Britain's war in Libya

Priene

Out to lunch
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
6,422
Reaction score
879
Some thoughts...

1) An AWACS flew low over my local park yesterday, headed south-east. Explaining where they were going to my daughters brought this latest war home in a way BBC News 24 doesn't.

2) If a war needs to be fought, it should be self-evident why the time is now, rather than last year or next year. Saddam may have WMDs doesn't cut it. Gaddafi has sent two tank battalions to destroy Benghazi does. I hate being in favour of wars, but intervention in this case is justified.

3) The phrase no-fly zone is hogwash, and the BBC should stop using it. It's not in the UN resolution, not in the plans laid out by the politicians, and not being carried out on the ground.

4) A well-planned war needs two things: achievable war aims, and a rough idea of how you get out. I don't actually see either right now.

5) Most wars are about regime change, or should be. This is probably true of this one, but that's not what the resolution says. Expect rancour down the line.

6) Prosecuting war criminal tyrants is good in theory, but it can concentrate the next tyrant's mind in the wrong way. There's an opportunity to flee the country Idi Amin-style, but when the bombs start falling, he's in a hole, and that makes him a desperate man.

7) Gaddafi's ceasefire was bollocks, but it had a logic. Hold up the west with words while you reconquer Benghazi and destroy the opposition. It nearly worked, and that's why the initial bombing was intensive.

8) Cameron seemed put out that Gaddafi fibbed. Politicians lie, Dave. Take a look at your election manifesto, and then at your coalition agreement.

9) Cameron's had a horrible Middle East crisis so far. Touring the region with arms companies in tow was stupid and embarrassing, but it had the happy side-effect of destroying his government's ridiculous and naive foreign policy. The Foreign Office is not a sales branch of the CBI.

10) Get a war wrong, and you look like Anthony Eden. Get it right, and you're Margaret Thatcher. If a cruise missile zaps Gaddafi in the next month, Dave's going to look like an all-conquering hero.

11) George Osborne is apparently in favour of a ground attack. Funny how the cash that's never there to fund libraries turns up when we want to pulverise foreigners.

12) The lack of leadership among the western leaders is alarming. Obama says he's taking a back seat, and I believe him. They probably think Yemen is going to go up. Libya is probably going to be Europe's responsibility, unless it goes tits up. Anyone remember who the EU President is? That's why appointing Benelux non-entities is a bad idea. How many squadrons has Luxembourg got?

13) When I say Europe, I mean the Entente Cordiale. Germany is a useless heap of toss when it comes to an international crisis, and every time someone refers to the Nazis when talking about modern Germany, it gives Merkel an excuse to let Britain and France do the fighting.

14) The USA is our most important ally, but France is our closest. The latter has been true for a hundred years, but we somehow don't quite believe it.

15) Canada is a brave and dutiful country whose contribution often gets overlooked. We should remember who our allies are.

16) The Stop the War Coalition is planning protests. I suspect there won't be anywhere near the level of dissent this time around.
 
Last edited:

seun

Horror Man
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
9,709
Reaction score
2,053
Age
46
Location
uk
Website
www.lukewalkerwriter.com
After going through your points one by one, I can't find a single issue I disagree with. Nice point about the libraries. :D

And if Dave does become Thatch after the Falklands, I will have to kill myself. Everything is far too 1980s as it is.
 

firedrake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
7,297
I'm with the Baldy Man on this one :D

Every thing you say makes perfect sense to me. I just hope that this isn't as fruitless an exercise as 1986.

Those are great points about France and Canada too. Sometimes, I think the UK just wants to hang with the Cool Kids (USA) and forget about the kids who've been there all the time.

Yeah, I really don't want a return to perms and shoulder pads.

*shudders*
 

Snowstorm

Baby plot bunneh sniffs out a clue
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
13,722
Reaction score
1,121
Location
Wyoming mountain cabin
Well thought-out and said, Priene. In fact, you cleared up some things have have been nagging me.
 

Night_Sky

New kid, be gentle!
Registered
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
39
Reaction score
2
Location
Next door to aliens
Sorry, I don't agree with number 2.

Let's say we get rid of Gaddafi, what happens then? Will we make sure the country is stable or will Libya be another Iraq? There's no point in intervening half-heartedly.

