After a second night of American and European strikes by air and sea against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, European nations on Monday rejected Libyan claims that civilians had been killed. Pro-Qaddafi forces were reported, meanwhile, to be holding out against the allied campaign to break their hold on the ground while enforcing a no-fly zone.
Rebel fighters trying to retake the eastern town of Ajdabiya said they were driven back on Monday by rocket and tank fire from government loyalists still controlling entrances to the city. Dozens of soldiers retreated to a checkpoint around 12 miles north of the Ajdabiya, and said at least eight other rebel fighters had been killed during the day’s fighting, including four who had been standing in a bloodied pickup truck that the fighters showed to reporters.
There were conflicting reports about whether the allies had attacked loyalist forces in the town. While planes had been heard overhead, the rebel fighters said there appeared to have been no attack on the pro-Qaddafi forces holding the entrance to Ajdabiya on the coastal highway leading north to Benghazi. Ajdabiya is a strategically important town that has been much fought over, straddling an important highway junction and acting as a chokepoint for forces trying to advance in either direction.
The retreat from Ajdabiya appeared to have thrown the rebels into deep disarray, with one commander at the checkpoint trying to marshal the opposition forces, using a barely functioning megaphone, but few of the fighters heeding his exhortations.
In the western city of Misurata, forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi were still at large and were using civilians from nearby towns as human shields, Reuters reported. But there was no immediate confirmation of that report.
I like the human shields bit- that’s the kind of agitprop we know and love.
As the assault unfolded late Sunday, an explosion thundered from Colonel Qaddafi’s personal compound in Tripoli, and a column of smoke rose above it, suggesting that the allied forces may have struck either his residence there or the nearby barracks of his personal guards. Unnamed Western officials were quoted in various news reports as saying the building was a military command and control center.
Journalists taken by the Qaddafi government to visit the site shortly after the blast said they saw a bomb-damaged building that appeared to be an administrative center rather than a military barracks or a Qaddafi residence, although the exact nature of the facility could be definitively confirmed. No casualties were reported.
Asked about the explosion, Vice Adm. William E. Gortney said in a Washington news conference that the United States was not trying to kill the Libyan leader. “At this particular point I can guarantee that he’s not on a targeting list,” he said, saying that the United States military was working to weaken his military capacity rather than remove him.
Probably just a coincidence they bombed his personal compound. No way we would ever try to kill him. Wait, what?
Rebel forces, battered and routed by loyalist fighters just the day before, began to regroup in the east on Sunday as allied warplanes destroyed dozens of government armored vehicles near the rebel capital, Benghazi, leaving a field of burned wreckage along the coastal road to the city. By nightfall, the rebels had pressed almost 40 miles back west toward the strategic crossroads city of Ajdabiya, witnesses and rebel forces said. And they seemed to consolidate control of Benghazi despite heavy fighting there against loyalist forces on Saturday. There was evidence, too, that the allies were striking more targets in and around Tripoli, the capital. More explosions could be seen or heard near the city center, where an international press corps was kept under tight security constraints. Recurring bursts of antiaircraft guns and a prolonged shower of tracers arced over the capital on Sunday night.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, spoke about how allied forces had grounded Colonel Qaddafi’s aircraft and worked to protect civilians — both objectives stated by the United Nations Security Council in approving the military mission. “We hit a lot of targets, focused on his command and control, focused on his air defense, and actually attacked some of his forces on the ground in the vicinity of Benghazi,” Admiral Mullen told Fox News.
And now my personal favorite part:
The American and French militaries both said that Qatar would join the military operation, which would be the first Arab military force to explicitly sign on. But there were no details on what role the Qatar forces would take.
The Americans, working with the British, French and others, flew a wider array of missions than the day before, when Navy cruise missile barrages were their main weapons. They deployed B-2 stealth bombers, F-16 and F-15 fighter jets and Harrier attack jets flown by the Marine Corps striking at Libyan ground forces, air defenses and airfields. Navy electronic warplanes, EA-18G Growlers, jammed Libyan radar and communications. British pilots flew many of the bombing missions, and French, British and American planes all conducted ground attacks near Benghazi, American commanders said.
On day three, we’ve just about got one Arab nation to join the Arab Leage no-fly zone. WIN!
Bulworth
Don’t forget Poland!
Just Some Fuckhead
Nice touch with the human shields. I’ve got a bingo if “babies killed in incubators” gets called.
moe99
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/
Obviously this will keep the factories humming!
Xboxershorts
I read on Algerian news that a rebel Aircraft ran a suicide mission to the Libyan compound killing Ghadaffi’s 6th son
http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201103211039-cro-ren1026-libya_website_gaddafi_s_son_killed_by_a_suicide_bomber
Mnemosyne
So do you think it was an actual assassination attempt specifically on Gaddafi and they’re saying the stuff about the command post as cover, or were they trying to take out some of his command capabilities but not really caring if he got killed or not?
I realize this is a distinction that a lot of people will insist makes no difference at all and that if someone bombs a place that Gaddafi might be near, it’s exactly the same as walking up to him and shooting him in the head.
Villago Delenda Est
Damn, Just Some Fuckhead beat me to the “babies in incubators” comment.
Cripes, this is all so predictable. That and the claim by the bombers that no civilians were killed (and the equally predictable claim by the Gadaffi spokesclown that civilians were killed).
