.”

So when all is said and done, your basic response still amounts to sitting on your hands and letting innocent people be slaughtered, because you are setting the bar unrealistically high. Your fucked up rationale for this is that it sometimes hasn’t worked, and can’t be guaranteed to be perfect.

In both the cases you quote, Rwanda and Bosnia, it is true that the execution was the problem… but it only goes to prove the general point, that there ARE circumstances where intervention is both possible and morally right. Again, in both these cases, if the international community had intervened earlier and harder most if not all of the deaths could have been prevented.

100. Trooper Thompson – “I think you need to add; “three, two, one, back in the room” for this to work.”

That might help but it is hardly needed.

“I haven’t been asked to produce any such thing. What I am disputing with you is your use of the rhetorical trick that leftwing people oppose wars in far-flung countries because they hate ‘the West’.”

When you so clearly don’t have one I don’t think there is any point asking. You can dispute all you like but first you would have to produce a reason that might even suggest I am wrong.

101. the neconservative idiots are back – “Because Blair and his friend Bush were leftwing were they ? Bullsh*t.”

I agree it is bullshit. Blair and Bush were not his friends.

“McCain went out there to sign oil deals with Gaddafi and praised him lavishly. Now he’s out there to sign oil deals with the rebels. The rightwing warmonger message is consistent in that oil is still delicious.”

Gaddafi was rewarded, mildly, for forswearing his nuclear programme. Rightly. No more. That does not make him the West’s friend. That does not mean Republicans like him. After all, the only people taking his money for decades were Left wing parties or friends of the Left like the IRA.

“It’s called hypocrisy.”

What is hypocritical about it?

“Those who train the middle east dictators killers, sell their regimes weapons and finance their brutal regimes with oil deals are hypocritical fools who then throw up their hands in mock horror as the dictators slaughter and oppress their people.”

Well the Russians are not throwing up their hands so I see a total lack of any hypocrisy. As the West did not train his killers, nor sell Gaddafi any significant amount of weapons.

“That would be the Western governments again. I haven’t indulged him by selling him any weapons or trained his troops or signed corrupt oil deals for billions.”

Yet again it wouldn’t. And while noone in the West is guilty of this, you *are* opposing any action to remove him from office. Which looks like indulging to me.

“So when are you volunteering to go to Syria’s prisons? You aren’t trying to regime change Assad with missiles and bombs so you must support his torturers.”

You have no idea what I am or am not doing. So your comment is childish. What is more you are simply refusing to support on-going efforts to remove Gaddafi. That is a very different issue.

“is is a civil war and it’s already been going on for months with no plan for the future other than having Qatar act as the middleman to sell the oil for the rebels. Telling us exactly what the priorites for this folly are.”

That hardly means that a Western campaign there would lead to a protracted war

“Blair and Bush were not his friends.”

Look up “the deal in the desert” and the fact that Blair agreed to train Gaddaffi’s special forces who then went on to torture and slaughter protestors. Specifically,
signed during the former Labour prime minister’s “Blair-well” tour of Africa in May 2007, in Gaddafi’s tent in the Libyan desert.
Included in the document was an agreement on “co-operation in the training of specialised military units, special forces and border security units”.
and promised exchanges of information on Nato and EU military and civil security organisations;exchanges of information and views on defence structures, military and security organisations; exchanges of visits by experts and exchange of printed materials in the field of military education and science; exchanges of information on current and developing military concepts, principles and best practice, and the conduct of joint exercises’’; training in operational planning processes, staff training, and command and control; training of personnel in peace support operations; training co-operation relating to software, communications security, technology and the function of equipment and systems; exchanges of information and experience in the laws of armed conflict; and the acquisition of equipment and defence systems’’

They weren’t friendly at all were they ?
No more needs to be expended on this if you are so ignorant of the basics.

“for forswearing his nuclear programme”
Which is like rewarding the Bahamas for forswearing their nuclear programme.
He didn’t have one. It was all about the oil deal. The clue was that you beleived someone like Blair on WMD again. Hilarious.

“As the West did not train his killers, nor sell Gaddafi any significant amount of weapons.”

Oh yes they did and I’d be interested to know what you consider significant. How many protestors must they use their weapons against before it bothers you ? Don’t posture on human rights if you try to minimise the amount of damage giving this headcase weapons and weapons training and technology of any sort did.

“That does not mean Republicans like him. After all, the only people taking his money for decades were Left wing parties or friends of the Left like the IRA.”

You should do your homework before you make so many wrong and ignorant statements.

Reuters Aug 2009:

“McCain and the delegation accompanying him confirmed the importance of expanding further the relations between Libya and the United States. The Congress would back the measures to be taken to achieve this aim,” Jana said. It gave no details.

Since Washington ended its major sanctions on Libya, U.S. energy companies including ExxonMobil and Chevron have been active in Libya.

“Senator McCain and the delegation with him expressed their deep happiness to meet the leader and praised him for his wisdom and strategic vision to tackle issues of concern to the world and his efforts to sustain peace and stability in Africa,” Jana said.

“”you *are* opposing any action to remove him from office. Which looks like indulging to me.”"

More Blairite conflation and straw man bullsh*t.
Opposing regime change by bombing yet another muslim country with oil into democracy isn’t supporting him. I support the Libyan people in overthrowing him. Unless you support bringing democracy to Syria one warhead at a time I have the advantage of being consistent and not a hypocrite about my stance.

“That hardly means that a Western campaign there would lead to a protracted war.”

Because Iraq and Afghanistan went so well didn’t they ?
Are you having trouble understanding that this is a civil war with religious and tribal factions and war crimes commited already by both sides ?
You seriously think the rebels will eventually politely march on Tripoli Gadaffi will say I surrender and everyone lives happily ever after ?
There is no exit strategy and the country is already partitioned in all but name.
It’s not going to end well and those who use attack helicopters to get rid of Gaddafi won’t be able to turn their back on a civil war, bloody reprisals and a country in chaos.

While I have great respect for ordinary people who identify with the plight of the oppressed Libyans I’m afraid their position is mortally undermined by our own political class.

As has already been stated – the west have been propping up Gaddafi’s wretched regime for over 40 years.
Reports of human rights abuses have been commonplace but this does not appear to have altered the fundamental dynamic between Gaddafi and those tripping over themselves to do business with him.

The dictator’s list of crimes is long – so what reason could possibly explain why Gaddafi has been able to string along the likes of Tony Blair for so long?
http://www.bruceonpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Blair-and-Gaddafi.jpg

I feel reasonably confident the answer is this?
http://www.etftrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/oil.jpg
Rather than this?
http://ecodiario.eleconomista.es/imag/_v2/ecodiario/global/bahrein-sufrimiento600.jpg

The simple fact is our politicians represent the interests of the corporations NOT the little people – our abysmal record on Libya makes it quite impossible for the British government to take the moral high ground.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8294125/WikiLeaks-How-Libya-trade-fears-forced-British-ministers-to-back-release-of-Lockerbie-bomber.html

So when all is said and done, your basic response still amounts to sitting on your hands…

98% of the time, yes. Sitting on our hands won’t make things any better, but it certainly won’t make things any worse. “Not making things worse” is a big deal when “worse” can mean “increasing the bodycount by a factor of ten”.

Now, hurling vast amounts of high explosives into other nations, whether from good intentions or bad, has quite a high probability of making things worse. It also has the additional effect of wildly distorting the situation in other countries by putting the perceived interests of the world’s most powerful nations at the heart of their conflict.

This is why doctors have to take an oath that starts “First, do no harm” rather than “Fuck it, why not? it might work, if we’re lucky”. It recognises that the patient’s personal interests are more important than the medic’s desire to cure them.

In both the cases you quote, Rwanda and Bosnia, it is true that the execution was the problem… but it only goes to prove the general point, that there ARE circumstances where intervention is both possible and morally right.

Of course there are. World War II springs to mind as a good example. What doesn’t is “More or less every other war or instance of civil strife in which we are presently involved”.

in both these cases, if the international community had intervened earlier and harder most if not all of the deaths could have been prevented.

Indeed, and if Godzilla had been involved, he would’ve prevented all the deaths by crushing evil with great swipes of his mighty paws, and afterwards he could have grilled the newly-pacified combatants a barbecue dinner with blasts of his fiery breath.

It doesn’t work like this. International intervention in all its forms has been tried on numerous occasions and its track record ranges from Quite good in a tiny minority of cases, to Ooops, bit of a muddle, quite a lot of dead people really in most of them and Oh my God, the Horror, the Horror in a significant number.

Was it Einstein who said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? That’s what you’re doing here. I’m telling you that all of these operations have been fuckups because these types of operations typically end in fuckups, because they’re incredibly difficult to do well and are contingent on too many factors to control.

You’re saying that none of these operations would’ve been fucked up if we’d only used more violence. Well, maybe. Allow me to suggest that the evidence of the last ten years, in which we’ve occasionally stepped up to “Maximum violence”, strongly suggest that you’re talking out of your hoop.

@ Gallen

The quote you attribute isn’t mine.. but feel free to recant any time when you discover who actually said it.

You may find my arguments naive, but you seem adept at avoiding questions rather than answering them, so it’s par for the course I guess.

I seem to remember, from the last thread on this, that your debating style became increasingly ad hominem as you inevitably lost the argument.

I knew the quote I pasted wasn’t from you- I was suggesting that our national interest was a more plausible reason for intervention than the humanitarian guff you had been positing.

Regarding the question of whether the intervention of one state in another’s affairs can ever be justified, that is slightly more complex.

Nation states operate through having a monopoly of the means of violence over the inhabitants of a geographical area of our planet and there is a strong case to be made that all states are inherently evil. However given that they exist, some rules have evolved to try to eliminate the wars between states that have blighted history.

One of these rules, partially articulated in “international law” is that one state should not interfere with the internal affairs of another. However I accept that the rules are essentially ad hoc and that ultimately each state will act in it’s own interests-international affairs fundamentally operate on the law of the playground.

What I cannot accept is the hypocrisy of governments telling their citizens that they are interfering in the affairs of others for reasons of morality or “for their own good”. And I really shouldn’t be wasting my time trying to lift the scales from your eyes, Gallen, because I suspect the moral superiority you bring to the debate is undentable.

And it makes me feel sick.

@107 FR

“98% of the time, yes. Sitting on our hands won’t make things any better, but it certainly won’t make things any worse. “Not making things worse” is a big deal when “worse” can mean “increasing the bodycount by a factor of ten”. ”

The obvious flaw in your argument is that you have randomly pulled the figure of 98% out of thin air to bolster your tendentious assumption that the effect of interventions is invariably negative. It ain’t necessarily so, as has already been pointed out. Even sticking to this particular case, it is much more likely that the body count would have been significantly higher had Gaddaffi been allowed to occupy Benghazi and crush the revolution there and elsewhere.

It is on balance (not something you are good at I realise…but let’s have a go, eh?) much more likely that the factor of ten increase in deaths (which you have also invented) would have happened if intervention had NOT taken place. Of course, “proving” that is impossible because intervention prevented that scenario.

Your laboured medical analogy doesn’t take us far. Since the international community (as usual, cf. Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan etc) sat on it’s hands for too long, by the time it took action, air strikes were the only feasible option. Again your fall back position is “do nothing”, because the only actors capable of carrying out the missions, absent some re-invention and re-invigoration of the UN, are the US, GB, France and a couple of others.

“That’s what you’re doing here. I’m telling you that all of these operations have been fuckups because these types of operations typically end in fuckups, because they’re incredibly difficult to do well and are contingent on too many factors to control.”

But you’ve already admitted that there are certain situation where it is necessary, then undermined your own argument by setting the bar so high that it will be functionally impossible to act, because you can’t possibly control all the factors. International relations isn’t any more like that than day to day life. The fact these operations sometimes go wrong, or have been badly planned, resourced and/or executed, isn’t some joker you can flourish to claim victory in the debate.

“You’re saying that none of these operations would’ve been fucked up if we’d only used more violence. Well, maybe. Allow me to suggest that the evidence of the last ten years, in which we’ve occasionally stepped up to “Maximum violence”, strongly suggest that you’re talking out of your hoop.”

What I’m saying is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Instead of engaging in a reasoned debate, you just go off on one about Godzilla… FFS. The evidence doesn’t support your argument; you (typically) dodged the fact that intervention in Bosnia and Kossove, whilst belated, saved lives. Had the international community acted faster and reined the Serbs in, either diplomatically and/or militarily, it’s probable that hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. It wouldn’t have taken maximum violence.

I’ll leave it to people with more balance to decide who is talking out of their hoop FR.

@108 pagar

Obviously I don’t accept that I’ve lost the argument. Calling “ad hominem” is usually a better guide as to who is losing the argument.

The fact you think humanitarian motivations are guff is probably telling; much better just to wash our hands and leave those foreigners to their fate eh? At least then you can claim the moral high ground, and join FR in insisting that it would inevitably have gone Pete Tong.

Whether you like it or not, it IS in our national interest to try and bring about a different regime in Libya, just as it was/is better that Egypt and Tunisia managed to change their regime, or for that matter the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe, or military dictatorships in Latin America. The spread of democracy is a “good thing”… not really sure why you would think otherwise.

