• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Turmoil in Libya (2011) and post-Gaddafi blowback

GAP said:
pure bafflegab..... ::)


But the problem is that most of us, Canadians, get most of our information from the TV.* Now we may say that it is fortunate that only a handful of us actually watch CBC but Sunil Ram and people with similar 'qualifications' pop up on Global and CTV, too - and on the American networks upon which too many Canadians depend for most of their information.

I'm not slagging Ram, he may actually understand the various situations and he's almost certainly even right now and again - but rather better, on average, than a stopped clock, one hopes. But he, like Saint Stephen Staples and several others are 'experts' without "tested" (peer reviewed) qualifications.  One does not need to agree with a retired general in order to understand that (s)he has been "tested" in a highly competitive system and, like that system or not, has demonstrated a set of skills and knowledge that demand our attention. Folks like Ram and Staples, on the other hand, have pretty light resumes - light on documented, specialized credentials and accomplishments.

In my opinion we need more of the Douglas Blands** and if I want someone with no particular military experience (so he would be unbiased) I'll take a Marc Milner every time. Unfortunately, for Canadians, Profs. Bland and Milner and their ilk are, unlike Ram and Staples et al, busy people who cannot "down tools" and run to a TV studio whenever a network calls.


----------
*  According to data I have seen over the past several years
** Whose resume doesn't mention that he was, for several years, an armoured corps officer - with extensive field and staff experience
 
Mercenary Armies:

From BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12647115

About "2-300 men" from Kidal region in Mali, left about a week ago (to the date of March 4th) in "40 vehicles who are in southern Algeria waiting to cross the border into Libya." 

" 'They are being paid about $10,000 to join up and then I've heard they are being told that they will get $1,000 a day to fight,' the official said. "

Comment:

Can Gaddafi actually pay these mercenaries?  I thought most of his assets were frozen via the UN Sanctions?
Is it a miss-communication and/or has Gaddafi secured other funding and/or has a large enough stockpile of $ . . .?

This also in, SAS Captured by "Rebel Forces":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12658054

What are these diplomatic missions about?  I'd think it would be about business interests, resumption of oil production. . .?  Offers of help to keep the oil flowing. . .?

I also don't understand soaring gas prices, other than opportunists taking advantage of a situation?  I thought OPEC was about controlling the production to keep prices stable, respect of individual National interests-- couldn't they just ramp up production in other areas to compensate?  Did they?

There's probably some panic, there are large foreign contracts among other OPEC countries in Libya, including ourselves.  What else are the oil companies up to?  Making other deals with governments, BP to pay less compensation for the Gulf spill. . .?  I just don't like all the power they have, nonetheless we live with this.

Other mediating factor, obviously, the traders, marketplace.
 
OPEC can influence prices but they are set in the market by the iron laws of supply and demand. Demand is increasing at a helluva rate (look at car sales in India and China) and prices will, without fail, follow - unless, suddenly, miraculously, cold fusion works, or something like that.

Price fixing conspiracy theories are nonsense - wildly popular with a majority of Canadian but utter, complete, arrant nonsense all the same.
 
I'm not suggesting price fixing (but I believe it's possible that happens-- there's always some criminal activity, not policed sufficiently, we find out after the fact. . . Enron?. . .), but just the chaos that naturally happens in the marketplace, creating the reality, by panic, etc.

If OPEC can stabilize prices-- maybe all countries are maximizing production already?  But there is some on reserve. . .

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/opec-can-balance-for-libya-shortfalls-shell-ceo/127879/on

OPEC, short-term fixes, may still cause panic and stir.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7550

There are countries right now which can't transport their oil, while others still can in Libya, but it's said that's trailing off, but. . .

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/6906/Business/Economy/Libya-oil-ports-still-open-but-activity-tailing-of.aspx:

Libya oil ports still open but activity tailing off
Reuters, Thursday 3 Mar 2011
Export situation unclear as passenger ships get priority
Libyan oil port activity was tailing off on Thursday, but despite civil unrest tankers were still leaving and waiting to enter the country's ports, sources said on Thursday.

At least one empty tanker left a Libyan terminal on Thursday to take on cargo in Egypt, and at least two more tankers were waiting to enter Libyan ports.

The one million barrel capacity tanker Sanandaj, owned by the National Iranian Tanker Company (NIT) left the port of Benghazi empty on Thursday morning destined for Egypt's Sidi Kerir petroleum terminal in Alexandria to pick up cargo, a company spokesman said.