And what about the civillians who get killed. Are there deaths justified if it means Gaddafi dies?
 
Last edited:

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
I agree with all that.

Sorry, I don't agree with number 2.

Let's say we get rid of Gaddafi, what happens then? Will we make sure the country is stable or will Libya be another Iraq? There's no point in intervening half-heartedly.

And what about the civillians who get killed. Are there deaths justified if it means Gaddafi's death?

What about the civilans in Benghazi that will be killed by Ghadaffi?
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
Sorry, I don't agree with number 2.

Let's say we get rid of Gaddafi, what happens then? Will we make sure the country is stable or will Libya be another Iraq? There's no point in intervening half-heartedly.

And what about the civillians who get killed. Are there deaths justified if Gaddafi dies?

I think the mission isn't to get rid of Gadaffi or to intervene on the ground, though - it's specifically to protect civilians. The rebels will probably take care of Gadaffi themselves once he's run out of tanks and rockets.
 

Shakesbear

knows a hawk from a handsaw
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
3,628
Reaction score
463
Location
Elsinore
Excellent post Priene. Also liked the point about the libraries.


Sorry, I don't agree with number 2.

Let's say we get rid of Gaddafi, what happens then? Will we make sure the country is stable or will Libya be another Iraq? There's no point in intervening half-heartedly.

And what about the civillians who get killed. Are there deaths justified if it means Gaddafi dies?


I heard on the news today (may have been yesterday) that the RAF aborted a bombing raid as there were civilians on the ground.
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,113
Reaction score
8,865
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
2) If a war needs to be fought, it should be self-evident why the time is now, rather than last year or next year. Saddam may have WMDs doesn't cut it. Gaddafi has sent two tank battalions to destroy Benghazi does. I hate being in favour of wars, but intervention in this case is justified.

except bush (and gore and kerry and kennedy and clinton, et al) didn't all just wake up one day and think about saddam for the first time in years and decide to pick a fight with him while he was minding his own business.

he had grown wealthy off the ongoing (and unsustainable) sanctions even while children continued to suffer and die (which maddie albright thought was "worth it") and the coalition has been continuously enforcing a no-fly zone even as saddam survived and thumbed his nose at the international community.

my point is not to defend the iraq war which was and is, by all accounts, a mishandled clusterfuck, but rather to caution against reducing iraq to some george w. bush revenge fantasy without any (intensifying) history leading up to it—lest you find yourself continuing to engage in what will almost certainly be a ever-increasing challenging to condemn one and justify the other.
 
Last edited:

firedrake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
7,297
I heard on the news today (may have been yesterday) that the RAF aborted a bombing raid as there were civilians on the ground.

When I heard this, it made me wonder if they were going to use civilians as 'Human Shields'. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised.
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,113
Reaction score
8,865
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net

Night_Sky

New kid, be gentle!
Registered
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
39
Reaction score
2
Location
Next door to aliens
I agree with all that.



What about the civilans in Benghazi that will be killed by Ghadaffi?

True. I think there was a better way to handle it without hurting more people. If it was up to me, I'd have sent ninja's after Gadaffi ;p

I think the mission isn't to get rid of Gadaffi or to intervene on the ground, though - it's specifically to protect civilians. The rebels will probably take care of Gadaffi themselves once he's run out of tanks and rockets.

I know but once that happens, his supporters and the rebels will probably keep fighting.
I wish we lived in a utopian world, I'm really sick of on-going conflicts in the middle east and Africa.
 
Last edited:

Priene

Out to lunch
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
6,422
Reaction score
879
And if Dave does become Thatch after the Falklands, I will have to kill myself. Everything is far too 1980s as it is.

It does all appear horribly 1980s, it's true. I hate the thought of Cameron and co benefiting from it, but the Falklands worked out a treat for Thatcher. (Puts Shipbuilding on stereo)

Let's say we get rid of Gaddafi, what happens then? Will we make sure the country is stable or will Libya be another Iraq? There's no point in intervening half-heartedly.

