The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[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?

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

Yes yes, that much is obvious, the question was more rhetorical than anything. Just highlighting the hypocrisy of the situation. It's ok to help the Libyan people but not the Bahrainis because of political agendas. We ignore the abuses of the Saudi and Bahrain because they are our allies in the region but when it comes to Libya, its run by some nutter who can't be trusted so we'll send in the planes. Just seems a bit wrong really

[wiganvillain]

I think Willy Brandt called it Realpolitik Bicks

[blandy]

The Vulcans 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. And 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?

I don't think we should be. I have no problem with trading with fully civilised, organic, free range allies. And that includes Arms and military hardware.

I think also, that the contradiction between 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. and the calls for "we must do something" every time, or most times, some atrocity appears on the TV is the same one the politicians have. I want to stop it, I don't want my kids to go, though, perhaps someone else's, eh?

If there is a desire for us to have influence, then yes example is a good starting point. But then again Costa rica has a tremendous example, but absolutely no influence. The neutrality of the Swiss or Swedes is much admired, and their influence (partly self determinedly) is zilch. The need to talk softly and carry a big stick is still there.

The big stick is the strength of our military. The strength sustained by spending money on it, on equipment, accomodation, wages etc. for it. It is incompatible to call for cuts and less spending and to also call for us to involve ourselves in sorting out other people's problems. It is a hypocritical part of our nature as humans to want to send other people's kids to do our fighting, while declining to send our very own.

My philosophy would be to export less/not at all to "undesireables" and spend more on supporting our own Military capability. Our big stick.

The Americans have always had the big stick, but have until very recently, shouted rather than talked quietly. And they didn't used to listen, either. They're better now, and it's noticeable how much less enthusiastic they are re Libyan action. They have practically had to be dragged into it. Europe has for a long time slagged them off for being gung ho, trigger happy interventionists and now they've stepped back, Europe 9and the UK included) needs to be able to take up some of the capability the US is no longer going to use. Aircraft carriers and aircraft, the Sig Int aircraft, C4ISTAR stuff, troops, transport, refuelling....

As for people on the farm in Wales, I read about them maybe 6 months ago in the Indy magazine, and they seem to be getting along fine. Great, they're a bit of a green dream a hippy ideal and good on 'em for it. Not going to solve the worlds problems though, or help anyone else to.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Considering they could soon find themselves surrounded by the muslim brotherhood, Israel should probably stop blowing up children shouldn't they? Best get working on that peace treaty folks.

[Chindie]

1967 says they don't give a ****.

[The_Rev]

Found this on Reddit. Dunno whether it's propaganda or not, I cant find a source for the image. "Libia" is the Spanish for Libya, but hang on a second, who is that bloke carrying the Union Jack?

[legov]

Utterly inaccurate if you ask me. Propaganda no doubt.

[peterms]

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

I don't think we should be. I have no problem with trading with fully civilised, organic, free range allies. And that includes Arms and military hardware.

I think also, that the contradiction between 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. and the calls for "we must do something" every time, or most times, some atrocity appears on the TV is the same one the politicians have. I want to stop it, I don't want my kids to go, though, perhaps someone else's, eh?

Let me address that directly. I do want to reduce the number of people pointlessly killed in conflict. I specifically want my kids not to be among them. And I would quite like to find ways of resolving conflict that don't ultimately reduce down to being the biggest kid in the playground.

If we have armed forces, and if they are prepared to engage in combat, then I can see times when I would sanction their use. I'm not a complete pacifist. Defending people against the kind of thing that happened in Srebrenica is one such. I would far rather find other ways of sorting these things out, but that's not always possible.

So, does my wish not to have my kids sign up deprive me of the right to a vote on these issues, or should my vote count less than someone who has contributed a son to the cause? Is it simple hypocrisy to want to exercise a choice on these things, without having paid up the stake of a blood relative? Put up or shut up?

No, that would be silly. It would mean that on all sorts of things, only people who had made some sort of direct personal or by extension familial sacrifice (or at least put up the stake) could express a view.