Another million barrel capacity tanker owned by NIT, the Sarv, was anchored outside the port of Tobruk on Thursday, waiting to enter Libyan oil company Agoco's Marsa El Hariga petroleum terminal, according to AIS Live ship tracking data on Reuters. It was not clear whether it was to take on cargo or offload.

A slightly smaller tanker was waiting to enter Libya's port of Mellitah in order to take on cargo, a shipping source said.

"The situation is very unclear; ports are theoretically open, but in practice they are almost closed because we are giving priority to passenger ships," a spokesman for the Libya Shipping & Maritime Agency in Tripoli said.

Despite this, at least 2.4 million barrels of crude oil in four tankers left Libyan ports earlier this week, shipping and trade sources said.

Forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi attacked the major oil export terminal of Marsa El Brega on Wednesday in the first sign of a counter-offensive by the leader in the rebel-controlled east, which rebels said they had repulsed.

As fighting continues across Libya, the oil industry is trying to assess the output lost, with outage estimates currently around 800,000 barrels per day (bpd).

Ongoing communications difficulties with phones and the internet in Libya led to some cargoes being cancelled this week, shipping sources said.

Shokri Ghanem, chairman of Libya's National Oil Corporation, said on Wednesday the country's oil output had fallen to 700,000 to 750,000 bpd due to the worst crisis for Libya's oil industry in decades.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/6906.aspx

I wonder about the SAS mission, the diplomats and Rebel forces. . . in Benghazi-- wouldn't they be trying to make deals with the Rebels for safe passage of their Country's oil companies . . .?   

 
Here is a case where an experienced journalist and commentator misread the situation in that he put 250 members of JTF2 on board HMCS Charlottetown en route to the Med. It seems he took the size of the crew for embarked troops. Now I don't know if any SOFCOM troops are on board, nor do I expect that anybody is going to tell me anytime soon.

The column from the Ottawa Sun is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

Libyans' fight, not ours
To stick our noses — and commandos — in uprising would be wrong

By Peter Worthington, QMI Agency

Last Updated: March 7, 2011 2:00am

Right now a Canadian warship — HMCS Charlottetown — is heading for the Mediterranean to join an allied flotilla off Libya.

It won’t get there until later this week and it is a precautionary gesture in case there are more crises in the area, requiring the evacuation (protection?) of stranded Canadians.

And to show solidarity with our allies.

The Charlottetown is a multi-role frigate and has one Sea King helicopter aboard (let's hope it works, if needed). So far, so good.

We are told there are also some 250 soldiers on board the ship. But not conventional soldiers, like the Princess Pats, RCR or Van Doos, but JTF 2 guys — so-called Special Forces, or Black Ops commandos.

One wonders why.

The public knows very little about JTF 2. It's a secret army within the army, and many are skeptical about the whole thing. We (the public) are told that in Afghanistan they went behind the lines and did dark deeds that cannot be publicized. Cloak and dagger stuff.

Is that what their role would be in Libya, if necessary?

One hopes not.

The very last thing Canada should be contemplating is putting soldiers on the ground in Libya. Let Libyans resolve their own future.

Yes, Moammar Gadhafi is a delusional despot whose time has run out. He's acting in character by not trying to escape, and odds are that his fate is to be torn apart by the mobs.

If so, let it happen.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged $5 million in humanitarian relief for Libya. That's a pathetic amount and merely a gesture that is not needed.

Libyans are not among the poorest of Arabs, and the Libyan uprising is not motivated by poverty or destitution, but because people are fed up with a comic book caricature like Gadhafi oppressing them.

Those who think western countries should be helping depose Gadhafi are wrong. We helped prop him up when he was on top, so it's both hypocritical and cowardly to now help get rid of him.

Let Libyans run their own revolution.

The U.S. is being careful. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton points out that we’ve no idea who is going to run Libya when (and if) Gadhafi is no more, or who's leading the charge.

It's not yet certain that Gadhafi will go. He's got imported fighters killing as many protesters as possible. (One hesitates to call them "mercenaries" because the true mercenary has a code that determines conduct; Gadhafi's supporters are more like thugs than soldiers).

Back to JTF 2 guys aboard the Charlottetown.

Is it anticipated that they may be required to infiltrate behind Libyan lines? One hopes not. If evacuating Canadians is the role, surely regular troops are better at that.

