Barack Obama is secretly pro-Gadaffi - or he's a *****.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

So, anyone still not in favour of Nato's intervention in Libya? I think it's going rather well actually...

Great job.

Involvement in Libya for no national interests except...

to prevent mass murders.

Instead we have a prolonged drip drip drip of murders from stalemating, resulting in a longer period of death despair and hardship for all the peoples of the region.

wonderful just wonderful.

Could be the worst possible outcome. No doubt that is a reason for Moby cheering.

Latest estimates show deaths on the order of 10,000 - 30,000. The anticipated genocide in Benghazi is now in many circles thought to simply be a fabricated scare tactic (Yes Obama lied and people died) given the actual previous treatment of Misurata by Gaddaafi forces.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-1...ebel-positions

The point is if one is going to commit it must be done swiftly overpoweringly and with ground forces. Thus the decision must be done with the utmost care and certitude (in other words real compelling national interests involved) Anything else is relegating the people to long term deprivation and death and simply fracking around with world politics for no good reason other than to show you can.


Once again Moby declares himself victorious while everyone can see it plainly otherwise.

[BeBMan]

Well, so far they didn't make efforts to blow up western airliners. And fashion-wise the average rebel in jeans and t-shirt seems to be a clear improvement compared to G-man. As for the possible revenge part, how much do we know about it?

[Zevico]

Well, so far they didn't make efforts to blow up western airliners. And fashion-wise the average rebel in jeans and t-shirt seems to be a clear improvement compared to G-man. As for the possible revenge part, how much do we know about it?

I'm reticent about accepting media accounts on faith, or indeed those of NGO's, on the Middle East. But Ogie did link to a Boston Globe article on this issue which suggests that civilian casualties were relatively low, which in turn, suggests that Gaddafi was not targeting civilians with the aim of causing widespread massacres in the thousands or tens of thousands.

[BeBMan]

I'm reticent about accepting media accounts on faith, or indeed those of NGO's, on the Middle East. But Ogie did link to a Boston Globe article on this issue which suggests that civilian casualties were relatively low, which in turn, suggests that Gaddafi was not targeting civilians with the aim of causing widespread massacres in the thousands or tens of thousands.

Well, I replied to the "are the rebels better" post.

Now when it's about the question whether western action is justified on humanitarian grounds, Ogie's article says "hundreds" have been killed by G-forces, but files it under collateral damage of counter-insurgency.

Personally I find this a somewhat strange wording - the entire thing started as I remember in a similar way as the rest of the 'Arab Spring' - with public protest etc. It became a civil war after G started to supress those protests by force.

The no-fly zone, subsequent military action etc. was justified with the concern that this will end up in massacres. If the population has not been killed on a grand scale now, does it mean it was never planned or that the intervention prevented it? The guy who wrote the article seems to be generally sceptical towards something like a "humanitarian intervention", which is of course a POV that one can have, but IMO it does not answers all questions.

[Zevico]

Right we now we know a few things about the rebels without being Libya-ologists. First, they're made up of disaffected tribes not getting enough power from the regime. The regime itself has no power structure other than one built on tribal lines or alliances so this is not surprising. Second, they did at least welcome the return of Libyan fighters in Iraq: that is, Al Qaeda members. Third, they are not a coherent opposition group. They haven't even formed a government yet, only a 'Council.' So the differences between the two are tribal, not so much ideological. However, (and fourth) Gaddafi was lambasted by Libyan opposition groups as being pro-Western before this uprising, and rebel propaganda is filled with racist references such as Gaddafi being depicted as a Jew (for example). So is there reason to think that the rebels are more humane than Gadaffi? On the limited information we have, no. Their disagreement is not so much ideological as it is practical: the disaffected tribes want power they're not getting under the present regime.

The threat of intervention came after reports of mass-killings; the Boston Globe article quotes an NGO report which, in turn, suggests that mass-killings did not occur and that the reports were untrue. Now, I don't think this NGO had a vested interest in the Gaddafi regime though stranger things have happened before. I'd wait for more confirmation on it though (without assuming the existence or non-existence of said killings).

It is possible that the threat of intervention or media coverage prevented mass killings.

[MOBIUS]

So is this time for Cameron to parade on an aircraft carrier with a banner saying "Mission Accomplished"...?

Oh yeah, we just got rid of our last aircraft carrier...

Still, the really hard work starts with the peace.

[Zevico]

Barry Rubin's analysis: because he knows what's he's talking about after studying the region as a historian for 30 years.