Thankfully I’m pretty convinced that more people will feel queasy at your lack of compassion than at the supposed moral superiority you feel I claim.

@110 Dunno about the military dictatorships in south America being bad for us, didn’t ‘we’ encourage them to overthrow their democratically elected leadership in the first place?

@111 cylux

Well, kinda depends who you define as “we”. Obviously the US and western European democracies have a baleful historical record when it comes to supporting nasty dictatorships in various parts of the world, often on the spurious grounds that “they may be a SOB, but they are our SOB”, they were anti-communist, we didn’t want to be seen as nasty imperialists etc.

An ethical foreign policy is a great idea… if only we had one eh?

In the meantime, until we reach those sunny uplands, I’m all for doing what we can, where we can. Collective guilt about our past and present failings, or a fixation with ensuring that we only intervene if we have met an absurdly high / unattainable level of certainty about unknowable outcomes, isn’t an excuse for allowing dictators to kill people.

have randomly pulled the figure of 98% out of thin air… the factor of ten increase in deaths (which you have also invented)

Uh, yes. I’m saying, I would oppose 98% of proposed interventions and that, since a factor-of-ten increase in deaths in interventions is one possible and perhaps even likely outcome, we should bear this in mind when revving up the planes.

I’d expect an eight-year-old to be able to interpret those statements easily and without confusion and yet, to you, they appear to be tantamount to some epic subterfuge. I wonder why.

Since the international community (as usual, cf. Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan etc) sat on it’s hands for too long, by the time it took action, air strikes were the only feasible option.

Indeed. The time for sanctions, hypnotism and asking very nicely had passed.

The fact these operations sometimes go wrong, or have been badly planned, resourced and/or executed, isn’t some joker you can flourish to claim victory in the debate.

I mean, sure, in a debate on the usefulness of military intervention, you don’t automatically win just by pointing out the fuck-awful track record of military interventions. I insist that it might be relevant, though.

Had the international community acted faster and reined the Serbs in, either diplomatically and/or militarily, it’s probable that hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. It wouldn’t have taken maximum violence.

Really. Wouldn’t it, now. “Acting faster” to “rein in the Serbs” would have “saved hundreds of thousands of lives”. That’s nice.

For a man with a proclaimed dislike of hypotheticals, you don’t half like to make grandiose claims, do you? Not one for noticing the well-demonstrated limits of military force this in the last couple of years, either. Intriguing.

I’d love to see, for instance, how the Blue Skies Thinking is going to work on Libya. Even if the ideal outcome – Gaddafi falls, government collapses, rebels somehow morph into an army capable of holding significant chunks of enemy territory and win – is achieved tomorrow, how do we think Gaddafi’s supporters and all those allied tribes are going to respond?

Are they going to acquiesce to the Transitional Council’s interim rule and take part in free elections, after decades in which no political organisation was permitted and after months of a vicious civil war that ended with the removal of their patronage system?

Or, do we think they might start driving truck-bombs into Tripoli?

Never mind all that! As you said yourself, You have to play the odds… sometimes they will work out, and sometimes they won’t. I’ll put four million Libyans on “Everything will be fine if we believe hard enough”, Chris!

It’s with a heavy heart that I realise that I’ll probably be sitting here in 2016 watching you or someone like you explaining that our insufficiently violent Libya campaign fully justifies invading some new unfortunate nation.

I’m pretty convinced that more people will feel queasy at your lack of compassion than at the supposed moral superiority you feel I claim.

I always enjoy it when people do clownish things like accusing others of a “lack of compassion” before expressing doubt that they’re too keen on their own “moral superiority”. Good for a chuckle.

@113 FR

Jeezus you post a hell of a lot of crap to not actually contribute much:

“Uh, yes. I’m saying, I would oppose 98% of proposed interventions and that, since a factor-of-ten increase in deaths in interventions is one possible and perhaps even likely outcome, we should bear this in mind when revving up the planes.”

It’s only “likely” to the minority like you who aren’t paying attention and are ill-informed. At least 800,000 died in the Rwandan genocide, where intervention would have saved many. So according to you, if a full scale intervention had been initiated, 8 million would have died. Uh huh……

“I mean, sure, in a debate on the usefulness of military intervention, you don’t automatically win just by pointing out the fuck-awful track record of military interventions. I insist that it might be relevant, though.”

Yes, it is relevant but it’s not automatic. You have taken a random position that because success can never be guaranteed, and there MIGHT be a risk it could wrong, the balance of risks should mean we only act in 2% of potential conflict situations. There is just no rational basis to your claim.

“Really. Wouldn’t it, now. “Acting faster” to “rein in the Serbs” would have “saved hundreds of thousands of lives”. That’s nice.”

Don’t sidestep the issue: do you TRULY believe that more people would have died if we had intervened earlier to halt Serb aggression in Bosnia (and for that matter Kossovo)? If you do, you are very much in the minority. It’s hardly a flight of fantasy to see that the thousands who died in Sarajevo, Srebrenica, and in the ethnic cleansing campaigns would NOT have died if NATO, the UN and/or EU had acted decisively to stop the Serbs.

“I’d love to see, for instance, how the Blue Skies Thinking is going to work on Libya.”

Whatiffery again; the usual refuge of the clueless. Amongst the various possible future scenarios, you have of course chosen the one that suits you. All anyone can do at this stage is try and make a calculated guess as to whether the post-gaddaffi Libya will decend into chaos, or actually manage to make a reasonable transition. Libya =/= Iraq.

It’s hard(er) to take you seriously when you can’t even see the difference between the current intervention, and an invasion.

The basis of your OP was weak enough… probably best to step away from the shovel now.

@ Gallen

The spread of democracy is a “good thing”… not really sure why you would think otherwise.

I’m going to lose a few supporters here but …………….

Because the justification of spreading our morally superior “democracy” is often used to justify neo-colonialist bullying by the West. We insist on foreigners adopting our wonderful system of determining government whether they have any appetite for it or not.
And if they refuse we bomb them.

There is as much demand for democracy in Afghanistan as there is for lip gloss. The Afghans don’t want to vote for corrupt politicians, they just want to get on with their lives, and I have some sympathy with that view.

Indeed, we currently try to promulgate democracy with the same kind of fundamentalist sense of rectitude with which our ancestors spread Christianity. And I don’t blame those that resist us, because governments often use the fact that they have been elected democratically as justification for all crimes (we represent the will of the people therefore everything we do represents the people’s will).

At least when a a dictator governs, he does not pretend to have subsumed the will of his constituents.

@114

“the Rwandan genocide, where intervention would have saved many.”

As has been pointed out, there was an intervention: the French went in, in order to help the Interahamway militia (the ones doing the genocide) escape across the border.

@115 pagar

I dunno about losing supporters…but your true colours can certainly be seen.

Democracy isn’t something imposed by the nasty neo-colonialists in the west, foisted on unwilling coffee coloured people who actually would rather prefer to stay steeped in their medieval tribalism. Surprise..your views are as insulting to those prepared to give up their lives to obtain democratic rights, as they are deeply unpleasant to anyone with a conscience.

If you don’t think there is an appetite for democracy in Afghanistan (or Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, China…. feel free to add to the list) you haven’t being paying attention, or are just being disingenuous for the sake of it.

What the Arab spring shows in particular is that there IS a real appetite amongst large sections of their population to have the kind of rights we take for granted. As has been pointed out, that’s why Iran and Hamas hate what is going on, and why the usual anti-Islamic wing nuts have been struggling to convince themselves that it’s a recipe for militant Isalm to take over. It just isn’t.

If you don’t think the values of secular democracy are universal, there is little point trying to convince you otherwise.

With views like that, it’s a wonder you have any friends never mind supporters of your deeply repugnant stance.

@116

At least try and inform yourself about the events before embarrassing yourself with displays of ignorance. Try doing some actual research maybe? I warmly recommend the book “Shake Hands With the Devil” by Romeo Dallaire, the commander of UNAMIR in Rwanda…. hell, even some google trawling should suffice.

The international community sat on its hands over Rwanda, just as it has in many other scenarios. The UN force was pathetically ill-equipped and under funded, and lacked the mandate to stop the genocide.

Galen: The basis of your OP was weak enough…

Oh, LOL brother, my sides! The OP was premised on the idea that NATO went to war in Libya with no plan at all for victory or contingencies, and proved that our present difficulties were entirely predictable by pointing to some definite and accurate predictions.

Further, I said that pro-intervention types restricted their advocacy to shouting down serious questions by calling those who raise them a bunch of Commies who want to see the Libyan people machine gunned to death.

You’ve responded by… Denying there’s any need for a plan, conceding that our present difficulties were entirely predictable, and then by calling people who raise serious questions a bunch of Commies who want to see the Libyan people machine gunned to death.

Oh, I am so crazy! My opinions are so wacky and lame! Please, take this shovel from my hands etc. and so on. How very foolish I feel.

So according to you, if a full scale intervention had been initiated, 8 million would have died. Uh huh……

It’s certainly possible that a person could accidentally interpret the point I made in this way, although admittedly such a person would have to be far too cretinous to interpret simple, straightforward statements correctly.

It’s hardly a flight of fantasy to see that the thousands who died in Sarajevo, Srebrenica, and in the ethnic cleansing campaigns would NOT have died if NATO, the UN and/or EU had acted decisively to stop the Serbs…

…Is followed swiftly and unironically by…

Whatiffery again; the usual refuge of the clueless. Amongst the various possible future scenarios, you have of course chosen the one that suits you…

Oh dear God, the comedy. Apologies oh great soothsayer, I was unaware that only you were permitted to indulge in flights of fancy over what might have happened during counterfactual wars, and that all others are forbidden from warning of the very possible outcomes of ongoing conflicts, based upon recent and hard-learned experience.

Quite why the rules should be so heavily skewed in your favour isn’t clear, but it’s surely of a piece with your ability to repeatedly contradict yourself and to unintentionally demonstrate the accuracy of the position that you’re opposing.

I mean, you are in favour of military interventions, right? I mean, if I intended to discredit the concept via fraudulent internet commenting, I’d be doing everything you’ve done on this very thread. To the power of ten.

@119 FR

You haven’t proven anything, FR. I’ve never called anyone here or elsewhere a commie (are you stuck in some 80′s timewarp or what?). Your wring headedness appears to have some other root cause, but I’m not really interested in finding out what it is.

Nice try putting words in my mouth, another sure sign you’ve lost the debate.

Your opinions are both lame and lazy, and about as palateable as pagars above.

It’s not about flights of fantasy, it’s about which scenario is most likely given the evidence at hand at the time. Most people accept that the decision to stop Gaddaffi’s forces from entering Benghazi averted a massacre. Fair enough you don’t agree, but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously when you say that by intervening the casualties will be increased by a factor of 10, or indeed that interventions are only justified in 2% of cases.

It doesn’t take a soothsayer to rubbish your poorly argued and researched contribution; I know plenty of high school kids who can do better.

@ Gallen

Once again you seem only to want to deal in ad hominems.

Whilst others are prepared to accept that there is more than one view and try to debate the issues with intelligence, you only seem to want to rubbish opponents and their views.

So let’s just accept that you are a well hard warrior saving Libyan rebels single handed by the power with which you can hit the keyboard but unless you have anything more meaningful to add, I have to say I’m bored.

@121 pagar

I agree.. you’re a hopeless case, so the game isn’t really worth the candle.

I’m quite happy to accept that a variety of views exist, just not that all are equally valid. Sometimes you just have to call people out for the crass things they say, and the ridiculous opinions they hold, such as your little gem @115.

Crying “ad hominem” when you’ve been outed for your woo-woo views is about as convincing as an Italian rolling about in the penalty box claiming his leg is broken.

Well. I had thought I’d proven enough to raise some pertinent questions, but clearly I reckoned without that impressive authority on reason that is “Most people”.

It doesn’t take a soothsayer to rubbish your poorly argued and researched contribution; I know plenty of high school kids who can do better.

I agree – you should’ve asked one of your classmates. I expect they’re all out playing on their bikes or something.

Libya =/= Iraq.

Then why are we hearing the same flimsy bullsh*t Blair used to justify Iraq ?

If we didn’t act innocent civilians would have died at the hands of Saddam, blah blah blah, you must be appeasers, blah blah blah, you’re either with us or against us, blah blah blah, we don’t need an exit strategy because it will turn out great if we wish hard enough, blah blah blah.

Hard to believe there is still anyone dumb enough to peddle this exact same cr*p to justify bombing Libya and it’s oil into regime change.
Even more astonishing, there still appears to be idiots who fall for it.

@124

Plenty of people who opposed the cluster fuck that is Iraq can see that Libya isn’t the same. Are you honestly trying to convince us that Gaddaffi’s forces would have rolled into Benghazi and distributed flowers? It takes a special kind of naivete to believe that there wouldn’t have been a bloodbath.

Appeasers have many different motives, but they all end being seen for what they are; principle voids who would rather tolerate mass murder than get their right on credentials soiled by actually doing anything constrictive. Same old, same old… no doubt the same ones who opposed intervention in Bosnia, Kossovo, Rwanda.

..and of course, the absolute clincher “it’s all about the oil”. Good grief.

