It started out as a Day of Rage in Libya; a symbolic protest in solidarity with protests in Egypt and in the north of Africa. People rose up in opposition to leader Muammar Gadhafi, who they claimed to be an oppressive tyrant who paid them poorly and stifled all media. 
Gadhafi forces at that time staged a counter-revolution in Tripoli. Pro-government demonstrators were seen waving flags, and fireworks were exploded. It was reported then that Gadhafi, in response to the criticism, doubled the salaries of some state employees, and released 110 Islamic militants. Then the crowds of insurgents, local citizens determined to change their intolerable situation, increased in number beyond all expectation. Gadhafi was accused of firing upon the demonstrators, now numbering in the hundreds of thousands, shooting into crowds of protesters. “We will not surrender”, Gadhafi said. He blamed al Qaeda, “We will fight until the last man, the last woman, for Libya, from north, south, east and west.” Speaking in the Libyan capital city of Tripoli, in Green Square late February, Gadhafi told a throng of loyalists that he would continue to arm his supporters to fight opposition forces, and that “all the weapon stores will be opened.”
A few short days later, Gadhafi revised his claims. “Terrorists,” he said, “backed by al Qaeda, have released prisoners from jails; released them, and added them to their terrorist forces.” Gadhafi called those whom al Qaeda released, “Criminals, not political prisoners”. Gadhafi added that “We had to destroy the weapons stores to prevent them from falling into the hands of the terrorists.”
Before that week had ended Gadhafi appeared to reverse several stands. He had been accused of encouraging pro-government forces to shoot into crowds of protesters. “There were no protests! No protests”, he said,” in Benghazi, or Derna, or in the town of al-Baida”. Then today, March 9, speaking to French television, Gadhafi said, "I'd have to be mad to shoot at peaceful demonstrators. I'd never have done that. I'd never have allowed anyone to be shot!"
Now the West and NATO are discussing and soon may be installing a “no-fly zone.” This would be a major step for NATO, which is traditionally slow to intervene, preferring discussion and humanitarian efforts. For NATO to act to protect demonstrators against the long-standing Libyan government of Muammar Gadhafi would be a significant intervention.
We find a sovereign nation faced with an uprising, a citizens revolt, those citizens threatening to unseat the ruling regime, utilizing force to do so. The controlling government takes action to quell the revolt, and world forces, with considerable but not absolute support, may opt to aid the dissidents to overthrow the administration. This is judgmental. It presupposes a clearly defined right and wrong, and precludes the possibility that some decades down the road, history will find that the Gadhafi administration was justified. The United States and NATO cannot act on impulse, thought must precede radical action.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates supports protection of the rebels in Libya, but he calls the imposition of a no-fly zone an “act of war”. He said such actions would be a part of a policy of attacking Libya to destroy Libyan air defenses. He goes on to say that our Constitution gives only Congress, not the president, the authority to declare war. Gates also points out that Gadhafi’s acts to defend his administration do not constitute a threat to the United States.
What a joke!! All of a sudden, the unconstitutional president with the unconstitutional laws is hiding behind the constitution because he is scared!
2 - John Lake
"cautious" might be a choice of words
3 - LynnfromBC
There are some big red flags John is pointing out here. It is a fact that we really do not know what was going on in Libya before the protests, there could have been brewing unrest prior, and therefore can not rush to judgement on positions.
4 - Cannonshop
We'll get better results if we just stay out of it.
This is true whether you're a handwringer for "Third World Rights" or a rabid Imperialist Waaahmongah (I think that's how the warhammer kids are spelling it).
Why? because by intervening in a cross-tribal dispute (which this increasingly looks to be based on reports), we'll just reunite them in nationalism-against us.
If someone were to do that, well...it works better if you intervene after they've expended their high-speed ammo and broken all their shiny toys and worn themselves out.
5 - Dr Dreadful
As Gaddafi himself has pointed out, Libya has long acted as a buffer zone for migrants transiting north from sub-Saharan Africa. He claims (with how much justification, I don't know) that but for Libya the numbers of these migrants reaching Europe would be much higher than it is.
