Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

From the BBC:

A team of African leaders is on its way to Libya to try to negotiate a ceasefire between rebel forces and those loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi...

Earlier, a statement from the South African presidency said: "The [African Union] committee has been granted permission by Nato to enter Libya and to meet in Tripoli with.. [Col] Gaddafi. The AU delegation will also meet with the Interim Transitional National Council in Benghazi on 10 and 11 April."

Click to expand...

BBC News - Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

IMO, if the AU delegation can reach a ceasefire that includes tangible assurances concerning the safety of civilians, NATO should endorse the ceasefire and end its operations on the basis that the stated objective of protecting civilians would have been achieved. Of course, such an outcome would probably result in some political cost to the leaders who had declared that the Gadhafi dictatorship 'must go.' However, that's a separate matter and can be mitigated by subsequent information that the rebel movement was not a broad-based popular movement, but instead only a fairly small regional one. The reality is that despite enormous international political and military support, the anti-Gadhafi movement proved almost totally inept and even if critical interests were lacking--and they are--the movement is unlikely to be up to the more rigorous tasks of governance in a multi-tribal society in which they lack broad popular support.

Given their battlefield position, the anti-Gadhafi movement is in no position to dictate demands, as it attempted to do in a previous ceasefire proposal. Indeed, since that time, the anti-Gadhafi movement's battlefield position has worsened. That extraordinary outcome has been achieved in spite of generous NATO air support. Therefore, if the rebels reject a ceasefire that guarantees security for civilians or they attempt to impose unreasonable demands relative to their battlefield standing, NATO should take note of that intransigence, end operations, and leave the movement to its own fate so long as civilians protections are assured. NATO should make clear that harm to civilians should be avoided to the greatest extent possible in any future military operations should the rebels reject a reasonable ceasefire offer.

donsutherland1 said:

From the BBC:



BBC News - Libya: African leaders head to Tripoli talks

IMO, if the AU delegation can reach a ceasefire that includes tangible assurances concerning the safety of civilians, NATO should endorse the ceasefire and end its operations on the basis that the stated objective of protecting civilians would have been achieved. Of course, such an outcome would probably result in some political cost to the leaders who had declared that the Gadhafi dictatorship 'must go.' However, that's a separate matter and can be mitigated by subsequent information that the rebel movement was not a broad-based popular movement, but instead only a fairly small regional one. The reality is that despite enormous international political and military support, the anti-Gadhafi movement proved almost totally inept and even if critical interests were lacking--and they are--the movement is unlikely to be up to the more rigorous tasks of governance in a multi-tribal society in which they lack broad popular support.

Given their battlefield position, the anti-Gadhafi movement is in no position to dictate demands, as it attempted to do in a previous ceasefire proposal. Indeed, since that time, the anti-Gadhafi movement's battlefield position has worsened. That extraordinary outcome has been achieved in spite of generous NATO air support. Therefore, if the rebels reject a ceasefire that guarantees security for civilians or they attempt to impose unreasonable demands relative to their battlefield standing, NATO should take note of that intransigence, end operations, and leave the movement to its own fate so long as civilians protections are assured. NATO should make clear that harm to civilians should be avoided to the greatest extent possible in any future military operations should the rebels reject a reasonable ceasefire offer.

Click to expand...

It's about time the Media acknowledged the truth in Libya. The most advanced country in Africa. A goverment that used its money to advance the people. An insurrection organized externally, likely the CIA behind it, and supported by oily Corporatism to achieve more favorable OIL terms and control. Qaddaffi may have warts, but he is and has been good for Libyans. That is what a leader is supposed to be. What more needs be said? I hope Qaddaffi seeks out the Corporations and terrorists behind this insurrection and replies in kind. You know the old axiom, "if you play with fire, you'll get burned!"

Many African citizens would kill to have a leader like Gaddafi. Look at Libya and what he has achieved!

He is a Saint next to some of the "allies" of the West.
Libya will miss him when he goes and the country divides.
So will Africa as he funded into many African countries.

I hope the AU stands firm against the invasion of Libya imo.

DaveFagan said:

It's about time the Media acknowledged the truth in Libya. The most advanced country in Africa. A goverment that used its money to advance the people. An insurrection organized externally, likely the CIA behind it, and supported by oily Corporatism to achieve more favorable OIL terms and control. Qaddaffi may have warts, but he is and has been good for Libyans. That is what a leader is supposed to be. What more needs be said? I hope Qaddaffi seeks out the Corporations and terrorists behind this insurrection and replies in kind. You know the old axiom, "if you play with fire, you'll get burned!"

Click to expand...

Several points:

1. There is no evidence that the CIA was behind the revolution. Indeed, if it were, the U.S. would have had a real assessment concerning the movement, its leaders, and its prospects. The U.S. has blundered in all three areas, lacking understanding of what the movement really stands for, who its key leaders are, and that it is not broadly supported by Libya's people.

2. Access to oil was in place prior to the revolution. Libya's contribution to world oil production and the terms of access were nowhere close to justifying military intervention on the basis of oil. Hence, in my view, the U.S. had no critical interests at stake in Libya. Saudi Arabia would be entirely another story.

3. My argument is that there were no critical interests involved to justify U.S. intervention in Libya. Given that NATO committed itself on the grounds of protecting civilians, some kind of agreement that guarantees safety of civilians should be concluded. If the rebels reject such terms, NATO should not reward their intransigence. So long as the Gadhafi regime is willing to assure safety of civilians, NATO should end its operations. NATO should not be involved in seeking regime change.

4. While there have been positive things done in Libya, the benefits and rewards have been skewed disproportionately in favor of regime supporters/loyalists (essentially par for the course for such authoritarian regimes). The Libyan government had been involved in international terrorism in the past. My personal sentiments aside, the on-the-ground realities and absence of critical U.S. interests argue against the U.S. leading or participating in a regime change operation.

In addition, the rebels have shown themselves to be grossly incompetent, both in politically and militarily. They have not demonstrated any meaningfu capacity for governance. They are not broadly supported by Libya's people and tribes. Hence, were the dictatorship toppled, the risks of all-out civil war would be especially high in the power vacuum that would follow.

so obama and his coalition went to war for a piece of paper

that's a lot like neville chamberlain, except the pm before winnie didn't go to war, he only went to munich

if khadafi stays, any libyan in leadership of the rebel movement is gonna have to flee the country, leaving any crippled grammas behind, or face some pretty severe consequences

i think it is beyond controversy to note that obama really didn't want to intervene, the ladies (hillary, rice, power) "henpecked" him into it

Obama's Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya | The Nation

Was Obama henpecked into war? - Salon.com Mobile

Obama's Pro Hawkish Ladies Push For Libyan Air Strikes // Current

it's kinda ironic in that the president has largely ignored the recommendations of his superstar state secty who appears to be window dressing, rather brought in to the team to prevent her from sniping it from outside (that appears to be her husband's job)

Obama’s indecision on Libya has pushed Clinton over the edge | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

and here, the one time the prez does follow ms hillary's advice...

The Prof said:

so obama and his coalition went to war for a piece of paper

Click to expand...

That might be the result of it. But few could have counted on the level of incompetence that would be displayed by the anti-Gadhafi movement. Much more importantly, considering that no critical U.S. interests are at stake, the U.S. should not be involved in any regime change operations in Libya. Guarantees of civilian safety would meet the terms of UNSC Res. 1973, providing a face-saving way to end U.S./NATO involvement in Libya's civil war.

that's a lot like neville chamberlain, except the pm before winnie didn't go to war, he only went to munich

Click to expand...

The big difference between now and then is that huge British and French interests were involved in 1938. The whole balance of power was shifting in Europe toward an increasingly aggressive Germany. Appeasing Nazi ambitions would act as a catalyst for further aggression while leading to further deterioration in the balance of power. No such stakes or interests are involved in Libya. Even a total victory by the Gadhafi dictatorship would not broadly transform the region's balance of power, much less threaten the critical interests of the U.S. and regional U.S. allies.

if khadafi stays, any libyan in leadership of the rebel movement is gonna have to flee the country

Click to expand...

Their safety might be accommodated in a ceasefire and that is something the rebels should seek rather than demanding regime change (something that they cannot reasonably expect to attain on their own). But if the rebels try to overreach as they did in their earlier ceasefire proposal--making demands that Libya's government reasonably could not have been expected to accept and immediately rejected--and engage in similar intransigence this time around, neither NATO nor the U.S. are obligated to rescue them from the consequences of their own incompetence, nor should the U.S. or NATO undertake sacrifices to do so.

yes, an exit soon is probably the best way today out of a situation we should never have gotten into

but the paper is probably pretty worthless, is the point

khadafi is khadafi, after all

now i'm seeing images of bay of pigs---these perhaps freedom fighters were encouraged by us, yet it looks like we may not be there for them to help finish the job

as far as few being likely to foresee the rabble that is the rebels, i disagree

it was totally predictable

and the pros were obligated to foresee

before bombing, that is

if i recall correctly, you were early on to the relative strength of the tyrant's domestic support, for example

take care

Fantastic that Jacop Zuma, a corrupt asshole himself is going in for talks...

Blind leading the blind.

Still, if something good comes of his efforts i will give him credit.

Rebel incompetence aside...the real culprit is Obama's administration and has caused irreparable damage to our international standing

What message has the President sent to other nations by calling for Omar to step down???

Since when does the US or any other country have the right to determine who is in charge of another nation (that they haven't defeated in war)?

Just what made Gaddafi accountable to Obama in the first place? I think its an inflexible attitude and say that this is what we do, what we've always done and what we'll do in the future.

The Prof said:

as far as few being likely to foresee the rabble that is the rebels, i disagree

it was totally predictable

Click to expand...

I should have been more clear. My point wasn't that the rebels' shortcomings were not foreseeable. They were. A number of us discussed them here, i.e., the lack of broad-based popular support for the rebels, that such a lack of support was the leading reason they were suffering setbacks (ahead of the NFZ), etc.

My point is that the gross incompetence of the rebel movement has been so staggering that it is quite extraordinary. Even the most obvious political decisions (defining what the movement stands for, providing tangible incentives for people to join the movement, addressing the Security Council/visiting leading foreign capitals to meet with foreign leaders who could be helpful, etc.) were not taken. Militarily, even the most basic elements of strategy are absent. Maneuvers are uncoordinated and chaotic with no real goals driving them, ammunition continues to be wasted, and one individual fired an anti-aircraft missile when NATO warplanes were in the skies.

yes, sir, it is staggering, i see what you see

pray for all touched by it, if inclined

i hope you have a wonderful weekend, i will

cliff

The bottom line is that, the rebels are NOT any better then Kaddafi. They may be much worse.

If I were President, I'd let them kill each other until we can get an good idea who the players are and what their attitude toward the West will be.

Today, the BBC provided the main outlines of the proposed ceasefire:

- An immediate ceasefire
- The unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid
- Protection of foreign nationals
- A dialogue between the government and rebels on a political settlement
- The suspension of Nato airstrikes

If these terms are implemented, it is a fairly reasonable proposal given where things presently stand, though I would have preferred something more robust on civilian protections than an immediate ceasefire. However, it remains to be seen whether the rebels will attempt to overreach, as they very likely want Gadhafi's departure rather than a dialogue that leads to a political settlement. Considering their bad battlefield position, lack of broad-based popular support among Libya's people, and gross political and military incompetence, the offer of a political dialogue is probably about as generous as one could have expected on that issue. FWIW, the Gadhafi dictatorship has already accepted those terms. If the proposal is accepted, each side's performance will determine whether it is effective. Performance, not promises, is what matters.

donsutherland1 said:

Today, the BBC provided the main outlines of the proposed ceasefire:

- An immediate ceasefire
- The unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid
- Protection of foreign nationals
- A dialogue between the government and rebels on a political settlement
- The suspension of Nato airstrikes

If these terms are implemented, it is a fairly reasonable proposal given where things presently stand, though I would have preferred something more robust on civilian protections than an immediate ceasefire. However, it remains to be seen whether the rebels will attempt to overreach, as they very likely want Gadhafi's departure rather than a dialogue that leads to a political settlement. Considering their bad battlefield position, lack of broad-based popular support among Libya's people, and gross political and military incompetence, the offer of a political dialogue is probably about as generous as one could have expected on that issue. FWIW, the Gadhafi dictatorship has already accepted those terms. If the proposal is accepted, each side's performance will determine whether it is effective. Performance, not promises, is what matters.

Click to expand...

I think foreign governments and corporations, including our own, have invested too much to allow a political settlement. This has never been about politics. Libya has big OIL and, like Iraq, it is the elephant in the room. The issue must be dealt with openly and truthfully, and that does not seem to be the modus operandi of the USA or the UN or NATO. All scumbags trying to present a plausible media front on an OIL grab.

IF this cease fire works out, and some sort of 'deal' is reached... how long before Obama or the White House claim credit for solving the problems in Libya?

Apparently, the rebels have rejected the ceasefire plan on grounds that it didn't require Col. Gadhafi's departure. Given their battlefield standing and gross political and military incompetence, they are in no position to dictate such an outcome. However, it is perhaps increasingly likely that NATO's purpose concerns regime change, political denials toward that end notwithstanding. The stated positions noted by the U.S., UK, and Italy following the rebels' rejection of the ceasefire terms, have underscored that the unstated purpose of the NATO mission may well concern regime change. BBC reported:

The rebels said they were rejecting the truce because it did not include plans for Col Gaddafi to step down.

The US, the UK and Italy have again said the Libyan leader must leave.

IMO, NATO should not be pursuing regime change given the absence of critical interests in Libya. Moreover, given the rebels' inept political and military performance, the dangers associated with the power vacuum following the Gadhafi dictatorship's collapse or being driven from power would be substantial.

ric27 said:

The bottom line is that, the rebels are NOT any better then Kaddafi. They may be much worse.

If I were President, I'd let them kill each other until we can get an good idea who the players are and what their attitude toward the West will be.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. The rebels don't commit atrocities like abducting and raping women and killing civilians, I haven't heard of any atrocities being committed by the rebels so far. As incompetent and disorganized as they are, they are not evil like Ghaddafi's soldiers and regime is. Also, we know that the rebels value freedom, a Western ideal, and would die for it. I don't know what everyone is waiting for, we should just overthrow the regime and let the Libyans figure it out from there.

Opteron said:

I don't agree. The rebels don't commit atrocities like abducting and raping women and killing civilians, I haven't heard of any atrocities being committed by the rebels so far. As incompetent and disorganized as they are, they are not evil like Ghaddafi's soldiers and regime is. Also, we know that the rebels value freedom, a Western ideal, and would die for it. I don't know what everyone is waiting for, we should just overthrow the regime and let the Libyans figure it out from there.

Click to expand...

My advice to the President is...choose your allies carefully so that they don't become your enemy later.

Helping the rebels, and there are AQ/MB among them, we will be arming AQ/MB, as we armed the Taliban in A-stan against the Russians.

ric27 said:

My advice to the President is...choose your allies carefully so that they don't become your enemy later.

Helping the rebels, and there are AQ/MB among them, we will be arming AQ/MB, as we armed the Taliban in A-stan against the Russians.

Click to expand...

I agree, we should be careful with who we side with, but with Afghanistan though, I think it was more the walking away part that was bad than was the arming of the Afghanis. After Russia left, the country was in pieces and then everyone walked away for decades leaving a failed state and a haven for terrorism. It looks like people are walking away from Libya too. Its better to put the country on a path toward democracy and legitimate government rather than dictatorship and oppression.

Opteron said:

I agree, we should be careful with who we side with, but with Afghanistan though, I think it was more the walking away part that was bad than was the arming of the Afghanis. After Russia left, the country was in pieces and then everyone walked away for decades leaving a failed state and a haven for terrorism. It looks like people are walking away from Libya too. Its better to put the country on a path toward democracy and legitimate government rather than dictatorship and oppression.

Click to expand...

