Cameron's no-fly zone fervour not shared by US
When accused of slavishly following America's lead over the invasion of Iraq, Mr Blair used to joke: "It's worse than that, I believed in it!"
But what would he have done if Mr Bush hadn't been keen on invading Iraq? The UK could hardly have done it alone.
The reason I ask, of course, is because UK Prime Minister David Cameron seems considerably more enthusiastic about imposing a no-fly zone over Libya than the US government.
On Tuesday, he told Parliament he had instructed the military to develop plans for such a move.
"We will look at each and every way of stepping up pressure on this regime. Further isolation of the regime by expelling it from international organisations. Further use of asset freezes and travel bans to give the clearest possible message to those on the fringes of the regime that now is the time to desert it. And we do not in any way rule out the use of military assets. We must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people."
Nick Robinson, my colleague at Westminster, says he sees it as a defining moment in Mr Cameron's foreign policy.
Indeed, I've heard the phrase "his Blair moment" used.
Some Americans feel he is giving the moral lead that is lacking from US President Barack Obama.
To read the British press, you would think that the UK was the world's only superpower and that Mr Cameron would execute his plans, drawn up by the chiefs of staff, quite independently from any other country.
I suppose technically the Royal Air Force could, on its own, take on Libya, knock out its radar and missile defence systems and patrol the skies. But I am not sure it would want to do so.
The mood here in Washington is distinctly tepid.
When US defence secretary Robert Gates, who also served under Mr Bush, was asked about a no-fly zone, he said:
"I would note that the UN Security Council resolution provides no authorisation for the use of armed force. There is no unanimity within Nato for the use of armed force. And the kinds of options that have been talked about in the press and elsewhere also have their own consequences and second- and third-order effects, so they need to be considered very carefully."
Gen James Mattis, head of US central command, said such an operation would be challenging: "You would have to remove air defence capability in order to establish a no-fly zone. So no illusions here, it would be a military operation - it wouldn't be just telling people not to fly airplanes."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that there were arguments for and against. Tellingly, she referred to a degree of worry in the Arab world that America would invade Libya. That, she assured her audience on Capitol Hill, was not going to happen.
This lack of enthusiasm for a no-fly zone could change, of course. A concerted air campaign by Col Gaddafi, shown nightly on the news, could well alter administration minds.
But until that happens, Mr Obama doesn't seem to want more military action.
So what is Mr Cameron doing? Sabre-rattling on behalf of the Americans, striking a pose he thinks will be popular, providing a lead to a reluctant president?
Mrs Clinton's testimony made it clear she thought America should lead the world through what she called "smart power".
The UK still has to get used to a world where that doesn't always imply smart missiles.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~46~RS~)
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Right on the money Mr. Mardell. This appears to be a role reversal. As you imply the emphasis might belong on "appears." ALso, the US military appears to be concentrating near the Libyan coast. Something is being planned or contingencies are being allowed for. As Brits say, I believe, it's early days.
Complain about this comment
And he does so on the day that 1000's of service people get the sack (hope none of them get it by e-mail while serving in Afghanistan like the first batch did).
A NFZ might be necessary, however, what happens about the need to knock out air defence systems, sure ALARM missiles from RAF aircraft can do it, did it over Iraq in 1991 then from 1993 - 2007, already though you are into air to ground strikes not just policing the skies.
And watch Gaddafi put any of the radar systems these ALARM missiles will home on to, right next to schools, hospitals, mosques, Saddam did.
Then if, for whatever reason, hostile fire, engine failure, you have to get an aircrew rescued, by default boots are on the ground already.
The RAF does, just, have the ability to do this, as we've seen with the desert rescues - but they were done with days of careful planning and likely Special Forces insertions into the area prior to the aircraft arriving, not the same as a fast moving situation with maybe your crew being sought by hostile forces.
I note both France and Italy have specialised choppers and people for this role, both are rather nearer to Libya than the UK, the latter being the former colonial power.
It has to be a very last resort, it cannot be just an Anglo-US operation.
Whatever happens, the mere planning the MoD are doing in the UK right should raise in Cameron's mind some aspects of his government's defence review, always the way that. Out of date before the ink is dried.
In 1990, a junior minister at Defence, better known for his diaries and 'interesting' private life, the late Alan Clarke, a military historian, drew up without his immediate superior's consent, his ideas for the post Cold War military posture. He was appalled at the idea of just 'salami slicing' across the services, just to keep everyone sweet, with no regard for this once in 50 years chance to re-shape the forces for a changed world, save the money, but keep relevant capabilities and improve on some, by stopping the now irrelevant ones.
He was lucky to keep his job when the top brass and his immediate superior, the Secretary of State for Defence, got to hear about it.
It was geared to rapid deployment in the Persian Gulf, as a most likely need to structure the forces to carry out, weeks later, Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Didn't stop Clarke's review being binned though.
Complain about this comment
"Let's not get carried away by the drums of war, because the United States, I am sure that they are exaggerating and distorting things to justify an invasion," Chavez said Monday (source Venezuelan state media.)
I believe the phase is "Dammed if they do, dammed if they don't" Which pretty much sums up everything the US government tries in the region. If they do call for action they will be condemned as "Bullies" if they don't, they will be condemned for not doing anything.
A no-fly zone would require air-strikes against ground targets such as Radar power communications and airports/airstrips. They would also need access to support such as refueling areas and the ability to cross borders of neighboring countries for logistical reasons.
The UN security council members such as China would knee-jerk oppose any action by the US without serious concessions in areas that have nothing to do with this conflict such as trade negotiations. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday a no-fly zone would be “superfluous,”
Complain about this comment
This is so funny. While Cameron is talking out of his a$$, the US Navy battle group, the size of the British Armed Forces, are already in Libya.
Memo to Cameron: This is 2011 not 1855. In case you didn't notice, Canada and Australia are now richer than your country(s).
Complain about this comment
Enough of this twaddle about needing U.N consensus blah blah!
Who cares whether other countries might object? Since when does ANY righteous nation let another country's political opinion get in the way of doing what is right?
If I were David Cameron - I'd tell Obama that I'm sending in a British Carrier Battle Group, in the hopes our ally would back us up, and if not... I'd do it alone and take out Gadaffi regardless of the cost.
Who gives a monkey's what ANYONE thinks about unilateral action? This world has become far too appeasing. Even if the U.K is the ONLY country on the planet to commit forces to take out Gadaffi, then we should do it alone. It's the right thing to do.
Complain about this comment
I think the UK is overdue for some ideas above it's station. So that's not a bad thing.
But i'm highly suspicious that this is just a cynical attempt to look tough, and he's secretly hoping that he'll never have to back up his words. Which he almost certainly won't.
Complain about this comment
A world in which the US doesn't have to shoulder all of the hard decisions, sign me up. The world pretty much agrees something should be done and that allowing protesters to be bombed by aircraft made primarily in Europe is bad. So if Europeans take the lead it only makes sense, it's in your backyard you drew the borders to help create the mess and you're his biggest customers.
Complain about this comment
Against one or two good reasons to enforce a no fly zone, I can think of 5 or 6 good reasons not. All those secondary and tertiary effects -- yikes! So good on Gates and the Pentagon crew.
As to what Cameron is up to -- a bit of compensation for the bad optics of the defence spending cuts?
No, too cynical?
Maybe rattling the cage, making those Libyan pilots seriously consider their loyalties?
A bit of both, perhaps?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps its was not a good idea mothballing our Aircraft Carrier and delaying the new craft as I reckon we could do with them just now to help in our efferts to solve the Libya crisis.
Complain about this comment
A "no-fly" zone is not a "no tank" zone, or a "no heavy artillery" zone or even a "no 50 caliber machine gun" zone. So what would it really accomplish in the context of a Libyan civil war? Prevent it? Shorten it? Reduce the body count at the end of the day?
If "no fly" is the best Europe can offer, it would be better off letting the Libyans sort their own problems with no interfearance at all.
Meanwhile, one assumes that "smart power" is the polar opposite to "dumb power," and that governments can generally tell the difference. I'm frankly skeptical, and will remain so until we see a few instances of governments publicly adopting policies built around "this is really none of our business" or "we really have no clue about what to do" as first principles.
Please put "smart power" back in the slogan reject bin along with "shock and awe."
Complain about this comment
Well hurray for Cameron. It's alright for the U.S. to hang around and help out where we can but no way in hell should we be out in front. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Most of our allies like to draft behind the US while lobbing dirt balls. It is certainly time for somebody else to lead for a while. I for one, would be glad for the Brits to be the world's policeman for a while.
One thing........it ain't cheap.
Complain about this comment
I think we'll sit this civil war out. Don't have the $ and no need to spill our blood for Libyans who don't like us anyway.
Complain about this comment
Creating and enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya would hardly be possible not only because of the 'tepid' response from Washington ((including Pentagon) but because such a move would never be approved by the UN Security Council.
And not only because of China's opposition to such an action.
"French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said there would be no no-fly zone without a UN resolution, while Russia has described a no-fly zone as "superfluous"." (BBC News).
[although I recall that France unilaterally created a no-fly zone for American F-111s flying to Libya for a retaliatory strike. ;-)]
Complain about this comment
What hypocrisy. The UK itself has used the military to stop a civil uprising by its own people. Does anyone remember Bloody Sunday?
Complain about this comment
Mark-you seem to imply that the US isn't keen on military action at all, presenting Obama as a kind of flip flopper. There are US military forces already stationed near Libya to act as a deterrent already. Cameron's NFZ is clearly to either a) take away accusations of the US invading and taking over another Muslim Arab state, or to help David Cameron prove to his own people that he's not a poodle of US foreign policy like one of his predecessors. Either way, with UK Defence cuts including the sort of capability to carry out patrols of a NFZ, then it strikes me as unlikely, if not impossible, for our forces to take it alone
Complain about this comment
Another thing many Eropean governments most likely remember well:
"For over a decade, Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi had been involved in terrorism in Europe and elsewhere.
After December 1985 Rome and Vienna airport attacks, which killed 19 and wounded around 140, Gaddafi indicated that he would continue to support the Red Army Faction, the Red Brigades, and the Irish Republican Army as long as European countries support anti-Gaddafi Libyans.[3] The Foreign Minister of Libya also called the massacres "heroic acts". [Wikipedia]
Complain about this comment
Lots of talk about the USA and UK.
Has anyone noticed that Germany has already dispatched 3 warships? Aren't all German nationals now out of Libya?
Stopping Col Muammar Gaddafi from bombing cities in Eastern Libya at the surface sounds very fluffy and humanitarian... but isn't this ultimately all about keeping the German economy safe from rising oil prices? After all... 10% of Europe's oil comes from Libya..... 85% of all Libyan oil ends up in Europe.
Germany is the engine of the European Economy... and like it or not.... ALL of us (the USA, UK, China, etc.) lose if any one of us drops the ball.
Oil is a global economic addiction.... American addiction, British addiction, German addiction.... etc.
Complain about this comment
Cameron/US are being fools. Libya should and is sorting its own problems out. The "protestors" are doing well enough without western military intervention. In Libya they have conscription, so all the protestors are trained in war and know what it means. This is the business of the Libyan people, it is no business of the UK or the US. Libya does not need intervention from other countries. If we get involved in Libya, is just going to create more enemies from outraged arabs. There is absolutly no need for us to get involved.
Complain about this comment
I think that both of our countries are just too war weary as it is. We DO NOT need to send troops into Libya. There are other countries in Europe that have a military besides the U.K. Why don't they step up for a change? I think that we should send humanitarian aid, and perhaps some ammo and weapons to the rebels, but our Amphibious Assault craft doesn't even have enough Marines!! We don't need to get our men involved in this fight and I don't think the U.K. does either, but it's not up to me.
