Libya, an International Coalition, the United Nations, and Getting a Grip

This isn't, as I've said often, a political blog. But, like it or not, politics is involved in the decision-making process of countries. Most countries, anyway.

Which is why I bring up 'political' topics sometimes.

But, again, this isn't a political blog. Not in the sense that I claim that one person or party is always right - and that everybody who disagrees is

• Stupid
• A Traitor
  
• One of those
  • Tools of the military-industrial complex
  • Commie 5th columnists
  • Shape-shifting, space-alien lizard men

Or something even more imaginative. (February 8, 2009)

Libya, Diplomacy, and a Tale of Two Presidents

An American president leads a coalition of nations including:

• Canada
• France
• Italy
• Qatar
• The United Kingdom
  (Scoop News)

I've heard it discussed on television news as a wise and prudent diplomatic move by a knowledgeable leader.

To a limited extent, I can agree with that. Let's look at another administration.

An American president leads a coalition of nations including:

• Albania
• Armenia
• Australia
• Azerbaijan
• Bosnia-Herzegovina
• Bulgaria
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• El Salvador
• Estonia
• Fiji (though UNAMI)
• Georgia
• Hungary (through NATO or UNAMI, and may never have sent troops before 'withdrawing' them in 2004)
• Iceland (through NATO, a training mission)
• Japan
• Kazakhstan
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Macedonia
• Moldova
• Mongolia
• Poland
• Portugal
• Romania
• Singapore
• Slovenia (through NATO, a training mission)
• South Korea
• Turkey (through NATO, a training mission)
• the Ukraine
• the United Kingdom
  (August 9, 2007)

This "unilateral" action threatened to sink America in a "quagmire." (August 9, 2007) Some of America's serious thinkers said so.

Well, that was different.

Libya, Diplomacy, Common Sense, and Business as Usual

I'm an American citizen, eligible to vote, and take civic duty seriously. Every two years I wade through the usual slogans, weird claims, and assorted flavors of hot air: and try to pick candidates I think are least-unlike what I'd like to see elected.

I didn't vote for the current American president: but I don't think he's evil incarnate, either. I even think he's made sense now and again.

Like this week, adding America's abilities to an international coalition that might prevent the Libyan colonel from killing more of his subjects.

Do I think

• The American president can do no wrong?
  • Of course not.
• The American president never does anything right?
  • Of course not
    • I'm not running for office, or working for someone who is
      • And that's another topic
• It was a good idea to work with an international coalition, when using military force against a dictator?
  • Yes
    • I thought it was a good idea when a previous administration took that approach
    • I haven't changed my mind

Why a Coalition?

Working under a United Nations Security Council resolution, with a coalition of nations - including at least one in the Middle East - makes good sense, in my opinion.

The Libyan colonel could, if America was 'going it alone' against his efforts to kill people who don't agree, claim that the evil Americans had launched a conquest of Libya. And that the military action was an unprovoked attack on Libya, the Middle East, and Islam.

Quite a few folks would, I think, buy that line.

The colonel may take that line, anyway: but it's going to be a harder sell, with the armed forces of so many countries involved.

Does this mean that I think the American president did everything right? No. That would be - unlikely, to put it mildly. Perfection and human nature are a somewhat unlikely mix - and that's almost another topic.

For starters, in an ideal situation - the president would have gotten this action going a lot sooner. Ideally.

Earlier today, I heard someone say "the perfect is the enemy of the 'it'll do.' "

A Few Predictions

I'd like to be wrong about this: but I'm pretty sure that coalition attacks on Libya will kill some civilians. Some of those dead bodies will be people who really were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or - willingly or not - deliberately set themselves up to be killed when military targets were hit.

War, as I'll say again, isn't nice. Things get broken and people get killed.

But I'm not quite nice enough to wish that the Libyan colonel's enforcers were free to kill folks in Benghazi. More folks, actually.

I think it's possible that some of the dead bodies will be folks who said that the colonel wasn't a good leader - or members of their families. It'd be a practical application of the old 'killing two birds with one stone' principle.

Excerpts from the News

"Thousands of Libyans packed into Muammar Gaddafi's heavily fortified Tripoli compound on Saturday to form a human shield against possible air strikes by allied forces.

"Fireworks erupted into the night sky and people fired defiant shots into the air at the compound after allied warplanes went into action in eastern Libya to stop the Libyan leader's forces attacking the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

"Libyans from all walks of life streamed into the Bab Al-Aziziyah compound, shouting slogans and holding portraits of Gaddafi. Loudspeakers boomed songs praising the leader...."
(Reuters Africa)

---

"The US, Britain and France have pounded Libya with air strikes and Tomahawk missiles, sparking a furious response from Muammar Gaddafi who said the Mediterranean had now become a 'battlefield.'

"United States and British forces fired at least 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libya's air defence sites, a top US military officer said, two days after a UN Security Council resolution with Arab backing authorised military action.

"Libyan state media said that Western warplanes bombed civilian targets in Tripoli, causing casualties while an army spokesman said strikes also hit fuel tanks feeding the rebel-held city of Misrata, east of Tripoli...."
(The Sydney Morning Herald)

---

"The U.S. military has launched its first missiles in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi's forces, a senior Defense Department official said Saturday.

"Earlier, French fighter jets deployed over Libya fired at a military vehicle on Saturday, the country's first strike against Moammar Gadhafi's military forces who earlier attacked the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

"U.S. Tomahawk missiles have landed in the western area around Tripoli and Misrata, the American military official said...."
(CNN)

---

"U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said U.S. forces were poised for action in Libya, but made clear Washington was determined to play a supporting role in military action there.

As French warplanes began operations over Libya to stop Muammar Gaddafi's attacks on rebels, Obama said military forces would act quickly to shield civilians from the fighting.

"The international community demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to all attacks against civilians," Obama said during an appearance in Brasilia with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff...."
(Edition: U.S., Reuters)

---

"...6:59 PM Spectator1: A US-led coalition has launched cruise missile and airstrikes against Gaddafi controlled air defences in what is called Operation 'Odyssey Dawn'.
"6:59 PM Spectator1: The coalition includes forces from the US, UK, France, Canada, Italy, Qatar."
(Scoop News)

Related posts:

• "Ivory Coast, Cote d'Ivoire: Bodies in the Street"
  (March 19, 2011)
• "Libya, an Alleged Cease-Fire, and Diplomacy"
  (March 18, 2011)
• "Bahrain, Foreign Troops, and - Maybe - the Last Stand of Kings"
  (March 18, 2011)
• "Libya: United Nations Resolution; and Unpleasantness Ahead"
  (March 17, 2011)
• "Libya: American President's 'Childish,' But Not 'Unilateral' "
  (March 7, 2011)

News and views:

• "Libyans form human shield at Gaddafi's compound"
  Michael Georgy, Reuters Africa (March 19, 2011)
• "West pounds Libya, Gaddafi vows to fight"
  Imed Lamloum, The Sydney Morning Herald (March 20, 2011) (mem. International Dateline)
• "U.S. launches first missiles against Gadhafi forces"
  CNN (March 19, 2011)
• "Obama, Clinton stress U.S. supporting role in Libya"
  Edition: U.S., Reuters (March 19, 2011)
• "International Coalition Strikes Against Libya Begin"
  Scoop News (scoop.co.nz) (March 18(?), 2011)

So: He Set His Shoe on Fire? Excitement on Flight 663

---

Updated (11:27 p.m. Central Time, April 7, 2010)

"No Explosives Found in Denver Flight Scare"
FOXNews (April 7, 2010)

"A Qatari diplomat trying to sneak a smoke in an airplane bathroom sparked a bomb scare Wednesday night on a flight from Washington to Denver, with fighter jets scrambled and law enforcement put on high alert, officials said.

