The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

time to get on a white horse and carry democracy across the region, backed by a a few tanks and warplanes of course.

[Awol]

Trouble is, from what I've read, I don't think the UN res. allows for that,

I don't think I've ever read a UNSC res that is more vague and open to interpretation. I definitely think that was intentional and it was drafted by UK/US/Frogs.

I don't think the other Arab Countries would accept it.

Saudi, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait all have troops in Bahrain and pretty soon they're going to be very busy in Yemen where they will be taking a side in a civil war. How can they then object to limited Western ground forces in Libya?

How do you know when it's over?

I expect the benchmark will be none of the Gaddafi clan remaining in charge/alive

What would success look like?

See above

What do you do if the rebels start with slaughter?

Very good question. Given the genuine preponderance of Benghazi to produce Jihadi's (more foreign fighters per capita picked up in Iraq from there than anywhere else) then a dust up with the people we went to help isn't out of the question imo.

Is the UK Gov't right re targetting Ghadaffi, or is the UK Military right?

Richards is thinking law of armed conflict, HMG is thinking law of the jungle. I'm with the latter.

I suspect that in the not too distant, the coalition of forces will just bugger off out of there, leaving a big vacuum for civil war to re-start/ a few (NATO) countries (Fr, UK, US) to carry on, with little or no backing or take the blame for the impending chaos from all sides.

Possible, certainly.

Oil, isn't it?

Yup, nowt wrong with that either. We need it.

[Awol]

Why does the West sit back and allow Zimbabwe to continue as it does?

Colonial guilt.

OK then, what about bahrain - or was there really a deal with the saudi's that the west could do what they want with libya as long as the sauds could do what they want with bahrain?

Bahrain is America's playground, that's just a political and strategic reality mate.

[tonyh29]

Why does the West sit back and allow Zimbabwe to continue as it does?

Colonial guilt.

OK then, what about bahrain - or was there really a deal with the saudi's that the west could do what they want with libya as long as the sauds could do what they want with bahrain?

Bahrain is America's playground, that's just a political and strategic reality mate.

isn't the alternative Iran controlling Bahrain ? ... so doesn't it come down to which evil repressive system is the most West friendly evil repressive system ?

[peterms]

How do you know when it's over?

What would success look like?

What do you do if the rebels start with slaughter?

...

Oil, isn't it?

The consensus around intervention is fragile, and we have already seen some criticism of the action from Russia and the Arab League, though they have since toned it down. The coalition, and especially the US, is very wary of being there without the support of other countries in the region. If that support evaporates, then one of the conditions for the intervention will be removed, and the willingness to continue will diminish.

I would say it's over unsuccessfully if there ceases to be enough support for the coalition and they withdraw without Gaddafi being overthrown, because that implies a long and bloody conflict probably amounting to civil war.

It's over successfully if Gaddafi's support is weakened enough by military means or preferably by defections that he can't continue.

I say this not because I think deposing Gaddafi is the purpose of the intervention (though it may be for some of the players), but because I think his actions and words have shown he won't accept any solution other than use of force, as long as he thinks he is stronger than the rebels - so him continuing seems like a recipe for a lot of deaths. Him going appears a necessary means to an eventual resolution.

Might the rebels start with slaughter? I think it's unlikely. There doesn't seem to be a background of ethnic killing, which is one of the factors that can lead to mass slaughter. If there is a proper process set up for judicial means of dealing with the leadership and key individuals so there is a proper process for holding people to account, there's less reason for random revenge. In fact if parts of the army do defect to the rebels, then revenge killings could be counterproductive. There is a stronger incentive for the current regime to kill people, because that's the only way they stand to keep control. The same might apply if the rebels believe they have to purge large parts of society to keep what they win, but from what I read it doesn't sound that way. If they did start to, then UN involvement becomes equally necessary.

As for oil, to some degree it's hard to detach anything western powers do from energy issues. But we had a stable and continuing supply from Libya before all this, and I assume it had become a more dependable supply as the trade ties became closer. I don't suppose we will get a more stable or cheaper supply at the end of this than we had before. Though there might be some contracts to supply arms. I gather there's some replacements needed at some point. Have those Vulcans been chopped up yet, or could we flog them?

