Libya on the brink of civil war.

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Gunmen storm Libyan parliament in 'campaign against Islamists'

Assault claimed by forces loyal to renegade ex-general who earlier sent fighters into Benghazi

By Reuters
18 May 2014

Heavily armed gunmen stormed Libya’s parliament with anti-aircraft weapons on Sunday in an assault claimed by forces loyal to a renegade ex-general who has vowed to purge the country of Islamist militants.

In a confusing, chaotic attack, heavy smoke rose from the parliament building in Tripoli as gunmen clashed with guards. A Reuters reporter said the attackers raided and left, and other unknown gunmen later closed off nearby streets.

Another witness said attackers had kidnapped two people and heavy gunfire could be heard across other parts of Tripoli, where rival brigades of former rebels have often clashed since ending their 2011 war against Muammar Gaddafi.

Details of who carried out the parliament attack were unclear, but a spokesman for retired Libyan general Khalifa Haftar said his forces had carried out the assault as part of his campaign to rid Libya of Islamist militants.

“These are members of the Libyan National Army,” Mohamed al-Hejazi, spokesman for the group said, using the name of the irregular forces loyal to Mr Haftar.

Mr Haftar, a former rebel in the war against Gaddafi, had already sent his fighters into Benghazi on Friday against Islamist militants based there, claiming Libya’s government had failed to halt violence in the eastern city.

At least 40 people were killed in those clashes, which involved some air force helicopters.

On Saturday, parliamentary speaker and military commander-in-chief Nuri Abu Sahmain accused Mr Haftar of trying to stage a coup. Several reports said Mr Sahmain had been kidnapped after Sunday’s attack, but he denied that.

After the 2011 NATO-backed war, Libya’s weak government and nascent army struggled to impose any authority over heavily armed brigades and militias who once fought Gaddafi and have become powerbrokers often challenging the state.

Libya’s parliament has been paralysed by divisions between Islamist parties and more nationalist rivals, leaving many Libyans frustrated at the lack of progress toward democratic transition since the fall of Gaddafi.

Militia brigades in armoured trucks mounted with anti-aircraft canons have often stormed parliament, occupied ministries and even kidnapped the prime minister last year in a show of military muscle to make political demands.

But Sunday’s attack on parliament was the most serious violence in the capital for months, and appeared to expand Haftar’s campaign against hardline Islamists, who emerged as a force in North Africa since the Arab Spring revolts of 2011.

Omar Bushah, a parliamentarian, told Reuters that gunmen had stormed into the General National Congress building, raiding lawmakers’ offices and set the building on fire.

There were no immediate reports of any casualties from hospital officials.

Mr Haftar stirred rumours of a coup in February by appearing in a Libyan military uniform to call for a presidential committee to be formed to govern until new elections as a way to end the country’s political impasse.

It was unclear how much support Mr Haftar has in the regular armed forces or among the network of competing militias who have carved out fiefdoms in parts of the country.

But in Benghazi, the cradle of the uprising against Gaddafi, authorities have struggled to curb violence and stem attacks blamed on Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamist group that Washington labels as a terrorist organisation.

Since the end of Gaddafi’s one-man rule, Libya’s fragile democracy has hobbled from crisis to crisis with the country on its third prime minister since March, its new constitution unwritten and parliament deadlocked by infighting.

Just hours before the attack, new Prime Minister Ahmed Maiteeq announced he had formed a government pending parliamentary approval this week, after the country went nearly two months without a functioning government.

Complicating Libya’s transition, the most powerful brigades of former rebels -- such as the Zintans, the Misratans and the Operations Room of Libya’s Revolutionaries -- have loosely allied themselves competing political factions.

Former rebel commanders and protesters have also taken over key oil ports and pipelines, cutting Libya’s oil output to 200,000 barrels per day from 1.4 million bpd to demand more autonomy and a greater share of oil wealth.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...parliament-in-campaign-against-Islamists.html

Whilst i should want the previous coalition [including Cameron] to remember its involvement in the country, the respective actors appear to be a tangled mess of opportunists rather than ideologically cosy shall we say.

 

[Church o Choccy]

Hafter will get the international support if he keeps going the way he's going. Most Libyans lost confidence in the GNC some time ago and if he offers a viable alternative (his plan to hand power to the c60 instead of taking it for himself will go down well) and provides the security in Benghazi that the GNC never could then he'll get popular support within the country and the international community will join.

