Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Dead Syrians, Stability, and Getting a Grip

First, some news and views. Then I'll opine a bit.
"U.N. observers in Syria see gruesome evidence of a new massacre"
Los Angeles Times (June 8, 2012)

"Bullet-pocked homes and bloodstained walls. Shell casings littering the ground in a ghost town still smoldering from the onslaught.

"A United Nations observer team on Friday finally reached the site of Syria's latest apparent massacre, a now-abandoned farming village where opposition activists accuse pro-government forces of killing dozens of civilians this week in an artillery bombardment and grisly door-to-door executions.

" 'Young children, infants, my brother, his wife and seven children … all dead,' said a grieving man in a video distributed by the U.N. 'I will show you the blood. They burned his house.'..."
"The U.N.'s Syria disaster"
The Post's View, The Washington Post (June 8, 2012)

"THIS MAY BE remembered as the week in which the illusion that the bloodshed in Syria could be stopped by United Nations diplomats was destroyed once and for all. Inside the country, the killing sharply and sickeningly accelerated. In Washington, U.N. envoy Kofi Annan finally had to acknowledge that his calamitous peace initiative, which has provided the United States and its allies with an excuse for inaction for the past 11 weeks, 'may be dead.'

"Mr. Annan's concession was forced in part by the latest massacre by a government-backed militia. In a village near Hama, some 80 people were butchered and their homes burned...."
"In Its Unyielding Stance on Syria, Russia Takes Substantial Risks in Middle East"
Ellen Barry, News Analysis, The New York Times (June 8, 2012)

"MOSCOW - The international deadlock over Syria has, in a dreadful way, provided balm for old grievances in this city. After years of fuming about Western-led campaigns to force leaders from power, Russia has seized the opportunity to make its point heard.

"This time, its protests cannot be set aside as they were when NATO began airstrikes in Libya or when Western-led coalitions undertook military assaults in Iraq and Serbia. Instead, the international community has come to Russia’s doorstep.

" On Friday, a top State Department official visited Moscow, presumably seeking to persuade the Kremlin to reconsider its stance and contribute to an effort to engineer a transition from the rule of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a longtime Russian ally. In remarks after the meeting, Russia's top negotiator was implacable, telling a reporter that Moscow’s position was 'a matter of principle.'

"Russia's leaders have said repeatedly that their goal is to guard against instability, not to support Mr. Assad...."
"United Nations frets about 'sitting duck' monitors in Syria"
Tim Witcher, The Daily Star (UK) (June 9, 2012)

"The United Nations is increasingly worried about the unarmed observers it has sent into Syria to monitor the war between President Bashar Assad's troops and opposition rebels.

"The U.N. Supervision Mission in Syria is caught between hostile troops accused of firing at its patrols and increasingly bitter Syrians who cannot understand why it has not halted the bloodshed, officials said.

"Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, likened the monitors to '300 sitting ducks in a shooting gallery, one IED from a disaster,' at a recent U.N. Security Council meeting...."
The Los Angeles Times seems to be doing fairly straightforward reporting. And, sadly, Syria's boss has another mass death of civilians to explain.

The Washington Post's op-ed may have something to do with the upcoming November presidential election: or not. Either way, it looks like the W.P. has decided that asking Syria's boss to start acting nice isn't working.

The New York Times' op-ed seems to imply that (nice) Russia is protecting the world against the (nasty) west:
"...After years of fuming about Western-led campaigns to force leaders from power, Russia has seized the opportunity to make its point heard...."
(The New York Times)
I could be wrong about that, of course.

The Daily Star brings up an important point: the U.N. observers are in an awkward position. Folks in Syria understandably seem to want the observers to 'do something.' Which is frustrating, since the U.N. observers are doing just that: observing.

And since even Syria's neighbors don't particularly like outsiders observing what happens to Syrians when they're not properly appreciative of Asad, the U.N. observers are under attack themselves.

What continues to impress me about the situation in Syria is that, as far as I've seen, nobody's figured out a way to blame the Jews. As I've said before:
"...this is, I think, a hopeful sign. Maybe more folks are starting to consider the idea of living with neighbors: instead of killing them.

"It's a start, and that's yet another topic."
(May 26, 2012)
Finally, about Russia's decision to defend Asad's regime: Stability is nice. But it seems to me that Syrians who aren't on Asad's 'preferred' list don't want "stability." They want a government that doesn't kill its own citizens.

I think that's a reasonable desire.

Somewhat-related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Killings in Houla: There's Hope in What Wasn't Said

This is bad news. Tragic.
"Syria crisis: Houla child massacre confirmed by UN"
BBC News (May 26, 2012)
"UN observers have counted at least 90 bodies, including 32 children, after a Syrian government attack on a town...."
But what isn't in this article makes me cautiously hopeful. I'll get back to that.

I'm covering quite a bit of ground in this post:

Houla Killings: Real? Very Likely

Interestingly, Syria's boss isn't claiming that the killings in Houla didn't happen: or that the place doesn't really exist. Maybe Syria's leadership learned about keeping a story plausible, after that experience in 2007. (October 17, 2007, September 23, 2007, September 18, 2007)

A major problem with denying that anybody got hurt in Houla is that someone took video of the aftermath:
"...Horrific video footage has emerged from Houla of dozens of dead children, covered in blood, their arms and legs strewn over one another. It is unverified, but our correspondent says such images would be difficult to fake.

"International media cannot report freely in Syria and it is impossible to verify reports of violence.

"A team of UN observers visited the town on Saturday and afterwards Maj-Gen Mood said they could confirm 'the use of small arms, machine gun[s], artillery and tanks.'