[Gringo]

isn't the alternative Iran controlling Bahrain ? ... so doesn't it come down to which evil repressive system is the most West friendly evil repressive system ?

That's one alternative, not the only one. Another would be to let the majority decide who they want to rule them, maybe even give them AV so they can vote for both sides.

[snowychap]

isn't the alternative Iran controlling Bahrain ? ... so doesn't it come down to which evil repressive system is the most West friendly evil repressive system ?

That's one alternative, not the only one. Another would be to let the majority decide who they want to rule them, maybe even give them AV so they can vote for both sides.

I think it would be an ideal place for Clegg to begin his campaign.

[blandy]

...As for oil, to some degree it's hard to detach anything western powers do from energy issues. But we had a stable and continuing supply from Libya before all this, and I assume it had become a more dependable supply as the trade ties became closer. I don't suppose we will get a more stable or cheaper supply at the end of this than we had before. Though there might be some contracts to supply arms. I gather there's some replacements needed at some point. Have those Vulcans been chopped up yet, or could we flog them?

It is, yes. While accepting that the situation in Libya is more severe than in other middle east /North african nations, I believe the only reason "we" are acting is because it's got Oil. I'm not at all sure that a nations resources should form the major part of a reason why "we" intervene (Militarily) in what goes on there. There are sadly multiple nations who abuse their populations, where people are killed, tortured or "disappeared".

I'm not sure that "we" should be self appointed guardians and policeman for the world. Yes the UN authorised this action (at our instigation) which makes it different to some other instances, but there's no consistency. Israel can and does do what it wants, so too China, Parts of the far east, South America and so on.

The part where we see people being killed on the telly of course inspires "wthat's awful, someone should stop it" emotions. The problem I have is reconciling that with "we should send our sons and fathers to risk their lives to stop other people's lives being endangered or taken. And the "our sons" are almost never politicians sons. It's politicians sending other people to die or kill or be maimed.

This Libya action risks being dragged into a mess the same way many other interventions end up a mess.

Ideally, other N.African or Middle Eastern nations would be sorting out things on their own doorstep, not the West.

The Vulcan's are long gone. But it raises a question - should we sell Vulcans, or Typhoons or whatever to places so they can police their own areas? Many people say not, because we can't trust them to use them for solely defensive reasons. But if "we" are therefore going to act, as democracies, and if people call for us to act, we should accept the cost in lives, in money and in there being arms companies making offensive weapons and systems, and not call for cuts to Armed forces which we have decided need to be able to act as the World's police force. Ad we need to pay and man the Forces appropriately, not cut them when we run a bit short of cash.

[Awol]

there's no consistency. Israel can and does do what it wants, so too China, Parts of the far east, South America and so on.

There are often reasons why we can do nothing at all to prevent bad things in certain places. But, does not being able to everything everywhere mean we shouldn't do anything anywhere? As Peter pointed out, if 'we' wanted the BP contracts to be honoured all Cameron had to do was keep quiet while Gaddafi waded through his people's blood.

I think a potential motive for Cameron harks back to the national embarrassment of releasing the Lockerbie bomber...Not my Government, guv... That's probably not the exclusive motive, what with Gaddafi supplying the material for the IRA to blow up the Tory Party conference in Brighton and - I believe - Cameron's genuine humanitarian beliefs, but I know the FCO and others are very concerned about the Gulf and the potential impact to oil supplies in the medium term. Sowing up Libya (largest unexploited reserves in Africa) wholescale is a sensible move insurance wise.

The problem I have is reconciling that with "we should send our sons and fathers to risk their lives to stop other people's lives being endangered or taken.

You shouldn't really, it's not a draft. They are all volunteers, professionals, employed to advance the UK's national interest. Get mad when they are sent with the wrong kit, in too small numbers or to do a job that is more about political vanity than benefiting the UK, Iraq for example. There are also cases such as the Balkans where the national interest is not involved but we went in simply because it was the right thing to do. That's part of our national idealism and having been involved at the time something I take genuine pride in. Nothing wrong with having a country that stands for things and is prepared to fight for them.

