The Libya Crisis (military intervention started on march 19, 2011)

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by fukarming

If Gaddafi had resigned, he would have brought to international court for his alleged war crime, and will surely get convicted (or died during the very long court process, while imprisoned. After all he is over 70). Charles Taylor from Liberia is a prime example. I think his resistance is logical, and if I were him, I would choose to fight as well. He just got unlucky. Saddam Hussein is alive for 7-8 months after the fall of Baghdad and Osama Bin Laden is alive for almost 10 years after the fall of Afghanistan. His only miss is that he shouldn't have stay in a big city like Sirte.

Still, since he had enough supporters to drag out a civil war that long, there must have been some ways for him to bargain for immunity? Do what Zimbabwe does and give the opposition a piece of the government, or even just using the fact that peace would spare lives in exchange for letting him retire.

There was not enough supporters to win him the war, but surely there would have been enough of them to protect him in a peace negotiation and power handover.

None the less, we have now seen the downfall of three dictators in succession; one ran away, one arrested, and the last one died. Even though the Libya war had Nato, the end result was still determined by what the dictator wanted to do. If you run away early, you are safe with whatever money you can steal. If you stay but don't go all out war, you get arrested alive and charged. And if you kill everyone who oppose you, you die too.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

And if you kill everyone who oppose you, you die too.

Not exactly; depending of how much control you have over the population and the army, you can kill a lot of peoples and still be at the head of the country, Syria is a good example of this.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Not exactly; depending of how much control you have over the population and the army, you can kill a lot of peoples and still be at the head of the country, Syria is a good example of this.

There is a slim line between suppressing riots and just blowing people up. But the line is there. It's not how many you kill; it's how you kill them. If people feel they are in danger ever if they were obedient, they would more likely to rise up and fight.

And once that happens, when people think the only way to survive is if their leader dies, we get Libya. Rule by fear only works if people think they can be safe.

(Fun note; Stalin managed to convince the population that he is not responsible for any of the atrocities he committed. So there was never any uprising. People work to death in prison camps dreaming that if only Comrade Stalin knew what was happening, that he would come and save them.)

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

(Fun note; Stalin managed to convince the population that he is not responsible for any of the atrocities he committed. So there was never any uprising. People work to death in prison camps dreaming that if only Comrade Stalin knew what was happening, that he would come and save them.)

And thoses than know the truth were shot.

[serenade_beta]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

That's what you think.

Well, there definitely is a way to go before Libya stabilizes, but I mean, at least the battle against Gaddafi himself is over.
And maybe the US will focus more on their own country now instead of other ones, which I feel they need to.

[solomon]

If UK and France are not going to keep their noses out of the middle east, you KNOW the US is not.

I'm not happy with all of our overseas exploits, but I also am not going to take the US is the ultimate boogeyman approach either.

It's impractical to think that give all our investments in international geo-poltics that we are suddenly do as Ron Paul says and quit cold turkey.

As far as Libya goes, it's like the US had NO hand in it. However, going forward, the fate of Libya is MUCH more important to UK, France and I guess Italy due to ecomomic factors (namely oil).

Between the three "breakthrough" Arab Spring nations (Egypt, Tunisia and Libya), Libya is going to have the toughest road. While relatively economically vibrant compared to it's Middle Eastern neighbors, it's still heavily dependent on oil industry.

In addition the fragmentation along tribal and ethnic lines seem more pronounced there as opposed to other countries. Reconciling differences and figuring out how to actually create a centralized yet democratic infrastructure will take a LOT of time and "aid" from foriegn countries, namely UK and France.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

And thoses than know the truth were shot.

As long as someone else takes the blame for the execution, it is all good. But Gaddafi made no attempts to hide the fact that he is responsible for every major decision, and that's why when things go sour people go straight for his head.

[fukarming]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

As long as someone else takes the blame for the execution, it is all good. But Gaddafi made no attempts to hide the fact that he is responsible for every major decision, and that's why when things go sour people go straight for his head.

That is why I don't think Gaddafi cannot negotiate for a peaceful surrender. Once he surrender he will need to give up his army. Then he will be a sitting duck for international or local courts.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by fukarming

That is why I don't think Gaddafi cannot negotiate for a peaceful surrender. Once he surrender he will need to give up his army. Then he will be a sitting duck for international or local courts.

That is what Saudi Arabia is for and for that matter the US.

Shah of Iran
Marco of Philippines
Idi Amn of Uganda
President of Tunisia

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

As long as someone else takes the blame for the execution, it is all good. But Gaddafi made no attempts to hide the fact that he is responsible for every major decision, and that's why when things go sour people go straight for his head.

The fact than he and his family had all the power was too obvious; that's what politic officers and puppet subordinates are for.

[Xellos-_^]

very important question here

What happen to Gaddafi busty Ukrainian nurse?

[Ithekro]

His son was captured alive a day or so ago. (or one of his sons)

[Haak]

Mass executions in Sirte:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15428360

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Haak

Mass executions in Sirte:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15428360

That comes with the end of most civil wars.

I am not saying this is good by any means. But the fact is this is what happens when we deliberately let the local population sort things out on their own. The Western powers are not going to install a puppet government this time, so whatever that happens now would be up to Libyans themselves. They have to build their own future, and if it is going to go bad it would only be because of choices they made themselves.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I am not saying this is good by any means. But the fact is this is what happens when we deliberately let the local population sort things out on their own. The Western powers are not going to install a puppet government this time, so whatever that happens now would be up to Libyans themselves. They have to build their own future, and if it is going to go bad it would only be because of choices they made themselves.

I found this assertion hard to believe: if that's the case, why did the west go to war in the first place?

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Haak

Mass executions in Sirte:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15428360

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

I found this assertion hard to believe: if that's the case, why did the west go to war in the first place?

In addition also from the same article...

Mr Abdul Jalil said the new Libya would take Islamic law as its foundation. Interest for bank loans would be capped, he said, and restrictions on the number of wives Libyan men could take would be lifted.

I hope that i read too much on this

[Haak]

I don't really know much about economics (I don't know anything about economics actually) so if someone could fill me in: Why is capping interest on bank loans so bad? (or is it more the fact that he's taking Islamic law as the foundation?)

[Tom Bombadil]

For those who are interested, here is an piece from Asia times that give a different point of view not seen in western news paper.

How the west won Libya

Sample of what you may expect(note that this was published on Oct 22, before the news about Muslim law was out):

Welcome to the new Libya. Intolerant Islamist militias will turn the lives of Libyan women into a living hell. Hundreds of thousands of Sub-Saharan Africans - those who could not escape - will be ruthlessly persecuted. Libya's natural wealth will be plundered. That collection of anti-aircraft missiles appropriated by Islamists will be a supremely convincing reason for the "war on terror" in northern Africa to become eternal. There will be blood - civil war blood, because Tripolitania will refuse to be ruled by backward Cyrenaica.

That certainly doest not paint a rosy picture for the NTC. The article also make the western intervention pretty sinister, which gives me a couple moments. It also bring into the light the divide between Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, which I wasn't aware before. A New York times article illustrate this by saying

The celebration in Misurata, a western city that weathered the fiercest attacks by Qaddafi forces, was more muted than the one in Benghazi, in the east. Hundreds of people gathered in Misurata’s Freedom Square, but Mr. Abdel-Jalil’s remarks were not broadcast to the crowd. A few blocks away, several men said they were skipping the celebration because the choice of Benghazi for the announcement angered them.

“This was an unwise decision,” said Abdulatif Kablan, an airline pilot. “It is supposed to be in Tripoli. Maybe they have an excuse. Maybe it’s not safe. But if it’s not safe, they should not be declaring the country liberated.”

Though BBC reports that

The NTC has begun moving its base from the eastern city of Benghazi to the capital, Tripoli.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

I found this assertion hard to believe: if that's the case, why did the west go to war in the first place?

You missed my point; if the new government start blowing up their city then of course we are back to square one. But until then they are responsible for their own human rights abuses and breaking of international law.

And as I said, there was intentional minimisation of involvement. Europe did not send an invasion force before, so what made you think they will do it now?

Libya was not invaded, so Western powers are not present to prevent any human rights abuses. That's the price paid for, well, not invading.

EDIT:
Normally the West would just set up a puppet government. Not so this time. I am not surprises about Islamic law, as it IS a Muslim area. Unless you want to start another Crusade, Islam is here to stay. When you give people choice, you have to realised it means they can make choices you don't like.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You missed my point; if the new government start blowing up their city then of course we are back to square one. But until then they are responsible for their own human rights abuses and breaking of international law.

And as I said, there was intentional minimisation of involvement. Europe did not send an invasion force before, so what made you think they will do it now?

From my point of view, the minimization was a decision based on the situation on the ground. Libya is a nation which concentrated on the coastline. It has no strategic depth. Once you close the sea lane, the Gaddafi forces has no supply and no where to hide except the cities. With the air support of Nato, the Gaddafi forces can not take the offensive, because on open desert they will just be bombed to death. On the other hand, if the rebels can not take a city, they only need to retreat and regroup. Besieging the cities is a very messy business and better left to the rebels.

You can compare that to Afghanistan, the northern coalition was fighting the Taliban before the US invasion. But even if you take all the cities by supply weapons and air support to them, it will not do much good without boots on the ground.

Libya was not invaded, so Western powers are not present to prevent any human rights abuses. That's the price paid for, well, not invading.

If all the planes flying over is not a form of invasion, nobody will talk about the sovereign right over airspace anymore. It's the color of the cat argument, as long as it catch the mouse, you don't really care the color of the cat. Objectives and means. [/QUOTE]

EDIT:
Normally the West would just set up a puppet government. Not so this time. I am not surprises about Islamic law, as it IS a Muslim area. Unless you want to start another Crusade, Islam is here to stay. When you give people choice, you have to realised it means they can make choices you don't like.

I don't know, the war has cost the US over 1 billion dollars. I find it naive to believe that people make such investment with no mind for profit (hint: oil!). There is a lot of ground between a puppet government and complete hands-off.
Muslim comes in different styles, too. I just find it ironic that gender equality (which we should call a fundamental human right) is the first thing to go after the victory. On the other hand, Arab spring is a package of many things and we need to see the full package to make a good judgement.