The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[Awol]

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.

I think there is an element of this too, but I absolutely don't agree with this:

I think it's clear with hindsight that it's been an embarrassing failure

Fact is none of us know what the precise nature of the mission was but if they succeeded in contacting the people they wanted to and no one was hurt in the process then that's far from being a failure.

[peterms]

Fact is none of us know what the precise nature of the mission was but if they succeeded in contacting the people they wanted to and no one was hurt in the process then that's far from being a failure.

I'm thinking that one of the lines Gadaffi has been pushing is that the uprising is manipulated by the West, and this story can only give credibility to that. There is already a good deal of suspicion in the Arab world about western intervention, and I can't see how anyone's interests will be helped by stories like this.

But no doubt we'll find out the full story from Wikileaks in due course.

[peterms]

Beeb now saying (second half of clip here) that they had made prior contact with rebel forces but landed in an area controlled by a different group than the ones they spoke to. The reason for the secretive nature of the landing was that they were carrying "sensitive communications equipment" which they didn't want people to see.

[Awol]

A slightly different take on the recent British "failure" in Libya:

The MI6 and SAS mission to Libya was not botched

Yesterday, this newspaper’s executive foreign editor, Con Coughlin, wrote how the recent MI6 and SAS mission to Libya was a ‘fiasco’, and how those who were responsible for authorising it were ‘idiots’. Coughlin’s voice is just one of many saying similar. In today’s Daily Mail, Sir Christopher Meyer asserts that the mission was a ‘stonking, copper-bottomed fiasco‘. Such a view is echoed somewhat more diplomatically in the Guardian by Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary.

I think they’re wrong, and that it’s possible to see the mission in a far more positive light. Much journalistic and political capital is being made of this supposed fiasco, and William Hague and the Government are suffering much undeserved vituperation. If anybody should be blamed, it’s not the British, but the Libyan rebels.

First, much is made of the notion that the British could have simply put in a phone call. Such an assertion is naive in the extreme, and conveniently forgets the fact that telecommunications in Libya are vulnerable – as the British ambassador to Libya knows all too well.

As any intelligence officer would tell you, signals intelligence is vital, but it needs to be supplemented by human intelligence. When business people broker deals, they like to see each other first, check out the cut of their jibs, have a drink, build up a rapport – in short, build trust. Gathering secret intelligence is no different, and it is essential for agencies such as MI6 to build personal relationships with parties such as the Libyan rebels. A mere phone call will not do.

In this instance, MI6 seemed to be well-prepared, and had an agent called ‘Tom’ stationed some 20 miles from Benghazi for nearly six months, ostensibly working as an administrator at the Al-Khadra Farm Company. During his stay, Tom had evidently made contact with those hostile to the Gaddafi regime, and it was those who the MI6 and SAS team were coming to visit.

Some have also speculated that all the British needed to have done was to have popped into Benghazi to see the rebel leadership, rather than head off into the desert. This is another naive assertion, and supposes that the rebel forces are a unified bunch under a centralised command structure. As we shall see, there are numerous groups of rebels, and it is possible that Tom had made contact with a group that was not represented in Benghazi. Besides, it is just as possible that Tom and his team had in fact received some sort of blessing from Benghazi. We don’t know, but what we do know is that the lives of two MI6 officers, six SAS men and a helicopter crew are not risked on a mere jaunt.

More criticism is levelled at the use of both the SAS and a helicopter. Some feel that the role of the SAS is simply to fight, yet that is mistaken. The regiment has long provided similar assistance to our security services, and if I were an MI6 officer heading into some potential badlands, I know who I would want to protect me. Fretting about the use of a helicopter is also naive. They are quicker and less vulnerable than cars, and it is possible that the team was heading deeper into the country. The Al-Khadra Farm Company, therefore, was most likely to have been a staging post.

When the British arrived at Al-Khadra early on Thursday morning, the helicopter appeared to cause alarm, and one of the Libyans present at the farm fired a shot into the air and the team were told it was under arrest. According to the BBC Security Correspondent Frank Gardner, it is seems that “the people who surrounded them were the wrong rebels – a different group from those people, a sub-set”, and this would explain the confusion.

The team were treated well, and after being given a breakfast of coffee, bread and eggs, they were sent back to Benghazi. It would appear that the rebel leaders were – and remain – anxious to smooth over ruffled feathers, and are keen to put the whole affair behind them and secure British assistance.

In short, the the whole ‘fiasco’ was nothing more than a misunderstanding. The biggest error was made by the Libyans who arrested the team, but of course it is diplomatically impossible for William Hague to say as much.