Complain about this comment
Everyone knows Gadhafi must go and he must go now. He is now murdering his own people and known for being a brutal leader. Reports from leaders in the Middle East are even coming out about how something must be done. The ambassador from Libya just came to the U.N. asking them to step in and stop the bloodshed. People and Leaders in the west know the people of Libya need and deserve help in overthrowing Gadhafi yet no one makes a move. The reason for this is because the U.S. is usually the country that steps up in these situations. They do the dirty jobs that need to be done while the rest of the world sits back and criticizes them. Europeans are not finding out it is much easier to criticize others rather than doing the job yourself.
Complain about this comment
This is refreshing. Its nice to see my (hell both of our countries) holding back. As an American, lately it seems like we can do no right. Well then Europe, here is your chance, show us how its done.
Complain about this comment
Well if the American's don't seem to keen then what about the French, we just signed a military treaty with them not to long ago, the administration in Paris seems in favour of a no fly zone. Why not have the Royal Air Force and the Armée de l'Air. perform a join operation. #be interesting to see Eurofighter Typhoons and Dassault Rafale's operating together. Obviously some EU backing will probably be necessary. Just a thought that's all.
Complain about this comment
Here we go again, the 3rd most powerful country in Europe trying to flex its atrophied muscles. Another adventure that would really break the bank. Cameron must be down in the polls. Just sit down and shut up.
Complain about this comment
Mark, I'm not quite sure what you intended with your statement that "The UK still has to get used to a world where [smart power] doesn't always imply smart missiles". Despite our participation in the US-led invasion of Iraq, I don't think this country has a 'shoot first ask questions later' reputation, including among Americans, and I don't expect Cameron to do anything that will change that.
If a few sabre-rattling words from Cameron are enough to dissuade Gaddafi then good - but if there is credible evidence that Libyan airspace has and continues to be used by planes to bomb civilians or to bring in mercenaries who are killing civilians words alone may not be enough to make it stop.
Complain about this comment
Re 21 EastCoastRide: "As an American, lately it seems like we can do no right. Well then Europe, here is your chance, show us how its done."
I've already reserved a ticket in the 1st row for that spectacle.
Complain about this comment
Re #22 Mitin: Why not have the Royal Air Force and the Armée de l'Air. perform a join operation. #be interesting to see Eurofighter Typhoons and Dassault Rafale's operating together. Obviously some EU backing will probably be necessary.
With Swedish Grippens and German Tornados?
I'd simply love to see it. :-)
Complain about this comment
Some folks have mentioned China and Russia not approving or willing to approve U.N. action in Libya. I have not noticed anyone comment on France appearing to be against any military action as well; they also have veto power on the Security Council. It seems like déjà vu all over again for the coalition of the willing.
Even with a U.N. resolution, assuming one is in the cards, I don’t think Obama should send in any ground troops; except for evacuating U.S. citizens. We can’t afford to fix anything that gets broken. If other nations need some logistical help, fine, we can provide that for a small fee.
Complain about this comment
War is only ever indulged in for profit, either through arms sales or at some future date from developing business interests in the conquered/liberated country. But after Afghanistan and Iraq, can we afford to "invest" in another war? I'm sure the bean-counters in both the US and the UK are frantically doing the sums as we speak...
Complain about this comment
Cameron's Blair moment is not a fitting example. Surely it would be more comparable to Thatcher's stance on the Falklands. Unpopular government, divided country. Unite the masses through questionable military legitimacy in a country with oil reserves.
Complain about this comment
It seems Cameron has walked back his talk of the U.K. using military action against Libya, or even arming the rebels, after the Obama administration distanced itself from his suggestions. Apparently, U.S. forces are moving in on Libya for the purpose of supplying humanitarian aid only. So much for the coalition of the willing I guess.
Complain about this comment
This looks like the paradigm of the early 21st century:
Pacifist Europe is unable by design to take military action, and still grudgingly hides under the American shield. America is the only great military power – Britain and Canada’s capability and willingness depends on which government is in power at the moment. While nearly every nation has some token military, it is just for show and for the support of the manufacturing sector.
These armies are then merely a form of police – useful for emergency response and perhaps border patrolling. Petty tyrants use them to stay in power and to intimidate their populace, major tyrants use them to intimidate smaller neighbors and to attempt to intimidate larger neighbors.
All in all this peace is immeasurably preferable to the human tradition of recurrent wars, but those nations that live in this dream as if is their only reality have great difficulty when they are forced to deal with any unpleasantness outside their dreamworld.
So today we in the West have less than a handful of militarily competent nations – nations who have hardware, troops, and the willingness to use them. In the East (in the Churchillian term), two great powers are trying to build and maintain their military influence, and then there are several regional players.
But as we are seeing today, the pax Europa does not extend beyond its borders, and although the outer world may be quiescent for a time, the material and cultural developments that make Europe, Canada, and the USA peaceable are not much in evidence elsewhere. Violent episodes will occur – sometimes simply the ancestral spirit of aggression, sometimes the necessary pains of nations attempting to emerge from the old ways into the light of the new day.
We would like to encourage these emerging nations, even help them, but the very peace we treasure and aspire to prevents us from taking decisive military action when circumstances demand it.
If we in the West stay in this torpor for long, either the little problems and lost opportunities will worry us into nervous collapse, or one or the other of the new, uncivil masters will overwhelm us while we are still dreaming.
I have been reading some things by Theodore Roosevelt lately. Foolish me.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
"Nick Robinson, my colleague at Westminster, says he sees it as a defining moment in Mr Cameron's foreign policy"
This is the unethical, duplicitous and malevolent point when uk prime ministers seek to bolster their right wing credentials and get an armed conflict or two under their belts in belief it helps them at the ballot box.
As a Scottish person I cringe with embarrassment and long for Scotland to be free of union from the uk.
England has lost an empire and is still looking for a role, never a truer or more poignant phrase spoken. England’s role on the world stage will be subservient to France and Germany in the coming years. For goodness sake seek a role that does not involve armed conflict, frankly it’s embarrassing!
P.S. at end of day, Cameron and all other uk pms will jump as high as they are asked by US presidents!
C McK
Complain about this comment
29. At 05:31am on 02 Mar 2011, Mr L Gant wrote:
Cameron's Blair moment is not a fitting example. Surely it would be more comparable to Thatcher's stance on the Falklands. Unpopular government, divided country. Unite the masses through questionable military legitimacy in a country with oil reserves.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
How is this even close to the Falklands? The Falklands are part of Britain, Libya has absolutely nothing to do with Britain. Military action in Libya will in no way shape or form "unite the masses", if anyone thinks it will, then they need their head examining.
Leave the Libyan situation to Libya. They will solve the problem themselves, they do not need outside interference.
Complain about this comment
I think it is far better to sabre-rattle loudly upfront and thereby deter Gadaffi from making significant use of his air assets, thus saving lives and avoiding actually having to risk our military in an operation than to wait for him to drop a few hundred canisters of nerve gas onto enemy cities, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and our having to mount an actual air assault with all the risks that entails.
On this issue I think Cameron is showing good leadership and good sense.
Complain about this comment
From a domestic, political POV, Obama cannot afford to do anything. His ultra-liberal-blame-America-first-surrender-monkey base is already upset that he hasn't given up Iraq and Afghanistan and close GITMO. They are staying with him now because they have no place else to go. However, one more affront to their loony world view and they will either:
A. Stay home next election day (assuring defeat).
B. Support a far-left, 3rd party candidate (assuring a GOP landslide, no matter who is their candidate).
Complain about this comment
Would a no fly zone be a good idea, maybe so but could the UK go it alone?
If you take out all the dilomatic hurdles and purely look at a military perspective, I don't think it would be possible...
First of all, the UKs 2 carrier battle groups no longer exist (thanks mister Cameron...). They would have been ideal as fighter jets don't have the biggest fuel tanks so distance between base and "target" is an important factor to take into account.
Then, Mark, you say that the planes could be based out of Malta which is close but not very... If you want to send Eurofighters in and keep them over Lybian airspace long enough to be effective you need to get the air refueling tankers in which turns it all into a bigger logistical nightmare.
Could the UK do it on its own, I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
Steady on Cameron. If even America doesn't want to go piling in that should tell you something. Gaddafi will fall at the hand of his people which is a lot better than some western PM with something to prove. I just cannot see the point. It's not like we would be able to manage the situation on the ground, so what's the plan anyway? I'm not sure what a no fly zone would achieve anyway. And in fact, a foreign power getting involved will if anything pull the Libyans back towards Gaddafi.
Why don't our leaders ever get this?
Complain about this comment
I remember the last no-fly zone we had over Iraq. All that did was keep a violent dictator in power whilst inflicting suffering on the population. Is that Cameron's plan for Libya?
Complain about this comment
It's ok every one calm down the mighty UN has threatened to kick Libya from it's human rights league !!! The Libyans must be shaking in their boots.What a totally worthless organization the UN is.
I don't believe any of the EUSSR members have enough of a military left to act with out the US.Most European nations have seeded any strength or national identity to the EU.
Complain about this comment
I'm sure in this instance Cameron is being used as a spokesperson by members of the EU and especially the US - planting the seed of possibility and expectation in European and US citizens.
Note to 'sportster' Canada nor Australia are richer countries than the UK - With $1.5tn and $1.2tn economies opposed to the UK's $2.2tn
Complain about this comment
#32
I shrink with embarrassment every time i hear a scot talk as if Scotland could survive without English tax payers support,Scotland would be a third world country on it's own.
Complain about this comment
I dont think we have much military assets left do we. I suppose we could send in an aircraftless aircraft carrier or a troop carrier with no troops in! Now thats tokenistic sabre rattling!
Complain about this comment
Er,,,didn't Dave Quixote just sell his Harriers and carriers on ebay... UK military capability has been reduced from "just about capable" to "mainly an illusion" by a massive pre-emptive strike from the forces of evil: The Treasury, a debt addicted Labour government and a listing economy sucked dry by greedy bankers.
How ironic that the next scenario for conflict proves the old maxim that "planners always prepare for the last war". Just after we sell off some very handy kit so that we can concentrate on bush wars and nuclear retaliation the PM finds a baddy who possesses up to date airpower and technology.
Dave wont be too worried though. The temptation to play world statesmen is irresistible. The Chiefs will be telling him "We can still do that" in the hope that doing him a favour will be repaid by later. And, what's left of the RAF will be told to find a way. We should sympathise with the men and women in our armed forces who are tasked with delivering the policies of the deluded without the resources or tools they need. At that point in time and space where metal is flying this is what "punching above your weight" means.
Complain about this comment
Mr: Cameron is out to make a name for himself. His financial cuts make this impossible, he as already scrapped the Harrier. Perhaps he should be scrapped himself.
Complain about this comment
@ chronophobe - the opposite is true - if he wants to avoid embarrasment over defence custs then don't get into a theatre where aircraft carriers and harrier jets are almost a prerequisite.
@ Mr L - the Falklands were an internationally recognised British territory - Libya is not. So this is not Cameron's 'Thatcher moment'
The only reason not to leave well alone (after all, if Libya, why not Zimbabwe, Yemen, etc) is the fear that if we do nothing the Islamist extremists will fill the void. Oh, and oil maybe?
Complain about this comment
Dear God No!
Complain about this comment
#4
sportster;
"the US Navy battle group, the size of the British Armed Forces, are already in Libya.
Memo to Cameron: This is 2011 not 1855. In case you didn't notice, Canada and Australia are now richer than your country(s). "
I would stick to sports if I was you.
