Intervention in Libya

D

droid

Guest
I think if theyd gone in 2-3 weeks back when the rebels were gaining ground, then (despite the rank hypocrisy) it might have been an effective and relatively clean intervention and the fantasy of regime change via airstrike alone may have been fulfilled.

As it stands now, I think it will end up doing more harm then good, and of course there are the many moral questions... France in particular have been playing both sides in this one.

I think it is clear that this has very little to do with democracy or human rights.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
It was hard to sit by and watch the world doing nothing (except issue statements condemning Gadaffi) while the rebels were slowly defeated so I guess I kind of support intervention if only as the least worst of a whole group of bad options. I'm sure it will end badly; it started badly, it's been bad for years and I don't predict any real change to be honest. There never is.
 
D

droid

Guest
It was hard to sit by and watch the world doing nothing (except issue statements condemning Gadaffi) while the rebels were slowly defeated so I guess I kind of support intervention if only as the least worst of a whole group of bad options. I'm sure it will end badly; it started badly, it's been bad for years and I don't predict any real change to be honest. There never is.

Yeah, I really dont think this is the least worst option though TBH. Some interesting ideas here:

http://www.thenation.com/article/159084/10-nonviolent-options-libya

I agree that inaction seems unconscionable, but the track record of humanitarian intervention by the west is quite simply appalling, in fact, some pundits are suggesting that this is partly about rehabilitating the idea of the Western perpetrated 'noble war' since the entire concept has been discredited over the last decade or so.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Maybe what I said was overly negative. I'll have a read through those options though anyway.
It's a particularly irritating aspect of Iraq (a war that a large and vocal portion of western civilians didn't want) that it discredited the idea of any kind of intervention altogether - even in this case where I suspect a lot of people would want to be on the opposite side of the argument. There's no room for subtlety in these debates - intervention is completely tainted now and I think that that was probably a cause of the hesitation on the part of the western leaders that you refer to here:

"I think if theyd gone in 2-3 weeks back when the rebels were gaining ground, then (despite the rank hypocrisy) it might have been an effective and relatively clean intervention and the fantasy of regime change via airstrike alone may have been fulfilled."
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
OK, read through those and they seem like potentially good ideas and things that should maybe have been done before but they are going to take some time to show results. They're more long-term or supplementary things as opposed to actions that are going to save the rebels now aren't they?
 
D

droid

Guest
Maybe what I said was overly negative. I'll have a read through those options though anyway.
It's a particularly irritating aspect of Iraq (a war that a large and vocal portion of western civilians didn't want) that it discredited the idea of any kind of intervention altogether - even in this case where I suspect a lot of people would want to be on the opposite side of the argument. There's no room for subtlety in these debates - intervention is completely tainted now...

I think intervention has pretty much always been tainted. I'm not sure there's a single example of western intervention that could genuinely be called 'humanitarian'. There's maybe 2 or 3 examples in the history of warfare that could qualify.
 

Leo

Well-known member
funny how it's been portrayed in the press as a UN coalition, led by the french taking charge...yet the US were the ones to shot 120 of the 122 tomahawk missiles on the first day. hmm...

will be interesting to see how involved the arab league stays, and how much military effort is contributed by fellow arab nations.

edit: one other issue that makes things difficult is the citizens/rebels don't seem to have a recognized leader or collective point of view. tough to fight against an organized military force when you don't have someone in charge on your side.
 
Last edited:

lanugo

von Verfall erzittern
The labelling of CIA-funded insurgents as 'freedom fighters', a former head of state, hitherto always a welcome guest of the governmnents of the West, turning into a 'dictator' over night, a military intervention occurring under the guise of 'peacekeeping measures', the establishment of a 'No-Fly-Zone' that amounts to the bombardment of an entire country - welcome to the year 1984, eh, 2011.