Mike in NC
Just need to work out the pesky details on the lunch menu, then they’ll all be onboard.
cleek
last week, Qatar was reported to be sending aircraft. four of them, to be exact.
Dave
It makes sense that they bombed his compound for precisely the reason stated in the piece – degrade his C3 capabilities. Khadaffi keeps his military on a leash and historically under-equipped, and exerts maximum control on what they do to prevent anyone in the military from overthrowing him. He’s a classic paranoid dictator. Why is this even remarkable? If the C3 center was in the middle of the desert, that’s where they would have hit it.
The Ancient Randonneur (formerly known as The Grand Panjandrum)
On this snowy northern New England morning it is nice to know that we are bringing freedom to another Muslim nation. Allahu Akbar! I guess.
Villago Delenda Est
@Mnemosyne:
The collateral damage is less barbaric and blunt than just walking up to him and shooting him in the head, which would be too much like a mob hit.
Don’t ask me why this is so, it just is in the Village.
cleek
i’m still a little fuzzy on how surface-to-surface cruise missiles enforce a no-fly zone. how does “no-fly” become “no-sit-there-in-a-hanger” ?
can anyone
apologize forexplain that to me?Campionrules
Ahh the joys of warfare via cruise missile proxy.
How in the hell are we telling the difference between loyalist Libyan troops and the Rebels? In the open ground, two groups both waving the flag? I’m sure that are intelligence is top notch.
soonergrunt
Having stated over and over again that I do not believe that the US should be doing this thing for the Europeans (and Arab League) that only seek to use our military as their military and then avoid the responsibility for the inevitable bad stuff by pointing at us, I’d like to point out an article in Talking Points Memo, titled ‘Another View on Libya.’
Josh Marshall describes it as “an email from a reader and American foreign policy professional in the region, taking a different view.”
malraux
@Dave: Degrading C3 capabilities seems to be something a bit more than just establishing a No-Fly zone though. Unless he had an Air Traffic Controller nest there, obviously.
daveNYC
@cleek: Seeing how a lot of tanks seem to have been targeted, I think it’s pretty obvious that Qaddafi must have had some super awesome flying tanks in his army.
Joseph Nobles
OK, tanks in the no-fly zone is wonderful snark, but it doesn’t represent the full range of what the UN called for.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution
The no-fly zone is one part of the call to action. But it’s laid out after:
As long as the military actions there can be justified in support of that goal and as long as there are no “boots on the ground”, what you are seeing is what the UN authorized.
Ija
Just because it has been used as an agitprop in the past does not make it automatically false. Just because the US is the worst and most monstrous country in the history of the world with no moral authority whatsoever who should spend the next few thousand years genuflecting and reflecting on our past sins does not make Ghaddafi less of a dictator slaughtering his own people. The two things can be true at the same time.
Svensker
Here’s some of that FREEDOM we’re fighting for:
Anti-Taliban Feminist Afghani Woman Denied Entry to US
Because those sensitive American ears just can’t stand to hear anything critical of the government.
Villago Delenda Est
@cleek:
The thinking is, you take out anything in a hanger, then it can’t fly.
Also, as Dave points out, you take out command, control, and communications (C3) facilities, and also anti-aircraft batteries and control mechanisms. That way, you can fly all you want to, and Gadaffi’s loyalists can’t.
Establishing air supremacy is kinda a prerequisite to enforcing the no-fly zone. It does tend to change the situation on the ground, which had been favoring Gaddafi (or Qaddafi, as the the spellchecker seems to want to insist) because he had command of the air.
Also, good to see those giant flying white elephants, the B2s, getting a workout.
Dave
@malraux: The difference is that, unlike in a country like ours where there is a degree of autonomy between the branches, all orders for all branches run out of Khadaffi’s compound. So degrading C3 for one group would do it for all.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Villago Delenda Est:
Right?
Maude
@Mnemosyne:
The reporters in Tripoli were invited to visit the palace. The repoter who was on radio this morning said he thought that they would be used as human shields. He declined the offer.
Gadaffi’s son has an entire floor in the same hotel that the reporters are staying in.
The Dangerman
@Mnemosyne:
Almost surely not; first, we almost surely don’t know where he is and, second, his bunkers are built to withstand a nuke (background reading is fundamental, but making wild accusations is so much easier for those that are accusing us of trying to kill the guy; now, if the loser is hanging out in a C&C area, too bad for him).
Culture of Truth
I keep hearing about enormous stockpiles of mustard gas, which for the meida is like waving a toy mouse on stick filled with catnip in front of a Siamese.
cleek
@Villago Delenda Est:
so, “no-fly” doesn’t mean “don’t put your planes in the air”, it means “you will never put planes in the air again” ?
did it mean that in Iraq ? (i don’t think it did)
malraux
@Villago Delenda Est:
Well, not really. We never established air superiority in Iraq while enforcing the no fly zone, for example.
The Moar You Know
joe from HeadUpAssVille keeps telling me that since we don’t have “boots on the ground”, then we’re not involved.
I’m sure that’s the way the Arabs see it, too.
The Dangerman
@daveNYC:
Of course, you know that the UN resolution was well beyond a no fly zone, right? Please, go read a summary of it; I’m sure it’s on the Net somewhere, but don’t let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Culture of Truth
I hope they name a square after Obama. Or Sarkozy. That would send George W. Bush right around the bend.
soonergrunt
@daveNYC: Well, you don’t need flying tanks, if you have about 250 of these things.
