What you are saying here is a version of the narrative that was very often repeated by CNN and the New York Times as justification for "US compulsion to keep India out of any Afghanistan solution." It is a very convenient justification for the US, which was no more willing than Pakistan to have India play a military or political role in any Afghan solution. It would have thrown all of Washington's geostrategic calculations out of whack if India gained influence in Afghanistan as a result of Op Enduring Freedom... something far more important in the long term than "catching Bin Laden."ManuT wrote:Onlee, contrary to a preference for TSP, there was a quid-pro-quo between Mush and Amritraaj that TSP's GUBO was conditional to keeping India out of any Afghanistan solution.Rudradev wrote:
Evidence? Rather than go after Pakistan for the 9-11 attacks with Indian help, the US preferred:
1) To allow itself to be sidetracked by a long ground war in Afghanistan, with full and continuing Pakistani support to their enemies.
2) To ignore the role of Pakistan in creating the Taliban and supporting the OBL group all the way up to the murder of Ahmad Shah Massood.
3) To facilitate the survival of ISI assets that were crucial to the Taliban's operations, by allowing the Kunduz airlift.
4) To ignore the proliferation of nuclear weapons by the Pakistan government, labeling it the work of a "rogue AQ Khan network" and saying "the past is the past" even as proliferation continued into the future.
5) To pump billions of dollars of aid into Pakistan even as Pakistan continued to support the Taliban against US forces in Afghanistan.
6) To arm Pakistan with modern weapons systems that were completely and entirely India-specific.
7) To ignore future attacks against Western interests and citizens, including Daniel Pearl, the London and Madrid Subways and many more that were still carried out with the full support and facilitation of Pakistan.
8 ) To warn, caution and threaten India against retaliating for Pakistani terrorist attacks in India, and counsel that India should instead stabilize a dysfunctional Pakistan by giving away J&K to Pakistan.
The truth is that EVEN IF the West changes its mind after another Pakistani terrorist attack in a Western country, EVEN IF the US decides to punish Pakistan militarily for this... they will still seek to avoid any Indian involvement whatsoever. It is vitally important to the US that India should not gain from the aftermath of any Western action against Pakistan. For now, that means that India does not have to counsel restraint.
Restraint is automatically built in to any Western response towards Pakistan, and will be for the foreseeable future, because the West's desire to prevent India gaining is far greater than the West's desire to punish Pakistan. Whether we counsel restraint or not doesn't matter at all.
Again, I have heard too many times about how the US was ignorant, delusional, naive, stupid, far too trusting and bhola-bhala in believing that Pakistan would be its loyal friend and ally against the Taliban.Let me put it like this.
1. At the time of 911 US was ignorant. The narrative of the Indian subcontinent was held by TSP, because that is what happens when you allow others to tell your narrative. There was no Indian narrative in the beltway (because no one was invited). TSP had the long institutional awareness of the US, because of its past alliances and the Soviet-Afghan War. The narrative only started to change from the middle of Kargil after IA started evicting NLI. (Before that US, UK wanted India to declare a ceasefire because frankly they did not believe IA would get them evicted). The first milestone was reached on 4 Jul, 1999 when NS was made to wait for an appointment with Bill Clinton. Though Jaswant Singh helped, 2001 was too less of a time frame to break TSPs instituational linkages with US. Besides, India (prone to self goals), itself had legitimised Musharraf by inviting him to Agra summit, weeks before 911.
So everyone says. People were holding their breath for a total collapse of Pakistan when Baitullah's merry men were overrunning Swat. Did it happen?2. TSP has not kept part of its deal for US to continue to hold any part of its side. In the meantime TSP is practically being frog marched to the point of exhaustion.
They were always aware of it, and always preferred it to any chance of India having a role in the military-political dispensation of post-Taliban Afghanistan. No matter how bad or costly the duplicitous game, it was preferable in their geostrategic worldview. Drones are a palliative measure designed to inflict harm on specific proxies who are undermining the US' mission in Afghanistan. They are only controlling a symptom. Nothing is being done against the "cause" of the disease, because it is still an article of faith in US foreign policy making circles that this "cause" is necessary to sustain and support for long-term geopolitical purposes.3. Anyways, looking to the future. US after 10 years is more than aware of the duplicitous game of TSP. It has used drone to wreck every peace deal between taliban and TSPA that ISI has tried to manufacture.
