The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[alf_stewart]

I blame Ed Miliband.

And his brother, Roger Milla-band.

[drat01]

One of the scariest cartoons I ever saw was Gadaffi Duck

[peterms]

I do feel that amongst all the media talk of a no fly zone there is little emphasis on the fact that this is an intervensionist strategy, ie required direct aggressive actoins, and not simply a passive one where we fly around telling the gadaffi boys to get out of the sky.

This is a first step, once you start bombing gadaffi's supporters you have to carry through - what is the alternative exit strategy.

What I think has been proposed in terms of the "no-fly-zone" option is reducing Gadaffi's capacity to bomb the rebel areas.

That would mean bombing the anti-aircraft installations (rather than his supporters), probably some planes as well, and then being prepared to intervene if he launched airborne attacks against the rebel forces.

I don't see anyone arguing that this should carry through to an invasion. It's more of a holding the ring option, though undoubtedly massively aggressive in the form it takes.

The exit strategy is that you don't continue after having enforced a no-fly zone. The complication is that the rebel forces will probably ask for more support after that.

[Gringo]

That would mean bombing the anti-aircraft installations (rather than his supporters)

I would guess those installations may occassionally be manned and therefore bombing them risks a quite high probability of bombing 'his supporters'. Once the west start killing libyans, the game changes. And as you say, once you start you get dragged in, and so what is the exit strategy?

[peterms]

That would mean bombing the anti-aircraft installations (rather than his supporters)

I would guess those installations may occassionally be manned and therefore bombing them risks a quite high probability of bombing 'his supporters'. Once the west start killing libyans, the game changes. And as you say, once you start you get dragged in, and so what is the exit strategy?

By supporters, I don't mean the armed forces, I mean we wouldn't be bombing civilians. Yes, any action against Libyan arms or positions will kill some Libyans, but to me "supporters" means people other than those who are ordered or contracted to fight for him. I see a difference between small numbers of targetted killings and larger numbers of indiscriminate killings (I am Jack Straw, and I claim my £5).

The exit strategy for me would be about drawing clear lines about what we would and wouldn't do. No-fly vs ground invasion is a clear one, but in practice most issues won't lend themselves to that degree of clarity.

You can distinguish two things, at least. What should we do regardless of who wins, and what should we do if it seems we have the capacity to play a decisive role and if what we reasonably regard as a majority want us to.

Regardless of who wins, we should try to minimise the death toll. That seems like common sense, though the ways of doing it will be more controversial.

And if we can play a decisive part, like if the rebels seem like being able to take Tripoli but need assistance with various things to do that, the go ahead.

There is always the possibility that what seemed like "home for christmas" will turn out to be a long nightmare, but that doesn't remove our right, in fact duty, to take a view on what we should and shouldn't do. And among what we shouldn't do is fail to take a view because it's messy.

[snowychap]

Are they still our buddies?

Saudi Arabia imposes ban on all protests

All protests and marches are to be banned in Saudi Arabia, the interior ministry has announced on state TV.

Its statement said security forces would use all measures to prevent any attempt to disrupt public order.

The announcement follows a series of protests by the kingdom's Shia minority in the oil-producing eastern province.

Last month, King Abdullah unveiled a series of benefits in an apparent bid to protect the kingdom from the revolts spreading throughout many Arab states.

"Regulations in the kingdom forbid categorically all sorts of demonstrations, marches and sit-ins, as they contradict Islamic Sharia law and the values and traditions of Saudi society," the Saudi interior ministry statement said.

It added that police were "authorised by law to take all measures needed against those who try to break the law".

The protests in the Eastern Province - where much of the country's crude oil is sourced - have been demanding the release of prisoners who demonstrators say have been held without trial.

The announcement of the crackdown on protests follows the return, last week, of King Abdullah to the capital after an absence of several months due to illness.

