The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[Awol]

I think, importantly that the small group of nations whose people are against military action includes the not unimportant name of Libya. The people don't want our 'freedom' imposed on them, they want their own.

How's that then? Everything I've read has the opposition in Libya crying out for a no fly zone. It's not about 'imposing' our 'freedom' on them, it's about giving them material support from the air by leveling up the odds against them - or do you think they'd rather get bombed to bits in the process of revolution to prove a point?

[OutByEaster?]

[Awol]

Nice frog!

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Let them handle it alone, then when Gaddafi feels international pressure drop, he'll send out his militia and mow the protestors down.

After that, we can step in, and be blamed for not acting soon enough.

[blandy]

snowblog

...Dropping bombs, knocking off Gaddafi, doing any more than sheer isolation of unpopular leaders (freezing assets and outside interests is popular) will almost certainly end in Saddam like tears. Revolution will have to take its course. The world has few other viable options, and war is not one of them....

more on link

[Awol]

“Humanitarian disaster” – have we heard those words before? We heard them of Kosovo before the Nato intervention went ahead without UN approval.

Indeed we did hear those words and we made an unauthorised intervention into sovereign Serbian territory, preventing said humanitarian disaster. Are we to assume that Mr Snow would have preferred a second genocide in the Balkans to appease his precious United Nations? He doesn't even make a point.

snowblog

...Dropping bombs, knocking off Gaddafi, doing any more than sheer isolation of unpopular leaders (freezing assets and outside interests is popular) will almost certainly end in Saddam like tears. Revolution will have to take its course. The world has few other viable options, and war is not one of them....

more on link

Again this misguided comparison with Iraq which has blinded the anti war crowd to the legitimate use of military force. Blair's doctrine of Liberal interventionism was the right one, sadly he got drunk with the success of Kosovo and Sierra Leone and then backed the wrong horse following Bush into Iraq.

So what is the alternative to a limited intervention in Libya? Sanctions, travel bans etc are going to achieve nothing and going by the news today Gaddafi's forces are regaining the initiative in the east. The logical conclusion is an exceptionally bloody civil war, the end result of which is quite possibly the good Colonel remaining in power and murdering his opponents at lesuire.

A no fly zone at least takes Gaddafi's air component out of the equation and gives the rebels a fighting chance to succeed. If we had the assets to do it unilaterally I'd back Cameron 100%. As it is with the announcement of 11,000 service personnel being cut while we are already involved in one war - and at the very time he decides to get all Churchillian - we clearly cannot do it alone. Obama has the Iraq hang over as surely as the left wing in Europe and this is blinding him to the moral course of action.

If Gaddafi survives it will be a catastrophe for Libya and pose some serious problems for Europe. Watching the chatterati sitting on the fence and convincing themselves of reasons to allow the coming slaughter of innocents makes me sick.

[peterms]

So what is the alternative to a limited intervention in Libya? Sanctions, travel bans etc are going to achieve nothing and going by the news today Gaddafi's forces are regaining the initiative in the east. The logical conclusion is an exceptionally bloody civil war, the end result of which is quite possibly the good Colonel remaining in power and murdering his opponents at leisure.

Yes, there's a real danger that if impetus is lost, he will regroup. He's tried to do so already and seems to have failed, but he has the bulk of the arms, the better trained forces, and a formidable will.

It's already feeling like we will choose to stand on the sidelines while people are butchered.

We seem perfectly happy to actively undermine international law when it comes to tax havens, or Israel, but when we might take a stand and lead rather than follow and save lives in the process, we seem to want to prevaricate.

When this is all over, if the good guys win, the people of the Middle East won't forget this, or forgive. Nor should they. Why would you renew oil contracts with countries who placated dictators, or sold arms to repressive tyrants even as the youth was rising against them?

Better get cracking on them wind turbines.

[Gringo]

When this is all over, if the good guys win, the people of the Middle East won't forget this, or forgive. Nor should they. Why would you renew oil contracts with countries who placated dictators, or sold arms to repressive tyrants even as the youth was rising against them?

Because the new guys will be wanting to buy arms as well

[blandy]

In Iraq, you could quite easily argue that Saddam was treating his people appallingly, and there were arguments for intervention for humanitarian reasons, as you could do with Zimbabwe etc.

Unfortunately in some respects, neither the West, nor the UK is, or should be, a self appointed "policeman" on other country's conduct.

Neither side in the Libya civil war wants us or the US or anone else to conuct military operations on their soil.

As appalling as the situation is, it is not the ethnic genocide of the Balkans, or like Sierra leone.

We have no place doing anything other than helping evacuate, and freezing assets etc.

[Awol]

Unfortunately in some respects, neither the West, nor the UK is, or should be, a self appointed "policeman" on other country's conduct.

That's a dangerous road to take imo. Do you think we should have intervened in any of the places we did during the 90's?

Neither side in the Libya civil war wants us or the US or anone else to conuct military operations on their soil.

Mate I saw an interview this morning on Sky with the most senior General to defect to the rebels. Not only was he calling for a no fly zone he was asking for airstrikes in support of his guys. This argument that neither side wants external interference simply isn't correct.

As appalling as the situation is, it is not the ethnic genocide of the Balkans, or like Sierra leone.

Well the two sides seem to be divided on tribal lines. If Gaddafi's side end up regaining control of the country I think genocide will be inevitable.

