They just don't get it...

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

It turns out that a British diplomat turned up at the border and asked to be taken to rebel commanders in Libya. he had with him a detail from the SAS, a crack British Special Forces outfit, similar to the American Delta Force, only with stiffer upper lips and no chewing gum to hand out.

Anyways, the Libyan commanders didn't ask for, and didn't want any forign troops involved in what they see as 'their' struggle against Gaddaffi. So they captured the SAS guys and threw them into the brig, only releasing them unharmed once they had got the british diplomat out of their country.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/05/libyan-rebels-capture-british-sas-unit/

So, there you have it. The Libyans are asking for a UN backed intervention in their struggle.
They want the UN , not the UK or the USA to send in any ground troops.

Seeing as if the rebels win, they are going to have to go to their own people and say that' we are not the sellouts to Western Powers like Gaddaffi was ( remember that the jets and tanks he is currently using to murder his own people were supplied by the same people who want to start an invasion) - well , i think it is only fair that they should be the ones who set the terms on how Gaddaffi is otten rid of. Ok, he has to go, nd his own people are the ones to take him down.

Ii don't see the military dictators and undemocratic despots who rule Arab League countries being very enthusiastic about establishing a bit more democracy in the world , somehow - esp. in a place like Libya.

And that leaves the UN. So, what is the UN for? UK/USA forces have basically been acting like the military wing of their countries corporate interests of late. i don't blame the Libyans for telling the SAS that they were unwelcome.

I do think that the Libyans have every right to appeal to the international community, via the UN , which pledges itself to uphold human rights , to which they belong , to give them a hand by way of enforcing a no fly zone and supporting the Libyan Ground forces with airstrikes on Gaddaffis mercenaries, together with his tanks and artillery.

I am suprised that the UK Government didn't get it that the age of gunboat diplomacy is over, but what else can we expect of ex public schoolboys like 'Call Me Dave'? Cameron and his cronies in the British foriegn office 'just don't get it' - but I hope that someone out there in the wider world does, and does what the rebels are begging the international community to give them without delay.

But if you disagree with the idea of airstrikes, and the Libyans are not going to co operate with any foriegn troops that they regard as 'invaders', then what role or position do we want the UN to adopt here? It has been said in this community that ' this is not what the UN is for - well, ok, what should it be doing instead?

Comments

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I agree that was silly of the diplomat. The Rebels were smart to do that, because of all the stuff you said.

I don't disagree with the idea of airstrikes though because they are from a very specific political angle, and specific political angles are hugely important in shaping the political impact of an action which is vital.

They are specifically for the reason of punishing Kadaffy for murdering his own civilians with air power. That has diplomatic clout, the world approves. That's ok. As soon as the world starts believing that its only to aid the rebels, its a problem. People should be careful to not turn public opinion to that.

The UN can go as far as this punishment, but until the world (more specifically Africa and middle east) agrees that Kadaffy needs to be removed from power by force by the UN, the UN cannot act in such a manner. I don't think its going to happen that way either, as local states are very wary of foreign occupation, since the US blew all their capital in very stupid ways for a very long time. Wow invading Iraq had political consequences, who could have imagined. :P

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

I dunno. All I know is, I like how Obama is staying away from this. The reasons could be complex"

a) can't afford to get into another war
b) you Euros whined about the US poking their nose everywhere? now it's your turn, suckas!
c) don't care about Libyan oil; let them Euros have it

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The UN in theory is an international diplomatic body of world governments meeting to decide things via collective diplomacy on key issues. In practice it was the official name of the WWII Allies and all the subsequent problems for the postwar UN came from the greatcoats of Frankie, Winnie, and Joe. People really should not take sides in other peoples' civil wars. The best case for that is the Korean War of 1950. I suggest reading that sentence again: the best case is the Korean War of 1950.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

i don't blame the Libyans for telling the SAS that they were unwelcome

This goes to how unserious the opposition to Gaddafi is. If the rebels don't want US and UK on the ground, they are going to end up as dead as Hama. It's their call, but it seems a waste and a shame.

enthusiastic about establishing a bit more democracy in the world

I think that assumes a result that is by no means certain or even likely. Arab despots are betting on another despot, just one who isn't as mercurial and uncooperative as the familia Gaddafi.

to give them a hand by way of enforcing a no fly zone and supporting the Libyan Ground forces

All the no fly zone is going to is insure that the country is plunged into a prolong civil war that kills a lot more innocents than would otherwise have died. Mirages and Tornadoes will crater his airfields and reduce his radar and AA to cinders, but so what? Gaddafi doesn't need his air force. Close air support requires clear and constant communication between the air and ground forces, something that won't be easy to establish if SAS or Delta teams are being detained. They are the ones with the laser designators, remember? The French and the Brits are going to end up with a lot of blue on blue kills or a very ineffective campaign that only inconveniences the regime and dooms the rebels to certain defeat.

the rebels are begging the international community to give them without delay

Too little. Too late. Too bad.