@123 FR

“Well. I had thought I’d proven enough to raise some pertinent questions,..”

You thought wrong. Stun us with another. You’ve made a series of assertions based on nothing much, other than a supine acceptance of the God given right of sovereign governments to do anything they want, on the grounds that you have decided that these things always end badly, and always make things worse.

Naturally you have totally failed to address those instances where that hasn’t been the case, and simply compound your obfuscation by asserting that intervention always increases the body count 10 fold. Must have been a quiet news day for Sunny to have given a piece so weak any space at all.

Are you honestly trying to convince us that Gaddaffi’s forces would have rolled into Benghazi and distributed flowers?

You’re the one trying to convince us the rebels will roll into Tripoli and everything will somehow turn out fine. It takes a special kind of naivete to believe that this will end well.

“It takes a special kind of naivete to believe that there wouldn’t have been a bloodbath.”

Straw man Blairite bullsh*t again.
There would have been many deaths to the rebels and civilains. Good thing that isn’t happening now or that it isn’t happening in Syria or you would have to question the wisdom of using it as a Blairite excuse for trying to bomb a country into democracy and worsening and extending a civil war.

“Appeasers have many different motives,”

Are you copying this horsesh*t verbatim from one of Blair’s Iraq speeches ?
Don’t throw the appeaser tag around unless you support bombing Syria.
It just makes you look ever more stupid and hypocritical.

“it’s all about the oil”.

Remind us what the first first big meeting of the supposed ‘allies’ and NATO in London achieved after the attacks on Gaddafi begun ? Or do you even know ?
The only concrete proposal was to put Qatar in charge of being the middleman for selling the oil for the rebels. That was the priority as was taking the oil town and ports.

Do you even know why Blair signed the deal in the desert with Gaddafi or what it was about ? Here’s a clue, it wasn’t about getting a nice tan.

McCain lobbied Gaddafi for Exxonmobil and Chevron and praised him lavishly while he did it. He did the exact same lobbying to the rebels recently.

Don’t try and pretend this is about humanitarian concerns when the West had no problem buying his oil and supporting his brutal regime until the uprising made that untenable. Likewise, don’t attempt to posture about it being about human rights when the Syrian regime attacks it’s people with impunity.

The main problem with responsibility to protect is that it requires the subversion of the military might of the so-called western imperialist powers to serve in the interests of bleeding-heart do-gooders worried about the plight of those oppressed in foreign nations, as opposed to serving the interests of the ‘western imperialist powers’. Generally the powers are far smarter than the do-gooders and usually refuse to dance to their tune. However they do know all the dance moves, so when it finally serves their interests to invade a nation on the “very concerned about list” it isn’t difficult to garner themselves with moral support.

Still, if it works out favourably for the Libyan people in the end you can’t complain too much.

Meanwhile, the turmoil in the Middle East is an invaluablel distraction from all the gloomy news about Britain’s flagging economy, the upheavals in the NHS and the closure threats hanging over care homes for the aged.

“Generally the powers are far smarter than the do-gooders”

We saw that with Bush his poodle Blair and Iraq.
They turned a brutal secular dictatorship into a brutal religious extremist Iranian proxy state. Real smart.

“However they do know all the dance moves, so when it finally serves their interests to invade a nation on the “very concerned about list” it isn’t difficult to garner themselves with moral support.”

Among idiots.

“Still, if it works out favourably for the Libyan people in the end you can’t complain too much.”

In the end we’re all dead. Right now Libya is a quagmire in the grip of a civil war.
Afghanistan doesn’t seem to be going too well either, does it ?

105. the neconservative idiots are back – “Look up “the deal in the desert” and the fact that Blair agreed to train Gaddaffi’s special forces who then went on to torture and slaughter protestors.”

I have looked it up. It does not include anything you have claimed it does. You can’t even show a single person trained by Britain has killed anyone else. You merely want it to be true. Goto my original point on mindless hatred of the West.

“Included in the document was an agreement on “co-operation in the training of specialised military units, special forces and border security units”.”

So teaching Border Guards how to spot a terrorist.

“and promised exchanges of information on Nato and EU military and civil security organisations;exchanges of information and views on defence structures, military and security organisations; exchanges of visits by experts and exchange of printed materials in the field of military education and science; exchanges of information on current and developing military concepts, principles and best practice, and the conduct of joint exercises’’; training in operational planning processes, staff training, and command and control;”

So lots of free lunches and jollies for Staff Officers but nothing remotely close to what you are claiming.

“training of personnel in peace support operations;”

So teaching them what tear gas is and why they should not gun down peaceful protestors. An entirely positive contribution I would think.

“training co-operation relating to software, communications security, technology and the function of equipment and systems; exchanges of information and experience in the laws of armed conflict; and the acquisition of equipment and defence systems’’”

Teaching them how to surf the internet and why torturing people is against the law. Really? This is your evidence? Again I point out the obvious – the irrational hatred of the West all too commonly manifested by the West is not merely delusional, it is also not based on anything close to evidence.

“They weren’t friendly at all were they ?”

No they were not.

“Which is like rewarding the Bahamas for forswearing their nuclear programme.
He didn’t have one. It was all about the oil deal. The clue was that you beleived someone like Blair on WMD again. Hilarious.”

Yes he did. He handed over details of the A. Q. Khan network and designs for nuclear weapons. And some chemical weapons. Look it up.

“Oh yes they did”

No they did not. No matter how many times you lie about this it will never become true just because you want it to be. Gaddafi was armed almost exclusively by the former Soviet Union, China and France.

“You should do your homework before you make so many wrong and ignorant statements.”

And you should read the press releases you quote – they don’t say what you want them to say.

““McCain and the delegation accompanying him confirmed the importance of expanding further the relations between Libya and the United States. The Congress would back the measures to be taken to achieve this aim,” Jana said. It gave no details.”

So it says nothing like what you claimed.

““Senator McCain and the delegation with him expressed their deep happiness to meet the leader and praised him for his wisdom and strategic vision to tackle issues of concern to the world and his efforts to sustain peace and stability in Africa,” Jana said.”

So it says nothing like what you claimed.

Now you have moved from delusion to open lying. Why?

“Because Iraq and Afghanistan went so well didn’t they ?”

Iraq worked out well for us in the end.

“Are you having trouble understanding that this is a civil war with religious and tribal factions and war crimes commited already by both sides ?”

What religious factions are on the other side? I have no trouble understanding that. So what?

“You seriously think the rebels will eventually politely march on Tripoli Gadaffi will say I surrender and everyone lives happily ever after ?”

No. I think they will end up with a government like the present one.

Iraq worked out well for us in the end.

If this strikes anyone as a wacky counterfactual based on ideology rather than reality, you could try asking SMFS what he thinks about the Vietnam War*. The historical record suggests “Pointless superpower carnage” but, as with Iraq, he doesn’t see it quite that way.

*Don’t actually get into an argument over it, mind. Do something more useful instead, like shouting into a bucket.

@130 I did say “IF” it works out favourably. Plus who’s smarter – Bush and Blair who hoodwinked the majority of their nations for a short time into believing that Iraq was for the good of the Iraqi people, or the RTPers who believed they guided Bush and Blair onto that course?

flying rodent @ 123,

Jesus! I am annoyed now! I wrote a reply and it disappeared into the ether. Are you using your echo location senses or summat?

Anyway.

That is an extremely playground response. It that the best you can do?

This thread has consistently had you jumping up and down about how any intervention is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is what you do. You’d ask anyone else to meet your criteria for intervention, which is not much short of god-like. If you can predict the future and no-one is killed and we all love fluffy bunnies, then maybe, just maybe Flying Rodent will give your intervention the seal of approval. Just make sure you don’t damage the rainbows with your feather dusters.

In other words Flying Rodent will never approve an intervention. He has precluded any intervention that is not egregious and he gets to set the terms?

Err. No.

It is up to us to set the terms. I do not accept the notion that a nation state can just be a snuff movie and the likes of Flying Rodent will switch off any moral judgement whatsoever. Which is what he does.

It is perhaps true that Vietnam was a wrong. But I don’t buy the idea that Afghanistan was wrong. Though Iraq was.

Are you getting the idea? Each should be judged on it’s merits. Not on some sort of super sense of destiny like a bat might have…..

@134 Well there is the unfortunate reality that the invasion of Afganistan had more to do with revenge than humanitarian instincts…

@135 cylux

Well, it was revenge in the sense that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were in Afghanistan, and that the Taliban weren’t going to give them up just because we asked nicely; the fact that their medievalist nightmare of a regime was toppled could be seen as a bonus of course.

@134 douglas clark

Hear, hear!

Cylux @ 135,

No, not really. You are of the Flying Rodent school of debate. In terms of an objective – stopping Al Quada having a safe haven to batter aeroplanes into iconic buildings – it certainly seems to have worked, wouldn’t you say?

It was not revenge, it was avoidance of future terrorist attacks. You’d need to be daft to think that the West or anyone else would allow Afghanistan as a safe haven.

See that guy that just stabbed someone? Well, we’re not going after him? Why? Because to do so would be just, y’know, wrong.

@127 idiot

The “it’s all about the oil” line doesn’t get any more convincing for constant repetition. Libya accounts for barely 2% of worl oil supplies – if it all evaporated overnight, nobody would even notice (except the Libyans who depend on it presumably).

It makes perfect sense for the rebels to be concerned about securing oil fields and facilities, and for us to help them, for a number of reasons. They can use the proceeds of the sale of oil to buy things to defend themselves, and prevent Gaddaffi’s forces enjoying the proceeds or destroying them… which wouldn’t be too good for the (hopefully) post-Gaddaffi future.

Your increasingly hysterical rants just make it more obvious that you are deaf to reason. Are you suggesting that we buy nothing from ANY state that oppresses it’s population? Because unless you are your point is imbecilic. I’d actually be quite happy to see us rank states by their adherence to civilised norms, and discriminate economically against those who fall short, but that does have some economic implications, and of course, it’s so much easier to make lame, badly thought through points like yours isn’t it?

The fact that we aren’t doing the same to Syria (or Bahrain or Yemen etc, etc.) as we are to Libya, doesn’t mean that we should therefore do nothing…. that’s not how it works as the estimable Mr Clark pointed out @ 134 to your equally hysterical mate.

131.

“I have looked it up. It does not include anything you have claimed it does.”

When you get caught out lying don’t make it worse for yourself like you just did.
You’ll just end up looking like a laughing stock again.

“Libya: Tony Blair agreed to train Gaddafi’s special forces in ‘deal in the desert’

Tony Blair used his final foreign trip as prime minister to sign a confidential deal with Muammar Gaddafi to train Libyan special forces and supply him with Nato secrets.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8353501/Libya-Tony-Blair-agreed-to-train-Gaddafis-special-forces-in-deal-in-the-desert.html

After hearing you hilarious excuses for any military help to Gaddafi as entirely innocent perhaps you could embarrass yourself further explain to us how Gaddafi’s special forces are really humanitarians in disguise and how training them was a kindness for all those protestors.

You then resort to further lies by blindly parroting that the press release for McCain lobbying Gaddafi don’t confirm he and other American officials didn’t lobby Gaddafi.

THEY DID.

“Libyan Opposition Leaders Slam U.S. Business Lobby’s Deals With Gaddafi”

NEW YORK — A broad coalition of interests from oil companies, defense manufacturers and well-connected lobbying firms to neoconservative scholars and Harvard Business School professors has worked in recent years to advance a rapprochement with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and take advantage of business opportunities in the country, even in the face of the longtime international pariah’s brutal repression of his people and his legendary belligerence.

As one measure of the group’s influence, founding chairman David Goldwyn was appointed the State Department’s coordinator for international energy affairs by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. On a visit to Libya in December 2008, Goldwyn waxed rhapsodic about the “fantastically warm reception” he and eight U.S. executives received from senior Libyan officials.

McCain was one of those who openly lobbied him and praised him.

“Iraq worked out well for us in the end.”

Because you aren’t paying attention. This just from today.

Gunmen blast into government offices in Iraq

Seven killed, dozens injured; Siege in Baquba raises concerns over capabilities of security forces

The attack, in which dozens of people were wounded, raises concerns over the capabilities of Iraq’s forces to maintain stability in the country on their own, just months before U.S. soldiers must leave under a bilateral security pact.”

Gaddaffi didn’t have WMD any more than Saddam did. All the weasel excuses in the world won’t change that. It sounds like you were one of the idiots cheerleading for Iraq which doesn’t help your credibility now you are cheerleading for Libya.

“No. I think they will end up with a government like the present one.”

So a brutal regime with little to no regard for human rights then.
Why the f**k are we there again ?

@149 warmongering neconservative moron

The “it’s all about the oil” line doesn’t get any more convincing for constant repetition.
“They can use the proceeds of the sale of oil”

Make your mind up as that was hilarious.

“The fact that we aren’t doing the same to Syria (or Bahrain or Yemen etc, etc.) as we are to Libya, doesn’t mean that we should therefore do nothing….”

It also doesn’t mean you are obliged to cheerleader bombing a country into regime change and it means you are a hypocrite. Don’t use the humanitarian excuse when it is shown to be a woefully thin justification that falls down on the facts on the ground. Blair also said the exact same thing about Iraq and it was no more convincing then.

