I believe that Europe is better positioned to effectively pressure Gadaffi, both because of the economic ties and the less tainted history with the regime.  I would like to see the US back off and allow the EU to aggressively assert their own foreign policy, and then deal with the difficulties of enacting it and the aftermath of unintended consequences.  It would be a good thing for the world if there was a second great power (the EU) aggressively pursuing a liberal, democratic agenda in the world.

Don't make me laugh. The Europeans will sit on their hands and do nothing. Twas ever thus. Look at the Balkans. Here is a golden opportunity to overthrow Gadaffi who has been a menace on the world stage for 40 years. He has a lot of blood on his hands. I am not advocating ground forces, but I do think that we (it will be down to Britain and the USA) should use air power to take out his air force and tip the balance so the people of Libya can overthrow this monster. I will lay good money down that the so called liberals on this site (who are nothing of the sort) would not support such actions. They prefer people to live under evil tyrants so long as they can continue with their anti-American and anti West rhetoric. What a pity Saddam, Gadaffi and Mugabe don't have their jack boots on the throats of these 'liberals'. They may be a bit keener on liberty if this were the case.   

The Europeans will sit on their hands and do nothing. Twas ever thus. Look at the Balkans owly 3 March 2011 - 9:13am

All NATO forces were involved. Your memory isn't failing to that extent, surely?  It's also an eccentric use of 'Europe', in this context, which appears to exclude the UK.

Lybian resistants have called for non the intervention of the US Military.They are able  to defend themselves against  Quaddafi forced .On the other hand venezuela presidents suggests a way out of this crisis that have caused material and human casulaities.He has called for dialogue between the opposition and the government with the Arab mediation.

Lybian resistants have called for non the intervention of the US Military.They are able  to defend themselves against  Quaddafi forced .On the other hand venezuela presidents suggests a way out of this crisis that have caused material and human casulaities.He has called for dialogue between the opposition and the government with the Arab mediation.

Given the current circumstances, I would support a no-fly zone, air support for Lybian ground forces, and limited resources on the ground for training.

'I say it is far better to regret something that you haven't done, than to regret something you have done.'

I disagree.

"I will lay good money down that the so called liberals on this site (who are nothing of the sort) would not support such actions"

If by that you mean me, you're right on both counts.  I am nothing of the sort and I do not support such stupidity. 

Gadaffi is on his last legs.  His army has no stomach to fight for him and many of his cronies have already deserted him.  If you want to gauge his support even in Tripoli, look at the faces of those gathered together to chant for him.  There is fear and resignation but not a hint of sincerity.   These people will turn against him too as soon as they are convinced that they have a chance of success.

Libyans' experience of foreign armies is not good.  The Italians wiped out about a third of their population.  The British and Germans happily blew each other to bits over their heads without giving their interests a second thought.  For them there is only one thing worse than Gadaffi:  foreign interference.  And that is Gadaffi's last chance.  He is praying for outside intervention so that he can then be seen as defending the nation rather than fighting for his own survival.  The British government has shown that it is too stupid to understand this.  Luckily, wiser counsel prevails at Head Office.

By the way, you guys are falling into the trap of the Neo-Con thinking.  You are assuming that you can use military power to positively influence events in the Arab world.

You are also somewhat guilty of "the racism of lowered expectations".  You Canadians and British were kind enough to not intervene in the American Civil War when General Shermann invented the modern concept of war crimes against civilians in Georgia, and you should extend the same "courtesy" to the Arabs.

Jay/BigC

I suppose it depends on which analyst you're listening to. I listened to a fellow last night suggest that Gadaffi had been expecting this uprising for some time. That he had been planning for it by denying those troops in the east of new military equipment, arms and training, which he would gave to those troops loyal to him.

I think there's going to be a slaughter while the world watches, sit back and enjoy the show.

I'm not really listening to analysts, Chris.  Just think Peter Franks and Boris Yeltsin.  I'm watching behaviour and events, comparing them to situations we've seen before then applying plain logic:

1. Gadaffi kept his regular army weak and created "elite" brigades of people who are loyal to him.  And there's the rub.  The people he has left have been selected according to loyalty, not ability.  There may some bright people amongst them but most of the able soldiers will be on the other side.

