I don't get people's disagreement on what we did in Libya

[scheming daemons]

We stopped a genocide.

It is EXACTLY what most of us screamed about with regards to Rwanda a decade ago.

"Why didn't we, the world's strongest military, do something to stop the genocide!?"


Hundreds of thousands of people were going to be slaughtered by the Libyan regime.

This is one of the few cases where military action *IS* justified.


If you screamed about American inaction with respect to the genocide in Rwanda, then you're a hypocrite if you are upset about NATO taking action in Libya.



Saint Dennis Kucinich is just such a hypocrite.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Unrec'd simply because this was the first post in reply, and already the mention of unrecs.

[scheming daemons]

25. It was at +4... then immediate down below 0.... that's why I posted

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. It's wild how that happens sometimes isn't it.

I supported unrec from the beginning but now it just seems like so much extra baggage.

Back on topic though, I can see how you feel about the Libya thing even though I don't agree with you. IMO we shouldn't be there. I don't believe the situation there rises to the level of genocidal.

[joshcryer]

86. R2P covers genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1973%20(2011)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC">UNSC Resolution 1973 does not mention the word "genocide" even once.

So while the OP is incorrect in calling it "genocide" it certainly falls under crimes against humanity, war crimes (if the rape allegations hold up, which they likely will if Bosnia is an example), and possibly even ethnic cleansing.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

What's with the censorship here?

This is a long thread and it's still below zero recs. I can see deleting posts because someone uses foul language or threatens someone but deleting a post because you disagree with someone's point of view? Now I see that threads are unreced to keep people from viewing a point of view you disagree with. I thought free speech was something liberals were very in favor of. This really diminishes my opinion of Democratic Underground.

[Javaman]

108. unrecing isn't "censorship".

don't go down that road, it was thoroughly explored and laughed at 2 years ago.

the rec function merely allows people who think a that a worth while story should go to the greatest page. Other than that, it has zero reflection on the price of tea in China.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

What's with the censorship here?

This is a long thread and it's still below zero recs. I can see deleting posts because someone uses foul language or threatens someone but deleting a post because you disagree with someone's point of view? Now I see that threads are unreced to keep people from viewing a point of view you disagree with. I thought free speech was something liberals were very in favor of. This really diminishes my opinion of Democratic Underground.

[tabatha]

2. In Rwanda they used machetes.

Gaddafi had about 1800 tanks to fire at towns from afar.
NATO has destroyed about 1300 of them, FF's about 500.

[scheming daemons]

3. Does it matter what method is used for mass killings?

[tabatha]

62. No.

Does it matter how the machetes or tanks are removed?

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Did we stop a genocide?

Do you have evidence of this?

If we have good information that we would save lives - and an exit strategy - then I'm all in favor. But we know little about what's going on there, and as far as we know, the opposition is no better than a Khadafy.

[joshcryer]

8. I think the free media outlets that the opposition is allowing already makes them better than daffi.

Any kind of language that went against Gaddafi's regime was illegal, with the possibility of life imprisonment, and not just for those who dissented, but those who were in the same locality as those who dissented. Very stringent laws against such behavior.

It remains to be seen if the new constitution will result in a freer society, but if it goes as it appears, Libya will be the only secular democracy in the Arab world.

[RZM]

15. It's a tribal conflict

You know as well as I that Ghaddifi would have gone east with guns blazing. Why wouldn't he? He had the power to do so and (I'm sure) a mandate in his own mind to play rough with anybody who opposed him. I'm glad that he wasn't successful.

[joshcryer]

5. Kucinich is not a hypocrite, he is completely consistent, even when it is asinine.

One can be anti-war, even anti-intervention, even anti-UN R2P and maintain a level of consistency. It is just unfortunate that he allows teabaggers and right wingers to align with him. It is particularly evident that he is allowing himself, like many other progressives, to be pulled in by the right wing lies and smears.

But yeah, don't ever expect a pro-Libya thread to get positive recs, just ain't happening.

