An Update on the Libyan Rebellion
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-15/update-libyan-rebellion
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with European leaders in Paris yesterday to discuss options for Libya. France, Britain and the Arab League are pushing for a no-fly zone to dismantle Libya's air power. Forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi are making gains in re-taking rebel territory. While in Paris, Secretary Clinton met with a key member of the Libyan opposition. But the Obama administration has not publicly endorsed any Libyan group or military action. Turmoil has escalated elsewhere in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia sent troops to Bahrain to quell unrest. And Yemen hardened its stance against protesters. An update on Libya and the region.
Guests
Mark Quarterman
senior adviser and director of the Program on Crisis, Conflict and Cooperation at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.
Mark Landler
diplomatic correspondent, The New York Times.
David Schenker
Aufzien fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former top policy aide on the Arab countries of the Levant at the Pentagon.
Nancy Youssef
Middle East correspondent, McClatchy newspapers; she just returned to Cairo from a 10-day reporting trip to Libya.
Muftah Tarhouni
a citizen of Benghazi and a supporter of the opposition. For reasons of security, he asked for his tribal name to be used instead of his surname.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
If it is possible, at a minimum, what needs to be done or has to happen militarily, politically and economically to create a viable entity in Eastern Lybia that can successfully resist Gadaffi and have the capability or opportunity in the future to go on to become an independent democratic state or rule Lybia entirely?
Diane,
Many analysts and pundits have argued broadly against the U.S. led establishment of a no-fly zone, citing, among other things, the potential for mission creep, a lack of relationship with the opposition, etc. Yet, as much as I respect these academics and generals I do feel they are overstating the task at hand. The Libyan Air Force is small, localized, and must be short on fuel. However, as we have seen in recent days, they still do have the capacity to inflict serious damage against the rebels. Overall, I believe that a strong and overwhelming coalition air strike against pro-Gadaffi loyalists, followed by a now fly zone will significantly tip the scales of this revolution in the favor of the rebels. I have the sense that the loyalists are overstretched and could be wound up right to Tripoli, where Gadaffi will then sue for peace. An overconfident belief? perhaps, but I do think it to be true.
Colin
Washington D.C.
Peaceful protests and political activism are laudable, societally-constructive tactics and ought to always be the first strategy utilized by persons or groups of persons attempting to bring about positive change of political, legal or bureaucratic structures...
But when 'peacefully protesting'/'peacefully agitating' persons (in this case, Libya's 'freedom fighters') are responded to with brutal, unnecessary violence- if the protesters have success as their objective- violence must be met with types of tactics that can win: even if this means using military measures...
When 'peacefully protesting'/'peacefully agitating' persons- whose objectives are reasonable and constructive (in this case, Libya's brave, commendable freedom fighters)- are responded to with brutal, unconscionable violence, those that have the ability to intervene- and that are being asked to intervene by (in this case) Libya's freedom fighters- but choose to stand by and do nothing, invite Libya's abusive-to-human-rights despotic, dictatorship model of governance to be spread to other countries....
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??
_____________
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Libya's antiquated air defences could be neutralized with little risks in a matter of hours- if the UK, France, US and Allies choose to do this...
Links to docs describing Libya's air defences and other military capabilities:
1) "The Libyan SAM Network":
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2010/05/libyan-sam-network.html
short read, apparently accurate with some good pics of Libya's coastal air defence sights;
2) http://csis.org/publication/north-african-military-balance
3) "THE NORTH AFRICAN MILITARY BALANCE", 10_12-2010:
http://csis.org/files/publication/101203_North_African_Military_Balance_...
4) "THE NORTH AFRICAN MILITARY BALANCE", 2005 version :
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/050328_norafrimibal[1].pdf
5) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/25/this_week_at_war_qaddaf...
6) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/libya/army-orbat.htm
_____________
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Libya's freedom fighters unequivocally expressed objectives are to live under human rights-based, rule of law democratic governance rather than continuing to live under a despotic dictatorship...