2. The rebels know that they have crossed the rubicon.  They are not going to be swayed by offers of amnesty or negotiation.  They have been there before.  They will either be slaughtered or they will win. So far, the respective  performance of each side points to the latter.

3. Time is on the rebels' side.  They have the oil (even if they cannot, as yet , make use of it) and they have the morale.  Gadaffi's side is cornered with no oil, a reducing bank balance and the need to have as much force allocated inside the city as outside.

4. Gadaffi is not a Franco or Napoleon with an understanding of military strategy and tactics.  He is a street fighter like Saddam or Hitler.  He understands naked force and sheer brutality but nothing more.  People like that are unchallenged as long as they are feared.  But when the fear is gone, they are finished.  The fear is gone.

Yes Gadaffi kept the regular army weak so it did not provide a power base from which anyone could launch a coup - like what he did ! What you call 'the "elite" brigades' are, I suppose, his little private army. You are I think wrong to assume that 'most of the able solders will be on the other side' (meaning the opposition). This 'SS Guard' is well equipped and trained. They may decide that it aint worth the candle, but if you are a Libyan in one of these units you really have nowhere else to go. You would fight not surrender. 

The rebels have indeed crossed the rubicon and should Gadaffi retake rebel areas his revenge will be terrible and bloody. But I think you are mistaken to assume that 'Time is on the rebels' side'. It is in fact the opposite. All Gadaffi has to do is sit and wait. If he can ensure that Tripoli remains in his hands he can play any number of 'games'. He already is. Gradually the opposition will begin to splinter and fragment because it seems there is no one person around whom it can gather. He can play one off against another, which is what he has done for years. The ex this, that or the other have too much baggage and I think I would lock them up, not welcome them. There is no unifying figure as Gadaffi has made sure he has no rival. The only figure who is around (and you will balk at this) is the Crown Prince, heir to King Idris.

I was listening to the radio the other day and I think it was Jeremy Bowen reporting from Tripoli. He said he had been in many capitals when there was a revolution in the offing and they were always deserted. Not so in Tripoli. That suggests to me it isn't going to happen anytime soon. The West should help the rebels by destroying Gadaffi's air power. That would give them heart and make it a bit of a fairer fight. Good luck to them is all I can say.     

Owly,

I think your assessment is spot on, as the days pass Gadaffi's well trained army will continue to beat back the poorly trained and poorly organized resistance. As you say, without some form of air support the resistance will gradually lose their momentum (aready happeing) and the West will have lost a golden opportunity.

Matt, I agree with much of what you say as well.

Matt,

When it comes intervening in the foreign conflicts, my approach is always the same - I think the international community should look at ways of minimising the bloodshed, while leaving the day-to-day stuff to local forces (assuming they act within certain boundaries). This doesn't necessarily involve military operations, it could simply be a case of sending medical supplies, etc., but it doesn't necessarily rule them out if the situation gets bad enough.

This is the case wherever in the world the fighting is going on. It’s the approach I’d advocate if the US suddenly decided to tear itself apart. And it’s also the approach I hope the rest of the world would take if it was the UK that had fallen into violence and near anarchy.

You are a calm, rational, conscientious man.  It is hard to argue with your thinking above, but I would like to posit a different world view that has forced itself upon me in the last few years.

You and I are members of relatively quiet democracies where people generally adhere to the rule of law.  We have little experience in the "real world", meaning the political paradigms under which the majority of the world's populations is forced to reside.

First, lets pop this bubble of "the international community".  You are talking about "us".  If the international community is represented by the United Nations, we control it.  England, France, Russia, China and the United States--as permanent Security Council members with veto power--essentially decide on the "will" of the international community.  There are tremendous flaws in that, but lets focus on one.

The socio-political biases and popular opinions of post-industrial democracies are over-represented in this "international community".  In this Western bubble in which we live, our political thinking has evolved to a point where we are only capable of determining political legitimacy in terms of elections.  In our minds, only the "will of the people" is legitimate, and political violence is a corruption of the determination of that will.