"But he did not say who was behind the killings.
(BBC News)
I hope the BBC correspondent is a bit more sophisticated than the folks at Reuters, who didn't spot what may be the worst bit of botched digital editing outside 'Photoshop 101' classes. I've posted about that before:
(Back to the list of headings)

Who's Said What

Here's a summary of comments on the houla killings, according to the BBC:
  • UN mission head Maj-Gen Robert Mood
    • "Indiscriminate"
    • "Unforgivable"
  • UK Foreign Secretary William Hague
    • An "appalling crime"
  • UN chief Ban Ki-moon
    • A "flagrant violation of international law"
  • Syria's government
    • The fault of "armed terrorist gangs"
  • "Activists"
    • The result of
      • shelling
      • Summary executions
      • Butchery by the regime militia known as the "shabiha"
  • Arab League head Nabil al-Arabi
    • A "horrific crime"
(Back to the list of headings)

Words and Actions

Those folks in Houla are dead, and nothing's going to change that. But in circumstances like this, survivors often expect some sort of action to be taken. Or at least an official statement to get drafted. Here's what we've got so far, apparently:
  • UN-Arab League peace envoy Kofi Annan, and the Arab League
    • Condemned Friday's assault
  • France's Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius Fabius
    • Making immediate arrangements for a Paris meeting of the Friends of Syria group
  • 250 UN observers
    • Observing
Giving credit where credit is due, the UN observers seem to have at least been keeping score:
"...The UN says at least 10,000 have been killed since the protests began...."
(BBC News)
Tempting as it is to write something sarcastic about arranging a meeting in Paris, I won't. Just 'doing something' can be effective in action movies: but this is real life.

Quite a few people in quite a few countries have to figure out what can and should be done. Maybe Paris is a place where the folks involved won't get into an argument over what city the discussion should be held in.

(Back to the list of headings)

Friends of Syria

That "Friends of Syria" outfit include Western and Arab nations, but not Russia or China. Russia and China don't seem to like the idea of sanctioning Syria's current boss, and have blocked United Nations sanctions before.

I'll grant that whether or not sanctions work in situations like this is debatable, and that's another topic.

(Back to the list of headings)

Promises and the United Nations

Briefly, here's the sort of concrete action that's been promised:
  • UN-Arab League peace envoy Kofi Annan
    • Contacting Syria's government to
      • "Convey in the clearest terms the expectations of the international community
      • Visit Syria
      • Do the same thing
  • UK Foreign Secretary William Hague
    • Will call for an urgent session of the UN Security Council
      • Pretty soon
  • Arab League head Nabil al-Arabi
    • Has urged the Security Council to "stop the escalation of killing and violence by armed gangs and government military forces,"
  • The opposition Free Syrian Army
    • Unless the United Nations Security Council can keep civilians alive
      • the ceasefire is off
I mentioned what the United Nations is doing in Syria before. UN observers are - observing:
"...A team of UN observers visited the town on Saturday and afterwards Maj-Gen Mood said they could confirm 'the use of small arms, machine gun[s], artillery and tanks.'

"But he did not say who was behind the killings....
(BBC News)
(Back to the list of headings)

"Just Refused to Come"

I don't really blame Maj-Gen Mood and the observers for showing up a little late, observing bits and pieces of people, and concluding that they'd been killed by a variety of weapons. My guess is that their orders limit what they can do: and that the UN observers lack both the authority and the means to do more than keep score.

On the other hand, I'm sympathetic with the local folks. Back to BBC News:
"...Our correspondent says local people are angry that the observers failed to intervene to stop the killing.

"Abu Emad, speaking from Houla, said their appeals to the monitors failed to produce action.

"We told them at night, we called seven of them. We told them the massacre is being committed right now at Houla by the mercenaries of this regime and they just refused to come and stop the massacre.'
(BBC News)
Again, I think it's very likely that the United Nations observers simply can't get involved: and don't have the equipment to take effective action. Or the authority.

The situation is sad, tragic, and intensely frustrating. Syria's current boss is, I think, unlikely to stop killing Syrians. Bashar al-Assad seems to like the newfangled title of "President," but his actions strongly suggest that he's an old-school autocrat.

There may have been a time when a country's boss could instill loyalty by killing large numbers of his subjects. These days, even the Arab League finally got fed up with the Syrian 'President' and his enforcers.

It's not the 20th century any more, and I think all but the most committed - or clueless - autocrats are beginning to realize that 'the good old days' are over.

(Back to the list of headings)

News About Syria: What's Missing

What impressed me about that news about the latest atrocity in Syria was what wasn't there. None of the people or organizations mentioned BBC News seems to have blamed Israel. That, in my opinion, is remarkable.

Maybe the United Nations will get around to condemning Israel for what happened in Houla. The rationale could be that, because Israel always starves Palestinians and does bad things, someone in Syria had to kill all those kids.

Putting it that simply, the idea sounds daft: and I think it is. Add enough emotionally-charged words, and I think some folks might still believe it. Or want to.

The rest of us, I suspect, are beginning to realize that it's a big world: and that killing folks who don't follow the local neighborhood association rules can't be tolerated any more.

We're a very long way from having an "international authority with the necessary competence and power"1 to deal with people like Syria's Bashar al-Assad effectively. But going nearly 24 hours without blaming the Jews for an incident like this is, I think, a hopeful sign. Maybe more folks are starting to consider the idea of living with neighbors: instead of killing them.

It's a start, and that's yet another topic.

(Back to the list of headings)
Somewhat-related posts:
1 I think the United Nations is an international authority: but I also think that it's a far cry from the "international authority with the necessary competence and power" I mentioned. That term is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

"However, 'as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.'106"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2308)
Implying that it might be okay to develop an "international authority with the necessary competence and power" to handle regional troublemakers does not mean that the Catholic Church is plotting to take over the world. I've discussed government, Catholicism, subsidiarity, and lizard men, before:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Six Battalions, the United Nations, ' - - - and it is the Fault of the Jews'

Israel has an ancient history - but it's a very new country. The most recent diaspora was a very long one. Descendants of Abraham and Israel didn't manage to re-establish a national government until the mid-20th century, after a hiatus of nearly 1,900 years. Quite a bit happened in their absence, and the current government is a new entity, not a continuation of what was around when the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire.

I think some problems in the Middle East stem from a domestic dispute that happened about 7,000 years after Jericho's founding, and 4,000 years before our time. (October 8, 2007) Israel's current government is new: the area Israel is in is anything but.

Israel isn't America

"Israeli politics in tailspin over Iran"
Jon B. Alterman, CNN (May 2, 2012)

"Israel, by necessity, has developed one of the most able security and intelligence apparatus in the world. There has been no necessity to develop a world-class political apparatus, however, and it shows.

"In a single week, the Israeli army's chief of staff, the former head of internal security and the former head of external security have all publicly questioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's judgment on Iran. While the current army chief spoke narrowly about the Iranian government, the former security officials directed their fire at Israeli politicians. On Friday, the former internal security chief told an Israeli audience, 'I don't believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings' -- and he was speaking not of Iran, but of Israel.

