Senate Revolution in the Muslim World

Wrong thread

 

New, important information on Libya:

There's been virtually no reliable information coming out of Tripoli, but a source close to the Gaddafi regime I did manage to get hold of told me the already terrible situation in Libya will get much worse. Among other things, Gaddafi has ordered security services to start sabotaging oil facilities. They will start by blowing up several oil pipelines, cutting off flow to Mediterranean ports. The sabotage, according to the insider, is meant to serve as a message to Libya's rebellious tribes: It's either me or chaos.

Two weeks ago this same man had told me the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt would never touch Libya. Gaddafi, he said, had a tight lock on all of the major tribes, the same ones that have kept him in power for the past 41 years. The man of course turned out to be wrong, and everything he now has to say about Gaddafi's intentions needs to be taken in that context.

The source went on and told me that Gaddafi's desperation has a lot to with the fact that he now can only count on the loyalty of his tribe, the Qadhadhfa. And as for the army, as of Monday he only has the loyalty of approximately 5,000 troops. They are his elite forces, the officers all handpicked. Among them is the unit commanded by his second youngest son Khamis, the 32nd Brigade. (The total strength of the regular Libyan army is 45,000.)

My Libyan source said that Gaddafi has told people around him that he knows he cannot retake Libya with the forces he has. But what he can do is make the rebellious tribes and army officers regret their disloyalty, turning Libya into another Somalia. "I have the money and arms to fight for a long time," Gaddafi reportedly said.


As part of the same plan to turn the tables, Gaddafi ordered the release from prison of the country's Islamic militant prisoners, hoping they will act on their own to sow chaos across Libya. Gaddafi envisages them attacking foreigners and rebellious tribes. Couple that with a shortage of food supplies, and any chance for the rebels to replace Gaddafi will be remote.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2052961,00.html#ixzz1EjxQY5g0

 

It's as much a message to the outside world: "I have the capacity to indefinitely disrupt 3% of the world's oil production."

 

I am quickly becoming more convinced that the West needs to do something right now about the Libyan situation.

The Iraq War was launched in, presumably, the hopes that something similar to this would take place: but it was at the choice time and place of the United States. As such, it didn't actively tap into any current unrest, not did it save any lives under imminent threat, since what Ghadaffi is doing now is the sort of thing Saddam last did 12 years before the US invasion.

Peru and Botswana today severed Diplomatic relations with Libya. Currently they've both gone further than "the West" in doing something about what's happening. Where is Obama in all of this? The administration has done nothing over the past few days as the situation has dived headlong into chaos. The most they've done is just talk about how bad Quadaffi is.

And it's getting unconscionable now, because the door is swinging wide open. Saddam was actively supported by a good 20-25% of his nation (the Sunnis). As far as I know just about all the people in Libya are ALREADY Sunni; it's not like there's hordes of people here full of Quadaffi love. Reports have it that Quadaffi today is only in control of 5,000 of the nation's 45,000 armed forces. In which case he's never been closer to defeat since 1969.

The most I can think of is that the West holds off because they might encourage Quadaffi to return to terrorism. At this point it looks like it's worth the risk: who cares if Quadaffi would return to terrorism if Quadaffi were removed from power altogether? In fact, do nothing and an opening might develop for Islamic fundamentalists to enter the vacuum.

Obama needs to start reacting to some of these events. He should have reacted today, if not yesterday. Zarakia has mentioned that Obama has been overall quicker than both Reagan and Clinton to change policy in the Middle East to reflect US interests -- but if so I'd say he's still too slow. Libya is at the footstep of Europe and as far as I can see they're doing NOTHING about this except making sure their own citizens are safe, along with Italy and the UK.

Whop-dee. Every day makes me think these guys and their European counterparts are only marginally more useful than a bunch of narcoleptics. That said bunch of narcoleptics would be a clear improvement from Obama's predecessor doesn't give him a free pass.

 

I heard that Gadhafi might potentially be toppled in as little as a few days. This guy might be as brutal as Saddam, but he doesn't wield the same amount of power as we can see from the defections of army officers to the rebels. It's probably too early to say for sure what will happen, but yeah it might be prudent to discreetly prepare for some kind of military intervention if it's needed.