I can see a problem with people who earnestly advocate military action at the drop of a hat, whatever the risks and the losses, but who seek to shield themselves and their families from sharing the consequences. A bit like people who argue for tough economic polices, knowing the costs will fall on others. But I don't think that would be a fair interpretation of what I am saying, though it looks like you've taken that message from it. I don't argue that "we must do something" in every case. Usually, I argue the opposite. I do though like to treat each case as it comes, and I don't accept that my reluctance to get my kids signed up in some way disenfranchises me, if in fact that's where your argument leads.

[blandy]

Peter, no, I specifically didn't aim it at you. that's why in my posts I've said things like "human nature" "we" and "our", rather than "you, yours, etc."

I was arguing/discussing the ethics, not any single person's ethics. Sorry if that didn't come across that way.

I'll try again at the bluntest level - If politicians had sons/brothers etc. in the forces, or they themselves were forced to go where they deemed military action should take place, they'd take a damned sight more care about their wars and entering into warfare.

By being so distanced from the reality of what they set into motion, they seem to me to treat the whole thing like some kind of computer or board game with "pieces" rather than flesh and blood. Like a moral questionaire - "Q. You see some people being mistreated. Do you a) say - not my problem, it's the other side of the world, we have no money, no moral authority, we have a habit of messing up, we should stay out" or say "I can look statesmanlike, I can earn my spurs as a leader, I can send in someone's kids and worry about a plan later. Yes I know I cut the military spending, destroyed kit, sacked Pilots, scrapped ships...but that was then. We must do something".

That's a deliberate extreme representation, done so, so you hopefully see it's not the likes of you or me I'm talking about.

There will be times military action against something or some nation is needed. Before it is authorised there needs to be a set of questions that are answered the right way. Stuff like "does it prevent an imminent threat to our soil and our people?", if yes, proceed, if no, then come back when you've got a justification, a plan for how, when and what, a plan with an end date, with a "success will look like this". Come back with international legal support and justification. If you're helping people in a civil war, who are their leaders, what are their ideals, their values...if you're planning to help people being victimised, what are you going to do once the immediate threat has gone? - how will you bring the bad guy to book? what's the plan?

You and I and everyone else, pretty much, has a right to a say, but we never get one, do we?

[Cizzler]

U.S drop uranium bombs on Libya

[Gringo]

This is not a no fly zone, this is war.

[Chindie]

U.S drop uranium bombs on Libya

Misleading.

They're not 'uranium bombs'. They're bombs that have a depleted uranium tip used to pentrate and burn in an anti-materiel role.

They're also completely legal for use in warfare, and there is yet to be a consensus on the danger of it, and thusly they haven't been banned.

The quoted chemist, Marion Falk, in that article claims they match the description of a 'dirty bomb' in every way. They don't. At all. Using a DU tipped bomb as a dirty bomb would be a waste of time, and Falk clearly doesn't have a dicky bird what a 'dirty bomb' is. Falk also claims they're the perfect weapon for killing lots of people. Well, yes... it's a **** bomb, it's kinda what it does. The inference for the ignorant is that the depleted uranium somehow makes the thing more deadly to large groups of people... Except these are specifically used to attack materiel (i.e. military equipment) and tanks, meaning that they're not actually that effectively designed to kill large groups of people, as a bomb without the tip would do the same thing far more effectively and efficiently than a DU round might. That's because it isn't the role it was designed for.

All in all, what rubbish. The only use of that article is letting you know that, shock horror, NATO affiliated forces have used entirely legal weapons in the way they were designed to be used, in a war.

In other news, US, UK and French forces use flammable poisonous liquid to enforce no fly zone - codename 'Jet Fuel'.

[snowychap]

This is not a no fly zone, this is war.

And NATO seems to have quite clearly taken a side.

[OutByEaster?]

This is not a no fly zone, this is war.

I think that makes logical sense - we picked a side, that side was losing so we helped out - so when it turns out that the side we picked need an awful lot of help, we've not got much choice other than to give it.

[carlitobrigante]

...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.

Ideally yes other African / Arab nation would take ownership of problems like this, but we know they wont.

To not intervene would have meant another slaughter, this time unfolding live on youtube and CNN, while the leaders and nations with assets to hand that could stop sat by and watched.

Just because we cant intervene in every trouble spot in the world doesnt mean we shouldnt when we can.