"Last week was Israel's independence day, traditionally an occasion of pride and celebration. Instead, Israelis are in a deep funk...."
America has a two-party system that's lasted as long as it has because folks in both parties have been moderately competent at appealing to a fairly wide swath of the voting public. My opinion.

Not all countries have a stable two-party system. When folks from the 'Dental Floss Party,' the 'Union of Thatch Roof Owners,' and whatever other outfits have enough backing to get a foot in the local equivalent of Congress: politics won't look like politics in America. But I think a system like that can work. Take France, as an example.

Israel doesn't have a generations-deep tradition of two-party politics. On top of that, America is over three and a half times as old as Israel's current government. We've had time to thrash out a modestly adequate system. When the country I'm in was as old as Israel is now, filibusters were new; war with Mexico was brewing; a major internal war wouldn't come for a couple decades: and that's almost another topic.

I think it takes time for a country to work out a system as comparatively practical and SNAFU-free as what America has.

I realize that CNN has to attract readers, and that criticizing the way foreigners run their country is a perennial crowd pleaser. Oh, well.

The United Nations is "Appalled" by Israel: Again; Still

"UN 'appalled' by Israel treatment of hunger strikers"
Yolande Knell, BBC News (May 2, 2012)

"A UN expert has said he is appalled by the 'continuing human rights violations in Israeli prisons', as Palestinian inmates continue a mass hunger strike.

"Special Rapporteur [!] Robert Falk said Israel had to treat hunger strikers in line with international standards.

"Israel's Prison Service says some 1,550 Palestinians in jail are on strike.

"Doctors have expressed serious concern about two men who have been refusing food for 63 days in protest at being detained without charge or trial...."
"Without charge or trial" may or may not be a valid complaint.

The hunger strikers, who decided to be hunger strikers? I suppose Israel's government could force them to eat. Which could be showcased as appalling indifference to the hunger strikers' conscience, or religious feelings, or whatever.

Given the sort of knee-jerk 'blame the Jews' reaction to unpleasant realities I've come to expect from the United Nations and other 'civilized' folks: this latest complaint sounds like more of the same.

'The Jews starve people' is another perennial favorite in some circles. (April 19, 2008)

Moving on.

Sinai Peninsula: Remarkable Coverage

"Tel Aviv boosts troops at borders with Egypt and Syria"
RT (May 2, 2012)

"Israel is to deploy at least 22 reserve battalions on its borders with Egypt and Syria, claiming the growing instability in the two countries makes it necessary to be ready for possible external security threats.

"The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has been given an approval of a call-up of additional force by Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee although they exceed the average. Reservists from six battalions have already received their orders, even though many of them are soldiers who have already completed their annual reserve duty.

"Israeli generals say these troops are needed to deal with security threats which are coming from Israel's borders with Egypt and Syria, and also because of growing instability in those countries.

"The situation on the Sinai Peninsula which borders Israel is becoming unmanageable, RT's correspondent Paula Slier reports from Israel. Since the ouster of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, she said, Sinai police have been attacked more than 50 times by local Palestinian jihadist groups, as well as by the local branch of Al-Qaeda which is operating in the region. ..."
RT's coverage is remarkable, I think, for not trotting out 'experts,' 'concerned citizens,' and the United Nations being appalled, for the usual 'and it is the fault of the Jews' show.

Maybe they're part of that vast conspiracy of Jews we keep hearing about. Or, not.

The Wall Street Journal: 'Well! What Do You Expect?'

"Israel Fortifies Border Fence With Lebanon"
Associated Press, via The Wall Street Journal (May 1, 2012)

"Israel has begun fortifying a fence along its volatile border with Lebanon, reinforcing an especially dangerous section that has been susceptible to sniper fire and other threats, military officials said Tuesday.

"The military said the project was strengthening a half-mile (one kilometer) section of an existing fence in Israeli territory, and no modifications to the route were being made. Even so, to avoid friction, it said construction was coordinated with the Lebanese army and the U.N. peacekeeping force in the area, UNIFIL.

"Israel has no diplomatic relations with Lebanon. The two countries have been in a state of war for six decades.

"The project is taking place near the spot where an Israeli officer was killed by a sniper two years ago. The shooting took place as the Israeli army was clearing brush that it said Lebanese guerrillas could use for cover...."
This Associate Press article, on The Wall Street Journal's website, is another fairly calm discussion of what sadly is business-as-usual in the Middle East. I suppose a dedicated conspiracy buff could be convinced that 'the Jews' really control the AP and The Wall Street Journal - and the Internet - and the brains of everybody who doesn't have aluminum foil inside his hat.

A bit more seriously, I don't like the way Egypt is developing, now that the old strongman got booted out. Still, it could be worse. A lot worse. Iran is a case-in-point.

If I seem indifferent or unconcerned: sorry about that. What's been happening for the last several decades in that part of the world is not good news. But what I've seen in the news recently, although reason for concern, isn't all that different from what I've been seeing for most of my life. I'm not going to go ballistic over 'more of the same.'

Related posts:
Background, the United States at 64:
A tip of the hat to Patty Garza, on Google+, for the heads-up on news from the Egypt-Israel border.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, September 9, 2011

Libya, Interpol, and a Really Big Job

The Colonel's name gets spelled Qadhafi, Qaddafi, or Gaddafi: depending on who's deciding how to transliterate his name into the Latin alphabet.

Libya, an Arrest Warrant, and Good News/Bad News

First, the good news:
  • Someone other than Colonel Qaddafi is running Libya
    • And they aren't killing each other
    • In fact, they're talking with each other
  • According to the new Libyan leaders
    • Libya's central bank still has gold and other assets
    • Libya plans to honor existing business deals with foreign companies
  • There's an arrest warrant out for Qaddafi
    • And some of his associates
    • Issued by Interpol
Now, the bad news:
  • Colonel Qaddafi, creator of Islamic socialism, no longer runs Libya
  • The stray dog foreign puppets
    • Stole the people's gold and other assets
    • Are in league with foreign capitalists
      • And Big Oil
  • Western oppressors are hunting down Qaddafi
    • And some of his associates
As I've said before, so much depends on a person's point of view.