If only we had a cowboy decisive president who was willing to act recklessly stand on principle and kill more brown people for fun and profit lead in the defense of liberty.

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

How is it that having US and UK forces involved would be an evil corporate/Zionist conspiracy against the Arabs, but having American and British soldiers funded by the US and UK and wearing blue helmets is heroic and noble?

Edit: In fact, wasn't Gadafi on the UN's human rights panel? Really lends that body a lot of credibility.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

How consistently do you want us to apply this kind of foreign policy? Because this is the first time I've heard you speak out on behalf of military intervention of any kind, but it's not the first time in recent history where civil strife in foreign lands have led to the taking up of arms from within.

It is the most covered civil war in recent memory, but that hardly should make much of a moral difference.

[okmewriting.livejournal.com]

i think it is only fair that they should be the ones who set the terms on how Gaddaffi is otten rid of.
So the rebels are the only Libyan's whose opinion is important? What about Gaddaffi's supporters? They are not all paid mercenaries.


Ok, he has to go, nd his own people are the ones to take him down.
Why does he have to go? Yes, and we should stay well away from it. We are not the rebel's airforce. We should not be taking sides in a civil war.


I do think that the Libyans have every right to appeal to the international community, via the UN , which pledges itself to uphold human rights ,

And what about all the other countries where human rights are not being upheld? Are we going to have air strikes on them? Are we going to start bombing Russia, China, the US and Britain?


But if you disagree with the idea of airstrikes, and the Libyans are not going to co operate with any foriegn troops that they regard as 'invaders', then what role or position do we want the UN to adopt here?
Sanctions, humanitarian aid. If he starts slaughtering his people then they have a cause to go in. All of this we've got to prevent genocide is a load of hogwash. There is no evidence of him committing genocide. Why don't they go and run into Zimbabwe or one of the other African states run by tin pot dictators where there is plenty of evidence of people being killed? Or Saudi Arabia or Bahrain or the Yemen or...

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

They want the UN , not the UK or the USA to send in any ground troops.

Which is silly, since the UN doesn't have any troops. It's troops from some other country that goes in and does what the UN "recommends".

But if you disagree with the idea of airstrikes, and the Libyans are not going to co operate with any foriegn troops that they regard as 'invaders', then what role or position do we want the UN to adopt here?

We should not be involved. Are we involved in the civil war in any other African country?

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Since the UN does not have a standing army, navy or air force, it obviously relies on member countries to provide the muscle. I would have preferred the U.S. not to be involved, but I'm glad to see Canada, UK, and France (plus numerous others) taking the lead.

That said, I hope we (collectively) grind Gaddafi into the friggin' ground.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Why does one tribal leader all of a sudden get the plenipotentiary powers to dictate what we do or don't do?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Do you have a reliable source on this story?

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Not meaning to sound rude, but a British is the last source of wisdom I'd ever choose for taking lessons in nation building. The diastrous map drawing skills of Britons (which is a suprise, given their geographical credentials overall) is one of the main factors, if not THE factor that has ensnared vast swaths of the Middle East into never-ending quagmires. So, no thank you, but I think I'll pass on that one.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Where are Sarkozy, Cameron, Bah Ki Moon, Hillary Clinton, Obama and Harper when people in Bahrain are being killed on the streets by their own authorities, with the help of Saudi and UAE troops invited by those authorities? Same question about Yemen. Why does Gaddafi matter 100 times more than Bahrain and Yemen?

You may not answer. That was a rhetorical question.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

WAR! WAR! WAR!

RAH! RAH! RAH!

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Ii don't see the military dictators and undemocratic despots who rule Arab League countries being very enthusiastic about establishing a bit more democracy in the world , somehow - esp. in a place like Libya.

LOL you sincerely think this is about freedom and democracy, dont you.