[blandy]

Good answer.

I don't quite share the "it's not a draft" view, quite the opposite - whether volunteers or compelled, the lives of our SS&A need to be treated with the utmost care. I completely agree about Kit and numbers, btw.

The Balkans, in Europe, I was in favour of and much good work was done.

On Libya, I'm undecided, rather than for, against or "don't know (due to lack of info)".

(Girl on Sky News doing a pretty good job describing a Tornado payload as I type.)

Didn't many of the atrocities happen, unfortunately, after the "no fly zone" was imposed? Perhaps that affected the wording of the UN res this time - taking cognissance that no fly zones don't stop people on the ground doing bad things - hence the wider brief.

[OutByEaster?]

Why does the West sit back and allow Zimbabwe to continue as it does?

Colonial guilt.

OK then, what about bahrain - or was there really a deal with the saudi's that the west could do what they want with libya as long as the sauds could do what they want with bahrain/New York?

Fixed.

[peterms]

...As for oil, to some degree it's hard to detach anything western powers do from energy issues. But we had a stable and continuing supply from Libya before all this, and I assume it had become a more dependable supply as the trade ties became closer. I don't suppose we will get a more stable or cheaper supply at the end of this than we had before. Though there might be some contracts to supply arms. I gather there's some replacements needed at some point. Have those Vulcans been chopped up yet, or could we flog them?

It is, yes. While accepting that the situation in Libya is more severe than in other middle east /North african nations, I believe the only reason "we" are acting is because it's got Oil. I'm not at all sure that a nations resources should form the major part of a reason why "we" intervene (Militarily) in what goes on there. There are sadly multiple nations who abuse their populations, where people are killed, tortured or "disappeared".

I'm not sure that "we" should be self appointed guardians and policeman for the world. Yes the UN authorised this action (at our instigation) which makes it different to some other instances, but there's no consistency. Israel can and does do what it wants, so too China, Parts of the far east, South America and so on.

The part where we see people being killed on the telly of course inspires "wthat's awful, someone should stop it" emotions. The problem I have is reconciling that with "we should send our sons and fathers to risk their lives to stop other people's lives being endangered or taken. And the "our sons" are almost never politicians sons. It's politicians sending other people to die or kill or be maimed.

This Libya action risks being dragged into a mess the same way many other interventions end up a mess.

Ideally, other N.African or Middle Eastern nations would be sorting out things on their own doorstep, not the West.

I agree with all of that. Every bit.

Yet I still agree that intervening was the right thing to do. It puts me in curious company (no, not awol) when I find myself in a camp with Cameron and Hague, when Skinner and Corbyn argue the opposite. Like sleeping in a bed you think you should keep checking for bedbugs.

I don't think we are or should aspire to be the world's policeman. The arrogance of that approach, like our empire of the past or the present American empire, is just plain wrong.

I think we should try to prevent bad things happening, when we can. Not much we can do about Chechnya or Tianenman. More scope with Guantanamo, though we seem to have made about the same impact. But when circumstances conspire so that we can have a positive impact, even if it means some cost to us and our people, and if it means stitching together a short-lived compromise between people who fundamentally disagree on more than binds them together, should we not take that chance?

We have the chance to take some limited action which could prove decisive in saving the lives of a lot of people who have been oppressed for many years, and many of whom were about to be killed. I don't know them, or much about them. Maybe they are a bunch of racist bigots who would be worse than Gaddafi, given the chance. I just think that if we can take limited action, with others, that helps prevent a bloodbath or at least reduces the destruction, then that's worth doing. And I mean worth doing on a moral level, irrespective of contracts, oil, or the rest of the grubby filth which pollutes decisions on this.

The Vulcan's are long gone. But it raises a question - should we sell Vulcans, or Typhoons or whatever to places so they can police their own areas? Many people say not, because we can't trust them to use them for solely defensive reasons. But if "we" are therefore going to act, as democracies, and if people call for us to act, we should accept the cost in lives, in money and in there being arms companies making offensive weapons and systems, and not call for cuts to Armed forces which we have decided need to be able to act as the World's police force. Ad we need to pay and man the Forces appropriately, not cut them when we run a bit short of cash.

