Turmoil in Libya (2011) and post-Gaddafi blowback

[Edward Campbell]

France runs the risk of losing access to Libyan oil if Gaddafi holds on to power - and its clear the rebels are on the ropes. If NATO puts up a no fly zone, that is the only thing that would save the rebels. A likely result is Gaddafi holding power in the west and the rebels holding the eastern part of the country. Of course a wild card would be the Egyptian Army moving into Libya to make Libya part of Egypt - there is precedent for that.

Oil is a globally traded, fungible commodity - if Libyan oil is off the market then Nigerian or Venezuelan or Canadian oil is available. The price will go up but, with a tiny handful of exceptions, like Russia, those with oil to sell will get it to those with money to pay.

I think the division of Libya into (at least) two states, one under Egyptian 'protection,' is possible, even likely.

I doubt the US led West has either the will or the way to intervene in any useful way.

 

[GAP]

The "West" isn't going to intervene....The US has no vested interest, Europe does not have the gonads, the rest don't care.

 

[tomahawk6]

Libyan oil is sold to Europe. I guess France could make up any shortfall with Russian oil/gas.

 

[GAP]

This pretty much is spot on................

What the anti-war left sowed in Iraq, it is now reaping in Libya
Article Link
Jonathan Kay  Mar 11, 2011 – 2:52 PM ET

Eight years ago, on Feb. 15, 2003, protestors in as many as 60 countries took to the streets to oppose the then-imminent Iraq War. Total crowd estimates range as high as 30-million. In Rome alone, turnout was 3-million-strong, making it the biggest anti-war rally in history.

Those protestors didn’t stop the Iraq War. But they did help shape the overwhelmingly negative international response to it around the world. Though Iraq now is on the road to peace and democracy, and the American troop presence there is dwindling, leftists still insist that the campaign was a neo-imperialist “war for oil.” Europeans and Canadians, in particular, were appalled at the “unilateral” nature of the American action; and the issue caused a major schism within members of NATO.

It wasn’t until the election of Barack Obama in 2008 that trans-Atlantic relations were truly repaired. In fact, many of the leftists who voted for Mr. Obama did so precisely because they thought America needed a more conciliatory voice, and a more multilateral, less muscular approach, on the world stage.

Fast forward two years from Mr. Obama’s inauguration, and one can draw a straight line from this new “soft power” foreign policy to Washington’s paralysis over what to do in Libya, where the regime in Tripoli is waging scorched-earth warfare on the country’s rebel forces.

At this stage, it seems the only thing that can stop Col. Gaddafi’s rampaging forces is the sort of quick, unilateral military intervention that fell out of fashion after the Iraq War. But, having made a fetish of international law, multilateralism, and the Security Council’s moral authority in 2003, many world leaders — including, apparently, Mr. Obama — are afraid to act in 2011, lest a bloody or prolonged operation invite the familiar chorus of accusations involving oil, imperialism and Islamophobia.

In other words: What the humanitarian, anti-war left sowed in Iraq, it is now reaping in Libya.
end

 

[CougarKing]

The Libyan rebel leader pleads for a no-fly zone:

link

BENGHAZI, Libya - A rebel leader pleaded Saturday with the international community to approve a no-fly zone over Libya as Moammar Gadhafi's forces gained strength in the east, securing a key port city and oil refinery.

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the head of the opposition's interim governing council, also expressed disappointment over the failure to act by the United States and other Western countries, which have expressed solidarity with the rebels in their fight to oust Gadhafi but stopped short of approving any military action.

"If there is no no-fly zone imposed on Gadhafi's regime, and if his ships are not checked then we will have a catastrophe in Libya," Abdul-Jalil told The Associated Press in an interview.

Abdul-Jalil's comments came as the Arab League held an emergency meeting to discuss the possibility of imposing no-fly zone over Libya to protect the civilian population from the Gadhafi regime's fighter jets. But the Arab League's member states are divided over how to deal with the Libyan crisis, signalling it would be a tough debate.

The European Union, which has said any such decision would need sufficient diplomatic backing from the Arab League and other regional organizations, sent its foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, to Cairo for the meeting.