Like all the gullible keyboard warriors you fall back on the same excuses Blair used for Iraq at the drop of the hat without realising how pathetic they were then and now. Feel free to put your money where your mouth is and go out and fight for the Libyan rebels as you have no problem cheerleading the West into worsening matters by plunging Libya into an even more protraracted and lengthy civil war with no exit plan.

That there are some who would go back to the catastrophic idiocy of Iraq so soon after it occured says all you need to know about their inabiility to learn from such obvious mistakes.

@141 idiot

“Make your mind up as that was hilarious.”

Well, no actually. The fact is that ther eis no direct linkage; if Libya had negligible oil reserves (like Tunisia for example) the outcome would have been the same. The fact the voices in your head tell you it’s all a vicious neo-con plot doesn’t make it so.

“It also doesn’t mean you are obliged to cheerleader bombing a country into regime change and it means you are a hypocrite. ”

I’m not cheerleading it, I’m saying it was and is justified both morally, and in the interests of the Libyan people. It is also in our national interest, and the interests of the international community generally to see regimes like Gaddaffi’s fall.

The charges of hypocrisy are always levelled, but why is it you think that because we can’t instantly solve all problems of this sort, we should therefore do nothing about this one? If you think the humanitarian concerns are insufficient, it simply shows you have little empathy, and like your mate flying rodent are quite happy to see thousands murdered for your whacky take on international relations, as pointed out by douglas clark @ 134 above.

We’ve also heard all the stupid accusations about “oh, your just a Blairite stooge”, and “oh, it’s just like Iraq”… and even better “oh, why don’t you go and fight in Libya then” before…. what are you, 8 years old?

140. the neconservative idiots are back,

Eh!

What has that to do with anything? Who are you refuting. Who is about to leave this thread, wounded and unable to continue?

I read the name ‘Tony Blair’ throughout your diatribe. I also see you talk – at length – about events in Iraq.

Well, it might be a favourite debating tactic of the Rodent’s Air School, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with Libya. It was some chap called David Cameron that took us into Libya. See Tony Blair? See David Cameron? Different people.

Come to think of it, would the Rodent Air School have even reported the lads from Saudi and Yemen for only wanting to know about take off and steering, not landing? Enquiring minds want to know. It would probably have been an affront to their rights or summat…..

“I’m saying it was and is justified both morally, and in the interests of the Libyan people.”

Like Blair did for Iraq using the exaact same bulls*t you do.

“The fact the voices in your head tell you it’s all a vicious neo-con plot doesn’t make it so”

The fact that the voices on your head are identical to those of a reviled liar like Blair should worry you more.

“our national interest, and the interests of the international community generally to see regimes like Gaddaffi’s fall.”

To be replaced by rebels who are already implicated in war crimes ? So much for humanitarianism.

“If you think the humanitarian concerns are insufficient, it simply shows you have little empathy”

Are you so dim that you don’t realise that humanitarian concerns didn’t end with one incident ? Those who opposed Iraq and thought we should have got out of Afghanistan long ago have more empathy than those who blindly cheer new quagmires on with little regard to the continuing carnage.

I have empathy for those who in their country would rise up and replace a hated dictator like they did in Egypt. I have no empathy for fools who try and use humanitarian concerns as an excuse for countries that have a track record of making things worse by trying to bomb a country into regime change with little to no regard for the consequences.

“and like your mate flying rodent are quite happy to see thousands murdered for your whacky take on international relations”

I didn’t support Iraq. Did you ?
Or are you so out of touch you don’t realise thousands are still dying in Libya ?
That’s what happens in a civil war when you take sides and use attack helicopters ans cruise missiles to try and effect regime change.

“oh, why don’t you go and fight in Libya then” before…. what are you, 8 years old?

I’m not the one who thinks war is like a video game where a few more attack helicopters will make everything better. This is a civil war and cretins who cheerlead the west on in it clearly learned nothing from Iraq.

“See Tony Blair? See David Cameron? Different people.”

One is the heir to Blair the other is the original.
Both supported the Iraq folly. Both support the Libyan bombing.

Those who don’t like the comparison shoudn’t use the same excuses Blair did for Iraq.

@138 They did the most important part of their terrorist training in the US (the whole learning to fly gig). It’s also were they acquired the aeroplanes. Plus the lack of Afghanistan training camps didn’t stop the London bombing.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that until Obama became president catching OBL wasn’t even a priority, which should make the invasion of Afghanistan even more suspect.
Still even I will admit that as far as interventions go the Libya intervention is being done with a lot more due care, process and attention than it would have last decade, and thus has a greater chance of producing acceptable results. Doesn’t mean I’m comfortable with it though.

Cylux @ 146,

You do recall that the terrorists that blew up the WTC died in the process and that their C&C didn’t. And that they were being protected by Afghanistan? And that the whole world thought that the WTC atrocity was a bit wrong and voted accordingly in the UN?

It was the home of OBL even if AQ did become a franchise later with branches in Bali and West Yorkshire. It is like pretending that the Kentucky means nothing in Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Here’s what I don’t get – “In the Human Rights and Democracy Report (published on March 31 2011) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office recorded 26 “countries with the most serious human rights concerns,” including the very states that the UK happily signs lucrative arms deals with, such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, Libya and Pakistan. In order to smooth the progress of arms industry activities, UK Trade & Investment Defence & Security Organisation (UKTI DSO) established a permanent office in the Libyan capital Tripoli.
http://thetruthisnow.com/uncategorized/is-uk-sincere-in-being-surprised-at-gaddafis-use-of-british-arms/

Some say this is not about oil, or arms but if Britain was supplying Gaddafi with such dangerous hardware didn’t it ever occur to them that it might be used to intimidate ordinary Libyan citizens?
I suppose at some level the idea must have flickered into political consciousness, at least to the extent Libya appeared on the list of most serious human right’s abusers.

For decades many Libyans were treated very badly the regime yet only now does the British government finally wake from it’s slumbers – now I say this is not because politicos are genuinely concerned about Gaddafi’s opponents (although I fully accept commentators here are honest enough) but because the coalition wants to to keep it’s options open when it comes to securing the next generation of oils and arms deals.

Lets face it – in a post civil war environment guns are a pretty useful commodity, and guns don’t come cheap, even if life does?

@147 And how does that dispute the notion that the invasion of Afghanistan was motivated by revenge? It was in direct response to 9/11.

@148 a&e

I’ll pose the same question to you as to the hysterical idiot earlier; perhaps you are rational enough to actually engage in a debate rather than just see red mist in fron of your eyes.

When it comes to trading with countries on the “nasty list”, you can either take a high ground position that we should have no dealings with them at all, perhaps even sanction them and try and isolate them (cf. the US attempts to isolate Cuba, sanctions against Rhodesia and SA, most of the world against Iran etc..), or you can take a middling position and trade with them whilst trying to persuade them by other means to change their evil ways, or basically open your kimono and say you’ll do anything as long as it is good for business.

All of these have implications not only for the countries concerend and their populations, but also for our own economies. It would of course be a “good thing” if we could run a totally ethical foreign policy, not sell arms abroad at all, or even turn all our swords into plough shares and live in perfect harmony. Laudable enough aims…. meanwhile, back in the real world…? We have to play the hand we’re given.

As noted above, I’d be all for some regime that rewarded countries that adhered to civilised norms, and punished those that didn’t… but you’ll have to convince people to vote for a party pushing that line. New Labour’s ethical foreign policy didn’t amount to much did it? Few countries are perfect, but I’d be all for e.g. discriminating against China in favour of India in trade terms due to the bad human rights record of the former… but then you have to answer the question about whether it is right to punish ordinary Chinese workers for the sins of their regime?

There IS a genuine debate to be had about whether constructive engagement is better than sanctions, or in the last resort military force… but sanctions and force will always remain an option.

I can’t have been the only one disgusted at the sight of the Crown Prince of Bahrain being glad handed by Cameron on the steps of No. 10 as his country killed innocent protesters, but the fact that we didn’t ship him off to the Hague to face the ICHR, or start bombing Manama, doesn’t mean that we should therefore abandon those involved in the Libyan uprising to their fate on the altar of flying rodents dystopian world view.

the fact that some people just can’t resist the lazy stereotype that “it’s all about oil and guns” doesn’t make it true.

good post G10 [150] – just going out – will mull it over and reply later.

@144 idiot

“Like Blair did for Iraq using the exaact same bulls*t you do.”

No, as people keep pointing out to you, the two situations are not the same. The interventions in each case were predicated on very different grounds. Few people here supported the Iraq war, so your point is what exactly? I always opposed the invasion of Iraq, and have consistantly voiced my opposition to the nauseating New Labour project here and elsewhere. Apparently this makes me a neo-con Blairite war monger in your head, because I happen to feel intervention in Libya was on balance, the right thing to do.

“To be replaced by rebels who are already implicated in war crimes ? So much for humanitarianism.”

Even if this is true (do you have a source perhaps?), that wouldn’t serve as some trump card proving your point. The fact that some of the protesters in Syria may have killed members of Assad’s security forces doesn’t mean you can say there is a moral equivalence between the Assad regime, and those opposing it, any more than you could do so in the case of Libya.

“I have empathy for those who in their country would rise up and replace a hated dictator like they did in Egypt. I have no empathy for fools who try and use humanitarian concerns as an excuse… [blah, blah]..”

So why doesn’t your empathy extend to the Libyans fighting agianst Gaddaffi? I’m not excusing the failings of any country, let alone our own, for the manifest failures to do anything in other situations like Yemen, Syria, Bosnia, Rwanda… what I AM saying is that those failings don’t mean we can wash our hands in the particular instance of Libya.

“I didn’t support Iraq. Did you ?
Or are you so out of touch you don’t realise thousands are still dying in Libya ?
That’s what happens in a civil war when you take sides and use attack helicopters ans cruise missiles to try and effect regime change.”

No, I didn’t support the Iraq invasion, as noted above, and as i’ve frequently posted in here; any more than I was a supporter of New Labour. Thousands were going to die imminently in Libya if Gaddaffi had taken Benghazi. Why is it OK for you to decide that those people should be sacrificed because non-interventionists think it “might” make things worse? Again… I refer you to Douglas’ post @134 which neither you or your ilk have attempted to answer… because you HAVE no rational answer to the issues, other than hysterical ranting that anyone supporting intervention is a neo-con warmonger.

@Douglas:This thread has consistently had you jumping up and down about how any intervention is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is what you do.

This is not the case. Let me break this down real simple-like yet again, so it’s real clear.

Gentlemen, let’s look at the evidence. Here’s most of our attempts to help out in other people’s countries, 1994-2011 or so.

Sierra Leone – Hooray, success! Admittedly, it was more a civil order problem and didn’t require extended bombing campaigns – rampaging gangs & kidnapping – but it worked. Our success may be related to the fact that We were asked to help by the government of Sierra Leone. Shall we learn lessons here? Probably not, I imagine.

Rwanda – Operation Turquoise – disaster, useless. Stopped nothing*.

Bosnia – Ah, oops, well. Lots and lots of dead people here*.

Somalia ’92-3 – Bloodbath, ignominious failure*.

Kosovo – Operational success and public relations disaster now looks highly suspicious in retrospect. Quite a lot of dead people.

Afghanistan – Major disaster. Massive bodycount, no prospect whatsoever of any kind of positive political or military outcome unless US forces remain on a permanent basis*.

Iraq – Utter castastrophe, humanitarian nightmare. Hundreds of thousands dead, billions wasted, political consequences disastrous for region*. In all likelihood, serious instability and radicalism for decades.

Libya – Presently a stalemate, outcome uncertain.

Add American meddling to the pile, and we can also chuck in Pakistan – vicious bloodbath spirals steadily out of control – and Somalia 2008 – US airstrikes to crush Somali islamist movement achieves exactly the opposite result.

Now, as I’ve repeatedly stated but some mendacious tits insist on ignoring, I am pointing out the fuck-awful record of humanitarian intervention as a tactic in violence prevention. Its successes have been very limited and its failures have been horrifying beyond belief.

So, as you say, Each should be judged on it’s merits. I fully understand why you might want that. It might let us focus on, say, Sierra Leone a little bit more closely than an Iraqi insurgent killing most of his neighbours with a power drill.

Because really, look at the product you’re selling. Your problem isn’t that the audience aren’t sufficiently sympathetic or are unrealistic; it’s not that you need a better advertising campaign.

Your problem is that your product – Humanitarian intervention in its various forms – very clearly doesn’t do what you are claiming it does. It’s a shit product and no genius sales job is going to to stop it being a shit product.

Seriously. If I regularly buy cans of Ronseal, I expect it to Do Exactly What It Says On The Tin almost every time – varnish doors. If humanitarian intervention was Ronseal, it’d leap out of the can, pistol-whip your kids, execute your wife and burn your house down five times out of ten.

I don’t think it’s possible to misunderstand this point unintentionally. Are you getting the idea?

* Note – on these missions, if you respond with something like “We could’ve done it lots better with more violence”, the response is “More violence tends to lead to reciprocal violence and claims that ‘it would’ve worked’ are dubious in the extreme, given available evidence”.