The thing is...What's worse? A known thug with 40 years of patterns and precedent or an unknown incoming thug? Replacing Omar is a psychological victory with short-term returns and probably long-term loss. There's very limited reason for us to be there in the first place

Let the Libyans fight this out among themselves. That would be the prudent thing to do

cease fire, anyone?

today: My Way News - New battles in Libya, strains in NATO campaign

remember obama's justification for united states intervention in libya emphasized the need to prevent mass exodus, ie, refugees

today: FT.com / Middle East & North Africa - UN says 500,000 flee Libya fighting

and, of course, ongoing: France says NATO must do more in Libya - Yahoo! News

did you ever think you'd see the french criticizing the united states for not fighting hard enough

are you sure this white house knows what it's doing

IMO, it is increasingly clear that the unspoken aim of the NATO operation is regime change. The aim is unspoken, because UNSC Res. 1973 on which the intervention was justified does not call for regime change. Nonetheless, the statements of various participating governments have made clear that their leaders insist that Gadhafi must step down. Most recently, at today's international summit on Libya, British Foreign Minister William Hague stated that one of the three purposes of the international summit is that Gadhafi must leave power. The BBC reported:

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said there were three main aims for the summit:

Maintaining the pressure on the Gaddafi regime by implementing the UN resolutions and sanctions, and ensuring that Col Gaddafi leaves power...

If NATO's intervention were solely about protecting civilians, regime change would not be brought up. Opportunities for arrangements that would protect civilians would be the focus of international gatherings on Libya. Therefore, periodic political denials notwithstanding, it is increasingly clear that the current military operations in Libya are, in fact, aimed at regime change. That, of course, entails potential long-running commitments.

Should NATO be successful in achieving the goal of regime change in Libya, the big question concerns whether NATO's states would be willing to undertake the enormous tasks of building a viable stable government in Libya, not to mention averting the high risk of all-out civil war there. Fiscal challenges in some of the NATO states could well compete with the requirements of that task. Domestic opinion could also cut against such an undertaking.

IMO, as noted previously, as no critical U.S. interests are involved, I do not believe the U.S. should be participating in regime change in Libya. That a grossly incompetent rebel movement has failed to gain broad popular support among Libya's people and tribes and also has achieved little or no battlefield gains outside of what has been made possible by NATO, is not the United States' problem. The U.S. is not obligated to substitute its own resources and manpower to compensate for the rebels' shortcomings, especially as it has no critical interests at stake. Regime change is not required by U.S. interests and regime change is not a cost-free proposition.

Gadzooks, my good man. Are you suggesting that the Mass Media and our gov't and the UN are at cross purposes to the stated, well-publicized intentions. I thought that bullets going from West to East in Libya were automatically killing civilians and bullets going East to West were freedom bullets. I mean to clarify that dead civilians were actually good guys, and victims of murderous villainy, if the bullets were going West to East and not even counted as dead if the bullets were going East to West. These mass murders and rapes are hard to follow. Wasn't it all so much easier to have dead babies from incubators and crying Princesses. Where are the professional media manipulators when a country needs them. My goombah, Aberto, says the bullets fired by rebels that hit civilians were struck midair by bullets fired by no good, mealy mouthed, snot slinging Arabs with hunchbacks working for Some Kadaffy. The deflection is what accidentally killed the somewhat dead civilians, but it was the deflection that was responsible.. He couldn't speak for himself or provide a link because such things are against his Sunni beliefs. Man of conviction, don't you think?

today:

[T]he more the intelligence agencies learn about rebel forces, the more they appear to be hopelessly disorganized and incapable of coalescing in the foreseeable future.

U.S. government experts believe the state of the opposition is so grave that it could take years to organize, arm and train them into a fighting force strong enough to drive Gaddafi from power and set up a working government.

The realistic outlook, U.S. and European officials said, is for an indefinite stalemate between the rebels -- supported by NATO air power -- and Gaddafi's forces.

Click to expand...

U.S., allies see Libyan rebels in hopeless disarray | Reuters

meanwhile, are you following events nearer what the pros have always considered the center of united states security in the middle east---the gulf and israel

in yemen, egypt, syria, jordan, bahrain...

are you sure this state dept knows what it's doing

today: Qaddafi Taunts West as NATO Seeks More Attack Planes - Bloomberg