He unveiled an additional $37bn (£22.7bn) in benefits for citizens, including a 15% pay rise for state employees, as well as extra funds for housing, studying abroad and social security.

[Gringo]

Well as long as we're still supplying weapons to them, then yes, they're our buddies. When the shit hits the streets we'll want to arm their opponents.

Oh hindsight is wonderful. Who could have guessed these authoritarian corrupt regimes were corrupt or authoritarian but we continued to feed them arms to defend them from........whom exactly?

The west should hang it's collective head in shame.

[snowychap]

Shame? The west?

Surely that's pinko anti-imperialist guilt talk?

[Gringo]

To be fair, the west were arming them to stop the pinkos arming them - the original never ending war for peace.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I see special forces turned up in Benghazi through the back door and found themselves detained for a bit, what on earth happened there?

[Gringo]

In the spirit of the Spanish Civil War, the govt should offer passage and succour to those willing to fight for freedom and democracy as opposed to direct intervention.

[peterms]

I see special forces turned up in Benghazi through the back door and found themselves detained for a bit, what on earth happened there?

Recent account here.

It sounds like they failed to brief the Ambassador ("I didn't know how they were coming"), or advise the rebel forces, but just flew a helicopter into a war zone, with a handful of men with false passports, weapons and reconnaissance equipment.

Perhaps Hague is trying for a more macho approach, having been criticised for being slow to act, but it does sound a bit more like a stunt than a serious attempt to meet rebel leaders. And it seems to have ended in a quite humiliating manner, being packed off out of the country with a reprimand.

A British diplomatic effort to reach out to Libyan rebels has ended in humiliation as a team of British special forces and intelligence agents left Benghazi after being briefly detained.

The six SAS troops and two MI6 officers were seized by Libyan rebels in the eastern part of the country after arriving by helicopter four days ago. They left on HMS Cumberland, the frigate that had docked in Benghazi to evacuate British and other EU nationals as Libya lurched deeper into conflict. The diplomatic team's departure marked a perfunctory end to a bizarre and botched venture.

"I can confirm that a small British diplomatic team has been in Benghazi," said William Hague, the foreign secretary. "The team went to Libya to initiate contacts with the opposition. They experienced difficulties, which have now been satisfactorily resolved. They have now left Libya."

Audio of a telephone conversation between the UK's ambassador to Libya, Richard Northern, and a senior rebel leader was later leaked.

Northern suggested in the call that the SAS team had been detained due to a misunderstanding.

The rebel leader responded: "They made a big mistake, coming with a helicopter in an open area."

Northern said: "I didn't know how they were coming."

Despite the failure of the mission, Hague indicated that Britain would continue to try to make contact with the opposition.

"We intend, in consultation with the opposition, to send a further team to strengthen our dialogue in due course," he said. "This diplomatic effort is part of the UK's wider work on Libya, including our ongoing humanitarian support. We continue to press for Gaddafi to step down and we will work with the international community to support the legitimate ambitions of the Libyan people."

According to Guardian sources, the British intelligence and special forces unit were caught near the al-Khadra Farm Company, 18 miles (30km) south-west of Benghazi. A senior member of Benghazi's revolutionary council said: "They were carrying espionage equipment, reconnaissance equipment, multiple passports and weapons. This is no way to conduct yourself during an uprising.

"Gaddafi is bringing in thousands of mercenaries to kill us, most are using foreign passports and how do we know who these people are?

"They say they're British nationals and some of the passports they have are British. But the Israelis used British passports to kill that man in Dubai last year."

Rebel leaders said claimed the captives had been treated well and would be released as soon as the British government vouched for their identity with the rebel command.

The news follows Sunday Times claims that an SAS unit was being held by rebel forces it had approached in an attempt to open up diplomatic channels to opponents of Muammar Gaddafi.

Whitehall sources said on Friday it needed to learn more about the leadership of the anti-Gaddafi forces and find out what logistical support they needed, but would not give arms to the rebels, as an international arms embargo was in place.