ZSU-23-4 can play hell with airplanes. It’ll do a number of people and vehicles on the ground, too.
ZSU-57-2 doesn’t play well with others either, for that matter.
And if the UN resolution states that the goal is to protect civilians and authorizes any action necessary to achieve that goal then what’s the problem with plinking tanks?
My issue isn’t that this shouldn’t be done. It’s that WE shouldn’t be doing it.
Poopyman
Why should Arab allies join in when they’re paying us to do the dirty work?
Stillwater
@Mnemosyne:So do you think it was an actual assassination attempt specifically on Gaddafi and they’re saying the stuff about the command post as cover, or were they trying to take out some of his command capabilities but not really caring if he got killed or not?
Personally, I thought you were gonna deflect this with the appeal to the British line, that Brits are running the show and they really wanted us to target that compound, and we owe them for all their help in Iraq and all, so…
Linda Featheringill
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201131365925476865.html
“Where are the Arabs?”
This article seems to be 3 or 4 days old but it reflects some of the thoughts voiced here.
geg6
I am still trying to figure out how I feel about this. The only thing I can say for certain is that, although I am wary and suspicious of this action (much the same feelings I had regarding Kosovo and Serbia), I don’t have screaming alarms going off in my head to the extent that I’m hysterical like I was in the ramp up to the Iraq adventure.
And I have no idea if that means anything at all.
The Dangerman
@malraux:
WTF? My recall was that if a radar lit up an aircraft, that radar was summarily dispatched. Not to mention a lot of the Iraqi Air Force ended up in Iran.
Villago Delenda Est
@malraux:
Given that the “no-fly” zone in Iraq was established after the war, in which we bombed the shit out of Iraq’s AA capability and most of their planes were destroyed or flew off to Iran…
Well, you see where this is leading, right?
Just Some Fuckhead
@soonergrunt: This is important, because there is a huge amount of anger towards the United States for our realpolitik-driven support of these autocrats in the past.
Yeah, we’ve really had a history of propping up Gaddafi. In fact, just the opposite is the case and now we look like we’re taking out the ones we don’t like and continuing to prop up the ones we do like.
Poopyman
@daveNYC: Well, it looks like the tanks have been flying the past few days. Not doing do well with the landings, though.
Culture of Truth
Indeed, the resolution authorizes member states to “take all necessary measures” “to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack”
DlewOnRoids
What do missiles and bullets have to do to reach a target?
They have to FLY.
QED, motherf***ers!!!
malraux
@The Dangerman:
Exactly, only radar that turned on and targeted US aircraft were destroyed. Not every radar installation that might turn on and target us.
MikeJ
Re no fly-zone:
(emphasis added) UN security council resolution 1973.
I’m sorry somebody said something different once before on a blog somewhere, but it’s way past time to stop pretending that it was ever “just” a no fly zone. The text of the resolution was never secret, everybody could read it.
The Moar You Know
I guess bombing the shit out of a sovereign nation Is OK If You’re A Democrat, too.
You’ve just got to have a good reason. Like one-upping your dad, or keeping up with the last president, or keeping up with the last five presidents, or making sure that no one can call you a sniveling wimp during your reelection campaign. Whatever. They’re all good reasons.
(Who was the last guy to not drop bombs on some country for the hell of it, Ford?)
@geg6: It means you’re a hypocrite, who’s totally fine with bombing a sovereign nation so long as it is “your” guy doing the bombing.
This whole thing has been pretty eye-opening with regard to my fellow Dems.
gwangung
@geg6: Yeah, same here.
It’s STILL stupid, however, given that we’re chopping tsunami warning networks, aid to children and education. If were so hot spread democracy around, raise taxes on the wealthy a bit to pay for it and not screw our own people in the process.
malraux
@Culture of Truth:
And people made fun of John’s Foot in the Door claim?
AliceBlue
Is it 2003 again? Did I wake up in some kind of an alternate universe/wormhole/time machine?
OzoneR
@The Moar You Know:
Actually, that IS how the Arabs see it, which is to say “Gee, the Americans were so quick to invade Iraq for no reason, but are sitting on the asses when we ACTUALLY need them”
Corner Stone
@malraux:
The heck we didn’t. We routinely killed anything that got within tone of the NFZ in both North and South.
We were dropping dimes on their ass at our leisure.
Villago Delenda Est
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Can you say the absolute monarchy of the bandit House of Saud, supported by a bunch of fundawackaloon Imams who get to do what guys like Robertson, Wildmon, and Dobson can only fantasize about?
Sure you can!
Corner Stone
@OzoneR:
But how will this play in the newsroom?
Linda Featheringill
@soonergrunt:
I am a proponent of the Prime Directive. But if we can’t do that [yet], I’d hope that we could be effective. “We” includes anybody you want to throw into the mix.
If France and England would take the lead on this, I would be thrilled. Let them have the glory.
Culture of Truth
Foreign Secretary Hague did not rule out the possibility of deploying special forces, but he said there would be no occupation of Libya.
NonyNony
@Just Some Fuckhead:
This.
Yeah for the last 4-5 years we’ve been playing nice-nice with Qaddafi, but that’s small beans. The liberal hawks have been filling the airwaves this weekend with apologias for how Lybia is “nothing like” what’s going in in Qatar or Bahrain because they don’t want to get into the messy situation of arguing in favor of revolutionaries who want to topple governments that like us.
