In Libya, the RELENTLESS LOGIC OF WAR: Stopping the Killing is NOT AN OPTION

[Distant Observer]

From street activists to international diplomats, it is pretty clear that many did not know how much destruction would be unleashed with the "humanitarian intervention" in Libya. Bombing to prevent a massacre and to impose a "No Fly Zone" was supposed to take "days, not weeks." Months later, NATO is launching the most massive bombing raids of the war -- not anywhere where "defenseless" civilians are calling for protections, but in the capital city Tripoli. Close support "Attack" helicopter squadrons are now being rushed into the conflict -- not to kill more effectively, but to "protect civilians," to be sure.

IT IS NOW ALL LIES, ALL THE TIME. That is the logic of war. You have to keep killing to save yourself from the appearance of "loosing." You have to ratchet up the demonizing of the enemy to rationalize "all necessary means." THERE IS NO WAY OUT.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13358885

Libya stalemate leaves Nato without 'Plan B'

By Jonathan Marcus BBC Defense and Diplomatic Correspondent

"Stalemate" is not a word you will hear in public from the lips of ministers or media handlers in the Ministry of Defense here in London.
. .

SHIFTING GOALPOSTS

One of America's leading defense commentators, Prof Tony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, puts it this way: "The mission can only succeed if Gaddafi and his regime are made the primary target and driven from power."

Pretending that a no-fly zone or striking at small, dispersed Libyan units can be sufficient "is farce and not the effective use of force," he says. "It is very important," said Mr Fox, "that we give no sign of any wavering in our resolution."

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. Rec. n/t

[dipsydoodle]

2. As I had done already.

Nevertheless the usual crew of 7 or so are unreccing.

[al bupp]

3. Ask the people in Misrata if it seems like a stalemate...

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/122487204.html">With Gadhafi's forces out of range, shops open and checkpoints close in Misrata.

Two weeks ago they were being shelled by cluster bombs & missles. Today shops are open and checkpoints being taken down. It only appears to be a stalemate to lazy journalists who aren't paying attention to the details.

[Distant Observer]

4. Kill all of the other side in a civil war -- and then you have peace. GREAT

[al bupp]

5. I suppose the side being shelled w/ cluster bombs should have simply surrendered?

You seem to think that both sides are equally at fault and equally murderous when the evidence points to the contrary. It has been the Gaddafi loyalists consistently responsible for indiscrimant bombing. When these forces are defeated you would have us believe this is somehow a terrible wrong.

I wonder how you would react if it were your home town being shelled. I do not like war, and would avoid it at all costs, but sometimes there is simply no other option unless one wants to submit unconditionally.

[howard112211]

6. Actually, there are usually MORE reasons to go to war than to not go to war.

And more people strongly arguing for it than strongly arguing against it. Most wars that history deemed unnecessary were started with "no other option".

There are almost always other options which the people in charge refuse to consider.

[al bupp]

10. The operative word in your statement is "almost"

I think that the conflict in Libya pretty much meets that criteria. Otherwise, I generally agree w/ your statement. However, ask yourself, what would we have if Lincoln had decided to avoid war and allow the south to secede, or if Roosevelt had somehow negotiated a settlement following Pearl Harbor? Would the world have been better for millions of slaves kept in bondage longer or the imperial Japanese forces to plunder asia for longer?

I realize that war is a process that gets entered into in stages and that the lead-up to an armed conflict is where the sides get cemented into their positions and backed into corners that it's difficult to get out of w/o resorting to arms. I would dearly like to have a world where these processes were largely short-circuited by other means of resolution. Unfortunately, the dilemma comes when faced w/ exigent circumstances, such as the long reign of a brutal dictator or a foreign invasion, where negotiation is basically impossible unless it's really just another word for outright surrender.

[howard112211]

12. Some points:

1. Can we please leave Hitler out of this? I think he has been sufficiently "abused" for all of eternity.

2. We will never know if Roosevelt or Lincoln could have done different things. Such discussions are purely hypothetical, and quite pointless. In fact, they are another brand of "reductio at Hitlerum".

3. For every war there is person saying "This time it is different. This time it is justified.". That doesn't mean very much, because a justification always exists.

4. Note that I have no where stated that the uprising of the Libyans was not justified. I actually think they have every reason to want to overthrow Ghaddafi. Should NATO have gotten involved, or how they should have, is a completely different question.

5. A group in control of obvious overwhelming force (NATO in this case) is in a very good position to enforce a negotiation without escalating a war.

[al bupp]

16. Some responses...

1. Sure, but he and his ilk make for a reference case that some would rather leave out of it just because they are pretty hard to argue the anti-war case against. Nevertheless, the post you responded to above does not mention you-know-who, but rather his allies.