Things are still tense here in Tripoli. We haven't had any fighting as bad as Sunday evening but the Misratan militias are supposed to be arriving this morning and everyone assumes that means a big face off with the Zintanis on the airport road.

 

[Will Absolute]

Hafter will get the international support if he keeps going the way he's going. Most Libyans lost confidence in the GNC some time ago and if he offers a viable alternative (his plan to hand power to the c60 instead of taking it for himself will go down well) and provides the security in Benghazi that the GNC never could then he'll get popular support within the country and the international community will join.

Things are still tense here in Tripoli. We haven't had any fighting as bad as Sunday evening but the Misratan militias are supposed to be arriving this morning and everyone assumes that means a big face off with the Zintanis on the airport road.

Sounds like the Wild West. Keep your head down!

What's the sentiment re Gaddafi in Libya? Are most people glad he's gone?

 

[Distracted Steward]

For all the feel good triumphalism and talk of a better way of waging regime change war, the intervention in Libya runs the risk of repeating the same mistake as Iraq: creating a void that only factional violence would fill. It was naive to have expected otherwise.

Steven Pinker lays out a pretty good case on how violence follows disorder.

 

[Bross]

Great job, NATO

 

[MoneyMay]

All of this is predictable - I stick by what I said at the start of the "revolution". Tripoli airport hit by severe attack from Islamist militia. I think that's aviation over for a few months in Libya. It will need that long to rebuild the system.

 

[MoneyMay]

Libyan government considers requesting international troops

 

[Mihajlovic]

How do they decide who's the good and who's the bad guy? I don't understand how this works anymore. Doesn't Libya now have this democracy thing?

 

[VidaRed]

How do they decide who's the good and who's the bad guy? I don't understand how this works anymore. Doesn't Libya now have this democracy thing?

I reckon you have pretty good idea

 

[Mihajlovic]

There is no overstating the chaos of post-Qaddafi Libya. Two competing governments claim legitimacy. Armed militias roam the streets. The electricity is frequently out of service, and most business is at a standstill; revenues from oil, the country’s greatest asset, have dwindled by more than ninety per cent. Some three thousand people have been killed by fighting in the past year, and nearly a third of the country’s population has fled across the border to Tunisia. What has followed the downfall of a tyrant—a downfall encouraged by NATO air strikes—is the tyranny of a dangerous and pervasive instability.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1951/11/10/letter-from-libya

 

[Mihajlovic]

Wrecking the economy even further...

Attacks lead Libya's state oil company to halt activity
Citing an increase in attacks by ISIL-linked fighters, National Oil Corporation suspends oil production at 11 fields.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/03/libya-attacks-isil-oil-fields-150304224800443.html

 

[antihenry]

Didn't want to start a new thread, so I'll post it here.

Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention.
http://levantreport.com/2016/01/04/...anda-executions-coveting-libyan-oil-and-gold/

Spoiler

Newly disclosed emails show that Libya’s plan to create a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and dollar was a motive for NATO’s intervention.
he New Year’s Eve release of over 3,000 new Hillary Clinton emails from the State Department has CNN abuzz over gossipy text messages, the “who gets to ride with Hillary” selection process set up by her staff, and how a “cute” Hillary photo fared on Facebook.

But historians of the 2011 NATO war in Libya will be sure to notice a few of the truly explosive confirmations contained in the new emails: admissions of rebel war crimes, special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, Al Qaeda embedded in the U.S. backed opposition, Western nations jockeying for access to Libyan oil, the nefarious origins of the absurd Viagra mass rape claim, and concern over Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves threatening European currency.

Hillary’s Death Squads
A March 27, 2011, intelligence brief on Libya, sent by long time close adviser to the Clintons and Hillary’s unofficial intelligence gatherer, Sidney Blumenthal, contains clear evidence of war crimes on the part of NATO-backed rebels. Citing a rebel commander source “speaking in strict confidence” Blumenthal reports to Hillary [emphasis mine]:

Under attack from allied Air and Naval forces, the Libyan Army troops have begun to desert to the rebel side in increasing numbers. The rebels are making an effort to greet these troops as fellow Libyans, in an effort to encourage additional defections.

(Source Comment: Speaking in strict confidence, one rebel commander stated that his troopscontinue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting…).

While the illegality of extra-judicial killings is easy to recognize (groups engaged in such are conventionally termed “death squads”), the sinister reality behind the “foreign mercenaries” reference might not be as immediately evident to most.

