Posts Tagged ‘UN’

Libya: Is it the right thing to do?

Posted: March 24, 2011 by datechguy in opinion/news, war
Tags: , , , ,

At Patterico a relevant question has been asked concerning Libya that is not being asked enough concerning president Obama’s decision to go to war in Libya.

But before we hammer the President too hard, ask yourself a simple question. Is he right, right now? Forget what he said when he represented one of the most liberal jurisdictions in America, but is he right, right now?

The answer: It depends on how you look at it.

If you look at is in terms of preventing a slaughter, then yes. Our actions prevented an immediate slaughter and are thus worthwhile in the short term. The trick will be to keep it from becoming a bigger slaughter in the long term.

If you look at it in terms of dealing with troublemakers then perhaps. As a general rule if you have a chance to get rid of an enemy (Gaddafi) one should take the opportunity, however the time to have acted was when the rebels were outside of Tripoli not when Gaddafi was outside of Benghazi.

If you look at it in terms of national interest then frankly the answer is No. The rebels who are fighting him seem to also be fighting us elsewhere. If we give over Libya to a different set of enemies they can use that state to sponsor war against us. This is a very bad idea. Additionally historically we have gotten little payback when we have stuck our necks out for Arab countries in general.

All of this is pretty moot now that we are in, WE ARE IN. The real question is what will be the result of our actions. Here are the three possible results

#1. Gaddafi wins: I think this is the least likely outcome. As long as there is some kind of no-fly zone it becomes a ground fight, Benghazi can still fall but if his armor heads toward Tobruk it is very vulnerable from the air. If the west is willing to take out his tanks and armor then Gaddafi can’t finish the job. Of course if the west gets cold feet this goes from the least likely outcome to the most likely outcome, but I think that England and France have too much invested for them to let this happen.

#2 The Rebels win: This has a better chance of happening because you can’t be sure how loyal the forces supporting Gaddafi are. As long as the money holds out the hired guns from the south will stay loyal, but the loss of air superiority makes a huge difference. Of course it’s also a question of taking back cities held by the government which I think is not possible unless Gaddafi and his sons are dead. The question becoming if the rebels win, will they be grateful or will they use the new Libya as an Islamic state to support our foes internationally?

#3 The partition/administration of Libya. Almost certainly the final result. The west without US leadership doesn’t have the staying power or the willingness to actually win the war or commit the ground troops necessary to do so. Sans such will the end result will be a deal to save face for the west that allows Gaddafi’s family in charge of the east where his tribe lives and the rebels in charge of the west. That allows Gaddafi to claim a victory over the west while the west claims success in its mission even as the east is purged of supporters of the rebellion.

And of course this result is the worst of all possible results for the US. We will have a Gaddafi family looking for revenge by proxy in the east while in the west the rebels, who never liked us in the first place, will blame us for the failure to take the country and the purge of their supporters in the east. Since they were already supporting wars against us they will now have a nation to do so with, and it will be a nation “supported’ by the UN.

This is a mess full of bad choices and results. We can only hope it is done wisely.

Let’s see, removing a tyrant dictator with bloodthirsty sons who controls a lot of oil and has been killing his people for years.

Yup that sounds like Iraq to me.

Can someone explain to me how Morning Joe is going on about that “we might be too late” while advocating an Afghan pullout?

I hope it works, but I think Gaddafi takes Benghazi before a single plane makes it in the air unless Egypt invades first.

Update: Boy I think I’ve never been proven wrong so fast:

Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa says Libya is declaring an immediate cease-fire and stopping all military operations.

Friday’s decision comes after the U.N. voted to authorized a no-fly zone and “all necessary measures” to protect the Libyan people, including airstrikes.

Koussa says the cease-fire “will take the country back to safety” and ensure security for all Libyans.

I actually didn’t think that Gaddafi was this smart. By calling a ceasefire he gets the chance to consolidate the gains he has made. He takes away the ability of NATO and the west to strike. As long as they are not attacking they will have a hard time justifying bombing.

This will also force the rebels in Benghazi to actually form a government and act like one. How they act and what they do will also be instructive.