The headline on cbsnews.com reads "U.S. reviewing options to stop violence in Libya, including sanctions" but there doesn't seem to be a link to anything.

 

But Gonk, why the US need to do anything? This is the reality of the multi-polar world, and it's a mindset that has to change, if people truly do want less involvement in global affairs by the US.

Directly related to Libyan oil exports, the breakdown is this:

Italy-32%
Germany-14%
China-10%
France-10%
Spain-9%
(all other Europe-14%)

Italy is going to be almost paralyzed by Gaddafi's actions, which is going to force even more strain on the EU itself. The US isn't even in the top 5, and only exports between 56,000 and 80,000 barrels of Libyan oil, which isn't even a drop in the bucket (literally) in relation to total exports. Now, of course, resource protection and allocation is a global issue, so I could see the US getting involved in some capacity, but if you ask me, this would be the perfect opportunity for the EU's rapid reaction force. The EU RRF, in conjunction with the UNSC, could easily engage the remaining Qadhafi loyalist forces, and then place the remaining country in international trust until a stable government is formed.

 

But Gonk, why the US need to do anything? This is the reality of the multi-polar world, and it's a mindset that has to change, if people truly do want less involvement in global affairs by the US.


The US has to do something in the sense that SOMEBODY'S got to do something.

I mention the US prominently because they're a global power, they're closer to me personally, and they're the ones most likely TO do something. The GOP was all willing and ready to go after Saddam for his past crimes when he wasn't committing them... why the silence on preventing someone actively DOING those crimes? Heck, Obama certainly isn't throwing the door open, here.

I'm hoping at this point that McCain steps up and gives Obama a public smacking to wake him up. McCain's been playing politics with inflated issues during and since the 2008 election, but for the first time Obama's actually screwing up the sort of thing McCain should be mad about.

The UK and France are just as useless here, and Italy's even worse than the 3 of them considering how close they are. The best thing I can say about them is at least the UK is quicker to state the obvious, as useless as it tends to be.

 

44, how do you feel about NATO intervention? I think it's safe to say at this point, considering the dependence on Libyan oil you outlined in your post, that the civil war is perhaps far more critical to European security in 2011 than Balkan stability was two decades ago.

Meanwhile, Obama is scheduled to speak on Libya in 45 minutes. I'm afraid he's going to use the word "sanctions," and I'm not entirely sure I can imagine anything more absurd than talking about possibly imposing sanctions on a country in the middle of a civil war, with the govt. buildings on fire and armed mercenaries parachuting in and marauding bands of youth hacking people to death with machetes.

Oh, wait, here's something more absurd: The EU has pushed for an independent, UN-led investigation into the killing of protesters.

And to think I was afraid the Europeans had tried nothing and were all out of ideas.

 

Well it's a first step, might as well take it. Can always ratchet up the pressure later on if need be.

Speaking of military intervention, we should probably start with no-fly zones if Gadhafi starts bombing his own people again.

A third thought....if Gadhafi is ousted and Libya descends into sectarian strife similar to Iraq, should we opt for partition and eventual breakup of the country?

 

Just to give you a sense of what this means for one European country's oil production - Austria's OMV gets about 11% of its oil from Libya. OMV has been active in Libya for decades and, fortunately, they managed to fly almost all their workers out of the country as of today. OMV's stock took a big hit today too. One of OMV's refineries gets 20% of its oil from Libya.

OMV says some oil is still flowing out of Libya, but they expect to see a complete shutdown that could last quite a while, and of course they have no idea when OMV workers will be able to return to Libya.

Austria has a strategic oil reserve intended to cover 90 days of consumption. I'm sure they'll release oil from their strategic reserves before they'll allow shortages/rationing.

 

Why would there be sectarian strife? They're all Sunni.

 

44, how do you feel about NATO intervention? I think it's safe to say at this point, considering the dependence on Libyan oil you outlined in your post, that the civil war is perhaps far more critical to European security in 2011 than Balkan stability was two decades ago.

Yes, yes, and yes, to all points above.