While over the decades Gaddafi was known to make use of European and other international security and infrastructural contractors, there is no evidence to suggest that these were targeted by the Libyan rebels.

There is, however, ample documentation by journalists, academics, and human rights groups demonstrating that black Libyan civilians and sub-Saharan contract workers, a population favored by Gaddafi in his pro-African Union policies, were targets of “racial cleansing” by rebels who saw black Libyans as tied closely with the regime.[1]

Black Libyans were commonly branded as “foreign mercenaries” by the rebel opposition for their perceived general loyalty to Gaddafi as a community and subjected to torture, executions, and their towns “liberated” by ethnic cleansing. This is demonstrated in the most well-documented example ofTawergha, an entire town of 30,000 black and “dark-skinned” Libyans which vanished by August 2011 after its takeover by NATO-backed NTC Misratan brigades.

These attacks were well-known as late as 2012 and often filmed, as this report from The Telegraphconfirms:

After Muammar Gaddafi was killed, hundreds of migrant workers from neighboring states were imprisoned by fighters allied to the new interim authorities. They accuse the black Africans of having been mercenaries for the late ruler. Thousands of sub-Saharan Africans have been rounded up since Gaddafi fell in August.

It appears that Clinton was getting personally briefed on the battlefield crimes of her beloved anti-Gaddafi fighters long before some of the worst of these genocidal crimes took place.

Al-Qaeda and Western Special Forces Inside Libya
The same intelligence email from Sydney Blumenthal also confirms what has become a well-known theme of Western supported insurgencies in the Middle East: the contradiction of special forces training militias that are simultaneously suspected of links to Al Qaeda.

Blumenthal relates that “an extremely sensitive source” confirmed that British, French, and Egyptian special operations units were training Libyan militants along the Egyptian-Libyan border, as well as in Benghazi suburbs.

While analysts have long speculated as to the “when and where” of Western ground troop presence in the Libyan War, this email serves as definitive proof that special forces were on the ground only within a month of the earliest protests which broke out in the middle to end of February 2011 in Benghazi.

By March 27 of what was commonly assumed a simple “popular uprising” external special operativeswere already “overseeing the transfer of weapons and supplies to the rebels” including “a seemingly endless supply of AK47 assault rifles and ammunition.”

Yet only a few paragraphs after this admission, caution is voiced about the very militias these Western special forces were training because of concern that, “radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan Fighting Groups and Al Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are infiltrating the NLC and its military command.”

 

[antihenry]

continues here.

Spoiler

The Threat of Libya’s Oil and Gold to French Interests
Though the French-proposed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 claimed the no-fly zone implemented over Libya was to protect civilians, an April 2011 email sent to Hillary with the subject line “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold” tells of less noble ambitions.

The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this “confidential” explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France’s (and by implication NATO’s) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.

French intelligence “discovered” a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression.

The Ease of Floating Crude Propaganda
Early in the Libyan conflict Secretary of State Clinton formally accused Gaddafi and his army of using mass rape as a tool of war. Though numerous international organizations, like Amnesty International, quickly debunked these claims, the charges were uncritically echoed by Western politicians and major media.

It seemed no matter how bizarre the conspiracy theory, as long as it painted Gaddafi and his supporters as monsters, and so long as it served the cause of prolonged military action in Libya, it was deemed credible by network news.

Two foremost examples are referenced in the latest batch of emails: the sensational claim that Gaddafi issued Viagra to his troops for mass rape, and the claim that bodies were “staged” by the Libyan government at NATO bombing sites to give the appearance of the Western coalition bombing civilians.

In a late March 2011 email, Blumenthal confesses to Hillary that,

I communicated more than a week ago on this story—Qaddafi placing bodies to create PR stunts about supposed civilian casualties as a result of Allied bombing—though underlining it was a rumor. But now, as you know, Robert gates gives credence to it. (See story below.)

Sources now say, again rumor (that is, this information comes from the rebel side and is unconfirmed independently by Western intelligence), that Qaddafi has adopted a rape policy and has even distributed Viagra to troops. The incident at the Tripoli press conference involving a woman claiming to be raped is likely to be part of a much larger outrage. Will seek further confirmation.

Not only did Defense Secretary Robert Gates promote his bizarre “staged bodies” theory on CBS News’ “Face The Nation,” but the even stranger Viagra rape fiction made international headlines as U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice made a formal charge against Libya in front of the UN Security Council.