[Wilms]

6. Insult aside, how is "Saint" Kucinich a hypocrite?

Isn't he merely stating his belief that the law requires Congress' approval for the action?

[scheming daemons]

11. He was for intervention in Rwanda to prevent a genocide... but against the same in Libya

[Wilms]

27. I would gander DK sees something different here, while you don't.

But I believe the issue to be the War Powers Act. Feel free to address that.

Also, I'm not so sure your use of the term "genocide" is appropriate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

[joshcryer]

31. I have addressed it, feel free to tell me how the GOP congress acted within the statute.

They have not, Obama has. Plain and simple.

[Wilms]

43. I think the reports of Kucinich suit are self-evident.

Not saying you have to agree. The administration certainly doesn't.

[joshcryer]

46. Well, as far as hypocrisy is concerned, had Kucinich actually formed such a committee...

...he'd have a higher standing on the War Powers Act. Since neither he, nor any member of congress, did so, they will not win in court and their case is wholly without merit.

[Wilms]

65. I think Obama would have had higher standing with the War Powers Act.

Let everyone own it. Like the law says.

[joshcryer]

84. I actually like how it's going now, it's being funded by Pentagon discretionary spending...

...and it's causing NATO to collapse. It's a two-fer.

And the Libyan rebels get a fighting chance.

A three-fer.

[joshcryer]

18. Hmm, one might call him a hypocrite for failing to implement congressional priority procedures.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001545----000-.html

John Kerry tried in the Senate, however, the Republicans have stalled it.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hXHTiz4bhP0FntMPkR8u7p9MdMYQ

This, btw, is why the lawsuit has no standing, because Congress failed to act under the statute they have absolutely no grounds with which to claim the President himself acted illegally. If anyone acted illegally it would be the Congress.

[Wilms]

36. Actually, Kerry looks more the hypocrite playing CYA from the link you posted.

[joshcryer]

42. Kerry and the Senate is not statutorily required to create a committee under the War Powers Act.

His actions were supportive but were not legally binding. The GOP congress, which appears to be heavily defended on these forums these days, was the one who failed to do so. Kucinich is playing into their hands nicely, but it won't hold up in any court.

[Wilms]

47. Oh. So that's why Kerry didn't make much noise about it?

Sure. I could have missed it.

[joshcryer]

54. He was instrumental in getting action done, but after that point he had no obligation...

...legally to do anything, neither does anyone in the Senate. The War Powers Act is clear, it requires congressional approval, the Senate can write up some flowery words of approval or desire to act, but other than that it has no lawful standing.

It shows that Kucinich is easily played by the GOP at the minimum.

[Wilms]

60. No need to insult him.

He's a peacnik who believes in representative democracy. Too many people have a problem with that.

Not much complaining about him when the issue was Iraq.

[Wilms]

56. Is that easy for a minority member?

[joshcryer]

59. Yes, anyone in congress can do it, simply acting to those ends would have at least...

...showed that he was willing to comply with the War Powers Act, even if he didn't have the standing to do it. As I said, not one member of congress did it, not one. He didn't even make allusions to the idea of wanting to do it. Instead he called on Obama's impeachment.

[Wilms]

64. I saw Obama skirting the issues.

Wouldn't be the first admin to do that.

[joshcryer]

85. Obama followed the law to the tee, 100% to the tee.

[Wilms]

99. Ohhh, "100% to the tee".

:eyes:

[mikelgb]

7. Point of Order

I move that words of the gentleman be taken down. Ad hominem attacks have no place here.

The gentleman from Ohio has been absolutely consistent on matters on the Constitution and the War Powers Act. The quote provided is not attributable to Mr. Kucinich.

Rep. Kucinich is not a saint nor a hypocrite. I reserve the balance of my time.

[scheming daemons]

9. I never claimed that quote was by DK. That quote is the general view of Democrats at the time.

DK was for intervening in Rwanda, however.