Let’s not forget, the rebels still want our help, and if we’re going to do it properly, we need people on the ground, and yes, we need the SAS, MI6 and helicopters. We cannot, it should be stressed, always do these things through the front door.

Sounds just about right to me.

[drat01]

It was a major cock up for lots of reasons, not least the publicity that it has given to Gadaffi and all those who have agenda's against the West and the UK in particular.

Hague continues to show an incredible ability to screw things up and get them wrong.

[drat01]

Interesting that no one, and especially those who support this shite Gvmt of ours, has mentioned this

US President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron agree in a phone call the "common objective in Libya" must be an end to violence and the departure of Muammar Gaddafi from power

Now I remember the "outrage" that some showed with the past Gvmt about regime change, but it seems that again in power this ruleset is something that has be re-written to suit. What "right" have Cameron and Obama to have this call and then make such a statement to the world?

Yes Gadaffi is behaving atrociously but Cameron releasing statements like this is doing nothing more than wanting to benefit his own standing rather than those of the opressed people in Libya.

Shut the **** up Cameron, you are acting like a media whore.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I think there is plenty of cloak and daggers in regards to the 'cock up'. I wouldn't be at all suprised of there are special forces from both side of the Atlantic helping the rebels out, and the stall over the No Fly Zone is really to do with waiting to see how it goes on the ground, as a No Fly Zone is pretty much one big step into a full on intervention/occupation.

[peterms]

A slightly different take on the recent British "failure" in Libya: The MI6 and SAS mission to Libya was not botched

Sounds just about right to me.

Sorry Jon, it's utter bollocks. It doesn't stand up to a moment's thought. Looking at the main points the author puts forward in turn:

First, much is made of the notion that the British could have simply put in a phone call. Such an assertion is naive in the extreme, and conveniently forgets the fact that telecommunications in Libya are vulnerable – as the British ambassador to Libya knows all too well.

Mr Hague says that contact was in fact made by phone first, which rather undermines the claim made here that this would have been naive or impossible.

As any intelligence officer would tell you, signals intelligence is vital, but it needs to be supplemented by human intelligence. When business people broker deals, they like to see each other first, check out the cut of their jibs, have a drink, build up a rapport – in short, build trust. Gathering secret intelligence is no different, and it is essential for agencies such as MI6 to build personal relationships with parties such as the Libyan rebels. A mere phone call will not do.

No-one has disputed this. The point that is made is rather the opposite - that you do a better job of building rapport by making contact and asking permission to visit than by clandestine landings of armed forces. Which is presumably why our diplomatic mission has been sent away with some harsh words of criticism for the manner in which they tried to assess "the cut of their jibs".

In this instance, MI6 seemed to be well-prepared, and had an agent called ‘Tom’ stationed some 20 miles from Benghazi for nearly six months, ostensibly working as an administrator at the Al-Khadra Farm Company. During his stay, Tom had evidently made contact with those hostile to the Gaddafi regime, and it was those who the MI6 and SAS team were coming to visit.

So if Tom had made contact and MI6 were so well-prepared, why were they all immediately arrested by farmhands where he worked, with local leaders apparently knowing nothing about the visit or what was going on?

Some have also speculated that all the British needed to have done was to have popped into Benghazi to see the rebel leadership, rather than head off into the desert. This is another naive assertion, and supposes that the rebel forces are a unified bunch under a centralised command structure. As we shall see, there are numerous groups of rebels, and it is possible that Tom had made contact with a group that was not represented in Benghazi. Besides, it is just as possible that Tom and his team had in fact received some sort of blessing from Benghazi. We don’t know, but what we do know is that the lives of two MI6 officers, six SAS men and a helicopter crew are not risked on a mere jaunt.

Actually "popping in" to see the most obvious leadership, the Central Council based two miles from HMS Cumberland, does seem a reasonable starting point. Why would landing in farmland unknown to local authorities, the British Ambassador or anyone else be a better starting point, if the mission was diplomatic rather than military? Beats me.

More criticism is levelled at the use of both the SAS and a helicopter. Some feel that the role of the SAS is simply to fight, yet that is mistaken. The regiment has long provided similar assistance to our security services, and if I were an MI6 officer heading into some potential badlands, I know who I would want to protect me. Fretting about the use of a helicopter is also naive. They are quicker and less vulnerable than cars, and it is possible that the team was heading deeper into the country. The Al-Khadra Farm Company, therefore, was most likely to have been a staging post.