Additionally Gaddafi is an old man, if this goes into a long diplomatic negotiation he will be able to string things along for at the very least months, and perhaps years. The end result? Either a partition or a face saving resignation and transfer of power to his sons.

This may or may not work out, but the solution will not be a quick one.

Update 2: Ed Morrissey comments

Imagine if the UN had been pressed into action two or three weeks ago. Rebels would still hold a large portion of Libya, and Gaddafi’s military would be forced to make a choice between an aging tyrant rapidly losing leverage and a populace clearly ready to seize its own destiny. Even a week ago, rebels still held key positions and Gaddafi was having trouble mounting any large-scale offensives.

Now Gaddafi can afford to offer a cease-fire. It protects his air force while changing very little on the ground. He has the main rebellion cut off in Benghazi and has secured his control over the other rebellious areas. He can afford to wait out the rebels and lay siege to Libya’s second-largest city, secure in the knowledge that the West won’t further intervene. It took them this long to arrange the no-fly zone, and Gaddafi knows that the West has no interest in another ground war in the region (and for good reasons).

This is just wrong

Posted: November 17, 2010 by datechguy in culture, opinion/news
Tags: , , , ,

As you know I’m very Roman Catholic. I’ve argued that “Gay Marriage” is just an exercise in narcissism and have absolutely no problem with the Church’s doctrine on homosexuality and I stand by that.

However this is simply wrong:

Arab and African nations succeeded Tuesday in getting a U.N. General Assembly panel to delete from a resolution condemning unjustified executions a specific reference to killings due to sexual orientation.

That’s bad, but this is simply embarrassing:

That amendment narrowly passed 79-70. The resolution then was approved by the committee, which includes all 192 U.N. member states, with 165 in favor, 10 abstentions and no votes against.

That’s as Rush would put it, Zip Zero Nada, no England, No Holland, No Canada, and no US.

Cripes according to many on the left I’d be considered a religious fanatic for being a believing Catholic and I think this is a disgrace.

And to those in the LGBT community who voted for this administration I say again….SUCKERS!

Don’t worry you still have Ken Jennings.

We see Thomas Peters, the American Papist finding some holes in a study suggesting that Billy Joel’s statement that “Catholic Girls start too late” is wrong.

Turns out, that study was ridiculously flawed. In addition to having very serious phrasing and definition issues, turns out that the “study” was based on interviews with only 39 girls in 2001!

Where did they get their sample, next to the Girls Gone Wild Bus? Tom links to a further debunking here.

On a much less Catholic note Israellycool shares that the U.N’s John Holmes is distraught about the idea of Egypt blocking the smuggling tunnels to Gaza:

…while we are on the subject of frustration, do you know what I find frustrating? The fact that people like Holmes make no effort to understand Israel’s security concerns. Notice how the only “undesirable effect” of the tunnels is the effect “they’re having on the Gazan society and Gazan economy.” Forget about the smuggling of weapons used against Israelis.

John Holmes, you share more than a name with the porn actor. You both lack a moral compass.

As you can see Facebook death threats haven’t slowed Aussie Dave down one bit. I wonder if Mr. Holmes is putting any pressure of Egypt to open crossings on their side to let all these things through, after all didn’t Gaza belong to Egypt before 1967? Why is it Israel’s job to feed the people who want to kill them?

Finally Robert Stacy pays homage to Andrew Breitbart

…see if you notice the little “gotchas” that Noah Shachtman evidently feels compelled to intrude into the article, such as describing Breitbart as a “beefy 41-year-old” in the third paragraph.

Breitbart is over 6 feet tall and probably a lot less “beefy” than the average 41-year-old. Had he grown up in Alabama instead of Brentwood, Calif., some football coach would have spotted him in the school hallway and made an all-state linebacker out of him. His most remarkable feature is his blue eyes, which glare with a luminous intensity whenever he begins talking about anything he is passionate about. Yet Breitbart’s owlish eyes go unmentioned by Shachtman in favor of “beefy.”

Such are the little darts that Gulliver must suffer from the Lilliputians . . .

Both Breitbart and McCain can be described in the same way as Lincoln described Grant:

I can’t spare this man; he fights!

Yup that’s about right.