Valid points, but Benghazi was about to get flattened. It demanded immediate action.

my point is not to defend the iraq war which was and is, by all accounts, a mishandled clusterfuck, but rather to caution against reducing iraq to some george w. bush revenge fantasy without any (intensifying) history leading up to it—lest you find yourself continuing to engage in what will almost certainly be a ever-increasing challenging to condemn one and justify the other.

I didn't even mention Bush the Second. In Britain (see thread title), the second Iraq war was sold purely as the Saddam has WMDs War. It didn't convince me as a casus belli, and I don't think too many other Britons were convinced.

I think the mission isn't to get rid of Gadaffi or to intervene on the ground, though - it's specifically to protect civilians. The rebels will probably take care of Gadaffi themselves once he's run out of tanks and rockets.
Funnily enough, David Richards and the Tories appear to have distinctly different hymn sheets on this issue. Richards says he has no UN authority to kill Gaddafi, while they say that if he's threatening civilians (don't all war leaders threaten civilians in one way or another?) then he's a legitimate target.
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
Funnily enough, David Richards and the Tories appear to have distinctly different hymn sheets on this issue. Richards says he has no UN authority to kill Gaddafi, while they say that if he's threatening civilians (don't all war leaders threaten civilians in one way or another?) then he's a legitimate target.

A mite of posturing for the tabloids, I'd say. (It is a shame for the tabs that we already SENT IN THE SAS!!! And that was all kinds of embarrassing.)
 

Priene

Out to lunch
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
6,422
Reaction score
879
A mite of posturing for the tabloids, I'd say. (It is a shame for the tabs that we already SENT IN THE SAS!!! And that was all kinds of embarrassing.)

You know, I'd already forgotten that one. What the hell was Hague playing at? My working theory is that this particular set of Tories are completely out of their depth.


Edit: for our foreign friends, here's the farce we're talking about.
 
Last edited:

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,113
Reaction score
8,865
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
wasn't putting words in anyone's mouth, but the second bullet point in the OP does tend to reduce the allies' grievances with saddam to solely the question of WMDs.

ultimately, my point is that it's going to be tough (though not impossible) for those opposed to the iraq war (and, for that matter, opposed to action against iran when they're shooting girls in the streets like dogs) to not sound like neocons.

just check your logic for leaks is all.
 
Last edited:

Priene

Out to lunch
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
6,422
Reaction score
879
wasn't putting words in anyone's mouth, but the second bullet point in the OP does tend to reduce the allies' grievances with saddam to solely the question of WMDs.

In Britain, that's exactly what it was. That's why we went to war. What was said to Parliament, what was said to the public.

And it's valid to ask Why Libya but not Iraq? It needs careful thought. And the difference is tank battalions about to level a city.

Er, William, you're talking to Priene right now?

Apparently we're talking.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
It was sold as just about WMDs here too. And it should be remembered that there was already a no-fly zone over 2/3 of Iraq, and hand been for several years, prior to the start of the Iraq war. Saddam was not in control of large sections of his own country, particularly the Kurdish regions.
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,113
Reaction score
8,865
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
In Britain, that's exactly what it was. That's why we went to war. What was said to Parliament, what was said to the public.

eh... still something of a reduction. blair's speech outlined saddam's chronic and longstanding refusal to abide by more than a dozen security council resolutions.

but of course you already knew that.


Apparently we're talking.

my sympathies.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
I think the mission isn't to get rid of Gadaffi or to intervene on the ground, though - it's specifically to protect civilians.

That's the stated mission, which it had to be to gain approval. But I don't think anyone is being fooled about the aim of toppling Gadaffi. Obama has as much as said so, now. You may be correct about the rebels, but I think it's equally possible that someone from inside the Libyan military will get to the point of saying "Enough," and a coup will be organized.
 
Last edited:

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
wasn't putting words in anyone's mouth, but the second bullet point in the OP does tend to reduce the allies' grievances with saddam to solely the question of WMDs.

Well, that was how it was sold to the American public. Nobody wanted to mention "oil", and we damn sure didn't invade Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people. The latter reason got brought up as a face-saving exercise only after the WMDs became increasingly mythical.

The parallels between Iraq 2003 and Libya 2011 aren't really very close. A monstrously bad authoritarian ruler in an Islamic nation about sums up those parallels. The situations and how they have developed have little else in common.