Why are you disappointed? State Dept with CIA input formulates US foreign policy, and backing TSPA/ISI as a geopolitical proxy for West and Central Asia is an absolute cornerstone of US foreign policy. You are only disappointed because you assumed otherwise to begin with.4. As wikileaks have pointed out, regular US Army officers were reporting back to their superiors of TSPA's double game. But CIA covered for TSP. (I am disappointed though that the State Dept has clamped down on it employees officially to read about them)
In the matter of a few weeks since the RD affair you expect things have changed? I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed again.5. That has changed since the RD affair (and streaming out of other operatives as were disucss). TSP has made some enemies in the last pillar of institutional support in the US. This means more than awareness, the linkages are breaking apart. I do not think the US intel community will be forgetting the RD affair in a hurry. Going forward the dice is loaded against TSP.
I don't see how this has any relevance to my original point, which is that India was not invited, and its participation was not encouraged, in any military enforcement of a NFZ in Libya... so on what basis were we going to go in? Were we going to ask to join, and then be told "no thanks?" For all you know this might have been exactly what happened, even before the UNSC vote. End result, we're not invited and we're not there... so it makes eminent sense for us not to have committed ourselves politically in favour of the whole adventure.1. The point is about 1974 to 2005. No 2005 deal without 1974 Pokharan 1 (and consistent clean record in nuclear non-proliferation).Rudradev wrote: You're not seriously comparing a nuclear test by Indian institutions using Indian resources on Indian territory, to military operations against a foreign government on another continent... are you? However you look at it, the latter is far more contingent on our receiving a willing "invitation" than the former.
India *always* had more credibility and appreciation among Afghans than the Pakis or the US. We have tried to play our cards there as well as we can, following the removal of Taliban. Thanks to our friends in Karzai's regime we have been able to maintain a presence with economic, humanitarian and developmental aid which has enhanced our goodwill.2. Inspite, of the quid-pro-quo of keeping India out, it has more street credibility and milestones in the eyes of Afghans than US-TSP combined, and could not be kept out of the Afghan solution, even after killing of its Attache.
Firstly, it is by no means obvious that the people of Libya are unanimous in wanting Gaddafi overthrown.1. I am just curious to know the where it is on the scale, other than a 0. Sending medics, would at the very least, shown solidarity to the people of Libya. IMO there was a need to take sides. What India is saying is that is OK with dictators. In all likelyhood someone from Indian Oil is still holding deeds worth $4B from Saddam's era. (Same for ONGC for gas from Burma)Rudradev wrote: How would sending medics have established our power projection capabilities, exactly? ..
"All are welcome" is very well in theory, but the fact is, leadership of the UN mandate invariably devolves to members of the P5-- in this case the US, UK and France. They are the ones who ultimately decide the composition of the task force and delegate the roles to be played within it. They have made no secret of wanting GCC armed forces to get involved in the Libyan NFZ, but again, I haven't heard a word from them encouraging Indian involvement... only sniping by their pet mongrels in the media about "BRIC" hypocrisy, etc.
Whose narrative is this anyway?We agree on this point. We do not need to answer to any foreigner who demands to know what India's strategic objectives are or what India is willing to do to attain them. When the time comes the foreigners will find out.2. I do not care for the pet mongrels or blame them becuase they are in 1 of the 2 categories - 1 those feel let down by India's non-performance and want to know What are India's strategic objectives and What is India willing to do, to attain them.
The other are who are paid to be ignorant, who really not critical of India's abstention at UNSC per se, but India itself. They should also, not be allowed to hold the narrative.
Not sure what you are saying here. Yes, I agree it is P3 out of P5 who are leading the Libyan operation, but where does wikileaks come into the picture?3. P3 out of P5 because wikileaks do not happen with the other 2. If they did, not difficult to imagine the fate of the people who will do that, same day firing squad.