No, the criticism is about the secrecy and underhandedness having backfired, not about the mode of transport or the personnel. If the same group in the same transport had landed in an area agreed with the rebel leadership and gone on to meet people by agreement, there would have been no problem. The issue is the perception that we are doing something behind the back, and without the approval, of the rebel forces; and therefore, that our motives are suspect. Which is of course the very point Gaddafi has been making.

When the British arrived at Al-Khadra early on Thursday morning, the helicopter appeared to cause alarm, and one of the Libyans present at the farm fired a shot into the air and the team were told it was under arrest. According to the BBC Security Correspondent Frank Gardner, it is seems that “the people who surrounded them were the wrong rebels – a different group from those people, a sub-set”, and this would explain the confusion.

Yes, I imagine a helicopter landing with a contingent of armed men would cause alarm. Seems like a reasonable reaction, whether in Basingstoke or Benghazi. I love the way the writer makes out it's the Libyans' fault. We landed in the wrong place, having spoken to one group but landing in space controlled by another, and the daft Libyans are to blame.

It's pieces like this that remind me why the Torygraph is the last bastion of the colonial mindset that I thought had died away. Self-serving, vacuous, pompous shite. I'm astonished you think it worth recommending.

[peterms]

I see Hague's for the chop, then.

Not so much what he says, as what his "colleagues" say. They seem to be undermining him right, right and centre.

I don't think that will surprise anyone, will it?

[Awol]

Interesting that no one, and especially those who support this shite Gvmt of ours, has mentioned this

US President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron agree in a phone call the "common objective in Libya" must be an end to violence and the departure of Muammar Gaddafi from power

Now I remember the "outrage" that some showed with the past Gvmt about regime change, but it seems that again in power this ruleset is something that has be re-written to suit. What "right" have Cameron and Obama to have this call and then make such a statement to the world?

Saddam was a total bastard missed by none, however the reasons for "outrage" over Blairs actions were threefold:

1) He lied about the reasons for war. If you remember regime change was explicitly ruled out as a motivation by Blair, instead making up some cock and bull about WMD.

2) There was no political plan for what to do when the shooting stopped.

3) The people sent to do it were massively under resourced.

All deserved reasons for "outrage".

If we can help get rid of Gaddafi then we should and the motivations for doing so are so blindingly obvious that manufacturing a false case as per 2003 is not necessary.

Yes Gadaffi is behaving atrociously but Cameron releasing statements like this is doing nothing more than wanting to benefit his own standing rather than those of the opressed people in Libya.

It's a pity that in your desperation to criticise anything and everything the coalition does no issue can be raised above petty point scoring. Cameron is articulating the position of HMG. That is Hague's role where appropriate, but when discussing conversations between the leaders of the UK and the USA then clearly Cameron's job.

Shut the **** up Cameron, you are acting like a media whore.

I'm no fan of the bloke but this is laughable.

[Awol]

It's pieces like this that remind me why the Torygraph is the last bastion of the colonial mindset that I thought had died away. Self-serving, vacuous, pompous shite. I'm astonished you think it worth recommending.

Probably because I disagree with your conclusions entirely and think that the main thrust of the article is probably the most likely analysis in terms of what actually happened that has appeared in the UK media.

It doesn't suit the narrative of incompetence that the MSM are making hay with, but then a story saying:

"blokes arrived. Detained by locals while their identities were verified then met the people they'd come to see. Sorted things out over a brew and some breakfast, delivered the kit they wanted to and then left having done their job"

...wouldn't sell an awful lot of papers or enable the BBC to tell the country how terrible their Government is.

I agree the Telegraph has gone down hill and this article stood out precisely becuase it contradicts the line taken to date by both that paper and the MSM. It also reflects the view I've been trying to get across in the last few pages that actually 'all's well that ends well'.

[peterms]

It's pieces like this that remind me why the Torygraph is the last bastion of the colonial mindset that I thought had died away. Self-serving, vacuous, pompous shite. I'm astonished you think it worth recommending.

Probably because I disagree with your conclusions entirely and think that the main thrust of the article is probably the most likely analysis in terms of what actually happened that has appeared in the UK media.

It doesn't suit the narrative of incompetence that the MSM are making hay with, but then a story saying:

"blokes arrived. Detained by locals while their identities were verified then met the people they'd come to see. Sorted things out over a brew and some breakfast, delivered the kit they wanted to and then left having done their job"

...wouldn't sell an awful lot of papers or enable the BBC to tell the country how terrible their Government is.