By international law, an intervention would have been legitimate if there had been government actions against the Libyans population, or parts of it, amounting to a genocide. This was not the case. In fact, Ghaddafi was fighting against armed rebels in an attempt to uphold state power; that is the natural response of every government to the challenging of its sovereignty by insurrectionary forces who themselves resort to violence to enforce their claim to power. Was Ghaddafi's authority legitimate in the first place? Debatable, sure. But did the West really care for the last, what, 40 years while the oil was flowing?

No evidence of the much-purported atrocities against civilians by Ghaddafi's military forces has yet turned up. On the contrary, it is the rebels who reportedly massacred hundreds of unarmed black African immigrant workers claiming they were 'mercenaries'.
 
Last edited:

Leo

Well-known member
By international law, an intervention would have been legitimate if there had been government actions against the Libyans population, or parts of it, amounting to a genocide. This was not the case.

i believe that's incorrect, libyan troops were openly firing on and killing unarmed protesters at the early stages before the opposition got more organized and armed.
 

Dr Awesome

Techsteppin'
The labelling of CIA-funded insurgents as 'freedom fighters', a former head of state, hitherto always a welcome guest of the governmnents of the West, turning into a 'dictator' over night, a military intervention occurring under the guise of 'peacekeeping measures', the establishment of a 'No-Fly-Zone' that amounts to the bombardment of an entire country - welcome to the year 1984, eh, 2011.

By international law, an intervention would have been legitimate if there had been government actions against the Libyans population, or parts of it, amounting to a genocide. This was not the case. In fact, Ghaddafi was fighting against armed rebels in an attempt to uphold state power; that is the natural response of every government to the challenging of its sovereignty by insurrectionary forces who themselves resort to violence to enforce their claim to power. Was Ghaddafi's authority legitimate in the first place? Debatable, sure. But did the West really care for the last, what, 40 years while the oil was flowing?

No evidence of the much-purported atrocities against civilians by Ghaddafi's military forces has yet turned up. On the contrary, it is the rebels who reportedly massacred hundreds of unarmed black African immigrant workers claiming they were 'mercenaries'.

Erm, obviously people interpret things according to their world-view; but I think that's full of holes.
 
D

droid

Guest
i believe that's incorrect, libyan troops were openly firing on and killing unarmed protesters at the early stages before the opposition got more organized and armed.

So the US could have been justified in bombing London after Bloody Sunday? And Tel Aviv should have been bombed during Israel's latest Gaza campaign?

AFAIK Ianugo is right on this point. The evidence of war crimes/human rights abuses is relatively sketchy. If killing unarmed protestors justifies intervention, then Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, and maybe Syria all qualify.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
The labelling of CIA-funded insurgents as 'freedom fighters'

Heaven forfend that mere Arabs, mere Muslims, could possibly have an active programme or ideology of their own, rather than having been either threatened or bribed into action by 'The West'. Because only white, preferably English-speaking Westerners actually have moral agency and volition, right?

By international law, an intervention would have been legitimate if there had been government actions against the Libyans population, or parts of it, amounting to a genocide.

No evidence of the much-purported atrocities against civilians by Ghaddafi's military forces has yet turned up. On the contrary, it is the rebels who reportedly massacred hundreds of unarmed black African immigrant workers claiming they were 'mercenaries'.

"Gaddafi is implementing a strategy of scorched earth. It is reasonable to fear that he has, in fact, decided to largely eliminate, wherever he still can, Libyan citizens who stood up against his regime and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately repress civilians. These acts can be characterised as crimes against humanity, as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."

(but then, no doubt the International Federation for Human Rights is a CIA-sponsored front promoting the Zionist New World Order, blah blah blah...)

You really are the epitome of the smug, soi-disant 'leftist' who'll suck up to any old bloodstained tyrant as long as he's suitably 'anti-Western', aren't you?
 
Last edited:

crackerjack

Well-known member
The labelling of CIA-funded insurgents as 'freedom fighters'

Mad Mel thinks the whole 'Arab Spring' movement is an anti-Semitic plot to destablilise Israel. You two should get together, maybe take turns banging your heads against each other's wall.
 

lanugo

von Verfall erzittern
Erm, obviously people interpret things according to their world-view; but I think that's full of holes.

