Uprising in Libya

[weemadando]

The Beeb were just saying that US amphibious assault ships were inbound - I thought the whole point of the UN resolution was there weren't to be any 'boots on the ground'?

We need Marines in close in case we have to rescue a pilot, rescue helicopters fly slow. Setting down men for a few minutes by helicopter to pick someone up is arguably an invasion but no one is going to give a damn if it has to happen. Hell if I expect the UN to loose a plane except by flying into the ground; but something could happen and someone could pull out too low and take a Stinger up the tailpipe. I don't think Cobra's will be used over land except to defend rescue aircraft, Cobra has almost no armor and is thus not well suited to free roaming kill sprey without friendly ground forces around.

I remember reading an article about SAR in the original Gulf War where they had:

IIRC CH-53 as the SAR chopper.
2 x Cobras riding shotgun for the SAR bird
2 x A-10s provided support for the Cobras
2 x F-16s providing cover for the A-10s
and finally
2 x F-15s covering the whole lot.

According to the piece, this was pretty a pretty normal SAR package.

[Duckie]

how can you be a "republic-leaning monarch"?

are you perhaps using the american definition of republic?

the king of spain sort of did that, though he just used his absolute powers to create a constitutional monarchy, not a complete kingless republic.

so yeah, I think it's the american definition

[K. A. Pital]

Back during the fifties, that king was pissing off all the Arab nationalists because of his insistence in maintaining strong ties with the West, including the US and Britain, even after the intervention at the Seuz Canal.

The question is, how the hell was this beneficial for the people of Libya or any Arab nation for that matter? Also, I do love how blatant agression becomes "intervention" in Western-speak. Egypt lost sovereignity as a nation, or what?

A pro-Western republic-leaning monarch with a legit claim to actually running the place might be the best thing that we can reasonably expect Libya to produce. It's certainly better than Gaddafi.

What if there's an anti-Western elected ruler instead of a Tsar, in a Nasserite tradition? In my view, that's much, much better than either Gaddafi or a king. But hey, why would we be talking about the interests of Libya's people, as opposed to those of the West, right?

To say that a king is the best "these ah-rabs" can produce is to admit they can't do much better. What if they can? And certainly, to be against Gaddafi does not require one to indulge in supporting idiotic social atavisms like monarchy and monarchists.

[Zed]

What if Libya's people want a king, as opposed to a republic?

[MarshalPurnell]

There is no substantial difference between a democratic republic and a democratic constitutional monarchy, and there are situations where reasons of tradition, national identity, social stability and so on might make a monarchy preferable to a republic. Certainly one might ask what Nasserism brought to Egypt that was so great, unless perhaps Stas thinks that the military ruling class only became oppressive and corrupt once they stopped being clients of the Soviet Union? It is rather clear that Libya under King Idris was less oppressive than under Gaddafi, and it is not unlikely that a closer relationship with the West would have led to more development in Libya.

Of course it is a bit of a red herring. Most of the protesters are using the monarchy's flag because it was the flag of decolonization. It also represents all three regions of Libya in its tricolor, with black for Cyrenaica, green for Tripolitania, and red for the Fezzan, unlike the modern Green flag. Regional tensions were abundantly evident early in the uprising, and only Gaddafi's ham-handed approach to suppressing Benghazi spurred protests in Tripoli. As such it certainly isn't indicative of support for restoring the monarchy and the Libyan Transitional Council has made no moves whatsoever to indicate it is even considering it. There isn't even any agreement on who the legitimate pretender is, and I can hardly see a restoration without sorting that out.

If there is a general popular movement to restore the monarchy, though, it's frankly one of the best possible outcomes of a future for Libya. Such a restoration would only be done on constitutional terms with a parliamentary system these days and would serve as a model for the other Arab monarchies. For historical reasons the Senussi command deep respect in Libya and so can unite the country behind a more benign national myth of resistance to the Italians and will strengthen moderate Islamic mysticism, which is a bulwark against the Salafists and thus Al Qaeda.

[Pelranius]

Why not both a king and a Nasserite inspired Prime Minister (assuming the later can be found)?

The king can go and visit foreign countries, especially the West, for political purposes and serve as a general purpose symbol for the country while the Prime Minister stays at home and makes sure the multinationals don't turn Libya into the next Equatorial Guinea.

[Gil Hamilton]

The question is, how the hell was this beneficial for the people of Libya or any Arab nation for that matter? Also, I do love how blatant agression becomes "intervention" in Western-speak. Egypt lost sovereignity as a nation, or what?

Having a good working relationship with the West seemed to be working for King Idris and Lybia until the coup that overthrew him. What other metric is there?

As for language, I've only ever heard the event called "intervention" or the "Seuz Crisis". What would you prefer?

What if there's an anti-Western elected ruler instead of a Tsar, in a Nasserite tradition? In my view, that's much, much better than either Gaddafi or a king. But hey, why would we be talking about the interests of Libya's people, as opposed to those of the West, right?