Complain about this comment
"What hypocrisy. The UK itself has used the military to stop a civil uprising by its own people. Does anyone remember Bloody Sunday"
We never rained terror from the skies using airships.
Complain about this comment
40. At 07:44am on 02 Mar 2011, Alex wrote:
I'm sure in this instance Cameron is being used as a spokesperson by members of the EU and especially the US
BBC blog comments are replete with anti-American conspiracy theories but this one just baffled me enough to comment on it. I second the sentiment of "damned if you do, damned if you don't."
Complain about this comment
Regardless of all other factors, just where are the RAF going to be based to carry out no-fly operations? No aircraft carriers, Cyprus is way too far. Malta?
Complain about this comment
U.S. aircraft carriers don't have to be "close to Libya" if push ever comes to shove.
The average flight time from Sigonella to Tripoli or Benghazi is ca 35-40 minutes. And that without afterburners.
Complain about this comment
5, a British Carrier Battle Group is a decade away from existing, the last one was in 1978.
However Malta might give permission, for Luqa airfield has seen a lot of military aircraft during this crisis, including the RAF aircraft which carried out those rescue missions last week, ex RAF airfield too.
Then there is the large British airfield on Cyprus - with tanker support aircraft could operate over Libya from there.
14, at least the Prime Minister has acknowledged the wrong of Bloody Sunday, how about the Mai Lai massacre in 1968 - not heard of it? I bet you haven't. Well do a search and then you'll see.
Then of course there was Kent State in 1970.
31, The Europe you mention happens to have substantial numbers of troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan, even Germany with the limitations of it's Constitution drawn up by the Allies after WW2.
32, So why not press your boy Alex (never missed a meal) Salmond to call a referendum for Scots independence, as he said he would right after the 2010 election? What's that? Polls showing less than 30% support for it?
Powermeerkat - So France had no right to say no to that 'makes us feel better' raid on Libya in 1986? Which managed to kill Gaddafi's two year old daughter and further increase his support for terrorism, including Pan Am 103? Well it was THEIR airspace, not yours.
And why could not French/UK aircraft not carry out a NFZ? The RAF have plenty of experience of it over Iraq - without shooting down two of their own helicopters as the US managed to in 1994.
France also has quite a bit of experience engaging Libyan forces, through the 1980's when African based French forces kept butting heads with Libyan designs in Chad. Including intercepting and destroying Libyan aircraft, ground targets, culminating in the Foreign Legion / Chadian rout of Libyan forces in 1987.
Just because they've not made a whole bunch of bad movies, Hollywood style, about it does not mean it did not happen and therefore escaped your attention.
But Mark makes a point, lack of US enthusiasm for what could well be a more complex and difficult NFZ, should inform on Cameron - and aspects of his defence policy.
For most people in the UK however, NOT having a US bent on charging in, is something to be applauded.
Complain about this comment
Did David Cameron and and that bald idiot get degrees in Buffoonery , they are completely out of their depth at Home and Abroad. and are becoming more embarrassing to the UK on a daily basis , I despair.
Complain about this comment
A no-fly zone over Libya is a no-brainer.
Monsters who looted billions are not then entitled to fund small private armies purchased with sovereign treasury funds so that they can bomb their victims.
Complain about this comment
#53
Bob;
There is always plan B!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12611726
Complain about this comment
Cameron and other western nations needs to ask why they sees themselves as a custodian of human rights in countries where they have no political or moral authority. Hypocritical to say the least considering their flirtations with nations that don't subscribe to the western notion of human rights - eg., China, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
The people of Libya are revolting. Let them get on with it! They know better than anyone how to deal with their leader.
Complain about this comment
Could it be that Cameron is getting swayed by the 'Oh Dear....how terrible' factor?
This is a short piece about 'Oh Dear-ism' (if the mods don't approve the link, try 'Adam Curtis Oh Dearism' in You Tube).
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Food for thought? A warning even?
Complain about this comment
Is it really surprising? We all know that Obama is no hero. When the USA punished Gaddafi, the Libyan leader was very subdued for many years following the punishment. Because he feels no such threat today, he thinks he can murder his own people with impunity. If Cameron has a plan, he could try to persuade Sarkozy to make the no-fly zone project a joint venture, before it's too late. Berlusconi wouldn't be a good choice at this particular time, although he's not devoid of courage. Sarkozy might agree. It could initiate the much needed military co-operation that could eventually lead to a future EU intervention force.
For obvious reasons, time is of the essence. If nothing is done and Gaddafi continues to punish his people and thus manage re-establish his bloody reign, the free world would have absolutely nothing to be proud of.
Complain about this comment
ref #28
Graphis wrote:
War is only ever indulged in for profit, either through arms sales or at some future date from developing business interests in the conquered/liberated country. But after Afghanistan and Iraq, can we afford to "invest" in another war? I'm sure the bean-counters in both the US and the UK are frantically doing the sums as we speak...
____________
War is also needed for survivial
WW2 unless you favor the Nazi philosophy
or ask in Israel in 67 when they faced genocide
Complain about this comment
Telling a ruthless leader (who has a track record of carrying out inhumane acts against his own innocent men, women and even children) that the civilized world has declared a NFZ is morally correct, and must occur as soon as possible.
Keep him guessing as to the manner in which the NFZ is actually enforced.
All aggressive aircraft must immediately be under threat of a NFZ.
Complain about this comment
PS. Based on the info that Gaddafi ordered the Lockerbie bombing, it could be argued that Cameron, if not Obama, has additional justification to put a stop to Gaddafi's criminal pursuits.
Complain about this comment
I think the Brits prime is getting it in his own direction. Libya belongs to another continent and as Gadaffi the president of libya has countries behind him. What the Brits prime is trying to creat is a situation of a leading role but not real action. Cameron can never win anything in Libya with millitary without consulting other counties neibghouring libya and its allies. USA is moving slowly because they know that winning in other countries isnot all about millitary power but building a consesus especially with the neigbours of Libya and the Libyan allies. so camerons strategies will back fire if real thinks like he does now.
Complain about this comment
Another thought, the threat itself of European NFZ intervention could even be enough to sway more of the military to oppose Gaddafi. But obviously the threat has to be real, and not a bluff.
Complain about this comment
What do the Libyans want?
I do remember the beeb reporting that 'rebel' leaders had asked for a no fly zone, to stop Ghadafi bombing his own people, and to prevent him from 'busing in' mercenaries.
Complain about this comment
If we do get involves the Libyans will stop slaughtering one another, embrace one another as brothers, and turn on us.
Complain about this comment
Why not just let them fight it out? They should also withdraw all military personnels from Iraq and Afghanistan to let those countries sort their internal matters out even if it leads to civil wars and partitions.
Complain about this comment
"As an American, lately it seems like we can do no right. Well then Europe, here is your chance, show us how its done."
It's mainly done by only invading places for a reason, rather than making stuff up - but it is stupid for us all to argue about the past rather than discuss what would be best for the Libyan people. It seems that they don't want foreign forces to intervene for them on the ground, but they would be quite open to a no fly zone which would prevent more mercenaires being brought in. It's important we do what they want.
Complain about this comment
The majority of Libyans may hate Gaddafi - but they also hate the US! They were bombed by the US and put under sanctions for years. The very suspect conviction of al-Megrahi led to the Libyan people paying out Billions in compensation, largely to Americans. They look at Iraq to see what happened when the US "saved the people from an evil dictator" The rebel leaders are all saying that foreign troops should not be sent.
Give the rebels some weapons and maybe intel support - nothing more, nothing less
Complain about this comment
64. The Cool Ruler Rides again.
Do you really think so? When a head of State makes such public statements, in principle he's obliged to follow them through. The future will soon determine whether he's a foolish little boy or not.
Complain about this comment
So what is Mr Cameron doing? Sabre-rattling on behalf of the Americans, striking a pose he thinks will be popular, providing a lead to a reluctant president?
-----------
To saber rattle one must have a sabre,& not just an empty scabbard.
Come to think of it, we have an F86 on display some place, she would rattle quite well as its got no engine in it.
But seriously,in a civil war one must act in the best interests of humanity,if asked for help,the UK must help.Alone if need be.
History tells,we have very good track record of standing alone,against deluded psychopaths.It brings out the best in us.
Complain about this comment
Maybe Cameron is trying to make up for that previous UK government that facilitated the Scots releasing the Lockerbie bomber, who subsequently has decided not to die from cancer after all. I wonder where he is in Libya??
Complain about this comment
Noone explains why the govts can't just arrest Gadaffi, instead of all the other complicated stuff? The US reported that in the Al Quaida war they took out individuals who were evil, so thery could do that as well, if they wished, kill one to save a lot. Instead of which people are being taken hostage, dying, hungry, in danger and waiting. They have done a lot to make him go but why is the final push so slow? Hope we don't get the military bomb option to make him go.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
. At 01:09am on 02 Mar 2011, Ryan Paul wrote:
'..If I were David Cameron - I'd tell Obama that I'm sending in a British Carrier Battle Group..'
steady on there tiger, first off we havent got a carrier battle group, and if we did have one it doesnt have the capabilty to carry out strikes into Libya. Even if we still had a carrier with aircraft they were'nt enough or capable of an airwar of the size needed.
Complain about this comment
75, the record of 'bumping off' leaders the US does not like is not a happy one, Castro is still alive, yet 50 years ago the CIA (with help from the Mafia) tried to bump him off with all manner of crazy ideas, including trying to get an exploding cigar to him.
Also, a leader still with some state power behind him is still a different proposition from a terrorist, who by nature, is outside of the state.
Might be worth adding that assassinating heads of state is also illegal, worth considering when some go on about restoring the rule of law etc.
Complain about this comment
As a very ordinary US citizen, I can assure you that there is NO support among the US populace for any kind of military action against Libya. We've learned--
Complain about this comment
The United States is tired and weary of all the criticism over the years. Likewise the UK. Let Russia and India and China even Pakistan carry the load this time. Let others die in this thankless task. USA & UK have done more than their share. By the way, I am an Australian.
Complain about this comment
There is absolutely no reason on earth why Col Q (I will use that for the sake of brevity, since there are so many variants of the spelling) should get any more of a kid gloves treatment than Slobbo, after 41+ years of wicked mayhem -- and need I remind you that Nato did not at any time actually invade Serbia?
To attempt to link the situation in Libya to misguided Bush-led (pro-Halliburton) adventurism in Iraq is to completely misread the facts. This is an altogether different story, history and agenda.
Col Q is being carefully defended (albeit timidly, and for good reason) by a few remaining corrupt elements here and there (notably in Russia, but I would not exclude some in the US) who are afraid of "what might come out" if there is a proper clean-up of Tripoli, since criminal organizations (outright mobsters) have deeply infiltrated both the fringes of the oil & gas business and some other industries & communities (including some, perhaps, who contract out services to intelligence); they have done this primarily via accommodating Russian (broadly defined) gangsters who imagine the annual tearfest in the confessional earns them some kind of blank check from Christ to continue engaging in thievery, pandering to vice, extortion as well as -- my personal favourite -- the looting of treasuries of unsuspecting or weak governments. Including their own. Many of these interests have found a way to intersect even with the likes of Col Q. And what about that curious You Tube video in which Silvio Berlusconi is caught on camera Kissing -- yes, Kissing -- the Hand of Libya's lunatic tyrant?
I would reassure legitimate businessmen that they have nothing to fear from the inevitable downfall of wretched, depraved, rapacious thieves and tyrants, whatever guise those might come in.