But, how did "we" determine our leaders before we had democracy?  How did we crown our kings, or, more relevantly, how did Ibn Saud become king of Arabia?  We have to dial back our minds to understand how political power is achieved in pre-democratic societies.  If a man can raise a following, train them, arm them, pay them, direct them to defeat those that oppose him, and then continue to support them as long as they support him, then this is obviously a man who has proved himself to be of superior competence than that of his rivals.  That is the man who should be king.  He is the one capable of bringing order and stability.

Dear man, as much as I loathe the idea, Machiavellianism is the law of nature outside our Western bubble.  Of course we despise the idea, and wish to intervene to bring more modern concepts of social harmony that we enjoy in our world.  We don't have the stomach for violence.  We want to fast forward human history and see other nations be peaceful and democratic.  In the process, we become just another faction in the civil war.  We essentially become the kingmakers when we try to install peace.

In a nation still mired in tribalism, this might be a mistake.  Democracy is rather meaningless in the absence of pluralism.  People are going to vote according to ancient affiliations.  Democracy at that point becomes a census on tribal, ethnic, or sectarian populations.  This does not mean the winner is the most capable leader, or will not merely use the power for corruption and nepotism.  In this sense, Democracy can be seen as rather illegitimate, as it is simply the justification for doling out the wealth of a society to an overrepresented social network.  If ever there was a way to undermine the appeal of democracy, it would be to impose it upon a society that just isn't ready for it.

So, back we go to the question.  We are bringing our Western democratic biases into the paradigm of Libyan tribal warfare.  If you are going to intervene, what is your exit strategy?  Do you help one faction until they prove themselves to be just as barbaric as the ones you thought you were protecting them from?  Do you switch sides at that point?  Do you abandon the mission in failure and disgrace?  We helped the Bosnians against the Serbs, and then when they had the power they engaged in ethnic cleansing also.  We handed the keys of democratic leadership to Hamid Karzai and then he stole the next election right under our noses.  We liberated the Shi'ites from Saddam and sanctions, and they became our most vocal critics.  What are we getting ourselves into here?

Gadaffi is a monster, but what are the alternatives?  Who do we support instead?  In this particular affair, my opinion is that we stand back and let the Libyans fight it out.  Let the new king arise in the way that Darwin intended.  When the Libyans decide that they no longer want this type of system of deciding a ruler, perhaps they will give democracy a chance.  However, if we make it our moral crusade to stop the bloodshed, we are just delaying their national political development.

I would like to see America send medical supplies to the wounded and aid to the refugees, but I sincerely hope that my country does not send more guns to the Arab world, neither in donation to any particular faction nor those carried by well-intentioned US troops.  I would rather focus on fostering democracy in Egypt and Tunisia, which I regard as post-Tribal societies.  The march towards global democracy occurs one country at a time.  We should focus on harvesting the low-hanging fruit while the opportunity presents itself, and wait for the fruit at the precarious outer and upper branches to hit the ground on their own.

The obsession with 'International Law', which is a nebulous concept in many ways, seems to allow you to sit on your hands and be critical of your own governments and do exactly nothing.OWLY

International law is a reflection of reality. When the US/UK was in flagrant breach of international law in the 2003 attack on Iraq, it was because they were afraid of a peaceful resolution of the situation. The correct, humane and realistic thing to have done would have been to release the Iraqis from the oppression of UN and US sanctions which no longer had the slightest justification and had had no legitimacy since the end of the 1991 conflict.

In the case of Libya it there is no reason to think that unilateral action would be intended to produce, or would result in, a benefit to Libya or the world.

In the meantime, the forces sent to re-take Brega have now been pushed back from Ras Lanuf, the town they had fallen back to. These are heavily armed professional soldiers with air support and  artillery, being pushed back from defensive postions by lightly armed  amateurs with neither.  Does no-one appreciate just how significant that is?

To the West of Tripoli, Gadaffi's troops have failed to take back Zawiya which is just 30 miles from Tripoli - again despite the use of tanks, artillery and air support.