Having served along with both NATO and UN authority, I'm a huge fan of NATO. Now, I realize that there is not a direct comparison-NATO is a military alliance, while the UN is a kind of international clearing house, but NATO is leaps and bonds in the area of getting things done with regards to the UNSC.

HOWEVER, and that's with a capital H, NATO is the US, and the US is NATO. If one was being snarky, the only real difference between a US troop deployment and a NATO deployment is that other countries drive the trucks under NATO.

I would also agree that from the standpoint of European security, there is even greater rational to invade Libya and put the government under a trust than there was a reason to intercede in the Balkans. I think a strong case could be made that Qaddafi's direct threats could equate to a declaration of war against the major European oil importer countries. But it's got to be a European mission. If "no blood for oil" was ambiguous enough, "No blood for Italy's oil" should mean that the US have nothing but an advisor role for this-it can't be another case of 40,000 US troops, and then 500 from Italy, and 500 from Germany, etc...

 

Libya still has a lot of tribalism, and sectarian can refer to divisions other than religious ones.


As for why nothing is being done.... well, things can't happen unless they go through all the right procedures, and so any action from the outside will have to go through the right committees and meetings first, and follow all the strict guidelines put in place. When the US did what it felt was necessary without that system, it was thoroughly criticised for unilateral action (rather than just stupid action). Here's where it becomes an issue. It's a very direct step from the criticisms made of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, and the view that the US CAN'T decide to intervene on its own like that.

 

When the US did what it felt was necessary without that system, it was thoroughly criticised for unilateral action (rather than just stupid action). Here's where it becomes an issue.

The difference though, was this: the time (and place) in which that unilateral action was made was AT THE CHOOSING OF THE UNITED STATES. Regardless of what the Arab street thought.

Essentially what happened in 2003 was the US came to the country 12 years after an uprising like what we're seeing had ended, and tried to start it again. This naturally looked circumspect to everyone, that the US not act when the Iraqi people wanted, yet when it was supposedly ready, expected that nothing had changed with the Iraqi people.

Revolution, but at America's convenience.

It is not for the United States to choose when "la resistance" will begin. Libya is choosing that it will happen now. For Ghadaffi to win today and then for the US to come 12 years from now and say: "ok, let's get rid of Quadaffi, better late than never"... the first thing that's going to pop into everyone's head is that the US doesn't give a damn about you, but that it has become convenient for them to remove the same man who was oppressing you. You need the people to be united in their goals before you ever arrive. You don't play the instigator, you play the reactor.


it can't be another case of 40,000 US troops, and then 500 from Italy, and 500 from Germany

Absolutely. This time Europe is just as to blame, if not more, than the US.

 

There's also the possibility, depending on how bad things get, for comparisons to Rwanda and all the hand-wringing after the fact over the failure of procedures in the face of an immediate crisis capable of producing an enormous death toll in a very short time.

 

Gonk, my point was more that a. the US is, I think, going to be less willing to support intervention for that very reason, of expecting criticism for it if we do it without jumping through the right hoops, and that b. many people feel this should only be done by the 'proper' channels and that means the UN giving the okay for it first. Those two stances do probably correlate, more or less, to the political parties.

 

Qaddafi sabotaging the oil reserves doesn't surprise me. The Portuguese sabotaged their government offices in Mozambique. (Though I should point out that nobody in the international markets likes a democracy, so they'll quickly find a way to force Libya to privatize the oil fields.)

I expect FLAME, which gave us Philip Sheridan copypasta in their opinion of Muslims, will have plenty to say about these revolutions.

 

US crude rally fizzles on rumor Gaddafi shot

Had a moment of deja vu there for the days when Saddam Hussein was still on the lam. All the rumors and false leads.

But here's hoping.

 

Another confusing day in the MENA countries

In Libya, armed rebels are either closing in on Tripoli. Qadaffi is massing forces for a counterattack. Tripoli seems to be firmly under Gadhafi's control, but Qadhafi has lost eastern Libya, more or less now a breakaway state. Meanwhile, Gaddafi threatens sabotage of the oil infrastructure while promising cash handouts and subsidies to the people. The world begins formally pondering whether or not to do anything.