I see no reason to believe that the people in the region will see this as the US “taking their side” and not the US taking advantage of a situation to get rid of a dictator that has been a pain in the US’s side for decades. If we’re unwilling to stand up for the people of Qatar or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, the whole idea that we’re standing up for the people of Lybia just looks like a joke.
OzoneR
@Corner Stone: Newsrooms don’t care how Arabs see things, half of them can’t even the Arabian Peninsula on a fucking map
arguingwithsignposts
Posting a kitteh, just because we need one at the moment.
Villago Delenda Est
@The Moar You Know:
Ford had his little incident in the Gulf of Siam just after the fall of Saigon.
So he was into it, too…
soonergrunt
@geg6: So I guess you haven’t made up your mind how you feel about this and therefore whether the personnel involved in this specific operation have sick minds?
If you decide that it’s a good thing, do the personnel involved become less sick or not sick at all? Is that a permanent or temporary effect?
If you decide you don’t like it, do they retroactively get sick minds?
And if, by chance, a veteran of this operation ends up at your college, will you thwart him/her or merely condescend to the murdering rapist?
daveNYC
@Joseph Nobles: Christ, that’s open ended enough to allow us to send Qadaffi into early retirement. Assuming we’re able to pull that off using air power alone.
Dave
@The Moar You Know: Bullshit. This isn’t some cowboy action. This isn’t Bush II and implying it is is a load of crap.
This is a UN action, specifically authorized under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, to protect Libyan civilians from being slaughtered. This is NOT manipulating and twisting a UN resolution to justify a war of choice.
This is one of the reasons the UN came into existence in the first place. And if the UN isn’t going to defend the innocent from being slaughtered, then what’s the point of having it? Imperfect as it is, and as imperfect as the application of it has been, collective action through the UN is still the best method of stopping these kinds of senseless slaughters. And playing the “Both sides do it!” card on this is just a joke.
Poopyman
Libyan woman sez “I got yer Burka right here!”
(via Al Jaz)
Corner Stone
The missile into Gaddafi’s compound is surely a C3 action. Why would we purposely kill him? Half his Generals are in the rebellion hiding on Alderaan, and the rest are shit scared and dependent on Gaddafi for their continued survival.
If he’s captured he’s a dead man all nice and legal anyway.
OzoneR
@The Moar You Know:
Most of us never said it’s NEVER ok to bomb a sovereign nation, you’re projecting.
The problem with Iraq wasn’t the “bombing a sovereign nation” part, it was the reasons why
malraux
@Corner Stone:
We continued destroying Iraqi airfields, aircraft in hangers, inactive radar installations, etc during the no fly zone enforcement? Or do you mean that we’d destroy aircraft in the air, radar installations that turned on, etc?
The Dangerman
@NonyNony:
I don’t think Qatar should be on that list.
As for Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, or Yemen (perhaps what you meant), I presume that we are working the diplomatic angle as hard as possible. Saudi Arabia has the obvious problems. The opposition in Bahrain is backed by Iran. So, no shooting happening in either any time soon.
The Moar You Know
@Just Some Fuckhead: We’re like Santa Claus in camouflage; every Arab leader will now be waking up every day from here on out and asking themselves if they’ve been naughty or nice.
Actually, we’re more like an abusive alcoholic dad who wakes up one of the kids at random and thrashes them because his dinner wasn’t done when he got home from the bar, but I like the image of Santa Claus in a US Army uniform with a sack full of JDAMS, dropping them from his sleigh as he slowly checks one name after another from the list.
El Cid
@Ija: What a bullshit charge. Even if the US were doing something profoundly, monstrously evil (not on this particular occasion, I mean applied anywhere), only a few argue that “the US is the worst and most monstrous country in the history of the world with no moral authority whatsoever…”
Again, it makes sense to focus on what the US does as a citizen of that nation rather than continually assume that the US would have to be Stalin’s or Hitler’s or Mao’s regime in order for one to criticize its leaders decisions extremely harshly or even as immorally motivated. Or that even if someone uses terms like “imperialist” or whatever that therefore they love Saddam and want to have his babies.
And the suggestion that the US should spend 1,000 years genuflecting on its past crimes suggests that there really has been much of any such time spent by very much of its actual individuals living within. Slavery, for example, is pretty much penned on the South, the war against Indochina a ‘mistake’, the overthrow of elected governments like Arbenz’ and Mossadeq’s as “anti-Communism”, and so on and so forth.
“The US” is made up of a bunch of people — you don’t reify it into a single being, nor do you suppose that people can have more than a single thought in their heads either at once or focused on at different periods. That some do is demonstration that there are always some number of people with some view seen as, and often arguably so, extreme.
Corner Stone
Greg Miller of the WaPo looks like he could be Evan Bayh’s brother. Dude’s got concern troll all over his mug.
Just Some Fuckhead
@The Moar You Know:
Time for a new acronym: IOIODI
srv
I haven’t heard a reference to dead-enders yet.
Villago Delenda Est
@The Dangerman:
The opposition in Bahrain is backed by Iran.
The Shia majority is rebelling against a Sunni ruling minority in Bahrain.
So, naturally, the Iranians, who are Shia, are backing them.
A lot of this comes down to the Sunni/Shia conflict that’s been going on for centuries.
“Why can’t all of Mohammed’s children just get along?”