A no-fly zone is a necessary first step in order to protect the many powerless innocents from many different countries who have been caught up in this orgy of violence launched by a man who can't decide whether he is more like Napoleon or more like Nero. In any event, he is neither of those far better grade of sadists and should not be defended, shielded or excused by anyone.
I suspect when Lavrov used the word "superfluous" he was actually saying either "excessive" (izlishne) or "too much" (lishneye). Either one of those common words does not in fact translate as "superfluous" -- but then, in addition to further illustrating the problem of needing to find better translators who actually have a command of both English and Russian, this mis-quote also exposes the deeper problem of some translators enjoying using their existing skills such as those might be to impede clear articulation in crucial moments.
And there might be some, I would hazard to say, with various Russian ties, who secretly like Col Q for all kinds of unspeakable reasons.
In any event, the Russian position that a no-fly zone is "too much" suggests the Medvedev & Putin government, most of all, are worried about what might be exposed by Col Q's much overdue exit from the seat of power. I suggest we call their bluff. It would be very interesting indeed to see if the P-M tandem would actually intervene to prop up the man who pitched his tent at the Kremlin walls and did who knows what to entertain Mr Putin. Certainly I doubt very much that China would object to seeing the Russian side (as currently led) feel the discomfort of being caught on the wrong side of history, for the umpteenth side.
Complain about this comment
Maybe there's another aspect that Europe and the USA should take more into consideration. Why did the Iranian regime send two or three destroyers into the Suez Canal?
What if the Iranian regime took advantage of the timid hesitation of Europe and the USA and decided to support the rebel movement with the objective of helping to establish a radical Islamic Libyan regime? The insurgents would be so grateful to Ahmadinjad that it's even possible that the coup would work. This whilst the West twiddles thumbs and pretends everything is too complicated to do anything constructive?
Robert Gates may be saying what he is certain Obama would prefer to hear, but there was no UN resolution providing authorisation to invade Afghanistan, nor was there any UN resolution to take out Saddam. Compared to both, Libya would be a walk-over. It can't be otherwise if US aircraft went in and bombed Gaddafi's swimming pool without even having to contend with Libyan seagulls..
Complain about this comment
Gaddafi is a megalomaniac, sure. And Libya lacks basic freedoms we take for granted. These two features are fairly typical in the region. And I support those who want democracy and rights and a better deal all round.
So what give the UK, or the USA, the right to intervene in Libya?
The UK and USA took a different approach to Egypt: the people decide (knowing the establishment military are in control). To Saudi Arabia: let's not talk about it being an absolute monarchy, no democracy, no rights for women, persecution of homosexuals, etc, etc. To Isreal: despite thousands of killings, and land grabs, all aggression by the regime is justified.
The hypocrisy of Cameron and Obama towards Libya is sickening, now that they see an opportunity to intervene, which they are already doing - politically, economically, through the media - as with Iraq, Iran and Venezuela, Libya has huge oil reserves, and were it not for that, the West wouldn't give a monkeys.
Cameron wants a distraction from domestic issues, and is shaping up to be every bit as right-wing as Thatcher. Meantime, not a peep from their LibDem 'partners'.
Complain about this comment
65. At 10:16am on 02 Mar 2011, paulmerhaba wrote:
What do the Libyans want?
I do remember the beeb reporting that 'rebel' leaders had asked for a no fly zone, to stop Ghadafi bombing his own people, and to prevent him from 'busing in' mercenaries.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
What the Libyans want as far as the international community is concerned is not an issue. They are currently engaged in a civil war and the international community should not get involved. There was no intervention in Somalis, Mozambique, Rwanda, etc etc, so why should there be in Libya? Ah, could it be due to oil? Quite possibly. Cameron and the US would do well to keep their noses out of this.
Complain about this comment
78. The Cool Ruler... (reference to the word 'ghetto')
A beside the point, but perhaps another one of some interest. The word 'ghetto' originates from the Italian 'geto' which means 'foundry'. The European Jews fleeing from the inquisition established a community in Venice, which still exists today. In 1516 the Senate authorised the Jews who had been prevented from doing so previously, to finally settle in the quarter of Cannaregio where there was a new foundry (geto).
Consequently the word was applied to the reserved zone. (Ghetto Vecchio). There are no derogatory connotations. Such connotations that eventually developed, were no doubt determined by the WW2 and any anti-Semitism subsequently associated.
Complain about this comment
80. At 12:43pm on 02 Mar 2011, ginnylavender wrote:
As a very ordinary US citizen, I can assure you that there is NO support among the US populace for any kind of military action against Libya. We've learned--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Lets hope so...I have my doubts, but lets hope so.
Complain about this comment
Rather than a no fly zone, it'd be far easier to just hit Gaddaffi forces in Tripoli, which is right on the Mediterranean coast rather than deep inside Libya, and hence an easy target.
A few precision weapons used to wreck Gaddaffi's heavy armour making the capital and easy target for the rebels would be far easier.
Depending on intelligence, a single cruise missile strike on Gaddaffi himself would be even better.
But alas, the simple solution is blocked by countries like Russia, which, not suprisingly, are known for using airstrikes on their own citizens as they have for years in the south.
Russia unilaterally attacked Georgia and advanced on it's capital, simply for the sake of demonstrating it still had military bite, so quite why we should listen to them when the agenda is protecting civilians I'm not sure.
Complain about this comment
Seems to me that most of the agitation for action is coming from the news media.
The UK government are sabre rattling, but they know that action without UN backing would be extremely ill-advised. The US appears to have this right. No option is off the table and it has done a good job in priming the UN to expect to take quick action if war crimes are committed, but there is a recognition that without UN backing Libya will have to be left to sort out its own affairs, even if it slides into civil war and mass murder.
How different might that agenda have been if the US didn't have the Albatross of the the Iraq invasion around it's neck?
Complain about this comment
67. At 10:42am on 02 Mar 2011, chirojupiter wrote:
Why not just let them fight it out? They should also withdraw all military personnels from Iraq and Afghanistan to let those countries sort their internal matters out even if it leads to civil wars and partitions.
========================================================================
The most sensible post on these blogs for ages, but just wait until the hairy chested yanks and their english bu"boys get back to you. They have the absolute divine right to tell every other country in the world how to run their affairs- didn't you know?
Complain about this comment
Could anyone explain why in the USA the Republicans, who in principle, originate from the revolutionary fighters for freedom and the abolishers of slavery, are now considered right wing, whilst the Democrats, who in principle originated from the Confederates, Southerners and rich slave-owner conservatives, are considered left wing? How did this come about when surely the roots of the 'noble hearts' club' should have been founded on impeccable principles of Republican freedom?
84. Crossalways
It seems to me that the accusation of 'going in for the oil' is as false as it is dated. Had Europe and the West been so motivated in the first place, we would never be at the mercy of those who own the oil monopolies.
Ironically it was Western technology that helped the Arab nations to pump out their oil in the first place.
What is essential however, is the stability of the ME. This is the determining factor. And one can keep whining about whether it was right of wrong to invade Iraq, but never could one affirm that Saddam Hussein represented stability.
In any case the mistakes weren't made in Iraq. They were made in Afghanistan, and this still seems to be 'the old habits die hard case', even today.
If Cameron has the qualities that Thatcher had, then maybe there is real hope for the Libyans who are fighting for what they believe in.
Complain about this comment
Cameron wants a no fly zone, lead by what? the carriers pensioned off, maybe the scrapped harriers, all guarded by the Nimrods the spy in the sky, that cost millions, oh! forgot these have cost many more millions to be crushed. Wake up Cameron in just a few months you have managed to take the Great out of existence we are now just plain skint 'Britain'. Please go on holiday forever and take your muppet from the liberals with you before you make a bigger joke of our country than you've already done.
Complain about this comment
NO-FLY ZONE IN LIBYA?
I think there is still a case for this, as (60) expat and (63) nostrano & others have said. The ability to prevent Gadaffi from flying-in African mercenaries to bolster his weakened forces would be a step in the right direction. For this we must have the agreement of the rebels' leadership and here there is a major problem: as far as I know, no clear-cut coherent proto-government has emerged. We can't act unilaterally until we know who to deal with over in Benghazi. Maybe this is happening behind the scenes; we must wait and see.
Some people have suggested a strike against Gadaffi in Tripoli, but he's well protected and surrounded by sympathetic civilian groups, many of his own tribe who will remain loyal come what may: these must not be allowed to become martyrs. This is a very, very tricky situation and the issues are evolving as we write.
GHETTOS
Nostrano:
"In 1516 the [Venetian] Senate authorised the Jews who had been prevented from doing so previously, to finally settle in the quarter of Cannaregio where there was a new foundry (geto).
Consequently the word was applied to the reserved zone. (Ghetto Vecchio)."
- and it's well worth a visit if you're in Venice and like the more out-of-the-common-tourist-track places!
Complain about this comment
For those people who are assuming that 'smart power' is a rhetorical phrase dreamt up by similar minds to those who came up with 'shock and awe', i'd politely request you do your research before posting.
A well-known academic named Joseph Nye came up with the term 'smart power'. It generally refers to a combined use of both soft and hard power, that is economic and cultural power alongside military power.
Smart Power has sometimes been likened to using a carot in one hand and holding the stick in the other....
Complain about this comment
What is happening in Libya is not like Egypt or Tunisia. It isn't a protest. It's a blatant attempt to overthrow the Government.
Cameron's no-fly zone is neither here nor there; it is nothing.
We are reading about rebel soldiers; we are seeing images of men shaking powerful guns, waving Idris flags.
Who is financing this force and giving them their insurgent instructions? Is this question even being asked in the media, or is it far more media-significant to cover the evil Muamar Gaddafi?
The big powers, especially the United States is in a mighty hurry (literally) to attack and dismantle Libya just as it has done with Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Did you know that the eastern part of Libya (where the oil is) is allegedly keen to seperate and therefore get exclusive benefits of the oil. The oil right now belongs to all Libyans, until of course, the west grabs it, privitizes it, and takes it away from all Libyans.
The west has its little psychological game called "Turn the Leaders into Abominations". e.g. Saddam, Milosevic and Gaddafi. Break out media stories about their horrendous butchery; forget the truth. Let your imagination run wild! Who's going to question what you write or say?
I remember the claim that Iraqi soldiers had taken Kuwaiti babies out of their incubators and left them to die. This was the infamous incident, protrayed in front of the US Congress that provided the momentum for the first invasion of Iraq in 1990. (Afterwards, it was revealed that the tearful women who swore to the incubator incident was really the daughter of the Kuwaiti Aambassador in the US. She was acting from a script.)
"The Responsibility to Protect" applies to certain countries. There is no "responsibility to Protect" Palestinians, Iraqis or Afghans - yet several million have died and been maimed. These are called collateral damange.
Hundreds of US, British and French "defence advisers" have arrived in Cyrenaica, Libya's eastern province. This is the first time the United States, the United Kingdom, France and India have cooperated to intervene in any of peoples' revolt. The "defence advisers", including intelligence officers, were dropped from warships and missile boats at coastal towns of Benghazi and Tobruk.
Why?
1. To assist revolutionary committees controlling eastern Libya to establish government frameworks; how can any Government steal oil when the eastern province is so messy, blood-splattered?
2. To organize them into paramilitary units, teach the rebels how to use the weapons that they've taken from Libyan army facilities (i.e. train them to fight Muammar Qaddafi's combat units bravely coming to retake Cyrenaica).
3. The prepare infrastructure for the intake of ADDITIONAL FOREIGN TROOPS. Egyptian troops are presently under consideration.
In Benghazi, the rebels have lowered the green flag of the Republic of Libya, hoisting instead the red, black and green flag (with crescent and star): This is the flag of a true tyrant: King Idris.
Sidi Muhammad Idris al-Mahdi al-Senussi was enthroned by the British when the country gained independence in 1951. It was always the king who appointed the PM, all Council Ministers and half of the Senate. What a democracy!
According to a 20-year treaty of "friendship and alliance" with Britain, King Idris granted to the British the use of air, naval and land bases in Cyrenaica and Tripolitania. A similar agreement was concluded with the United States, which obtained the use of the Wheelus Air Base just outside Tripoli. Wheelus became the main US air base in the Mediterranean.
Libya became even more important for the US and Britain when, in the late 1950s, the US-based company Esso (ExxonMobil) confirmed the existence of mega oil fields. The major oil companies, such as the US’s Esso and Britain's British Petroleum, got concessions; these insured their control, their profit from Libya's oil. The Italian company Eni also obtained concessions.
The protests of Libyan nationalists, who accused King Idris of selling out the country, were literally squashed by police repression. The rebellion grew, however, especially in the armed forces.
A coup (without one shot fired) resulted - its chief was Captain Muammar Gaddafi. He had just 50 officers and called them "Free Officers".
The monarchy abolished, the Libyan Arab Republic in 1970 forced the US and British forces to evacuate their military bases. The following year, Gaddafi nationalized the properties held by British Petroleum and forced other companies to pay the Libyan state a much higher share of the profits.
The flag of King Idris, which should be burning in every Libyan city, is flying proud. Have the Libyans forgotten their history?
So now the United States is back; now the United Kingdom is back - for "purely humanitarian purposes."
Please:
1) Question everything that the media says about Libya. Disinformation prevails.
2) Let political representatives know that we don't buy into the rhetoric, and we would very appreciate the truth, the whole truth.
3) Remember that using human rights to sell war is an really old strategy; it also called propaganda.
Complain about this comment
No point in buying and developing all those Typhoon Eurofighters at a huge cost for no use!!
However why we think we still are a powerful military force is unknown to me, last time i checked we couldn't do a great deal in Iraq or Afghanistan with our limited number of troops and dated or short supplies of equipment.
Whats the point of the UN if its only ever the UK and US which actually takes the plunge and sends troops/aircraft in??
In Afghanistan all the other EU nations have pledged a couple of thousand or even just a few hundred while we put in 10,000 and the yanks put in over 150,000.
Surely one of the benefits of the EU, NATO and the UN is we don't always have to carry the majority of the burden every time we universally agree on action.
Complain about this comment
Surely it is Arab perception which is the key to this decision? Western military action would fundamentally undermine the unique strength of the Arab Awakening so far: that it is Arab. UN or - worse - NATO intervention in Libya would allow Gadaffi to re-present the whole thing as "Western intervention", a fight against (already suspect) outsiders who are serving their own interests - let's not forget Libya's oil. That would be a catastrophic mistake. The ticklish task for the West will be to help dislodge Gadaffi while being seen to stand back and let Libyans do it. If there's one lesson the brave young people of Tahrir Square taught us, it's that the movements of mighty armies decided in distant capitals can never build lasting democracy.
Complain about this comment
If one assumes that Cameron is trying to protect himself and his government, then what he is doing makes perfect sense: Sabre rattle, go to the UN and request a NFZ is enforced... this will inevitably be vetoed. Then don't persue it further and when Gadaffi starts peppering his people with bombs and chemical weapons Cameron's conscience will be clean and it will be the other UN members' fault.
Complain about this comment
94. Ad
True, in fact there's a simple little Restaurant in la Plazza of the Ghetto, where one can eat quite well on it's terrace at a reasonable price. The Ghetto of Venice is certainly worth a visit and naturally everyone is perfectly welcome.
Complain about this comment
98. Hapennyworth has half enough for a thought, and it's quite a valid one. But it would be difficult to help by standing back, and even if nothing is done, the West would still be blamed for interferring in any case.
The oil argument is invalid. Surely this has already been demonstrated in Iraq.
As I see it the danger is, that if Europe is asked for help and fails to supply it, the disiillusioned rebels will be less prone to believe in freedom and democracy, and may then be more inclined to turn towards Islam (the Iranian regime).
Complain about this comment
What a complete and utter clown Cameron is. Have they not learned anything from the mess in Iraq and the mess in Afghanistan? Unbelievably dangerous and stupid.
Thank heavens that the US is starting to be more cautious. Obama is the smart one here. Cameron is dangerous......he is a man trying to prove to the world that he is a big man.
Complain about this comment
Prime Minister David Cameron is perfectly right in taking the lead to stop Gaddafi. The U.S. has a president who is a follower, not a leader. Obama shoulsd resign if he had any decency. He is a coward! Thank God, we have leaders like David Cameron and Angela Merkel.
Complain about this comment
95. At 2:05pm on 02 Mar 2011, cookoomashu wrote:
For those people who are assuming that 'smart power' is a rhetorical phrase dreamt up by similar minds to those who came up with 'shock and awe', i'd politely request you do your research before posting.
Indeed. Had you done your research, you would of course have discovered that the term "smart power" was used by George Westinghouse in the 1880s during the great alternating/direct current debates with Thomas Edison.
Pedants with opinions can be interesting. I'd politely suggest that Pedants that believe they have a lock on "the truth" are simply tedious.
Which is in no way meant to be a blanket criticism of neoliberalism.
Complain about this comment
The US has eleven aircraft carriers. None are in the Mediterranean. None are headed there. Without a carrier we cannot participate in a no fly zone. Our vaunted Navy is basically unprepared to address this threat. Our nation is hogtied by the King of Saudi Arabia who does not want us to interfere in Libya.
Obama, the Nobel peace prize winner, has no idea how to conduct foreign policy. Congratulations to Britain for showing the way. We'd like to help but we have to get clearance from the Saudis.
Complain about this comment
Ryan Paul(no 5) wrote "Enough of this twaddle about needing U.N consensus blah blah! Who cares whether other countries might object? Since when does ANY righteous nation let another country's political opinion get in the way of doing what is right? If I were David Cameron - I'd tell Obama that I'm sending in a British Carrier Battle Group, in the hopes our ally would back us up, and if not... I'd do it alone and take out Gadaffi regardless of the cost. Who gives a monkey's what ANYONE thinks about unilateral action? This world has become far too appeasing. Even if the U.K is the ONLY country on the planet to commit forces to take out Gadaffi, then we should do it alone. It's the right thing to do"
Sadly, there is NO British Carrier Battle Group...... Not since the recent defence cuts. No-one in Britain is willing to pay the taxes to support the defence forces demanded by The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail.
Curt Carpenter(no 10) wrote "A "no-fly" zone is not a "no tank" zone, or a "no heavy artillery" zone or even a "no 50 caliber machine gun" zone. So what would it really accomplish in the context of a Libyan civil war? Prevent it? Shorten it? Reduce the body count at the end of the day?".
It would drastically reduce the tactical mobility of the regime's forces, and remove the helicopter gunships from the military equation. It would not prevent a civil war. It would shorten it, and so reduce the body count at the end of the day. It would definitely assist the anti-regime forces. It would not be easy to enforce, and could NOT be done by Britain acting alone. The Empire is over, boys, and has been since 1945.
MaudDib(no 11) wrote, among other things, "It is certainly time for somebody else to lead for a while. I for one, would be glad for the Brits to be the world's policeman for a while.
One thing........it ain't cheap". How right you are. Britain does not have the cash for this role. Neither does it have either the forces or the inclination.
powermeerkat(no 26) wrote "Re #22 Mitin: Why not have the Royal Air Force and the Armée de l'Air. perform a join operation. #be interesting to see Eurofighter Typhoons and Dassault Rafale's operating together. Obviously some EU backing will probably be necessary. With Swedish Grippens and German Tornados? I'd simply love to see it. :-)
The first three aircraft types mentioned above - Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and Tornado - are all standard NATO types and exercise and cross-train regularly. The Swedish Flyvapnet's Gripens also train under the NATO Partnership for Peace(PfP) program. The Tornado, both from the RAF and the Luftwaffe, regularly deploy to Afganistan as does the Rafale M(carrirer version)from the CVN "Charles de Gaulle".
There are no technical issues about the deployment of these aircraft. The issues are political and legal. The first and most obvious is to get UN or EU authorisation. The second is to get the thing moving. The third is get Malta's permission for basing rights. Otherwise, EU planes will be obliged to fly from Italy or other Southern European states, with a resultant reduction in loiter time over Libya.
dceilar(no 38) wrote "I remember the last no-fly zone we had over Iraq. All that did was keep a violent dictator in power whilst inflicting suffering on the population. Is that Cameron's plan for Libya?".
I remember how it also enabled the quite democratic and now-prosperous Kurds to flourish in Northern Iraq.
The Cool Ruler Rides Again(71 and 74) Enjoying life in the conspiracy bubble?
Nostrano(no 83) wrote "Maybe there's another aspect that Europe and the USA should take more into consideration. Why did the Iranian regime send two or three destroyers into the Suez Canal?"
The Iranian Navy sent ONE(1) covette and one support ship through the Suez Canal, destination Syria.
Reasons why your pan-Islamic scare story will not happen? First, the Iranians are Shia and Aryan, while the Libyans are Sunni and a mix of Berber, Turk, Toureg and Arab. Second, the Iranian ruling group are not exactly wildly happy about this secular rising in the arab world. Third, if you think the Iranian Navy is going to risk one of its vessels anywhere in the Mediterrranean, which is basically a NATO lake, in terms of military power, then you are deluded. That Iranian corvette(Alvand) and its support ship(Kharg), both British-built, by the way, will proceed tamely to syria, and will stay there for the duration of this crisis.
Ultimately, the world does not really care what Cameron says. Britain does not the ability to act on its own, and so should really shut up. Britain is a semi-member of the EU, while also clinging desperately to a "Special Relationship" with the US that increasingly the US does not recognise. It needs to discover where it wants to be, then commit to that. Geography would be a useful guide there.
Re military, Britain, along with most Ruropean nations, needs to admit that some kind of common doctrine in procurement and cooperation in operational matters is the only to retain any clout at all. No individual nation in Europe can hope to match the budgets available to India, China or the USA. Cooperate or shrivel.
Complain about this comment
I agree with Bluesberry.
@Maria Ashot
"To attempt to link the situation in Libya to misguided Bush-led (pro-Halliburton) adventurism in Iraq is to completely misread the facts. This is an altogether different story, history and agenda."
As much as this might be true. From a moral perspective it makes the west worse than Gaddafi. As we openly killed 1,000,000 Iraqis and then stole all there oil. Secondly China has been our main machine for development so where we in Tiannemen Square. One rule for some and one rule for another. It's disgusting. The worst part of it all is that I am the one that benefits from the cheap and repressive regime in China and Russia. We are the ones that benefited from 1,000,000 deaths in Iraq.
Israel can use Phosphrous shells and air strikes on the Gaza strip and escape punishment. In 2009 they killed over 1,500 Palestinians and wounded 2000 if not more. Should we put in an NFZ over the Gaza strip ???
Complain about this comment
Mr Cameron no doubt has an integral foreign policy and may be repositioning Britain in its place of pride on global issues. Considering the US military build-up; air and naval,the US President is signalling he has a prized ace up sleeves!And there's no questioning as to how well and decisive he could deliver,when military options become inevitable.However we in early days,the world is concerned about bringing justice to the people of Lybia, which nation takes the lead for this noble course is what we shall observe as events unfold.
Complain about this comment
92 Nostrano: //It seems to me that the accusation of 'going in for the oil' is as false as it is dated. Had Europe and the West been so motivated in the first place, we would never be at the mercy of those who own the oil monopolies.