Me? I think most Libyans are much better off with the Colonel somewhere else. I also think that Libyans who supported the Colonel stand a much better chance of survival under the new regime, than their counterparts when Qaddafi dealt with opposition the old fashioned way.

I haven't run into the 'bad news' angle yet, and don't necessarily expect to. The Colonel managed to make too many crazy statements, and ticked off too many other national leaders: my opinion. Besides, I suspect that the 'victim of capitalist oppression' thing is starting to wear thin, even in the more isolated subcultures.

Libya: Now What?

The folks who got help running the Colonel out of their country may succeed in working out a way to rebuild Libya. I hope they do. I also think that they've got a huge job on their hands: and won't get it right the first time. The United States Constitution wasn't this country's first attempt, and that's almost another topic.1

Now that they've got an old-school autocrat out, along with at least some of his supporters, Libyans like Libya's interim prime minister Mahmoud Jibril have decades of mismanagement to fix. Plus disagreements about what Libya should be like, now that the Colonel is gone.

Like I said, it's a huge job.

Interpol, the International Criminal Court at The Hague, and Getting a Grip

I'm no great fan of the United Nations. Too many of the earnest folks there seem determined to 'protect' us from technology. Considering what happened to the Libyan Colonel, I can see why so many at the U.N. don't want ordinary folks to have easy access to small arms: and that's almost another topic.

I don't hate the U.N., either, or live in fear that foreigners will plant 'spider flag of the United Nations' under the red, white, and blue skies of America.

But my less-than-sunny view of our recent attempt to get a "Parliament of man" keeps me from cheering about the International Court at The Hague asking Interpol to arrest a national leader.

I think the Libyan colonel
  • Has been a lousy ruler
  • Probably committed war crimes
  • Should be restrained
But I also think that there's too many crazy assumptions involved in today's international law; and that there's too much politics involved.

I suspect that Colonel Qadhafi's ouster and arrest warrant have as much to do with his scaring the neighbors and insulting the wrong folks, as it does with what he's actually done. Which doesn't mean that I'd want him back in power.

What I think about international law, the U.N., and Libya's troubles, is determined in large part by my religious beliefs. Which may not mean what you think it does.2

I put excerpts from recent news and views about Libya at the end of this post.3

Related posts:
News and views:
1The Articles of Confederation looked good on paper. More:
2 I take my religious beliefs very seriously. Which doesn't mean what quite a few folks feel it does. No matter what you've read, these are not typical American religious people:


(ArizonaLincoln (talk), via Wikipedia, used w/o permission)

I'm not a 'regular American,' when it comes to belief, either. I'm a practicing Catholic. Which also doesn't mean what you may have read in the papers.

Because I'm a practicing Catholic, and learned what that means, I have to be a good citizen, get involved in public affairs, and think of everybody as people: not 'foreigners,' 'commies,' 'oppressors,' or whatever.

In principle, I have nothing against Tennyson's "Parliament of man, the Federation of the world." I think the United Nations was - and is - a good idea, but it's nowhere near being the sort of 'competent international authority' we may eventually develop:
"We're a very long way from having an "international authority with the necessary competence and power" to simply arrest someone like Saddam Hussein. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2308)"
(A Catholic Citizen in America (June 16, 2011))
I'm also no great fan of the United Nations.

Which isn't the same as seeing it as a bunch of foreigners out to 'get' America.

More:

Finally, and off-topic for this blog, as a Catholic I also have the option to learn as much as I can, about how things work:


(The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, used w/o permission)

3 Excerpts from news and views:
"Interpol Issues Qaddafi Arrest Warrant as More Libyan Officials Flee"
Rod Nordland, Africa, The New York Times (September 9, 2011)

"As Interpol issued arrest warrants for the fugitive Libyan autocrat Col. Muammar Qaddafi and two others on Friday, reports came from Niger of a new convoy of high-ranking Libyan officials arriving across the desert.

"In Lyon, France, Interpol said in a statement that it had issued so-called red notices calling for the arrests of Colonel Qaddafi, his son, Seif al-Islam, and Abdullah al-Senussi, the head of the former leader's intelligence agency.

"The red notices, which were requested by the International Criminal Court at The Hague for alleged war crimes committed by the three men, require any of Interpol's 188 member nations to arrest the suspects and turn them over to that court.

"Among the member nations is Niger, which borders Libya on the south and has received a number of convoys of loyalist officials fleeing overland. So far, no high-ranking regime figures were confirmed to be accompanying them...."
"Libya conflict: Gaddafi general 'flees to Niger' "
BBC News (September 9, 2011)

"A senior general in Libyan ex-leader Col Muammar Gaddafi's forces has fled to Niger, according to local sources.

"Officials in the Niger town of Agadez named the commander as General Ali Kana, a Tuareg in charge of Col Gaddafi's southern troops.

"Interpol has issued an arrest warrant for Col Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam and spy chief Abdullah al-Sanussi, whose whereabouts are still unknown.

"Gaddafi loyalists still fighting face an ultimatum to surrender on Saturday.

The National Transitional Council (NTC) has been trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution to stand-offs in a handful of areas - including Bani Walid, Jufra, Sabha and Col Gaddafi's birthplace of Sirte.

"NTC forces last week warned loyalists that they must surrender by Saturday, or face a military onslaught...."
"Libya's interim PM says battle 'not yet over'"
Andrew Harding, Africa correspondent, BBC News (September 9, 2011)

""There are tensions. But no problems."

"That was the neat but rather elusive conclusion of a senior military official here in Tripoli, when I asked him about reports of growing friction between Libya's transitional civil administration - which is moving surprisingly slowly to fill a power vacuum in the capital - and the patchwork of rebel military units - some with hints of a pronounced Islamist agenda - that seized the city from Col Muammar Gaddafi's forces and now seem reluctant to abandon control.

"I put the same question to Mahmoud Jibril, Libya's interim prime minister, who spent much of a rather tetchy news conference in Tripoli begging his countrymen not to squabble and play political games - and accusing unnamed forces of 'jeopardising' stability and of forgetting that the battle against Col Gaddafi's forces was not yet over.

"Earlier, one of his exhausted aides shook his head in wordless despair when I asked him how things were going inside the National Transitional Council.

"But having raised the alarm, Mr Jibril then insisted that the situation was actually fine and that 'dialogue is taking place in a wise fashion' despite the absence of a new constitution to guide them...."
"Libya's Central Bank Will Honour All Bank Agreements"
The Tripoli Post (September 9, 2011)

"Libya's transitional prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril, called for national reconciliation and unity, saying they may be 'more difficult' to achieve than the fight that toppled Muammar Qaddafi's regime.

" 'There are two battles,' Jibril said after arriving in Tripoli two and a half weeks after opposition fighters entered the capital. Achieving unity will be 'our biggest challenge,' he said.

" 'The first battle is against Qaddafi and his regime,' Jibril said at a news conference yesterday. 'This will end by the capturing or the elimination of Qaddafi. However, the battle that is more difficult is against ourselves. How can we achieve reconciliation and achieve peace and security and agree on a constitution? We must not attack each other or push each other away.'

"While Libya has been able to export little oil during the conflict, a 600,000-barrel crude shipment is being offered from the western port of Mellitah, according to three people with direct knowledge of the transaction...."
"Libyan Leaders Face 'Biggest Challenge' Seeking Unity After Qaddafi Ouster"
Chris Stephen and Massoud A. Derhally , Bloomberg (September 8, 2011)

"Libya's central bank, on Thursday sought to reassure 'all foreign partners of Libyan banks who are operating in Libya, the agreements will be honoured.'

"Now under the control of the new leaders, the central bank also said it was having no liquidity issues, thanks to a delivery of bank notes from Britain, and that none of its assets had been stolen.

" 'No assets of the Libyan Central Bank have been stolen, gold or otherwise,' the bank's new governor Gassem Azzoz told reporters in Tripoli, adding that if, as reported, fallen leader Muammar Al Qathafi had taken gold, it was not from central bank coffers.

"Another assurance from the central bank concerns Italy's UniCredit SpA, the first overseas bank to get a licence in Libya, winning permission in August 2010.

"It announced to foreign investors that it would not change the country's stake in UniCredit and will honour banking licences granted by the ousted Al Qathafi regime...."
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, August 29, 2011

Libya: The Colonel's Missing, So are Lots of Prisoners

First, the good news:
  • Folks in Libya who wanted the country's boss out, got help
    • A military coalition operating under a United Nations mandate
  • Rebels have taken much of Libya's capital city
  • Colonel Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi (Qaddafi? Gaddafi?) is missing
Now the bad news:
  • Colonel Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi (Qaddafi? Gaddafi?) is missing
    • So are many of his troops
  • About 50,000 of Qadhafi / Qaddafi / Gaddafi's prisoners are missing
It wouldn't be so bad if the colonel was 'missing and presumed dead.' As it is, there's a good chance that Libya's boss may have gathered his remaining loyal troops and gone into hiding. Which could mean trouble for Libya - particularly if Qadhafi / Qaddafi / Gaddafi's 'I am a victim of the big bad West' line is swallowed by regional governments.

Even if they don't really believe it, I suspect that a lot of the old-school autocrats would love to blame all their woes on Yankee imperialism. That's so much easier, in a way, than admitting that incompetent leadership might be a factor. And that's almost another topic.

Evil is Not Nice

Even allowing for exaggeration on the part of the rebels, what's showing up in Libya is - unpleasant. Some of the details are so grotesquely nasty, that they almost seem like something from an off-color comedy.

Like the Libyan colonel's family torturing a nanny.

Actually, taking a page from the sort of 'tolerance' I had to learn about in college, that torture could be explained as a biased Western view of a non-western culture's cherished customs:
"...And they found the horribly scarred Shwygar Mullah, the Ethiopian maid who cared for the children of Gadhafi son Hannibal. Mullah told CNN that Hannibal Gadhafi's wife Aline twice expressed her displeasure with her work by scalding her with boiling water -- then refused to get her medical attention, leaving her scalp and face covered in a mosaic of scars and raw wounds.

"Her offense: Failing to beat a daughter who refused to stop crying...."
(CNN)
Somehow, though, I don't think we'll hear much about poor, maligned Colonel Qadhafi / Qaddafi / Gaddafi and his misunderstood family. It's not the '60s anymore: and I think a lot of folks have realized that.

Those missing prisoners may be alive, for now: squirreled away in hidden lockups, and left there. The trick now will be for the rebels to find them before food, water, or air runs out.

Other prisoners aren't missing, they're just unidentifiable. The colonels' enforcers killed quite a few, and burned the bodies.

If these stories were just that - stories, with no supporting evidence: I might discount them as possible propaganda. As it is, we've got what's left of prisoner flambé, a badly scarred nanny, and a few survivors with bullet holes in their skin to back up their accounts.

The trouble is, Libya's colonel and his family being a bad lot - doesn't guarantee that whoever winds up in charge next will be a distinct improvement.

Even so, I think Libya will be better off without the colonel.

And Now, the News

I've taken excerpts from a few recent news and op-ed pieces about Libya:
"Qaddafi Forces Killed Detainees, Survivors Say"
Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (August 28, 2011)

"Retreating loyalists of Muammar Qaddafi killed scores of detainees and arbitrarily shot civilians over the past week, as rebel forces extended their control over the Libyan capital, survivors and a human rights group said Sunday.

"In one case, Qaddafi fighters opened fire and hurled grenades at more than 120 civilians huddling in a hangar used as a makeshift lockup near a military base, said Mabrouk Abdullah, 45, who escaped with a bullet wound in his side. Some 50 charred corpses were still scattered across the hangar on Sunday.

"New York-based Human Rights Watch said the evidence it has collected so far "strongly suggests that Qaddafi government forces went on a spate of arbitrary killing as Tripoli was falling." The justice minister in the rebels' interim government, Mohammed al-Alagi, said the allegations would be investigated and leaders of Qaddafi's military units put on trial...."
"Charred bodies, nanny's scars left behind by fleeing Gadhafis"
CNN (August 28, 2011)

"Horrifying glimpses of the brutality underpinning the rule of Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi emerged Sunday with news of a warehouse full of charred corpses and a nanny to Gadhafi's grandchildren tortured.

"Meanwhile, rebel forces who have driven Gadhafi and his family into hiding advanced toward his hometown. And CNN has found Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of blowing up a Pan Am jet in 1988, comatose on what his family says is his deathbed.

"On the eastern side of Tripoli, troops commanded by Gadhafi's son Khamis killed an estimated 150 captive civilians as they retreated last week, hurling grenades and spraying bullets into the building full of men they had promised to release, a survivor said...."
"In Libya, bastions of Kadafi loyalists remain"
Patrick J. McDonnell, Los Angeles Times (August 28, 2011)

"They are quiet now, absent from the airwaves that they long dominated, gone from the streets that were once theirs.

"Their longtime leader is on the run, his compound ransacked, his once-ubiquitous image now employed on doormats.

"But the supporters of Moammar Kadafi are still out there in working-class neighborhoods such as Abu Salim, a loyalist bastion subdued only last week after intense battles that left its roads littered with shell casings, its buildings riddled with bullets and many of its men dead or in custody...."
"Libya rebels fear for Gaddafi prisoners"
BBC News Africa (August 28, 2011)

"Libyan rebels say they are concerned over the fate of thousands of prisoners held in Tripoli by the Gaddafi regime.

"Rebel military spokesman Col Ahmed Omar Bani said almost 50,000 people arrested in recent months were unaccounted for.

"The rebels believe they may be being held in underground bunkers, which have since been abandoned.

"Rights groups have seen evidence that dozens of people have been massacred near prisons, but Col Bani did not accuse anyone of killing the prisoners.

" 'The number of people arrested over the past months is estimated at between 57,000 and 60,000,' he said in a news conference in Benghazi.

" 'Between 10,000 and 11,000 prisoners have been freed up until now... so where are the others?'

"The colonel appealed for anyone with information to come forward, and said it would be 'catastrophic' if they had been killed...."
"Analysis: Why Gaddafi's crack troops melted away"
Shashank Joshi Associate fellow, Royal United Services Institute, BBC News Africa (August 22, 2011)

"When one Libyan opposition activist reflected on the rebel advances into the city of Zawiya last week, he mused that 'Eid could be a massive celebration indeed'. He was wrong - the jubilation came much earlier....

"...Why did battle-hardened Libyan soldiers, fed on a diet of anti-rebel propaganda and willing to fight in the face of overwhelming Nato air power, melt away so suddenly?

"The answer can only be speculative at this stage, but there are a few possibilities.

"First, there was an element of retreat rather than a rout. Tripoli is unevenly pacified and the euphoria of Green Square obscures the continuing fighting in several suburbs....

"...Second, where soldiers did lay down their arms, the much-maligned National Transitional Council (NTC) deserves some credit....

"...Third, Nato's relentless pounding of armour and artillery east of Zawiya greatly softened up government units, breaking down much of the resistance that would otherwise have slowed the rebel path...."
Related posts:
News and views:
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: ,

Monday, March 21, 2011

Libya: Nobody's Happy, but It Could Be Worse

Nobody seems to be happy about Libya: with the possible exception of folks in Benghazi, who are now less likely to be wiped out by the Libyan colonel's enforcers - - -

- - - And those elsewhere in Libya who don't think Libya's boss is a good leader, and said so. Their chances of survival are now a tad better than they were before a United Nations Security Council resolution made it legal to inconvenience Colonel Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi. (or Qaddafi, or Gaddafi)

Arab League Supports No-Fly Zone: or, not

The Arab League supports the no-fly zone - or it doesn't. Either someone did a terrible job of quoting them, or they're saying one thing to foreigners and something else to the home audience. Or something else is happening.

Congress: 'No Fair!'

Here in America, the party crowd on Capitol Hill is complaining that the president should have talked with them. As it is, they haven't leaked tactical and strategic information that everyone from the Libyan colonel to Al Shabaab and Al Qaeda would love to learn.

Process, Protocol, and All That

I've run into someone who apparently thinks that the American president has declared war on Libya - without consulting Congress. Which is a breach of protocol - or would be, if war had been declared.

As far as I can tell, war hasn't been declared - and that's going to upset another set of folks.

Ideally - Things Would be Ideal

I think that, ideally, the Libyan colonel would have decided to retire - La Côte d'Azur is a lovely spot, I understand, and not all that far from Libya - instead of having people who don't think he's the greatest killed.

Also ideally, since the colonel didn't quit while he was ahead, It'd be nice if there was an effective international organization: one comprised of those wise and prudent folks who lead the nations of the world. This - quite hypothetical - body of sages could then formulate an ideal plan to convince the Libyan colonel of the error of his ways. Through sweet reason and tender sentiments.

That scenario is wrong on so many levels - the point is, we're stuck with the United Nations and a collection of national leaders who are possibly less clueless than the rest.

It'll have to do.

This isn't a War: It's a - - - Something Else

A world without war, without poverty, and without acne would be nice. It's not the world we have.

Sadly, the Libyan colonel, and others like him, exist.

Eventually, in my opinion, people like Qadhafi annoy or offend enough of their fellow-rulers, or do something so atrocious, that their position as crazy neighbors can't be tolerated.

That seems to have happened with the Libyan colonel.

There may, once, have been a time when a declaration of war might be written, a mutually-convenient time and place would be determined for the battle - and war would be on.

If that situation ever existed, it doesn't now.

What's happening to Libya now is the result of Qadhafi's remarkable style of leadership having finally snapped the patience of his neighbors. In my opinion.

In turn, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution: which an international coalition is now trying to enforce.

U. N. Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011)

I'll get back to some of the problems with the United Nations, the coalition, the resolution, and human nature, after this excerpt from the resolution:
"...Protection of civilians

"4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

"5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;

"No Fly Zone

"6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians...."
(S/RES/1973 (2011) The situation in Libya)
I can see why news sources aren't discussing this document all that much. It's long - eight pages - and that excerpt is just part of the top half of page three.

Exciting reading, it isn't.

On the other hand, I think it gives a little more insight into just what's going on. I've linked to the resolution, and a UN press release, down in the 'Background' section of this post.

Here's an excerpt from a sort of United Nations press release:
"Libya: Ban welcomes Security Council authorization of measures to protect civilians"
UN News Centre (March 18, 2011)

"Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for 'immediate action' on the Security Council's authorization of the use of 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians in Libya, terming it a 'historic' affirmation of the global community's responsibility to protect people from their own government's violence.

"The Council yesterday passed a resolution permitting the use of all necessary measures, including the imposition of a no-fly zone, to prevent further attacks and the loss of innocent lives in Libya, where the regime of Muammar al-Qadhafi has conducted a military offensive against citizens seeking his removal from power.

"Following the adoption of the resolution, media reports stated that Libyan authorities had declared a ceasefire. Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kusa was quoted as saying that the truce was intended to 'to protect civilians.'

"The Arab League last weekend requested the Council to impose a no-fly zone after Mr. Qadhafi was reported to have used warplanes, warships, tanks and artillery to seize back cities taken over after weeks of mass protests by peaceful civilians seeking an end to his 41-year rule.

"Mr. Ban said that in adopting Resolution 1973, the Council had placed great importance on the appeal of the League of Arab States for action...."

The Spider-Flag of the United Nations, Yankee Imperialism, and Lizard Men from Outer Space

Decades back, I remember a politico discussing the "spider-flag of the United Nations" and the threat it posed to America. I was impressed - not all that favorably. My teens and the sixties happened at about the same time, and I thought the United Nations was a pretty good idea at the time.

I still do.

I'd better explain that.

We live in a world where the vast majority of people do not live in America: or any other single nation.

International commerce, and today's information technology, makes it increasingly difficult to ignore 'foreigners,' in my opinion.

I think it makes sense to have a forum where representatives of different nations can hurl epithets at each other. Not because I think that name-calling solves problems: but because the same forum can be used by the folks who actually want to communicate, and solve problems.

Quite a bit of what comes out of the U. N. makes about as much sense, again in my opinion, as the notion that shape-shifting, space-alien lizard people really run the world.

On the other hand, the United Nations is the closest thing we've got to "the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world" that Tennyson imagined in "Locksley Hall." But, offhand, it's the only global organization I can think of that's likely to lend an air of legitimacy to military action against the Libyan colonel and his enforcers.

We don't have to like it: it's arguably the best that's available.

Law, Protocol, and National Sovereignty Matter

I think that some criticisms of the president's actions are legitimate. He could have:
  • Taken action a long time
    • Ago
    • From now
  • Waited until
    • Congress
      • Agreed with him
      • Developed a workable alternative
    • Qadhafi
      • Killed more people
      • Decided to be nice
That's not what happened. I think that the matter of Congress being involved in decisions that affect the American armed forces needs to be discussed. And, I think, probably re-evaluated. And that's another topic, somewhat beyond the scope of this blog.

I think that who gives commands to American armed forces matters. I also think that who gives commands to the armed forces of other countries matters. And I'm glad I don't have to sort out how that's going to work.

I think that the national sovereignty of the United States matters. As does the sovereignty of countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. I also think that people like the Libyan colonel have an at-best-dubious claim to the 'sovereign rights of nations.'

It would be nice, I think, if the concern that's been shown for folks who don't support Qadhafi could be shown for their counterparts in Bahrain and Yemen - and that's almost another topic.

I think that quite a few folks in Libya have a much better chance now, of surviving long enough to reform their country, than they did before a coalition started inconveniencing the Libyan colonel's forces.

And that - in my opinion - is not a bad thing.

Related posts about:
News and views:
Background:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Libya: United Nations Resolution; and Unpleasantness Ahead

A few points before the discussing Libya, Benghazi, Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi (Qaddafi? Gaddafi?), France, the United Nations, America, shape-shifting lizard men, and all that:
  • This isn't a political blog
    • I don't think that one party's always right
      • And that everybody else is
        • Stupid
        • Traitors
        • Stupid and traitors
  • I don't think
    • America is perfect
      • Or the source of all the world's ills
    • They really run the world
    • Military might solves all problems
      • Or must never be used
    • The United Nations is mankind's last hope
      • Or the source of all the world's ills

United Nations Resolution: Stop Qadhafi

The United Nations Security Council voted, late today, that it's okay to try keeping the Libyan colonel from killing the last of the folks who don't support him. Awfully sporting of them, I think.

It's now possible - although not certain - that Qadhafi's forces won't succeed in killing everybody who thinks that Qadhafi isn't the best leader for Libya. Quite a few of those folks are in Benghazi, a port city in eastern Libya.

It's no coincidence that Qadhafi's forces are on their way there. Or, more accurately, those of Qadhafi's forces who haven't defected or left the country entirely. (February 21, 2011)

What do I think of this situation?

My take on Colonel Qadhafi and All That

I think it would have been nice if Colonel Qadhafi had decided to accept a few more commendations from the United Nations Human Rights Council, and other idealistic outfits: and then retired from public life.

Nice, but not likely. (The UNHRC thing? You can't make that sort of thing up. (February 28, 2011))

I also think it would be nice if the United States wasn't the convenient scapegoat for folks like the Libyan colonel, professor Ward Churchill, and other 'serious thinkers.'

Nice, but very unlikely indeed.

Finally, I think that it's hard to imagine anything short of military force prying Colonel Qadhafi out of office. I'll get back to that, after excerpts from today's news and views, starting with the most recent.
"Gaddafi vows to crush rebellion"
Press Association, via Google (March 17, 2011)

"Moammar Gaddafi has vowed to launch a final assault on the opposition's capital Benghazi and crush the rebellion as his forces advanced toward the city and warplanes bombed its airport.

"In the face of Gaddafi's increasingly powerful offensive, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution to strike his forces on land, sea and air.

"After weeks of hesitancy over imposing a no-fly zone in Libya, the United States made a dramatic about-face, calling for even more expanded action, including strikes on Gaddafi's ground forces besieging rebel-held cities.

"In Benghazi, the main rebel stronghold, a large crowd watching the vote on an outdoor TV projection burst into celebration as green and red fireworks burst in the air.

"In Tobruk, east of Benghazi, happy Libyans fired weapons in the air to celebrate the vote.

"In contrast, a dentist in the capital of Tripoli rejected the measure. 'You are in fact protecting people carrying weapons against the official forces. This is nonsense,' said Mohammed Salah, 33...."
"U.N. Authorizes Military Strikes on Libya"
Jay Solomon, Adam Entous, Joe Lauria, Europe, The Wall Street Journal (March 17, 2011)

"The United Nations Security Council authorized military force Thursday against Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi's security forces, opening the way for airstrikes within days.