Bonus points for those of you who perceive the snark in this line that the deserting coward couldn’t possibly get because of his total fucking ignorance of Islam’s fractures?
cleek
@The Dangerman:
one thing i’ve learned here in the past few days is that not moving to save those people is equivalent to wanting them all dead.
@Dave:
how many nations belong to the UN ? how many of them are participating in this latest bit of regime change ? did the nations that are not participating choose not to, or were they somehow prevented ?
Villago Delenda Est
@The Moar You Know:
Robot Santa, from Futurama.
“I’m going to get jolly on your ass”
NonyNony
@The Dangerman:
Yes I meant Yemen – I have no idea what part of my brain farted up Qatar instead of Yemen. Possibly the sinus infection.
But this part I presume that we are working the diplomatic angle as hard as possible is exactly why it is nonsense to believe that the folks in the region are going to look at this and say “see the US does stand up to dictators”. Why? Because we even live in this country and all we can do is “presume” that in Saudi Arabia there’s a diplomat who’s begging the House of Saud to stop.
Why should anyone in the region believe that what’s going on in Lybia is anything more than the US taking advantage of the situation to oust a pain in the ass dictator? They already believe every possible conspiracy theory available about US actions in the region, so why not add one that certainly fits the evidence pretty damn well?
I’m not saying that’s what we’re doing here – though I think it’s easier for the US to bomb the fuck out of Qaddafi than to twist the House of Saud’s arm because we haven’t been best-buds with Qaddafi for decades – but as far as how it’s perceived? Yeah, I don’t think the average man-on-the-street is going to believe that the US bombing Qaddafi means that we’re suddenly on the side of universal democracy in the region.
Corner Stone
@malraux:
This part. A mosquito couldn’t fart in any part of Iraq that we couldn’t target/destroy it if we chose to. I don’t mean we destroyed every piece of military equip they had, but we could’ve.
AAA Bonds
I know people (Americans) don’t like to think of it this way, but enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq also involved the U.S. engaging in multiple acts of war over a decade or so.
We just didn’t call it war.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Villago Delenda Est: Rarely is the question asked, is Mohammed’s children learning?
The Dangerman
@Villago Delenda Est:
True; Iran, as you say, is Shia and Saudi Arabia is Sunni. So, Bahrain is a particularly dangerous flashpoint, especially since we have a major base there.
Dave
@cleek: The ratio of nations that belong to the UN and are engaged in this action is irrelevant. The point is that the UN has authorized this action.
The Moar You Know
@Dave: You got one thing right. It’s not Bush II, it’s Bush 41, 1991, all over again.
Remember “babies in incubators”? Yeah, me too. Those were good times.
At the moment, Arab civilians are being slaughtered in Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and what used to be called Palestine. We’re now in three of those countries. Why don’t we just go full throttle and make it all seven? I mean, hell, if Chapter VII of the UN Charter is such a big fucking deal, we have to, right? It’s a moral imperative!
Bombs for everyone!
Cris
Why oh why do I keep seeing people compare this to Iraq? The more appropriate comparison is to Yugoslavia: air campaign, coalition-based, Democratic president. And to all you bitches bitching that “we” think it’s okay because “our guy” is doing it, I suggest you look back at the way “we” reacted to Kosovo.
Ija
@El Cid:
I grew up in Berkeley, so I grew up surrounded by some people who think that US is the most evil country in the history of the world. Who think that if the US is wiped out of the face off the earth today, tomorrow all the world’s problem will be solved and everything will be puppies and rainbows. Sometimes stereotypes exist for a reason.
There is an equivalent line of thinking on the left to the “we are the greatest nation on earth” thinking on the right. It’s the reverse exceptionalism – believing that we are the worst, most evil nation on earth. Both are equally stupid line of thinking.
The Dangerman
@cleek:
Well, the problem is these regimes are all very well armed (which we and the Soviets were more than happy to sell them because they were flush with money from the oil they sold us). For better or worse, not many countries with the capability to take on a nation like Libya. Sure as hell Malta doesn’t…
soonergrunt
@Cris: Some of us don’t think we should’ve gotten involved in those either. {waves}
Villago Delenda Est
@The Dangerman:
Also, Saudi Arabia has a substantial Shia minority in its eastern (the oil fields) area.
weaselswords
This is such a weird series of posts.
There’s no problem disagreeing with the UN action, but why the need to loudly knock down a bunch of strawmen?
Corner Stone
We know where Gaddafi is. He’s in the area around Tripoli and Benghazi and east, west, south and north somewhat.
AAA Bonds
The reason we didn’t call the no-fly zone over Iraq a war, and the reason we’re not calling this a war, is because our enemy’s capability to retaliate is extremely limited. So we don’t have to call it a war, which makes it far easier for us to garner support and funcing.
What we’re doing is (in this sense) akin to when the Brits were “pacifying the colonies” during the 19th and 20th centuries. In retrospect, historians have correctly identified these as wars, some of them decades in length. But the British didn’t have to call them that as long as British deaths were minimal.
Dave
@The Moar You Know: So your answer, essentially, is “fuck the world.” How wonderfully nihilistic.
I said that the application of collective action has been imperfect. In fact, it’s been lousy. But in Libya you have a clear-cut example of a dictator about to slaughter thousands of his nominal citizens. To sit back and say “Well, we didn’t do it here so we can’t do it there” is just ridiculous.