Ironically it was Western technology that helped the Arab nations to pump out their oil in the first place.
What is essential however, is the stability of the ME. \\
If Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and Libya were dirt poor countries without oil, do you really think the USA/UK would act in the same hostile way? Saudi Arabia is hand-in-glove with the USA/UK. It has no democracy, being run by an absolutist monarchy. Women aren't allowed to drive. Women aren't even allowed to shop on their own. And unless you are a gay Saudi prince, homosexuals face execution. This barbaric regime spawned Al Qaeda. It is desperately trying to buy off opposition (alongside arrests and beatings). The US/UK are deathly silent towards their royal Saudi mates. Hence the one-sided hypocrisy.
As for Middle East stability that you hold up to be of paramount importance - the West has chosen the path of supporting dictators all along the line (including Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi, when it suited them). Israel has made much of being the only democracy in the Middle East - yet supported Mubarak to the end. After decades of oppression it's an inspiration to see the people overcoming their fear and rising up against tyranny and for better conditions of life. But the West bet on dictatorship over democracy to keep stability, so has no right at all to intervene or preach if and when it blows up in their face. After literally millions of deaths/injuries, a broken Iraq which has now suffered nearly a decade of war and sectarianism, and its international ramifications especially in the Muslim world (is this what you call stability?), also saw mass demonstrations against corruption and for a better life recently, with some killed.
As for the oil monopolies, who owns and operates the extraction and refining operations? The West by and large. You seem to think that bringing technology to bear is like some civilising favour! But they have made huge profits which have bolstered living standards in the West and made the owners very wealthy. The dictators who have ruled have siphoned off a lot of the revenues for themselves with the West's connivance.
So if the people benefit now, brilliant - but I think the same old rulers will rule in slightly more contrived ways unless the masses take control of industry into their own hands and ignite a second revolutionary surge.
My support goes to the people not the peoples 'masters' (including our own bunch).
Complain about this comment
Mr. Cameron seems to forget that for saber rattling to be effective you not only have to look and sound like you're willing to us it, you have to have a saber impressive enough to intimidate your opponent and Britain's saber is not all that imposing these days.
President Obama knows he has little support from an already war weary people for yet another foreign military adventure where there is nothing to be gained and much to lose.
Complain about this comment
102. deryk houston
If Cameron is an 'utter clown' what does that make Gaddafi? A megalomaniac who has never ceased murdering his own people since the beginning of this crisis.
Maybe there are still too many who have learnt nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq. Ask the Iraqis, for example, if they would like to return to Saddam's regime if they ever had such an opportunity. Ask the Afghanis if they would like to live through a reign of Taliban terror once more. In actual fact the West was misinformed and at least two years late in moving to help the Afghanis fight the Taliban, also to its great and tragic cost.
If cautiousness is a positive quality, the Taliban would succeed in their global jihad and we would all be subject to Koranic law, without having to refer to the history of two world wars.
I also fail to see what is smart about allowing a madman the possibility of regaining power in an obviously very sensitive region. What's smart about allowing Gaddafi the right to murder his own people?
Cameron has yet to prove himself. He has already virtually committed himself. Maybe it's time that Obama proved to the world that he is worthy of his function, because so far, going by his wishy-washy foreign politics, he hasn't been very convincing, and sadly this seems to continue to be the case.
Complain about this comment
"105. At 3:42pm on 02 Mar 2011, Curt Carpenter wrote:
Indeed. Had you done your research, you would of course have discovered that the term "smart power" was used by George Westinghouse in the 1880s during the great alternating/direct current debates with Thomas Edison.
Pedants with opinions can be interesting. I'd politely suggest that Pedants that believe they have a lock on "the truth" are simply tedious.
Which is in no way meant to be a blanket criticism of neoliberalism."
At no point during did I claim to have a lock on the truth. I was merely pointing out what is widely held to be the origins of the term Smart Power in International Relations. I'm not sure what alternating currents have to do with the Libyan crisis.
Also, pointing out the definition of one the key terms in Clinton's address for the benefit of all the blogs readers can hardly be called pedantic, especially when some seem to have lumped it into a 'means nothing' rhetoric pile.
Complain about this comment
The Yemeni President is trying the blame the U.S and Israel card.
Will it work, the Arab street usually relxivly will forget their leaders and blame and bash Israel.
Even though any rational person would realize little Israel is defending itself from terrorist who happen to be moslem.
let's see if these protesters are nuanced to realize 60 years of hate has not served them
Complain about this comment
111. crossalways.
It's true that we have supported 'dictators' when it suits reasonable, global purposes, but they certainly weren't all tyrannic Saddam Husseins, and those we supported created relative stability for a considerable amount of time, Mubarak included. I still maintain that stability is the determining factor, which is why this situation is intolerable, why petrol costs are shooting up once more, and why we are all pushing our points of view, because naturally it's a preoccupying situation. Stability in oil rich regions is absolutely necessary, even more so in the ME. And who is acting with hostility?
Saudi Arabia is an absolutist monarchy, but its relatively moderate in spite of it's practising certain Koranic laws. In many ways it's a paradox of luxury, tourism and Islam. It can't be accused of tyranny. It can't really be accused of oppressing its people. One of its priorities is also stability, which is also why it fears the Iranian regime's objectives. There is no contagion of public protests in Saudi Arabia since the Arab world uprisings.
Needless to add it's one thing to operate extraction of oil, if one has such a contracted right, but it's another to own the monopoly itself.
No one is pandering to Hugo Chavez in spite of his oil rich position. And we are all supportive to the people and not the peoples' masters. That's no one's monopoly either.
Complain about this comment
ref #111
crossalways wrote:
92 Nostrano: //It seems to me that the accusation of 'going in for the oil' is as false as it is dated. Had Europe and the West been so motivated in the first place, we would never be at the mercy of those who own the oil monopolies.
Ironically it was Western technology that helped the Arab nations to pump out their oil in the first place.
What is essential however, is the stability of the ME. \\
If Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and Libya were dirt poor countries without oil, do you really think the USA/UK would act in the same hostile way?
____________
You are conveniatly ignoring all 4 country give or in the case of Iraq before the liberation gave active support to terrorist groups. All 4 are frequent violators of human rights
Complain about this comment
118. At 5:20pm on 02 Mar 2011, MagicKirin wrote:
You are conveniatly ignoring all 4 country give or in the case of Iraq before the liberation gave active support to terrorist groups. All 4 are frequent violators of human rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
Please remind us all of the terrorist groups which Iraq actively supported before the "liberation". My memory is terrible these days.
Complain about this comment
As an American of a certain age, I would like to thank President Obama for his caution and circumspection in this Middle Eastern Awakening. I am exhausted from wars and wars and wars; I am beyond cynical from Cold War and Post-Cold War adventurism. It has garnered us nothing - certainly no thanks from the world at large. Nearly every day a flag draped casket returns home and one more family buries a son or daughter who felt that they were "called to serve" and did so faithfully. And for what?
The US should NEVER intervene militarily unless we are directly threatened. We are bled out. Good luck to you, Mr. Cameron. I have no opinion on your sincerity or lack thereof.
Complain about this comment
Maybe the Iranian war ships in the Mediterranean will come to the aid of Qaddafi. That would be interesting.
Monitoring and enforcing a "no fly" zone is expensive. It is better if you can get someone else to pay for it.
With regards to Obama, cost is not a concern.. His country is rolling in money. Unfortunately, the ink is still wet.
Of course, Obama has that "Nobel Peace Prize" thing to consider.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
120. Thespinydogfish.
Your way of seeing things is understandable, but caution has to be circumspect to be effective. If caution meant for example that we leave the Afghanis to fight their own battle against the Taliban, the Taliban wouldn't just retake control of Afghanistan, they would then take Pakistan, and be in a nuclear position to call the shots anywhere it wants in the world.
In the case of Libya, there are several risks to consider. The rebels, disillusioned by the lack of support from Europe and the West, could be 'recuperated' by radicals bent on taking advantage of the situation to establish another Islamic regime. If they receive no support in the very near future, there could be literally thousands of victims. Has the democratic world really the right to ignore their call for help?
You affirm that the defence of freedom 'has garnered us nothing'. I can't believe that you are serious. We are privileged with the freedom of expressing our opinions right now because this precious freedom has always been defended, and at whatever cost. And this is exactly what Nato is doing in Afghanistan right now, because it's not a national war, it's international, it always has been, and there's no difference between the al-Qaida backlash after the Iraqi elections and the Taliban backlash after the Afghan elections. It's the same war, to defend democracy. And today defending a threatened democracy anywhere in the world is defending Democracy full stop. Which also means defending it at one's door step. Today that's precisely what it comes down to.
Complain about this comment
Whether the British Prime Minister likes it or not it will be the UN security council and the United States government who will play a primary role in establishing the political legitimacy for a no-fly zone.
The U.K does not have the military or political clout to go it alone and this appears to be nothing more than posturing on the part of Mr. Cameron.
To take any military action in Libya would only feed the properganda machine of Gaddafi and help him to perpetuate a myth the West wants to seize the countries oil reserves and colonise Libya.
Do we really want another Iraq crisis on our hands?
The Libyan people made a stand against the Gaddifi regime and it is up to them to pursue whatever course follows now.
Military intervention would only lead to enourmous cost in money, lives and political credibility.
Complain about this comment
Isn't this a wonderful opportunity for the much-vaunted European Defense Force to spring into action?
Complain about this comment
119. haufdeed
The Iraqi regime supported any movement that shared similar objectives certainly including anti-Israelian. Saddam Hussein showed no hestitation in firing as many missiles as possible on Israel, for no apparent reason. He clearly showed his disdain for any ethnical group who dared express any wish for some independence, using chemicals to do so. The list is long.
The old arguments against the Iraqi intervention are wearing so thin now to be ridiculous. The major mistake was in fact not so much getting rid of a criminal regime in Iraq, it was certainly in not going to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban two or three years prior to 11/9 in Afghanistan, and secondly in leaving Afghanistan far too soon after ousting the Taliban regime in December 2001.
The Iraqis will never cede their democracy, no matter how long the punishment from radicals continues. And they should be admired for this. Ironically (and logically) it's not the Iraqis who are anti the Anglo-Saxon incursion, it's the die-hard Americans and Europeans of a certain political tendency who endlessly continue to play the same old meaningless tune, which also shows their lack of respect for the Iraqis themselves. Because basically these tiresome critics would have much preferred an all out gruesome Iraqi civil war, just to have the satisfaction of finally being able to say, "we told you so".
Complain about this comment
123.
@Nostrono
"You affirm that the defence of freedom 'has garnered us nothing'. I can't believe that you are serious. We are privileged with the freedom of expressing our opinions right now because this precious freedom has always been defended, and at whatever cost."
Let me requalify what I stated. At no point did I say anything about "defense of freedom" unless that phrase is used euphemistically for the various Cold War and Post-Cold War military adventurism that culminated in, say, Vietnam.
I do believe in freedom. I also know, by now, that it can't be midwifed by military intervention. I applaud Mr. Obama's very cautious and behind-the-scenes maneuvering that saw Egypt transfer power legitmately, at the hands of its own people.
I've worn myself out since the Vietnam fiasco dreading these sorts of things. Let us play smart from now on. Let only those whose blood-shed is the blood shed by patriots and freedom fighters or loyalists be shed.
One more dead American is too many.
Complain about this comment
ref #119
haufdeed wrote:
118. At 5:20pm on 02 Mar 2011, MagicKirin wrote:
You are conveniatly ignoring all 4 country give or in the case of Iraq before the liberation gave active support to terrorist groups. All 4 are frequent violators of human rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
Please remind us all of the terrorist groups which Iraq actively supported before the "liberation". My memory is terrible these days.