[mikelgb]

39. I'd love a link with Kucinich's differing opinion on Rwanda if you have one

all I can find is this interview (and I apologize to everyone for the source *cringe* but, FUCK IT WE'LL DO IT LIVE)
link: http://www.iotconline.com/content.php?146-Kucinich-Does-Good-Job-Staying-On-Message-Re-UnConstitutionality-Of-War-Against-Libya-O-Reilly-Obviously-Does-Not-Care-About-The-Constitution
...

O'REILLY: -- look, in -- in Rwanda we saw three quarters of a million people slaughtered.

KUCINICH: Right.

O'REILLY: All right, you would not have intervened under the same philosophy that you are now telling me. You would not have intervened?

...

KUCINICH: I didn't say that.

...

I'm saying that if he's going to take action against Libya. He can't do it on his own. He's not a king. He is a President and he has to abide by the Constitution which doesn't give him unilateral authority to attack another nation. He has to come to Congress, just simply the facts.

[Wilms]

12. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from...

(psst. where are you from?)

:D

[mikelgb]

40. hint: look at my avatar

[Hugabear]

10. So when do we send our military into Syria?

And please point out exactly how Kucinich is a "hypocrite". He would be a hypocrite if he advocated military intervention in one instance, but not here.

For example, rethugs are hypocrites for backing military use in Iraq and Afghanistan, but opposing Libya because it's Obama doing it.

Many of us here on DU oppose military action whenever possible.

[scheming daemons]

13. Kucinich was in favor of U.S. intervention in Rwanda... that never came.

He was right then.


He's inconsistent now.

[Hugabear]

29. Can you really compare the Libyan crackdown with what happened in Rwanda?

Really? Really?

Granted, Libya was engaging in a brutal crackdown against protesters. But please show me how that even begins to compare with the systematic genocide that was occurring in Rwanda?

[scheming daemons]

35. No.. because we STOPPED IT

The Libyan Govt forces were about to wipe out a whole city... hundreds of thousands.


We STOPPED them... that's why it never became a Rwanda.

[joshcryer]

44. Yes, Benghazi got the treatment that Sarajevo was calling for, and Sarajevo would've ended...

...a lot differently had the world acted. Instead the Siege of Sarajevo went on for years, as it would have in Misrata and Benghazi (though I think Gaddafi with his overwhelming force would've put a crackdown on it, it would've been a years long guerrilla war).

[provis99]

51. so you just assume they were going to commit genocide.

It didn't actually happen. And you say that based on what the White House told you. that's really weak-minded.

[Hugabear]

58. Well, the rebels did claim that genocide was inevitable...

I'm sure that there was absolutely no incentive for them to exaggerate the threat in order to get US and NATO involvement... :sarcasm:

[Hugabear]

55. Do you have evidence of this?

Can you provide evidence that they were going to "wipe out" an entire town? As in every last man, woman, and child?

Or was he planning on targeting the armed rebels?

You do realize that Ghadaffi's forces had already seized other towns before they began advancing on Benghazi, and they didn't "wipe out" everyone in those towns.

[MannyGoldstein]

70. SD seems to not be into "evidence" tonight

Perhaps another time.

[phleshdef]

75. "I dunno Doc? Do you have EVIDENCE that the tumor was gonna metastasize and kill me?"

Yes, thats exactly about the level of stupidity you are riding right now with that question.

[Hugabear]

104. No, stupidity is blindly believing anything that you're told without asking any questions

http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions

<snip>
EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.
<snip>

Bloody crackdown against a rebellion? Sure.

Some civilians getting killed as a result? That usually happens in war - we've killed civilians as well.

Genocide? not so much

[phleshdef]

105. They killed a thousand people in a day. It wasn't until after intervention that things toned down.

Fuck your article. Its worthless to me. I suggest this one instead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13785053

[joshcryer]

79. Once cannot provide proof of an alternate history, but you can look to Misrata as an example.

Misrata had hundreds killed, many of them innocent civilians. Misrata had its water and electricity cut, by Gaddafi's people, from the beginning. It lasted almost 2 months without any outside help, most people were starving, with no water, and no lighting, for that period of time.