In Afghanistan, the JTF 2 (there is no JTF 1) were somewhat resented by other soldiers. No photographs are supposed to be taken of JTF 2 members, no interviews. They are supposedly anonymous and incognito. But they are recognizable by often being unshaven, wearing dark glasses, and wearing outfits that would get the sergeant major apoplectic if regular soldiers dressed that way.

When Jean Chretien was PM and briefly visited Canadian troops in Afghanistan, he had a bodyguard comprised of JTF 2. Did he really need protection from Canadian soldiers? It was kind of insulting to them.

Anyway, let's hope Gadhafi is history by the time the Charlottetown reaches Libya, and the only thing JTF 2 has to worry about is sunburn.

 
kstart said:
...
I wonder about the SAS mission, the diplomats and Rebel forces. . . in Benghazi-- wouldn't they be trying to make deals with the Rebels for safe passage of their Country's oil companies . . .? 


Libyan oil, according to recent data goes here:

2011%20Oil%20Exports%20by%20Destination.gif

72% of Libya's oil goes to Europe, but the UK, which has its own oil, gets a fairly small amount.
 
Not an expert in Naval capability, but I think one of our Frigate would be pretty crowded if it had its full compliment of sailors and an extra 250 embarked troops, JTF2 or not.
 
The major issue with oil is while demand fluctuates quickly, supply is relatively fixed.

I'm talking the sort of supply you as the end consumer needs, refined fuels and petroleum products. In Ontario, there are only 4 refineries, so no matter how much crude oil there is (and there is actually lots, new fields like the Bakken in Saskatchewan and North Dakota are coming on line, and new technologies like "frakking" are increasing yeilds from old fields), there is a limited throughput of refined product. In the US, heavy and complex environmental regulations have discouraged the building of new refineries for more than 30 years, so not only is throughput fixed, but creaky old refineries break down and throttle supply of refined fuel.

Your local gas station has a fixed supply of fuel (the environmentally friendly tanks cannot be rapidly upgraded or replaced with bigger ones), so when demand increases on weekends and holidays, the gas station cannot increase supply to meet demand (unlike a grocery store which can shuffle stock on shelves, place bins on the floor etc.)

And as Edward says, we are involved in a market where decisions made in Shanghai or Madras can affect us at the speed of light.

Fix this end of the problem, and see how prices change.

 
E.R. Campbell said:
Libyan oil, according to recent data goes here:

2011%20Oil%20Exports%20by%20Destination.gif

72% of Libya's oil goes to Europe, but the UK, which has its own oil, gets a fairly small amount.

NOW I see why our gas prices jumped $.12 in less than a week.  It's because the non existent oil Canada imports from the Middle East is under threat.  Best excuse available, I suppose.
 
Dissident said:
Not an expert in Naval capability, but I think one of our Frigate would be pretty crowded if it had its full compliment of sailors and an extra 250 embarked troops, JTF2 or not.

Yea, I would have to agree. I'm pretty sure he meant 250 total on board.
 
There is some Canadian Oil interests in Libya:


Petro Canada (now merged with Suncor) signed a 1 billion dollar signing bonus over to Gaddafi, in exchange for 30 year contract in oil exploration.

Terms of the agreement here: http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/06/08TRIPOLI498.html


Libya also threated to nationalize Canadian oil:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/libyas-gadhafi-threatened-to-nationalize-petro-canadas-operations-wikileaks-114979969.htm
 
If by any chance this passed, how much would/could the UK and France contribute to what would have to be a US-dominated operation (I would think).  And would/could Canada contribute say 6-12 CF-18s?

Britain, France ready Libya no-fly zone resolution
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gjK-uTaUi4eIZffTsS13LCaFVYQw?docId=CNG.49104d077a72cbffeafe9d3689e92793.af1

UNITED NATIONS — A British-French resolution demanding a no-fly zone over Libya could go before the UN Security Council as early as this week, diplomats said Monday.

While Moamer Kadhafi's offensive against rebels is intensifying, any demand for military action would set off a new diplomatic battle at the Security Council.

Anticipating opposition, Britain's foreign minister has insisted that there must be "a clear legal basis" for the zone and set other conditions.

"You should expect something on Libya this week," one UN diplomat told AFP on condition of anonymity, confirming that France and Britain are drawing up a resolution. "There is a feeling of urgency now."

"There are elements of a text ready which can be distributed to the council. It could well be this week," said a British diplomat.

Britain and France have made the most aggressive calls among Western powers for a no-fly zone to hamper Kadhafi's offensive. The United States has said it is studying the possibility while warning of the major military operation it would entail.

The UN Security Council unanimously passed sanctions against the Kadhafi regime and ordered a crimes against humanity investigation on February 26. Any new move toward military action is likely to face tough resistance from China, Russia and other members of the 15 however.

Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague said the Libyan rebels had "explicitly" asked for action to prevent Kadhafi's air attacks but that "many conditions should be attached" to any no-fly zone.

"At the UN Security Council we are working closely with partners on a contingency basis on elements of a resolution on a no-fly zone, making clear the need for regional support, a clear trigger for such a resolution and an appropriate legal basis," Hague told the British parliament...

Arab League secretary general Amr Mussa supported a no-fly zone when he spoke to French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe in Cairo on Sunday, French foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said in Paris.

The six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council also released a statement on Monday backing a no-fly zone.

Strong support from Arab and African nations helped sway Russia, China and others behind the assets freeze and travel ban against Kadhafi and 15 other members of his family and regime.

Russia and China, which traditionally oppose military sanctions, may resist stronger measures so soon after the last vote, diplomats and experts said...

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov last week called the no-fly zones "superfluous" and said international powers should concentrate on the existing sanctions.

"We do not consider foreign and especially military intervention a means to resolve the crisis in Libya," Russian news agencies quoted Lavrov as saying Monday. "The Libyans must resolve their problems themselves."

China's foreign ministry also indicated last week that it was cool to military action.

India, also a member of the Security Council, has opposed no-fly zones, though diplomats said it could be swayed if the Libya fighting worsens.

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
If by any chance this passed, how much would/could the UK and France contribute to what would have to be a US-dominated operation (I would think).  And would/could Canada contribute say 6-12 CF-18s?

Britain, France ready Libya no-fly zone resolution
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gjK-uTaUi4eIZffTsS13LCaFVYQw?docId=CNG.49104d077a72cbffeafe9d3689e92793.af1
...
Russia and China, which traditionally oppose military sanctions, may resist stronger measures so soon after the last vote, diplomats and experts said...

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov last week called the no-fly zones "superfluous" and said international powers should concentrate on the existing sanctions.

"We do not consider foreign and especially military intervention a means to resolve the crisis in Libya," Russian news agencies quoted Lavrov as saying Monday. "The Libyans must resolve their problems themselves."

China's foreign ministry also indicated last week that it was cool to military action.

India, also a member of the Security Council, has opposed no-fly zones, though diplomats said it could be swayed if the Libya fighting worsens.

Mark
Ottawa


This will be a conundrum for China. It traditionally, and for its own good reasons, opposes any actions that interfere with the internal affairs of any UN member. But their interests in Africa might make then change their minds if, and it's a big Big IF, most African countries want military intervention.
 
Meanwhile Tom Ricks
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/99510/post-1023552.html#msg1023552

is now convinced in favour of a more, er, robust, US policy:

What Obama needs to do with Libya -- and with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, today
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/07/what_obama_needs_to_do_with_libya_and_with_the_joint_chiefs_of_staff_today

Mark
Ottawa
 
Arab League secretary general Amr Mussa supported a no-fly zone when he spoke to French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe in Cairo on Sunday, French foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said in Paris.

The six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council also released a statement on Monday backing a no-fly zone.

So, once again the world calls upon "The Great Satan", the "European Colonial Powers" and "Self-Interested, Interventionalist West" to step in and solve the internal problems of a troubled country.  And when Western forces are in the country two years from now trying to keep rival tribes from eachother's throats and trying to build democratic institutions who will be the bad guys that get the blame for trying to impose their will on an "occupied" nation or for trying to gain control of their valuable natural resources?

How quickly could the problem of Libyan Air Force strikes be solved by the Egyptians or Saudis supplying the rebel forces with some shoulder-fired AA missiles and trainers?  Send them some AT missiles to blunt the counter-attacks by pro-Gadaffi armoured forces?  Much easier to ask "Big Brother" to do the work...and take the blame for any fallout.

 
The National Post editorial board is prepared to fight to the last European. Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

National Post editorial board: NATO should prepare for war in Libya

March 8, 2011 – 8:00 am

Pressure is growing for Western nations to intervene militarily in Libya’s emerging civil war. As we noted in an editorial published on Thursday — and as the embarrassing capture of a contingent of British special-forces troops over the weekend shows — there are good reasons to be wary about such a campaign. But Muammar Gaddafi’s apparent willingness to exterminate large numbers of his citizens in recent days has served to marginalize such concerns: Whatever the risks that attend military intervention, we must not permit a North African Srebrenica.

A first step for NATO nations would be to impose a no-fly zone over rebel areas in order to shield protestors and revolutionary soldiers from Col. Gaddafi’s air power. If we cannot bring ourselves to do even that, the West risks having no friends in whatever government replaces Col. Gaddifi’s. We also risk losing credibility in the larger Arab and Muslim worlds for our unwillingness to enforce the humanitarian principles we claim to hold dear.

The British and French governments have called for the imposition of no-fly rules. But both nations also have insisted on seeking approval in advance from the UN Security Council. Such a gesture would be useless: Neither China nor Russia — both veto-wielding Security Council members, and both guilty of their own human-rights violations — would permit any such resolution to pass. A more realistic approach would be to ask NATO’s council to authorize military action. This would mirror the approach taken in 1999, when the NATO bombing campaign against Serbian forces in Kosovo was performed without UN authorization.

The heavy lifting associated with the no-fly mission should be performed by Italy, France, Germany and Spain — which, collectively, import 90% of Libya’s oil exports. Britain, too, has a well-established trade relationship with Libya. It is in these countries’ interests to remove Col. Gaddafi as quickly as possible and stabilize the country around a new government. There are roles for Canada, the United States and other Western nations, too. Even as the Canadian air force seeks to acquire a controversial new multi-purpose fighter jet, our old CF-18s are more than a match for anything the Libyans have to throw up against them.

In the best case scenario, NATO will not have to fire a single shot or scramble a single aircraft — because Libyans will end Gaddafi’s cruel tyranny all by themselves. But failing that, we cannot stand by and permit a Libyan genocide to unfold.

 
Old Sweat said:
.... But failing that, we cannot stand by and permit a Libyan genocide to unfold.


Why not? We've done it (stood by while a genocide unfolded) plenty of times in past. What, besides oil for Italy, makes Libya so bloody special? Something needs to stir up the Arab, North African, West Asian and, especially, the East Asian Muslims to throw off the shackles of Saudi financed fundamentalism and have a nice little reformation. Maybe a bit of internecine killing will do the trick.
 
Some good points from Roger Cohen:

Libyan Closure
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08iht-edcohen08.html

LONDON — There’s a video of Dr. Alia Brahimi of the London School of Economics greeting Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi as “Brother Leader” at the school three months ago, and presenting him with an L.S.E. cap — a tradition, she says, that started when the cap was handed to Nelson Mandela.

It may be possible to sink to greater depths but right now I can’t think how.

Sir Howard Davies, the director of the L.S.E., had the decency to resign over the school’s financial links to Qaddafi and his own misjudgments. If only the L.S.E. were an isolated case. The Arab Spring is also a Western Winter.

I’m glad the United States and Europe have gotten behind the Bahrain-to-Benghazi awakening. But I’ve not heard enough self-criticism.

Hearings should be held in the U.S. Congress and throughout Western legislatures on these questions: How did we back, use and encourage the brutality of Arab dictators over so many years? To what degree did that cynical encouragement of despots foster the very jihadist rage Western societies sought to curb?..

...you have the Cairo-Tripoli axis. They were useful, Mubarak and Qaddafi, for intelligence and renditions and a cold Israeli peace in the case of the Egyptian; for oil and gas in the case of the Libyan. They were also killers.

Disappear is a transitive verb for dictators. That’s what they do to foes, disappear them in the night for questioning that becomes a nameless forever...

There are many reasons I oppose a Western military intervention in Libya: the bitter experience of Iraq; the importance of these Arab liberation movements being homegrown; the ease of going in and difficulty of getting out; the accusations of Western pursuit of oil that will poison the terrain; the fact that two Western wars in Muslim countries are enough.

But the deepest reason is the moral bankruptcy of the West with respect to the Arab world. Arabs have no need of U.S. or European soldiers as they seek the freedom that America and the European Union were content to deny them. Qaddafi can be undermined without Western military intervention. He cannot prevail: Some officer will eventually make that plain...

It really is quite remarkably repulsive that Western countries were sucking up like crazy to the Col. until just the other day--and are now leaping over each other to condemn him (they all knew what he was like) and demand that he go.

Mark
Ottawa

 

 
Back
Top