Libya: The Politics of Intervention
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-09/libya-politics-intervention
In Libya pro Gadhafi forces continue to attack regime opponents with tanks, warplanes, artillery and rockets. There are reports that the western city of Zawiyah has been recaptured. Toward the east Gadhafi forces continued to stage fly-overs and bombing runs. Leaders in France and Britain are seeking UN resolution to authorize a no-fly zone. President Obama has said all options are on the table, but has held back from endorsing any kind of military intervention. Join us to talk about the on-going crisis in Libya and the debate over how to respond.
Guests
Thom Shanker
Pentagon correspondent for The New York Times.
Danielle Pletka
vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Jessica Mathews
president, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
shouldn't this crisis be debated in context with other humanitarian and governmental crises further south in Africa, most recently in the Ivory Coast, but also including the ongoing atrocities in the Congo as well as others. What are some of the comparative numbers in terms of human suffering?
US intervention for the sake of a foreign citizenry may be noble, and the events in Libya are horrifying, wrong, and troubling, but the media and Washington politicians focus on countries where factors such as oil are involved, because it is where the political energy becomes the most heated and marketable
This is a really good panel this morning.
I was startled to hear that our intelligence on Libya is, indeed, so inadequate that we don't know anything about the "rebels" -- per one of your panel, probably Dianne Pletka. This weakness has been used as cover for Bush's wars of choice and probably the sad reason for Obama's apparent "dithering."
Did we really not see the situation in Libya coming?
A no-fly zone could, perhaps, prevent some additional airstrikes (though nothing to stop the ground attacks responsible for most of the casualties). But a no-fly zone, like all acts of war, has consequences. And it's those consequences that make it such a dangerous idea -- what if a US bomber gets shot down, leaving pilot and bombers in Libyan custody...then the US special forces go in to rescue then? What if, like what happened in 1986 airstrikes in Libya, the bombers miss their target and hit population centers (over 100 killed then) -- causing even more civilian targets? And why do we think it would be any more accurate than the no-fly zones in Iraq, in which the UN documented hundreds of civilians killed by the US bombs, not by Saddam Hussein?
We're hearing already that Libyan officials, perhaps including Qaddafi, may be very nervous because of the threat of prosecution in the International Criminal Court. That's what we need to continue.
my new piece on this is at
http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/dont_no-fly_libya
Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies
One of your earliest guests brought up Iraq. True, the US did nothing at first. Eventually there was a no fly zone, which didn't totally protect people. If we do the no fly/no drive zone, it may just keep East & West Libya from fighting each other, like Iraq & Kurdistan.
It seems important that any country wanting to help the process in Lybia would talk with the rebels and learn what they feel they need in the form of help. Understandably it may be difficult to identify who to speak with but surely this is not an unsolvable problem. If a country would ask to speak with them for this purpose surely those leaders would come forth.
The Russians were forced out of Afganistan by US supplied stinger missles and anti-tanks weapons. This requires no no-fly zone. Why not this??? Todd, Temple, NH.
6 months ago, Hilary Clinton was kissing Gadhafi's ass, yet now our Government jumps to the side of the Rebels?
Hogwash!
I will never trust the word coming out of the mouth of any Fascist Regime's mouth, ie, the United States, as the conflict of interest will always be in their own favor, not of those whom they supposedly represent.
Our own Country has gone to the dogs.
Am i correct that the 1st step in implementing a no-fly zone would be to destroy Libya's warplanes, helicopters, etc.
Please clarify this for us, because if it's true, implementing a no-fly zone is an aggressive act of war...and the phrase "no-fly zone" is a very misleading & dangerous euphemism.
Surely, the rights and legal guarantees which we in the developed world take for granted such as:
universal-suffrage democracy; human rights-based rule-of law; equal application of a country's laws to its residents/citizens regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion and creed; freedoms of speech, thought, association, expression, peaceful assembly and belief....
... are sufficiently worthy for NATO/western countries to fight for- or at least support the establishment of- in countries whose citizens are demanding such??
It seems that without assistance from NATO and the EU Libya's freedom fighters are going to be rapidly pushed back to Benghazi by Ghadaffi's forces:
"Rebels retreat to Libyan oil town", 10_03-02011:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/rebels-retreat-to-li...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364365/Libya-protests-We-let-Ga...
"Gadhafi forces hit oil facilities in central Libya", 09_03-2011: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7464050.html
Hopefully mind-sets of unselfish sacrifice will prevail at the 'Emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers on Libya'- March 10-2011' and the 'extraordinary EU summit' called for the next day, March 11-201':
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63085
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_641005.html
______________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
As to who would follow Gaddafi, it is puzzling to hear your guests have not heard of the Libyan National Transitional Council. Here it is :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Interim_Government
Europe has already sent delegates to meet with them. With France extending recognition.
