GeneralEtrius GeneralEtrius

On the Libyan Uprising

On the Libyan Uprising

This has been all over the news. It had so much hope that Libya's government would be overthrown and that psychotic clown of a dictator Qaddafi would finally be thrown out. Now it seems like the rebels are going to fail. They've been pleading for Western Intervention but Obama is basically fiddling while Libya burns. If Benghazi, the rebel capital falls, Qaddafi will be free to butcher every single person who opposes him. Why do we always wait until its too late?

253,126 views 82 replies
Reply #26 Top

How about this info from Gen. Wesley Clark, a retired Army general and NATO’s former supreme allied commander in Europe

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gen-wesley-clark-has-rules-for-us-interventions-libya-doesnt-meet-them/2011/03/09/ABu5jrQ_story.html

He summarizes

Given these rules, what is the wisest course of action in Libya? To me, it seems we have no clear basis for action. Whatever resources we dedicate for a no-fly zone would probably be too little, too late. We would once again be committing our military to force regime change in a Muslim land, even though we can’t quite bring ourselves to say it. So let’s recognize that the basic requirements for successful intervention simply don’t exist, at least not yet: We don’t have a clearly stated objective, legal authority, committed international support or adequate on-the-scene military capabilities, and Libya’s politics hardly foreshadow a clear outcome. We should have learned these lessons from our long history of intervention. We don’t need Libya to offer us a refresher course in past mistakes.
Just because he happens to be right this time doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. I have very little on this guy, but it seems like these generals aren't terribly accurate.

Why are we asking generals for advice, anyway? They're there to carry out the governments orders, not tell us what to do... I suppose if he's retired that eliminates some of the massive conflict-of-interest, but I'd still take the advice of an actual policy analyst over his any day.

EDIT: He also seems to think that if those conditions at the bottom were met, everything would go just fine. I doubt it. More guns didn't seem to be of much help before, in Afghanistan or Iraq, so I don't see why they should here, either.

Reply #27 Top

In this case, the clock is not broken; rather some people cannot tell time.

Ah, but who?  There's the rub.

Reply #28 Top

That's spectacular ignorance worthy of Glen Beck.
Can we stop trashing Beck all the time for supposed ignorance?  I highly doubt you watch his show, the bullshit about him being wrong all the time, constantly lying, it's more shit from people that don't watch his show either.  Hop on politifact and read the information given on his supposed lies and ignorance, they always give detailed explanations and the burn job the wingnuts are doing on the guy is entirely undeserved.  He's more accurate than the typical hard news caster is.  I catch dozens of errors every day just because they report shit before they have the story right.

 

Both our declared wars in the 20th century were the product of Democratic majorities in Congress and administered by Democratic presidents. In 1941, they were freakin' New Deal Democrats. Gah! Even our last big debacle of a misguided war was almost entirely the responsibility of Democratic leaders, although LBJ & friends managed to avoid busting the treasury, unlike Bush 43 & friends.

 

It's quite true that the nanny state progressives have long been the engine of interventionism.  However, wartime spending, if it can be called that, has dick to do with our financial status.  See page 29.

 

As you can see, spending under Bush 43 never exceeded levels during the 80's, despite a rapidly expanding entitlement cost.  This includes the budgets passed by the democratic congress that took over in 06.  It's fuckward that's busting the treasury with a 10% of GDP deficit spending level, what we had under Bush was just the same irresponsible norm we've been running since the nanny staters took over congress.  We've had a grand total of one responsible speakers in the last half-century, and all he got for his troubles was the boot.  Tossed from his position in disgrace over improprieties they all engage in regularly as a matter of course, all for having the audacity to make them pass a balanced budget like they said they would.  An accomplishment that held a whole three years before they took the budget levels back above sustainable spending levels.

 

You're woefully ignorant if you assume that what passes for 'the left' in the U.S. is dominated by pacifists. First, we have no real left, just molly-coddlers who have yet to recover from the Regan era. Second, Jimmy Carter is the closest thing we've had to an 'anti-war' president (Obama's rhetoric is anti-war, but his policy is obviously closer to some neo-real-politik mutant thing). Clinton threw our military weight around just as freely as Reagan or Bush 41, he just tried for different spin because he wanted to keep the real anti-war folks deluded enough to keep supporting him.