And yeah, it is a fucking moral imperative. To have the ability to stop innocents from being slaughtered and not doing it is shameful. I still think standing aside and letting Rwanda run with blood is one of the most shameful moments in the history of the UN and the US.
soonergrunt
@Corner Stone: I saw what you did there.
Just Some Fuckhead
@The Moar You Know: I think we’re more like the Democracy Fairy. If you leave a human rights violation under your oil stash, we’ll come in at night and blow yer shit all to hell.
celticdragonchick
This.
The Dangerman
@Villago Delenda Est:
Interesting, this I did not know. I do know most of the Oil in Iran is near the Iraqi border, which has had it’s own Sunni/Shia problem, of course.
Not even factoring in Oil, the Middle East is one fucked up region (and then with Oil in consideration, it is one FUCKED up region). I know that is profound, I’m just saying I hope that the best and brightest in the room are working on this one.
Comrade Dread
You know, if we’re going to be fighting other people’s wars, can we at least be mercenaries and start charging them for our nation’s military services?
cleek
@Dave:
it’s entirely relevant. if participation is optional, then were are choosing to participate. and that blows a big fucking hole in the “it’s not an optional war of choice!” plea.
elmo
@Corner Stone:
I saw what you did there.
ETA: And I was slow on the draw. Again.
AAA Bonds
Also, as Michael Lind (!) pointed out, Kosovo is a great comparison in a couple ways:
1) our air campaign escalated the war there instead of slowing it, and NATO eventually had to threaten a ground invasion.
2) our “victory” actually depended on the government being replaced on the side of the aggressor soon afterwards, and we can go back and forth on whether bombing Belgrade helped, but deposing Milosevic wasn’t our mission.
Otherwise, there’s not much of a comparison to make, as Kosovo was already a distinct region with a different ethnicity and preexisting autonomous institutions, as one found in much of Yugoslavia.
The idea of Kosovo as this Mr. Clean operation is disgusting to me. “It’s like Kosovo, not Iraq,” people say, and cross their arms, like they’ve won an argument. (It’s not, but even if it were, they wouldn’t have.)
Check with the population of the countries who put K4 on the ground as to how swell they thought the whole thing was. Is this just idle Clinton worship? Or are we really endorsing the philosophy of bomb-and-forget in foreign policy?
Dave
@cleek: My point is that the number of nations involved doesn’t lend this operation more or less justification. It is an authorized UN action to prevent the slaughter of civilians. I would hope that the US would be involved in preventing that.
elmo
Fucking tanks, how do they work?
FlipYrWhig
@weaselswords:
To prove that you’re not as gullible as you were in 2002-03 when you supported a different war. Or to relive your glory days when you were skeptical about a different war and your skepticism was correct, which proves that you are always right to be skeptical about wars, which proves by inductive logic that you are always right about everything.
cleek
@The Dangerman:
not everybody is impressed with Libya’s strength. for example, Libya is 39th on this list of “world military strength rating”. right below Venezuela.
Corner Stone
@AAA Bonds:
So you’re saying this is MTV’s “Bully Beatdown”?
debbie
I haven’t heard anything about the massacring of rebels not being true. With very clear memories of Yugoslavia and Rawanda and how the world stood there and did nothing for so long, I don’t have a problem with this operation so far. If the U.S. does indeed step back and let other countries take the lead in a few days — like they said they would — then this will in fact have been more about humanitarian issues than greedy, imperialistic opportunism.
I don’t see how all the judgments I’m reading here can be made when it’s so early. Just because a country’s acted badly in the past doesn’t mean it will continue to do so.
AAA Bonds
@debbie:
It would be great if the people in Washington who decided to launch missiles were as keen on public deliberation as you seem to be.
Linda Featheringill
@FlipYrWhig:
Come on. Admit it. It would be really nice to have a crystal ball about now, wouldn’t it?
We don’t know how this is going to turn out.
Martin
I know it’s not supposed to work this way, but the more Cole bitches about this, the better I feel about it. I’m not too comfortable with that, but I can’t deny that’s how its playing out in my head.
AAA Bonds
@Corner Stone:
I don’t know what that is but I’m assuming it doesn’t involve people getting killed.
Dave
@cleek: Military capability is more than a ranking. For example, China may be #2 on the list but Egypt is more powerful in the region because of their location and China’s lack of transport.
There are very few countries that can project power globally. The US, UK and France happen to be three of them.
The Dangerman
@cleek:
Not surprising; Libya isn’t that strong militarily, as you say. As you also say, there are only a few countries with better militaries and many of those surely aren’t getting in the fight (nor would we want them to, for example, Russia or Germany).
Suffern ACE
@Linda Featheringill:
Heck, I’d even like to dub this Sarkozy’s War, the way we used to name wars in this country after the Monarch who started them. We could even call it formally the War of the French Sucession (which I think is more accurate than the humanitarians want to believe.)
Comrade Dread
Because war isn’t sunshine and roses.
Because we have NO idea what is going to happen after the bombs fall and if we’re going to make matters worse long term.
Because we’re going to finance it with deficit spending.
Because it’s our third current Middle Eastern War and the last two have lasted 10 years and 8-9 years respectively with no real end in sight, and we’re not exactly happy about the premise of being stuck with the long term costs of a third military zone.
Because it further reinforces the precedent that war should be a ‘humanitarian’ affair and not one of self-defense and makes it more likely in the future that you’ll see more Iraq conflicts justified by humanitarian propaganda.