Incidentally, there’s actually been quite a lot of good news coming out of Libya this week – reversals for Gaddafi’s forces, loss of support for the regime, and so on.

On a thread like this, isn’t it a bit odd that these news reports aren’t getting a mention? I mean, if the issue at stake was “the well-being of the people of Libya”, you’d think that these reports would be useful, since they undermine many of the points I’m making.

And yet, nothing – lots of bluster about how Rwanda and Bosnia would totally have worked, if only the awful moral cowardissess had allowed us to bomb the shite out… of something or other.

It’s almost as if they’re not paying attention at all – merely giving their full permission to NATO to do whatever it likes, then sitting back and ticking everyone else off.

Draw your own conclusions from that, folks.

@ fr 153

The mendacity here is on your part, due to your tendentious treatment of cases you mention.

To take the two examples of Rwanda and Bosnia, you attribute the loss of life in each case to the fact that humanitarian intervention didn’t work. Your consistant narrative throughout this thread is that it is virtually guaranteed in fact that in 98% of cases to use your ridiculous example, intervention will increase the body count by a factor of 10.

The sad fact is of course, that (despite your warning in the last paragraph) the reason vast numbers of people died in both those places was NOT the result of intervention, or the fact there was no exit strategy or plan, but the fact that in both cases the international community failed to act early enough, or in the case of Rwanda virtually at all.

Romeo Dallaire’s forces in Rwanda are widely regarded as having saved the lives of around 30,000 people in Rwanda, but the patheitcally inadequate resources he was given, and the flawed rules of engagement he worked under, meant that anywhere between 800,000 and 1.2 million people were butchered.

Your response to that situation (or presumably to anything similar in the future)? Apparently, given your response to Douglas, we should sit back and watch…because we can’t be absolutely and totally certain before we start that everythig will turn out to your satisfaction.

The answer is not that we should always use more violence, it is that we should be better prepared, and should intervene early, and (if the circumstances dictate) harder to stop the situation getting worse. Doing so in Rwanda could have prevented genocide. Doing so in Bosnia could have prevented wholescale ethnic cleansing and genocide. Doing so in Libya could have toppled Gaddaffi in the first few weeks of the uprising.

Your claim that “More violence tends to lead to reciprocal violence” may SOMETIMES be the case, but it isn’t ALWAYS the case. As Douglas notes, your insistance on a ridiculous, almost God-like standard of forknowledge, means that no intervention would ever happen.

@154 fr

Or is it in fact more likely that you are feeling a bit uncomfortable that the evidence on the ground makes your cassandra like predictions of the sky falling down look ever more ridiculous?

For the blithering idiot poodling the never ending stream of Blairite foolishness.

“No, as people keep pointing out to you, the two situations are not the same”

Yet you are stupid enough to keep using the exact same excuses he used for Iraq.

Appeasers, humanitarian concerns, just because we don’t act elsewhere doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act in Iraq/Libya, it’s nothing to do with oil, it doesn’t matter that we don’t have an exit strategy,those who oppose the war must support Saddam/Gaddafi,it doesn’t matter what replaces the regime because Saddam/Gaddafi is a brutal dictator, if we didn’t act more civilians would have died in Iraq/Libya.

The only thing missing is WMD.
The rest is the same Blair and Bush script being parrotted by the same type of fools.

“Why is it OK for you to decide that those people should be sacrificed because non-interventionists think it “might” make things worse?”

Because fools just like you said the same thing about Iraq and they were proved to be imbeciles who sacrificed far more people because they were too dumb to realise it DID make things worse.
And I’ll say it again, don’t complain about sacrificing people when you have no intention of intervening with bombs in Syria. It just makes you look like an ignorant hypocrite.

And it was good of you to bring up Syria since it proves how little humanitarian concerns matter unless they serve the current folly. The reports of war crimes from Gaddafi and the rebels come from the UN. Gaddafi is heavily implicated but there are crimes on both sides. It is not “equivelance” it is a warning the warmongers are ignoring. It proves that those who foretold the idiocy of using the UN resolution as cover to take sides for the rebels were correct when there were clear signs that NATO and the cheerleaders cared not a jot about who they were throwing their lot in with.

Don’t pick sides in a civil war when the outcome looks like being a messy disaster and there is no exit strategy YET AGAIN.

Thousands have died. Thousands more will if this keeps going for much longer or if a new regime decides on revenge since it has had NATO backing to do as it pleases so far.

If you still don’t understand why trying to bomb a country into a nice easy solution that didn’t work in Iraq and didn’t work in Afghanistan then you never will.

@156

You do realise that thousands have died already don’t you ?
Or maybe you don’t. Blair kept claiming all was well in Iraq for years.

To take the two examples of Rwanda and Bosnia, you attribute the loss of life in each case to the fact that humanitarian intervention didn’t work.

I attribute the fact that humanitarian intervention didn’t work to the fact that they didn’t work, because they were under-resourced, half-arsed and incompetent. I do this to illustrate the 100% correct and irrefutable point that humanitarian interventions are almost always under-resourced, half-arsed and incompetent.

Bluntly, there is no choice between 1) half-arsed, wildly dangerous humanitarian interventions and 2) Well-resourced, well planned humanitarian interventions.

You might well strongly advocate option 2). I’m here to tell you that option 2) isn’t on the table and in all probability, it never will be. Thus, advocating for a well-planned intervention is, in reality, arguing for half-arsed, wildly dangerous interventions.

Operations in Rwanda and Bosnia did indeed save lives, but the idea that a greater troop commitment would’ve saved hundreds of thousands more is based on hypotheticals, in particular a hypothetical army, air force and navy that doesn’t actually exist in reality.

Rather obviously, if you can’t produce these armed forces, the debate is redundant.

is it in fact more likely that you are feeling a bit uncomfortable that the evidence on the ground makes your cassandra like predictions of the sky falling down look ever more ridiculous?

Probably not, especially since I’ve spent the last three months looking for and retweeting all the good news from Libya I could find, so people who follow me can read about it.

You, on the other hand, seem to be ignoring the news from Libya and insisting that contingency and postwar planning represent some kind of pie-in-the-sky, tinfoil mentalism, rather than being the fucking bedrock of all successful military operations.

But then, I suggest that the type of person who cheerily blows off the possibility of mass casualties with sentences like You have to play the odds… sometimes they will work out, and sometimes they won’t isn’t best placed to be tutting and fingerwagging people on the quality of their predictions, eh no?

@ 158 idiot

Of course I realise there are casualties, both military and civilian; we don’t know exactly how many, and figures aren’t likely to be easy to come byuntil the conflict ends which is no great surprise.

The latest figures for reported military and civilian casualties combined suggest it could be in the range of 6,800 – 7,300, altho it’s impossible to verify the numbers and they include around 1500 refugees presumed drowned trying to get to Italy by boat.

Around 1,500 of the reported total are Gaddaffi’s forces, around 2,500 are rebel fighters (tho this may include some civilains).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war

idiot… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war

You know, if ten years from now somebody was to ask me, “What did you make of that Galen geezer what commented at that website?”, I’d have to say – Hey, there was a bloke who really knew how to Google for whatever subject he was prompted to, and then click on the first result.

@ 159 fr

Way to miss the point. In the case of both Bosnia and Rwanda, the concept of “prevention being better than cure” applies. It wouldn’t have taken huge operations in either case to have stopped both crises in their tracks. Your just love your false dichotomies don’t you? It appears to be your substitute for reasoned argument.

It’s a bit rich for you to accuse me of using hypotheticals to posit that lives could have been saved in Rwanda and Bosnia, and yet avail yourself of much less likely hypotheticals in the case of Libya turning into another Iraq.

@ 161 fr

As opposed to all the evidence for the guff you’ve spouted that passes for analysis you mean? Yeah, right.

The wiki link referred to is the one with the latest figures that I’ve been able to find, and has plenty of links within it to other sources that people can peruse for themselves. Not quite sure what your problem is really … (other than the fact you’re obviously incapable of engaging in a reasoned debate naturally).

@159 fr

“You, on the other hand, seem to be ignoring the news from Libya and insisting that contingency and postwar planning represent some kind of pie-in-the-sky, tinfoil mentalism, rather than being the fucking bedrock of all successful military operations.”

No, actually I’m not. What I have been quite clear about is that is total fantasy on your part to insist that no intervention should occur except in circumstances you have randomly decided are the sine qua non of taking action.

Given that the Libyan uprising began in earnest on 15th February 2011, and that nobody really saw it coming even given the Arab Spring elsewhere, what kind of contingency and postwar planning do you think was feasible before the onset of air-strikes on 19th March?

It is surely a fairly important point, given that it was obvious that had air strikes not taken place when they did, Benghazi would have fallen. I’m sure there must have been contingency plans for action against Libya in the files of many western defence departments, but what level of granularity do you think was achievable in month that elapsed between 15th Feb and 19th March?

[150] I am not saying it is just about guns and oil (or gas and opium in the case of Afghanistan) but we have to be open about the fact national interest always forms part of the equation.

If there is no national interest then we tend to turn a blind eye, especially if the rogue state is rather scary – for example (and at random) I found this report – “according to North Korean policy, there cannot be any citizen with disability in Pyongyang. If one is born with defects, it must be taken care of immediately. In many cases, it means death to that individual. For some time now, the policy comes directly from leader Kim Jong Il authorizing the North Korean government to obtain babies with disability and dispose of them through suffocation”.
http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/articles/148105/20110518/north-korean-government-murdering-disabled-children-in-pyongyang.htm

Now I have not cited this example in order to engage in a bit of whataboutery but merely to highlight the fact that military action must be set in it’s political context. For that reason I believe Britain’s long association with Gaddafi (with regard to oil and arms deals) is an important factor.

Put another way I do understand why the UK has an obligation to the Libyian rebels but not the disabled Korean babies – I think there is also something in what FR says about violence begetting violence.

I respect the sincerity of your arguments but overall feel that military action which has now been going for 3 months will do little to stabilise what seems like a potentially volatile tribal society?
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/13/tribes-mean-trouble.html

what kind of contingency and postwar planning do you think was feasible before the onset of air-strikes on 19th March?

Falklands War – Outbreak to recapture of South Georgia: under four weeks. Invasion of Falkland Islands proper: Seven weeks. Total time, outbreak to Argentine surrender: ten weeks, four days.

Operation Enduring Freedom – 11th September to first airstrikes: under four weeks. Battle of Tora Bora: Under three months.

These, off the top of my head. Note that these were complex, combined arms wars taking place on the other side of the globe, rather than just south of Europe, so travel time to both ate up a massive chunk of that period. You can say they were hastily organised and their execution was flawed, but you can’t say they didn’t have a plan. Hell, they might even have been terrible plans, but they worked.

And now, look at the plan for bombing Libya. Here it is – “Let’s bomb Libya and hope that it all works out well in the end”.

Fuck it, I love the idea that basic planning is some unreachable, moon-on-a-stick craziness that only fruitcakes would consider important. It lends your comments that certain… bullshitty quality that so many of our miltary endeavours have had over the last ten years.

@165 a&e

“If there is no national interest then we tend to turn a blind eye, especially if the rogue state is rather scary….”

I haven’t heard anyone deny that national interest plays a part, as does the broader interest in seeing a dictatorship fall, and be replaced with something better. It would hardly be practicable to intervene in every country on the nasty list… however much people deplored Tienanmin Sq, it’s not as if anyone was advocating military action against the PRC.

You still aren’t really answering the question I posed above; would you advocate a high ground position of only having diplomatic and economic relations with other democracies, or the opposite extreme of dealing with anyone, no matter what they did, or some middle ground of active engagement whilst trying to encourage change?

Of course it is possible that violence can beget violence, but it’s not as if the violence was going to end in Libya if no intervention had taken place. Similarly, the violence in Bosnia and Rwanda was orders of magnitude worse because intervention didn’t take place in a timely manner. It was not, despite what flying rodent and idiot above think, made worse by intervention.

Tribal societies, particularly those with no history or experience of a civil society or democracy are never going to be easy to change, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, any more than the fact that we can’t intervene in every country which is repressing it’s people means we shouldn’t act in cases like Libya.

@166 fr

The Falklands example is just so spurious; it was a str8 2 party conflict, where the decision to retake the islands was reached quickly, and extensive planning had no doubt been done for the event. Even then, it was a darn close run thing due to the stupidity of succeeding governments in the UK.

In Libya, the no fly zone was only authorised days before the first air strikes.

Nobody is arguing that planning isn’t necessary, and you are being dishonest suggesting otherwise. The issue is that is isn’t reasonable to use your ridiculous and random criteria that you should virtually never intervene anywhere unless you can guarantee success.

Your characterisation of what’s going on is a gross caricature.. but as you’ve amply demonstrated above, that’s all you’re really capable of.

and extensive planning had no doubt been done for the event. Even then, it was a darn close run thing due to the stupidity of succeeding governments in the UK.
The stupidity of not extensively planning…whoops!

@168. Galen10: “The Falklands example is just so spurious; it was a str8 2 party conflict, where the decision to retake the islands was reached quickly, and extensive planning had no doubt been done for the event.”