 

Actually, Bush 43 is the closest thing we've had to an anti-war president.  You forget that he was an isolationist.  Take 9/11 out of the history books and he'd never have set things in motion, it was a wake-up call, if perhaps not entirely to reality as he seems to have overshot the mark.  Carter on the other hand was just plain stupid.  We were simply saved from his bungling because he lost the election over one them.  The rest of his indiscretions in an attempt to shape the world to his farcical views without making open actions managed to slip under the radar because he didn't get US personnel killed in a visible fashion as he did trying that absurd rescue attempt.  War by proxy is still war.  Reagan continued the policies, oddly enough, but it was Carter that began arming the Mujaheddin.  He frequently chose less than reputable sides in third world conflicts.

 

Collectivists will always fall prey to a need to intervene in other individuals problems, individualists are rarely moved so greatly as to force others to act for another in a situation of their own making.  You say we haven't had a left wing since Reagan, but he was really just a moderate.  The fiscal conservative with a constructionist mindset disappeared from government in this country nearly a century back.  Both parties have been a progressive play pen in the interim.  What we really have is no right wing, just a horrid mixture of social conservatives that think with something other than their brains screwing up law enforcement and creating drug lords in foreign countries, and fiscal liberals that want their hands in the cookie jar appealing to that need for moral control over others.

Reply #29 Top

I'd still take the advice of an actual policy analyst over his any day.

Agreed.  Just one of the reasons we have civilian authority over the military - the military's job is execute the mission, not to determine the policy objective.  Without question, however, their experience can valuably inform the civilian decision-making process of arriving at an objective.  Much as I disagree with Clark's politics, his perspective on the military aspects of something like the Libya situation should not be rejected out of hand, but taken into consideration with that big grain of salt (potential conflict of interest or blinkered view).

Reply #30 Top

Quoting Scoutdog, reply 26
I suppose if he's retired that eliminates some of the massive conflict-of-interest, but I'd still take the advice of an actual policy analyst over his any day.

And policy analysts do not have a conflict of intrest? If it is like with economist then they are to support a position and were indoctrinated in what ever the prevaling ideology was when they were being educated (and it was based on politics rather than what is proven to be 'best' or even work).

Reply #31 Top

Quoting Daiwa, reply 29

I'd still take the advice of an actual policy analyst over his any day.

Agreed.  Just one of the reasons we have civilian authority over the military - the military's job is execute the mission, not to determine the policy objective.  Without question, however, their experience can valuably inform the civilian decision-making process of arriving at an objective.  Much as I disagree with Clark's politics, his perspective on the military aspects of something like the Libya situation should not be rejected out of hand, but taken into consideration with that big grain of salt (potential conflict of interest or blinkered view).

This. 

Reply #32 Top

Without question, however, their experience can valuably inform the civilian decision-making process of arriving at an objective.
I'd say more that they present a specific viewpoint, but also that their information or insight is not by any means unique. To use an analogy that will most definately be taken to mean more than it does, you don't have to have committed a felony to be an expert on crime.

Reply #33 Top

And policy analysts do not have a conflict of intrest? If it is like with economist then they are to support a position and were indoctrinated in what ever the prevaling ideology was when they were being educated (and it was based on politics rather than what is proven to be 'best' or even work).
Ideology is not technically the same as a conflict of interest. You can be biased or unbiased with or without a conflict of interest. COI just means that you have a personal connection to the issue that would potentially influence their ideology. You can get civilian analysts biased left, right, and center, but (retired) generals are, by virtue of being generals and thus personally connected, more likely to side with the military.

Reply #34 Top

To use an analogy that will most definately be taken to mean more than it does, you don't have to have committed a felony to be an expert on crime.

True.  But I'd say it helps.  In a criminal contest between a felon and a crime expert, the felon will be the safer bet.  There's a reason Frank Abagnale still makes good money.

Reply #35 Top

True. But I'd say it helps. In a criminal contest between a felon and a crime expert, the felon will be the safer bet. There's a reason Frank Abagnale still makes good money.
Good point. But of course, it's very possible for a civilian to be much more qualified, even ignoring the COI issue.

Reply #36 Top

It was a perfect chance to get rid of Ghadaffi once and for all. What would it have taken to set up some surgical air strikes to rattle Gadaffi into exile? Just another lost opportunity. Even more hilarious is how the Obama's will be sunning in Rio as Japan meltsdown into the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Obama plays golf and makes his hoops predictions while Japan turns radioactive and the Middle East burns.

