Who are the Libyan rebels?
Let’s hope this isn’t the answer to the question.
[ADDENDUM: I continue to find the Libyan situation puzzling, to say the least. Not only because of the shrouded identity of the rebels, but also the fact that France is taking the lead, something I can’t recall happening in a long, long while:
The initial stage of the military operation will be run by France and Britain with significant American help, including radar planes, command and control, and precision-guided munitions, including cruise missiles and B52 bombers, NATO officials said.
But Mrs. Clinton emphasized that the United States was not leading the effort. “We did not lead this,” she said. “We did not engage in unilateral actions in any way, but we strongly support the international community taking action against governments and leaders who behave as Qaddafi is unfortunately doing so now.”
Qaddafi has been a tyrant for decades. On that level, who wouldn’t want to see him go? The justification for this intervention is supposedly that he’s killing his own people (“behaving as Qaddafi is unfortunately doing now”). But does that mean that there will be international intervention against any head of state who fights back when threatened by rebels and a civil war?
In any civil war, the government kills its own people. What’s the difference here? Is it that it’s the hated Qaddafi they are fighting against? Is is that he is indiscriminately massacring innocent citizens rather than just rebel soldiers? How does one tell the difference? How do we know the truth of what’s happening there?]
Neo, I just stumbled on that article and was going to cut and paste part of it into my ongoing debate with Tom in the other forum.
How ironic that the first published description of these people comes from the HuffPost.
Of *course* it is the answer. Not only that, it was *the* deciding factor for the President.
Let’s see anti-American rebels fighting anti-American dictator. Why not support both? A fight to the death.
I think the difference is using tanks, artillery, and aircraft for crowd control.
With so many competitors among crazy African tyrants, one needs push really hard to earn the nickname “Mad dog of Africa”.
same as the egyptian rebels
http://egyptian.wordpress.com/
Pingback:RedStateEclectic
Here’s an interesting take on the “WTF is going on?”
http://non-intervention.com/862/libya-and-bahrain-neutering-the-constitution-heading-for-disaster/
The mullahs of Iran wil be really happy we’re taking their side. Once we take out K-daffy, maybe Barry can drop by Iran in AF1. pick up the mullahs and fly them to to Libya for their coronation.
This is what caught my attention in the Huffpoo article: “… a genuine burst of anti-totalitarian fervor… ”
I doubt this is all about anti-totalitarian fervor, it smells like fervor for another form of totalitarianism, probably of the jihad crazy type.
Steve says, “Why not support both?”
I’ve long been an advocate of arm both sides to assist them in killing each other, ideally until there is only one fanatic standing.
AngelaTC,
This is nothing new, congress has not declared war since 1941. Instead congress has been granting what amounts to “letters of marque and reprisal”. However, in this particular case congress has issued nothing. At least Truman, LBJ, Reagan, Bush 1 & 2, and Clinton took the time to obtain congressional ‘authorization’.
For 70 years congress has shirked its constitutional duty and allowed the executive to usurp its constitutional authority. IMO we can’t fault Obama for running rough shod over congress when congress willingly lays down in the middle of the road.
The HuffPo article explains Obama’s interest in the matter.
He can reliably be predicted to take the course of action that is most harmful to America’s interest.
Rickl,
I suspect Mr. O has been wishing and hoping (a la Dusty Springfield) that the tumult in Libya would just go away. I suspect he is not capable of a far ranging, multi-faceted surreptitious policy to undermine the security of the USA and usher in the founding of the new caliphate. IMO he’s not the moslem manchurian candidate, he’s much simpler to understand.
Obama is just a narcissistic teenager who wants to get back to golf, trips on AF1, and wrecking the economy (the true revenge for the imagined insults and slights he lusts for that will redeem him in the eyes of his absentee father). The few grown ups in his administration and the UN and the euro gang have forced his hand so he’s half-heartedly going a long. Think petulant teenage angst and rebellion. That’s Obama.
ck Says: The mullahs of Iran wil be really happy we’re taking their side.
If Islamists recreate the Caliphate, their self-esteem will rise, they will no longer have a reason to resent us, and all will be multiculturally well.