Add to that the hundreds of thousands of refugees from Libya itself, many of whom probably have no intention of stopping in Tunisia, and you do have a potential security threat to NATO member countries. That in itself might be used to justify some sort of military intervention.
6 - Ruvy
I agree with Cannonshop, and with the point that Lynn makes. Stay the hell out of the Middle East because you have no clue as to what you are doing here. But Gates' lame excuse from a régime with the middle name "illegal" is just disgusting.
7 - Richard
Act of war? What about the "Responsibility to Protect"? We seem to have forgotten about that since the Balkans. No UN resolution is needed to legally engage in military action against Lybia. It's all a facade by the three stooges: Obama, Clinton and Gates.
8 - John Lake
Here’s an interesting development. The Middle East publication of the Wall Street Journal and other reports indicate that France is considering the recognition of “The Opposition” as the new legitimate government of Libya. Such recognition by the West, the U.S., NATO, would pave the way for a war to unseat Gadhafi, including not only a no-fly zone, but air-strikes and ground forces. Maybe France would like to see the world seize the Libyan bankroll and turn it over to undefined individuals.
9 - LynnfromBC
It is striking how everyone, even rock stars who legitimately get paid to entertain people, want to wipe themselves clean of involvement anything to do with Gaddafi. Working for someone and getting legitimately paid for product is not the same as accepting a bribe.
Anyone disposing of Libyan assets would probably like it to appear legitimate that the Libyan money would go to a "perceived good cause." But that is a contingency, to say the least.
The issue, no matter how we look at it, is based on egotistical self-aggrandizement geared solely for the purpose of looking good to the last man standing. There is absolutely no altruistic value to what the international community is doing because it is based upon what other people will think of them if they make the wrong choice and support the wrong side. France has a history of talking out both ends, refusing to stand it's ground and that has never served the country well. They are most likely worried about their geographic position to the front lines.
As for the money, people who can be bought have no integrity. Gaddafi knows this and it serves him well. We have seen that if he can't buy someone he will kill them. That's what makes him dangerous. He is just waiting for someone to accept his and his country's open invitation for foreign military action.
RSVP declined.
10 - John Lake
Lynn (from British Columbia, I assume):
You make the point that France desires to appear supportive of seekers of democracy and freedom. As a Canadian, you most likely have some particular insight.
I can't help but wonder who they think they are going to support. In fact, it doesn't seem to make sense.
11 - Baritone
I can't say that I particularly desire US military involvement in Libya. We're spread far too thin as it is. But it seems like we invariably jump in with both feet when we shouldn't, and sit back and cogitate, stroking our chins in thought, when we should. Unilateral military action in Libya by the US would probably be a mistake as it would feed the flames of muslim radicalism. But if the US, in league with UN or NATO forces or some damn body, hopefully with the blessing of the Arab League, doesn't do something in the next few days, it appears that it will be a moot point. Khadafi will have won. At this point in time, sanctions of whatever kind are meaningless, even ludicrous.
Then how would that work for us and the rest of the world? Virtually every country of note has condemned Khadafi and called for his removal from power. Should he win against the rebel forces successfully putting down the rebellion, then how does that play out? Do we lick his frilly boots and ask that he PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE let us have some of his sweet oil? Do we ignore what will surely be his murderous vengeance against the rebels?
I wish that just once, we'd get it right. This has the feel of what we did after the first Gulf War. We encouraged, hell we goaded the Kurds and others to rise up against Saddam, but then offered them no support. Up they rose. Saddam smashed them and murdered them. There is no reason to believe that Khadafi will react any differently.
Is there not even a semblence of morality in how we play our cards? Or do we once again deal from the bottom of the deck, hedging our bets and figuring we'd rather shame ourselves for the sake of his fucking oil rather than take a chance on a new Libyan regime? The US and much of the west can be such goddamn hypocrites! Essentially the inaction of the US and the west says, "We don't care how many Libyans are hideously tortured or slaughtered so long as it brings down the price at the pump."
