Libya - any ideas?

[David Johnson]

So, here we are a few weeks in and what do we know?

1. The stated purpose of the UN resolution was to protect Libyan civilians.
2. The UK stated that it would keep to the UN resolution precisely.
3. The Arab League were supportive and instrumental in getting the UN resolution through but appear to have had minimal involvement since.
4. Cameron has stated there will be no troop invasion.
5. The UK amongst others has failed to a certain extent in 1. Gaddafi's troops have been terrorising the civilians in Misrata for weeks. A ship has carted off the innocent men, women and children hurt by his men. Snipers are creating havoc in the city. The news suggests it is an ongoing massacre.
6. The UK amongst others has failed on 2. Despite having a UN resolution demanding a no-fly zone, the allies have allowed the rebels that have access to some planes that initially defected from Gaddafi's airforce to fly while stopping Gaddafi's planes from doing likewise. In short they have taken sides in the war which was not allowed in the resolution.
7. The allies' main effort now appears to be on the diplomacy front to try and get as many ministers to defect as possible so that Gaddafi and his sons pack it in and surrender.
8. The war on the ground is stalemated.
9. The UN resolution does not allow the arming of one side against the other. There is an arms embargo.

So my question to forumites, particularly those who were in favour of the UK's actions, is

If Gaddafi doesnt throw in the towel, what does the UK do then?

Cheers
D

[Sam Slater]

Is it helpful to call them 'the rebels'? I hear this a lot and don't like the categorisation.

The 'rebels' are made up of many different groups, no doubt with different agendas. They're only united in that they want rid of Gaddafi and want change.

The points you make, though, are valid. In going down the UN route we've put ourselves into a difficult situation if the no-fly zones alone cannot stop Gaddafi slaughtering his opponents. This means giving the people more help via arms, etc, making it look like we're taking sides (maybe we are). The only alternative is putting allied troops on the ground which the Arab league won't like, the UN won't like, and what we said we wouldn't do.

I would have had French, UK, US and anyone else's troops in and ousted Gaddafi and put two fingers up to the UN. But that's just me. We're playing by the rulebook now but I have a feeling it could mean a more gory, prolonged war than Iraq. As long as it's legal this time we'll take that, though, right?

[David Johnson]

"I would have had French, UK, US and anyone else's troops in and ousted Gaddafi and put two fingers up to the UN. But that's just me."

The problem with that approach is that the representatives of the "many different groups", to use your terminology, who want to get rid of Gaddafi have apparently stated they do not want Allied troops on the ground. It leaves them open to the "foreign infidel stooges" argument.

There are many examples of situations where foreign troops, even when initially welcomed, which in Libya they would not be, have then had the local populace turning against them.

You have a recent example in Basra where the population had been terrorised by Saddam and then ended up confining the British army to barracks there and one much closer to home when the army initially welcomed by the Catholic population of Belfast soon found themselves dodging bricks and bullets.

It is also worth pointing out that one of the towns in Eastern Libya apparently had more young men leaving to fight in Iraq than any other town in the Arab world.

Cheers
D

[Sam Slater]

True. Too many want their cake and eat it.

So what are we to do? Removing him would be seen as another invasion. Doing what we're doing now may prolong a war and will mean more money and resources wasted, or even leave an almost indefinite stalemate, or sit back and watched while he murdered his own people like we did with Saddam and the Kurds and Rwanda.

This is why in previous discussions I've argued that we're playing God no matter what we do in these conflicts. Once you have the capability to decide an outcome you're decision directly affects said outcome. We can only ever be the evil, interfering invaders or the cold-hearted, apathetic bastards who don't give a shit about Arabs being slaughtered.

If anyone has an idea where everyone comes out of it smelling of roses I'd like to hear it.

[David Johnson]

"or sit back and watched while he murdered his own people like we did with Saddam and the Kurds and Rwanda."

What we know is that he is murdering his own people in substantial numbers in Misrata, for example, anyway. And the Allies appear to be totally unable to stop that.

Using similar guesswork that you use about benefits/disadvantages of getting involved, I could argue that by getting involved on the side of the rebels, the Allies have increased the number of deaths because it has given the rebels the heart to continue the fight against seemingly superior trained troops and armaments. Without the Allies involvement, they may not have fought on and losses may have been considerably less than if the pro-Gaddafi forces had not been blitzed by Cruise missiles and aerial bombardments and looking for vengeance.

Cheers
D

[Sam Slater]

[quote]What we know is that he is murdering his own people in substantial numbers in Misrata, for example, anyway. And the Allies appear to be totally unable to stop that.[/quote]

Unable? No. Apprehensive or unwilling? Yes.

[quote]Using similar guesswork that you use about benefits/disadvantages of getting involved, I could argue that by getting involved on the side of the rebels, the Allies have increased the number of deaths because it has given the rebels the heart to continue the fight against seemingly superior trained troops and armaments. Without the Allies involvement, they may not have fought on and losses may have been considerably less than if the pro-Gaddafi forces had not been blitzed by Cruise missiles and aerial bombardments and looking for vengeance.[/quote]

Yes, you could argue that. Do you think we could have saved lives in Kosovo and throughout old Yugoslavia if we'd just let Milosovic get on with his race-purification programme? I believe leaving Gaddafi to his own devices would have meant a genocide, followed by a dying down of unrest. He would have then rounded up anyone he thought involved in the plotting against him and had them tortured and executed without trial (or after mock trials). Saddam did this.