What this new email confirms is that not only was the State Department aware of the spurious nature of what Blumenthal calls “rumors” originating solely with the rebels, but did nothing to stop false information from rising to top officials who then gave them “credence.”

It appears, furthermore, that the Viagra mass rape hoax likely originated with Sidney Blumenthal himself.

 

[RedTiger]

I remember reading about the currency being backed by gold at least 4 to 5 years ago, it was considered a conspiracy back then.

 

[barros]

continues here.

Spoiler

The Threat of Libya’s Oil and Gold to French Interests
Though the French-proposed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 claimed the no-fly zone implemented over Libya was to protect civilians, an April 2011 email sent to Hillary with the subject line “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold” tells of less noble ambitions.

The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this “confidential” explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France’s (and by implication NATO’s) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.

French intelligence “discovered” a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression.

The Ease of Floating Crude Propaganda
Early in the Libyan conflict Secretary of State Clinton formally accused Gaddafi and his army of using mass rape as a tool of war. Though numerous international organizations, like Amnesty International, quickly debunked these claims, the charges were uncritically echoed by Western politicians and major media.

It seemed no matter how bizarre the conspiracy theory, as long as it painted Gaddafi and his supporters as monsters, and so long as it served the cause of prolonged military action in Libya, it was deemed credible by network news.

Two foremost examples are referenced in the latest batch of emails: the sensational claim that Gaddafi issued Viagra to his troops for mass rape, and the claim that bodies were “staged” by the Libyan government at NATO bombing sites to give the appearance of the Western coalition bombing civilians.

In a late March 2011 email, Blumenthal confesses to Hillary that,

I communicated more than a week ago on this story—Qaddafi placing bodies to create PR stunts about supposed civilian casualties as a result of Allied bombing—though underlining it was a rumor. But now, as you know, Robert gates gives credence to it. (See story below.)

Sources now say, again rumor (that is, this information comes from the rebel side and is unconfirmed independently by Western intelligence), that Qaddafi has adopted a rape policy and has even distributed Viagra to troops. The incident at the Tripoli press conference involving a woman claiming to be raped is likely to be part of a much larger outrage. Will seek further confirmation.

Not only did Defense Secretary Robert Gates promote his bizarre “staged bodies” theory on CBS News’ “Face The Nation,” but the even stranger Viagra rape fiction made international headlines as U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice made a formal charge against Libya in front of the UN Security Council.

What this new email confirms is that not only was the State Department aware of the spurious nature of what Blumenthal calls “rumors” originating solely with the rebels, but did nothing to stop false information from rising to top officials who then gave them “credence.”

It appears, furthermore, that the Viagra mass rape hoax likely originated with Sidney Blumenthal himself.

Crap! If I didn't like politicians before now I really hate them, now I see Hillary has everything to be a president, no morals and a liar. How many more conspiracies will be found to be not a conspiracy?

 

[Kaos]

I've always been saying this - Hilary is more of a heinous hawk than Obama, she'll be an atrocious step down.

 

[PedroMendez]

Things are going great in Libya, right? I just hope that the British, French and USA governments are continuing to show such brilliant judgment when it comes the military interventions. What would the world do without them?
Considering that Blair and Sarkozy are both unemployed…maybe we could send them over for a check-up on the situation. I heard that passenger transportation is a booming business in these parts of the world, so we´ll certainly find someone who can ferry them across in a lifeboat. I am sure, that Hillary would also love to join them for a quick giggle. Libya always made her so cheerful.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...future-dark-fate-government-sealed-uk-cameron

 

[JustAFan]

Things are going great in Libya, right? I just hope that the British, French and USA governments are continuing to show such brilliant judgment when it comes the military interventions. What would the world do without them?
Considering that Blair and Sarkozy are both unemployed…maybe we could send them over for a check-up on the situation. I heard that passenger transportation is a booming business in these parts of the world, so we´ll certainly find someone who can ferry them across in a lifeboat. I am sure, that Hillary would also love to join them for a quick giggle. Libya always made her so cheerful.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...future-dark-fate-government-sealed-uk-cameron

Don't forget about President Obama, he will be out of a job soon and since he not Hillary was the President of the United States who authorized US military action in Libya, he must be the US leader who has to accept responsibility for the outcome in Libya.