Per Orwell, that idea is so stupid that only an intellectual would believe it, so of course the Administration will never–Oh, wait. 🙁
Hey, qaddafi, America isn’t leading the effort to take you down. The French are … lol
France actually does have a history of taking the initiative in Africa. They have lots of former colonies there and have intervened in many of them since those colonies gained independence. The truly new factor here might be that France has usually done those other actions alone, as the former colonial power, but in this case is intervening in a country that, to my knowledge, they have never had any colonial power over.
kcom,
You are right, France has intervened numerous times in its old sub Saharan Africa colonies. Ivory Coast most recently. The French never ask for international or UN approval when they do so. I find it interesting that Sarkosy is getting so ambitious in Libya. He’s recognized the rebel ‘government’ in eastern Libya and he’s leading, along with the UK, the no-fly zone effort.
BTW, when the Ottoman Empire broke apart Libya became an Italian colony. UK and France took the rest (except Turkey itself of course). Unfortunately, Italy has been experiencing the brunt of the Europe bound exodus that is now streaming out of Tunisia and Libya. Berlusconi should consider deporting them to France. 😉
Delaying definitive action against a baddie (a Saddam, a Muamaar, etc., etc., etc) always yields a bigger problem. It goes without saying that begger problems require bigger, more toxic, more costly remedies.
There is little foreseeable cost to USA in Libya in military terms. That of course assumes no mission creep.
Clearly, Reagan should’ve completed the job he undertook against Qaddhafi, as Bush I should’ve taken Baghdad and Saddam. Bigger problems resulted in both cases.
So my interest, Oldflyer, is in completing a delayed task. Call it vengeance if you like.
I am unwilling to throw the baby out with the bathwater…the rebels may be heterogeneous, too. In any event, Libya is a huge desert with 6m population and oil mostly in its eastern half, well removed from Tripoli. Not a strategic problem for us if (big if, in our chickenshit era) we act prudently in the long term. But if we forget about them again, well…more Lockerbies, and worse, whether Muammar stays or the rebels are bad hats.
And before I sign off, what about the folks Qaddhafi has left under his heel in West Libya?
Until Qadaffi is dead, there can be no security in Europe. He is too dangerous to leave him alive. As for Western imperialism and restoration of white power in troubled parts of this continent, this should not be the goal in itself, but rather the only means to normalize the situation, or, even better, unintended, but inevitable consequence of war on terror.
Coalition forces are now in the same political-legal charade as Russian forces were in Georgian war. The official goal is protecting “civilians”, who are indistinguishable from “rebels” or “mutineers”. But to effectively protect them, the coalition needs to destroy or cripple Qadaffi army. Why Saakashvily is allowed to bombard rebel’s city by multiple rocket launchers and tanks, and Qadaffi is not allowed to do the same with his rebels? And if taking sides in foreign civil war and effectively divide foreign country is legal for US or France, why it is not legal for Russia?
For me the only lesson from many cases of recent wars and humanitarian interventions (including Bosnia and Kosovo) is that wars can not be consistently classified into “legal” and “illegal” by any resonable legal code. They can be viewed as just or unjust, but all such views are subjective and depend on ideological, religious or ethnical identification of the viewer.
Good point, Sergey. We should go to war against Gaddafi because he is our enemy not because he is killing his own citizens. The enormity of this situation has been lost on most people: The United States is subordinating its sovereignty to the United Nations. Big deal if most happen to agree with the UN purpose. That will not always be the case and next time it won’t be Libya the US will be bombing for the UN; it will be Israel.
Perfect quote:
The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.–Winston Churchill
Let me get this straight. We’re bombing a guy who stood by Nelson Mandela in his hour of need and was instrumental in defeating apartheid. A guy who helped rid Uganda of Edi Amin. A guy who raised the living standard of Libyans to the highest in Africa, with a high literacy rate, rights for women, free education, housing, clean drinking water, and a low child mortality rate. And now, in the age of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, we’re backing Islamic fundamentalist rebels against him? …Are you all insane?
The quality of life and security for the citizens has been largely restored and we are a large part of why that has happened.