[/quote]I would see it as a failure of policy, in case, US punishes TSP militarily and without India getting a piece of the action from the start. Because, per Mirza Alsam Beg, TSP would nuke India, anyways. For India to then join the fight after having missed all opportunities to shape - prevent or limit - the battleground.Rudradev wrote: To devise a game effectively we must have intimate knowledge of the gameboard. The Pentagon's New Map is exactly that... a realistic assessment of the gameboard at the time of writing, plus a vision of how the gameboard should ideally appear, in order to best serve US interests. Only on that solid foundation can strategies be devised and implemented to go from point A to point B.
Do we have a South Block's New Map? Let's start by making one. I would suspect that on such a gameboard, Libya (given the stakes, risks and rewards) would simply not be in play for any of our opening moves. Bahrain, on the other hand, might be... we will have to watch that carefully.
Also, for the same reason, I would also see it as failure of strategy and its inability to in case India decides to punish TSP without US on board, only because the job will get done quicker. If TSP is solved for India, for the US, Iran with a pretense of nuclear weapons, ceases to be a threat too.
1) Historically:
"If Muammar Al Gaddafi behaved paranoid, it was for good reason. It wasn't long after he reached the age of 27 and led a small group of junior military officers in a bloodless coup d'état against Libyan King Idris on September 1, 1969, that threats to his power and life emerged - from monarchists, Israeli Mossad, Palestinian disaffections, Saudi security, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL), the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO), British intelligence, United States antagonism and, in 1995, the most serious of all, Al Qaeda-like Libyan Islamic fighting group, known as Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya. The Colonel reacted brutally, by either expelling or killing those he feared were against him."[3]
2) National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL)
"With the aim of overthrowing Libyan strongman Muammar Khadafy, Israel and the U.S. trained anti-Libyan rebels in a number of West and Central African countries. The Paris-based African Confidential newsletter reported on January 5th, 1989, that the US and Israel had set up a series of bases in Chad and other neighboring countries to train 2000 Libyan rebels captured by the Chad army. The group, called The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, was based in Chad."[4]
"US official records indicate that funding for the Chad-based secret war against Libya also came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and Iraq. The Saudis, for instance, donated $7m to an opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (also backed by French intelligence and the CIA). But a plan to assassinate Gadafi and take over the government on 8 May 1984 was crushed. In the following year, the US asked Egypt to invade Libya and overthrow Gadafi but President Mubarak refused. By the end of 1985, the Washington Post had exposed the plan after congressional leaders opposing it wrote in protest to President Reagan."[5]
"The FNSL [National Front for the Salvation of Libya] was part of the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition held in London in 2005, and British resources are being used to support the FNSL and other 'opposition' in Libya.... The FNSL held its national congress in the USA in July 2007. Reports of 'atrocities' and civilian deaths are being channeled into the western press from operations in Washington DC, and the opposition FNSL is reportedly organizing resistance and military attacks from both inside and outside Libya."[6]
3) National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO),
"The main group leading the insurrection is the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition which includes the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). The NFSL, which is leading the violence, is a U.S.-sponsored armed militia of mostly Libyan expatriates and tribes opposed to al-Qaddafi."[7]
4) Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, LIFG)
"The LIFG was founded in 1995 by a group of mujahideen veterans who had fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Upon their return to Libya they grew angry about what they viewed as the corruption and impiety of the Libyan regime and formed the LIFG to create a state that would show what they believed to be the true character of the Libyan people.
The most significant LIFG attack was a 1996 attempt to assassinate Gadhafi; LIFG members led by Wadi al-Shateh threw a bomb underneath his motorcade. The group also stages guerilla-style attacks against government security forces from its mountain bases. Although most LIFG members are strictly dedicated to toppling Gadhafi, intelligence reportedly indicates that some have joined forces with al-Qaida to wage jihad against Libyan and Western interests worldwide. ....