The best example you might come up with is Sarajevo, which is how Benghazi and Misrata and the western mountains would've fared were it not for UN inacting R2P. In fact, a person dear to me in Libya was killed after filming Gaddafi loyalists attacking a power station outside Benghazi. He was certainly going to implement the Misrata plan and cut off all the power and water there, and then start shelling indiscriminately with cluster munitions, etc.

[Hugabear]

103. Glad you brought up Misrata as an example

http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions

<snip>
But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.
<snip>

Sounds like a far cry from wanton genocide. So far as I can see, Ghadaffi was guilty of a brutal crackdown against a rebellion, but certainly not genocide.

[eridani]

96. I doubt that he would have favored unilateral action without Congressional approval n/t

[joshcryer]

22. When China and Russia approve, which is never. See Burma, where 22,000 people have been killed...

...by the regime. Russia and China consistently stop anyone from acting there, as they will Syria.

[krabigirl]

78. yeah, and hey, while we are at it, add Burma, and heck, china too. nt

[Rageneau]

14. Right or wrong, the issue here is the law. Is Obama above it?

Both the Constitution and the War Powers Act clearly say that Congress - not the President -- has the power (right) to wage war. Obama used his emergency powers in Libya. Now the law says he must get permission to go on. If his cause is justifiable, he should easily get the assent of Congress. If his cause is not justifiable, those who support what he is doing are supporting dictatorship.

[scheming daemons]

20. The U.S. is no longer doing anything in Libya... it is a NATO action now

[provis99]

28. the US drops bombs everyday over there.

How is that no doing anything?

[scheming daemons]

32. As part of NATO, not unilaterally...

We are, by treaty, part of NATO.

[joshcryer]

34. More accurately, the EU drops US provided bombs. The US has no troop involvement except logistics.

They provide the fuel, aircraft carries, and intelligence, all of which are non-hostile by nature.

[flvegan]

16. Who hit B7 on this old jukebox?

Cuz it's playing the same old tune.

[rug]

19. What genocide? They're both Libyans.

[scheming daemons]

21. Libyan Govt attempting to kill hundreds of thousands of Libyans = genocide

[provis99]

26. oh please.

Then you might as well conclude the US committed genocide in World War 2 by killing millions of Germans.

Calling the rebellion in Libya a "genocide" is the most pathetic use of the word I've ever heard.

[scheming daemons]

30. The rebellion isn't the genocide, the crackdown by Gaddafi AGAINST it is

Just as Assad is committing genocide in Syria.

[provis99]

37. Assad isn't committing genocide either.

You have a tendency to throw the term around really loosely.

[scheming daemons]

41. What do you call the systematic brutal killing of thousands of people?

If you have a better word than genocide, I'm all for using it.

[provis99]

48. Genocide is killing ALL the Syrians.

Just like genocide is killing ALL the Jews,or killing ALL the Tutsis.

What Assad is doing is no different than what his father did in the 1970s; killing thousands to be sure, but to stop a rebellion.

[joshcryer]

24. The actions against the Berbers could be considered ethinc cleansing.

[rug]

33. It could if you do leg stretches first.

[joshcryer]

38. Ahh, yes, funny quips about people being killed.

Have any cute jokes to say about Syria, Yemen, or Bahrain? How about Burma which has an ongoing conflict since 2007?

[rug]

53. No, it's a comment about making political hay over political murder.

Which is not genocide, useful as that may be to the propaganda war.

[joshcryer]

57. I agree, I don't call it genocide, I call it war crimes, which Gaddafi is being prosecuted for.

Now if only we could get Bush prosecuted for his war crimes. As Obama is leaving his second team I'd like for him to not veto a UNSC ICC referral to those ends, but I find it unlikely.

[tabatha]

71. 17,000

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. The word genocide seems a little hyperbolic in this case.

I'd more likely call it violent oppression. Isn't genocide the systematic and total extermination of an entire group of people?

[Harmony Blue]

45. It is a combination of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Libya honestly

While the initial merits of protecting the Libyan people was a good cause, the problem is that it was used as a pretext for an operation they were going to probably launch anyways (Western powers). Basically, the Western powers became uneasy with the increasing Chinese influence on the African continent, and the potnetial Russian naval bases (especially the one planned in Benghazi). Furthermore, the main goal has been accomplished, and now they want to initiate regime change which has nothing to do with the original goal of the operation.

Good cause, but outside forces have hijacked it now for their own self interests unfortunately.

[provis99]

49. ethnic cleansing? The makes even less sense than calling it genocide.

There's only one ethnic group in Libya: Libyans. Are they ethnically cleansing themselves out of their own country?

[Harmony Blue]

63. That is not true as Libya is a conglomerate of ethnic groups

In other words, not all Libyans are Arabs for example.

[provis99]

67. you are mixing up tribal affiliation with ethnic group.

Ethnically, Libya is 99% Arab-Berber. It is essentially homogenous.

[Harmony Blue]

69. I tried looking on the net

You claim that 99% of Libyans are Arab-Berber ethnically. Can you please give me your source?

[joshcryer]

80. Nonsense.

[joshcryer]

52. The original goal of the operation was political remedy, then it became ousting Gaddafi...

...within the first week (his violent, deadly crackdown on protesters was pre-planned as the ICC has evidence for). As far as regime change, I believe in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria, that has always been the goal, that includes Libya, so saying it wasn't part of the goal is very unfair to the Libyans (and Syrians, and Yemeni's and Brhraini's) who are fighting and dying every day for their freedom.

[whatchamacallit]

61. Not a peep about the oil

The message handlers are persuasive indeed.

[Harmony Blue]

68. The Chinese are not happy about it

As they had deals with Libya, so the Western powers saw this as a golden opportunity. And the Western powers didn't like the idea of a strong Russian military presence in the region either.

As for regime change, that is the goal of the Libyan rebels, not the initial goal of the operation launched by the Western powers. The goals have merged by now, but it was sold off of differently initially.

[MadHound]

66. Except it is our own actions, our own weapons that are killing thousands of innocents

Not to mention that it is another illegal, immoral war that we're in, when the simple fact of the matter is that we've got plenty of people in our own country that need help.

We simply cannot be the one who goes around "rebuilding" nations. We generally screw it up royally, and we can no longer afford it.

[tabatha]

72. Source please

"our own weapons that are killing thousands of innocents"

I can guarantee that you cannot back that statement up. It is not the truth.

[donheld]

73. I want to know how many of those repubs who are voting against it now

Where bitching because Obama didn't attack sooner.

[dkf]

74. This wasn't a genocide...

THE TERM "GENOCIDE"
 
The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group.


http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007043

[JDPriestly]

76. It isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.

The Constitution gives to Congress the authority to declare war. The president has the authority to command the military.

That division of labor and authority is the essence of the concept of separation powers which is the very spring and foundation of our Constitution and our government.

So, it isn't for me a matter of agreeing or disagreeing about the action in Libya, but about preserving and protecting the separation of powers.

[krabigirl]

77. ....

[JosefK]

81. So if stopping genocide is our modus operandi & raison d'etre

when do we start bombing Israel?

[Bonobo]

82. Using military force and bombing people to stop military force and bombing people?

That makes sense to you?

[joshcryer]

83. A guy is walking down the street with a machine gun, and he starts shooting people.

Do you:

1) Stop, give him flowers, and kiss his hand and tell him what a wonderful person he is.

2) Treat him with deadly force with whatever is necessary to stop him from shooting people.

[Bonobo]

89. In this case, we are the police then I suppose, eh?

[joshcryer]

90. In that case that is what UNSC R2P actions would represent, yes.

There is an alarming number of people who apparently do not believe in the Responsibility to Protect and indeed, feel as though State Sovereignty is more important than human rights. Frankly it needs to be used more often and tyrants need to be called out on their intrinsic evil.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inna]

88. what total crap. there was no genocide, that's a totally false and ridiculous claim.

we're there for several reasons, but none of them is, uh, "humanitarian".

[LAGC]

91. Bottom line: more people are going to die because of U.S. involvement than without.

That's the tragedy here. I don't buy that Ghadaffi was going to indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of his own people. Maybe a few hundred protesters, just to set an example and restore order, but nowhere near the level of "genocide" that we keep hearing from the MSM.

I sympathize with the rebels and hope Ghadaffi goes, but I hold no illusions that U.S. involvement dragging this war out from weeks to months and years there means MORE suffering and death all around, not less.

[joshcryer]

93. UNSC 1973 does not posit that and not all of us say that was going to happen.

Currently there are a half million Libyan refugees in Tunisia and Egypt, had it continued there would have been over a million, that disrupts both Egypt and Tunisian stability, and leaves a million people needing aid and possibly even permanent settlement.

The western mountains weren't going to give up without a fight, with or without NATO assistance, they have a strategically important position, and their families are in Tunisia, so they would have fought at least for a year or so, given the western mountains they could've held out indefinitely, as FARC has done in Colombia.

Misrata held on for 3 weeks without any intervention whatsoever, many people from abroad were calling the Misrata reports lies and misinformation, but once aid agencies got in there they saw that it was all true. Gaddafi laid siege to that city and it was not looking as if it was going to end any time soon. No one dared escape east or west for fear of arrest for colluding with the rebels, so the vast majority of the population stayed. As Gaddafi killed more and more rebels he created more and more immediate discontent within the population. It was quite similar to the Siege of Sarajevo in every way, and there is no reason it would not have lasted as long.

Benghazi may or may not have gone that way. Because the people of Benghazi had a free route out of Libya to Egypt, they likely would've evacuated a good deal of the city. We know that the UN IOM was expecting over a hundred thousand from the eastern cities alone, and it likely would've gone that way very quickly. This however has a different effect of creating a city with no families but only male fighters. It may have gone much worse than Misrata as far as violence and killing is concerned.

In the end no one can predict some alternate future, and I don't think you can say, with the facts as they are, that it certainly would have been better if Gaddafi had been allowed to lay siege to all 21 cities that rose up in the beginning.

I support the rebels and their call for outside assistance because I believe they want to change their society. I do not denounce said intervention because they asked for it and throughout the cause they have championed it (if not bemoaned our inaction in certain events). I don't argue that less deaths and suffering occur because of the action, though I think I could effectively make that argument since it will lead to the conflict ending sooner rather than later.

[LAGC]

94. I guess it really depends how long this civil war drags out.

I mean, if the rebels can quickly gain the upper hand and really start pushing back against loyalist cities, maybe Ghadaffi will finally see the writing on the wall and flee into exile, causing a new government to form in his wake. I truly hope that happens. But what I see on less pro-Western/interventionalist media stations is A LOT of Ghadaffi supporters rallying by his side in Tripoli, cities that aren't just going to capitulate and allow the rebels to run roughshod over them, especially if NATO decides to put boots on the ground. Will quickly turn into another Iraq.

The longer this thing drags on, the more it looks like a stale-mate with military skirmishes on various fronts. I'd just hate to see two failed states emerge from this mess, and think U.S. involvement was the cause.

[joshcryer]

95. I always maintained that it would take 6 months because that's how long the Ivory Coast took.

They're completely different situations, though similar; an illegitimate tyrant refuses to leave and uses military force to stay. If you check out the more recent reports, Tripoli itself is highly ambivalent, a lot of them just want it to be over, while there are still some pro-Gaddafi holdouts, if you get people without a government minder (a "helper" who follows you around and intimidates anyone you interview) the narrative is a lot different.

The western mountain rebels are advancing quickly on pro-rebel cities (cities that rose up initially but were crushed by Gaddafi's police forces, jailing tens of thousands of dissidents by some reports). I think NATO is handling it correctly, telling rebels in Misrata to stay put, telling rebels in Adjabiya to stay put. The western mountain rebels have a strategic upper hand, they cannot fail as long as they hold their ground. It's one thing to battle along flat coastline where the enemy has superior weapons and there's no place to hide, it's another thing entirely to battle on rough terrain where one can hide easily in outcrops and caves and where you have the high ground at all times, always on foot, not having to require roads to move your men and heavy equipment (you have little to no heavy equipment).

It helps that the western mountains, the Berbers, were overwhelmingly against Gaddafi, and that, unlike towns between Adjabiya and Misrata and Misrata and Tripoli, they are receptive of the rebels. NATO is wise in allowing their advance, because the political and social repercussions are going to be far less damning. Imagine what would happen if the rebels in Adjabiya broke out to Sirt (Gaddafi's home town) and took it over? It would be pretty bad, politically. No need for such an assault. It also creates a unifying aspect, since Gaddafi has been pitting the Berbers against the rest of the Libyans, if they turn out to, with unity, begin the freeing of Tripoli (by that point Gaddafi's regime will be feeling the heat, hard, and will probably try to get out of dodge).

[Distant Observer]

92. Problem: Defence, Intel, Foreign Policy Expert testimony was that your PREMISE WAS FALSE

Prepared statement by

Richard N. Haass

President

Council on Foreign Relations



Before the

Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate

First Session, 112th Congress



Hearing on Perspectives on the Cris

United States Senate

First Session, 112th Congress



Hearing on Perspectives on the Crisis in Libya



Mr. Chairman:



Thank you for asking me to appear before this committee to discuss recent U.S. policy toward Libya. Let me make
two points at the outset. First, my statement and testimony reflect my personal views and not those of the Council on
Foreign Relations, which as a matter of policy takes no institutional positions. Second, I will address today’s topic
from two perspectives: first, the lessons to be learned from recent U.S. policy toward Libya, and second, my
recommendations for U.S. policy going forward.



Analysis must be rigorous. In two critical areas, however, I would suggest that what has been asserted as fact was in
reality closer to assumption. First, it is not clear that a humanitarian catastrophe was imminent in the eastern Libyan
city of Benghazi. There had been no reports of large-scale massacres in Libya up to that point, and Libyan society
(unlike Rwanda, to cite the obvious influential precedent) is not divided along a single or defining fault line. Gaddafi
saw the rebels as enemies for political reasons, not for their ethnic or tribal associations. To be sure, civilians would
have been killed in an assault on the city – civil wars are by their nature violent and destructive – but there is no
evidence of which I am aware that civilians per se would have been targeted on a large scale. Muammar Gaddafi’s
threat to show no mercy to the rebels might well have been just that: a threat within the context of a civil war to those
who opposed him with arms or were considering doing so.

====
James Clapper, director of national intelligence, concurred with this position also reported close session testimony.

[eridani]

97. In an uprising of the Hatfields against the McCoys, there is a lot to be said--

--for making sure that one side doesn't have the advantage of an air force. But after you take care of that, what is the end game? No one seems to know. Both sides now have access to enough territory, oil and armaments to go at each other for quite a long time.

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/133-133/5381-the-wests-responsibility-to-libya

Distasteful as it is to have to admit it, when Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, the Libyan dictator’s son, went on TV the other day to say, in the middle of a stream mostly of gibberish, that “Libya is not Tunisia, it is not Egypt,” he had a point.

Tunisia and Egypt are real countries with histories going back respectively to Carthage and the Pharaohs (if with long gaps) and with important institutions, such as Al-Azhar University, Cairo’s great centre of Islamic learning. It came naturally to the protesters in Tahrir Square to proclaim, “We are all Egyptians.”