To say that a king is the best "these ah-rabs" can produce is to admit they can't do much better. What if they can? And certainly, to be against Gaddafi does not require one to indulge in supporting idiotic social atavisms like monarchy and monarchists.

Where did I say "these ah-rabs"? I haven't mentioned anything about their ethnicity or condescended against arabs.

I think that you are overlooking that a king may be what the Lybian people want. There is an appeal to it, in that the previous monarchy was actually the legitimate government before Gaddafi, which would give the modern version legal legitimacy that factions can agree on. That legitimacy can be used to get a good democratic government. Lybia has DONE the anti-West arab nationalist thing. Gaddafi was a big follower of Nasser's pan-Arabism after all! Look what it's gotten the Lybians. Right now, Lybia's version of Nasser is trying to maintain his power over his people's dead bodies. However, if you think that is "much better" than a king, then that's your look out.

Further, the Lybian people may not feel so anti-Western. It's going to be Western states that are going to provide the air support that will prevent Gaddafi from seeing if he can run out of people before he runs out of ammo. Should we not give them that support, in your view? Should we back off and let Gaddafi win, since you seem to want an anti-western Nasserite state?

[folti78]

Just heard in the local radio. Explosions and gunfire heard around Benghazi:

Summit set to decide Libya action

Explosions have been heard in Libya's rebel-stronghold of Benghazi, despite a UN declaration of a no-fly zone.

A jet has been shot down over the city, the BBC's Ian Pannell reports from the city, amid heavy gunfire.

The rebels said they were under attack from pro-Gaddafi forces, but it is impossible to verify these reports.

Leaders from Britain, the US, France and Arab countries are due to meet in Paris to discuss military action in Libya under the new UN resolution.

The UN Secretary General says the world must "speak with one voice" on Libya.

The resolution authorised "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians.

On Saturday, the rebels said they were being forced to retreat by Col Gaddafi's forces, who they said were just 20km (12.5 miles) outside Benghazi, Reuters reported, although it has not been possible to independently confirm reports of fighting.

Getting ready

Earlier, US President Barack Obama said pro-Gaddafi forces must stop attacking rebel areas or face military action.

"Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiya and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas," he said on Friday.

But in line with the resolution, Mr Obama ruled out using US ground forces.

On Friday Col Muammar Gaddafi's government declared a unilateral truce but there were reports that government offensives in rebel-held towns were continuing.

The BBC's Ian Pannell in Benghazi, the main rebel-held city, says there were loud explosions to the west early on Saturday and a jet was seen flying overhead, but it was impossible to verify whether it was an attack by Col Gaddafi's forces.

Our correspondent says if this was such an attack it would be a very serious development and put more pressure on the international community to begin military action quickly.

Both sides have accused each other of breaking the ceasefire declared by Col Gaddafi's government.

The Security Council vote called for an immediate ceasefire and endorsed the use of force - including a no-fly zone aimed at preventing pro-Gaddafi forces from bombing rebel-held towns.

The British and French, along with some Arab allies, are expected to play a leading role in any initial air strikes.

The French ambassador to the UN, Gerard Araud, told the BBC that he expected military intervention within hours of Saturday's summit.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron - who is attending the meeting - has said British war planes are being moved to bases in the region.

"The clock is ticking and we must be ready to act quickly," said Mr Cameron.

Strength of outrage

Saturday's summit will be hosted by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will represent the Obama administration.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall says it is a chance to demonstrate to the Gaddafi government, and to the rest of the world, the strength of outrage at his actions and the determination to stop him.

The US Navy is deploying additional warships to the Mediterranean to support possible military action.

The commander in charge of planning for the no-fly zone will be US Adm Samuel Locklear, the BBC's Mark Urban has learnt.

Denmark and Canada have said they will supply fighter jets, with Italy, Spain and France making air bases available.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Jordan could be among Arab states taking part.

Nato is already providing 24-hour surveillance over Libya with its Awacs planes.

Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Nato was "completing its planning to be ready to take appropriate action in support of the UN resolution as part of the broad international effort."

The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, told CNN that Col Gaddafi was already in violation of the UN Security Council resolution.

Col Gaddafi has ruled Libya for more than 40 years.

An uprising against him began last month after long-time leaders of neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt were toppled.

Al-Jazeera reported him on Friday as saying that the UN resolution was "blatant colonialism" that "does not have any justification".

So much for the ceasefire.

[Sea Skimmer]

The rebels it appears just shot down a Su-22 over Benghazi in case anyone doubted reports that the place is being bombed or that a single word of truth has ever come out of the Gaddafi regime in the last month. The air blitz cannot come quickly enough, and I vaguely hope that this was in fact a first move by foreign air forces. They can plainly see this bullshit happening on radar, make no mistake about that at all. Gaddafis tanks are within 20km of the city, BM-21 range if those launchers are brought up.