As recently as February 2004, then-Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that "one of the most immediate threats [to U.S. security] is from smaller international Sunni extremist groups that have benefited from al-Qaida links. They include ... the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group."[8]
"In recent days Libyan officials have distributed security documents giving the details of Sufiyan al-Koumi, said to be a driver for Osama bin Laden, and of another militant allegedly involved in an "Islamic emirate" in Derna, in now-liberated eastern Libya. Koumi, the documents show, was freed in September 2010 as part of a "reform and repent" initiative organised by Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi's son....
The LIFG, established in Afghanistan in the 1990s, has assassinated dozens of Libyan soldiers and policemen. In 2009, to mark Gaddafi's 40 years in power, it apologised for trying to kill him and agreed to lay down its arms. MI6 [British Intelligence] has been accused in the past of supporting it. Six LIFG leaders, still in prison, disavowed their old ways and explained why fighting Gaddafi no longer constituted "legitimate" jihad. Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, another freed LIFG member, denied the official claims. "Gaddafi is trying to divide the people," he told al-Jazeera. "He claims that there is an Islamist emirate in Derna and that I am its emir. He is taking advantage of the fact that I am a former political prisoner."
Derna is famous as the home of a large number of suicide bombers in Iraq. It is also deeply hostile to Gaddafi. "Residents of eastern Libya in general, and Derna in particular, view the Gaddadfa (Gaddafi's tribe) as uneducated, uncouth interlopers from an inconsequential part of the country who have 'stolen' the right to rule in Libya," US diplomats were told in 2008, in a cable since released by WikiLeaks.
The last 110 members of the LIFG were freed on 16 February, the day after the Libyan uprising began. One of those released, Abdulwahab Mohammed Kayed, is the brother of Abu Yahya Al Libi, one of al Qaida's top propagandists. Koumi fled Libya and is said to have ended up in Afghanistan working for Bin Laden. Captured in Pakistan, he was handed over to the US and sent to Guantánamo Bay in 2002. In 2009 he was sent back to Libya.[9] US counter-terrorist experts have expressed concern that al-Qaida could take advantage of a political vacuum if Gaddafi is overthrown. But most analysts say that, although the Islamists' ideology has strong resonance in eastern Libya, there is no sign that the protests are going to be hijacked by them.[10]
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group Members released
"Fierce clashes between [Qadhafi's] security forces and Islamist guerrillas erupted in Benghazi in September 1995, leaving dozens killed on both sides. After weeks of intense fighting, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) formally declared its existence in a communiqué calling Qadhafi's government "an apostate regime that has blasphemed against the faith of God Almighty" and declaring its overthrow to be "the foremost duty after faith in God." [3] This and future LIFG communiqués were issued by Libyan Afghans who had been granted political asylum in Britain.... The involvement of the British government in the LIFG campaign against Qadhafi remains the subject of immense controversy. LIFG's next big operation, a failed attempt to assassinate Qadhafi in February 1996 that killed several of his bodyguards, was later said to have been financed by British intelligence to the tune of $160,000, according to ex-MI5 officer David Shayler. [4] While Shayler's allegations have not been independently confirmed, it is clear that Britain allowed LIFG to develop a base of logistical support and fundraising on its soil. At any rate, financing by bin Laden appears to have been much more important. According to one report, LIFG received up to $50,000 from the Saudi terrorist mastermind for each of its militants killed on the battlefield." [2005][11]
"Americans, Britons and the French are finding themselves as comrades in arms with the rebel Islamic Fighting Group, the most radical element in the Al Qaeda network [to bring down Gaddhafi]. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted the risks of the unholy alliance in a congressional hearing, saying that the Libyan opposition is probably more anti-American than Muammar Gaddhafi. A decade ago, this very same delusion of a Western-Islamist partnership in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya ended abruptly in the 9/11 attacks."[12]
5) Transitional National Council
"A RIVAL transitional government to the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi looks set to win US and other international support as momentum builds to oust the longtime dictator.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed yesterday that the Obama administration was reaching out to opponents of Colonel Gaddafi. She said the US was willing to offer ‘any kind of assistance' to remove him from power.
