tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1262428583972703917.post9158011256533125049..comments2023-03-25T12:22:10.884+00:00Comments on Aloadofoldstodge: Sinking into the Libyan Quagmire...loadofoldstodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06547546574930006676noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1262428583972703917.post-27896294145563159742011-04-06T09:37:45.464+00:002011-04-06T09:37:45.464+00:00Thank you for the comment, TTJ, or should that be ...Thank you for the comment, TTJ, or should that be "Mr Jones".<br /><br />I don't disagree with much of your comment and have always had doubts about the Libyan involvement.<br /><br />It seems to me there were two credible positions - do nothing, allow Gaddafi to suppress the revolt and deal with the humanitarian aftermath on the Egyptian border. This would probably have ended the protests in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere, secured oil prices and tyrants alike.<br /><br />The second option was to intervene directly on the side of the rebels either with a view to imposing a de facto partition of Libya or to actively seek the overthrow of Gaddafi. This would have involved ground troops which would have swept the Gaddafi forces aside quickly and been in Tripoli in a few hours. The Iraq experience has mitigated against that - there's an obvious fear that Tripoli would become the new Baghdad and Sirte the new Fallujah and of course no one wanted that.<br /><br />The result of facing two undesirable outcomes was that Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama tried to come up with a "third way" that was neither one thing nor the other and has arguably got us the worst of all worlds.loadofoldstodgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06547546574930006676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1262428583972703917.post-39586391669609536602011-03-31T05:08:31.994+00:002011-03-31T05:08:31.994+00:00However, the Resolution doesn't allow for airs...<b>However, the Resolution doesn't allow for airstrikes to actively assist the rebel advance where there are no civilians involved so that would seem to preclude an attack on the Gaddafi positions facing the rebels west of Bin Jawaad in the open..</b><br /><br />The "coalition" pays little attention to restraints of the Resolution. If it did, it would not be actively embroiled in an internal civil war. In fact the "Coalition", pious proclamations notwithstanding, has been actively assisting the rebel in advancing. In such advances the rebels themselves are attacking other civilians that do not support their goals. And there has been "active assistance" of the rebels by the pious Coalition all along. "Spin" from London or Washington cannot hide the obvious.<br /><br />My blog details 5 central contradictions of "coalition" warfare:<br /><br />The anti-Libyan "Coalition", for all intents and purposes a European/US affair, cannot even follow its own UN Resolution, and is riddled with contradictions. Here are merely five:<br /><br />(a) The 'Coalition' says it is protecting civilians, yet it is urging on and arming insurgent forces, who themselves are attacking other civilians they disagree with (people who back the Colonel) and providing their anointed proxies with free flying artillery and logistics support- not to mention unfettered access to captured loyalist arms.<br /><br />(b) Coalition leader Obama can't keep his rhetoric straight in the same speech. He first says its "not about regime change" but then demands that Khadaffi leave.<br /><br />(c) The Coalition says it intervened for "humanitarian" purposes, yet it is urging on war via its proxies, and its bombing campaign, and the potential for an extended guerrilla war even if Khadaffi leaves may well cause many more civilian casualties, than if Moamar had been allowed to put down his internal rebellion in the first place.<br /><br />(d) The Coalition points to language in the UN Resolution about the will of the Libyan people, but is already dictating to said people about what and who should lead them. There are other people in Libya who do NOT support the insurgents. Somehow though, they don't count, only the Coalition's anointed proxies are "representative" of "the people".<br /><br />(e) The UN resolution embargoes arms to Libya period, but somehow this does not apply to the insurgent forces, who are being openly armed by 'Coalition' forces, supposedly tasked with enforcing said "Resolution."<br /><br /><br />Now don't get me wrong. I am no Khadaffi fan. It could be argued that he is getting his just desserts after years of supporting terrorism, and interference in the affairs of other countries such as Chad in Africa. Indeed in the 1980s, his forces were ignominiously routed by Chadian fighters and expelled from that country. But the mendacity of the "Coalition" (see above), the commitment of US prestige to another possible wearying Middle East war with few vital interests at stake (if 'democracy' was so precious for example, why haven't we forcefully implemented it in Iran or Saudi Arabia), the duplicity of the Arab League, and the troubling precedent this European led "coalition" presents for small nations in the future should make any independently thinking person uneasy.Research datahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03196376215603452760noreply@blogger.com