There will always be war somewhere. That's a reality that we all have to accept.

I don't see all wars as bad just because they cost lives. That's why people join the military.

Agreed. If we hadn't shown a bit of backbone in 1939, we'd all be speaking German and a number of us wouldn't be posting here now.

However, there's a difference between maintaining a defence force and poking your nose in where it isn't needed simply because you can. The Libyan rebels are welcoming intervention at the moment because it's getting rid of Gaddafi, but as soon as the dust settles we'll be as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit - and the next thing we know Libyan suicide bombers will be blowing themselves up outside military compounds.

The purpose of History, the reason we keep records, is to learn from our mistakes. Makes me wonder if the people who lead our nations ever learned to read.

Did I mentioned that there were more than 50 attempts to kill Hitler since 1933?

The problem with the war in Libya is, no one believes that NATO is an defensive alliance any more. It becomes a structure for post colonially affects of former western empires, which are missing their decreasing global importance. Is it moral or imperialism which leads the "willing" nations into this war? I don't know. Anyway this development leads Germany in a predicament. On the one side we don't want to stay in a club of trouble makers which declares war every 3-4 years to some developing country, on the other side, the German isolation in Europe was the reason for WW I, the primary reason for WW II. An defensive alliance with countries like Russia, China, India and Latin America could lead to much more trouble than even yet.

Another thought: Do you ever red the Clash of Cultures by Huntington?
The issue is the conflict between the western and the islamic world. Western countries started 3 wars in 10 years in the muslim world and Sarkozy is threatening with more. I think some people are playing with fire, which could set the world ablaze one day.

Demon, my comment was thoughtless and I apologise. I hope I haven't offended you.

I tend to agree with this view. Whatever moral arguments there are are very, very thin covering for something far less palatable.

I agree with this, on the whole, too. However, I wouldn't necessarily ascribe the world wars to German isolationism on its own. Part of the reason for that isolation is its long-standing enmity with France, which was particularly exacerbated by the punitive measures inflicted on Germany by the French in the wake of WWI. A great benefit of both the European Community and NATO is that it has helped heal the rift between France and Germany, and I think any decision at this point to re-open that rift may have severe consequences for Europe down the line.

I, personally, haven't - it may seem weird given the amount of time talking about these things, but curiously these subjects hold little or no interest for me. However, I have to agree - this is a view I definitely share.

To make a correction:

It's not a war. A state of war does not currently exist between Libya and any other country. The UN resolution permits action short of "foreign occupation" by regular armed forces (PMCs would be exempt, so a possible solution in right-wing circles is for PMCs to be engaged by the rebels against Gaddafi).

If there's no war, even less reason for Western armed forces to be there. What are they doing - exercises?

Hi Minnie,

we could talk a lot about WW II and the holocaust. Patriotism is not my thing. And I like the one or other little mean. It makes communication spicey.



Well ,Bismarck sewed a net of contracts in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, that made it impossible for european nations to lead war against each other, without having an stronger alliance against them. The problem with France was the connexion of Elsass - Lothringen after the war of 1870-71. Bismarck was against it, but some Kaiser named Wilhelm wanted the prey. One of his followers fired Bismarck and got the stupid idea that Germany needs a fleet. That caused trouble with England and they forgot to prolongue the contract with Russia, so that's what I mean with the isolation of Germany. In the centuries before there were lots of temporary alliances between several German countries and other Euopean states. Prussia and England for example, or Prussia an Russia, France and Bavaria and so on. When WWI started there was just Austria and Germany against Europe. A two front war, to the east and the west, was the strategic worst case scenario and the result of an enourmous stupidity. Thats why aristocracy got a bad image in Germany.

Back to Libya:

There are different questions that should have been answered before this war was started.

a) What is the goal?
b) Are there local allies which are true democrats?
c) Would this war save lives or will more people be killed through it?
d) What will it cost and what else could be done with this money?
e) Will the region be stabilized or destabilized through it?
f) Which risks occured for the own countries. I mean a little civil plane with a little TNT could cause a nuclear desaster if it crasches into a nuclear plant.
g) Are there any plans to end that war which doesn't depend on the enemy?