Protest leaders who have taken control in Libya's eastern cities claim to have established a transitional "national council" that amounts to rival rule. They have called on the country's army to join them as they prepare for an attack on the capital, Tripoli, where the Libyan leader retains control.
Confident the Libyan leader's 42-year rule was coming to an end, Mrs Clinton said yesterday: ‘We are just at the beginning of what will follow Gaddafi.'"[13]
6) Facebook
"He [Omar El- Hariri, Chief of Armed Forces for the Transitional National Council] remained under close surveillance by the security forces until Feb. 17, when the revolution started. It was not initiated by prominent figures of the older generation, he said, but began spontaneously when Tunisia and Egypt inspired the youth. ‘Children of Facebook!' he declared, in English, with a broad smile."[14]
7) Oil
"Libyan rebels in Benghazi said they have created a new national oil company to replace the corporation controlled by leader Muammar Qaddafi whose assets were frozen by the United Nations Security Council.
The Transitional National Council released a statement announcing the decision made at a March 19 meeting to establish the ‘Libyan Oil Company as supervisory authority on oil production and policies in the country, based temporarily in Benghazi, and the appointment of an interim director general" of the company.
The Council also said it "designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."[15]
This Libyan war is getting more and more interestingIn an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".
His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".
Response in strategy thread.Rudradev wrote:... ...ManuT wrote: ...
According to right-wing Italian journalist Franco Bechis, plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010. As Miguel Martinez from the progressive ComeDonChisciotte website observes, these revelations which have the blessing of the Italian secret services should be interpreted as the sign of internal rivalries within the European capitalist camp.
Voltaire Network wishes to point out that Paris promptly paired up with London in its scheme to overthrow Colonel Khadafi (Franco-British expeditionary force). This plan was recalibrated in the context of the Arab revolutions and taken over by Washington, which imposed its own objectives (counter-revolution in the Arab world and landing AfriCom on the Black continent). Therefore, the current coalition arises from a diversity of ambitions, which accounts for its internal contradictions. The timeline of events which set the stage for the military intervention against Libya is presented below.
Timeline of events
October 6, 2010
Nouri Mesmari turned himself to the French secret service and according to the Italians; he masterminded the revolution against Gaddafi. The document was leaked to Italian newspaper Libero.
Mesmari is referred in the documents by the French secret service as ‘The Libyan Wikileak’ because he gave them all the details within the regime and gave them an account of who’s who within Libya and who they should contact and what not.
With all the inside information, by mid January, the Italians say that the French had paved the way for the beginning of the revolution against Gaddafi.
October 20, 2010
Nouri Masmari boarded a Libyan Arab plane directed for Tunis accompanied by all his family. The day after, they were en route to France, claiming that he travelled to Paris due to health reasons. He stayed at the Concorde Lafayette Hotel. [WikiPedia entry on his son Ihab Al-Mismari]
In Paris he never met any doctors. In subsequent days he had several top secret meetings with high secret service French agents and other top government functionaries close to Nicolas Sarkozy.
November 16, 2010
A long car cade of official cars is parked in front of the hotel Concorde Lafayette whilst in the Mesmari suite; an important meeting is taking place. It is a long meeting.
November 18, 2010
A French ‘commercial’ delegation leaves for Benghazi. In the delegation there are officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and representitives from Cam Cereals, France Export Cereals, Cargill, Glencore, France Agrimer, Soufflet, Louis Dreyfous, and Comagra. Among the delegation, posing as government officials, there are French secret service agents and military staff. Their ‘business’ was meeting army officers indicated by Mesmari who will be ready to defect from the Libyan army.
While in Benghazi, contact is made with Libyan air defence colonel, Abdallah Gehani, who was indicated by Nouri Mesmari as an army officer who is ready to collaborate to topple Muammar Gaddafi. Gehani had good contacts in Tunisia too.
It is a secret operation but the Libyan regime suspects that a double game was being played and that something was about to happen.
November 28, 2010
An international warrant of arrest is issued by the Libyan government for Nouri Mesrami. Foreign Minister Musa Koussa is held responsible for the defection of Mesrami and his passport is withdrawn by the authorities.