Yemens government have been a vital ally against terrorism and has kept a lid on the most deprived and volatile state in the Middle east. Bahrain is under massive threat of Iranian influence. To intervene in either would be alot more tricky, and also alot less welcomed. Besides in other cases you havent had such dramtic footage of civilians and citys being attacked by heavy weapons beemed across the world on every news network.

Getting involved will be messy, costly, and could well end in tears. Regardless of the outcome im proud we live in a country willing to take a gamble to do whats right.

The worlds a small place these days, isolationism isnt an option. And unfortunately with crazies like Gaddafi force is often the only option.

And finally i think part of your problem is in thinking of the armed forces as our fathers and sons. That they obviously are. But they are also trained proffesionals who signed up to do exactly that job which you say is too dangerous for them?? Isnt that the whole point of the armed forces? And besides i see no threat of ground troops being comitted, and i doubt the RAF has much to fear from the remants of Gaddafis army.

[snowychap]

..

[carlitobrigante]

looks like Sirte wont be a walkover at all, i think if it does fall to the rebels, Gaddafi will follow within 48 hrs...

[peterms]

Peter, no, I specifically didn't aim it at you. that's why in my posts I've said things like "human nature" "we" and "our", rather than "you, yours, etc."

I was arguing/discussing the ethics, not any single person's ethics. Sorry if that didn't come across that way.

I don't mean to come across as personally affronted - though I can see it reads a bit like that. My point is that the right to hold and express views on matters of national importance doesn't derive from the extent of personal stake you have in that specific issue. You don't need a relative in the forces to have a view on warfare, nor one who teaches to have a view on education, and so on. Neither does having such a relative, or direct personal experience, give anyone's views more moral authority, though it is likely to give them some technical knowledge - which may or may not make their view better informed.

I'll try again at the bluntest level - If politicians had sons/brothers etc. in the forces, or they themselves were forced to go where they deemed military action should take place, they'd take a damned sight more care about their wars and entering into warfare.

Maybe. Personally, I would be more, not less, distrusting of a politician whose policies seemed to be based on self-protection, or protection of their family. That's not the job description.

By being so distanced from the reality of what they set into motion, they seem to me to treat the whole thing like some kind of computer or board game with "pieces" rather than flesh and blood. Like a moral questionaire - "Q. You see some people being mistreated. Do you a) say - not my problem, it's the other side of the world, we have no money, no moral authority, we have a habit of messing up, we should stay out" or say "I can look statesmanlike, I can earn my spurs as a leader, I can send in someone's kids and worry about a plan later. Yes I know I cut the military spending, destroyed kit, sacked Pilots, scrapped ships...but that was then. We must do something".

That's a deliberate extreme representation, done so, so you hopefully see it's not the likes of you or me I'm talking about.

Being distanced from the reality is something which attaches to all sorts of people. Military leaders, sending their own men to die. People who authorise bombing raids from 3000 feet, with no possible comeback. People who pursue economic polices which condemn others to poverty. Architects who design hovels they will never live in. Traders who speculate on food prices, condemning millions to starvation. Seems to be a well-established pattern of behaviour.

There will be times military action against something or some nation is needed. Before it is authorised there needs to be a set of questions that are answered the right way. Stuff like "does it prevent an imminent threat to our soil and our people?", if yes, proceed, if no, then come back when you've got a justification, a plan for how, when and what, a plan with an end date, with a "success will look like this". Come back with international legal support and justification. If you're helping people in a civil war, who are their leaders, what are their ideals, their values...if you're planning to help people being victimised, what are you going to do once the immediate threat has gone? - how will you bring the bad guy to book? what's the plan?

You and I and everyone else, pretty much, has a right to a say, but we never get one, do we?

It would be great to have such a flowchart, but these decisions don't lend themselves to one. The decisions which must be made will be rushed, made from a cocktail of motives, in concert with people who given the choice you wouldn't employ to clean toilets, based on imperfect knowledge if not wilful misinformation (or to use a shorter word, lies). It's hard to make the right call. For the record, I think we did, though if the approach doesn't change quite soon, I can see that all going tits up as well, and looking like a bad call.

[carlitobrigante]

looking more and more like theres gonna be a stalemate, at least for the short term..

[mjmooney]

It'll be all over by Christmas.