No Fly Zone for Libya?

**rj1** · 08 Mar 11,, 15:33

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

*Gadaffi took rule by military coup, he was never elected and nobody has had a say in that country for the last three decades and more.

No one at the time took action to remove Gaddafi from power once he came meaning by the force of inertia the international community accepted him as its ruler. Even when he took terrorist actions against other countries, no one did anything beyond sanctions against him, at a time when the Americans and Soviets were far more interventionist than the powers are now. Even in account of said terrorist actions, George W. Bush and the American government restored full diplomatic relations with Gaddafi and Libya in 2006, Bush and his administration calling Libya "one of their success stories" in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, so they certainly recognized his rule.

Standing by and watching these people suffer is not the right thing to do although it maybe the politically popular thing to do which would be nothing new at all.

Geopolitics is not some worthless idealistic bullsh*t. Stop being Woodrow Wilson whose narrow moralism of what he thought best for the self-determination of peoples played a part in the death of millions of people two decades after his death. You look at the world for what it is and make the best of it.

In the least offer them what they can medical supply, water and food wise.

Sure. But that means troops on the ground and the people we're wanting to help, the Libyan opposition, don't want them. If we want to help the Libyan opposition to win, we should listen to what they want since it's their country, not ours.

**tankie** · 08 Mar 11,, 15:40

And he aint a realllllllllllllllllllllll Col neither , and this below really grips me , this from the same person who authorised the botched diplomatic landing in libya , invasion on its way , move over saddam

Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Tuesday a no-fly zone over Libya was a practical possibility but it would need a clear legal basis. ( same as iraq)

"It is a realistic possibility and it is a practical possibility," Hague told reporters during a joint press conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in London.

"It has to have a clear legal base, it has to have the necessary international support, broad support in the region itself."

**rj1** · 08 Mar 11,, 15:50

Originally Posted by citanon

It's not a coup, it's a rebellion, or possibly a revolution.

This is a failure in understanding what those terms actually mean. Revolutions are popularly led by civilians and they wind up taking control of the country (most basic example is the French Revolution; our revolution also applies because we had a Congress that had control of the Continental Army which did its fighting for it; General Washington did not become the leader of the country when the British surrendered because he reported to others, as he exemplified toward the end of the war to his junior officers in the Newburgh conspiracy).

Coups in contrast are militarily led and if it succeeds, when the shooting is done, they take control of the country. If the Libyan opposition forces are being led by former Libyan army officers which all reports I've read say they are, and there are no civic non-military bodies that are commanding these opposition anti-Gaddafi forces what to do, then if Gaddafi falls these opposition forces would run the country and the only person they report to is a military officer that doesn't report to anyone non-military, i.e. a coup d'etat. Just because it's a coup d'etat does not mean it's necessarily a bad thing, people have negative connotations with the phrase due to the type of people that typically carry them out. What occurred in Egypt for example was not a revolution, it was a coup d'etat because the Egyptian army used civic unrest to force Mubarak out of power and hand control of the country over to them.

**rj1** · 08 Mar 11,, 16:00

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Foreign intervention is unpredictable. Unless those on board are willing to go to the very end to see their aims fulfilled. It can't be half measures. However, I like the idea of humantarian aid, medical, food & water.

I agree with Double Edge here. If NATO since they're the group most likely to do it decides to intervene, do it full bore and be up front and honest about what you're doing. Nothing good can come from doing it half-ass.

**rj1** · 08 Mar 11,, 16:20

One for OOE in regards to pilot accuracy in bombing:

BBC News - Libya: Gaddafi forces renew air strikes near Ras Lanuf

On Tuesday, using air strikes, helicopter gunships and heavy armaments, they pushed back a rebel advance along the north coast, and more accurate attacks than had been seen previously seemed aimed at dislodging opposition fighters from a crossroads outside Ras Lanuf.

...

Earlier today, the bombing was quite accurate. Often in the past, you got the feeling that the pilots were deliberately missing.

But not today, when they bombed a house across the road from where we were filming. One of my colleagues was knocked over by the blast, although he is OK.

The more accurate bombing suggests the government has changed pilots or is giving different orders.

...and good news from the Arab League and Islamic Conference regarding the no-fly zone:

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which represents Muslim countries, has joined the calls for a no-fly zone. Gulf Arab states gave their backing to the idea, condemning the use of violence against civilians by Libyan government forces and calling for an urgent meeting of the Arab League.

An Arab League official said the group's foreign ministers would meet on Saturday in Cairo to discuss the Libya crisis, reuters reported.