I'm not interpreting anything according to my own world-view. I'm merely pointing out deceitful terminology and obvious inconsistencies in the official version of the events in Libya that is disseminated by the mainstream/corporate media. I find it quite astonishing that the majority of people doesn't seem to register the glaringly propagandistic language employed in legitimizing the intervention. After all, the 'media-savvy' and 'post-ideological' 21st century populace seems to be as susceptible to the power of words as were previous generations of human beings.

I wonder whether the people here on Dissensus who deem the Western intervention in Libya to be justified actually don't perceive any kind of cognitive dissonance when authorities use the term "peacekeeping measures" to refer to offensive military actions? Do you think to yourself: "Sure, that's euphemistic, however, I know that what they mean is a military operation; I'm smart enough to discern the real meaning from the standardized phrases of official language." Of course you are, but how can you be sure that the mode of expression in the official announcements and in the media didn't actually have a profound influence on your 'personal' assessment of the situation? That's how propaganda works, on a subsconscious level, and it is the more effective the more one believes one isn't lied to.

So the US could have been justified in bombing London after Bloody Sunday? And Tel Aviv should have been bombed during Israel's latest Gaza campaign?

AFAIK Ianugo is right on this point. The evidence of war crimes/human rights abuses is relatively sketchy. If killing unarmed protestors justifies intervention, then Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, and maybe Syria all qualify.

Exactly. Not to mention that members of the Arab League, a major force in the passing of the UN resolution, actually sent security forces to Bahrain to assist the local powerholders in quelling the rebellion there. So, on the hand an international alliance is formed to stop the killing of civilians in one country but on the other hand members of this very alliance actively engange in the killing of civilians in another country! The mind boggles. There's footage of government forces in Bahrain shooting protestors at point-blank range and one is left to wonder why this kind of repression is not perceived as a "crime against humanity" by the international community.

Oh, and while it's at it, why doesn't the Coalition of the Willing intervene in Côte d'Ivoire? The conflict between president Gbagbo and the supposedly rightful winner of the last election Ouattara is turning into a veritable civil war. A major humanitarian crisis is expected as a consequence. Who will stop it? Or should cacao be of less interest than oil?

Heaven forfend that mere Arabs, mere Muslims, could possibly have an active programme or ideology of their own, rather than having been either threatened or bribed into action by 'The West'. Because only white, preferably English-speaking Westerners actually have moral agency and volition, right?

When setting up a straw man you should be careful to make it resemble at least roughly your opponent's opinion. Your drivel would be an utter non-sequitur if one couldn't tell that, in fact, you've given vent there to your own petty resentment.


"It is reasonable to fear that the accused has, in fact, decided to murder, wherever he still can, innocent members of the public... and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately break the law..."

Only in a legal system were accusations counted as hard evidence a defendant could be sentenced on the basis of such a reasoning as above. Such a legal system wouldn't be a legal system at all and the fact that, to push the analogy further, Ghaddafi has been sentenced without conclusive evidence of his alleged crimes only proves that international law is nothing but a charade in service of the fancy-worded legitimation of arbitrary power interests.


You really are the epitome of the smug, soi-disant 'leftist' who'll suck up to any old bloodstained tyrant as long as he's suitably 'anti-Western', aren't you?

The efficiency of your mindset in breaking down reality into manageable stereotypes is quite astounding. Even if it's a bit boring at times, it must feel really cozy in your tiny little world of clichés, doesn't it?

One could almost feel sorry for you because of your ignorance but denouncing me as "smug" for actually being interested in the truth is so incredibly low and so irredeemably perverse that all pity turns into disdain.
 