The region's countries with the biggest, best equipped militaries- such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt- have zero histories of functioning under human rights-based, rule of law democratic governance, and for decades have been dictatorships in which appalling human rights abuses were regular occurrences...
Why would Saudi Arabia's and Egypt's rulers (IE King Faud and military) support people in other countries who are attempting to set up governance models that they have uncontradicted, appalling histories of opposing, and occasionally- violently oppressing??
Recent occurrences show that Libya's autocratic, dictatorship neighbors- such as Saudi Arabia- are, in fact, participating in military-based attempts to obstruct democracy protesters in neighboring countries:
->>> "Saudi Arabian troops enter Bahrain", 14_03-2011:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bahrain-troops-20110... :
"More than 1,000 Saudi troops take up positions around Bahrain, apparently to help the Sunni royal family control protests by the nation's majority Shiite Muslims..."
->>> "Bahrain opposition appeals to U.N. for action", 14_03-2011:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/14/bahrain-opposition-appea... :
"Bahraini opposition leaders on Monday sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appealing for “urgent” intervention, after troops from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries entered the small island kingdom to quell escalating street protests..."
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada
The Arab league says they want a no fly zone. All of them have substantial military assets. Some like Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have excellent American made aircraft. So why have they not done the no fly zone themselves? It is amazing how other countries always want to criticize America but when the stuff hits the fan they expect us to clean it up. Arabs save yourselves.
I am a Libyan American with family in Libya and I am wondering how many more people have to die before the west will intervene? The Libyan people are moderate muslims, however, in times of despair they will turn to whomever will give them help. Al-Quaeda would be eager to take advantage of a desperate population. The National Council and all Libyans have no interest in working with them, but....
I am a Libyan American with family in Libya and I am wondering how many more people have to die before the west will intervene? The Libyan people are moderate muslims, however, in times of despair they will turn to whomever will give them help. Al-Quaeda would be eager to take advantage of a desperate population. The National Council and all Libyans have no interest in working with them, but....
The united states can not afford to be caught off-guard again as it did in Tunisia and Egypt. While the debate goes on, hundreds of Libyans are being rounded up and are disappearing. All I hear are excuses for not doing the right thing and making sure that if we support a side, it better be on the winning side..Did we forget about the pivotol role played by the Helsinki Act in showing western support for human rights in Eastern bloc countries, which led to revolutions that toppled these regimes.. Instead of waiting on the sidelines, we need to do the right thing, and the right thing is to support democracy and human rights in Libya and work effortlessly to topple Qaddafi. People of the Middle East will forever feel indebted for such good a move..let's face it : everyone hates Qaddafi.
The attitude of the adminstration towards Liybia is sending a very discouraging message to the rest of sub-saharan Africans and reformers about the extend to which the U.S will go to support democratic reforms. We are disappointed. For intance, other African dictators have openly tell their people that any attempt to revolt will be met with brute force. Our hopes for change in Obama is dying with each passing day. This is not what we expected from a democratic administration.
To do nothing is to side with Gadhafi.
Do we want this on our national conscience?????
Military intervention is very complex. I'd be interested in knowing if and how others (including Arab states) could provide the necessary "no fly zone" or other means of support. I'm also not convinced that we can simplistically state that our non-intervention spells an end to successful demonstrations. We cannot fall into the temptation that these "last minute" military interventions are the norm for change. The U.S. and others can help in long-term non-violent change, but military "salvation" techniques can prove very inconsistent and harmful if employed across the board.
Peter-Ohio
Amazing what drives one administration verses another.....little wonder America appears as an international contradiction when we couldn't wait to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.....so what's one more country?!
The only people who want a no-fly zone are people who are not willing to institute it themselves. "Send the troops in while I sip my Starbucks coffee safely at home" they all say.....
How does the question of the US's involvement in Libya include our current budget problems? We have already seen our debt escalate, partly as a result of the war in Irag, beyond what we can responsibly handle. The question was posed that if we could involve ourselves in Irag uninvited, why not in Libya when asked? Isn't it because we not longer can afford to? And what all other problems that are occuring globally? Far more lives have been lost in Japan this week than are likely to be lost in Libya over the course of the coming year. How much global support and involvement can we afford to handle at present?