December 2, 2010
French authorities announce that they have arrested a collaborator of Gaddafi. Word reaches Gaddafi that Mesrami is on house arrest at the Concorde Lafayette Hotel and is furious that his former friend and colleague asked for political asylum in France, where he still resides to this date. In fact during the first week of the uprising in Libya Mesrami gave interviews to Al Jazeera from a Paris studio.
Muammar Gaddafi sends messages to Nouri Mesrami to win him back saying that he forgives him for what he did and invites him back to Libya.
December 16, 2010
An emissary of Gaddafi, Abdallah Mansour head of state media, is arrested at the Hotel Concorde Lafayette trying to contact Mesrami.
December 23, 2010
A delegation of Libyans arrives in Paris for meetings with Mesrami and other French officials. The Libyans are Ali Ounes Mansouri, Farj Charrant and Fathi Boukhris. These three men will be known later together with Ali Hajj as leaders of the revolution, that started from Benghazi.
The Libyan delegation together with Mesrami and French military and secret service personnel dined at an elegant French restaurant at the Champs Elisée.
December 25 – 31, 2010
Between Christmas and the start of the New Year, the French have every details and inside information available and in the compilation of the Maghreb Confidential document, it is stated that “the situation in Benghazi is boiling”.
Januray 22, 2011
Colonel Abdallah Gehani is arrested by the chief of the secret service in Cerenaica Aoudh Saaiti. Two days later the Colonel is transferred to a prison in Tripoli and accused with treason with the aim of holding back any dissent. But it was too late, the ball was already rolling and as the first signs of the revolution were seen a few days later after a prominent lawyer, Fathi Tarbel was arrested. The protest soon turned into clashes and as army officials deserted, the rebels advanced a took over important cities but so far they failed to take Tripoli.
The French government lead the airstrikes over Libya, was the first European state to recognise the new Libyan National Council and establish diplomatic relations. Since the Italian government was made aware of the documents, it started to take the back seat on the Libya crisis, and Prime Minister Berlusconi said that Italian military planes will not be engaged in airstrikes and that he hopes that it does not end into a war.
We should not use the word rebels, it is known that they are a rag tag coalition of unprofessionals. What is helping them gain is the NATO bombing. So we should start using more correct word "NATO supported rebels'. When we see rebels take over some city, it should be clearly mentioned as NATO bombing helped rebels take over the city.Theo_Fidel wrote:Ajdabiya has fallen. Next Brega. I keep being impressed at the intuitive understand of war the rebels are gaining. They are getting better at this.
ramana wrote:The rebels wont bring in democracy. Its clear chaos with Al Qaeda touch. There will be first defacto and then dejure partition of Libya.
You might be on a winner. The military commander Al Obaidi and his Mrs is trying to build their images of "giving everything for freedom". Libya is western asset & it will continue this NFZ campaign thingie till they get a new asset manager of their choice . Bengazi was first place Q sent his forces to set things in order ( 5-6 yrs ago same place islamists died in protests ). If they wanted to take Q out , they could do so very easily by getting one of his sons elevated ( all this bout Q being mad yet a fox sounds contradictory to me ) . Ruskies joint statement with EU ( 24th feb i guess ) was one tht paved way for European action in Libya . Q's use of airpower was to finish things fast . Starting point was BP's announcement of its production stoppage & its this announcement tht forced Q to make his first public statement ( as per timeline of events ). Interpol noticed were issued b4 Q's use of airpower became news !
To me it seem Ruskies agreeing with EU points to a common interest wht tht might be ? Could be not allowing Panda another source of energy could be Iran not getting a foothold but something is common btw these two .
Call was made for protests against Q on 14-16th feb . Wht sort of people demonstrate against a ruler like Q with closedly watched society like Libya certainly not ones with tweet accounts . Only one type one who has no fear for death and tht make up either religious people or ones who been paid money or promised money for their family , ......
