The commentators are agonising over the legal terms of UNSC 1973, which underpins the terms of the UN intervention in Libya.
Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian argues that the Allies should stop when Gaddafi's forces should not be attacked unless they are actively threatening the people.
This is a recipe for Gaddafi to play a cat and mouse game, stopping until the Allies stand down, then starting again, provoking more Allied action, then stopping, over and over. This is clearly impractical, but consistent with a literal reading of 1973.
Clearly, the intent of the resolution is to stop all threat to the Libyan population. If Gaddafi were to be left in power over Libya, the people would be at risk from his revenge. If Libya should be partitioned, the revolutionaries in his Western portion would suffer.
Therefore the intent of 1973 will only be implemented if Gaddafi leaves Libya. Which means that the Allies must enable the revolutionaries to win.
One powerful tool to this end that has not yet been deployed is for us to block Gaddafi's TV transmission.
The second is to facilitate the exile of Gaddafi, his family and friends to Uganda or somewhere.
Unfortunately, the third tool is to give arms (specifically, anti-tank missiles) to the rebels. This sticks in my craw, but it follows logically from the general argument, that Gaddafi must go.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Whoah...
no fly zone becomes preventing harm to civilians becomes targeting government military vehicles becomes supplying weapons becomes...?
The aim was to prevent harm to civilians and was sold as that to me. Unfortunately, we clearly have a civil war with 'half' the country behind the government and 'half' not. Are you telling me that you now wish 'us' to arm the 'rebels' and assist them until the Mad Colonel is gone?. He may be barking, but many barking tyrants have had large swathes of the population that actually supported them. The tribal and clannish nature of the country makes the action fraught with danger and unpredictability. We'll lose the little arab support that we have and goodness knows where it will lead.
If the politicians doublespeak on the resolution and twist it to their own ends it will be as bad as Blair and his Iraq shenanigans IMHO. Yes, weasel words will make it say what suits, but it's clear what it means to most people.
Know your rights: "no fly zone becomes preventing harm to civilians becomes targeting government military vehicles becomes supplying weapons becomes...?"
Yes, Richard has come a long way.
He would probably benefit from a close reading of Luttwak's classic, 'Strategy: the Logic of War and Peace': "In the realm of strategy, therefore, a course of action cannot persist indefinitely. It will tend to evolve into its opposite, ... "
Oh dear, the logic of the 'general argument' permits no other consequence, eh Richard?
KYR: "Unfortunately, we clearly have a civil war with 'half' the country behind the government and 'half' not".
RL: You have bought the picture being pushed by the Western mainstream media.
This is not a civil war, it is a revolution against a tyranny that is using its oil money to pay mercenaries - and now, we learn, regular soldiers from Chad - to wage war on the will of the people. It is not half and half. There is a clear majority who seek to overthrow G. He maintains his hold on his supporters, who are either on his payroll, or duped by his State TV. Which is why we are so persistent in calling for its closure.
KYR: The tribal and clannish nature of the country makes the action fraught with danger and unpredictability.
RL: another TV pundit meme.
Here is the counter argument
I stand by my central argument, that Gaddafi must lose, otherwise all dictators will follow his example when challenged. Arming the rebels is a regrettable step, but seems necessary in the present circumstances. It would have been less necessary if the Allies had cut his TV broadcasts weeks ago, and this is still a viable option.
The only other option - unlikely, I admit, but still worth considering - is a ceasefire to enable humanitarian aid and talks. The talks would be about Gaddafi's exile and a referendum in the country. Challenging to get a fair referendum, the organisation would have to be run by the UN.
NSB: Yes, the principle that Gaddafi must be defeated leads to arming the rebels.
I respect your opinion if you are a total pacifist. Are you? Or would you see things differently were Gaddafi a right wing autocrat instead of an idiosyncratic "socialist"?
NSB: Interesting that Luttwak is your authority, is an agent "one who carries out field operations, extraditions, arrests, interrogations (never, he insists, using physical violence), military consulting and counterterrorism training for different agencies of the U.S., foreign governments and private interests".
War puts us all in strange positions.
Fine.
But this isn't the resolution as sold to me, the public, or as discussed in the house of commons. There was nothing there about arming one group so that they could (hopefully) defeat the other.
It's rotten, I could see it coming and it's no better than Blair lying to me about Iraq. At least you might say that you agree with supplying weapons while also acknowledging that it wasn't what was going to happen initially and wasn't what was sold to me, the Arab League or the British public.
I wonder where we're heading... there's no turning back the clock when this sort of thing goes wrong.
KYR, the post discussed the spirit andthe letter. Pundits on the corporate media are agonising over it.
Let's take it step by step.
1 The people will only be safe ("protected") when G is gone.
Do you agree with this statement?
If not, any subsequent debate will be confused.
But we all KNOW what was meant by the resolution. The rest is all after the fact and like I say, it stinks to me.
I disagree with your statement and it is my opinion that it IS a civil war. Doc, you didn't address what I posed to you... can you acknowledge that you agree with supplying weapons while also acknowledging that it wasn't what was going to happen initially and wasn't what was sold to me, the Arab League or the British public?
