Right now? Yes, it is exactly just that because we are acting under a UN Mandate which defines what we can do.
So you don't think we should get involved, but you think that Libyans should be free to choose their own destiny?
So how exactly do you think they will achieve that whilst Gaddafi is exterminating them?
One Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) is reported to cost $1,066,465 (approximately £650863)
So your £1400 tax has purchased about 0.215% of one TLAM. Over 100 TLAMS have already been fired into Libya, some from a Trafalgar Class submarine (i.e. a British platform), and some from American platforms.
Does that make you feel better?
It's been made clear that the aim of military intervention is the protection of civilians from being murdered by the Gaddafi regime's armed forces. If Gaddafi stopped doing things like starving, bombing and simply shooting the populace of opposing cities, then the military operations would have to stop as they'd have no further legitimacy.
(Of course, if Gaddafi stopped doing things like starving, bombing and simply shooting the populace of opposing cities, then he'd immediately lose any control over almost all the country, probably including Tripoli, so that's not going to happen.)
The military operation is not the same as the political operation - the aims of the political operation are, of course, regime change.
Two different things.
It's been made clear that the aim of military intervention is the protection of civilians from being murdered by the Gaddafi regime's armed forces. If Gaddafi stopped doing things like starving, bombing and simply shooting the populace of opposing cities, then the military operations would have to stop as they'd have no further legitimacy.
(Of course, if Gaddafi stopped doing things like starving, bombing and simply shooting the populace of opposing cities, then he'd immediately lose any control over almost all the country, probably including Tripoli, so that's not going to happen.)
The military operation is not the same as the political operation - the aims of the political operation are, of course, regime change.
Two different things.
Firstly, as I said earlier, we can't afford to house, feed, educate and maintain a flood of thousands of Libyan refugees either.
So if it's a choice between spending state money on supporting refugees because of a failure to act, or spending state money preventing those people from becoming refugees in the first place, I think the latter is the best choice. You can almost look at it as an investment.
Secondly, it's not like the UK is taking on this burden by itself. Our contribution is relatively modest, I'd be surprised if we're contributing more than 10% of the forces involved.
Sorry for quoting myself, but:
I notice that the refugee problem is already becoming a crisis:
Imagine that problem multiplied by 10; that's the sort of thing we'd be facing if we'd not intervened. A massive humanitarian crisis on our doorsteps.Thousands of Libyans are risking their lives to escape to a small Italian island, where conditions are appalling.
So, we're a week in now.
The good news is, we've managed to protect the lives of, probably, a couple of million people, and caused the deaths of possibly zero civilians. Which is pretty good going.
We've also managed to halt the inexorable advance of Gaddafi's forces, and allowed the rebels to at least attempt a take-back of the territory in the East. We've even managed to provide some assistance for Misrata.
So militarily, for 1 weeks' work, that's pretty damn good going. We have a fully-functioning No Fly Zone, and we've stopped the Gaddafi forces from advancing any further.
So make no mistake, the airstrikes have directly saved the lives of thousands of people who would otherwise be dead right now.
In a wider context, the intervention has been welcomed by the Libyan people and by the Arab League; the one attempt by the AL chairman to criticize the actions was stamped-on thoroughly and he had to issue a grovelling apology immediately. So in theory, if played right, this could go some way help mend the damage done by Bush and Blair in Iraq, and we could end up with the majority of the North African (=Southern Mediterranean) countries becoming stable democracies by the end of the year.
So there's good local support - and several Arab countries (the UAE and Qatar) are even flying patrols as part of the NFZ.
That's the good news.
Politically, it's a bit of a mess. No-one's really in sure who's in charge of the coalition, and neither is anyone sure who's in charge of the rebels. This may get clarified in time, but for the moment one side is divided and the other is united under a single political and military command.
There are also serious military obstacles coming up; the rebels "armed forces" are about 1,000 soldiers, and 15,000 people who happen to have cars and (if they're lucky) AK-47s, and that's about it. Whilst the airstrikes mean that anyone operating armour or heavy weapons out in the open is committing suicide, it's almost impossible to hit those forces in urban areas without casualties. It's also difficult politically - the UN mandate is to protect civilians, not kill them in collateral damage as part of air support for one side in a civil war.
Where do people see it going from here?
I see it getting really bad, the NFZ means Gadaffi's forces are stuck, so protracted civil war it is then, the infrastructure will collapse, water and food will not get through, starvation, disease and war, great arn't we
You think it'd be better to have a short civil war which Gaddafi won? You don't think he'd have massacred thousands of opponents in Benghazi and other areas?
Where? Just generally, or in specific areas?
Well, I'm pretty amazing yes. Dunno about you.
Dunno, it's "how long is a piece of string". I don't see how any outcome with Gaddafi as a leader will be acceptable, however, he's proven he's happy to butcher his own people and if he stayed in power, I'm sure he'd be very happy to provide state sponsorship for Al-Quaeda, he's got form in that area.
So a victorious Gaddafi would mean:
- A large refugee crisis in Europe (and so in the UK)
- Major humanitarian crisis in Libya (thousands of deaths, tens or hundreds of thousands "ethnically cleansed")
- A dictator with a history of support for terrorism (IRA sponsorship, Lockerbie etc.), looking to take revenge on the West.
Besides, it's not a "civil war" - that implies that a significant number of Libyans support Gaddafi, and that's clearly rubbish. It's simply that he's a ruthless dictator with control over a lot of people with guns (they're not an army, they're a bunch of well-armed thugs), which he uses to terrorise the population.
As happened in Egypt, you mean? Where the dictator got booted out, and the Egyptian people have voted in a referendum for a new constitution in advance of free election?
A significant number of people do support Gadaffi, they are the ones from his tribe who will have done very well from his leadership.
So its a done deal in Egypt? The F**k up fairy might well make a suprise visit there, you seem to suppose that it all works the same way out there, I assure you it does not.
Sure, same as in any dictatorship. That's not the same as having the support of ordinary people.
If you look here, you'll see that:
- The dictator has been thrown out
- The secret police have been disbanded
- The corrupt Parliament has been dissolved, and several members arrested
- Banned political parties have been recognised
- A free and fair referendum on constitutional change has been held
- A Parliamentary election is scheduled for June
That's pretty good progress for 5 weeks, in a country of 80 million. In fact, there are concerns that the election will be too soon - some activists want it to be delayed to give them time to set up their organisations properly.
It's far from a done deal, of course. But it's a damn sight better than most people predicted.
Coalition countries attacking targets in Libya will not supply arms to anti-Gaddafi rebels, UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox has told the BBC.
But are supplying the Gaddafi rebels with training ,advice and intelligence ?
The media keep tell us the rebels are disorganised, yet they seem to be doing quite well attacking Site
It's been officially denied. So yes, I think we can assume it's true
They are disorganised. They're basically a bunch of civilians with small arms (AK-47s and RPG), riding on pickup trucks or in cars.
And I'm not at all convinced they can or will take Sirte, at least not easily.
However:
- The heavy equipment of the Gaddafi forces has clearly been turned into junk by the airstrikes, so the Gaddafi forces are mostly dead, demoralised or (at best) reduced to the same level.
- The rebels are not an occupying force, they're a liberating force. All they need to do is drive the Gaddafi forces out of an area.
- This is not a civil war, this is a revolution. There's a real difference between the two.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks