Horza Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Starting with Libya:Big US Turnaround: NFZ+ on the tableThe US is pushing the UN to authorise not just a no-fly zone over Libya, but also the use of air strikes to stop the advance of forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi.Probably the best news the uprising's had in two weeks. Hard to see how the US can talk Russia and China into authorising but it might be enough momentum for NATO anyhow. US to Bahrain: Do you guys want sectarian war or something?!The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, led diplomatic reaction to the violence, delivering a stern warning to Bahrain's rulers. Clinton said Bahrain, and neighbouring Gulf states that have sent troops to help quell the uprising, were "on the wrong track". She demanded that Bahrain show restraint with demonstrators and keep hospitals open.She described the situation in Manama as alarming and condemned the use of force against demonstrators. She said four Gulf states had sent troops to Bahrain. Only Saudi Arabia has so far publicly acknowledged doing so.After weeks of drift it looks like the US has realised just how nasty things will get if the status quo parties keep up the 'All You Need Is Blood' approach to unrest. Mark Lynch reckons the Saudis have already managed to turn the Bahrain uprising into a sectarian shitstorm (I'm trying to work out on exactly what Saudi strategic calculus is raging Sunni-Shia conflict across the western Gulf worth keeping the Al-Khalifas in power). Also: man, is this awkward for Al-Jazeera... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Starting with Libya:Big US Turnaround: NFZ+ on the tableProbably the best news the uprising's had in two weeks. Hard to see how the US can talk Russia and China into authorising but it might be enough momentum for NATO anyhow.It is very strange to do this now, when Gaddafi's army is almost at the gates of Benghazi. It would have made a lot more sense two weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usotsuki Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Mark Lynch reckons the Saudis have already managed to turn the Bahrain uprising into a sectarian shitstorm (I'm trying to work out on exactly what Saudi strategic calculus is raging Sunni-Shia conflict across the western Gulf worth keeping the Al-Khalifas in power). Also: man, is this awkward for Al-Jazeera...I lived in Manama during the last Uprising and as far as I can tell the Saudi perspective and the Saudi policy have changed very little over the last decade, the Saudis believe that there has long been a raging Sunni-Shia conflict and that it is far, far better to have a front line in Bahrain than in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 It is very strange to do this now, when Gaddafi's army is almost at the gates of Benghazi. It would have made a lot more sense two weeks ago.Well, exactly when has Western diplomacy been on top of the situation this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoadm Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Well, exactly when has Western diplomacy been on top of the situation this year?In their defence..Had the west been all too keen to unilaterally impose a NFZ at the start of this civil war, it would be bashed for 'intervening in yet another oil rich Arab state'. \Remember, at first, both the Rebels and the Arab league balked at a NFZ, so it's easy to speak on hindsight, but I suppose they were waiting for a broader level of support for such a move, considering the wests reputationn in such incidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 In their defence..Had the west been all too keen to unilaterally impose a NFZ at the start of this civil war, it would be bashed for 'intervening in yet another oil rich Arab state'. \Remember, at first, both the Rebels and the Arab league balked at a NFZ, so it's easy to speak on hindsight, but I suppose they were waiting for a broader level of support for such a move, considering the wests reputationn in such incidents.Yeah, I agree, I didn't mean to imply they should have been pushing for a NFZ from the start - there are no easy answers right now and the US and German position of caution was probably the right position then.That said, I think the UK have been shown up as complete bumblers - from Cameron's Democracy Tour (& UK Arms Bazaar) to the SAS fiasco they've managed to look venal and incompetent all at once. France has been nakedly opportunistic - they dragged their feet on Tunisia but now Sarko needs to look like action man so it's Nous sommes tous les Libyens. The US has actually moved from a slow start to a pretty well balanced line on Egypt and now hopefully might be able to pull Saudi back from the brink in Bahrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 UK = complete bumblers France = nakedly opportunistic Tautology FTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 :blush:Yeah, sorry, sentence was begging for an 'even by their standards'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 It is very strange to do this now, when Gaddafi's army is almost at the gates of Benghazi. It would have made a lot more sense two weeks ago.I agree. This isn't a gradual evolution in policy, because the U.S. wasn't even supportive of a no fly zone until this announcement. And when we do announce a policy, it goes significantly beyond an NFZ. At best, this just looks like the result of an extremely slow decision-making process, because there's been pretty strong support for a NFZ among some of our allies for at least a week. And the realities on the ground at this point probably mean that a NFZ alone wouldn't be enough, and that airstrikes would be needed. But we already know that is not something that's going to get support.So this may be more of a CYA than an honest attempt to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padraig Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Sounds the US is suddenly aware that Gaddafi is definitely going to stay in power unless something changes in a major way. After Tunisia and Egypt we might all have hoped that things would be (relatively) peaceful but Libya, Bahrain and Yemen have a very different dimension to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAH Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Seems like the rebels indeed will make a stand at Ajdabiya.The BBC's Ian Pannell set out from the opposition stronghold of Benghazi to try to reach Ajdabiya, where both sides claim to be winning Libyan rebels have deployed tanks, artillery and a helicopter to repel an attack by forces loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi on the key town of Ajdabiya.The BBC's Ian Pannell, in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, says this is the first time defecting army units have faced government forces.It would appear that the rebels are throwing in some of their assets against Gaddafi now, but the government troops are still going to be far better armed.The propaganda war from both sides is increasing as well, difficult to say where the half-truths, fibs and distortions end and the truth starts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 ETA: FLOW, I thought you might like this article.Thanks. I tend to agree with it. I understand all the arguments for non-intervention, especially that we can't intervene everywhere. But at least as to that, it's not like Gaddhafi was a significant regional military power, like Iran, or has nukes like NK, or is geographically isolated like Rwanda. It has a weak military that would be extremely vulnerable to a strong naval power. And I think earlier intervention might have resulted in the voluntary grounding of the Libyan Air Force, or maybe more defections. We might have made a big difference without really having to fire shots.As for the arguments in favor, I'll admit being perhaps emotionally influenced by a story (on FoxNews, yet), showing a very-well spoken college student, and a medical doctor, both with no military training whatsoever, who had joined the rebellion and just wanted freedom. And I remember how the American Revolution really required an assist from the French to succeed. So at some level, I think we Americans may owe a moral debt to others struggling for liberty.But I also think it is in our geopolitical interests as well. Someone mentioned upthread that eastern Libya had the highest percentage of jihadis captured in Iraq, as if that was an argument against intervention. I think it's the opposite. Maybe if those people thought it possible to affect their own futures, in their own countries, they might turn that energy inward rather than outward. Certainly, having Gaddhafi in power hasn't discouraged jihadis from eastern Libya, right? So if living in an oppressive dictatorship hasn't served to discourage jihadis, maybe having some stake in the governance of their own countries might.You know, I hadn't really thougth of this until now, but I wonder how the last Administration would have responded to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I wonder how the last Administration would have responded to this. Lol what a strange question to ask, given how Cheney was openly stating that the US needs to stand by its friend Murbarrak in Egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 So, the UNSC is about to vote in favour of using military force against Libya. It remains to be seen how far they are willing to go, but the text apparently states that "any measures necessary" can be used. Apparently neither China nor Russia will use their veto power.Not sure exactly when the vote will take place, but it should be just around the corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padraig Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Wow. I'm sure this will have some negative consequences but Gaddafi was going to win without this. And that was just very depressing. I had to stop reading so much about what was going on there over the last week. It was too unpleasant for me.So go for it. I'm amazed at Russia and China though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 10 for, none against, and 5 abstains. Of those abstaining, China and Russia was given. I didn't catch who the others were, apart from maybe Bosnia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 The vote's taking place right now. The BBC News just said they're expecting the result any second, after only about half an hour of deliberations.I wasn't expecting this about-turn so fast, and I certainly wasn't expecting that British and French forces would be leading the proposed action with the Americans only joining in a second wave.Results of the vote:10 in favour0 against5 abstaining (including China, Russia and Germany)The resolution has passed. Bloody hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 As a response, Gadaffi promises to 'go Sheen' on the rest of the world.ETA: Wert, are you sure Germany abstained? Their current statement doesn't sound like someone who abstained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamsputnik Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Well, this has come out of nowhere! Seems like they are ready to go immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Newsnight on the BBC said they did, but they're going off-the-cuff. It's possible they screwed up.EDIT: The BBC website doesn't list Germany as one of the abstainers (though they only mention China and Russia), so I'm assuming they did screw up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.