If we are not the world's policeman, why would we prefer to be the world's armourer?

Yes, we can't trust the countries to whom we sell arms. The events even of the last week show that, never mind a longer horizon. But then, we can't trust ourselves either, so I'm not saying it's their lack of moral fibre compared to us.

I would like to see us develop our influence as a nation, if we have anything sensible to say. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. I don't think our future lies in influence through force, either directly applied or sold to others - despite what I say above. I don't want us to send streams of kids to die in foreign fields, and specifically, I don't want my kids ever to be in that position.

I saw an interesting clip on the Guardian website this evening about a group of people in Wales, who bought a few fields off the local farmer. He used them for sheep, and the income was £2,500 a year. Waste of time and land. They now house and feed nine families, they are off the grid, they have transformed marginal land into richly productive land making about £100k, and their crops capture carbon as well.

I should think that supporting ideas and enterprises like this, rather than arms dealers and skiving thieving tax dodgers, is what would allow us some degree of leadership in the world of tomorrow, but I suppose we'll not do that. I would like to cut arms spending, and the armed forces. I don't see that as meaning making pronouncements about what everyone should do, and failing to back it up. I see it more as developing ideas which are shared with others, in a more collaborative way of working, and reassigning productive resources to better uses, like the sheep fields example. What else could those Vulcan factories be used for? Must be a thousand applications.

[Awol]

I think we should try to prevent bad things happening, when we can. Not much we can do about Chechnya or Tianenman. More scope with Guantanamo, though we seem to have made about the same impact. But when circumstances conspire so that we can have a positive impact, even if it means some cost to us and our people, and if it means stitching together a short-lived compromise between people who fundamentally disagree on more than binds them together, should we not take that chance?

Amen to that.

The problem is that:

1) Colonel G is clearly not just mad, but homicidally mad,and on Europes doorstep

2) Something's got to be done before we have a rerun of Rwanda on the doorstep and half a million swarthy swimmers come fleeing to Europe

3) Something's got to be done by the same Western democracies that are supposed to have learned their pacifist lesson in Iraq and Afghanistan

4) There is a dreadful risk of the West actually getting it right this time, and a lot of people with a media career built on a decades long habit of defeatism are trying to get their heads around the fact that the evil baby eating monsters of the military industrial complex are actually on the side of the angels this time.

[snowychap]

I think we should try to prevent bad things happening, when we can. Not much we can do about Chechnya or Tianenman.

Well, we can ignore what has occurred in those places, shrug our shoulders and say we can't do much about it/them and pose for photos with the leaders responsible, trade with them and implicitly condone their actions whilst at the same time trying to publicly claim that we don't accept them.

Or we could have tea with the Saudi foreign minister just after putting the case for military action against a dictator.

I have to say that I found myself in a rather novel (and slightly uncomfortable) position tonight in agreeing with Douglas Murray on Newsnight.

[Gringo]

We act where it is in our interests, not where it is in the interests of the people impacted. That is probably the only thing that is comparable with the iraq folly.

[Awol]

We act where it is in our interests, not where it is in the interests of the people impacted.

So please explain, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Timor. What exactly was in that for us?

[bickster]

We act where it is in our interests, not where it is in the interests of the people impacted.

So please explain, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Timor. What exactly was in that for us?

Yes but on the other hand, care to explain why we are doing nothing about Bahrain?

[Brumerican]

We act where it is in our interests, not where it is in the interests of the people impacted.

So please explain, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Timor. What exactly was in that for us?

A shit load of LSSA :winkold:

[Awol]

We act where it is in our interests, not where it is in the interests of the people impacted.

So please explain, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Timor. What exactly was in that for us?

A shit load of LSSA :winkold:

FTW

[Awol]

We act where it is in our interests, not where it is in the interests of the people impacted.

So please explain, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Timor. What exactly was in that for us?

Yes but on the other hand, care to explain why we are doing nothing about Bahrain?

Earlier in the thread Bicks. Bahrain = Saudi+ = USA = UK keeps nose out.