___________
Islamic Jihad for one and terrorists groups in turkey.
Complain about this comment
#125
milwaukeeray;
"Isn't this a wonderful opportunity for the much-vaunted European Defense Force to spring into action? "
I know the EU can be pretty distant from its electorate but I think I'd remember that one.
Complain about this comment
31. At 06:15am on 02 Mar 2011, KScurmudgeon wrote:
"This looks like the paradigm of the early 21st century"
My friend,
this may be the paradigm of the early 21st Century, but it looks very much to me like a recycled paradigm from earlier periods:
1. pre-WWII unwillingness to nip Nazism in the bud when it could have been done
2. late Roman period when the civilized people were too civilized to resist the barbarians.
As in those periods, treaties and bribes were preferred to military readiness. The so civilized people looked to vigorous barbarians to save them from the other barbarians, instead of saving themselves.
I am not anti-European, but neither am I blind to their looking upon the US as the [relatively] good barbarians whose duty is to protect them from their own folly and the bad barbarians at their gates. One reason that Rome fell to the Goths was that the Goths resented being reviled and mistreated by the Romans. Europeans seem to have learned neither the need for a vigorous military, nor to treat their protector barbarians well.
Another mistake is to consider the US and its people barbaric. We resent that as much as the Romanized Goths did. We are neither uneducated nor backward in technology. A further mistake is to believe that you can revile us and then continue to expect us to defend you. Consider that you are proving Santayana's observation true, that those who do not remember their history are condemned to relive it.
Now I don't believe that all Europeans have those characteristics, certainly not in the UK and Poland, nor do all Americans have the same feelings about Europe. However, the US is clearly becoming more inward-looking, if not isolationist. Even on this very blog it is possible to read both the supercilious European views of America and the growing resentment and isolationism in some American posters.
Just consider that the US reluctance to intervene in Libya might be repeated if, say, France were dealing with a major rebellion and wanted assistance. Or if NATO were abandoned and the US washed its hands of Europe. The Poles and others know what the next "Warsaw Pact" would be like even if you don't care to remember.
If Europeans are wise, they will extrapolate, and see what a weak and/or isolationist America would really be like, and how that would most likely affect Europe.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Some Europeans still, unfortunately, view the world through rose colored glasses. A French minister has been forced to resign for offering French help to the dictatorship in Tunisia, in support of dictatorship and opposed to liberte, egalite and fraternite, not to mention democracy. In the French presidential model is it likely or even possible that this was done without the knowledge or even approval of the President of the Republic?
Add to that there is the obvious French and Italian support of Qadafi, and reluctance to help get rid of him. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to add that 2 + 2 and come up with 4. The posters who look forward to French or Italian help are in need of new glasses [to be exquisitely polite].
Complain about this comment
Victor: the US President is signalling he has a prized ace up sleeves
----------
We always have a prized ace up our sleeve...
Which is why its nice to surprise when so many underestimate us...
----------
Spinyfish: The US should NEVER intervene militarily unless we are directly threatened.
----------
Well, also if our allies like Europe, Austraila or others are directly threatened...
------------
Mark: Military intervention would only lead to enourmous cost in money, lives and political credibility.
--------------
And how do we know the protesters are even pro-Western?
Even if we helped them, they could turn on us real quick...
Complain about this comment
Jmm: In the French presidential model is it likely or even possible that this was done without the knowledge or even approval of the President of the Republic?
----------------
It is possible...backwards, backwoods deals and all that...
-------------
Jmm: Add to that there is the obvious French and Italian support of Qadafi, and reluctance to help get rid of him. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to add that 2 + 2 and come up with 4. The posters who look forward to French or Italian help are in need of new glasses [to be exquisitely polite].
---------------
Is that simply b/c of the oil?
Or is there another reason why they are reluctant?
Complain about this comment
129. At 8:31pm on 02 Mar 2011, champagne_charlie wrote:
#125
milwaukeeray;
"Isn't this a wonderful opportunity for the much-vaunted European Defense Force to spring into action? "
I know the EU can be pretty distant from its electorate but I think I'd remember that one.
Oops! I guess it never really got off the ground.
Complain about this comment
Time for the Euros to show us how to lead...
......waiting......
Complain about this comment
130. At 10:35pm on 02 Mar 2011, JMM wrote:
..................If Europeans are wise, they will extrapolate, and see what a weak and/or isolationist America would really be like, and how that would most likely affect Europe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Very well put..If Euros say they hate the US and it's people long enough...The US will believe you...
Barbarians at the Gate is a great analogy for the situation...In my humble estimation..it would take 1 generation before Europe would default into a meat grinder...If the US took our hands off the "self destruct" button that Europe seems unable to keep jumping up and down on...
...be careful what you wish for...you just may get it..
Complain about this comment
31. At 06:15am on 02 Mar 2011, KScurmudgeon wrote:
This looks like the paradigm of the early 21st century:
.........I have been reading some things by Theodore Roosevelt lately. Foolish me.
.....................................
TR was a great man and a visonary beyond most people's understanding. It is by his leadership that the US is at the world stage at the level it is now....
I would dare say that if we had leadership of his quality for the last 100 years...the US and the World would be a much better place for all..
......sadly...it seems a quality leader comes to power in the US only once or twice in a 100 years....God our system for picking leadership really sucks the big one...
Complain about this comment
137. At 02:55am on 03 Mar 2011, CuriousAmerican wrote:
Time for the Euros to show us how to lead...
......waiting......
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Did you see the title of this thread?
Complain about this comment
Gaddafi: I am the asset of Libya, not the American dollar."
If a value of US$ goes down I start buying the currency.
If value of Gaddafi goes down, well...
Complain about this comment
139. At 04:45am on 03 Mar 2011, CuriousAmerican wrote:
......sadly...it seems a quality leader comes to power in the US only once or twice in a 100 years....God our system for picking leadership really sucks the big one...
----------------------
I've been thinking about that - seems the frequency is around 70 years - right back to the beginning. Trace them back.
KSc
Complain about this comment
135. At 00:44am on 03 Mar 2011, LucyJ wrote:
Is that simply b/c of the oil?
Or is there another reason why they are reluctant?
--------------------
The moral paralysis of an utterly secular state. They are, as I see them, without hope.
KScurmugeon
Complain about this comment
130. At 10:35pm on 02 Mar 2011, JMM wrote:
...
2. late Roman period when the civilized people were too civilized to resist the barbarians.
-----------------------
Ah, I know them well. Thank you - I do understand it now.
KSc
Complain about this comment
130. At 10:35pm on 02 Mar 2011, JMM wrote:
...
2. late Roman period when the civilized people were too civilized to resist the barbarians.
Interestingly nobody wants to comment on yet another example of a deadly attack on Christians by Muslim fundamentalists.
[This time in Pakistan (surprise, surprise).]
Complain about this comment
#144
kscurmudgeon;
"The moral paralysis of an utterly secular state. They are, as I see them, without hope."
So you want the Christian God, and/or the Catholic church, to steer their moral compass towards taking military action in a Muslim country? Sounds like a Crusade to me.
Complain about this comment
* 138. At 03:27am on 03 Mar 2011, CuriousAmerican wrote:
130. At 10:35pm on 02 Mar 2011, JMM wrote:
..................If Europeans are wise, they will extrapolate, and see what a weak and/or isolationist America would really be like, and how that would most likely affect Europe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Very well put..If Euros say they hate the US and it's people long enough...The US will believe you...
Barbarians at the Gate is a great analogy for the situation...In my humble estimation..it would take 1 generation before Europe would default into a meat grinder...If the US took our hands off the "self destruct" button that Europe seems unable to keep jumping up and down on...
...be careful what you wish for...you just may get it..
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Hmm...."self destruct button that Europe keeps jumping up and down on". It seems to me the only country that are adamant on self destruction is the US, getting its nose involved in many other nations business when it shouldn't. Starting two wars it shouldn't have, at almost the same time and with no real hope of winning.
Complain about this comment
Re #138 Curious American...
Shia vs. Sunni, the Flemish vs. Walloons, Croats vs. Serbs, Basques vs. the French, Catalans vs. Spaniards, Kurds vs. Turks, Chechens and Dagestanis vs. Russians, Ossies vs. Wessies...
And what else is new?
Complain about this comment
The military statement over Libya by Cameron has given the game away. The USA and UK being the most aggressive of the imperialist powers are in panic over the Arab revolution and are urgently considering their possibilities over the situation. In Egypt they have been given at least a temporary reprieve in backing the military and police dictatorship in the hope that this will keep Israel and their capitalist interests safe. They have backed all of the Arab dictatorships over decades to protect oil and military interests. However any Arab nation that does not play ball with the USA and UK brings the wroth of their ruling class down upon them (e.g. Iraq). In the case of Libya the western imperialists have for some time wanted to take control over the oil there. That is why they calling for the regime change - not because they are interested in democracy - far from it.
Complain about this comment
Re #148 "It seems to me the only country that are adamant on self destruction is the US, getting its nose involved in many other nations business when it shouldn't. Starting two wars it shouldn't have"
WWI and WWII?
Or the Korean and Balkan War?
Complain about this comment
132. JMM
The French Foreign Minister who boobed, was Alliot-Marie. At the outset of the revolt, without presidential authorisation she wrongly proposed help to Ben Ali. She has also been accused by the Socialists of accepting his hospitality, use of his private jet, etc., for a vacation, well before the revolt.
As to the affirmation that Sarkozy supports Gaddafi, this is not true. On the contrary, he was the first to call on the UE to suspend all economic and financial relations with Tripoli and he demanded 'concrete sanctions'.
Even Berlusconi, who has closer relations with Libya due to immigration control and trade agreements, and the obvious historic colonial ties, never hesitated in criticising the brutal reaction of the Libyan leader.
Best to check the facts before voicing opinions that during such critical periods could add to the confusion or have negative consequences.
http://www.lepoint.fr/reactions/monde.php?article=libye-la-colere-de-sarkozy-contre-kadhafi-23-02-2011-1298577_24
Complain about this comment
150. David.
As already mentioned, this argument is dated and wearing very thin. The West has already clearly demonstrated that the objective of any military engagement to 'liberate' oil rich nations from tyrannic regimes is not to possess or control the petrol resources of such States, but to liberate and stabilise them. The defence of the Iraqi and the Afghan democracies still threatened by radicals, amounts to the same war.
The dictatorships and monarchies that have been backed, including the latter of Saudi Arabia and the former of Egypt, have also been for reasons of maintaining relative stability in vast regions where this is absolutely necessary. Whatever ones political tendency, one can't really regard them as tyrannic regimes.
The same principle naturally applies to Libya. Obviously the world cannot tolerate an irresponsible, murdering megalomaniac as a leader of an oil rich State. Needless to add political stability also determines commercial stability regarding petrol prices which consequently determine the price of everything.
The Iranian regime is another problem that sooner or later the democratic world will have to contend with, assuming the problem can't be solved by the Iranian people themselves.
Complain about this comment
132. JMM
The French Foreign Minister who boobed, was Alliot-Marie. At the outset of the revolt, without presidential authorisation she wrongly proposed help to Ben Ali. She has also been accused by the Socialists of accepting his hospitality, use of his private jet, etc., for a vacation, well before the revolt.
As to the affirmation that Sarkozy supports Gaddafi, this is not true. On the contrary, he was the first to call on the UE to suspend all economic and financial relations with Tripoli and he demanded 'concrete sanctions'.