Sorry, Galen, but it was presumed that Argentina “wouldn’t try it”. Diplomacy was about “do you fancy taking me on, boyo”.

The fact that Argentina invaded the Falklands was opportune to Thatcher, and given that UK armed forces were only engaged in Ulster, conflict ensued. It certainly was not planned or efficient. Assembly of UK forces was very muddled and whether anything like it could happen again is unclear. The Navy requisitioned civilian ships in the Falklands conflict; today?.

“In Libya, the no fly zone was only authorised days before the first air strikes.”

If you wait for a moral decision from the UN or Security Council, its like waiting for the final words of Methuselah. The UN permitted intervention in Libya ~14 days after violent uprisings started. The UK government and EU partners made a minor mistake: waiting for the final words of Methuselah.

@170 charlieman

I’m actually in agreement with a lot of what you say; my issue is with the use made above of the Falklands conflict as an example. I’m aware it was presumed the Argentines wouldn’t try it, because the Tory government had given the Argies every indication they were going to sell the islanders out anyway, and had already announced they were pulling the last ship out.

Whilst I agree that due to the parlous state of the UK armed forces at the time we almost couldn’t mount the expedition to the Falklands, it is a racing certainty that detailed plans existed to retake the islands given the history. I doubt the same could be said of Libya, and in any case it was by no means sure that there would BE any intervention in Libya, whereas it was obvious there would be a UK response in the S. Atlantic.

I happen to agree with you about waiting for the UN, which has amply demonstrated in many cases that it is not fit for purpose; but again the fault for that lies with the member states who won’t give it the resources or mandate to do the job. If that is the case, then there will be cases where the stark choice is between doing nothing, or doing it directly (even if under a UN resolution) rather than under a UN flag. I think the timing of 14 days you mention is wrong tho, isn’t it? the uprising began on 15th Feb., the resolution wasn’t passed until late March.

What is the exit strategy warmonger ?

The civil war has been ongoing for coming up on three months yet still nothing from the idiots who plunged us into the middle of this mess or from their mindless cheerleaders.

@147

It was the home of OBL even if AQ did become a franchise later with branches in Bali and West Yorkshire. It is like pretending that the Kentucky means nothing in Kentucky Fried Chicken.

I should also take a moment to mention the fuckwittedness of declaring war on a whole nation in order to get one bloke and his training camps. Pres Obama somehow managed to actually bag the fucker without going to war with Pakistan. Odd that.

@172 idiot

Why don’t you lay of the coffee for a while, and actually try and engage in a resoned debate?

The exit strategy is presumably to carry on degrading the ability of Gaddaffi’s regime to mount offensive actions, bolster the rebel forces both in material and command and communications terms, and bring about the collapse of Gaddaffi’s support.

An increasing number of countries are now recognising the National Committe as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people. The intervention has to work within the constraints imposed by the UN resolution, the fact that the Libyan rebels themselves don’t want non-Libyan boots on the ground, the unwillingness of the intervening forces to provide tham anyway, and the forces made available to stop Gaddaffi’s forces.

There are already reports that Tunisia and Egypt are supplying weapons to the rebels, and even today on the news the BBC were reporting from Tripoli that anti-Gaddaffi demonstrations, whilst muted in comparison with the heady days of February and March are still taking place.

I doubt anyone has an arbitrary timetable for exiting, because (surprise, surprise) nobody knows what might happen; Gaddaffi might do into exile, he might be killed, the regime may collapse for want of supplies. It might take one month, or 3 or 12.

The aim at a minimum has to be (absent any increase in the mission which seems unlikely) to ensure that by the time an “exit” or cession of intervention is achieved, the rebels are in a position to effectively prevent Gaddaffi’s regime continuing.

@173 Cylux

Perhaps you should also take a moment to mention that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 there was virtually zero opposition to invading Afghanistan. Irrespective of the cack handed way it has been dealt with since, most people still believe it was the right thing to do.

Maybe you’ve always opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, which is fair enough… perhaps you think there would have been no problem just letting the Taliban carry on hosting OBL and his m8′s?

@Galen: The Falklands example is just so spurious; it was a str8 2 party conflict, where the decision to retake the islands was reached quickly, and extensive planning had no doubt been done for the event.

It’s well-documented that next to no planning had been done, but forget it. The Falklands are anything but spurious – the operation was a huge, co-ordinated amphibious assault on the other side of the planet, thousands of miles from decent supply bases or reinforcements, against an enemy who was armed with a much larger, modern air force and lethal anti-ship missile technology. Even the Americans thought the UK was going to lose, and lose badly.

The mission in Libya was – theoretically – to prevent a third world army with third-rate weapons from overrunning a city that was within flight distance of mainland Europe, using a cutting edge, multi-billion dollar air force, in the face of absolutely no credible resistence whatsoever.

So, you’re right – the Falklands and Libya were a bit different. In the latter, we didn’t have to capture territory, co-ordinate massed attacks between different military arms or come up with ten-year assessments on exit strategies.

All we had to do was bomb the crap out of some half-trained twats in Soviet-era tanks, without the slightest worry about the possibilty that the enemy might somehow be able to shoot back.

And yet, we somehow managed to plan out the former and have none for the latter. Are you aware that the last time Libyans fought a war, they were utterly routed by Chad?

Congratulations, you’ve earned a prize in the “Knowing what the Hell you’re talking about” contest. You’ve won a hat with a “D” on it.

Of course, the really nutty part here is that a mission of “Protect Benghazi” would’ve been fairly straightforward. I mean, it’d have worries of its own – what happens after – but the short-term mission would be achievable.

Unfortunately, as our leaders are wont to do, they pretended that they were “protecting Benghazi” – an easy task – and then immediately moved onto an openly declared policy of “removing the Libyan government and replacing it with a new rebel government”. The latter is likely to be very, very difficult indeed and fraught with danger.

Now, if you were to follow your argumentative method thus far, you’d now argue that actually, protecting Benghazi was the hard part and that bombing the shit out of Libya in the hope of changing its government is a piece of cake. Give it a bash.

@176 fr

Your use of the Falklands example in this case to bolster your pathetically weak case IS spurious. the two situation are just not analogous, asyou yourself now admit. In the Falklands, the UK was on it’s own so could do what it wanted, when it wanted. In the case of Libya, no one country was going to “get in there” alone.

The whole operation WAS on a knife edge, as even those who planned it admitted, and we won more by luck than good judgement. Had the invasion happened a few years later, we wouldn’t even have been capable of mounting it.

So.. we’ve now established that your use of examples is totally bogus. Well done.

In the case of saving Benghazi, what was done was the maximum that could be achieved given the tools at hand. If you aren’t going to stage a full scale invasion (which I’m sure you wouldn’t support), the only option left is air-strikes, cruise missiles etc. There is little point in complaining that these aren’t effective, or won’t work alone if you have already tied the hands of the operation by denying it the means to do the job properly.

In the case of Benghazi, this would as a minimum have involved using attack helicopters/ Harriers (assuming the Tories hadn’t scrapped them of course… way to go on the strategic defence review…) to take out Gaddaffi’s heavy weapons systems and command and control.

Given the fact that the rebels were not trained military people, there would be little point in giving them heavy weapons they could’t use.

Removing the Gaddaffi regime may very well be aprotacted process, but for all you know or anyone else knows, it could happen in a matter of weeks.

I’m not sure why you think from my previous posts that I would consider that protecting Benghazi was the hard part and bombing the shit out of Libya to effect regime change would be a piece of cake…. oh wait, it’s that thing you do… put words in people’s mouths, and then crow over the fact that you’ve somehow “owned” the argument based on your flawed analysis.

Piss poor, even by your own batty standards.

@174 warmongering fool

Why don’t you lay off the spin and face the reality that you are no different from Balir’s despicable little helpers who tried to persuade the gullible that Iraq was really a humanitarian intervention ?

“The exit strategy is presumably to carry on degrading the ability of Gaddaffi’s regime to mount offensive actions, bolster the rebel forces both in material and command and communications terms, and bring about the collapse of Gaddaffi’s support.”

In other words keep bombing the crap out of Libya and hope for the best while supplying weapons to rebels who the UN have implicated in some war crimes. The UN report slammed Gaddafi for the most war crimes but they also raised concerns about alleged acts by Libyan rebels of torture and cruel treatment, particularly against migrant workers.

A brilliant plan and one even officials have given up on hoping instead that the Gaddafi will just give up and the regime will fall apart. Think that’s likely do you ?

Libyan bombing alone will not budge Gaddafi, UK officials warn.
Hopes being pinned on Muammar Gaddafi agreeing to flee the country or defections by Libyan leader’s aides

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/14/libyan-bombing-will-not-budge-gaddafi

“The intervention has to work within the constraints imposed by the UN resolution”

A lie.
It’s blatantly obvious that NATO is trying to bomb Libya into regime change despite the UN resolution giving no authority for that. The mission creep is clear for all to see but those who are blindly cheerleading this war. Blair also tried to claim that depite not getting the second UN resolution the first entitled him to do what he wanted. UN resolutions are flimsy cover to be ignored when it suits those doing the bombing and those eager for the carnage to continue.

“the fact that the Libyan rebels themselves don’t want non-Libyan boots on the ground”

Another lie.

Getting around to boots on the ground

FRANCE, Britain and Italy will begin sending military officers to Libya to advise the rebel goat rodeo. From the outset, critics of the allied intervention in the Libyan civil war warned of mission creep, despite assurances that the terms of engagement would be limited to air support, and that no ground troops would be deployed. But the mission, it appears, is creeping. And the rebels are not content with a handful of helpful colonels. According to Wired’s Spencer Ackerman:

Hence the paradox: if you go in light you get a protracted stalemate; if you go in big you end up with a costly quagmire.

“to ensure that by the time an “exit” or cession of intervention is achieved, the rebels are in a position to effectively prevent Gaddaffi’s regime continuing”

So you don’t have the slightest idea when we will be leaving and the best you can offer as an exit strategy is to hope that everything will turn out fine.

That’s not a strategy it’s idiocy and it’s the precise same idiocy that made Iraq and Afghanistan such a mess.

I’m not sure why you think from my previous posts that I would consider that protecting Benghazi was the hard part and bombing the shit out of Libya to effect regime change would be a piece of cake…

Because of your habit of saying things like “In the Falklands, the UK was on it’s own so could do what it wanted”, as if being “on it’s own” somehow magically made a combined-arms war between two heavily-armed modern states in the south Atlantic much, much more simple and straightforward than… A multi-billion dollar air force with cutting-edge weaponry & targeting systems vs. some shit tanks and light infantry, in a desert.

I mean, that “on it’s own” point is tantamount to suggesting that having the resources of a significant chunk of the United States Air Force at your disposal is some kind of awful military and political impediment. You have not thought this through, son.

Still, I suppose I mustn’t grumble. At least you seem to be moving towards some kind of dim glimmer of recognition that deposing hostile governments and replacing them with the factions of your choice is difficult, complicated and potentially very dangerous indeed. Generally, the humanitarian war enthusiast’s hold on this concept is about as sure and firm as a baby’s grasp on a hot-buttered anvil.

Since this actually represents a quantum leap forward in war-hungry thought, let’s not stamp on the green shoots of emerging awareness with the tackety boot of verbal violence. Who knows, by this time next year, it might even start to dawn on you that our leaders’ conception of what’s in the interests of the people we bomb may be somewhat divergent from those people’s own opinions.

We can but hope.

@178 idiot

“So you don’t have the slightest idea when we will be leaving and the best you can offer as an exit strategy is to hope that everything will turn out fine.”

It’s no more idiocy than randomly deciding at the outset of any intervention we are going to stay “x” months. The fact is you and your ilk are opposed to intervention under any circumstances at all, or as amply demonstrated above demand such an impossibly high standard of guarantees about future outcomes that intervention is de facto impossible.

Back in February there was a brief window of opportunity when Gaddaffi’s regime could have been pushed over the edge, and it actually looked like Libya would follow Tunisia and Egypt. Sadly it didn’t happen… but demanding at the outset in February/March that you have an absolute fixed exit strategy is just nuts. Even if one had been produced, do you think it would have been static given what has happened in the months since?

Feel free to tell us what the magic ingredients of an acceptable exit strategy are… or by all means continue to make grunting noises and throw rocks from the sidelines.

@179 fr

In the case of the Falklands, of course it was more simple to the extent that the UK didn’t have to act as part of a coalition.. not sure why you can’t see the obvious difference.

It’s you that hasn’t thought it through.

In February, it was obvious that the US weren’t going to take the lead, which is why France and the UK did; it then took weeks to organise a coalition, get a UN resolution, argue about who was going to be in charge, get permission from the Italians to use their bases (because, guess what..we don’t have any aircraft carriers…. woops…).

No..that’s just the same as the Falklands….oh wait……

Back in February there was a brief window of opportunity when Gaddaffi’s regime could have been pushed over the edge, and it actually looked like Libya would follow Tunisia and Egypt. Sadly it didn’t happen…

Still trying to defend the indefensible Galen? I hope someone is paying you for this.

Actually I agree with the statement above. But the point is that it is up to the Libyans to overthrow their dictator just as others have achieved- if that happens you have the chance of a ‘good outcome’ as in Egypt and Tunisia. .