British officials during the day declined to comment on reports that special forces were being held but defended the objective of the mission.

The defence secretary, Liam Fox said: "It is a very difficult situation to be able to understand in detail. There are a number of different opposition groups to Colonel Gaddafi in Libya who do seem relatively disparate. We want to clearly understand what the dynamic is here because we want to be able to work with them to ensure the demise of the Gaddafi regime, to see a transition to greater stability in Libya and ultimately to more representative government.

"So getting a picture of that is relatively difficult, as is widely reported. Communications are being interrupted, there are difficulties with mobile phones, with the internet potentially being interfered with.

"So we are trying to build a picture – it's essential that the government does that and it's essential that all western governments do that so we are able to get a clearer idea of what we are able to do in terms of helping the people of Libya."

David Cameron, speaking at the Tory party spring conference in Cardiff, repeated his call for "Gaddafi to go". "On Libya, our strategy is clear," he said. "We will continue to intensify pressure on the regime. We will continue to state clearly that international justice has a long reach and a long memory, and that those who commit crimes against humanity will not go unpunished. We will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to those affected by this crisis, and continue to demand access for aid agencies to reach those in need.

And we will continue to plan, with our allies, for every eventuality. "

The Sunday Times reported Libyan and British sources confirming the SAS unit had been detained by rebel forces it had approached to secure a meeting with a junior diplomat to offer help in their fight against Gaddafi. The mission backfired when rebel leaders in Benghazi objected to foreign interference from governments which had not yet formally recognised them as Libya's legitimate rulers, it said.

[Gringo]

"I can confirm that a small British diplomatic team has been in Benghazi," said William Hague

Diplomatic? For someone to be a diplomat they have to have been accepted by the local govt and their credentials checked. Lies and doublespeak.

[peterms]

"I can confirm that a small British diplomatic team has been in Benghazi," said William Hague

Diplomatic? For someone to be a diplomat they have to have been accepted by the local govt and their credentials checked. Lies and doublespeak.

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstand the situation.

It will suffice to be British, and speak in a loud and commanding tone.

Fetch me a G and T my man, and tell the local nabob I wish to see him in my tent sharpish.

[Gringo]

Maybe a few more diplomatic engagements are required in Egypt and Tunisia where the old crowd are still running the govt.

Either the revolutions step up a gear or they've achieved nothing.

[Awol]

I see special forces turned up in Benghazi through the back door and found themselves detained for a bit, what on earth happened there?

My guess: UK Plc wants to support the rebels but didn't yet have a relationship with those forces, so a man from Vauxhall Cross was sent in with an armed 'just in case' escort and lots of sexy comms kit to make contact. They did that, the escort took the sensible option of not massacring the untrained militia who took them into custody (diplomatic mission and all that), formal relations are now established, the rebels save their face and give themselves legitimacy with their own people by 'ejecting' our guys from Libya and have secure communications equpiment with which to talk to us.

Basically the rebels need training, organisation and equipment which I suspect will be provided by follow up teams from UKSF in the near future.

Of course in the absence of facts the media will spin it whichever way they want, but imo the objectives were met and it's job jobbed.

[peterms]

I see special forces turned up in Benghazi through the back door and found themselves detained for a bit, what on earth happened there?

My guess: UK Plc wants to support the rebels but didn't yet have a relationship with those forces, so a man from Vauxhall Cross was sent in with an armed 'just in case' escort and lots of sexy comms kit to make contact. They did that, the escort took the sensible option of not massacring the untrained militia who took them into custody (diplomatic mission and all that), formal relations are now established, the rebels save their face and give themselves legitimacy with their own people by 'ejecting' our guys from Libya and have secure communications equpiment with which to talk to us.

Basically the rebels need training, organisation and equipment which I suspect will be provided by follow up teams from UKSF in the near future.

Of course in the absence of facts the media will spin it whichever way they want, but imo the objectives were met and it's job jobbed.