 

[Adisa]

Don't forget about President Obama, he will be out of a job soon and since he not Hillary was the President of the United States who authorized US military action in Libya, he must be the US leader who has to accept responsibility for the outcome in Libya.

To be fair to Obama, he was very reluctant to do anything in Libya. Cameron and Hollande/Sarkozy can't remember, were the cow boys.

 

[11101]

Things are going great in Libya, right? I just hope that the British, French and USA governments are continuing to show such brilliant judgment when it comes the military interventions. What would the world do without them?
Considering that Blair and Sarkozy are both unemployed…maybe we could send them over for a check-up on the situation. I heard that passenger transportation is a booming business in these parts of the world, so we´ll certainly find someone who can ferry them across in a lifeboat. I am sure, that Hillary would also love to join them for a quick giggle. Libya always made her so cheerful.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...future-dark-fate-government-sealed-uk-cameron

The Guardian is brilliant. Before it was 'why are we standing by whilst evil Gaddafi terrorizes the population', and now it's 'the evil West removed Gaddafi and now its our fault the country is falling apart at the seams'.

 

[MTF]

To be fair to Obama, he was very reluctant to do anything in Libya. Cameron and Hollande/Sarkozy can't remember, were the cow boys.

I like the guy, but he has to own it too. He decided to go along (and I understand his reasoning), when not going would probably halt the whole effort.

 

[JustAFan]

I like the guy, but he has to own it too. He decided to go along (and I understand his reasoning), when not going would probably halt the whole effort.

Give Obama all the credit he deserves when he does good, but make him own his mistakes. Seemed weird to me for Pedro to point fingers that the leaders of France and the UK at the time, include Hillary in it, but to ignore Obama, who after all was Commander in Chief at the time.

 

[SteveJ]

The Guardian is brilliant. Before it was 'why are we standing by whilst evil Gaddafi terrorizes the population', and now it's 'the evil West removed Gaddafi and now its our fault the country is falling apart at the seams'.

They're only following the general media trend of the past decades. We've gone from...

'Terrorist Monster Gaddafi must be destroyed'
to...

'Cuddly eccentric Muammar and his cute bodyguards'
to...

'Mad Terrorist Monster Gaddafi must be destroyed (again)'
...depending on political expediency.

 

[PedroMendez]

Give Obama all the credit he deserves when he does good, but make him own his mistakes. Seemed weird to me for Pedro to point fingers that the leaders of France and the UK at the time, include Hillary in it, but to ignore Obama, who after all was Commander in Chief at the time.

you are not wrong.
I usually point to him all the time being terrible and he certainly deserves to be mentioned as well. I didn´t do it because, the whole operation was kick-started by France with the UK happily getting on-board. Obama was very reluctant to join those idiots, but in the end he did it, so he owns it as well. The president can´t make excuses. So yes, you are right.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

From what i can recall, Cameron's most effective use of military assets was probably the Ebola crisis. Both in regards to Libya and Syria, he wanted to be seen as someone prepared to take action, yet in neither case could he be said to have brought any constructive improvement to the plan. If Europe/the UN wasn't prepared to boots on the ground in Libya, the operation should never have extended to regime change. Obama's ill-thought-out plans for Syria were even worse mind you, so it was fortunate that parliament put paid to that idea.

 

[Grinner]

What would have happened if there hadn't been an intervention?

 

[PedroMendez]

What would have happened if there hadn't been an intervention?

everything would be much worse. Always.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

What would have happened if there hadn't been an intervention?

From what i can recall of the events preceding the air strikes, we'd have been looking at a considerable amount of bloodshed in Benghazi in particular (followed by who knows how many political prisoners afterwards).

 

[Grinner]

From what i can recall of the events preceding the air strikes, we'd have been looking at a considerable amount of bloodshed in Benghazi in particular (followed by who knows how many political prisoners afterwards).

So no good options then? I'm sure Obama would have been called weak over here if he'd not gone in.

 

[JustAFan]

What would have happened if there hadn't been an intervention?

A bloody civil war and lots of finger pointing at Europe and the US for not intervening.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

So no good options then? I'm sure Obama would have been called weak over here if he'd not gone in.