I agree the Telegraph has gone down hill and this article stood out precisely becuase it contradicts the line taken to date by both that paper and the MSM. It also reflects the view I've been trying to get across in the last few pages that actually 'all's well that ends well'.

It sounds entirely plausible that the point of the trip was to deliver some communications kit or whatever.

What seems inexplicable is this. If that was the purpose of the mission, then why not say so? It would be credible, logical, and sensible (even if it's not the truth). It wouldn't disclose any secrets or tell anyone anything they don't already know or have guessed.

Instead of that, why have a situation where the Ambassador's phone conversation asking for help in releasing the captured unit is broadcast on tv, where the rebel leaders publicly criticise the operation, where the trip is pretty well universally referred to in media as botched, and where the Foreign Secretary's competence is publicly questioned even by members of the coalition? Who gains anything from that?

That's why the author's argument seems so implausible, compared to the simpler explanation that their arrival at this place and in this manner was not expected or welcomed.

[Awol]

Breaking now that 1000+ Saudi troops in armoured vehicles have deployed to Bahrain at the invitation of that Government to "maintain law and order", or more accurately, to kick the granny out of the 80% Shia majority population who are protesting for equal rights. Will be very interesting to see whether the Iranians sit back and allow their co-religionists to be martyred or whether they decide to square up to Saudi.

Meanwhile Gaddafi's tanks and airforce seem to be rolling up the rebels armed with AK's and some Allah Akbars. Only one town left now between Government troops and Benghazi so either international forces intervene in the next few days or it's goodnight Vienna, hello Srebrenica++ for the rebellion. The USA are saying at least five weeks to get a no fly zone in place *bullshit* so I wouldn't be surprised to see a few British and French battalions taking on the Libyan armoured corps at the gates of Benghazi very soon.

Going to be a very interesting few weeks and those defence cuts are now looking even more absurd.

[peterms]

So, looks like Gaddafi's going to sweep through Libya, then. A few thousand people shot, or tortured to death. That bit won't be on Twitter.

But on the plus side, we've spent very little, have sounded a few moral platitudes so we can claim the high ground and say we were let down by others, the oil supplies will resume, Gaddafi's position has been weakened, there is more general uncertainty among all the Middle Eastern states which will benefit us strategically in the long run, so hey, no-one loses here, right?

Apart from a few score thousand Libyans who stood up for what they believed in, I suppose.

[tonyh29]

Does Gaddafi have enough troops and hardware to take Benghazi ?

but does it really surprise you that once again the West talk a good game and do nothing .. be it Hungary in 56 or Zim in 2008 our governments behaviour has often been quite shocking

[peterms]

Does Gaddafi have enough troops and hardware to take Benghazi ?

but does it really surprise you that once again the West talk a good game and do nothing .. be it Hungary in 56 or Zim in 2008 our governments behaviour has often been quite shocking

Hardware yes, troops less clear-cut, it seems - which is why intervention could have been decisive. It wasn't Tianenman, where there was no practical prospect of doing anything.

No, our government's actions don't surprise me, and I don't think I conveyed surprise in what I've written on this. The only time I felt surprised was when it felt for a few fleeting moments that Cameron actually intended to do something about this. But that's passed now, and my condition is stable once again, thanks for asking.

[legov]

Delete please sorry.

[Awol]

So, looks like Gaddafi's going to sweep through Libya, then. A few thousand people shot, or tortured to death. That bit won't be on Twitter.

It's not over yet fella. UK & FRANCE have got to exhaust every possible option for achieving international consensus, but the G8 led by Germany, Russia and China said no yesterday and the UNSC will do the same today - proving, if it were required, what a useless 'organ' the UN really is.

After that we still have a window of about 48 hours (minimum) before Gaddafi could begin attacking Benghazi with ground forces. The rebels still hold port and airfield facilities and Libya isn't far away from Europe. I just hope that when we go it's not then used as a reason to start blabbing about British Imperialism. We're going to do the right thing, of that I'm sure.

[LondonLax]

Russia and China will never agree to let us intervene legally so if we do it will be another 'illegal invasion' in the eyes of international law. I don't think we are willing to go down that road again.

[tonyh29]

so if we do it will be another 'illegal invasion' in the eyes of international law.

keep this up and we will never win the Eurovision song contest again ....

Tough Call really , I believe "We" were right to remove Saddam , where we **** up is that he should have been removed for gassing Kurds etc and not on some false pretence that he has WMD's that could make him a threat to us