Why are we at war with Libya

Evening Star · March 22, 2011

Isn't that different from actually participating in the 2003 invasion?

Molly · March 22, 2011

Tbh, since every major party basically supported the mission, I'd assumed it was just and reasonable. Wente actually raises some good points though.

Here's one where I disagree withy 'every major party'.

IMO, this one belongs in Europe's lap to let them do as they will. Sometimes it's just not really our business, and really not our turn at all.

M.Dancer · March 22, 2011

Here's one where I disagree withy 'every major party'.

IMO, this one belongs in Europe's lap to let them do as they will. Sometimes it's just not really our business, and really not our turn at all.

It actually belongs in the Arab's lap...but that would mean they are fuskered...

bush_cheney2004 · March 22, 2011

Isn't that different from actually participating in the 2003 invasion?

Not unless you consider a carrier battle group flying strike missions to be a pleasure cruise.

dre · March 23, 2011

And the Lefties always told us "it's the oil". So how does that work? Why do Americans pay world prices like everyone else?

Its not just about oil its about a whole host of interests both national and private.

If you want to understand how much of the motivation for war is based on national and private financial interests you need to follow the money, and see where it leads you. You will probably find out that most of those trillions of dollars wound up in the pockets of various private industries that were on some level involved in run-up to war in the first place, and are very active in lobbying government. But even that wont paint you a complete picture of why that decision got made.

Why does a politician make a certain decision? They have ideals, self interests, allegiances, debts, political interests. A civilian leader that decides to start a war is probably acting on mixture of all those things.

geoffrey · March 23, 2011

Coming back from retirement...

I really disagree with our intervention in Libya. On a number of grounds:

#1 - This is a internal issue. It's really, not our problem. I'm really sick of Canadians and other Westerns risking their lives for those that attach no value to life. Seriously, no our problem. We have oil here. Let's keep the boys here rather than have them risk their lives for a bunch of sand.

#2 - We don't have any idea who these "rebels" are. We cannot support them. We (read: "the West") supported the Mujahadden against the Russians because we didn't understand them. I really don't feel like having another situation like Afghanistan crop up in Libya due to us supporting the wrong guys. Ghaddafi, as insane as he is, is not an Islamic radical. We have enough Islamic radicals in the world and we are about to get more because we threw our friend Mubarack under the bus in Egypt. We don't need another Islamic religious state in Libya too.

#3 - We really don't know if the rebels have popular support. It seems like they didn't really have any real support anywhere out of Benghazi once the rubber hit the road.

#4 - Ghaddafi was normalizing relations with us until this all broke out. I do trust that he was no longer supporting terrorism. Having Canadians over there now makes us a target for Libyan terrorists, which are fundamentally different than your typical wack-jobs. They are mercenary for-hire types, which are far more dangerous than your run of the mill self-detonating individual of certain religious affliations.

#5 - The mission has absolutely no goals or objectives or endgames. It's impossible to be successful when success has not been defined. This mission is doomed to a Somali type situation where no one knows what the hell is going on or what our role is over there.

Personally, I believe they should just fight it out. It's not our problem. There are worse dictators in the world I'd want disposed of long before Gaddafi (Mugabe for example). Even if the world would be happier with Gaddafi gone, I'm not sure his replacement will be someone any more aligned with our interests.

And that's something we need to pay attention to. OUR INTERESTS. We don't want to be fighting for a group that is against our interests. And we really don't know what the hell these rebels are for.

dre · March 23, 2011

Here's one where I disagree withy 'every major party'.

IMO, this one belongs in Europe's lap to let them do as they will. Sometimes it's just not really our business, and really not our turn at all.

Its pretty clear to me why political parties would support this. Its the ultimate fluff mission. Beat the piss out of some tinpot dictator, flex your mucsles, show of your new toys, all in the name of democracy!

It wouldnt be very politically savvy to publicly come out against stopping the that dictator from using heavy weapons on crowds of "democracy protesters" :lol:

But if something goes wrong, and public opinion swings agains the mission theyll dive off the bandwagon pretty damn quick.

M.Dancer · March 23, 2011

Coming back from retirement...

I agree with you, but on the other hand, it does give the opportunity to engage in a low cost object lesson to every other arab dictatorship that there is a line that if crossed, comes with ultimate consequences.

It is for this reason that the Arab league is having a hard time supporting the mission as they pay lip service to the efforts to drag arab politics into the 20th century.

geoffrey · March 23, 2011

I agree with you, but on the other hand, it does give the opportunity to engage in a low cost object lesson to every other arab dictatorship that there is a line that if crossed, comes with ultimate consequences.
It is for this reason that the Arab league is having a hard time supporting the mission as they pay lip service to the efforts to drag arab politics into the 20th century.

Well, there have been plenty of other opportunities to do so in the past. Just seem politically expedient this time around. We bomb Ghaddafi while the Saudi's behead people for petty theft and shoot their own people in protests. We all know how this plays out.

I'm just sick of getting involved in messes over there. It's not our business. I'm in favour of us taking a Swiss approach to all this.

M.Dancer · March 23, 2011

Well, there have been plenty of other opportunities to do so in the past. Just seem politically expedient this time around. We bomb Ghaddafi while the Saudi's behead people for petty theft and shoot their own people in protests. We all know how this plays out.

I'm just sick of getting involved in messes over there. It's not our business. I'm in favour of us taking a Swiss approach to all this.

The Sauds don't behead people for petty theft....the cut off a hand...

Saipan · March 23, 2011

I'm in favour of us taking a Swiss approach to all this.

Me too. Well trained and armed population and taking care of our business first.

Evening Star · March 23, 2011

Very persuasive post, Geoffrey.

Molly · March 23, 2011

Its pretty clear to me why political parties would support this. Its the ultimate fluff mission. Beat the piss out of some tinpot dictator, flex your mucsles, show of your new toys, all in the name of democracy!

I just added a quotation to my signature page that, IMO, provides a bit of a hint about why they'd all be so easily amenable, though offering it here risks premature invocation of Godwin's law:

"Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

--- Hermann Goering

When you consider also that, even if it isn't percieved as being so useful, diving in is still the position easiest to justify with a sound-bite...

Edited March 23, 2011 by Molly

GostHacked · March 23, 2011

Not unless you consider a carrier battle group flying strike missions to be a pleasure cruise.

Also nothing like a brand spankin new Chinese stealth missile frigate to stir things up a bit too.

DogOnPorch · March 23, 2011

Also nothing like a brand spankin new Chinese stealth missile frigate to stir things up a bit too.

Red China has a lot of workers in Libya yelling...

Get me the Hell outa here!

It's kinda of a new thing for them...rescuing their own folks abroad.

Shady · March 23, 2011

Coming back from retirement...

I also agree with pretty much everything you stated. It's spot on.

GostHacked · March 23, 2011

Red China has a lot of workers in Libya yelling...

It's kinda of a new thing for them...rescuing their own folks abroad.

And they did it with Chinese efficiency and probably for real cheap too. Meanwhile the US is still mulling over if they are going to pull out of Japan or not because of the radiation. All the while, Italy, France and the UK are arguing over who should be the man in charge of the whole Libya invasion operation.

We need to terminate or seriously rethink our relationships with some of our so called allies.

DogOnPorch · March 23, 2011

And they did it with Chinese efficiency and probably for real cheap too. Meanwhile the US is still mulling over if they are going to pull out of Japan or not because of the radiation. All the while, Italy, France and the UK are arguing over who should be the man in charge of the whole Libya invasion operation.

OK....

We need to terminate or seriously rethink our relationships with some of our so called allies.

Non sequitur...unless you're suggesting we become allied with Communist China while alienating our traditional allies.

Moonlight Graham · March 23, 2011

This war and this UN resolution is mostly about oil. You can also say it's about "regional and international strategic interests", but most of that has to do with oil as well .

It certainly isn't about "human rights" or "protecting civilians". Where were you UN/Western states in the several decades previous to this during most of the other civil wars and countless human atrocities occurring within other African countries.

The US and different European countries have supported Gaddafi and his regime going back a long time.

But when the US and other NATO countries had already severed ties with Gaddafi and he was threatening to decimate the rebels, it was time they stepped in because they had lots to lose if Gaddafi remained in power, and lots to gain by supporting the rebels and whatever new gov is formed.

OIL - Gaddafi has threatened to stop oil exports to Western countries. Libya is the #1 oil economy in Africa (3.5% of total world supply...the vast majority of it going to EU countries). Libyan oil is also very cheap to produce.

China and Russia abstained from UN Res 1973 mostly because Gaddafi has friendly relationship with them and has not threatened to cut off oil to them. China receives a good chunk of oil from Libya. China and Russia also abstained rather than vetoed likely because they didn't want to cause huge friction among the global powers.

Here's a good article on this, as well as the Arab League dimension.

M.Dancer · March 23, 2011

This war and this UN resolution is mostly about oil. You can also say it's about "regional and international strategic interests", but most of that has to do with oil as well .

Yes because italy's oil is sucha concern....funny, they had no probelm before the protests...

It certainly isn't about "human rights" or "protecting civilians". Where were you UN/Western states in the several decades previous to this during most of the other civil wars and countless human atrocities occurring within other African countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_peacekeeping_missions#Africa

43 of them....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_peacekeeping_missions#Africa

The US and different European countries have supported Gaddafi and his regime going back a long time.

If you are 10 years old then perhaps....but please do go on about this...support

But when the US and other NATO countries had already severed ties with Gaddafi and he was threatening to decimate the rebels, it was time they stepped in because they had lots to lose if Gaddafi remained in power, and lots to gain by supporting the rebels and whatever new gov is formed.

And that is bad, why? Using your path of logic, they would have supported Gaddafi...hmmmm?

OIL - Gaddafi has threatened to stop oil exports to Western countries. Libya is the #1 oil economy in Africa (3.5% of total world supply...the vast majority of it going to EU countries). Libyan oil is also very cheap to produce.

Libya is indeed the #1 producer...if you overlook Nigeria, and angola...and Algeria...iof you don't count those...libya is # One!

Edited March 23, 2011 by M.Dancer

Wilber · March 23, 2011

I just added a quotation to my signature page that, IMO, provides a bit of a hint about why they'd all be so easily amenable, though offering it here risks premature invocation of Godwin's law:

"Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

--- Hermann Goering

When you consider also that, even if it isn't percieved as being so useful, diving in is still the position easiest to justify with a sound-bite...

Interesting, Hermann Goering is your prophet?

William Ashley · March 23, 2011

The Sauds don't behead people for petty theft....the cut off a hand...

This blog says you have to steal a lot to get your hand cut off, not just petty theft, but it seems more of a theft over situation.

http://saudiwoman.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/punishment-in-saudi-arabia/

Robbery in Canada can get a life sentence.

Prosthetics and freedom or jail for 20 years? What is a worse sentence?

Also they ask if the person is forgiven before they chop it off - if they are perhaps no choppy.

asked if he would forgive the robber or not.

You need to be careful what type of people your rob.

I don't know what biotec and robotics will do to saudi justice in 10 or 15 years?

Edited March 23, 2011 by William Ashley

Saipan · March 23, 2011

Robbery in Canada can get a life sentence.

While smuggling gun from the US and shooting someone six times only two years - if you're woman.

Moonlight Graham · March 23, 2011

43 of them....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_peacekeeping_missions#Africa

You do realize that peacekeeping missions occur AFTER conflicts are over. They also need permission of the host country. Peacekeeping is great, but Western countries almost never get involved in "hot" conflicts & put their butt on the line for "humanitarian" reasons.

And that is bad, why? Using your path of logic, they would have supported Gaddafi...hmmmm?

Where did i say this was bad, or make any judgment on it?

Libya is indeed the #1 producer...if you overlook Nigeria, and angola...and Algeria...iof you don't count those...libya is # One!

I'm just stating what the article i linked stated. It didn't state "producer" or "exporter".

"Libya is the largest oil economy in Africa, ahead of Nigeria and Algeria. It holds at least 46.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (10 times those of Egypt). That's 3.5% of the global total. Libya produces between 1.4 and 1.7 million barrels of oil a day, but wants to reach 3 million barrels. Its oil is extremely prized, especially with an ultra-low cost of production of roughly $1.00 a barrel."

I don't know what the author is using as the judge for "oil economy". Maybe in terms of reserves, which it is #1.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Moonlight Graham