I'm willing to be wrong but I'm guessing the Libyans fighting Gaddafi would rather die for their cause than die after a mock trial, or live under more oppression. They must have known the possible consequences before rising up against him to start with.

You've still not given me any better alternatives, David.

[David Johnson]

Quote:

What we know is that he is murdering his own people in substantial numbers in Misrata, for example, anyway. And the Allies appear to be totally unable to stop that.

Unable? No. Apprehensive or unwilling? Yes.

I use the phrase "appear to be totally unable". Dont omit the "appear". Given that according to the reports that I have read snipers are the main cause of the terror and deaths occurring in Misrata, I find it difficult to imagine how air strikes in the third biggest city in Misrata against snipers positioned around the town could be carried out without causing large scale civilian casualties. Perhaps you could explain how that would work successfully militarily?

"Yes, you could argue that."

I do.


"I believe leaving Gaddafi to his own devices would have meant a genocide, followed by a dying down of unrest. He would have then rounded up anyone he thought involved in the plotting against him and had them tortured and executed without trial (or after mock trials). "

Genocide is an emotive word which may or may not be appropriate in this situation. Of course, the rounding up and torturing of opponents has gone on in Libya for 30 years already ably supported by the Tory and Labour governments adherence to the profit motive, so nothing new there.

"I'm willing to be wrong but I'm guessing the Libyans fighting Gaddafi would rather die for their cause than die after a mock trial, or live under more oppression."

Fine words, but not backed up by reality in any comprenhensive way. You must have missed the street interviews by the BBC in Zawiya where Gaddafi had retaken the town. The reporter noticed that there was absolutely no sign of the main mosque in town which had been used as a rebel hospital and which had been razed to the ground and the rubble taken away. He couldnt even get the locals to explain what had happened. They were a beaten and cowed group who obviously had not been prepared to die for their cause as you suggest. You also must have missed the video of the rebels streaming towards the west until Gaddafi's forces opened fire and they then hightailed it back east at the first volley.

"You've still not given me any better alternatives, David."

I know. It ain't easy. I don't have answers. What I do know is that sometimes it is right to intervene and sometimes it isnt and my gut reaction is that this is one scenario where it might turn out to be the wrong thing to do.

Cheers
D

[David Johnson]

I feel we have drifted away from my initial question

If Gaddafi doesnt throw the towel in, what should the UK do?

Your main suggestion is invade, if it was down to you, but as we know all the rebel leaders have stated they do not want an invasion. An invasion when both sides dont want you is not a position to get into.

Your other suggestion is arm the rebels. This is against the UN resolution and it could well result in large scale loss of life. There are already many stories of so called mercenaries/oil workers being shot out of hand by the rebels. What would the rebels armed by the allies do to the Gaddafi supporters in Tripoli after being on the receiving end of decades of Gaddafi and the effects of the last two months?

Therein lies, I suspect, the answer to the initial question. The allies shouldnt be there because without Gaddafi throwing the towel in diplomatically, it is difficult to see an outcome to this which does not involve a lengthy stalemate or a very substantial loss of life.

One wonders if anyone has asked the rebels - how would they feel if their Egyptian neighbours got involved militarily on the ground. This is not going to happen in the short term, but it is undoubtedly the way to go to break the infidel invasion scenario.

We shall see.

Cheers
D

[Sam Slater]

[quote]I use the phrase "appear to be totally unable".[/quote]

Yes, but why does it appear so? Would a more accurate statement be 'they appear to be totally unable when following UN guidelines.'?

[quote]I find it difficult to imagine how air strikes in the third biggest city in Misrata against snipers positioned around the town could be carried out without causing large scale civilian casualties. Perhaps you could explain how that would work successfully militarily?[/quote]

Air strikes cannot stop snipers within a city. At least not without risking massive civilian casualties. But I never argued otherwise.

[quote]Genocide is an emotive word which may or may not be appropriate in this situation.[/quote]

I cannot think of another word that would have described what Gaddafi appeared to be ready to do. Is 'mass slaughter' any less emotive? I don't think my description inappropriate.

[quote]Fine words, but not backed up by reality in any comprenhensive way. You must have missed the street interviews by the BBC in Zawiya where Gaddafi had retaken the town. The reporter noticed that there was absolutely no sign of the main mosque in town which had been used as a rebel hospital and which had been razed to the ground and the rubble taken away. He couldnt even get the locals to explain what had happened. They were a beaten and cowed group who obviously had not been prepared to die for their cause as you suggest.[/quote]

I was talking about the people that had risen against Gaddafi, not any locals caught in the cross-fire. I think if you recheck you'll see this. The only people who are standing against Gaddafi, who didn't think their actions might put them in danger, are most likely deluded.

[quote]I know. It ain't easy. I don't have answers.[/quote]

Obviously. How can either of us? We can only have opinions based on what we know. I have my opinion and given it (this IS what you asked for if I remember correctly). I'm just asking for yours, now.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]I feel we have drifted away from my initial question[/quote]

True. I did give my opinion, though, which is what you asked for.