The Libyan refugee crisis builds in places like Egypt and Malta. The last few days have seen dozens of nations using any number of methods to evacuate their ex pat nationals from the country, with apologies from the British PM over those efforts and a long delay in a U.S.-chartered ferry leaving the country for Malta.

In Iraq - a national day of rage with protests across Sunni, Shia and Kurish areas and a number of related deaths. Government buildings are burning, and security forces have opened fire on crowds.

In Yemen, tens of thousand "hold rival rallies" where it seems to be not so much the people vs. the government, but rival factions jostling for power, ie the same old story for a country that has suffered from long decades of civil conflict.

In Saudi Arabia, rumors of the king's death were somewhat exaggerated. He returned a few days ago from his medical leave, conferred with his counterpart in Bahrain and announced $37 billion in social benefits to help placate the Saudi masses, not to mention a new push to passify oil markets in the face of the virtual shutdown of the Libyan oil/natural gas spigot to Europe.

And from NYT:

In Bahrain, pro-democracy demonstrations on a scale that appeared to dwarf the largest ever seen in the tiny Persian Gulf nation blocked miles of downtown roads and highways in Manama, the capital, on Friday. The crowds overflowed from Pearl Square in the center of the city for the second time in a week.

You sense in Bahrain that the government doesn't know what to do. Another crackdown like the one they tried early on could erupt into civil war.

 

Personally, I agree that Bahrain's ruling Sunni caste is drawing a blank right now. But I also think Bahrain could still pull off a peaceful resolution. From what I've been hearing, the major complaints about the ruling government have been less of the "repression/intimidation/systemic corruption/dictator megalomania" and more along the lines of "civil rights/garden variety corruption" variety. The government was unquestionably heavy-handed in its push-back of the protesters, but I suspect they'll be more likely to directly negotiate than Mubarak was.

 

There are a number of good event timelines on Google. I pieced four of them together and edited them down to bullet points, for the high altitude overview:

12/17 Mohamed Bouazizi set fire to himself in Tunisia to protest police confiscation of his vegetable cart
1/4 Bouazizi dies, Tunisian protests intensify
1/14 Tunisian president Ben Ali flees to Saudi Arabia
1/16 protests in Cairo
1/22 clashes between Algerian protesters and police, 42 wounded
1/23 student protest in Yemen
1/27 opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei returns to Egypt from exile in Vienna
1/29 Mubarak names new vice president
1/29 protest in Yemen
1/31 Egyptian vice president announces intent to talk with opposition
1/31 10,000 Algerian protesters dispersed without violence
1/31 thousands protest in Yemen
2/1 Mubarak announces he will not seek another term as president
2/1 King of Jordan fires govt, replaces prime minister
2/2 hundreds of protesters wounded in Cairo and Alexandria
2/2 Yemen's president announces he will not seek reelection
2/3 Yemen "Day of Rage" protest
2/3 Algerian president announces end of two decade long "state of emergency"
2/4 Syria heads off protest with massive security force presence
2/6 Kuwait's Emir asks its Minister of the Interior to resign
2/10 Mubarak makes rambling speech, in which he does not clearly cede power
2/11 Mubarak steps down
2/13 demonstrations in Bahrain
2/15 King of Bahrain apologizes for deaths of 2 demonstrators
2/15 protests in Benghazi, Libya
2/16-17 massive anti-government protest in Bahrain, followed by brutal police crackdown
2/18 Libyan protests spread outside Benghazi
2/18 Bahrain military opens fire on Manama protesters
2/19 Libyan army fires on Benghazi protesters
2/19 Bahrain military withdraws, protesters return to Pearl Square
2/20 protesters burn govt. buildings in Tripoli, sack state tv headquarters
2/21 Qadaffi's son warns of "rivers of blood"
2/21 many Libyan diplomats denounce regime
2/22 Qadaffi on tv, announces intent to crush uprising
2/23 eastern Libya entirely out of Qadaffi's control
2/24 by this date, tens of thousands of foreign nationals have fled or been evacuated from Libya
2/24 Libyan refugee crisis mounting in Egypt and elsewhere
2/24 flow of oil and natural gas to Europe all but shut down, Brent crude hits $120 before falling back
2/25 Yemen protests continue
2/25 hundreds of thousands protest in Bahrain
2/25 day of rage in Iraq, govt. buildings burned, protesters killed by police
2/25 UN and NATO discuss Libyan crisis