We have no place doing anything other than helping evacuate, and freezing assets etc.

Fair enough, I disagree but then it wouldn't be me risking my life to do it. Besides which I think our military focus will be elsewhere shortly for further evacuations.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Ah yes, protestors being killed.

Twiddling our thumbs on the sidelines is totally the right thing to do.

[kidlewis]

if they think they can manage it alone, then I am sure any financial investment aid or otherwise they get can be stopped right?

let them try and force Gadaffs out themselves, I am sure once he send the tanks out full tilt they will be a bit more worried.

[blandy]

Unfortunately in some respects, neither the West, nor the UK is, or should be, a self appointed "policeman" on other country's conduct.

That's a dangerous road to take imo. Do you think we should have intervened in any of the places we did during the 90's?

Neither side in the Libya civil war wants us or the US or anone else to conuct military operations on their soil.

Mate I saw an interview this morning on Sky with the most senior General to defect to the rebels. Not only was he calling for a no fly zone he was asking for airstrikes in support of his guys. This argument that neither side wants external interference simply isn't correct.

Of course, there will be some people calling for intervention, it's naïve to think otherwise, but that's not the same as there being a major majority behind such an action. I'm not there, or as close as you, Jon, but the UK media and those with correspondents on the ground seem to think that the consensus is against such a course (at the moment, at least).

As appalling as the situation is, it is not the ethnic genocide of the Balkans, or like Sierra leone.

Well the two sides seem to be divided on tribal lines. If Gaddafi's side end up regaining control of the country I think genocide will be inevitable.

Maybe, maybe not, but it isn't currently happening. I'm not sure that was the case with the Balkans.

We have no place doing anything other than helping evacuate, and freezing assets etc.

Fair enough, I disagree but then it wouldn't be me risking my life to do it. Besides which I think our military focus will be elsewhere shortly for further evacuations.

And the military is somewhat stretched already.

As to the argument that "standing by" when killings are going on in [a place] is not the right thing to do. Ideally, we would wave a magic wand and they'd stop. Unfortunately, even to enforce a no fly zone, that would mean firstly bombing air defences, then aircraft on the ground, then overflying, combat and so on. Deaths would ensue, including bystanders.

It would be nice if the Arab world were to be able or willing to more actively play a part, but clearly that's not the case for a number of reasons.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

He's already ordered air raids on some of the ports (the no-fly zone should've been in place, that was a no brainer...well evidently not), what exactly does he have to do before the UN realises he's not particularly nice?

They should try and do it themselves, but he has the weapons, he has the planes and the tanks and the bombs. The protestors stand little chance against that.

[Awol]

Maybe, maybe not, but it isn't currently happening. I'm not sure that was the case with the Balkans.

Quite, we let 500,000 die in Bosnia. Given the results that many of us witnessed I'd hoped that we'd learned our lessons about early intervention when dealing wth psychotic regimes.

And the military is somewhat stretched already.

As to the argument that "standing by" when killings are going on in [a place] is not the right thing to do. Ideally, we would wave a magic wand and they'd stop. Unfortunately, even to enforce a no fly zone, that would mean firstly bombing air defences, then aircraft on the ground, then overflying, combat and so on. Deaths would ensue, including bystanders.

Indeed, it would have to be multilateral operation, despite any delusions of unilateral capability Cameron may have. That would inevitably lead to some accidental casualties among innocents - not to mention HMF - but as with all such scenarios the calculation is whether the greater number can be saved by taking action than by not.

However it appears to be academic as only the UK and Australia have expressed support for a no fly zone and without either a concerted effort from Europe or US buy in then it's a non-starter.

I did find Cameron's sabre rattling particularly ironic gven his governments' zeal in further dismantling the Armed Forces on the basis of a farcical SDSR. He's shown himself to be totally clueless in this field.

[blandy]

I did find Cameron's sabre rattling particularly ironic gven his governments' zeal in further dismantling the Armed Forces on the basis of a farcical SDSR. He's shown himself to be totally clueless in this field.

Me too, the effing hypocrit. All mouth and no (combat) trousers.

[peterms]

Of course, there will be some people calling for intervention, it's naïve to think otherwise, but that's not the same as there being a major majority behind such an action. I'm not there, or as close as you, Jon, but the UK media and those with correspondents on the ground seem to think that the consensus is against such a course (at the moment, at least).

It's entirely reasonable to say that if we were to intervene, it must be clear that there is a significant proportion of the Libyan people asking us to do so. Douglas "Hitler" Hurd made that point on R4 this morning, and he was right to do so.

However, it feels like cover to me. What I mean by that is that majority support for foreign intervention is very hard to gauge in a situation like this, so it's always going to be a matter of judgement, and for people who want to avoid stepping in, as most countries seem to, that's very convenient.

I think we should be prepared to intervene, though as has been said, we can't do it alone. More than that, we should be making the case for intervention. Cameron's instincts on this seem sound, even if he is achingly inept at putting them into practice by gathering support.

[Gringo]

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.

[alf_stewart]

What has Cameroon got to do with it?

[Ingram85]

Not sure about cameroon but if the u.n. go in we should veto'o it, we dont need to make more foes and theres no need to make a bassong and dance about it.

Matip is to just forget about it and act in the proper Emana.