Another rebel commander, meanwhile, conceded defeat after pro-Gadhafi forces drove out pockets of fighters who had maintained a tenuous hold around oil facilities in Ras Lanouf, 380 miles (615 kilometres) southeast of the capital, Tripoli.

Gen. Abdel-Fattah Younis, who was the country's interior minister before he defected to the rebel side, acknowledged Saturday that Gadhafi's forces now control both the town and the oil refinery in Ras Lanouf.

The rebels had captured the city a week ago in a major victory as they pushed westward along the Mediterranean coastline toward Tripoli. Their retreat from the city reverses that advance and threatens other rebel positions in their eastern stronghold.
President Barack Obama said Friday the United States and the world community are "slowly tightening the noose" on the Libyan leader and will keep up the pressure. He would not, however, commit to intervening at any cost, warning of potential perils in military action. The U.S. and other Western powers have instituted sanctions, frozen assets and provided humanitarian aid.

The Obama administration has said a no-fly zone may have limited impact, and there is far from international agreement on it.

It would require U.S. and possibly allies' aircraft to first attack Libya's anti-aircraft defences, a move tantamount to starting war.

Gadhafi has warned the United States and other Western powers not to intervene, saying thousands in his country would die and "we will turn Libya into another Vietnam."

(...)

 

[MarkOttawa]

Terry Glavin lets loose:

Americans: Singes Mangeurs De Fromage (Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys).
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2011/03/americans-singes-mangeurs-de-fromage.html

How soon we have forgotten all the fun the Yanks had at the expense of the French, the maitre d'Axis Des Weasels. And this time around nobody is asking for anything even remotely like an Iraq-scale invasion, or an Afghanistan-like reconstruction and counterinsurgency effort. Nobody is asking for a rerun of the Punic Wars, or American "boots on the ground,' or shock, or awe. Still, the Handsome President cringes, even as the French say allons-y...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Eliot Cohen gives the great power view in the WSJ:

Washington's Dithering on Libya
Why are top defense and intelligence officials disparaging military action and publicly predicting Gadhafi's survival?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22New%20administrations%20anticipate%20foreign%20policy%22&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

New administrations anticipate foreign policy as if it will be baseball or football—a complicated team sport, bound by rules, at which they will succeed by dint of individual skill, clever plays and their all-knowing coach. They suit up, only to discover that their sport will be rafting on a uncharted river in full flood, filled with rocks and whirlpools, through which the frantic crew paddles in opposite directions.

Thus too the Obama administration. It came into office planning resets, nuclear zeroes and Israeli-Palestinian peace. It finds itself instead coping with a vast revolution of politics, society and thought in the Arab world—unforeseen and unforeseeable, fraught with opportunity and danger.

For the moment, the administration has survived several rapids—ditching Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak in some confusion and with embarrassing but not indecent haste; nudging the ruler of Bahrain into reform without quite pitching him overboard; and, thus far, avoiding a complete capsizing of the boat in Yemen.

But with regard to Libya it has made mistakes that could haunt this country for years to come. The administration prides itself on the president's unhurried deliberation, his reluctance to act before considering all the angles, his strategic silences and extended consultations. But steer a raft on a wild river that way, and you end up in the water.

From the outset there were three possible outcomes in Libya: Moammar Gadhafi could go quickly, he could go slowly, or he could stay. The best chance of helping him go quickly would have been an unambiguous declaration of intent to see him off, and the willingness to lead a military effort—most likely a no-fly zone—to help Libyan rebels overthrow his regime.

There was momentum a few weeks ago as one town after another fell to enemies of the regime. A stream of defections, betrayals and surrenders seemed to spell Gadhafi's doom. The time to intervene is when a small push can have the greatest psychological effect, even if military planners would prefer to do it only after orchestrating a three-week air-defense suppression campaign...

...The only question now is whether Gadhafi goes slowly, over months, or not at all. Senior American intelligence officials inconveniently observed the other day in front of Congress that the latter seems the likely outcome. What will happen if they are right?

The administration will have put itself in the position of willing the ends, but not the means—a humiliating position for a great power...