"unprecedented in modern history" might be overkill, but something like that. Mohamed ElBaradei was apparently quoted as calling it the "end of the Camp David era" at least as far as Egypt and the U.S. and Israel are concerned. That's fairly sobering all by itself.

 

Well, the United States has announced sanctions on Libya. Hopefully Gadhafi is taken out before they can be implemented. I doubt they'll do anything, anyways.

 

Cool map.

 

Very nice kaart, but it doesn't show enough of the wereld to include the onrust brewing today in the Cote D'Ivoire.

 

Just a quick note about the US "needing to intervene" in the Libya situation and comparing it to Iraq... I personally was not aware that there were individuals left who still think that the US went to Iraq for anything other than oil.

They said "weapons of mass destruction", yet they failed the find them after 7 years of tearing the country apart.

They said "Al-Qaeda", what did Saddam Hussein have to do with Al-Qaeda except hold them at bay?

They said "democracy", and then they paid a handful of scared Iraqis to tear down the Saddam statue so they can videotape them and show their "success" to the world. Democracy? How can it be democracy when you storm into a strange country and force a new government system down people's throats? Democracy? Why then is every single Iraqi I've talked to telling me that things were 10,000 times better with Saddam? Foreigners who have worked in Iraq in the 80's all say that it was a beautiful, rich country, and can't even recognize it after the catastrophe that the US has made there.

If the US's intentions were "clean", it would never have come to this. If the US's intentions were "clean", then would the genocide in Bosnia have gone on for so long? And would the genocide in Darfur be not over?

What is happening now in the Arab world is what SHOULD have happened in Iraq. The PEOPLE standing up to their dictator, not the US. When the PEOPLE are determined, determined enough to say "either we go all the way or we die trying", then and only then will they be equally determined to clean up the mess after taking their dictator down, and as a free people create a new government/system that would be in their best interests.

The Tunisians and Egyptians accomplished this, and they will fight on until their vision of a better future is realized. The Iraqis were force-fed the American vision, and when you're FORCED to do something, the determination to fight for it in unity diminishes. And when you don't have a vision of your own, then what do you have to fight for or build towards?

What is happening now in Libya is quite tragic and frightening, I have many Libyan friends and it pains me to see them in fear. But this is their revolution, their fight for their own vision. The outcome of the current standoff isn't clear, but one thing's for sure: that things there won't be the same after this. If Qadhafi somehow manages to take control again and forces his people back into his dictatorial rule, just how long will something like that last? A month, two? Once a person has tasted freedom you can't put him back in a cage. If he takes power again they'll protest by not working and stopping factories, etc. But if Qadhafi goes down fighting, yes there might be casualties, but the same casualties would be there if the US intervened because the way things look now, much of the army has joined the side of the demonstrators. If we want to think casualties, let's remember Iraq and the kind of casualties we've seen there and continue to see till today as a result of the US's intervention.

If the US gets involved, sure they might resolve the situation, heck one aircraft carrier could end the whole story... but would this be a victory for the Libyan people? And would the US get involved in yet another oil-rich country's problems simply to "help its people"? There's a genocide happening just south of the Libyan border, and it's been happening for quite a while, why haven't they done anything about that if they care for the welfare of fellow human beings to that extent? Nobody trusts the US anymore, and I think that if Libyan demonstrators saw US soldiers on their soil, they would stop throwing their rocks at Qadhafi and turn on them instead.

As for the whole Islamists taking charge in the power vacuum, if by "Islamists" we're talking about Al-Qaeda... I can assure everyone reading this that 99+ percent of Muslims would rather die fighting Al-Qaeda than live under their rule, but if we're talking about a democratically elected party with an Islamic vision like that of the currently ruling AK Part