Libya is pretty much united behind them as they serve as a vehicle for a transitional government until appropriate elections are held.
The Council has clear cut goals, and ideals. Both are very honorable and are a foundation for the post-Gaddafi Libya.
They are united that Tripoli is the Capital, pluralism, independent justice, and liberty for all segments of the society.
Why have not your guests heard of this ?
The Middle East's countries' peoples are speaking with virtual unanimity: they want to be able to live in countries where the rights, freedoms & rule-of-law democratic governance that those in the west take for granted are no longer denied to them...
Of the many 'soft-power' policy options that the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia & their international partners ought to be considering regarding the middle east turmoil, the most likely to be effective over the long term is providing substantial, tangible assistance to Middle East countries in putting in place the structures required for universal-suffrage democracy, human-rights-based rule-of-law legal apparatus & democracy-based national constitutions ...
One such way towards this type of soft power assistance-objective could be the establishment of a "Democracy & Human Rights-Based Rule-Of-Law Governance 'University'" by British Commonwealth countries in a prominent Middle East country or countries...
Such a facility- at least initially- ideally could be paid for & administered by British Commonwealth countries possessing human-rights-based rule-of-law & democratic governance structures, in cooperation with the host country(s)...
The enforcement of a comprehensive no fly zone over Libya; logistical support to Libyan protesters; & humanitarian assistance for the 10s of thousands of foreign nationals attempting to leave Libya are types of assistance that, in the short term- the west is unarguably obligated to provide.... but a longer term "constructive assistance" strategy for not only Libya but also the wider region plainly needs to be part of any response by the United Kingdom, Canada, the U.S. & their allies to the Middle East's peoples in their brave struggles to bring about positive changes within their countries & to improve the lives of all peoples in this far too-long troubled region...
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
This was a compelling and timely panel discussion.
I would like to hear a pragmatic discussion about what can be done in the near term. The debate with regard to a no fly zone attempts to focus an American public that is punch drunk from a foreign policy perspective - given the other two major foreign campaigns - and is terribly complicated.
A more realistic approach would be to focus on aid and relief at the border including a large supply of working trucks, radios, medicine to help mend the wounded, and running deliberate and serious communications interference within the Gadhafi inner sanctum - something the U.S. is very well equipped to do and could accomplish at low risk and low cost - and perform the same intervention with regard to their aviation communications; namely to jam the Soviet made systems on Libya's aging fleet of Migs.
The more challenged the airforce becomes, the greater the strain and likelihood that they will collapse - pilots suffer fatigue absent rest and the jets need parts and servicing - Libya does not have the capacity to run a sustained air campaign against a volunteer rebel group if they operate in a stressful environment.
Finally, the most extreme military option to consider would be to target Libya's runways or air traffic control systems. Again, this is well within US capacity should a more involved action be required. Arming and training the rebels with expensive surface to air systems is expensive, looks bad, and is time intensive. Helicopters can be addressed with conventional arms and based on reports, Libya does not seem to be in short supply of this.
Note that if Gadhafi quashes the rebellion, his measures and acts against those who opposed him will be ruthless and it will be much more difficult to do anything.
Great show and thank you for the discussion.
You don't need Government money. NPR must change its business model. Your programs are excellent but unwatchable. CHANGE YOUR BUSINESS MODEL, NOW!!
1- HBO (SIMILAR)
Go to the major cable companies. If a customer agrees to pay an extra $10.00 a month, let these customers watch "beg free". If they do not pay, continue the begging. Contributing customers go to a different channel number on comcast and dish -non contributing customers continue to receive "pledge T.V."
2- Outsource your brand (ESPN Model)
Franchise restaurants based on your cooking shows. Each month change the menu to serve the recipes developed by your outstanding chefs. This includes wine to a great dessert. Think about having 6 food stations modeled from a mongolian barbecue where after you place your order you can watch your dinner being prepared in front of your eyes. Your souvenier, upon leaving, is a laminated placard of your experience.
3- It doesn't hurt to add a Sesame street game room based on intelligent subject matters that could interest kids so Mom and Dad can enjoy themselves....This concept is right in your wheelhouse no need for a lecture from me.
4- Pay per view concerts..........Why not! People possess tremendous multi media systems in their homes. More of your audience stay home on weekends then ever before. This could work.
Follow this business model and you will have 4 new revenue streams. Screw the right wing noise machine. It will work. Sell your brand as a non -profit. Continue who you are and fight the battle against arrogance, ignorance and prejudice. You can do this.
Talk to your friends like Jimmy Buffet, BB King etc., about "branding" I'm sure they could guide you to honest people who could help public broadcasting. After all you helped them!