Reply #37 Top

Quoting Scoutdog, reply 33
Ideology is not technically the same as a conflict of interest. You can be biased or unbiased with or without a conflict of interest. COI just means that you have a personal connection to the issue that would potentially influence their ideology. You can get civilian analysts biased left, right, and center, but (retired) generals are, by virtue of being generals and thus personally connected, more likely to side with the military.

Ideology in this case means they were trained to have a specific view that matched that which was politically 'in' at the time. Analyst exist to support a specific view rather than to actually have a good view of the subject. Even if they are not being paid to support one side or the other as that is how it is taught.

The point is, it is far better to find the facts and mke your own opinion that it is to listen to 'experts' when politics are involved.

Reply #38 Top

Quoting Anthony, reply 36
It was a perfect chance to get rid of Ghadaffi once and for all. What would it have taken to set up some surgical air strikes to rattle Gadaffi into exile? Just another lost opportunity. Even more hilarious is how the Obama's will be sunning in Rio as Japan meltsdown into the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Obama plays golf and makes his hoops predictions while Japan turns radioactive and the Middle East burns.

About the only thing to do about the power plant is to re-evaluate if we really want to build more nueclear power plants and if so should better standards of safety be enforced? And send aid after the fact of course.

Reply #39 Top

Ideology in this case means they were trained to have a specific view that matched that which was politically 'in' at the time. Analyst exist to support a specific view rather than to actually have a good view of the subject. Even if they are not being paid to support one side or the other as that is how it is taught.

The point is, it is far better to find the facts and mke your own opinion that it is to listen to 'experts' when politics are involved.
Well, that just brings up the question of whether "social sciences" can ever be objective...

But I'm more surprised by the fact that I just agreed with a full-fledged conservative.... this is kind of a first.

Reply #40 Top
Just curious: What's your definition of 'full-fledged'?
Reply #41 Top

If by some miracle the rebels can defend the two cities that are currently under siege (Misurata and Ajabiya. They seem to be doing a good job now but we'll see) and throw out Qaddafi without Western assistance, they will likely have a very bitter taste in their mouth and become anti Western, which we really do not need.

Here are some updates: Britain apparently has RAF and SAS squadrons on standby in Malta, an island close to Libya. Something is telling me that the UN Resolution fails, Britain and France will launch independent attacks on Qaddafi. They have been the ones pushing the no fly zone while Obama fills out his NCAA bracket.

Some people have been debating whether the no fly zone will be effective now. If it happens, Qaddafi will lose his planes, which have still been a major part of his army next to his artillery. Also, some Libyan Air Force pilots have defected to the rebels. Reports showed helicopters pounding loyalist postions, and there have been reports that a Libyan pilot decided to join the revolution mid patrol, and kamikazed his plane into a military compound, severly injuring two of Qaddafis sons and commanders of the Libyan Army.

As for Benghazi, the rebels say they will fight to the death. Almost everyone there allegedly has a gun and have been building fortifications. Qaddafi's supply lines are getting stretched thin in the eastern front. Rebels have captured supplies on ships and have sunk Loyalist navy ships.

Reply #42 Top

Well, you could help give a good start if you'd define what you mean by "the left."

That should have been your first question before you decided to create the strawman.

Nearly all the rhetoric I hear and read from 'your side

My "side"?  What is "My Side"?

hence our nation's deplorable public health situation

I wonder how the ALE ever got over 78 given that rhetoric.

Reply #43 Top

What frustrates me is the simplistic notion, perpetuated ad nauseum by much of what passes for the press here, that the 'correct' position, on virtually any issue, is somewhere in the 'middle' between 'right' and 'left', a view that is completely devoid of consideration of principle. Some of the more important things we tussle over in a representative republic are all or none propositions - you can't be 'slightly' pregnant; sometimes the 'opposing' views are quite incompatible and not subject to the kind of forced 'compromise' the press is so fond of.

Excellent points Daiwa!  Indeed, the compromise between the English Driving system and the American one is down the middle!  The press would love it!  But I doubt many people would.

There are right answers to some issues that can be found through empirical evidence.  Compromising with a "down the middle" approach when something is inherently wrong is no solution.  Burning half your money is not a compromise between burning none and burning it all.