These are the answers to those questions:

a) To ensure that the blip in EU oil supplies is ended as quickly as possible, and to improve Europe's image in the middle-east by getting rid of someone that absolutely nobody in the region likes (the Iranians, the Israelis, the Saudis all agree on one thing: Gaddafi is a total wanker).

b) That was never an issue. Suffice it to say that Arabs (especially their military/financial elite) can be relied upon to act sensibly (for anyone about to mention Iran or Afghanistan - they aren't Arab).

c) Maybe. But that's an impossible question anyway - once intervention occurs, it can un-occur

d) We'll never know - military expenditure is almost impossible to track down because of the obscenely sophisticated accounting they use. But given that social spending was gonna be cut regardless, I don't think it would have made any difference.

e) This is the Middle-East. It's never been stable.

f) As long as Gaddafi has a chance to remain in power/exit gracefully leaving one of his cronies in charge so he has immunity from any prosecution, there is no chance he will resort to attacking the 'coalition' in their countries. If not... well, he always did have an unstable streak

g) No.

This war is tragic to me in a specific way. It seems the Western World has settled with a viewpoint that rebels should be helped. Would the situation for people in Libya turn worse, if Gaddafi regained control over land fast?

I cannot foresee the alternate timeline, however the aerial assaults cause perhaps even greater losses. Would Gaddafi order massive executions after quelling the uprising? I doubt it. He is not an idiot, he knows it would cause only greater uproar, nevermind the losses in manpower, probably well educated too.

I would like to know, who the rebels truly are.

Gaddafi has crafted his country into a nation of equal opportunities for women, forcing the Islamists to comply. Rebels have often extremists coming to lead, because they shout out the louder. Is it possible that they would try to force the gender division back into the nation, should they win? We have seen this happen, in Iran.

Would Gaddafi's victory result in oil cuts? Doubtful. Perhaps relocation of buyers, since the country needs the money from the oil to develop.


And, since this bit was just moved... Hitler was forced to start the Second World War. His policy to keep employment at such a high rate as it was at that time would have caused an even greater bankrupcy of the nation in comparison to post-WW I.

Ok...

I pray to god you're joking, becasue otherwise, this is the stupidest thing I've ever read. I would bother to tell you why, but...

The civil war in Libya would have been finished two weeks ago, if this willing alliance would not protect the rebels. Oil could be sold much erlier again. The losses of human lifes and the destruction of the infrastructure are increasing day by day. Libya got 2% of the world's oil production before the rebellion, Saudi-Arabia is compensating the missing quantity since mor than a week. So it is really not the oil and it bores me to hear this argument again and again. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan offers any benefit for the US business which could compensate the billions they spend for this two wars.


Like Assad in Syria? Gaddafi once was a rebel as well, why should the actual rebels respect the human rights more than he does? We just can hope so.

I don't think so, Bengasi, Tobruk and Misrata were the last cities. The war would have been finished now. If it still lasts month or longer there probably will more people die through this international intervention.

Oh, we now from Iraq that the USA spend 120 billion $ per year over a period of maybe 8 years.

There is a special problem in Libya, if they give arms to the rebells, many of this weapons will be sold on the black markets in Africa. Al Quaida will take this opportunity and there are a lot of tribal conflicts there which could become much more bloody with cheap guns an rockets from Libya. In fact Gaddafi sent 8 trucks wuth russian rockets to the Tschad, probably for Al Qaida. A new alliance?




He was quite cooperative after he realized the destiny of Saddam Hussein. I think a long war in Libya involves a much higher risk of lybian terror attacks on sensible targets like nuclear plants for example.

That is the worst mistake. Never start a war without an exit strategy.

Hi Argent_Watcher,

Gaddafi was the favourite of many european intellectuals for a long time but each revolution becomes an oprressive dictatorship without free elections. Gaddafi must have parts of the lybian nation on his side, he could not be so dominant with a few thousand mercenary soldiers. I regret each of his victims but they painted the situation in Libya into black and white and I'm sure there is much more moral ambiguity than the "Willing Ones" want to make us believe.