This is a disaster for the people of Libya. It is a moral and political calamity for a generation of Western leaders whose reactions to Rwanda and Srebrenica consisted of ineffectual squeaks of dismay. It may deflect the Arab awakening into directions that will horrify us. And it says dangerous things about American foreign policy. Unless it is reversed, the administration's Libya policy will convince the world that the U.S. is a feeble friend and an ineffectual foe, paralyzed by its own ambivalence.

Mr. Cohen teaches at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.
[ http://www.sais-jhu.edu/faculty/directory/bios/c/cohen.htm ]
He served as counselor of the State Department during the last two years of the George W. Bush administration.

Plus a lengthy presentation of the other view:

Gen. Wesley Clark says Libya doesn't meet the test for U.S. military action
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR2011031107048.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Start of a post at the CDFAI's 3Ds Blog:

The Indispensable Military?
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=139

Suppose one agrees that something military must be done in Libya regarding Col. Gadhafi.  It seems to me a telling, and sad, indicator of international realities that any such forceful action appears effectively impossible without considerable participation by US armed forces.

The Americans spend far more on defence, in total and per capita, than EU members.  Very many criticize the US, often severely, sometimes stridently, for what they judge an American obsession with military strength...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

There will be no intervention or Progressive "International Brigade" to save the day, so:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/13/what-if-qaddafi-wins/

What if Qaddafi Wins?
Michael J. Totten 03.13.2011 - 6:51 AM

If something doesn’t change soon, Muammar Qaddafi will kill his way back into power over all Libya’s territory. His forces are retaking rebel positions. The opposition is crumbling. And it looks like the United States and Europe will stand back and just let it happen.

This isn’t the first time an Arab tyrant has made a startling comeback after an uprising nearly swept him away. Saddam Hussein lost control of most of Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, but tens of thousands of dead bodies later, he was firmly and ruthlessly back in the saddle.

There are good arguments against getting involved. Not even the most hawkish interventionist would have chosen a war against Qaddafi a month ago. There aren’t many worse human-rights abusers out there, though there are some. And there are certainly countries where the West has more national interests at stake, the most obvious being Iran. But let’s not pretend there won’t be consequences beyond the shores of Tripoli if Qaddafi butchers his way back to Benghazi.

He’ll emerge meaner and more isolated than ever and hell-bent on revenge. We can forget about going back to the status quo ante when his relations with others were more or less “normal.” Whatever reluctance he felt against acting out will be eroded, if not lost entirely, now that he knows the West has little appetite to move against him, even when he is cornered and at his most vulnerable.

If the only Arab rulers to be deposed by revolution are the nominally pro-American “moderates,” while the mass-murdering state sponsors of terrorism hang on, change indeed will be coming to the Middle East and North Africa, but it won’t be the change we were hoping for. One thing, however, will not have changed an iota: the Middle East will be governed by violence just as it always has.

If the Caligula of North Africa survives by fighting to the death and prevailing, he will surely inspire the other hard rulers to take the same strategy, especially after the humiliating and mostly nonviolent defeats of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia’s Ben Ali. The killers of the resistance bloc — Iran’s Islamic Republic, Bashar al-Assad’s Baath Party in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza — won’t likely be overthrown by peaceful demonstrations but by massive internally  or externally driven wars.

 

[WingsofFury]

Just throwing this out there...

Arab League wants a No Fly Zone put in place for Libya.  Some countries in the Arab League have pretty decent air forces and could thus enforce a no fly zone over the Libyan skies.

Does anyone think that, if the UN authorizes the zone, that NATO should stay out of the area and let the countries of the Arab League enforce it?

Saudi Arabia - 166 F-15's, 87 Tornado IDS (ground attack), 24 Typhoon F3's
Jordan - 55 F-16's, 23 Mirage F1's
UAE - 79 F-16's, 68 Mirage 2000's

 

[Journeyman]

Washington's Dithering on Libya
Why are top defense and intelligence officials disparaging military action and publicly predicting Gadhafi's survival?

Because Libya does not matter to the US; Libyan oil matters to Italy and France...and we're getting gouged at the gas pumps despite our not importing Libyan oil....but geo-strategically, Libya does not matter.