NATO's air campaign is very much to protect its asset in Libya its a diversion to get things in control ie get their Q 2.0 in place they dont have it so they not gonna allow another Sadr to rise in libya . Had they wanted to take Q out they would have done so but who will replace him apparently not one of his sons , there will be a Egyptian style council of men behind curtains for West has no one yet to take Q's place in public . U dont' use air power to stop people from entering cities its too much this will be first if they can do so had it been so gud why they failed on Iraq-Iran border where they relied on infantry to patrol & Iraq-Syria border . Here they got only 150 planes in total from GOD Knows how many me too first time air forces & its expected of them to be dwarpal not easy its a smokescreen . One thing is true there are multiple cells who are acting independently of each other & its causing panic attack in west .
In nutshell west panicked . See all sorts of smoke screens in media , china's potential contracts & Q's own domestic base & his supporters .
Someone from GCC is collaborating with Iran is my hypothesis and KSA is where it will come out in open till then its all proxies
American wars require salesmanship, even when Congress surrenders its power to authorize them. Hawks collect justifications, which need not match their motivations. The Obama administration’s case for the war under way in Libya fits this model, except that this time the bombing preceded the PR.
The primary reason we are in Libya is to help replace an especially noxious dictator with something democratic. Though it requires heroic assumptions about the rebels’ liberalism, the apparent ease of this revolution is what excited interventionists
Nor is it clear that bombing Libya serves humanitarian ends. True, absent outside intervention, the Libyan government would likely have reasserted its authority in the east, killing rebellious civilians. But the civil war that intervention prolonged will probably kill more. In his March 18 speech justifying war on humanitarian grounds, Obama quoted Qaddafi’s promise to show “no mercy and no pity,” but failed to note that the dictator was threatening rebel fighters, not civilians, and explicitly excluded rebels that surrendered. The point is not that we should bank on such promises but that the path to minimizing violence is uncertain.
Credibility rationales for wars suffer two crippling deficiencies. First, there is little evidence credibility travels much. Second, even if it did, fighting limited wars of questionable value seems likely to damage one’s perceived willingness to fight elsewhere. Western intervention in Libya may encourage Middle-Eastern dictators to crush dissenters rather than accommodate them.
Embroiling ourselves in Libya may do less to frighten other Middle East dictators then keeping our powder dry. Beyond tying up troops and public patience for war, the limited nature of our commitment—manifest in strict limits on the use of force and our stated desire draw back within days whether or not Qaddafi goes—might simply show dictators that they should hang tough, come what may. Whether or not he falls, if leaders like Bashar Assad fear his fate, they may simply heighten repression to prevent the sort of insurgency that brought western bombs to Libya.
Everything is probabilistic here! Libyan "gov" would "likely" have killed rebellious civilians. But the intervention will "probably" kill more. The author is however quite certain of the relative magnitudes of these two probabilities to confidently declare that in the latter case there will be more "killings". What is the logic behind this thinking of assigning a "higher" "probability"? Well that is the profound logic that the dictator was merely "threatening" revenge against "rebel fighters" and "not civilians" - a promise which however by the authors own admission "cannot be banked on"! If we cannot bank on such promises why mention them at all in the context of higher probability of killings in case of intervention?Three Phony Reasons to Bomb Libya
Quote:
Nor is it clear that bombing Libya serves humanitarian ends. True, absent outside intervention, the Libyan government would likely have reasserted its authority in the east, killing rebellious civilians. But the civil war that intervention prolonged will probably kill more. In his March 18 speech justifying war on humanitarian grounds, Obama quoted Qaddafi’s promise to show “no mercy and no pity,” but failed to note that the dictator was threatening rebel fighters, not civilians, and explicitly excluded rebels that surrendered. The point is not that we should bank on such promises but that the path to minimizing violence is uncertain.
Where was any sign that the ME dictators had any intention in all of their 20/30/40 years of totalitarian rule, to "accommodate"? Then again is it the same logic that is applied to preserve Pakistani totalitarians?Quote:
Credibility rationales for wars suffer two crippling deficiencies. First, there is little evidence credibility travels much. Second, even if it did, fighting limited wars of questionable value seems likely to damage one’s perceived willingness to fight elsewhere. Western intervention in Libya may encourage Middle-Eastern dictators to crush dissenters rather than accommodate them.