B
12 - John Lake
There is agreement that although the world considers NATO, and the Security Council to hold ultimate authority, in the end it’s the United States that makes decisions. To deny that is to deny the reality of the situation. Now comes France , years ago a strong ally with the U.S., still an ally, and France declares recognition of “The Transitional Council”. France says that council is the "legitimate representative of the Libyan people." France is already sending an ambassador. Many Americans will be influenced to know that France has found a democracy-favoring group to support.
China has risen substantially in authority in recent years. There may be discussion among some that China is near overcoming the U.S. as a prime world leader. The Soviet Union totters back and forth as an American-friendly power, but hasn’t gone the extra mile in recent years to corroborate that alliance. America may sense hostility from Russia; China may sense hostility from America. We continue to aggravate any Chinese friendship by the boisterous oratory of some, not to mention the sales of weapons to Taiwan.
China has worked with us. They support sanctions against Libya owing to lack of democratic principle. Yet we continue to provoke China. A tough kid in a classroom was king of the roost. A kid who might be as tough joins the class. Our classroom kid continues to carry on as though nothing were wrong. No one wants to see a negative outcome.
China and Russia are clearly opposed to military intervention in an independent country.
Can we forget the little Bush and his big sign, “mission accomplished”? When newscasters mention 5000 lives lost in Iraq, they don’t mention hundreds of thousands of the lives of Iraqis protecting their homes and families. It sticks in my mind the day we took out Saddam's Governmental money on a skid. Did I read the skid was later lost?
It isn’t fair to leave a decision that may affect the world for decades in the hands of one man, our President, Barack Obama. Our government is not having its finest days. Republican leaders, candidates for the presidency, would like nothing better than to spend every penny we can scrape together to “bomb Iran”.
This nonsense, this talk should end. Tough talk today could be expensive tomorrow.
13 - LynnfromBC
Yes, I am from British Columbia John, and thanks for asking. I am also a former member of our armed forces and remember all too well the French initiatives and the rest of the world's lack of initiatives that led to the the genocide in Rwanda.
As you might recall, France backed the government in power at that time, providing them with arms while the UN Security Council essentially emasculated peacekeeping forces on the ground,forbidding them to get involved. France is still deeply entrenched in International Criminal Court proceedings to this day. It would account for the about face of Sarkozy's Libyan alliance. While it is just speculation on my part, shame is at play here. The same thing could easily happen here, but again, as you say, taking any side wouldn't make sense. It's political suicide if nothing else. Something foul is up with that. There are embarrassing circumstances popping up all over the place where people have money and some form of involvement with Gaddafi and it goes all the way to Britain's royal family.
In addition, the US and Canada have been involved in a project aimed at
14 - LynnfromBC
In addition, the US and Canada have been involved in a project aimed at preventing mass atrocities called Mobilizing the Will to Intervene. It has had some interesting results. Sometimes more deaths happen because of involvement when they would not have happened if there were no involvement. No one has a crystal ball.
15 - LynnfromBC
In essence, what Cannonship says will happen with cross tribal factions, is exactly what happened to France with Rwanda. The world has jumped too quickly in judgement of the legitimacy of leadership in Libya, and the reacting will have consequences if Gaddafi is found to have been acting upon a perceived act of terrorism. How do you tell as an outsider?
He has been quietly sending out a number of envoys to several countries, some are on the Security Council leadership and others the Arab League. I sense damage control on his part, and France is taking offense.
16 - Ruvy
Lynn's and Cannonshop's perceptive comments are the reason westerners should stay out of the Middle East. You haven't a clue as to what is going on here. If what is going on in Libya is ultimately a tribal fight, and Khaddafi can mobilize forces to crush a breakaway tribe, then he is just an old evil man. He is no different from the Nigerians who crushed Biafra (remember the Igbo, anybody?) and a small genocide will follow.
Most of us in Israel take the view, "let them kill each other off". They are busy enough calling for us to die. We have no reason to really give a damn over them. If our government is stupid enough to get involved, and they might be, they will only increase the casualties we suffer when the Arabs start their war on us down the road.
Bear in mind that our government represents us as much as your governments represent you - not at all, in other words.