But not Libya. It is less a country than an assembly of tribes fused together by two accidents — the discovery of oil in 1959, and that its leader for now more than four decades, Colonel Moammar Gadhafi, should be not merely be crazy, as is well-known, but also fox-like.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/35254/prediction-20-years-of-war-in-libya

Johan Galtung, sometimes called the father of peace studies, predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union and the refusal of Egyptian soldiers to attack civilians. His prediction of the collapse of the US empire in 2020 appears to be on schedule. So, it was noteworthy when he predicted on Tuesday at the University of Virginia that the war in Libya would last 20 years. If, however, NATO and the opposition were to kill Gadaffi, he said, the fighting could go on for more than 20 years.

Galtung argues that predictions of quick success in Libya depend on an ignorance of history and a reduction of broad social forces to the caricature of a single person.


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/senators-sucked-up-to-qaddafi-now-call-for-his-head-20110401
In the Senate, those demanding even harsher prosecution of the Libya war include the three amigos. John McCain, warning that "the blood of Americans is on Qaddafi's hands," has called for arming the insurgents, whom Joe Lieberman has praised as "freedom fighters." Lindsey Graham wants to know why we don't just take out the Libyan leader like Reagan tried to do: "Who would be mad at us," he pressed Pentagon chief Robert Gates yesterday, "if we dropped a bomb on Qaddafi?"

Here's the curious thing about their hawkish swagger: In August of 2009 — not even two years ago — McCain, Lieberman, Graham traveled to Tripoli to shake the bloody hand of the freedom-depriving dictator they now want to assassinate. It was the highest-level meeting of Libyan and American officials since Condi Rice's state visit in 2008. (The amigos were joined by Susan Collins who has questioned the wisdom of the war.)

As this WikiLeaked cable details, the three amigos had a chummy visit with the Qaddafi clan: Lieberman expressed delight at the thaw in U.S.-Libyan relations: "We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi," he said to Muatassim, the regime's National Security Advisor. The Connecticut independent praised Libya as an "important ally" in the War on Terror, adding that "common enemies sometimes make better friends."

[mainer]

98. "Hatfields vs. McCoys" seems a good way to describe it.

Any rebellion against a regime in power is going to face armed suppression. This is not genocide.

And who is to say that the rebels will be any less ruthless than Khadaffi?

[eridani]

109. The relatives of the rebels have had the short end of the stick for 40 years

It isn't out of line to expect that they might want to do as they have been done by. Even more so if Ghadaffi is eliminated and the tribal rivalries stand out more.

[tekisui]

100. We are still there. Had Obama respected the WPA, it would

be fine. Now, we have Congress defunding the operation and not accepting Obama and Koh's very unsettling precedent. It is troubling.

[Dappleganger]

101. Because we are not the world police and we're already in several wars

in which we have no business to be a part of, much less started.

We are fucking broke and have a terrible track record. Time to close up shop and go home for good.

[meow mix]

102. yup. strongly agree

the ghadaffi fanz are (fill in the blank)

[Javaman]

106. One can still stop genocide with the permission of congress.

your argument fails.

[Javaman]

107. So how is Bahrain working out for you?

we seem to have no problem with the saudi's providing air support of the carpet bombing of protesters at the behest of the Bahraini monarchy.

Oh, wait, those saudi planes doing the bombing, well those are American made f-16's. Huh, imagine that.

Jesus, take the scales off your eyes.

the rebels control the eastern half of Libya. The eastern half has the lion share of the oil reserves.

if the shoe was on the other foot and the Libyan government had those oil fields, the propaganda would read, "US and NATO help our friend Quaddafi". Then it would go on about how quaddafi had somehow saw the light after he denounced terrorism and the Lockerbie bombing.

If the helping of the rebels was ever about anything else other than keeping the oil spigots open for Europe, I have yet to see it.

Just google the percentage of oil that Libya provides Europe.

stop believing the propaganda, it's very unattractive.