I don't think the simple act of intervening should be written off as wrong necessarily. The Arab Spring was well underway and it had already claimed two presidents before Western jets started flying sorties into Libyan skies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_Civil_War_before_military_intervention

 

[JustAFan]

I don't think the simple act of intervening should be written off as wrong necessarily. The Arab Spring was well underway and it had already claimed two presidents before Western jets started flying sorties into Libyan skies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_Civil_War_before_military_intervention

Will politely disagree. The US President had plenty of evidence before him that intervention in these sort of conflicts is not a good thing, plus the US experience in Afghanistan and Iraq to show how US military intervention can go wrong (if I remember right he voted against military action in Iraq). He can even see that the fallout of US intervention by the previous occupant of the White House (Dummy Bush) helped Obama get elected. The US population was getting tired of these wars, our national debt was already crippling due to the wars he inherited a new military adventure was not going to help that. He was already seeing that the ongoing conflicts he inherited were resulting in a reduction of US military strength. People in Libya were going to die as a result of our intervention and we would be blamed for that, resulting in more hatred not less towards the US. Let me say again, people would die. People would die. Dead people, not just the ones we were targeting either.

There is no such thing as the "simple act of intervening" it is far from a simple act.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Will politely disagree. The US President had plenty of evidence before him that intervention in these sort of conflicts is not a good thing, plus the US experience in Afghanistan and Iraq to show how US military intervention can go wrong (if I remember right he voted against military action in Iraq). He can even see that the fallout of US intervention by the previous occupant of the White House (Dummy Bush) helped Obama get elected. The US population was getting tired of these wars, our national debt was already crippling due to the wars he inherited a new military adventure was not going to help that. He was already seeing that the ongoing conflicts he inherited were resulting in a reduction of US military strength. People in Libya were going to die as a result of our intervention and we would be blamed for that, resulting in more hatred not less towards the US. Let me say again, people would die. People would die. Dead people, not just the ones we were targeting either.

There is no such thing as the "simple act of intervening" it is far from a simple act.

I didn't mean to imply that military intervention is a simple or easy thing to undertake, on the contrary in fact. The serious errors were with regard to post-intervention planning (again). And one area in which i agree with Obama on this, was the failure of Europe to adequately pull its weight. This was a security and humanitarian crisis immediately on the border, so that we should have taken some interest went without saying. But if we weren't prepared to do the follow-up, hadn't learnt the lessons of Iraq, then our intervention should not have extended to outright regime change.

People were going to die either way, and inaction is still a decision which carries consequences for which government is responsible.

 

[PedroMendez]

You already make the first fundamental mistake. By arguing that “Europe/the USA just didn´t do enough after the bombing”, you assume that the west had the capabilities to sort out the mess. That is the fundamental mistake that western leaders make. Institution building doesn’t fail due to incompetence, but due to the inherent nature of those tasks. The bottom line is that you can´t build lasting institutions under these unstable circumstances as outside power. It simply doesn´t work. It is not even just a MENA thing. It didn´t work in southern Sudan and parts of the Balkan are still a big mess.
Yes, mistakes were made in Iraq and Afghanistan, but these mistakes weren’t the reason why the situation turned into a huge cluster-feck.

That should be the starting point before we decide to send our military somewhere: Regardless of our intentions, we won´t be able to build a state afterwards; heck, we won´t even be able to build a working police force. You might argue, that intervention is still the right course of action. Maybe, but at least under this assumption we can talk honestly about the consequences.

Most of our current debate still assumes impossible things, which makes it completely detached from reality.

 

[JustAFan]

I didn't mean to imply that military intervention is a simple or easy thing to undertake, on the contrary in fact. The serious errors were with regard to post-intervention planning (again). And one area in which i agree with Obama on this, was the failure of Europe to adequately pull its weight. This was a security and humanitarian crisis immediately on the border, so that we should have taken some interest went without saying. But if we weren't prepared to do the follow-up, hadn't learnt the lessons of Iraq, then our intervention should not have extended to outright regime change.

People were going to die either way, and inaction is still a decision which carries consequences for which government is responsible.

So what you are saying is if a civil war erupts in a country and the US does not intervene it is then responsible for the deaths that occur. So the US is damned if they do, damned if they don't. Feck off with that.

 

[devilish]

There are more them 130 tribes in Libya (30 influential ones) most of whom hate one another. Since oil is mostly located in the east its not possible to simply divide the country in 2-3 parts as the ottomans did. Well done for the west for messing in issues they don't understand only to leave the migrants for us to handle

 

[devilish]

I didn't mean to imply that military intervention is a simple or easy thing to undertake, on the contrary in fact. The serious errors were with regard to post-intervention planning (again). And one area in which i agree with Obama on this, was the failure of Europe to adequately pull its weight. This was a security and humanitarian crisis immediately on the border, so that we should have taken some interest went without saying. But if we weren't prepared to do the follow-up, hadn't learnt the lessons of Iraq, then our intervention should not have extended to outright regime change.