17 - Cannonshop
"I against my brother,
My brother and I against our Cousin,
My brother and my cousin and I against the neighbours,
all of us against outsiders/the World".
We're all better off if we sit this one out and let the locals fight until they've gotten tired of burning, killing, and blowing each other up.
Quaddafi may be acting on local intel, or he may be acting on senile dementia-there's really no way to know for certain from the West what his motivations are, or the motives of his opponenents-remember, just because someone says they want democracy when they're asking you for help overthrowing their government, doesn't automatically mean they're actually intent to go forward with it-the majority of violent revolutions on this scale result in some shade of brutal tyranny, historically. It just tends to hack out that way.
But you're more likely to influence a winner-especially if he wants something from you-than you are to influence him if you sided with the other side first.
Besides, we already TRIED to kill Quaddafi, we ended up blowing up his kid in the front yard instead, and while that DID scare him badly enough to moderate his behaviour, it's not a good precedent to follow through on if we can avoid doing so.
18 - LynnfromBC
All it would take, Ruvy, for the rest of the world to go home and mind their own business is acknowledgement that even some members of the security council open fire and kill peaceful protestors. No one is considering sanctioning the Saudis for going after protestors today with gunfire and fists. If that keeps happening and people start dying by the numbers in all the middle east and most Asian countries, then the world is going to have a problem. Why are they only going after one, when all these others are doing the same? If they are going to pick on one, they are going to have to take them all on, or let them be as you mention. Most only recognize parts of international law anyway.
19 - LynnfromBC
While we are sitting this one out,would anyone like some Nescafe?
20 - sherri gibson
This gives more insight to the other view.
21 - John Lake
When I suggest that Gadhafi might be justified, I am alienating many readers. Here is a story from ABC Online that makes the point. Briefly stated, Mr. Gadhafi (ABC calls him) is utilizing forces available to him to recapture the oil port at Ras Lanuf. This is a counter offensive, to prevent opposition rebels from taking this strategic installation. I said earlier that history may judge Gadhafi as being correct and legitimate in putting down those who would overthrow him. Sometimes we need to defend someone with whom we don’t personally agree.
22 - John Lake
sherri gibson(#20) makes some effort to bring to BlogCritics’ readers the opinion found in ALJAZEERA English pertinent to the entire matter of Libya, and intervention. What the article says is that what is immediately striking about the bipartisan call in Washington for a no-fly zone and air strikes designed to help rebel forces in Libya is the absence of any concern with the relevance of international law or the authority of the United Nations. None in authority take the trouble to construct some kind of legal rationalization. The 'realists' in command, and echoed by the mainstream media, do not feel any need to provide even a legal fig leaf before embarking on aggressive warfare. It should be obvious that a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace is an act of war, as would be, of course, contemplated air strikes on fortifications of the Gaddafi forces. The core legal obligation of the UN Charter requires...
23 - cindy
Someone with whom we don't personally agree, John? You'd makes BRILLIANT politician. You also make a nice example of what is wrong with your culture. You make me furious.
You are the problem with people.
24 - John Lake
I'm still sitting at my desk worrying I may provoke the site by the long quote.
Cindy, you may have heard the term, "devils advocate" usually used in relation to non-secular matters?
I am trying to make the point that war is not necessarily a good idea with Libya, at this time. You may agree that many lives may be lost.
An attorney in court may represent someone with whom he disagrees.
One should apply reason to issues, not emotion.
If I suggested that we use a few CIA operatives, completely outside any pretext of law, to alter the situation, then I would actually be doing something wrong. But many lives and much expense could be thus avoided.
So, who's to say...?
25 - cindy
Want to know what the answer should be?
You should welcome death for yourself before you would support a toturous, murdering, oppressor for any reason. Because you do not you are complicit in perpetuating the culture of domination and oppression.
(Roger, Listening to these people is for me is jarring. And tolerating them feels awful. This guy, John Lake for example, in this instance it is the same feeling I would have hearing a racial slur. I just bristle. They non-chalantly disregard and marginalize the lives of other people. That's why I find it hard to develop patience or even civility sometimes with them.)