"A source confirmed to Fox News that the suspect is Mohammed Al-Madadi, a diplomat in the Qatar embassy in Washington.

"No explosives were found on Al-Madadi and officials do not believe he was trying to harm anyone, according to senior law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"The sources asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing investigation...."

Okay - this makes a little more sense. Except for folks who are convinced that almost everything is some sort of conspiracy.

My confidence in the BBC is a little shaken by this - although they did put 'shoe bomb' in single quotes for their headline.

The flurry of reports around the world is a pretty good reminder to study the news - and remember that reporters and editors get excited sometimes, too.

---

You can't make up this sort of thing, folks:

" 'Shoe bomb' attempt on US plane"
BBC (April 8, 2010) (I know: It's almost 10:00 p.m., Central - it's tomorrow on the other side of the Atlantic)

"A man has been detained after he tried to set fire to his shoes on a US flight, reports say.

"The man was subdued on United flight 663 from Washington Reagan airport to Denver, ABC news reported...."

"...AN ABC report identified the suspect as a Qatari diplomat stationed at the country's Washington embassy."

An Australian publication was a little less restrained:

"Qatari diplomat tried to light shoe bomb on US jet: report"
The Sydney Morning Herald (April 8, 2010)

"US federal air marshals have subdued a Qatari diplomat who tried to detonate a shoe bomb aboard a flight from Washington to Denver, US media reported.

"Authorities have identified the passenger as Mohammed al-Modadi, who has full diplomatic immunity as the third secretary and vice-consul of the Qatari embassy in Washington, ABC News reported...."

I'm waiting for the formal complaint at the United Nations, about the gross insensitivity of those Americans.

And an explanation that setting fire to your shoes is part of the rich cultural heritage of Qatar.

Or, not.

Seriously? My guess is that Qatar will want some sort of apology for the way their diplomat was mistreated - and may get it.

I've written about diplomatic immunity before. Including this excerpt from December 25, 2009:

"We're between news cycles right now, in terms of "diplomatic immunity." They don't come often - but I expect, in a few years, or maybe a decade or so, to start reading about shenanigans in New York City, or another major city, of diplomats who realize that they

• "Don't have to have their chauffeurs obey the traffic and parking regulations that commoners do
• "Can hit people if they want to:
  • "Reporters
  • "Waiters
  • "Ugly, common, unimportant people

"You get the picture.

"Not all diplomats are like that, of course. Most, I trust, understand what 'diplomatic immunity' is for: and don't use it as a sort of 'get out of jail free' card.

"But diplomats are human beings. And, some human beings are jerks.

"And a jerk with diplomatic immunity - or any sense of entitlement - gets to be a big jerk mighty fast...."

I see I didn't do much of a job, discussing what diplomatic immunity is for. Briefly, over-simplifying it: Without diplomatic immunity, diplomats would be at the mercy of whoever is running the country they're in. They could be arrested for having their ties on crooked, or wearing the wrong color shirt, or whatever. I rather hope that an American government wouldn't pull a stunt like that - but it's not inconceivable. And some other countries are not quite as picky as America is, about how they use their law enforcement. And not all police forces are just like America's. (February 19, 2010)

Diplomatic immunity isn't anything new. And, although it won't stop a petty king or goofy dictator from acting badly - it does encourage decent behavior.

Then, now and again, you get a diplomat who is a jerk. Or, possibly, this time, a wannabe martyr/terrorist.

As to why Mohammed al-Modadi set his shoe on fire? I have no idea. Maybe it really was a bomb. Maybe he thought Mickey Mouse was inside - and that it was his duty to destroy the infidel. (See "Mickey Mouse Must Die! Agent of Satan Targeted by Saudi Cleric" (September 19, 2008)) Maybe it really is a cherished Qatari custom - but I doubt it.Related posts:

• ""Simple Guards", Indecent Gestures, and the Dark Side of Diplomatic Immunity"
  (December 25, 2009)

---

A tip of the hat to ZephyrK9, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this latest bit of lunacy.