Because actions have consequences and we’ll likely empower more terrorist groups and inspire more people to join the radicals either through a desire for vengeance or a belief that we want to destroy Muslims or conquer and control the Middle East.
Because our Arab dictator friends tend to say one thing to our face to goad us into being their enforcer/defender/policeman, and then stoke the fires of anti-Americanism in their homelands when we do what they asked us to do and leave us holding the bag.
malraux
@debbie:
There’s a big difference between killing rebels militarily fighting against your country/leader and mass killing civilians because of race, religion or tribal differences. One is genocide and the other isn’t.
OzoneR
@The Dangerman:
The base is sorta irrelevant, because we can just move shit to Qatar and call it a day. The danger here is triggering a Muslim civil war that will engulf the Persian Gulf. One of the few things that annoyed me about WikiLeaks was that Assange had released wire cables showing animosity toward Iran from Saudi Arabia. The worst scenario, oil aside because that would be terrible, is a Shia-Sunni war.
AAA Bonds
@Dave:
The problem with “intervening” in a conflict is that you usually become a party to it. You then shoulder responsibility for it, as an individual country. There’s no world state.
AAA Bonds
@Suffern ACE:
Amen. That’s another thing I hear out of liberals’ mouths right now as they quack like ducks: “But France is behind it!”
Of course Sarkozy’s behind it. Fuck him.
Suffern ACE
@Comrade Dread:
cat48
Ok, now Kucinich thinks this is impeachable. That’s one way to win a Primary you’ve suggested “someone” should run against Obama.
FlipYrWhig
@Linda Featheringill: Agreed. We don’t know. I think it would be nice to hear a bit more about the possibility that _some_ good could come of it, even to dismiss it as outweighed by the possibility that more _bad_ could come of it, as opposed to this colossal rage-gasm.
I still find there to be some romance in the idea of “the people” rising up. I think I probably would have been excited about the Iranian revolution in 1979, and regretted it soon afterwards. I think that’s why this feels different to me, even with all the caveats about how long it will last, what the risks are, etc. The idea that it originates in a popular uprising… that means something to me.
Dave
@AAA Bonds: No, but there is a UN. And that does make a difference. And the truth is that if you could have stopped something, but you stand aside and let it happen, then you shoulder responsibility for that as well.
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: Sorry you fell ass over teakettle for the Iraq War, but some of us had actual reason besides ego to oppose it and also be highly sceptical about this action.
Villago Delenda Est
@elmo:
Just to be helpful here, I’ve done this over at Atrios’ place in the past:
Just because it’s armored and has treads doesn’t mean it’s a tank.
Soviet era AA (anti-aircraft) vehicles do resemble your standard tank, but they’re not tanks. They’re targeted because they can interfere with the enforcement of the No-Fly zone. Taking out AA capability is important to do this, otherwise we might have our planes being shot down and POWs being created, etc. The situation gets hairy, fast.
AAA Bonds
@Dave:
The UN does make a difference. Is it better that the Security Council approved this? Yes. Does it make it a good idea or a reflection of world democracy? No.
All I can say is that the analogy of an individual person doing something to prevent an imminent injustice before his or her eyes doesn’t extend to nation-states – mainly, because there is no society of nations, and secondarily, because we recognize nation-states as sovereign.
That may sound inhuman, but because of those factors, there are many situations in foreign policy that are more akin to killing an abusive parent and adopting his children than stopping an instance of abuse.
There’s no police to call, and there’s no orphanages for mistreated populations. The buck stops with the intervener, who also has to consider the family he or she has at home, and the ability he or she actually has to care for all the new folks.
I’m what gets called a “liberal realist” – I’m unabashedly in favor of a world state that can overrule national sovereignty, and would intervene in this situation with troops on the ground and, one would hope, wouldn’t allow a Gaddafi-type rule at all. But, like I said, there isn’t one, and you don’t build one by pretending that the UN fits the bill.
In fact, you undermine it, because as we see right now and as we saw in Iraq, the UN is merely an unofficial sign-off committee for a handful of powerful individual states.
Dave
@AAA Bonds: See, I disagree with you because the UN charter precisely does make this extend to nation-states. If you are a signatory of the UN Charter, then you agree to the rules. And one of them is that the UN has the authority under Chapter VII to intervene to prevent this kind of slaughter.
It’s true that the current makeup of the Security Council does favor the more powerful, but this could have easily been vetoed by China or Russia…and it wasn’t. Which I think says volumes about what we are doing here.
The UN is the best vehicle we have to prevent suffering around the world. It’s imperfectly designed and imperfectly implemented, but it’s the best we have. And it’ll be a cold day in Hell before I criticize President Obama for working through the UN to get a resolution to prevent a city from burning through the whims of a madman.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: Well, I didn’t support the Iraq war, because the stuff about terrorism and WMD was transparently manipulative nonsense.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: Plus, you know, _everyone_ is _always_ “skeptical.” “Skeptical” doesn’t mean “I hate this on sight and I’m never gonna change my mind!” “Skeptical” means “I see what they’re saying about what good it would do, but I don’t like the chances of it working as intended.” I don’t think there’s anything that interesting about being skeptical, and I haven’t heard anyone be anything other than skeptical. Even among “supporters,” such as they are, there’s not a lot of “Yee-haw, Fuck yeah!”
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: AH-HA!
So you’re only backing this action in Libya because you didn’t back the last one!
Now we see what your real motivation is. Even handed to the bitter end, you are.