A no-fly zone would probably ban military flights by government forces through Libyan airspace. Any aircraft violating the exclusion zone would risk being shot down by international forces.

**kato** · 08 Mar 11,, 16:24

Originally Posted by rj1

No one at the time took action to remove Gaddafi from power once he came meaning by the force of inertia the international community accepted him as its ruler.

Blame Nixon, he was the one who mooted the British plan for a counter-coup in '69. And Reagan, for '86. First thing that did anything towards thawing him was the comprehensive UN-wide embargo enacted under Clinton in '93 and '96.

Originally Posted by rj1

If the Libyan opposition forces are being led by former Libyan army officers which all reports I've read say they are

There are no military representatives in the socalled "Libyan National Council" that formed in Bengazhi, and that most people seem to assume is the defacto front of the insurgent movement. The military effort is sort of running in parallel (with mutual liaisons), and is - partially - led by former Lybian officers. Although to some extent there isn't really any top-down coordination of the military effort, with each of the newly formed City Council in "freed" towns running its own little militia consisting of civilians and former army members.

Originally Posted by tankie

And he aint a realllllllllllllllllllllll Col neither

Unlike all those mock generals, he does hold real military rank though - having served in Idris' army as a Captain.

**rj1** · 08 Mar 11,, 16:42

Originally Posted by kato

There are no military representatives in the socalled "Libyan National Council" that formed in Bengazhi, and that most people seem to assume is the defacto front of the insurgent movement. The military effort is sort of running in parallel (with mutual liaisons), and is - partially - led by former Lybian officers. Although to some extent there isn't really any top-down coordination of the military effort, with each of the newly formed City Council in "freed" towns running its own little militia consisting of civilians and former army members.

So assuming the military opposition wins, we're going to have the Holy Roman Empire for a brief period of time.

)

**Dreadnought** · 08 Mar 11,, 16:47

Originally Posted by tankie

And he aint a realllllllllllllllllllllll Col neither , and this below really grips me , this from the same person who authorised the botched diplomatic landing in libya , invasion on its way , move over saddam

Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Tuesday a no-fly zone over Libya was a practical possibility but it would need a clear legal basis. ( same as iraq)

"It is a realistic possibility and it is a practical possibility," Hague told reporters during a joint press conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in London.

"It has to have a clear legal base, it has to have the necessary international support, broad support in the region itself."

*A running joke is that Ghadaffi was a Colonel when he formed his military coup to take control. 40 years later he still hasnt made General. Sorry, missed your window, time to go!

**gunnut** · 08 Mar 11,, 20:17

I don't understand one thing: what is the rationale for US/NATO to establish a no fly zone?

**Mihais** · 08 Mar 11,, 20:33

Don't you read newspapers?He's a terrorist,a dictator and a bloodthirsty killer.
The people need your help,man.

**gunnut** · 08 Mar 11,, 21:06

Originally Posted by Mihais

Don't you read newspapers?He's a terrorist,a dictator and a bloodthirsty killer.
The people need your help,man.

As much as I want to, I just can't summon enough heart to care...

**citanon** · 08 Mar 11,, 21:57

Originally Posted by rj1

This is a failure in understanding what those terms actually mean. Revolutions are popularly led by civilians and they wind up taking control of the country (most basic example is the French Revolution; our revolution also applies because we had a Congress that had control of the Continental Army which did its fighting for it; General Washington did not become the leader of the country when the British surrendered because he reported to others, as he exemplified toward the end of the war to his junior officers in the Newburgh conspiracy).

Coups in contrast are militarily led and if it succeeds, when the shooting is done, they take control of the country. If the Libyan opposition forces are being led by former Libyan army officers which all reports I've read say they are, and there are no civic non-military bodies that are commanding these opposition anti-Gaddafi forces what to do, then if Gaddafi falls these opposition forces would run the country and the only person they report to is a military officer that doesn't report to anyone non-military, i.e. a coup d'etat. Just because it's a coup d'etat does not mean it's necessarily a bad thing, people have negative connotations with the phrase due to the type of people that typically carry them out. What occurred in Egypt for example was not a revolution, it was a coup d'etat because the Egyptian army used civic unrest to force Mubarak out of power and hand control of the country over to them.

Your understanding of the situation seems to be quite far removed from reality.

The Libyan Army has been divided into battalion sized units for decades specifically to prevent military coup. Even though there have been attempts by former Libyan Army officers to organize a military opposition, the very disorganization of the opposition units fighting Ghadaffi forces and their largely civilian composition points to the inability of the former Army leadership to organize an effective military organization.