There are lessons learned from two uses of over-watch activities and no fly zones in an attempt to move past containing an adversary, to controlling that adversary--the war in Kosovo and the over-watch campaign that was established in Iraq before we launched a ground war there.
Kosovo was complicated and messy, but along with other over-watch activities, and superb diplomatic and economic efforts, we achieved a limited objective. We stopped ethnic cleansing. What was far more important is that the unions and students rose up and overthrew Milosevic and sent him to the Hague.
And the over-watch activity that involved a no fly zone carried out against Saddam helped build a massive intelligence base. One wonders if we had continued to use that strategic control concept, whether we could have helped the people of Iraq get rid of Saddam without the sacrifice of so much blood and treasure.
What is the next step in leveraging information technology and strategic control in the age of transparency? Joseph Nye wrote that our greatest asymmetric advantage was our credibility. Once we get our assets in place we should borrow a page from the NASA moon landing and provide real time output for CNN and al-Jazari. The biggest threat to Gaddafi is the real narrative of what is going on in Libya. We can balance that narrative and influence the final chapter, be it in terms of humanitarian aid or making it a fair fight.
I can appreciate that the Rebels need the help a no-fly zone would provide, but where will it end?
We're already facing fiscal problems of our own, and we're going to invest 10's or 100's of millions of dollars operating airstirkes? I do not blame the administration for taking some time to carefully consider the situation before acting.
Top 3 enemies of that little country who occupied most of Palestine
#1. Saddam
#2. Gaddafi
#3. Ahmedinejad
Ok, Americans
Let's do our part to serve our Masters in Tel-Aviv
Let's spend our money and blood and kill lots of Arabs, just to show them who the boss is in the Middle East
If 95% of Libyans do not love Gaddafi, I will change my name to Ariel Sharon
Please pay attention to who actually asks for ouster of Ghaddfi
1) Ziocons (Zionists who hide under the name Neocon)
2) People who have relatives in Tel-Aviv
3) Ex-Libyan's who are in the West and have left Libya just because they were against Ghaddafi (mostly christians, barbar, ethnic tribe people)
Let's not forget, Ghaddafi has always been on the right side of the issue on the Subject of Middle East / Palestine
As part of a multi-national expeditionary force, highly strategic Libyan cities- PORTS AND AIRFIELDS- such as Ajdabiya, Brega and Misrata urgently need to be made to appear to Gaddafi's forces as though defended by professionally trained, competent, heavy-armoured-vehicle equipped troops...
Libya's largely volunteer freedom fighters will never be able to present this kind of profile...
The US and UK military were not invited into Iraq in 2003 by Iraq's citizens ...
US, UK, France + allied countries' forces based in Libya- at the invitation of & working in collaboration with Libya's freedom fighters- would not be an invading or occupying force...
Libya's 'second city', freedom fighter controlled Benghazi, needs to be fortified with competent, well trained professionals to bolster defences manned by the largely untrained, 'volunteer' freedom fighters...
Farther west, Libya's freedom fighters need to retain foot-holds, to be kept in place until an offensive against the Gaddafi regime can be launched.
The US, United Kingdom and France could- in a matter of hours- productively deploy their land, sea and air assets to assist Libya's freedom fighters retaining and fortifying cities and ports...
The United States' Airforce's inventory of over 110 C5 Galaxy transports can each carry 2 Abrams M1 battle tanks- or 2 of the UK's equivalent: 'Challenger 2' battle tank- distances in excess of 6000 nautical miles and put down on (relatively) rough airstrips...
C5s can also transport a broad variety of heavy and other types of military weapons- in enormous quantities- very quickly, and if landing strips are not available- can safely air-drop their cargo...
Without the presence of western forces in and over Libya, Gaddafi's forces will have no incentive to cease their assaults upon Libyan citizens seeking freedom, universal-suffrage democracy and a human rights-based rule-of-law state...
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada