BBC–Libya 'to halt military action'

Read it all.


Posted in * International News & Commentary, Africa, Libya

18 comments on “BBC–Libya 'to halt military action'

  1. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    It is quite interesting reading the linked semi-official text of the UNSC Resolution 1973 and record of the debate. The official version is still not up.

    There appears to be some fast change of footwork going on in some parts of the Gaddaffi regime, but on past performance it is hard to believe a word they say given the alternative parallel universe they inhabit.

  2. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    The BBC further reports:
    [blockquote] Spokesman for David Cameron says there will be a joint statement from the UK prime minister, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and other world leaders on Friday afternoon, which will set out the moves to enforce the UN Security Council resolution.[/blockquote]

  3. Fradgan says:

    There’s a rumor going around that France has just surrendered to Lybia.

  4. Intercessor says:

    It may be too little to late for the people of Libya. And now that Mrs. Clinton has spewed her vitriol toward the regime and then done nothing to back it up where is the strength of “leadership” in that?

  5. Isaac says:

    3., according to [url=]Politico[/url] and Slate, Sec. Clinton was the one behind the scenes pushing for a UNSC resolution and intervention. I think she’s the one showing leadership, actually.

    Pagentmaster, I remember reading in my textbook in an undergrad M.E. politics class that Qadaffi once claimed that he had invented a car that got 100 mpg. Alternate universe, indeed.

  6. David Keller says:

    #3–Ms. Clinton announced yesterday she will not serve in a second Obama cabinet in any capacity. I can’t stand her, but I think it is clear she wanted to intervene and our bumbling, emascualted president is, well, bumbling and emasculated and didn’t want to intervene. I’m still betting she will resign after the current crisis is over and form an “exploratory committee.”

  7. Creedal Episcopalian says:

    There is ample [url= ]documentation [/url]of the relationship that Obama’s former pastor Jerimiah Wright (Trinity United Church of Christ) and [url= ]Louis Farrakhan [/url] have with Kadaffy. UN intervention has been delayed enough by the Obama administration that Kadaffy has a chance of surviving. He has even declared a cease fire. Obama at least knows how to take care of his friends. I just don’t care much for his friends

  8. TACit says:

    Gaddaffi also was a major contributor of weapons to the ANC – as George Conger has helpfully reminded us ( third piece down). Not hard to imagine that O’ wouldn’t be in a hurry to oppose him……

  9. A Senior Priest says:

    Gaddafi is lying. He is continuing military action.

  10. Creedal Episcopalian says:

    Of course he’s lying. His lips were moving.

  11. Cennydd13 says:

    Is Qadaffi lying? You bet he is! He’s running scared, and he knows what will happen to him if UN forces start taking his military out. That’s why he supposedly ordered a ‘cease fire.’ He’s looking out for his own skin! Not that it’ll do him any good, though.

  12. carl says:

    10. Cennydd13

    If the military revolts, kills Gaddaffi, and seizes power, how does that improve the situation in Libya? It won’t change the character of the Gov’t. Gaddaffi himself came to power as the result of a military coup. It might end the civil war, and it might not. People don’t fight just to overthrow a gov’t. They fight to place themselves into gov’t. Whoever takes over from Gaddaffi will be faced with the same task of disarming the rebellion, and forcing it to submit to the new governing structures. It is not at all apparent to me that the rebels will be satisfied trading one military dictatorship for another. Or perhaps the military will hand over leadership to some faction in the provisional gov’t and hope all the other factions acquiesce. Not likely, since the competing factions will see themselves as rightful heirs to power. What is missing in all this is any coherent endgame. Pollyanna attitudes prevail about how 100 democratic flowers will bloom once Gaddaffi is removed. That is the least likely option. External ground forces could solve it by imposing order. But no one wants to do that. Someone should think about how this will end, because the Western powers will be seen as morally responsible for the actions of those they have supported.


  13. Creedal Episcopalian says:

    [blockquote] External ground forces could solve it by imposing order. But no one wants to do that.[/blockquote]

    An Islamic government in Egypt might very well want to do that. The current unrest throughout the Arabic middle east will be playing out for years. What concerns me is how external interests, such as Iran, China, and the Obama administration will interact and interfere with what is going on. We should also be concerned with American and European interest.
    With the extant world energy infrastructure at peril intrigue shall be regnant.

  14. Capt. Father Warren says:

    I don’t have the link handy, but George Will had an excellent piece a week or so ago on the subject of US intervention in Libya and thinking through all the things that could happen, could go wrong (many probably will), and of course how do we exit? It was the type of thoughtful thinking that often seems to be lacking in official/political Washington. It was a good read.

  15. carl says:

    13. Capt. Deacon Warren

    Thanks for that reference. I especially liked this statement, which seems so appropriate to the current situation. For all the strutting and pontificating about moral imperatives and supporting democracy, there are very real limits on what advocates seem willing to place at risk. [blockquote] Because of what seems to have been the controlling goal of avoiding U.S. and NATO casualties, the humanitarian intervention – 79 days of bombing – against Serbia in Kosovo was conducted from 15,000 feet. [b]This marked the intervention as a project worth killing for but not worth dying for.[/b] Would intervention in Libya be similar? Are such interventions morally dubious?[/blockquote] One should also remember that it didn’t work. The war was ended by a Croat invasion of Serbian Krajina.


  16. Larry Morse says:

    Carl ,no one is supposing 100 flowers will bloom.This is not Beijing. But Egypt and Tunesia have a lot at stake in the matter of what weeds will take root. This “rebels” are fighting for what we fought for in 76. It was nip and tuck then too wasn’t it? 13 colonies at each other’s throats, turncoats everywhere and no internal coherence. What would you expect in Libya if not disorder. But steady advice and help will make an enormous difference as France gave us and we gave to Germany in ’46. Don’t hang them yet. Let see if leaders emerge as thehy are in Egypt. Larry

  17. Isaac says:

    And don’t forget, we had effectively 50 years of one-party rule, too. Democracy isn’t willed into existence; it develops with free trade, free markets, transparency and collective security.

    I don’t know why Mr. Will is getting his knickers in a twist about ‘getting out’… We’re not committing troops to the rebuilding. You can offer global leadership without committing ground troops.

  18. carl says:

    15. Larry Morse:[blockquote] Egypt and Tunisia have a lot at stake in the matter of what weeds will take root.[/blockquote] Agreed. That’s why I think Egypt should carry the brunt of the task. If they don’t care enough to fight, why should the West? [blockquote] This “rebels” are fighting for what we fought for in 76.[/blockquote] I very highly doubt that this statement is true. [blockquote] What would you expect in Libya if not disorder.[/blockquote] Perhaps implosion. The complete collapse of any government worth the name, followed by anarchic chaos as competing factions all fight each to capture the prize of power. At that point, there is going to be extreme moral pressure placed on someone to intervene and impose order. Now, which European power is going to step up to that task? I wonder if they have the military capability to enforce even a semblance of a no-fly zone, let alone the ability to occupy pacify, and govern an imploded country full of people with guns who don’t want them there. [blockquote] But steady advice and help will make an enormous difference as France gave us and we gave to Germany in ‘46.[/blockquote] The had a functioning colonial government, and a lot of Christian cultural capital in the bank. Libya has neither. There ain’t going to be no Lockean democracy set up in Libya after this is over. The false hope is what I was referring to when I mentioned 100 blooming flowers of democracy. You are going to get either 1) a military dictatorship or 2) an Islamic Republic, and probably 3) a war between the two factions in order to decide who wins. Germany on the other hand was a conquered occupied nation. It had no choice. I will stipulate that an occupying force could solve this problem. Who wants to step up?

    Ironically, the refuge problem that Europe fears (and which is driving this desire for intervention) will be worse if this intervention manages to implode Libya. Suddenly the situation becomes a crisis and the US will be called upon to ‘help.’ My fear is that the nations hot for intervention will discover they can’t do it, and turn their eyes to the US for assistance. Or perhaps they already know they can’t do it, and this is just their way of manipulating circumstances to achieve that outcome. So long as this is a European affair, I am content. But I don’t see how it can stay a European affair given the weakness of all European military forces. I don’t want this to become “Europe offers bases and AWACS, and the US contributes fighter planes and pilots, and (eventually) soldiers.” That’s where I think it is heading. And I think a lot of people in Europe have planned it that way all along.