Furthermore, in the recent SAS incident, the rebel official contacted by the British government was a former foreign minister, and was not noted for his military background. The government services in rebels cities such as Benghazi are being organized by committees of prominent citizens and tribal leaders. Going back to the originis of the rebellion, the rebellion certainly did not originate from military ranks.

When the rebellion did occur, Army units were more often loyal to local tribal affiliations rather than any centralized command, which is why the Army melted away and then switched sides in the first place. At best, this could be called a citizen's revolution or a tribal rebellion with military participation. So is it a tribal rebellion? Given the degree of solidarity thus far displayed by the rebels, that would not even seem to be approriate. What we are looking at here, is a genuine revolution with tribal complications.

**Dago** · 08 Mar 11,, 23:18

Originally Posted by rj1

No one at the time took action to remove Gaddafi from power once he came meaning by the force of inertia the international community accepted him as its ruler. Even when he took terrorist actions against other countries, no one did anything beyond sanctions against him, at a time when the Americans and Soviets were far more interventionist than the powers are now. Even in account of said terrorist actions, George W. Bush and the American government restored full diplomatic relations with Gaddafi and Libya in 2006, Bush and his administration calling Libya "one of their success stories" in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, so they certainly recognized his rule.

IMHO, state of war existed was of On March 21, 1973, when he sortied fighters to intercept a C-130 Cargo plane. And fired on them, with Cannon fire. And also in another incident, when a EC135 was fired on by Mig's. He further escalated it, with other attempts, and finally, with terrorists acts against the entire western world. When he blew up planes in Europe and Pakistan.

Thats all the legal basis you need, his hostile and provocative acts directed towards the world. Sure, we did business with him, but you have to understand, its not soley him, there is an entire country. We don't do business with individuals it's a collective.

Now is our chance, to respond too all the previous provocations as well, as support the real future of Libya, the people, and not the Gadaffis and his family, to rule over a country, for the ladder half of a century? So they could continue to act and commit international terrorism? Who is to say. In the future, they could proliferate chemical weapons...I mean, heck... they have already been a State Sponsor of Terrorism. And this is in the United States interest?

Policy is directed for the best interest, is it not. Then comes the weighing of consequences and finally decision on action?

**Dago** · 08 Mar 11,, 23:27

Originally Posted by gunnut

I don't understand one thing: what is the rationale for US/NATO to establish a no fly zone?

To get our foot in the door, to finally be a precursor to a lethal Gadaffi strike from a JDAM/Cruise Missile or whatever damn munitions you can think of for the response of all the American Citizens, as well as civilians on the flight. Specifics - 243 passengers and 16 crew members. Also, there were 11 British casualties on the ground. Total of 270 fatalities. 90 were American citizens and 43 British citizens. (Pan Am Flight 103 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Four US Intelligence officers on board.

Matthew Gannon, the CIA's deputy station chief in Beirut.
Major Chuck "Tiny" McKee, an army officer on secondment to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in Beirut.
Two Diplomatic Security Service special agents, acting as bodyguards to Gannon and McKee.
Ronald Lariviere, a security officer from the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.
Daniel O'Connor, a security officer from the U.S. Embassy in Nicosia, Cyprus.

We received compensation from the Libyan Government. And, that's sufficient. But, we never worked out a deal with Gadaffi specifically, As you can see where I am getting at. Here's the chance

**kato** · 08 Mar 11,, 23:55

Originally Posted by Dago

terrorists acts against the entire western world.

The UK (Lockerbie) and the USA (LaBelle) do not constitute "the entire western world".

From the German perspective for example, at the time it was far more important that Gaddafi organized on German behalf that the PLO didn't train RAF members anymore from 1979 on. Which resulted in an effective collapse of the 2nd generation of RAF within only 3 years. Hence why Germany supported Gaddafi for the next 20-odd years, including training of Libyan security forces by German ex-military contractors throughout the 80s and 90s.

Coming back to the current situation, Germany might not necessarily vote in favour of a no-fly zone in the Security Council. If they do, they'll probably only do so in a possible bloc with the Arab League i.e. Lebanon and the African Union represented by Nigeria, Gabon and South Africa. In the hypothetical case that that bloc plus India - openly against - would vote against, that's just one vote short of the 7 needed to reject a resolution even if the P5 agree. Since Bosnia and Columbia will do whatever the US says anyway, it would then come down to Portugal and Brazil (which are ambiguous afaik). Yikes.