Stillwater
@FlipYrWhig: I think that’s why this feels different to me,
Doesn’t that say everything you could possibly say about it, Flip? You admit to having considered all the evidence and arguments against this
invasionattackbenevolent action, admit that those are legitimate concerns, but dismiss them because this use of military power ‘feels’ different.I mean, at this point, there’s nothing left for you to say about it, no deeper analysis that could change your mind or inform your view. It just feels right.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: I was very skeptical about Afghanistan, and had nightmares as a kid when I heard about Reagan’s bombing Libya because I thought that I’d get shipped off there when I turned 18. About this, I think it’s too soon to tell. I’m not terribly worried about how it’s beginning, no, but the jury’s out on how it will end. Of course, that’s not an interesting or bold opinion.
daveNYC
@OzoneR:
Eh? Like Iran doesn’t already know that Saudi Arabia hates them?
FlipYrWhig
@Stillwater: I don’t think I’m “dismissing” anything, though. All of the concerns about how disastrous it could become are valid. I’m just trying to be candid about, yes, why I would “feel” differently, and I think it has to do with the aspect of popular uprising.
ETA: Which, incidentally, is one of the things everyone points to about the first Iraq war: the Kurdish uprising that wasn’t followed with US support.
Joseph Nobles
@daveNYC: Yep.
This is what I see happening here: We’re holding back Gaddafi, giving the rebels room to breathe and organize, and keeping things at a stalemate until Gaddafi’s departure can be organized. The military option may wind up with Gaddafi still in power, but with the east and the sea, the international community can keep the rebels in supplies. Gaddafi will soon tire of this and either make his departure or throw his forces at the blockades, which will only mean the coalition can pound him again until he stops. Or dies.
El Cid
@Villago Delenda Est: Really?
I haven’t yet seen a presentation of evidence for that. Clinton has stated it, as has the king of Bahrain.
Where would be a good link for that?
I know there are predictions that greater Shi’a influence in Bahrain would increase the influence of Iran.
geg6
@The Moar You Know:
Fuck you. If you read my comment, I said I am suspicious and wary of the whole thing. Which, in asshole language, apparently means I’m all Wolverines! about it, I guess.
What a dick.
geg6
@soonergrunt:
As I told you the other day, go fuck yourself. I’m beginning to think the so-called trumped up rape charges against you may not have been so trumped up seeing as how you like abusing people, especially people who said something you didn’t like but obviously didn’t understand or comprehend.
I do more for veterans every single day than you will ever do in your whole life. I honor them with respect, my tax dollars, and my hard work which is more than you do with your bullshit rants against me for simply telling the truth–the military mind (which is NOT your average GI, by the way) is sick. Your attempt to smear veterans and service members by linking them with neocons and sadists is just sad.
low-tech cyclist
The American and French militaries both said that Qatar would join the military operation, which would be the first Arab military force to explicitly sign on. But there were no details on what role the Qatar forces would take.
That’s easy – they’re going to perform a cover of George Harrison’s “While My Qatar Gently Weeps.”
D-Chance.
And yeah, it is a fucking moral imperative. To have the ability to stop innocents from being slaughtered and not doing it is shameful.
The next assassin of an abortion doctor will love you for saying and believing that, Dave…
Just Some Fuckhead
@geg6:
Jesus god, you people say the most awful things to one another and somehow I’m the mean one.
liberal
@OzoneR:
Putting aside Obama’s motives, I find it very curious that anyone would believe France, for example, is merely expressing humanitarian concerns here.
liberal
@Dave:
Not really. It’s true that unlike Bush in Iraq, US/France/UK got UN Sec Counsel approval, but there’s no UN command, for example, AFAICT. Furthermore, isn’t it true that major powers on the Sec Council abstained rather than voting “yes”?
liberal
@The Dangerman:
I remember that, yet I don’t ever remember hearing why the hell that happened.
Corner Stone
@liberal: Are you suggesting that France’s history of beneficent colonialism is in some way inaccurate?
geg6
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Well, I certainly have never called you the mean one. I find you quite entertaining, AAMOF.
As for that asshole soonergrunt, I only fight fire with fire. He fired first.
soonergrunt
@geg6: Walking it back a little bit now?
The military mind is NOT your average GI?
And now you claim that I’M the one conflating military personnel with neocons and sadists, when I’m the one that pointed out the difference in the first fucking place.
You’re the one who described the veterans you claim to serve as “the poor, duped cogs” and described rape and abuse as “part of the military mindset.” I’m not seeing much of the respect you claim to feel.
@geg6:
this site/2011/03/06/manning-update/#comment-2461593
The military is an organization of people, and like any organization or collection of people numbering over 3 million positions, there are some pretty widely dispersed beliefs and behaviors. Unlike you, I do not judge and condemn the constituents of the whole for the behavior of the few. And when I’m called on saying something stupid, offensive, and intellectually lazy, I don’t (generally) double down on the stupid.
The contempt you express here for the veterans you serve is just bizarre to me. Would you tell any of them to their faces that you consider them to be rapists and murderers at worst and poor duped cogs at best? And how does that not stress you out, putting on a performance of caring and compassion for people you so actively loathe?
So now you ascribe to me the very behaviors in which you, yourself engage, and you attack me for them. What, were you hoping that I couldn’t find the places you said those very things? Look in a mirror. You can start with the one I’ve been holding up to you this whole time.