Libya has 2% of stocks, but supplies France (16% of imports), Italy (22%) and Spain (13%) Report

Saudi Arabia has a specific network of buyers for its oil - it goes mostly via Aramco to the US, where it is then either sold, kept in storage against a rainy day, or re-exported somewhere else. Oil has two areas: extraction and distribution. Libya presents a distribution problem (shipping oil costs a LOT of money and routes take a while to change). It might bore you, but the truth is boring.

There are three things at work here: firstly, ensure oil supplies switch back on ASAP (especially for France, which is dipping into its emergency stocks hourly while trying to reconfigure its imports). Secondly, to re-affirm influence in the Middle-East - if Gaddafi had put down the revolt, then the rest of the Arab world would have even more axes to grind with Europe. Given that the EU (France, as that is who shapes EU foreign policy due to the German unwillingness to get involved again) has the objective of replacing American influence in the Middle-East (and securing lucrative contracts there), they needed a definite act of support that all the world would understand. Third, and most important for France and the UK: both governments are heavily under-fire for their policies, espcially with their taking on the public-sector. A quick, winnable and obviously good vs evil war seemed an excellent distraction for the electorate (as evidenced by Rupert Murdoch's newspapers).

I hate to break it to you, but Afghanistan and Iraq were fantastic for US business. Look at the value of reconstruction contracts (cost plus), who they were awarded to (Haliburtons, Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, L3), how much their stock jumped and who their former directors were (Cheney, Rumsfeld... shall I paint you a picture?). We still don't know exactly how much Iraq and Afghanistan have cost and are still costing the US - Stiglitz wrote a pretty good (for Stiglitz) book where he did the accounts and figured that 3 trillion seemed about right, with a margin for error, and that was for Iraq only. (Congressional Budget Office reckon it at about 1.4 - 2.2 trillion).

African conflicts aren't exactly starved of weapons either (given that most large weapons firms sell their surplus via intermediaries there anyway - Cramer has an excellent book which talks about that). Sides, the real problem for Africa with weapons is actually South Africa, which let a lot of military hardware disappear post-apartheid, and has seen it turn up in the Congo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Somalia.

As for lack of exit strategy, there is generally speaking only one exit strategy for a war: win. Even then, there is a precedent - President Bush declared War on Terror, which has no exit strategy either.

PS
Al-Qaida is not an organisation. It means principle, in this case the principle of armed jihad against the west. It has various followers, but it is not a terrorist version of the CIA - more like the Tea Party.

Pardon? The Tea Party is positively benign compared to al-Qaida. But I can understand your comparison in terms of loose organization. Is that what you were referring to?

-- Nephele

Yeah, my bad, analogy failure through critical clarity lack!

Al-Qaida has big names, and those names have their personal groups that can do a lot, but they aren't interconnected in a hierarchy. Anyone who subscribes to the idea that Jihad is an armed struggle against the 'enemies of Islam' (consisting of everyone who isn't a Salafi, which means someone who only does what was done by the Prophet and his companions while dismissing any deviation from that practice as heresy - much like the Christian 'literal' bible people) is automitically part of Al-Qaida.

It's a bit like a franchise. Actually, it's very much like a franchise.

A nice construction of selective information offered in an elegant way.
Well, you might call me naive, but I do not believe the US Government spent 3 trillion USD for profits of a few billion private enterprises could make. Don't forget the military - governmental sleaze, but also the shock of 9/11. Someone had to die for. Of course the USA prepared the battlefield for violent Jihad and Al Quaida and made Iran the dominating power with this war, but this context might be to complicated for people who prefer simple answers.

I agree your analysis of the french motives. They return to their colonial policy and try to exploit NATO for their purposes but who will trust them after they betrayed Gaddafi. Two years before they made contracts for nuclear energy with him although they knew that his regime hurts the rules of humanity. I think England wants revanche for Lockerby. I understand this.

This war can not be won without loosing any appearance of legality. According to the international law, each leader of a nation got the right to defeat armed insurrections. That's what Gaddafi did. There were no massacres of thousands of innocents which would legitimate a complete military intervention, just the normal collateral damages, like in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I know Al Quaida is a construction of loosely linked networks. But this is their strength. There are a lot of angry young men, which should not be provided with modern arms, like russian stingers.