Our intervention on one side in Libya has meant there can be no good outcome there. If the Americans had won the Vietnam war that country would still be tearing itself apart to this day.

@179 fr

“At least you seem to be moving towards some kind of dim glimmer of recognition that deposing hostile governments and replacing them with the factions of your choice is difficult, complicated and potentially very dangerous indeed.”

Where have I said otherwise? Your habit of putting words in other people’s mouths is bad enough, but when they don’t even bear any relation to the reality of what was said, it just makes you look dishonest.

” it might even start to dawn on you that our leaders’ conception of what’s in the interests of the people we bomb may be somewhat divergent from those people’s own opinions”

And your conception is so obviously more accurate? How do you know what the opinions of “all” Libyans are about what should or shouldn’t happen? In a confused situation like that on the ground now…who are we going to believe? Gaddaffi’s spolesman? Western news media on the ground? What Libyan people are saying in interviews, or actually doing.

The BBC had interviews this morning with pro-rebel Libyans in Tripoli who seemed keen to lay down their lives to topple Gaddaffi, and said that it would happen even if it took time. Who are you to say that if it takes months or a year that we shouldn’t continue to support their aspirations, just because you have decided there is no guarantee of success?

@182 pagar

“Still trying to defend the indefensible Galen? I hope someone is paying you for this.”

No, I’m actually kinda enjoying myself. Putting wrongheaded know-nothings right won’t happen by itself you know!

“Actually I agree with the statement above. But the point is that it is up to the Libyans to overthrow their dictator just as others have achieved- if that happens you have the chance of a ‘good outcome’ as in Egypt and Tunisia.”

Ah yes…because it’s not as if it’s the right thing to do, or in the interests of ordinary Libyans, or that it saved many more lives than it will cost, or that it’s in our national interest, or the interests of the international community as a whole. Much better to sit back and watch another dictator prevail. You’re just SO right pagar, what could I have been thinking…. those aren’t defensible things at all.

“Our intervention on one side in Libya has meant there can be no good outcome there. If the Americans had won the Vietnam war that country would still be tearing itself apart to this day.”

No, I quite see the error of my ways in the face of your stunningly convincing, closely argued and backed up analysis. The outcome of non-intervention would have been entirely positive, and the effects of intervention will include (but not be limited to) a ten fold increase in the number of deaths (hat tip to flying rodent), and endless war in Libya, the gradual collapse of wetern civlization, and the falling of the sky.

How do you know what the opinions of “all” Libyans are about what should or shouldn’t happen?

The point* was that “our leaders”, i.e. the ones actually ordering all the bombing and so on, have probably got rather different ideas on what is and isn’t in the interests of the Libyan people than the Libyans themselves do… Not least because “the Libyans” is a term that covers millions of people from a wide variety of backgrounds.

This is hardly a controversial argument – I defy you to look anyone in the eye and tell them you’re confident that, say, Nicolas Sarkozy, has a firm understanding of the average Libyan’s opinion. He was, after all, goaded into this war by the urgings of that infamous prancing tit Bernard Henri-Levy.

*And a tangential one, at that.

@185 fr

FFS, that’s what we elect democtatic leaders for; they aren’t delegates, they are representatives. We put them in there to make decisions on our behalf, based on the knowledge they have, laced with their pre-existing politcal prejudices and the relevant resource constraints. Sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes they don’t.

Sarko, Cameron, Obama or any other leader in February 2011 was faced with deciding what to do based on the information coming out of Libya, the advice they were given, what they thought their public would accept.

The message from Libyans was pretty clear in February and March. The fact that “some” Libyans are pro-Gaddaffi is hardly a surprise. We all saw the people in Benghazi in February begging for a no-fly zone (not an invasion, but a no-fly zone to prevent the city falling). It’s a racing certainty that they represented the overwhelming majority of the population there, and probably more widely within Libya.

Of course, Sarko et al could have decided not to intervene and hoped for the best…. I know you think the result of that would have been better than what we have now, but that’s not any more certain than the coming to pass of your dire predictions either.

The fact that “some” Libyans are pro-Gaddaffi is hardly a surprise.

Well. Call me naive here, but I was trying to imply that most Libyans, whether they love or loathe Gaddafi, are primarily interested in not getting killed in a horrific, long-running civil war. This is the way it usually goes for civilians in wars.

I realise that to you, they fall neatly into two camps called “The Goodies” and “The Baddies”, and I’m fairly sure that they’re seen in a similar light in Paris, London and Washington.

For that reason, I’m also suggesting that you can extrapolate some ideas from NATO’s lightspeed priority switcheroo from “Let’s protect civilians” to “Let’s overthrow the government using high explosives and install the party of our choosing”.

How high up that list of priorities “not getting a load of civvies unintentionally killed in a protracted conflict” is, I have no idea. It has, after all, been demoted at least once already.

@187 fr

Trouble is, your proposed solution is (for all you know) no better an potentially much worse. You certainly seem to have been able to put the potential suffering of those in Benghazi to the back of your mind in all of your analysis.

When all is said and done your dire predictions of future disaster can’t be proved any more than other hypotheticals, nor are you willing AT ALL to entertain the notion that earlier and harder action would actually have saved lives, because you have a fixed ideological position.

Anyhoo.. since this isn’t really going anywhere, and has slipped off the list there isn’t much value in talking past each other.

warmongering fool

“You certainly seem to have been able to put the potential suffering of those in Benghazi to the back of your mind in all of your analysis.”

The same way you did for the Syrian people who’s suffering was not potential but real you hypocritical warmongering piece of sh*t. Blairite neocon scum like yourself always hide behind the skirts of humanitarianism when everyone knows the west was falling over themselves to sign Gaddafi’s corrupt oil deals and train his troops mere months ago. Cameron and the leaders in favour of this are liars and you are their eager little warmongering poodle playing in the blood of a civil war that has nothing to do with us.

You use the exact same feeble minded excuses and justifications that were used for Iraq long after the folly and lies were exposed. So you are far worse then the fools who did the cheerleading for that catastrophe.

The Benghazi hypothetical was prevented months ago warmonger.

WHY ARE WE STILL THERE ?

@189 idiot

The abuse only goes to show that you have no real argument, or indeed any interest in genuine debate. The hysterical ranting does nothing to advance what passes for an argument in your head.

“Blairite neocon scum”?

Really? Is that the best you can come up with in lieu of, let’s just say…you know..an argument..? Pathetic.

We’re still there because more people would die if we weren’t. Your misplaced anger, facile name calling, and overwrought hysteria just make you look like what you are…. an appeaser who thinks they can solve the worlds problems by letting the likes of Gaddaffi triumph because of some weird complex you have that if we don’t solve all the problems out there, we shouldn’t try and solve any.

It’s an approach that doesn’t sound any better for you throwing the epithets “scum” and “warmonger” at anyone who disagrees with your puerile posturing.

@190 warmongering fool

“Really? Is that the best you can come up with in lieu of, let’s just say…you know..an argument..? Pathetic.”

I’ve posted plenty of compelling reasons that highlight the foolishness of this war.
The best you can do is to rehash and parrot the exact same discredited justifications and excuses Blair and Bush used for Iraq.

And don’t whine about insults when you are too stupid to read the first word of your own posts you hypocrite.

You have no argument. You have no compelling reason for us to still be there.
You blindly trust politicians like Cameron and Liam F ox like a child and put naive faith in the same failed Iraq style warmongering that ended in catastrophe.

“We’re still there because more people would die if we weren’t.”

Bullshit.
How does making a civil war worse save people’s live you cretin ?

Your poodling warmongering halfwitted straw men arguments and brainless regurgitation of Iraq style justifications for warmongering show you have no answer to the central question of why are we stilll there in a civil war that has nothing to do with us.

How many times did we hear Blair and his toadies like you wail “appeaser” as the civiilans kept dying in a catastrophic quagmire ? You are beneath contempt and a hypocrite for daring to use that “appeaser” as a justification for your bloodthirsty idiocy while ignoring Syria and the fact that the west happily was doing deals with Gaddafi and training his troops a few short months ago.

I pity sad inadequate keyboard warriors like yourself who haven’t the slightest idea of the realities of a bloody civil war but cheer on every bomb and helicopter attack like it was a video game. Go out there and fight for the rebels or give your bloodthirsty warmongering a rest.

Learn from the mistakes of Iraq and stop making a fool of yourself by repeating them.

@ 191 idiot

“I’ve posted plenty of compelling reasons that highlight the foolishness of this war.”

No you haven’t. You’ve regurgitated whole what people more articulate than you, but just as misguided, told you, laced it liberally with abuse and tried to close down debate by crying warmonger, Blairite, neocon, Cameron’s poodle, etc. at anyone who disagreed with you. You made plenty of spurious comparisons, and advanced your wing nut conspiracy theory about it all being to do with oil, and hypocritical, as tho there was no flaw in your argument that because we don’t intervene everywhere, we therefore shouldn’t do it anywhere.

“And don’t whine about insults when you are too stupid to read the first word of your own posts you hypocrite.”

Aw, poor babby… were your feelings hurt? If you don’t like your lame profile name being shortened, man up…. the hypocrisy is yours as anyone reading the trail of abuse and invective in your posts can plainly see.

“You have no argument. You have no compelling reason for us to still be there.
You blindly trust politicians like Cameron and Liam F ox like a child and put naive faith in the same failed Iraq style warmongering that ended in catastrophe.”

Yes, I do have argument. Unlike you, I’ve tried to articulate them above rather than obfuscate the issues and heap abuse on people… I’ve left that to you and your mates. I’m as far away from trusting any Tory, or for that matter Labour politician as you could wish for. Anyone paying attention to my posts in LC over a long period will attest to that. Your analogy with Iraq is false, but for mono-maniacs like you, it is impossible to kill a bad idea, so you will doubtless continue to spout it.

“How does making a civil war worse save people’s live you cretin ?”

Though you and your cronies don’t like hearing it, there is nothing cretinous in the concept that the intervention has and will save more lives than not intervening would have saved. Also, as discussed at length above, it is likely that acting earlier and harder would have saved a lot more, and possibly toppled the Gaddaffi regime before things got worse. That scenario is certainly more likely than the hypothetical nightmare scenario so beloved of flying rodent and all the others who think we should sit on our hands.

“….you have no answer to the central question of why are we stilll there in a civil war that has nothing to do with us.”

Of course it has something to do with us. It is morally the right thing to do to help topple Gaddaffi, it also in our national interests, and the interest of the free world more generally, as well as sending a message to others. Ensuring the success of the Arab Spring will be of long term benefit to us all.

“You are beneath contempt and a hypocrite for daring to use that “appeaser” as a justification for your bloodthirsty idiocy while ignoring Syria…”

Oh get over yourself you sanctimonious prig! You ARE an appeaser.. if the cap fits, at least have the courage to wear it. As pointed out above, you are happy to let Libyans die by the thousand, whilst hypocritically waving the example of Syria around, as though you’d be happy for us to take any action against Assad! As Douglas said in 134 above, you’re quite happy when it suits you to let nation states act like snuff movies, and turn your morals off… then get all outraged because we don’t take action in Syria? How the fuck does THAT work?

Get over yourself and drop the repititious nonsense about “go and fight in Libya yourself”, “keyboard warrior” etc. It wasn’t smart the first time, and it’s even less convincing when you use it over and over again.

@ warmongering fool

“facile name calling”
“laced it liberally with abuse”
“Oh get over yourself you sanctimonious prig!”
“Aw, poor babby… were your feelings hurt?”

More of your hilarious idiocy in action.

“wing nut conspiracy theory about it all being to do with oil”
“It makes perfect sense for the rebels to be concerned about securing oil fields and facilities, and for us to help them, for a number of reasons. They can use the proceeds of the sale of oil to buy things”

Keep it up. Every time you contradict yourself stupidly I laugh all the harder.

“Your analogy with Iraq is false”
“You ARE an appeaser”

Calm down Mr Blair. You really don’t have a clue you’re doing it do you ?

“it is likely that acting earlier and harder would have saved a lot more”

Don’t try and disguise your warmongering. By acting you mean bombing Libya harder would have saved more lives. Yeah, that’s how it works. The prospect of another Iraq’ shock and awe gets you excited does it ?

“than the hypothetical nightmare scenario so beloved of flying rodent and all the others who think we should sit on our hands.”

There’s nothing hypothetical about a months old stalemate with thousands dying. But you want to turn a blind eye to that as Blair did in Iraq.

“It is morally the right thing to do to help topple Gaddaffi”

Wrong.
It’s the morally right thing for the Libyan people to topple Gaddafi.
Western countries bombing the crap out of muslim countries they want the oil from and were friendly with mere months ago while turning a blind eye to the likes of Bahrain and Syria is morally reprehensible.

“you are happy to let Libyans die by the thousand”

They HAVE died by the thousand you ignorant twat.
What part of civil war can’t you get your limited faculties to comprehend ?
And you’re happy to cheer it on and make it far worse like the sad inadequate keyboard warrior you are.

you’re quite happy when it suits you to let nation states act like snuff movies, and turn your morals off… then get all outraged because we don’t take action in Syria? How the fuck does THAT work?