Arab League wants a No Fly Zone put in place for Libya. 

...Saudi Arabia - 166 F-15's, 87 Tornado IDS (ground attack), 24 Typhoon F3's

The Saudis are focused on a problem, with actual strategic value to the west, on their door-step. With the Gulf Cooperation Council deploying troops to Bahrain, most of which are Saudi Arabian, they're unlikely to support any ops elsewhere. Stabilizing the Gulf region is a much greater concern just now.

 

[GAP]

Well, why doesn't Italy and France, who DO have war planes, just go in and help....oh....nevermind....I forgot that jets don't have reverse.....

 

[larry Strong]

Well, why doesn't Italy and France, who DO have war planes, just go in and help....oh....nevermind....I forgot that jets don't have reverse.....

Cause their governments don't have these:

 

[krustyrl]

:nod:

BaaaaZingggg.!

 

[sean m]

As we know there are some U.N countries who want to intervene with the conflict going on in Libya and others who do not want to intervene. These countries include; China,  Russia,  India, Germany, United  States ,  Iran

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8383630/Libya-G8-dismiss-military-intervention.html

It is impossible to fathom why  most of these supposedly democratic countries are unable to to have any desire to do anything while people are being blown up. Classic American Bull  ****  when they only intervene when it directly impacts them. The Germans know all too damn well what it takes to commit genocide.  Even if these countries dont intervene; The Brits and French seem willing to commit to some sort of action, I feel that Canada should help in this regard.

The Chinese and Russians have never cared about any other countries problems and are only interested in what is best for them  financially and in terms of other benefits . So they can they can go  back to their  lairs of  feces called "countries" and rot.  India is solely looking to advance their position so they can stay in the same position as the previous two countries. Iran is trying to act tough and make threats with no meaning to them.

Here  are some of the phrases included in this article which are aggravating
"We do not want to get sucked into a war in North Africa. We want to avoid any slippery slope in this direction,"  Guido Westerwelle, Germany's foreign minister

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, had a "private and candid" conversation with Mahmoud Jibril, a Libyan opposition representative,

There is a reference in another article which states the G8 member were conversing about the Libyan situation over lunch or some other meal time.

It is absolutely infuriating that these damn politicians have the time to have "candid" conversations and nice lunchtime meetings while their are innocent civilians dying in countless numbers in Libya. This is a horrendous scar against the human species if an atrocity like this occurs in this age and nothing is done about. These God Damn! countries need to stop blabbing and start saving lives!


This article states what could be a reason why China Russia and India do not want a  no fly zone. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Pull in your horns there buckwheat. This is not the fault of the US. Have you even read any of the other posts here. Go bust the UN's chops, or Europe's or the other ME and Asian countries.

People are so quick to condemn when they intervene and those same people are the first to bitch when the US doesn't do what you want.

Hypocrites make me sick.

 

[Edward Campbell]

As we know there are some U.N countries who want to intervene with the conflict going on in Libya and others who do not want to intervene. These countries include; China,  Russia,  India, Germany, United  States ,  Iran

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8383630/Libya-G8-dismiss-military-intervention.html

It is impossible to fathom why  most of these supposedly democratic countries are unable to to have any desire to do anything while people are being blown up. Classic American Bull  ****  when they only intervene when it directly impacts them. The Germans know all too damn well what it takes to commit genocide.  Even if these countries dont intervene; The Brits and French seem willing to commit to some sort of action, I feel that Canada should help in this regard.

The Chinese and Russians have never cared about any other countries problems and are only interested in what is best for them  financially and in terms of other benefits . So they can they can go  back to their  lairs of  feces called "countries" and rot.  India is solely looking to advance their position so they can stay in the same position as the previous two countries. Iran is trying to act tough and make threats with no meaning to them.

Here  are some of the phrases included in this article which are aggravating
"We do not want to get sucked into a war in North Africa. We want to avoid any slippery slope in this direction,"  Guido Westerwelle, Germany's foreign minister

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, had a "private and candid" conversation with Mahmoud Jibril, a Libyan opposition representative,

There is a reference in another article which states the G8 member were conversing about the Libyan situation over lunch or some other meal time.

It is absolutely infuriating that these damn politicians have the time to have "candid" conversations and nice lunchtime meetings while their are innocent civilians dying in countless numbers in Libya. This is a horrendous scar against the human species if an atrocity like this occurs in this age and nothing is done about. These God Damn! countries need to stop blabbing and start saving lives!


This article states what could be a reason why China Russia and India do not want a  no fly zone.

As I have explained, several times, China has a long standing policy of (almost) always opposing any foreign interference (which is what intervention is) in the "internal affairs" of other states. The basis for this pretty consistent Chinese policy (which they cheerfully violate, now and again, when it suits them) is that China rejects any and all "interference' (e.g. criticism) of Chinese "internal affairs' (e.g. human rights). But it is, thanks to its consistency, an intellectually defensible policy - which is rather more than one can say for the policies of Russia, India or America.

 

[aesop081]

It is impossible to fathom why  most of these supposedly democratic countries are unable to to have any desire to do anything while people are being blown up.

To the contrary, if one were to examin how the world actualy works, the reasons are very apparent.

Classic American Bull  ****  when they only intervene when it directly impacts them.

yes, blame the Americans. They started this after all......they must have. Shame on them.

The Germans know all too damn well what it takes to commit genocide.

It is tad early to invoke Godwin's law isn't it ?

I feel that Canada should help in this regard.

And do........what ?

The Chinese and Russians have never cared about any other countries problems and are only interested in what is best for them  financially and in terms of other benefits .

Like most other countries. Just like this one.

"We do not want to get sucked into a war in North Africa. We want to avoid any slippery slope in this direction,"  Guido Westerwelle, Germany's foreign minister

This is a valid concern. It is why i do not support Canadian involvement.

These God Damn! countries need to stop blabbing and start saving lives!

You need to step back and look at things with less emotion and more practicality.

For a HUMINT hopeful, you sure like to fly off the handle well before analyzing things.

 

[Journeyman]

You need to step back and look at things with less emotion and more practicality.

Comme d'habitude.....everyone's got opinions -- not everyone has informed opinions.

 

[sean m]

Pull in your horns there buckwheat. This is not the fault of the US. Have you even read any of the other posts here. Go bust the UN's chops, or Europe's or the other ME and Asian countries.

People are so quick to condemn when they intervene and those same people are the first to ***** when the US doesn't do what you want.

Hypocrites make me sick.

Sorry, But when innocent lives are on the line I feel that their should be no debating whether or not their should be an intervention. All these people want is to have the lives we have, yet they are dieing because of it. How would any of us feel if this were happening here to us, it is conceivable to realise the fear and anguish as well as anger these people must be feeling. You are absolutely right in terms of this crisis is not the fault of the Unites States. Yet the fact that they are the most powerful nation on earth has an impact on what military interventions are pursued.  All they would have to say is we support military intervention in Libya against this dictator. I feel this would encourage other nations to get involved as well. You are again absolutely right that the U.N. should be involved, which is why I feel the United States should publicly support military intervention. It is my belief this would put pressure on the U.N. to do something as well. Yet instead they choose not to support the innocent people, while they declare themselves to be a shining example of democracy. Every nation who does not commit to or encourage military action is at fault for what ever occurs. I feel this should be a joint nation endeavour which would promote the idea that injustice and dictatorship is no longer tolerated. It is my belief that if an intervention such as this were to occur, it could be huge for the region and any future popular uprising.  I believe that this conflict wouldn’t require the type of long term military action as in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is evident that war is never simple, yet with human rights abuses such as the one in Libya occur the need for war is ever more necessary. I feel it is the right and necessary thing to do.  I am not trying to sound like some delusional ass, I have traveled to parts of the world and seen truly what “real life” is like and this is my basis for my beliefs.  You as well as many individuals on the sight again have a huge amount of knowledge and again have contributed far more than me. It just seems that these governments are not looking at the human toll of this conflict. To many abuses of human rights have gone on unchecked in the past and present, Let us not make this another one.