"The U.N. action, pushed aggressively by France and the U.K., came as Col. Gadhafi's security forces continued their assault toward Benghazi, the de-facto capital of rebels trying to end his 42-year rule.

"European and American officials argued on the Security Council floor that an international campaign to stop Col. Gadhafi's forces was required immediately to stave off a potential massacre of opposition forces and civilians...."
"Security Council Authorizes Military Action Against Qaddafi"
Bill VarnerBusinessWeek, Bloomberg (March 17, 2011)

"The United Nations Security Council voted today to ground Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's air force and to grant military authority to the U.S. and its allies to protect civilians and population centers threatened by Qaddafi's forces.

"The UN's principal policy-making panel voted 10 to 0, with five abstentions, to adopt a resolution that establishes a no- fly zone over Libya, demands a cease-fire and allows 'all necessary measures” to protect civilians 'excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” Russia and China, which hold veto powers, were among the countries that abstained.

" 'We have very little time left,' French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told the Security Council before the vote. 'Every day, every hour we see the closing the clamp on the civilian population. We should not arrive too late.'

"Earlier in the day, Libyan jets dropped bombs on the outskirts of Benghazi and Qaddafi went on state television to say his forces would move within hours against the coastal city that is the rebel stronghold and Libya's second-largest city, with a population of about one million...."
"UN Urges Parties in Libya Conflict to Accept Immediate Ceasefire."
The Tripoli Post (March 17, 2011)

"While the United Nations Security Council is mulling a no-fly zone over the troubled North African country, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called both parties involved in Libya's conflict to 'accept an immediate ceasefire'

"He said that he was gravely concerned about the increasing military escalation by government forces, which include indications of an assault on Benghazi. He warned that 'Those responsible for the continuous use of military forces against civilians will be held accountable.'

"Ban Ki-moon, who has already sent a special envoy to Libya to work toward a peaceful solution of the crisis, also demanded those responsible for the continuous use of military forces against civilians be held accountable...."
"Obama's Missed Opportunity?"
Sara A. Carter, Beltway Confidential, WashingtonExaminer.com (March 17, 2011)

"More than a month and half after opposition rebels took to the streets of Libya to fight Moammar Gadhafi's security forces, the Obama Administration said Thursday that the U.S. is mulling ideas on how to respond.

"The situation has intensified and estimates of those killed by Gadhafi forces in a barrage of aircraft bombings and street battles vary. Opposition members tell The Examiner that help this late in the game may not do much good.

" 'Why was no one there for us,' said one Libyan opposition member to The Examiner. 'Why are they not helping us now?'

"US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told reporters Thursday 'the U.S. view is that we need to be prepared to contemplate steps that include, but perhaps go beyond, a no-fly zone at this point.'..."

Nuke Tripoli? Not a Good Idea

Red, white, and blue-blooded 'regular Americans' notwithstanding, I don't think the United States is the only country in the world that's worth more than two cents. I also am pretty sure that it wouldn't be a good idea to 'go it alone' against Libya - no matter who was in the White House.

You'll notice that old-school journalists and politicos aren't complaining about America 'going it alone,' or being "unilateral," about Libya. I think that's partly because the 'right' sort of person is President this time. I'd like to think that word's gotten around about just how many nations were "unilaterally" going it alone with America, a few years ago. (August 9, 2007) And that's almost another topic.

Nobody, as far as I known, has advocated using nuclear weapons against the Libyan colonel. Good thing, too: because I suspect that more folks who either want Qadhafi out, or couldn't care less who's running the country, than those who do support the colonel.

Let's remember that folks who wanted Qadhafi out were winning, until the remaining Qadhafi enforcers started killing the opposition wholesale. The opposition might have done better, if they'd had a command and control center from the start - and folks who weren't signed on as Qadhafi enforcers had been better armed. And that's yet another topic. Topics.

Before getting back to Libya, I don't have a problem with 'the masses' having dangerous technology like guns, printing presses, and computers. (June 27, 2008) I also think that 'the government' isn't always right. (March 23, 2009)

U.N. Resolution: Maddeningly Slow

I don't know how Russia, China, and three other nations were convinced that one of the relatively few socialists left shouldn't be protected.

And I'm impressed that France has been in favor of removing the colonel. Maybe they've decided that he's not such a reliable leader, after all.

Americans have, I'm told, a reputation for being impatient. I fit that stereotype, at least as far as Libya is concerned. I wouldn't have minded seeing the colonel popped out of his seat - quite a while ago.

I also realize that we all live in the real world. And that Qadhafi could have probably gotten a great deal of support, if he could have claimed that big, bad America was plotting his demise. He'll probably do that, anyway: but the way this U.N. Security Council resolution is going, it's going to be a much harder sell.

Do I think there's 'some kind of conspiracy' to keep Qadhafi in power? Or remove him? No. I do think that nations, like France, are acting in their own national interest: but sinister forces, vast conspiracies, or shape-shifting, space-alien lizard men 'really' running things? No, I don't think that's likely. Makes a good story, though.

In my opinion, of course.

War is Not Nice

Conventional wisdom, in some circles, is that military action is the unforgivable sin: an abhorrent act which must never, ever, be contemplated. I think I can understand that sentiment. War is not nice. Things get broken, and people get killed. It would be nice if we didn't ever have any more wars. In my opinion.

It would also, I think, be nice if folks like the Libyan colonel didn't kill people who don't think he's a good leader. Even if they are his subjects.

Sadly, I don't think Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi is going to change the way he deals with people he doesn't approve of.

I also think that enforcing the United Nations Security Council resolution is going to come at a cost: both for armed forces acting against Qadhafi, and for anybody within range of his enforcers:
"Any foreign attack on Libya will endanger air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean basin and expose the area to both short and long term risks, the Defence Ministry said in a statement broadcast on Libyan television.

"The statement said Libya would strike back at civilian and foreign targets if the country comes under attack from foreign forces...."
(Reuters)
So, do I think that nobody should act against the colonel, because he won't like it? And has a track record of having people killed when he's upset?

That'd be nice, in a way: but it would make Qadhafi and others like him de facto rulers of the world. And I don't think even 'serious thinkers' would like that. Not really, not in the long run.

Related posts:
News and views:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.