People were going to die either way, and inaction is still a decision which carries consequences for which government is responsible.

Obama did his very best to avoid this war. This was all Britain & France doing

 

[antihenry]

You already make the first fundamental mistake. By arguing that “Europe/the USA just didn´t do enough after the bombing”, you assume that the west had the capabilities to sort out the mess. That is the fundamental mistake that western leaders make. Institution building doesn’t fail due to incompetence, but due to the inherent nature of those tasks. The bottom line is that you can´t build lasting institutions under these unstable circumstances as outside power. It simply doesn´t work. It is not even just a MENA thing. It didn´t work in southern Sudan and parts of the Balkan are still a big mess.
Yes, mistakes were made in Iraq and Afghanistan, but these mistakes weren’t the reason why the situation turned into a huge cluster-feck.

That should be the starting point before we decide to send our military somewhere: Regardless of our intentions, we won´t be able to build a state afterwards; heck, we won´t even be able to build a working police force. You might argue, that intervention is still the right course of action. Maybe, but at least under this assumption we can talk honestly about the consequences.

Most of our current debate still assumes impossible things, which makes it completely detached from reality.

That may be the most intelligent post I've read on the subject. Hit the nail on the head.

 

[Gambit]

You all actually think that the USA wasn't in charge of this. That Obama wanted nothing to do with it and it was all Britain and France with Obama trying to avoid the war. Fantastic.

It was Obama trying to appear as if he was avoiding the war (especially due to his no more Iraqs platform) but the US was in charge. We mostly heard about the France and UK air forces running sorties and the US saying see we're not needed, which was mostly for the American people yet the largest military force involved was the US. This was the US trying to operate below the radar and leave a smaller footprint but it was the US calling the shots in both what was strategy and running the military machine. As we can see from opinions on here it obviously worked.

The largest amount of vessels at sea involved was the US making up more in tonnage than the rest of the coalition combined. A decision to not send an aircraft carrier was made to keep a low profile in their involvement. Of the cruise missiles fired over 90% came from US ships. European air forces were the main strike force but they didn't have the capability to run a US style 24/7 bombing campaign as we don't have enough air tankers. So the US supplied and operated 75% of the air tankers. 90% of the munition supplies also came from the USA. When Gaddafi tried to fire scuds, guess which country it was that shot them down, nope not us Brits, France neither and certainly not that great military power of Qatar (yes they were in the coalition) but the US. Also guess who's generals and advisers were in charge of co-coordinating events at NATO HQ, no it couldn't be, not Obama's military personnel, they must have been doing it behind his back, lets hope he doesn't find out, imagine how embarrassed he'll feel.

 

[JustAFan]

You all actually think that the USA wasn't in charge of this. That Obama wanted nothing to do with it and it was all Britain and France with Obama trying to avoid the war. Fantastic.

It was Obama trying to appear as if he was avoiding the war (especially due to his no more Iraqs platform) but the US was in charge. We mostly heard about the France and UK air forces running sorties and the US saying see we're not needed, which was mostly for the American people yet the largest military force involved was the US. This was the US trying to operate below the radar and leave a smaller footprint but it was the US calling the shots in both what was strategy and running the military machine. As we can see from opinions on here it obviously worked.

The largest amount of vessels at sea involved was the US making up more in tonnage than the rest of the coalition combined. A decision to not send an aircraft carrier was made to keep a low profile in their involvement. Of the cruise missiles fired over 90% came from US ships. European air forces were the main strike force but they didn't have the capability to run a US style 24/7 bombing campaign as we don't have enough air tankers. So the US supplied and operated 75% of the air tankers. 90% of the munition supplies also came from the USA. When Gaddafi tried to fire scuds, guess which country it was that shot them down, nope not us Brits, France neither and certainly not that great military power of Qatar (yes they were in the coalition) but the US. Also guess who's generals and advisers were in charge of co-coordinating events at NATO HQ, no it couldn't be, not Obama's military personnel, they must have been doing it behind his back, lets hope he doesn't find out, imagine how embarrassed he'll feel.

When Obama does it, it's okay