Should we become more involved if G isn't driven out soon?
Who are the rebels? Parts of western Libya are reportedly heavy suppliers of Taliban fighters etc.
Will this be another Afghanistan 1980-style cock up where we end up building up some very undesirable people that will take Libya backwards?
KYR: I disagree with your statement and it is my opinion that it IS a civil war.
RL: OK, you say it is a civil war, we say it is a revolution against an illegitimate dictator who is using foreign mercenaries and regular troops (Chadian)
There is little point in debating the definitions. The point is what action to take in bringing it to a speedy conclusion.
KYR: you agree with supplying weapons while also acknowledging that it wasn't what was going to happen initially and wasn't what was sold to me, the Arab League or the British public?
RL: my post is about the spirit and letter of 1973, and how the logic of protection leads us to help the revolution to win. By all means. Huge regret that the Allies are so slow in shutting LibyanStateTV (have you written to your mP yet, KYR? If not, why not?) and now also, in supplying weapons capable of knocking out tanks.
KYR: Should we become more involved if G isn't driven out soon?
RL: specific action that needs to be taken: 1 TV 2 UN pressure on Chad &c 3 anti tank weapons 4 ceasefire, talks re G removal, humanitarian aid.
KYR: Who are the rebels? Parts of western Libya are reportedly heavy suppliers of Taliban fighters etc.
RL: Here you show you have been unduly influenced by an unholy alliance of Gaddafi's propaganda, aided and abetted by the paranoid American Right who have an infestation of AlQuaeda under their beds.
Yes there are a few AQ fighters. Hopefully they will run successful suicide missions against Gaddafi's tanks.
KYR: you agree with supplying weapons while also acknowledging that it wasn't what was going to happen initially and wasn't what was sold to me, the Arab League or the British public?
RL: my post is about the spirit and letter of 1973, and how the logic of protection leads us to help the revolution to win. By all means.
And that folks, in an nutshell is politics. You should have mentioned at the time that 'anything goes' to get rid of him. Even someone as thick as me would have understood that's what you were advocating, if needed.
Thanks for assuming that I am misled by American propoganda (despite my use of the word 'reportedly'), while nothing can colour or distort your view - it's something the middle classes are very good at (see, I can do that sort of thing too) I've read as much Chomsky etc as the next person and I reserve the right to remind you of what I posted at a future date...
I was wrong to say "By all means". We should not use DU munitions or cluster bombs for instance.
We should use all non violent means, such as blocking Libya State TV, pressing Chad to withdraw its regular and mercenary troops, giving the revolutionaries cell phones, and so on.
Militarily, the rebels need to take a defensive posture. But that leads to a stalemate, and the continued siege of Misrata &c. Things are really dire there.
If stalemate, then ceasefire, humanitarian relief and talks. Talks unlikely to be v productive, but you never know. Could result in Gaddafi's exile. Saif al Islam seems to thing he could stay on. Unacceptable to Libyan people.
I dream of a referendum on the future of Libya, but that's probably just a dream, because emotions are running too high. Too much adrenaline and testosterone in the air. Which leads on to a second dream: both sides agree to lay down lethal weapons, and putting it to a trial of strength. For instance, a serial wresting tournament.
The point is that the most populous side (i.e. the free Libyans) would win because no matter how good they were, the Gaddafists would get knackered sooner or later. Sooner is more likely, given the enthusiasm and courage of the rebels.
Given that these ideas would be laughed out of court, we are left with a war, which Gaddafi must not win. Therefore it is the UN's role to see to it that the war is played on a level playing field. Logically that means providing the rebels with anti-tank missiles.
Or, come to think of it, plans to create
tank wrecking robots.
How will I know it's really you posting at a later date?
RL: "I was wrong to say "By all means". We should not use DU munitions or cluster bombs for instance."
Glad to see a person stop digging when they're in a hole, but I can't see du munitions and cluster bombs not being used in this civil war. Best option now, I think, is a ceasefire.
Btw, your suggestion of settling the matter with a serial wrestling tournament is as unhinged as your General Tea Break proposal as a tactic to defeat the U.K. cuts, and you proposed that after having supported a party proposing "savage cuts"!
With regard to Libya you seem to be retreating from a neo-con position to the ridiculous. Perhaps you'll declare it was all a joke anyway.
NSB
You are beginning to exhibit troll-like characteristics.
You cannot see DU and cluster being used. You are not prepared to bring any pressure to prevent it, just shouting from the sidelines.
I'm going to concentrate on trying to reach the decision makers.
RL: "You cannot see DU and cluster being used."
That is the reverse of what I said.
Now that mission creep has occurred and Cameron, Obama and Sarkosy are pressing for regime change will you still be insisting, perhaps with letters to MPs and a facebook campaign, that: "... it is the UN's role to see to it that the war is played on a level playing field." ?
I want to see the dictator gone and Libya at peace.
What do you want?
Post a Comment