It doesn’t. It’s you being a hypocrite again. I’m not calling for the bombing of Syria, I support the Syrian poeple’s right to overthrow a despot. I’m not calling for the bombing of Libya I support the Libyan poeple’s right to overthrow a despot.
I’m being consistent.
You’re the one posturing on morals while ignoring the fact that the west helped fund with oil deals and train Gaddafi’s thugs mere months ago while pretending that Syrian oppression and killing isn’t the same as Gaddafi’s.
You are a hypocrite.
Either support bombing the crap out of despotic states killing their own people since they are both occuring in Libya and Syria or just shut the f**k up about moral high ground since it’s clear you only support it when it suits you like Blair did.

Why aren’t you fighting in Libya keyboard warrior ?
Don’t strut around arrogantly the world why bombing the crap out a country and repeating the stupidity of Iraq is the morally superior thing to do if you won’t put your money where your mouth is.

@193 idiot

I’ll leave it to people who don’t depend on medication to male it through the day to judge the merits of the two positions.

You add nothing to the debate, because you do nothing but repeat the same failed arguments over and over, because you are essentially clueless, just the latest in a long line of appeasers happy to see people murdered by dictators, because you have decided that only the people of a country can overthrow their oppressors. It’s a recipe for genocide…. well done you!

Your position is consistent right enough… you have a one size fits all approach suggesting that you are none too bright.

@192 warmongering fool

Is that seriously the best you can do ?
I’d expect a keyboard warrior to have something more substantial in the way of insults than those laughably tired cliches.

But you only deal in laughably tired cliches and those you have to steal from Tony Blair.

“just the latest in a long line of appeasers happy to see people murdered by dictators”

That’s right Mr Blair.
Keep huffing and puffing about people murdered and appeasers while you screech delightedly as NATO bombs the shit out of a country in the grip of a bloody civil war and the murder count rises inexorably. Day after day, week after week, month after month.

You are so out of touch you even ignore the murders in Syria, Bahrain and every other country you want to pretend don’t exist while parading around bumptiously squawking APPEASERS again at those who easily see through the paper thin spin and bullshit.

The level of idiocy you display by parrotting every failed Iraq excuse in the book is as breathtaking as your pompous arrogance in deciding that more and more bombs are the shortest route to peace in a civil war. The ignorance displayed when you bleat that you and you alone should decide which country passes the neoconservative smell test, clumsily garbed in fake humanitarian concern, to receive democracy one warhead at a time, is truly nauseating.

I treated the fools who warmonger on Iraq and Afghanistan no different to the fools who warmonger on Libya which is why it engrages keyboard warriors like you far too witless to realise they deal in the exact same language and justifications Blair used.

Put on your little tin hat warmonger and go out to Libya and show us that you mean any of your angry little man tubthumping stridency about bombing and war.

You are a hypocrite who tries and fails to hide behind the Blairite spin of humantarian intervention, yet pathetically, you are too dumb to notice the ongoing bloodshed and chaos your childish infatuation with warfare is causing.

I would pity you but like the Iraq fools you are incapable of doing any different or admitting you are full of shit and simply delight in war. You will say this was the right thing to do regardless of the cost to human life or the failed justifications and you will say it more and more stridently regardless of what happens on the ground just like Blair did.

You can console yourself that with every day that passes you will be beinging joy and succor to your role models Cameron and Tony Blair with your repugnant excuses for warmongering.

@195 idiot

I have not time for Blair or Cameron, but it suits your hysterical rantings to paint anyone who disagrees with you with the simplistic jibes that suit your intellectual level.

All you are capable of is regugitating the same tiresome post over and over again, increasingly hysterical in tone, as if it made any sense.

I’m not ignoring the murders in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen or elsewhere. I think the international community should take action against all of them, but I wouldn’t advocate doing it alone (even if we had the capability, which we don’t).

You however are quite happy to ignore the murders in Libya and abandon the people there to their fate, on the spurious basis that it’s a civil war and nothing to do with us, and that we shouldn’t do anything about it because we don’t intervene in every other similar circumstance.

That isn’t consistency, it’s loathsome indifference to suffering of others.

@196 warmongering fool

“I have not time for Blair or Cameron”

Yet you continue to parrot their words and excuses in seemingly blissful ignorance that they didn’t work for Iraq and they won’t work now.

“All you are capable of is regugitating the same tiresome post over and over again,”
“You however are quite happy to ignore the murders in Libya and abandon the people there to their fate”

You see ? You’re completely oblivious and too dumb to see you made a fool of yourself by regurgitating the same pathetic Blairite nonsense and made it even worse by hypocritical posturing as you always do.

It’s obvious you’re not exactly the brightest spark in the world since you rely on Blair’s weasel excuses so much, but even you should have realised how witless it is to pretend that the only options are bombing the shit out of a country or ignoring it.

It should really have penetrated through your tin hat and thick skull by now that the murders haven’t stopped and that this civil war is being made worse by continued bombing and attacks.

“it’s loathsome indifference to suffering of others.”

Which you continue to display by cheerleading the bombing and stoking the fires of civil war while thousands die.
Did you accuse those who opposed Iraq of loathsome indifference to the suffering of others ? Because I heard it time and time again from Blairs eager little warmongering poodles. Those lies were as easily exposed then as they are now.

You advocate increased and continuing bombing and violence as a solution to a bloody civil war and have no exit strategy other than to hope for the best. Nor do you care how long it continues or how many die while your bloodthirsty intevention drags on.

You simply don’t have the intellectual capacity to realise how monumentally stupid this is or that we have heard it all before from warmongers like Blair and now you.

The suffering you have condemned those in Libya to by cheering on the carnage is no different to the suffering those in Iraq were condemned to by those you emulate. Warmongers like you have no conscience and will always insist they were right no matter what the cost.

You are Blair incarnate and display all the arrogance and blind stupidity he is rightly reviled for.
He should be shipped out to Iraq for the remainder of his days and a keyboard warrior like you should continue your tubthumping for war from Libya.

@197 idiot

Honestly, what are you on? Can’t you give the “you are the devil, sorry Blair incarnate” mantra a bit of a rest and actually come up up with some reasoned arguments?

Nobody sane believes the “you cant help X because you didnt help Y” line because it is asinine.

“Did you accuse those who opposed Iraq of loathsome indifference to the suffering of others ?”

No, I didn’t because I opposed the invasion of Iraq. People don’t fall neatly into your manichaean view of the world. Being rational, I’m capable unlike you of looking at different situations based on their individual circumstances and merits.

Your intellectually lazy insistance that “oh, it’s another Iraq”, and that anyone supporting intervention is a rabid neo-con warmonger, simply demonstrate you are devoid of the capacity for rational analysis, you’re just another tub thumping raver.

Libya isn’t Iraq, because it is a multi-national response under a UN resolution supported by the Arab League to aid a popular uprising against a brutal dictatorship. Why do you think the Russians and the Chinese didn’t object and veto the UN resolution…? That’s right, because it would have made them look as ridiculous as you do now.

The biggest factor in whether there will be success or failure is probably the regional one: ousting Saddam from Kuwait in 1991 succeeded because it was supported by the Saudis and other Gulf states, and most other Arab states and not opposed by Iran. Operations against the Serbs in Bosnia and Kossovo (altho they were in many respects too little too late) eventually brought stability to the Balkans because they were in our back yard, and the overwhelming political and strategic dynamic for all the former Yugoslav states is their relationship with the EU and NATO.

Where regional conditions were not favourable (Afghanistan, Iraq the second time around, Somalia, central Africa) then the outcome is usually failure. However much we might want to encourage secular, liberal democracy everywhere, it isn’t within our power or resources to transform the politcal landscapes in these areas overnight.

A big differentiating factor in the case of Libya is that other regional players want to see Gaddafi toppled too; none of the other Arab states have ever had any time for his regime, still less the Tunisians and Egyptians after their own uprisings. That attitude doesn’t guarantee success, but it makes it a lot easier.

Drop the grandstanding and casual abuse and you might actually learn something. Alternatively, go and read up on some International relations theory before you expose your ignorance more.

@198 warmongering fool

“you are the devil, sorry Blair incarnate”
“Nobody sane believes the “you cant help X because you didnt help Y” line because it is asinine.”

As Blair said time and time again when he resorted to the “we can’t overthrow every country” just the ones he didn’t like, excuse.

“Your intellectually lazy insistance that “oh, it’s another Iraq”,”
Is proved every time you continually trot out one of Blair’s intellectually lazy excuses and justifications for warmongering.

“it is a multi-national response under a UN resolution”
So was Afghanistan and Iraq had one UN resolution just not the second. Not that Blair cared since he used the first one to justify regime change as you and others like you are using the Libya one to justify regime change when it gives no such authority.

Only 9 out of 22 Arab League members voted for the new war.

“The biggest factor in whether there will be success or failure is probably the regional one:”
“Where regional conditions were not favourable (Afghanistan, Iraq the second time around, Somalia, central Africa) then the outcome is usually failure.”
“A big differentiating factor in the case of Libya is that other regional players want to see Gaddafi toppled too; none of the other Arab states have ever had any time for his regime, still less the Tunisians and Egyptians after their own uprisings”

The same Tunisians and Egyptians who accomplished the overthrow of a dictator without NATO bombing the shit out of their country ? I hate to break it to you but last thing they need is an unstable Libya mired in civil war destabalising their already fragile new democracies.

Months of refugees and chaos on their borders with no end in sight is favourable to who exactly ? Some of those in the new revolutionary ruling parties and councils in Egypt and Tunisia are vehemently oppose the NATO intervention because of this and a deep seated distrust of the same west that backed their brutal dictators like they did in Libya.

Far from helping the current smuggling of weapons to the Libyan rebels through these countries is causing resentment and anxiety as they know all too well that today’s rebels might be tomorrows factionalising tribal regime. Not helped by the UN reports of Libyan rebels torture and cruel treatment, particularly against migrant workers. Guess where some of those migrant workers came from ?

Yet from this obvious chaos on the borders and the instability of the fragile situation in Egypt and Tunisia you somehow think this bodes well for your brilliantly thought through policy of continuing to bomb the crap out of a fellow muslim country on their border while hoping for the best.

It doesn’t.

It is massively destablising and will help radicalise the emerging democracies against the west the longer it goes on.

“go and read up on some International relations theory before you expose your ignorance more.”

Thankfully you never fail to underline your paper thin understanding of the situation with a hilarious self assesment like the one above.
Like Blair and Bush in Iraq you have no concept of the damage this civil war is causing both in Libya and the surrounding region the longer it goes on. Yet despite having not the faintest glimmer of a coherent plan or exit strategy you insist that bombing will make it all better if you wish hard enough and bomb long enough.

Bombing your way to peace in a bloody civil war is the very definition of ignorance and you fall squarely into that hopelessly deluded warmongering camp of fools.

@199 idiot

If Egypt and Tunisia wanted to stop supporting the uprising, they would. Of course the evidence is that (whilst they have problems of their own) both the regimes and the general public in both countries support the Libyan uprising, particularly in Tunisia, where Gaddafi’s forces have lobbed shells across the border.

Just because the Eyptian and Tunisian armed forces weren’t prepared to butcher their own people on the scale of Gaddafi’s, or initiate a civil war, doesn’t mean the correct default response is for the international community to allow the Libyan insurrection to be crushed.

The Arab League suspended Libya’s membership at the 22nd February meeting of the organisation, and 2 members (UAE and Qatar) are supplying forces for the intervention. Only 2 states voted against the imposition of a no-fly zone; Syria and Algeria.

Libya wasn’t going to be MORE stable if no intervention had taken place you plank… there would have been a blood bath and large scale humanitarian crisis as those supporting the uprising tried to flee to Egypt, Tunisia and Europe.

The claim that it’s a plot to bring about regime change is both bogus because that wasn’t either explicitly or implicitly the aim, but is also being overtaken by events as more and more countries recognise the Transitional Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.

Your claim that intervention will radicalise the emerging democracies is every bit as much a hypothetical (and of course also a ridiculously overblown worst case scenario), as the hypotheticals you pour cold water on about the benefits of intervening earlier and harder, or indeed the hypothetical but very probable bloodbath avoided in Benghazi. The fact that you can’t see the difference says volumes about your ability to make reasoned judgements.

As for my “paper thin understanding”, it’s best to let others figure out which they find more convincing; at least some others who disagree are capable of doing so without the hysteria and abuse you need to use to bolster your ill-thought out diatribes. It doesn’t make them any more correct of course, it just means people might take more notice of what they are saying than they do of a mentalist like you.

@199 idiot

“Not helped by the UN reports of Libyan rebels torture and cruel treatment, particularly against migrant workers. Guess where some of those migrant workers came from ?”

Nobody would condone the the use of torture or cruel treatment, whether against migrant workers or captured fighters form either side, but if you are contending either that the rebels are more guilty of this than Gaddafi’s forces, and/or that it only happened after the intervention, you need to demonstrate it.

Once again however, the fact that certain rebels may be guilty of war crimes does not mean that you can use isolated incidents as some top trump card in support of your doomed narrative that intervention is always wrong, anytime, any place, anywhere.