[Simon_Jester]

how can you be a "republic-leaning monarch"?

are you perhaps using the american definition of republic?

Yes. Put simply, there are plenty of examples of monarchs who tolerate, or even promote and encourage, the growth of democratic institutions in their countries.

And so it is very easy to have countries with a monarchy, but whose basic political traditions are democratic (public opinion matters, it would be unthinkable for the government to suppress peaceful political movements with force, regular elections and free speech are the rule...).

What if there's an anti-Western elected ruler instead of a Tsar, in a Nasserite tradition? In my view, that's much, much better than either Gaddafi or a king. But hey, why would we be talking about the interests of Libya's people, as opposed to those of the West, right?

To say that a king is the best "these ah-rabs" can produce is to admit they can't do much better. What if they can? And certainly, to be against Gaddafi does not require one to indulge in supporting idiotic social atavisms like monarchy and monarchists.

If they do better, I won't be surprised or worried. If they choose not to, or wind up not doing so, I won't be surprised or worried.

If a monarchy helps them get a stable government up and running, without crushing the genuinely democratic aspect of the revolution, then I am in favor of that. So many revolutions fail outright, either because they are destroyed by the government or because they fall apart and bicker among themselves. As far as I'm concerned, overthrowing the dictator and creating a sustainable government most of the people of Libya accept and acknowledge as a rightful one takes precedence. Debates over the precise form of this government are, at best, greatly premature.

[Skgoa]

What if Libya's people want a king, as opposed to a republic?

What, let people decide for themselves how they want to be governed? Madness! Thats un-amurrrican! We must inva.. intervene and spread democracy! The will greet us as liberators, mission fucking accomplished!

[Pu-239]

Various reports suggest the Su-22 that was shot down actually belonged to the rebels. :/

[Tribun]

Various reports suggest the Su-22 that was shot down actually belonged to the rebels. :/

Bullshit, since the rebels don't have the means to use air power.

Also, they found out that its a case of friendly fire, Gaddafi's forces are so ucoordinated that they shot down their own plane.

[Pu-239]

Well, that was according to the Ex-Justice minister via Al-Jazeera, which is also reporting it may be rebel friendly fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0CW040P ... r_embedded

That said, there is a lot of confusion and disinformation going around.

The rebels do seem to have very limited airpower, given reports of gunboats sunk by airpower a few days earlier.

[xerex]

Various reports suggest the Su-22 that was shot down actually belonged to the rebels. :/

Bullshit, since the rebels don't have the means to use air power.

Also, they found out that its a case of friendly fire, Gaddafi's forces are so ucoordinated that they shot down their own plane.

erm in the past 2 days the rebels have used the 2-3 planes they have to carry out attacks on Gaddafi's ground forces. Reportedly one did a kamaikaze run on Gaddafi's head quarters in Tripoli. They are also unconfrimed reports that the rebels used a heliocopter in the defense of Ajdabiya

[Pu-239]

Side note: Isn't that a Mig-23 crashing? Doesn't the Su-22 have a nose intake?

[Tribun]

Ok, maybe I overlooked some information.

Meanwhile, seems that there's going to be a fast result in Paris. Gaddafi did everything to ensure that there would be a fast result by continuing to attack cities.

[Pu-239]

Sarkozy is now speaking, specifically mentioning bombing Gaddafi tanks. French recon planes currently flying over Libya according to other sources

[Jim Raynor]

So Gaddafi ordered airstrikes and more just a day after announcing a ceasefire...

The guy's not just nuts, but an idiot. If the coalition is going to act it ought to do it soon.

[salm]

Apparently British and Canadian planes are also flying missions over Lybia at the moment.

[salm]

US American F15s are now airborne and on their way to Lybia. They started in the British base Lakenheath.

[Tribun]

Yep, they're now using the big stick. They obviously plan to do this until there's little left of Gaddafi's military power. Normally this wouldn't bother a dictator, but since most of his people don't like him any longer...

[Sea Skimmer]

Side note: Isn't that a Mig-23 crashing? Doesn't the Su-22 have a nose intake?

Yeah its a MiG-23, but look at that first picture I was going off of. It wasn't totally clear but I guessed Su-22 since those have been far more active on the government side. Both sides have fly MiG-23s but the rebels simply don't have the manpower or spare parts or radar coverage to mount an effective air defense. They have made a handful of bombing runs, but that's over now that French jets are over Benghazi.

[Phantasee]

I'm glad we are flying over Libya now. This is the kind of foreign action the Canadian public can easily support, especially since it furthers our heritage as peace keepers and peace makers with the UN.

I wonder if Harper will use this as a justification for the F-35 purchase?

[Psychic_Sandwich]

According to the BBC, the French have destroyed four tanks on the outskirts of Benghazi.