If the object was to make contact, then picking up the phone might be a good place to start. Perhaps they didn't want to use the phone, since the system is clearly subject to interception. For a face to face meeting, the diplomat could have stepped ashore in Benghazi, since we have a ship there. Are we really to believe that our government is unaware of who to speak to or how to contact them?

Dropping people in the desert in the night with false passports to meet a sleeper agent, then claiming they were looking for a hotel, hardly inspires either trust or confidence.

It also leaves the question, since it's impossible to believe the government could think this is an appropriate way to "make contact", what actually were they doing?

[Awol]

If the object was to make contact, then picking up the phone might be a good place to start. Perhaps they didn't want to use the phone, since the system is clearly subject to interception. For a face to face meeting, the diplomat could have stepped ashore in Benghazi, since we have a ship there. Are we really to believe that our government is unaware of who to speak to or how to contact them?

As I understand it there are various opposition groups and the action we're discussing clearly illustrates that we don't, as yet, have the full picture. Better to sound them all out and end up supporting the Judean Peoples Front than jump to conclusions and incorrectly back the Peoples Front of Judea - if you know what I mean.

Dropping people in the desert in the night with false passports to meet a sleeper agent, then claiming they were looking for a hotel, hardly inspires either trust or confidence.

Personally I won't be second guessing blokes who are in a very difficult situation with a very difficult mission from the comfort of my sofa. The SF and MI6 are as good as it gets and if they thought this was the best way to go about things then chances are it was.

It also leaves the question, since it's impossible to believe the government could think this is an appropriate way to "make contact", what actually were they doing?

It's not impossible to believe though, I suspect you are crediting the rebellion with more official structure and cohesion than it yet has.

[mjmooney]

As a student of WWII it's quite interesting to be seeing a re-run of the Benghazi Handicap. I wonder if we'll get a siege at Tobruk, too?

Roll them Matildas.

[peterms]

As I understand it there are various opposition groups and the action we're discussing clearly illustrates that we don't, as yet, have the full picture. Better to sound them all out and end up supporting the Judean Peoples Front than jump to conclusions and incorrectly back the Peoples Front of Judea - if you know what I mean.

Yes, there are undoubtedly different groups and different views - for example the new National Council is reported as calling for a no-fly zone, while posters on display in Benghazi say that foreign intervention is not wanted. It makes sense to try to identify what different groups there are, how representative they are, and what if anything they are asking for. I think the question is whether that is best done by clandestine measures, or doing something a little more direct, like speaking to those who claim to represent rebel forces, as the Italians are doing.

Personally I won't be second guessing blokes who are in a very difficult situation with a very difficult mission from the comfort of my sofa. The SF and MI6 are as good as it gets and if they thought this was the best way to go about things then chances are it was.

It's not the blokes with the mission that worry me. It's the ones who gave them the mission. I wonder why they thought such an approach was sensible. I think it's clear with hindsight that it's been an embarrassing failure, which has made it harder not easier to work with the rebel forces. People from the diplomatic service might say that this could be seen before the event, not just with hindsight.

The Beeb is reporting that Hague personally approved this action. I can't help thinking that he is still smarting from recent criticism of dithering in helping British nationals get out, and wanted to so something which seems forceful and decisive. Perhaps he watched too many Milk Tray adverts in his youth.

It's not impossible to believe though, I suspect you are crediting the rebellion with more official structure and cohesion than it yet has.

Well, there's something emerged which presents itself as a national council, and while I don't imagine they are the only voice to hear, it is at least some sort of emerging structure. If there are other groups to speak to, like tribal leaders, the question remains what is the most appropriate way to make contact, if indeed it's our job to do so. If it's done with the knowledge of the self-proclaimed rebel leaders, then why the cloak and dagger stuff? And if it's done behind their back with the aim that they don't know about it, then it's been a pretty evident failure.