And as you note in the final clause, there are some issues that there is no middle - just a between void.  One such issue is abortion.  Anyone believing that abortion is murder is not going to compromise and say "you can murder half of them" or "murder them all half way".  And those that do not believe it is murder are not going to agree to ban it on all women with names beginning A-M.

Reply #44 Top

The UN has just passed the No Fly Zone resolution. A bit late, but still. The early days of the uprising show that Qaddafi has no chance without his planes. The rebels took like 75% of the country before he unleashed his air force.

Reply #45 Top

Just curious: What's your definition of 'full-fledged'?
Not a self-identified centrist or libertarian. Many of those don't like to be called conservatives.



Excellent points Daiwa! Indeed, the compromise between the English Driving system and the American one is down the middle! The press would love it! But I doubt many people would.

There are right answers to some issues that can be found through empirical evidence. Compromising with a "down the middle" approach when something is inherently wrong is no solution. Burning half your money is not a compromise between burning none and burning it all.

And as you note in the final clause, there are some issues that there is no middle - just a between void. One such issue is abortion. Anyone believing that abortion is murder is not going to compromise and say "you can murder half of them" or "murder them all half way". And those that do not believe it is murder are not going to agree to ban it on all women with names beginning A-M.
Once again, I find myself agreeing with you.

The UN has just passed the No Fly Zone resolution. A bit late, but still. The early days of the uprising show that Qaddafi has no chance without his planes. The rebels took like 75% of the country before he unleashed his air force.
They can't enforce it without someone agreeing to pony up the planes. I doubt the smidgeon of peacekeeping troops they have could handle the job alone. As I've said before, the UN is designed to be an ineffectual body.

Reply #46 Top

Here's the thing: Why should we care?

For decades the Arabs have celebrated their dictators and supported their every move against Israel and the west (and against Africans). Suddenly they decide they don't like the dictators any more. Well, it's a bit late now.

Gaddafi is not worse than Erdogan. The Turkish government has killed more Kurds per year, including last year, than Gaddafi has killed Libyans. Al-Jazeera's numbers are ridiculously inflated. But Erdogan and Turkey are EU candidates and Gaddafi is evil? Why? Just one month ago Gaddafi was a member of the UN human rights council and was supposed to get an award for his human rights record. And now he is evil? He has killed before, all the time.

If the Arabs want a no-fly zone over Libya they should create one. Egypt can do that. If the rebels (or Gaddafi) want western help, they should openly tell us. Let THEM take the risk of declaring their loyalties first. That's how adults do it. It is time for the Arabs not to act like children and for the world not to treat them like children. The rebels in Libya could ask Egypt for help. Let the new Egypt make a decision. Then Egypt can ask Israel to supply aircraft, pilots, logistics etc.. The US and Europe have nothing to do with this. It's time for the Arabs to choose sides, not for the west.

So my proposal is simple: Let's do whatever they ask of us, but only if they ask and only if they ask openly.

Until then, let them do whatever they want and let them fight their celebrated dictators.

Also, most governments in the world and the UN should apologise for treating those very dictators as normal human beings for so many decades. But to switch from giving Gaddafi a human rights award to condeming him as an evil dictator within one month is ridiculous. Gaddafi is just unpopular now, but he is not worse than before and not worse than the others. He is only a lot more honest.

Shibber, shibber.

 

 

Reply #47 Top

Quoting GeneralEtrius, reply 44
The UN has just passed the No Fly Zone resolution. A bit late, but still. The early days of the uprising show that Qaddafi has no chance without his planes. The rebels took like 75% of the country before he unleashed his air force.

75% of his country is a void.  I think it is too late.  For now, Qaddafi has won.  There may be another opportunity in the future, but the UN action is again too little too late.

 

Reply #48 Top

75% of his country is a void. I think it is too late. For now, Qaddafi has won. There may be another opportunity in the future, but the UN action is again too little too late.

They're hearing shells and gunfire in Benghazi. Misurata amazingly hasn't fallen yet. There have been videos showing Qaddafi's tanks randomly shooting buildings. Explosions were heard in the capital Tripoli. Apparently the opposition is using bombs now.

This is a dark moment in the history of the West. We had one chance to make the Middle Eastern people like us by supporting their democracy movements, and we completely blew it.

The UN is ineffective and needs to be scrapped.

Reply #49 Top

middle east needs less sand, more glass.

 

mmm.... yeessss...

Reply #50 Top

That sort of "dumb American" attitude is what gives Al Qaeda a propaganda advantage.