This is the scintillating Lahori logic - that also is applied to justify continued support for the Paki dictators. Mollycoddle them - as otherwise they may simply heighten their repression! What is this American masochistic obsessive eroticism about ME totalitarians?Quote:
Embroiling ourselves in Libya may do less to frighten other Middle East dictators then keeping our powder dry. Beyond tying up troops and public patience for war, the limited nature of our commitment—manifest in strict limits on the use of force and our stated desire draw back within days whether or not Qaddafi goes—might simply show dictators that they should hang tough, come what may. Whether or not he falls, if leaders like Bashar Assad fear his fate, they may simply heighten repression to prevent the sort of insurgency that brought western bombs to Libya.
It should be added that Sarkozy, who is of partially Jewish ancestry, is the most Israel-friendly president of France since the founding of the Fifth Republic in 1958. Moreover, he is close to the influential French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy (known as BHL), who happens to be Jewish, very pro-Zionist, and an ardent "humanitarian" interventionist. Levy visited Benghazi and then advised Sarkozy to take a strong interventionist stance.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-ga ... 40946.html
In Levy's pro-Zionist view: "Israel is a miracle because since its inception it has been in a constant state of war, yet it never gave up on the democratic values at its core." Moreover, despite his alleged secularist universalism, Levy views the Talmud as the basis for democracy. He states: "The Talmud is democracy in practice. The Jewish nation invented the notion that the truth lies in the most heated argument."
There is a lot of money to be made from volatility in oil price using derivatives. That was one of the complaints about Saddam - he would raise and lower output unpredictably.habal wrote:>> What is this American masochistic obsessive eroticism about ME totalitarians?
keeping oil prices on boil prevents dollar from collapsing ? Dollar is an important tool and it needs to be kept afloat for some more time.
By that standard, Indian actions with regard to the paid stone-pelters in J&K's "summer of rage" would invite a Libya-style bombing campaign.Sarkozy indicated that he is ready to tolerate a certain level of violence, but that any country which orders its army to open fire on crowds will cross a red line.
"In any democracy there can be demonstrations which can turn violent. But no democracy can accept that the army shoots live ammunition at protesters. This is the position of France and it does not change no matter what the country concerned."
http://euobserver.com/24/32064
We need to get rid of this tendency to score own goals. Honestly, why even go there..And in a thread about Libya of all places..Pranav wrote:By that standard, Indian actions with regard to the paid stone-pelters in J&K's "summer of rage" would invite a Libya-style bombing campaign.
India's air defenses are apparently just as vulnerable as Libya's and would be taken out in a few hours.
You seem to be an admirer of Baghdad Bob?Theo_Fidel wrote:Honestly, why even go there ...
The lack of oil has not stopped assiduous efforts to create a Rwanda type situation in India. See the book "Breaking India" by Rajiv Malhotra and Arvind Neelakandan (http://breakingindia.com/). In the end it's all about brute force.Suppiah wrote:We have no oil, we are safe...in any case, west is either staying away for political and economic reasons, or actively interfering on behalf of 'rebels' and citizens...not interfering or sending army on behalf of brutal dictators to kill even more...unlike the patron saints of some of our leftist intellectuals..
Gandhi has gone mad...if the white man is gone nothing will work - cars, buses, trains will stop. Even telegrams cannot function. Aeroplanes wont fly....our people cannot manufacture even a pin.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-127764181246: Libyan rebels have retaken control of the town of Bin Jawad, 525km (330 miles) east of Tripoli, the Reuters news agency reports. A correspondent says he saw more than two dozen rebel pick-up trucks mounted with machine guns in the town centre. Fighters were shooting in the air in celebration. The rebels said they planned to push on towards Col Gaddafi's stronghold of Sirte to the west.
To view the situation in its proper perspective, one has to understand the the power structures in "the west". You may have seen, for example, this thread: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=5525Suppiah wrote: I do agree with your overall view that west is out to fix us so we can never challenge them economically, culturally and politically. But we just have to look at relative merits. Compared to the 'east' they are far better..at least they let you live.