Last edited:

martin

----
No evidence of the much-purported atrocities against civilians by Ghaddafi's military forces has yet turned up. On the contrary, it is the rebels who reportedly massacred hundreds of unarmed black African immigrant workers claiming they were 'mercenaries'.

That's interesting, do you think the mutilated torso pics were doctered then? And don't suppose you've got any links to news sources with these opposing points of view? All I've managed to find (pro-Gaddafi) is some English guy writing for Pravda Online, but googling him turned up a few sites describing him as a bit of a nutter.

If this is an orchestrated campaign by the CIA etc, I still find it confusing; AFAIK, Gaddafi wasn't doing anything to hamper the oil majors' activities out there, so why go and shoot the place up?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I'm not interpreting anything according to my own world-view.

Uh, apart from the knee-jerk assumption that the opposition in any Arab/Muslim state ruled by a regime unfriendly to 'the West'* must necessarily be sponsored by the CIA...perhaps you also consider Ahmedinejad the legitimate and justified defender of Iran against Mousavi's counterrevolutionary tendency... :slanted:

*and as martin points out, Gaddafi apparently has no problem selling his country's oil to Western countries, so why would the CIA want to stir up trouble and provoke violence that's going to make it *more* difficult and expensive to buy Libyan oil?

Oh, and while it's at it, why doesn't the Coalition of the Willing intervene in Côte d'Ivoire? The conflict between president Gbagbo and the supposedly rightful winner of the last election Ouattara is turning into a veritable civil war. A major humanitarian crisis is expected as a consequence. Who will stop it? Or should cacao be of less interest than oil?

Hang on, are you arguing for intervention, or against it? The fact that violent oppression is happening in one country is not, in itself, an argument against trying to prevent violent oppression in another.

When setting up a straw man you should be careful to make it resemble at least roughly your opponent's opinion. Your drivel would be an utter non-sequitur if one couldn't tell that, in fact, you've given vent there to your own petty resentment.

Straw man, my arse. I've seen this so many times: the solipsistic worldview of people for whom everything happening anywhere in the world is about 'the West', which is to say, about us. The idea that a country, especially a Muslim country, might have internal politics and divisions, and that a large part of the populace might spontaneously revolt against a corrupt and violent despot, just throws up a 'does not compute'.

"It is reasonable to fear that the accused has, in fact, decided to murder, wherever he still can, innocent members of the public... and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately break the law..."

Only in a legal system were accusations counted as hard evidence a defendant could be sentenced on the basis of such a reasoning as above. Such a legal system wouldn't be a legal system at all and the fact that, to push the analogy further, Ghaddafi has been sentenced without conclusive evidence of his alleged crimes only proves that international law is nothing but a charade in service of the fancy-worded legitimation of arbitrary power interests.

A moment's googling turned this up: "Gaddafi bombs protesters near Tripoli" - that's Iran's state-controlled Press TV corporation - and this, from left-wing anti-war/anti-imperialism news blog Another World Is Possible: "Forces loyal to Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi have heavily bombarded pro-democracy protesters...[t]wo thousand people have been reported killed in the weeks-long violence." Unless they, too, are pawns of Thee Powers That Be...

Whereas you've already decided that the protesters are definitely guilty of killing black immigrants who are definitely not mercenaries. I've seen this contrariness-for-contrariness's-sake from you so many times before. It's not big and it's not clever.

Even if it's a bit boring at times, it must feel really cozy in your tiny little world of clichés, doesn't it?

One could almost feel sorry for you because of your ignorance but denouncing me as "smug" for actually being interested in the truth is so incredibly low and so irredeemably perverse that all pity turns into disdain.

Whereas you, alone, have access to the unalloyed, objective TRUTH.

Oh, and speaking of straw men, who are "the people here on Dissensus who deem the Western intervention in Libya to be justified"? Crackerjack says it might be, albeit with heavy reservations. No-one else here has said they support it. I'm not sure where I stand, and can see it doing more harm than good if for no other reason than that it risks de-legitimising the opposition.
 
Last edited:
Top