Even Berlusconi, who has closer relations with Libya due to immigration control and trade agreements, and the obvious historic colonial ties, never hesitated in criticising the brutal reaction of the Libyan leader.
Best to check the facts before voicing opinions that during such critical periods could add to the confusion or have negative consequences.
(I included an article from Le Point regarding 'the anger of Sarkozy', but there may be a problem regarding the publication of such a link).
Complain about this comment
151. At 09:06am on 03 Mar 2011, powermeerkat wrote:
Re #148 "It seems to me the only country that are adamant on self destruction is the US, getting its nose involved in many other nations business when it shouldn't. Starting two wars it shouldn't have"
WWI and WWII?
Or the Korean and Balkan War?
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Expand on that
Complain about this comment
147. At 08:28am on 03 Mar 2011, champagne_charlie wrote:
#144
kscurmudgeon;
"The moral paralysis of an utterly secular state. They are, as I see them, without hope."
So you want the Christian God, and/or the Catholic church, to steer their moral compass towards taking military action in a Muslim country? Sounds like a Crusade to me.
-----------------------------------
So you would ban a Christian country, because it was Christian, from aiding a Muslim country, because it was Muslim? Because of a historical precedent of Christians attacking Muslims? And how did the Muslims get into Spain, I wonder?
But that was not the point.
My point was (just an observation from the facts) that mature secular nations are paralyzed into inaction because they no longer can tell right from wrong - they have lost the power of discrimination. This may be to their internal advantage, but they make lousy friends.
Once, France had an enemy and knew the shape of the world. Now that we have removed their enemy for them, they are once again 'too civilized to defend themselves', to borrow a good phrase.
only my opinion -
KSc
Complain about this comment
Re 'traditional enemies' and bygones being bygones.
Some can accept and some obviously cannot.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12634176
Complain about this comment
156. KSc
Interesting point.
But in my modest opinion, throughout history human nature never changes, it only adapts to technological and scientific progress. Therefore theories that nations such as those of Europe today can no longer tell right from wrong, would be nonsense.
Most of us would like to see perhaps a more subtle English version of Rambo go in and get rid of the Libyan madman, but obviously it's not that simple.
It's also an error, and shows a lack of discernment, to believe that the French 'are too civilised to defend themselves'.
The charges of crimes against humanity that could be brought against Gaddafi by an International tribune, might well be part of the solution to finally get rid of him. And if his sons are also implicated, it could determine the end of the regime, without any military intervention. But if the thousands of Libyans who want to oust Gaddafi are calling for a UN intervention, and are in real, imminent danger of being crushed
by Gaddafi's supporters and the African mercenaries hired by Gaddafi, and the call is ignored, Ban Ki-Moon and the eminent UN delegates could have a great deal to answer for if fate proves that the danger was very real.
Complain about this comment
#156
kscurmudgeon;
I'm sorry I'm a bit lost.You are mixing up a whole bunch of arguments and I dont know where to begin responding to it. That the French make lousy friends is a given however.
Complain about this comment
At the end of the day it'll all be about oil supply, or lack of it.If it continues to flow the US will probably be content to take a back seat, if it stops flowing and it begins to affect them then you can be pretty sure they'll get involved in some form or another. It'll be interesting to see where the money comes from if Britain does get involved though.
Complain about this comment
160. At 5:20pm on 03 Mar 2011, maliman wrote:
"At the end of the day it'll all be about oil supply, or lack of it.If it continues to flow the US will probably be content to take a back seat, ..."
_________
Libya only supplies 2% of world oil, and only 5% of Libya's oil goes to the US. The US currently uses roughly 25% of the world's oil supply, so clearly US dependence on the availability of Libyan oil is, at present, insignificant.
The oil industry can, apparently, get a favourable hearing whenever it want's military intervention, and yet when what it is about is preventing the murder of civilians we can be selectively deaf.
If the justification for intervention is oil, then I have no time for it.
In this case, the justification for lending a hand is to aid people who are seeking basic human rights, and who are having trouble bringing a murderous criminal to justice.
When we defend justice, we serve our interests.
That is why we should be doing it. We have a long term interest in the peace, stability, and prosperity that goes hand-in-hand with the spread of open democratic government - and dries up support for radical thinking of all kinds. That is the big security issue of our times.
Complain about this comment
Pmk: Interestingly nobody wants to comment on yet another example of a deadly attack on Christians by Muslim fundamentalists.
[This time in Pakistan (surprise, surprise).]
---------
I will comment...
From stories like this one about the Christian govt. man who was murdered in Pak and also the story of the American diplomat who is still stuck in jail in Pakistan and they refuse to release, it leads me to the conclusion that in my personal opinion Pakistan is the biggest current hotbed for potential Islamic extremism...
Of course who knows how many potential Islamic extremists there are across the ME?
We can't just go around into all these countries arresting ppl, now can we? Course' not...
We can keep sending drones, but its more complicated and widespread than that..
President Obama wants to win them over with grand speeches/gestures...
I think we all know that there is no possible way to win over ppl who have it set in their minds to hate us and r bound and determined to come after us b/c they think it will lead them to Heaven...
However, for Pakistan we have to look at it differently than the other ME countries b/c Pak has nukes...
And who knew (I didn't until that story PMK provided from BBC) that insulting Islam in Pakistan coudl lead to death penalty?
(a whole lot different than good ole' USA where we have freedom of speech)
Congress, I know u r focused on Libya right now, but you better pay attention to Pakistan, cause' its the next big one...
Complain about this comment
I think its time for a big fireball...
Complain about this comment
107 MacTurk wrote:
Ultimately, the world does not really care what Cameron says. Britain does not the ability to act on its own, and so should really shut up. Britain is a semi-member of the EU, while also clinging desperately to a "Special Relationship" with the US that increasingly the US does not recognise. It needs to discover where it wants to be, then commit to that. Geography would be a useful guide there.
---------------------------------------------------
This another post from the view of an american with the "the world is the USA" perspective ie;"the world does not care what Cameron thinks".
The usa needs to understand that there are political,economical,and ..yes military associations and collaborations among major nations and even continents, where the US has no say, no power, and hardly any relevance whatsoever.
Of course immediately i refer to the British Commonwealth consisting of no less than 54 soveriegn states. Countries spread across the globe of which each has the british Monarch as head of state. I think that is a more than usefull geographical guide as to where Britain needs to be or should i say IS.
Britain is not on its own and never will be, i doubt the US has that guarantee. Great Britain is a major member of the European block. That together with ties to the British Commonwealth of Nations, i think gives th UK a voice.
This mythical special relationship the uk "desperately clings to" is just that. I for one do not recognise any special relationship with the US, any Brit in the street will answer the same.
Complain about this comment
163. At 10:36pm on 03 Mar 2011, LucyJ wrote:
I think its time for a big fireball...
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
The standard US solution. Lets blow up the problem away.
Complain about this comment
165 Tony of Britain wrote:
163. At 10:36pm on 03 Mar 2011, LucyJ wrote:
I think its time for a big fireball...
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
The standard US solution. Lets blow up the problem away.
----------------------------------------------------
After which leave it up to the hollywood guys, to produce the usual hero
bull.... movie.
Complain about this comment
crash wrote:
"I shrink with embarrassment every time i hear a scot talk as if Scotland could survive without English tax payers support"
Heard this falsehood on numurous occasions with absolutely no prove whatsoever to back it up. Do you have any?
SONICBOOMER wrote:
"So why not press your boy Alex (never missed a meal) Salmond to call a referendum for Scots independence, as he said he would right after the 2010 election? What's that? Polls showing less than 30% support for it?"
Salmond tried to call the referundum but couldn't get the bill through parlaiment - voted down by the opposition. Try to keep up instead of cherry picking.
Complain about this comment
General James Mattis, head of US central command, said such an operation would be challenging: "You would have to remove air defence capability in order to establish a no-fly zone."
Clearly, we cannot do this. This is tantamount to a state of war. We are at war with enough nations already.
Complain about this comment
Just another example of our ham fisted disgraceful Prime Minister's determination to hit the headlines at any cost. He is both fool hardy and ignorant.
Complain about this comment
169. Pamela Read wrote:
Just another example of our ham fisted disgraceful Prime Minister's determination to hit the headlines at any cost. He is both fool hardy and ignorant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
168. General James Mattis, head of US central command, said such an operation would be challenging: "You would have to remove air defence capability in order to establish a no-fly zone."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it need an illustrious general to state the obvious? Will Cameron now be slapping his forehead thinking "Oh dear,why did'nt i think of that".
Cameron certainly is not ignorant or ham fisted, but surely would be fool hardy as a PM not considering each option. Get real.
Complain about this comment
156. At 11:32am on 03 Mar 2011, KScurmudgeon wrote RE
147. At 08:28am on 03 Mar 2011, champagne_charlie”
“once, France had an enemy and knew the shape of the world. Now that we have removed their enemy for them, they are once again 'too civilized to defend themselves', to borrow a good phrase.”
On a number of occasions, I have said something rather like this. I think it is a valid point that can be debated. If pressed, however, I would admit that it is a polemic in need of more nuance.
Since 1789, the US has had one government, one constitution and a fairly consistent world view and “modus operandi.”
In the same period, France has gone from “Ancien Regime” monarchy, to constitutional monarchy, to republic, to dictatorship, to Empire, to Bourbon Restoration monarchy, to Orleanist revolutionary monarchy, to republic, to dictatorship, to Empire, to republic again [which ignores the localized Paris Commune and Vichy fascist dictatorship].
The French, nevertheless, attempt to criticize Americans as to democracy, revolution and policy. However, despite these regime changes, French national policy has been quite consistent, which policy has acquired a French name though it is much older, Chauvinism.
France always acts in the interest of France, and in accordance with the prevailing ideology or regime. France never pays much attention to the interest or opinions of allies or friends, including NATO and the EU.
France is always prone to hypocrisy, accusing the US and UK of imperialism and interventionism, while having neither scruples nor aversion to doing so itself [especially in the not quite former French colonies in Africa] as can be seen in the recent scandal surrounding attempted intervention to support dictatorship in Tunisia and in frequent interventions and French supported or imposed regime changes since “independence.”
Therefore the criticism of French inability or unwillingness to defend itself depends to a greater or lesser degree on the prevailing ideology and the perception of what “French interests” are in a specific situation. While the French might not have a problem with Russian interference in Poland or the Baltic States, France would bluster and try to take action if any of its perceived “interests” were affected. French business interests in Iraq are at least as important in explaining French opposition to the US invasion as French ideological anti-Americanism.
The idea that France is America's oldest friend and ally is historically untenable, and is a result of France, in pursuit of its national interest, promoting this perception so as to gain support for its international positions. This was necessary, considering outright French hostility from the Genet affair through the Civil War.
The propaganda effort was undertaken by France as soon as America was recognized as a great power, and French predominance in Europe was seen to be fading, that is, about 1900. At the same time, France found it necessary to modify its historic hostility toward Britain, creating the "Entante Cordiale" in 1904.
That, at least, is how I see it, but the points are debatable.
Complain about this comment
"While the French might not have a problem with Russian interference in Poland or the Baltic States, France would bluster and try to take action if any of its perceived “interests” were affected."
And that's why France has decided to take an action (despite an international criticism) and sell assault helicopter ships to Russia, although they could be used against Georgia. Or Azerbaijan.
Complain about this comment
Pmk: And that's why France has decided to take an action (despite an international criticism) and sell assault helicopter ships to Russia, although they could be used against Georgia. Or Azerbaijan.
--------
I guess France and some of the European countries don't care about hte countries that are in between them and Russia?
Is there some sort of 'secret agreement' not to get involved with the countries Russia wants to claim as its own?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS