The Civil War in Libya

Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Red Moon said:
@Finn, I haven't been around here much in the last few months, but I reviewed this whole thread, and it seems you're brimming with enthusiasm over this. You use the word "revolutionary" in several places, and you seem totally aghast that anyone could call this a "NATO war". I am quite skeptical about this "revolution".

There has been a gradual evolution from the initial days of "Arab spring" type protests, to the time when it became a military struggle, still refusing foreing help, through to the period of suppressing the Libyan airforce and air defence and then to the current aerial bombardment in addition to coastal operation by NATO navies. The air and sea belong to NATO, even if "rebels" are the main forces involved on the ground. We all know how decisive air operations are in modern warfare, and in a country where most of the population is on the coast, and most of the inland area is desert... well, control of the seas is bound to be very important. You have higlighted the importance of NATO's "paving the way" yourself. But even on land, there appears to be growing involvement by SOF, "trainers", etc., and with helo's arriving on the scene, you might just get some ground action from NATO troops. There are increasing calls for this from various political forces.

Most significant, I think, is the fact that the opposition, at the very top, is quite tied to NATO interests already. The prime minister got his post, essentially, by negotiating recognition from France, and NATO has been instrumental in coordinating among the various bands of rebels. Supplies are also coming from NATO. Well NATO should be proud of its achievements! Morally, I would say these are the achievements of the rebels, as they are the ones who have really spilled their blood. But morals count for little in these things.

The question comes down to this: are the rebels utilizing foreign help to achieve their aims, or is NATO using this rag-tag army for its own ends? The most reasonable answer would be that both of these are true to an extent. There is a sort of "pragmatic" partnership. But which side do you think has the upper hand in this "partnership"??? Isn't the answer obvious? Not only that. There is an appearance of "unity" among the rebels, but, in fact, it may be difficult to even speak of the rebels having any sort of unified "aims". And it doesn't matter, because their new leadership and government have already been chosen by outside powers.

From my recollection, in Afghanistan, in 2001, most of the fighting on the ground was done by the Northern Alliance, along with some American SOF. The US mainly provided air strikes and air cover for the Afghans fighting the Taliban. Yet, nobody I know has any trouble calling this an American or NATO intervention! The media, or others writing about events in 2001, don't refer to this as a "civil war". The case of Libya may be more complex than this, but it has certainly evolved quite far from the initial "Arab spring" scenario.
Click to expand...

You can hardly fault me for calling the conflict in Libya a revolution. There's a lot of people who are trying to use violence to affect radical political change and overthrow the government. Would you not call that a revolution? As for calling it a "NATO war", obviously you can say that because NATO is involved and is playing a decisive role. But it's Libyans doing the fighting and dying on the ground. So to just call it a "NATO war" doesn't really correctly characterize the situation, does it? Quite frankly I think it's a useful rhetorical device to minimize the Libyan element of this conflict and play up the "Western imperialism" argument.

I don't think there's any stomach in any Western nations for troops on the ground in Libya. Right now Libya is not a big issue in the US, but if we start putting in ground troops, it will be. I think the same could be said for the European countries. I certainly wouldn't want to see any foreign troops in Libya, that would just mess up the whole situation even more in ways I'm sure I don't even need to explain. Fortunately I don't think it will happen, mainly because I think Qaddafi won't last that much longer, but I very well might be wrong.

As for the question of unity amongst the rebels, well, we can't know what's going to happen after the conflict. Personally I think that the rebels are unified enough that they at least won't fall into another round of civil war if they defeat Qaddafi. If you'd like me to explain why I think that I will but I'm running out of time to write at the moment...

Finally I'll just say this. People can argue against NATO intervention as the West imposing its will on Arab country, drumming up a conflict to justifying gaining control of oil, etc. But what would those same people be saying if NATO hadn't intervened? If Qaddafi forces had captured Misrata and Benghazi and killed thousands? At least some of them would be saying that the West tacitly allowed a dictator (who they had arms and oil contracts and intelligence contacts with) to crush his own people, in order to protect "stability". I'm not accusing RedMoon of kneejerk anti-Westernism, but I will say that people who do think that way have the luxury of being able to say "gotcha" in almost every possible outcome of geopolitical situations.
 
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
delft said:
Victor Kotsev in Tel Aviv writes in Asia Times on line (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) that per
"Libya may soon become a powder keg too big and fragmented for anyone to control, including Gaddafi, the rebels, and NATO." A very interesting article.
Click to expand...

That is a very interesting article. The author has a good point when he says that there's a lot of bad information/misinformation floating around. I've had to work hard to sift through stuff while following this conflict. Libya does sit right astride traditional smuggling routes into West Africa. You can bet weapons are going to be flowing across the Sahara. Personally, I think that NATO should ask the rebels need to go on the offensive against Brega, link up with Misrata and win this conflict soon so that law and order can be restored.
 
P

PanAsian

Major
delft said:
Support for my contention, that it is really a NATO war:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

It's not mutually exclusive for what's happening in Libya to be both a Libyan civil war and a foreign intervention to conclude the civil war to the foreign powers' advantage.

It's a civil war not a revolution because significant segments of the population are supporting each side, not a case of the people versus the existing government.

It's also a foreign intervention because clearly the NATO (in reality the French, British, and US) enforcement of the UN 'no fly zone protecting civilians' is really a bombing campaign against a particular side in the civil war. Considering the rebels would have already lost early on if not for foreign intervention, it is also obvious that foreign powers (namely the intervening ones) will at least have influence over business and reconstruction deals if not directly who ends up in charge if the rebels win or govern their part of the country in the long term.
 