As NATO jets bombed the military positions of Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi, the watching rebels cheered, “Allah Akhbar!” Now that is a common Muslim expression, not just used by Islamists, and yet there is something symbolic about it. Allah did not bring the rebels victory, the United States and Europe did. Nevertheless, Allah will get the credit.

And that means the triumph will be attributed to the rebels’ piety rather than the West’s warplanes. In political terms, Islamism is likely to be more attractive than a pro-Western stance. But that doesn’t mean Libya will be an Islamist state; it merely means it won’t be a democratic, pro-Western one.

Of course, the key factor here is that nobody, including the Libyans, knows what’s going to happen there. There are multiple factors: regional (eastern versus western Libya); ethnic (Berbers and Arabs); ideological; factional; personal; and recent defectors from Qadhafi’s regime versus rebels. The stakes in loot and oil money are high.

There has been no change in Libya’s social make-up. The rebels have looted, burned, and killed civilians, with a special animus toward black Africans, a group identified with Qadhafi’s regime by the rebels.

Thus, the prospects for violence and internal disorder are tremendous.

Of course, Qadhafi is one of the world’s worst dictators. The same, albeit with somewhat less justice, was said of the shah of Iran and President Mubarak of Egypt. With equal justice it was said of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. The determinant of how things will work out, however, does not depend on the evilness of the dictator but the goodness—in competence, unity, tolerance, and moderation—of those who overthrew him.

Certainly, I’d like to see Libya as a happy, democratic, prospering country. But one has to analyze the facts as can be best understood. There is no reason to believe in a great outcome. At best, a regime might come into existence that maintains stability, reduces repression, and spends some of the oil income for the benefit of its people.

http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/

[C0ckney]

As NATO jets bombed the military positions of Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi, the watching rebels cheered, “Allah Akhbar!” Now that is a common Muslim expression, not just used by Islamists, and yet there is something symbolic about it.

is it really anymore significant than when a european says 'thank God' about something. i even hear athiests say it when they are relived or happy about something. seems like a cultural thing with little real meaning.

[Zevico]

is it really anymore significant than when a european says 'thank God' about something. i even hear athiests say it when they are relived or happy about something. seems like a cultural thing with little real meaning.

The author agrees with you. His point is not that the use of this phrase is itself proof that "Allah will get the credit."

The author asserts that Allah will get the credit rather than the United States or Europe.

He states that the cries of "God is Great", in this particular context, are symbolic of the fact that Allah will get the credit--not that they prove that Allah will get the credit, which they don't.

[giblets]

So he doesn't give any reason why we should think they will give the credit to Allah...

[Zevico]

So he doesn't give any reason why we should think they will give the credit to Allah...

It's also possible that I'm wrong, and that he's quite serious. It's also possible that he doesn't comprehensively explain everything he says, and it's also quite reasonable not to take his word for it.
I shouldn't really speak in the author's name, or really, with such 'confidence' (if you will) on the subject.

On further reflection I think his point is that the absence of praise at these latest celebrations for the United States and Europe evinces a lack of appreciation for the actions of the United States and Europe.

[BeBMan]

In the end it is a Libyan triumph (provided they don't **** up the aftermath) so they can rightfully claim credit. While they probably hadn't been able to do this without NATO air support, in the end it is the development on the ground that was decisive.

As for the ongoing speculation whether those are all islamists/whatever - why don't we just wait how it turns out? Nobody can predict for sure what Libya (or Egypt, Tunisia for that matter) will become, and the domestic rebels/protestors/whatever are no monolithic movement that can simply be put into one political/ideological/religious/whatever category.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So he doesn't give any reason why we should think they will give the credit to Allah...

It is things like these why I take ANYTHING from pajamasmedia (they are responsible for instapundit) with a grain of salt.

[Jon Miller]

So he doesn't give any reason why we should think they will give the credit to Allah...

I don't see what is wrong with giving the credit to Allah. A fair number of Christians in the US would do similarly. Europe would have done the same in the past.

JM

[Dinner]

It's been hilarious to watch the Republican wing nuts and their reaction to Libya. In March they were screaming the President wasn't taking enough action and direct military response was needed. In May they were screaming & foaming at the mouth declaring it was unconstitutional for the President to support the NATO operation in Libya without a Congressional declaration of war (even though Bush did the same in Iraq, Clinton in Bosnia & Kosovo, Bush Sr in Kuwait, Reagan in Panama & Granada, etc...), and now that the Rebels have taken Tripoli they declare the whole thing a waste of time and that Obama never had anything to do with the victory. Talk about clueless partisan hacks.