“But where is your humanity ? There are a number of murderous regimes around the world and no one lifts a finger - I suppose following the old Westphalia Doctrine.”

Exactly, there is quite a number of them. And now there is a chance to topple a murderous regime in an oil-exporting country, and suddenly our governments care. You can’t understand how one can find that suspicious, can you?

If you want to discard the Westphalian doctrine, you must intervene to make things better, not worse. From the messages that find their way out of Libya I gather that most Libyan opposition groups don’t want a foreign intervention. Nobody wants to be “liberated” Iraq-style or Afghanistan-style. Perfectly understandable.

Matt,

I have some time, so I am going to leave a reply for you.  However, I would actually prefer that you currently continued your conversation with Owly and Eric, and respond to me later.  I am enjoying the British views from left, right and center on this topic.  (I had to google "Islington" and "ducks and drakes" to follow the conversation.)

Gadaffi is a monster, but what are the alternatives? Who do we support instead? In this particular affair, my opinion is that we stand back and let the Libyans fight it out. Let the new king arise in the way that Darwin intended. When the Libyans decide that they no longer want this type of system of deciding a ruler, perhaps they will give democracy a chance. However, if we make it our moral crusade to stop the bloodshed, we are just delaying their national political development.  (Jay)

The problem I have, however, is that it’s far easier to accept in the abstract than in reality. While we sit back and wait for certain areas to gradually feel their way towards liberal democracy there are people in those areas desperate for help to protect themselves and their families. Do we simply accept them as justifiable collateral damage?  (Matt)

I just need to make sure that we are on the same page.  When you refer to "certain areas", you are speaking of areas inside Libya, correct?  I am not against an occasional intervention if the goals are clear and the offending actions are universally acknowledged as unacceptable (confronting genocide, for example).  I again state that in this particular affair I consider intervention to be a horrible idea.

To your first point, I would argue that "humanitarian intervention" is easier to conceive in the abstract than it is in reality.  There is no such thing as a "surgical strike" to stop the bloodshed.  We have no idea what the situation on the ground is, the history, the tensions, the issues, etc, and when we intervene we have no idea what road we are clearing for unintended consequences.  I am going to plagiarize a quote I found today:

"...the experience of the last decade or so does not lead one to be confident that launching military force with woefully inadequate intelligence solves more problems than it creates or that, on balance, it actually ends up saving lives.

...there is danger in posturing dramatically (or sanctimoniously) from outside about supporting an embattled side and then failing adequately to follow up with quick and effective action, which is often impossible to put together. The danger of coupling vast proclamation with limited action is that it can encourage people desperately to hold out in hopeless situations waiting for the promised, or seemingly promised, deliverance from outside."    John Mueller, political scientist, Ohio State University

Do we simply accept [the fate of those who are desperate to protect themselves and their families] as justifiable collateral damage?

Unfortunately, it would be unwise not to.  We can send doctors and medical supplies to heal them, rations to feed them, and ferries to evacuate them, but we shouldn't attempt to protect the Libyans from themselves.  If you shoot down an attack helicopter, you are still creating orphans and widows by that act.

If the majority of Libya are opposed to western intervention, or simply aren’t “ready” for liberal democracy, what does that mean for those that do, and are?

It means that they represent a minority, and that intervening on the behalf of democracy would be inherently undemocratic.  Again, we shouldn't assume that they don't have intelligent reasons for not wanting intervention or democracy.  Some societies simply are not ready.

I’m not expecting you (or anyone) to come up with the perfect way to deal with nightmarish situations like the one currently unfolding. This is more a mental throat-clearing than anything.

I would advise you to harden your heart.  The score is 9-6 for the rebels, but this is a basketball game that just started.  The fall of Gadaffi will only mark the end of the first quarter.

Gaddafi still gets about 200 million $ per week, because the Libyan central bank and Libyan companies abroad controlled by him are NOT included in the sanctions. He can pay his mercenaries.

That means the debate of an intervention is not even a debate of the last remaining resort.