2. I think considering your argument in the context of past history is far from pointless even if purely hypothetical since it forces us to ground the discussion in some specifics.

3. What you say is no doubt true, but taken on a case by case basis may nonetheless be, in fact, defensible. What you are arguing is essentially the just because the justification is always made and often spurious is also always wrong, sort of guilt by association.

Until Libya I had been against every conflict the US has entered into since my adolescence, meaning from Vietnam onwards. I marched in the streets of against US involvement in Central America, and opposed both the Afghan and Iraq wars (1 & 2). I say, yes, Libya is different.

4. While technically true, given the context of the original post, and your initial response, one might be forgiven for thinking otherwise. But point now taken. As for NATO involvement, I see no reason to take large exception to it, save that it might be argued they ought to be bombing more, particularly w/ respect to southern desert mountains where Gaddafi's forces had been laying siege to towns of tens of thousands for months now.

5. If NATO's force were that overwhelming, then Gaddafi would have given up power by now. I think they've been largely holding back in an effort to give his troops a chance to either defect or walk away. Unfortunately, the dictator and his son appear to have a death wish and seem to want to go down in flames. In this case, I fail to see any meaningful room for negotiation.

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. #5 is very much to the point and, imo, inarguable.

>>5. A group in control of obvious overwhelming force (NATO in this case) is in a very good position to enforce a negotiation without escalating a war.>>>

[al bupp]

23. I would NATO is doing precisely this

The carrot:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8533941/Libya-Britain-softens-demands-Col-Gaddafi-should-go.html">Libya: Britain softens demands Col Gaddafi should go

And the stick:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43131705/ns/world_news-europe">France plans to deploy attack helicopters in Libya

What else would you have them do?

[Distant Observer]

24. This was 1-2 thousand militants according to reporter who got on the ground --

the media initially gave the impression that most of the country was in revolt.

That was not the truth. The revolution turned out to be a coup mainly driven by external
forces and then massive Western military strikes.

[al bupp]

25. I'm sorry but this is utter BS, sir

I get the impression that you get your facts directly from Moussa Ibrahim, and have about as much credibility.

[Distant Observer]

27. No analyst I have read claims Libya meets criteria for "just war"

[Distant Observer]

7. There is such a thing as a negotiated settlement of differences. But let's pretend therre isn't.

That is the logic of War -- you must kill the enemy until they surrender or else you loose your "dignity" etc

[al bupp]

8. For the people of Misrata it wasn't about dignity

It was about having friends and family shot by roof-top snipers and blown to pieces by Grad missiles. It is easy from afar and the comfort of your living room to pretend that it is simply a matter of negotiation, but you might have a different perspective were you in the midst of it. I suppose that the Russians should have simply negotiated a settlement w/ the Nazis and not put up a defense (that involved any killing) of Moscow, Leningrad or Stalingrad?

[howard112211]

9. Standard pro-war arguments and Godwin, the whole package.

We had to liberate Iraq. For them living under a dictator was very real.

Blah blah blah, I'm so tired of it. Yes, lets take the life histories of a few individuals to decide the future of an entire nation. That has worked so well in the past.

[al bupp]

11. It is easy to critisize, but how about a constructive proposal instead?

I would like to see you offer a concrete and specific outline for options other than resorting to arms which could have been pursued by the Libyan opposition to Gaddafi. I feel that you would like to keep this discussion in platitudes and generalities which are easy to accept, but then dismiss and consideration of specific examples w/o any real counter argument.

[PVnRT]

13. I'm sure Qadafi was open to negotiation

He's such a sensible man.

[Distant Observer]

14. Over 40 years the Gaddafi regime engaged in many good negotiations with factions and tribes

That is the only reason that despite the repressive rule of revolutionary council Libya became rose from
an impoverished colonial outpost to one of the most developed countries in the region with large influx of immigrants seeking a better quality of life.

Those are the facts that were well known in Africa though totally unknown, it appears, in the US

[al bupp]

17. I think those "negotiations" amounted to mafia-style bribery and arm-twisting

To the degree Libya has become a developed country, it has been in spite of Gaddafi not because of him, and largely owes it having had the good fortune to having significant petroleum resources. Gaddafi has not been shy about using these resources as a carrot to the west or using the proceeds from to fund armed groups elsewhere in Africa.

[Distant Observer]

20. Noticed that Libya was never on the list of countries the use TORTURE, as were many US allies

Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org ): torture recently documented in: China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Malaysia, Morocco, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan.

Not to say that there was not repression of opposition forces, including executions, rumored assasinations etc.

But the objective fact is that Libya was one of the least repressive of the Autocratic regimes in the region.