Baibar of Jalat

Baibar of Jalat

Junior Member
Its sicking to hear NATO nations like Italy are gonna use seized Libyan assets as collateral for loans to rebel government. Well Libya government should have have forseen their engagement with the Europeans and Americans would not last. To late now because I feel that Nato masterplan is gonna succeed. The hundreds of billions of Libyan assets will be devided and the elites will get excited. While average joe like me will not see any clear benefit.

The rebels are easily gonna be turned into a poodle because they owe their success to NATO. In response they will have to accomodate their views.

Until recently, I thought Iran should re approach the West and settle the all issues. Iran due to having a large pool of skilled individuals would prosper. Still they should settle all issues but like China did in 1979 still retain a offensive arsenal. As Libya has shown, its good to keep a big stick.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
PanAsian said:
It's not mutually exclusive for what's happening in Libya to be both a Libyan civil war and a foreign intervention to conclude the civil war to the foreign powers' advantage.

It's a civil war not a revolution because significant segments of the population are supporting each side, not a case of the people versus the existing government.

It's also a foreign intervention because clearly the NATO (in reality the French, British, and US) enforcement of the UN 'no fly zone protecting civilians' is really a bombing campaign against a particular side in the civil war. Considering the rebels would have already lost early on if not for foreign intervention, it is also obvious that foreign powers (namely the intervening ones) will at least have influence over business and reconstruction deals if not directly who ends up in charge if the rebels win or govern their part of the country in the long term.
Click to expand...
True, but this article shows the rebels to be totally dependent on NATO. And do you remember the British helicopter that was sent to an agent who had been working on a farm near Benghazi since five months before the beginning of the rebellion.( I have never heard why that helicopter was sent ).
 
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Earlier RedMoon mentioned questions he had about the unity and quality of the rebel government. At the time, I was a bit dismissive, but recently I've seen some things that make me reconsider that position. For one, a friend of mine who is in frequent contact with people in Libya, and occasional contact with people in the NTC government, mentioned that he had become a bit disillusioned with the way the NTC operated. He said that they did a lot of bickering but not a lot to aid the rebels on the frontline. I also recently read a Washington Post article discussing the state of the rebel governments finances and the activities of the bankers in Eastern Libya. It mentioned that the government is running out of money and that there has been a serious lack of proper accounting procedures. There's no specific evidence that money is being stolen, but I'm suspicious giving the chaos of the situation. At the very least, money isn't being spent on the proper priorities (on the plus side, they have managed to stabilize prices in rebel held areas and avert economic disaster while cleaning up Benghazi).

The actions of the NTC don't have much affect on the rebel forces on the frontlines. Those men do seem to be quite genuinely united in their desire to get rid of Qaddafi. Because they lack hierarchical organization, salaries etc. I don't think that the rebel forces are susceptible to factionalization and infighting; rebels from different areas of the country have been fighting together, and there are no warlords that lead them. Libya may end up with a fairly corrupt, ineffectual government after the war, but I seriously doubt that it will end up with another round of fighting.
 
MwRYum

MwRYum

Major
Finn McCool said:
Earlier RedMoon mentioned questions he had about the unity and quality of the rebel government. At the time, I was a bit dismissive, but recently I've seen some things that make me reconsider that position. For one, a friend of mine who is in frequent contact with people in Libya, and occasional contact with people in the NTC government, mentioned that he had become a bit disillusioned with the way the NTC operated. He said that they did a lot of bickering but not a lot to aid the rebels on the frontline. I also recently read a Washington Post article discussing the state of the rebel governments finances and the activities of the bankers in Eastern Libya. It mentioned that the government is running out of money and that there has been a serious lack of proper accounting procedures. There's no specific evidence that money is being stolen, but I'm suspicious giving the chaos of the situation. At the very least, money isn't being spent on the proper priorities (on the plus side, they have managed to stabilize prices in rebel held areas and avert economic disaster while cleaning up Benghazi).

The actions of the NTC don't have much affect on the rebel forces on the frontlines. Those men do seem to be quite genuinely united in their desire to get rid of Qaddafi. Because they lack hierarchical organization, salaries etc. I don't think that the rebel forces are susceptible to factionalization and infighting; rebels from different areas of the country have been fighting together, and there are no warlords that lead them. Libya may end up with a fairly corrupt, ineffectual government after the war, but I seriously doubt that it will end up with another round of fighting.
Click to expand...

You'd be delusional if to expect something organized from what essentially just a spinoff from a "Facebook Revolution", though on all fairness it's a surprise that they can hold together to this day.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
They are probably held together by personal subsidies. Remember how after an election in Serbia the party of Milosevic lost power to a coalition that disintegrated within a few weeks.
I'm listening to BBC World Service news at 0600 GMT and it is telling me that British and French combat helicopters have started attacking Libya, but that there was no prospect for an early end to the bombardments by fighter-bombers.
I expect that NATO countries will be afraid they will be hit by a Libyan compensation claim at the International Court in The Hague of $146b for the damage done if they loose this war.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Politics in Washington:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"By a vote of 268 to 145, the House approved a resolution that criticized Obama for not seeking congressional authorization for the 76-day-old campaign against Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.
The resolution gives Obama 14 more days to explain his strategy in Libya and to convince Congress the attacks are justified by U.S. interests."


Those extra 30 days were available to the President according to the War Powers Act to remove engaged US forces, not applicable in this case. It's apparently just theater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top