[al bupp]

22. Did you actually check before making the citation?

Searching for Libya on the HRW site brought up this 2008 report:

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/09/02/libya-rights-risk">HRW Libya: Rights at Risk

Despite modest improvements in recent years, Libyans and foreign residents in Libya continue to suffer from serious violations of human rights. Below is a selection of the key human rights issues in Libya, as documented by Human Rights Watch. The material is based primarily on three visits to Libya since 2005.

...

I. Political Prisoners
Scores of individuals are serving long terms in Libyan prisons for engaging in peaceful
political activity, and some have been forcibly “disappeared.” Law 71, described below,
bans independent political activity, and violators can be subject to the death penalty.

...

III. Torture
Torture is prohibited under Libyan law, its commission is a criminal offense, and the
government has repeatedly claimed that it investigates and prosecutes cases in which
torture against detainees is alleged. Nevertheless, reports of torture and maltreatment in
detention are consistent and credible...

During Human Rights Watch’s research in Libya in April-May 2005, 15 out of 32
prisoners interviewed in five different detention facilities said they had been tortured
during interrogation. They said interrogators had subjected them to electric shocks, hung
them from walls, and beat them with clubs and wooden sticks. Confessions extracted
through torture were admitted as evidence against them in court.

...

The US government has recognized torture as a serious concern. According to the State
Department’s 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, methods of torture in
Libya included:

chaining prisoners to a wall for hours; clubbing; applying electric shock;
applying corkscrews to the back; pouring lemon juice in open wounds;
breaking fingers and allowing the joints to heal without medical care;
suffocating with plastic bags; depriving detainees of sleep, food, and
water; hanging by the wrists; suspending from a pole inserted between the
knees and elbows; burning with cigarettes; threatening with dog attacks;
and beatings on the soles of the feet.

I realize that torture is sadly endemic to the region, and given Guantanamo and extraordinary rendition the US is hardly in a position to stand in judgment, but your assertion seems ludicrous on the face of it.

[backscatter712]

15. Bingo!

Thanks to our efforts, Benghazi has been safe since the no-fly-zones started, and Misrata's now open for business - the port's operational, the airport's just been retaken, and Gaddafi's forces have been forced back.

We've saved many thousands of lives. Sorry so many here are blind to that fact. If we didn't intervene, Gaddafi would have slaughtered hundreds of thousands for little more than snarking off to their government.

And I've come to accept that the fastest and best path to peace in Libya is victory.

Sorry, but the idea that the rebels are equal in violence somehow to Gaddafi's forces is complete and utter and indefensible horseshit. The rebels started off as protesters, remember? They tried to make this happen like it did in Egypt, remember? Demonstrations in the streets of Tripoli, remember? But Gaddafi responded with machine guns, torture and mass-slaughter. Do you expect the people of Libya to try to sing Kumbaya with that murderous dictator after all the people he's killed? Are you fucking stoned?

No. I'm still rooting for the rebels, and I'm perfectly happy to see our government providing them with weapons and air-support, and hope we see it through to the day Gaddafi's head is on a pike! Stick with the current strategy - let the Libyans themselves do the ground fighting and keep American boots off Libyan soil. Gaddafi's slowly running out of steam, and eventually, the battle will come to Tripoli.

[Romulox]

18. Chilling. nt

[Distant Observer]

19. Have you seen a picture of Benghazi in 60's? Benghazi florished for past 3 decades

Even Gaddafi's enemies acknowledge that. He has been hated for religious and ideological reasons as much as for controlling what the Cyrenaicans regard as "their" oil -- because most of the oil exploitation has been in the east but the managers are in the Tripoli (the west).

FYI Here is a popular article on life in Libya in 1995 in SPIN magazine. This US rag takes has a pretty cynical and negative view of the Colonel but at least it should show you that with all the factions life in Libya was not the Gulag that the new Humanitians seem to believe.

http://books.google.com.jm/books?id=dtbUh9Aju4IC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=gaddafi+goats+opposition+libya+impoverished&source=bl&ots=Uuj1SnHqra&sig=aXMIS1UWu2AHZaFyAyX3DgN2c9U&hl=en&ei=XsjbTcrIKJDrgQf566HuDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Distant Observer]

26. Benghazi before and after Gaddafi -- most westernern observers are just ignorant of the past

Despite a general bias against the old Cyrenaican elites that controlled Libya before the Gaddafi revolution, under Gaddafi there was huge expansion of Benghazi city, universities, hospitals, cultural centers and social services. The Benghazi elites of commerce are still elite and far more wealthy, just envious of the political elites in Tripoli and unwilling to share the wealth with their poorer Cyrenaicans who through neglect by both sets of elites have resorted to religios zealotry and militancy.

Benghazi and coastline before Gaddafi





Benghazi Today is a modern metropolis while still maintaining traditional architecture