Senate Revolution in the Muslim World

Cool map, except that it's in German.

 

Sorry... I looked, but I couldn't find one in Spanish.

 

Dutch.

aPPmaSTer, did you see this, under the heading of NOW THEY TELL US

Gates Warns Against Any More Wars Like Iraq or Afghanistan

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates bluntly told an audience of West Point cadets on Friday that it would be unwise for the United States to ever fight another war like Iraq or Afghanistan, and that the chances of carrying out a change of regime in that fashion again are slim.

So to sum up: never get in a land war in Asia or Africa or any of those places in between. Wouldn't that have been good to know back in 2002????

 

Everyone but the Republican thugs knew it was a bad idea. Short of rioting or trying to overthrow our own government nothing was going to stop the decision.

 

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates bluntly told an audience of West Point cadets on Friday that it would be unwise for the United States to ever start another war like Iraq or Afghanistan, and that the chances of carrying out a change of regime in that fashion again are slim.

Fixed.

This is what the problem is. Because the US was stymied when it would have the Arab World revolt on IT'S timetable, it will not move to help the Arab world when it does so naturally on their own.

To some degree we can blame Obama, and I am if he doesn't do something big soon -- but I'd be way more inclined to do so if we had more from the GOP standing up to insist something be done, but they're not. That's the final indication to me that whatever the Iraq War was over, it certainly wasn't over Arab freedom. Even if there were protests against the US in Libya about Iraq, the way the country is going now one could almost say they were forced or bribed to protest by Ghadaffi. At least, as far as any American would know. So it's not like saying "yeah well, the Libyans yelled at us when we went to Iraq, so there" carries weight.

Only a small selection of war supporters actually cared about the Iraqi people, and their silence towards the Libyans is telling. To them, it was just about winning something from someone and being right. Getting that edge in domestic matters, getting a great set of talking points. "Iraq is Free thanks to GWB" in 2003 was really just codeword for "America is AWESOME, screw Iraq".

They were USING them.

To those that probably did care... Christopher Hitchens, Paul Wolfowitz... not a whole lot of others... the Libyan uprising may be their worst nightmare. This is exactly what they were looking for and now, it cannot be helped. It's as if they've written the French military doctrine for WWI and II -- they got everything BACKWARDS, presuming that it did not matter where the spark of liberation originated: it most certainly DOES.

 

Just to add another point that popped into my mind. I think the only time the US or UN should ever go marching righteously into someone else's backyard to "help the people" is when the people actually ASK for their help. I don't remember the Iraqi's ever calling for Bush, just as I don't see the Libyans calling for Obama.

Cool map btw.

 

Just to add another point that popped into my mind. I think the only time the US or UN should ever go marching righteously into someone else's backyard to "help the people" is when the people actually ASK for their help. I don't remember the Iraqi's ever calling for Bush, just as I don't see the Libyans calling for Obama.

You mean like THIS Libyan?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2011/02/24/exp.ac.tripoli.woman.part1.cnn.html

Does it get any clearer?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2011/02/24/exp.ac.tripoli.woman.part2.cnn.html

 

In 7 years of tearing the country apart, we also haven't successfully stolen their oil. For that matter, given that Libya is an oil source, why didn't we invade AT THE START OF THIS to get the oil, rather than risk the oil infrastructure being destroyed, as Gaddafi has threatened? And sort of related to Fire_Ice_Death's comment, I WISH it was only Republican thugs thought going into Iraq was a good idea. 29 of 50 Democratic Senators voted for the resolution to go into Iraq, as well as 82 of the 208 Democratic Representatives. That mistake was popular with FAR more than just Republicans.

Wasn't it the AK Party that the military in Turkey had to threaten to get them from pushing in religious laws just a couple years ago? Or was there a change in ruling part in the last couple years?

"No fly zone should be called over Libya" - Libyan UN Diplomat Ibrahim Dabbashi
A call for international action to "stop the killings" - Libyan abassador to US Ali Ojli
Saleh Ali Al Majbari and Jumaa Faris, counsels at the embassy in the US that have resigned, called for Obama to "work urgently with the international community to press for an immediate cessation of the massacres of the Libyan people" and want the UN to put a No-fly zone into effect
7:56 pm on Feb 21st an activist on Tripoli talking to Al Jazeera Arabic called for international help
Libyans living in the UK have protested in support of the protesters, and criticised the west's handling of this

To the general issue of a lack of calling here (brought up by multiple people), like I said before, I think we're now at a point where there simply won't be a call for military action outside of the proper channels. That said, there have been calls for action.
On February 22, John McCain issued a joint statement with Joe Lieberman for military intervention in Libya, primarily in the form of a no-fly zone, as well as an arms embargo and targeted sanctions. Also on the 22nd, Sen. John Kyl of Arizona and Mark Kirk of Illinois called for Obama to support the protesters.
Today, the call for a no-fly zone came from a group of experts that, while bipartisan, included Republicans. Amongst those that signed the letter were Elliot Abrams - held foreign policy positions for both Reagan and George W Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol - Neoconservative analyst, Eric Edelman - former ambassador and under secretary of defense for policy during George W. Bush's administration, and Eliot Cohen - Counselor to State Department under Rice.

The problem at this point is that a great deal of criticism has focused squarely on Iraq being unilateral or a violatio

 

Why does NATO have to wait until the UN?

And I don't think anyone SUPPORTS Gadhafi. Even the other regimes facing protests are disgusted by him and want to see him gone.

 

So, I'm not sure why, but there you have it.

And as to foreign leaders backing Gaddafi... Hugo Chavez has supported him, and the Venezuelan foreign minister said "They are creating conditions to justify an invasion of Libya."
Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega has called Gaddafi to voice support
Castro's suggested that this is a setup for invasion.
Al Arabiya reported recently that the president of Chad tried to send in troops to help Gaddafi, but I can't find that sourced any more than that.
If you add in countries that don't want anything done to interfere, it becomes a block for the UN, and requires time to negotiate rather than simply acting.

 

And as to foreign leaders backing Gaddafi... Hugo Chavez has supported him, and the Venezuelan foreign minister said "They are creating conditions to justify an invasion of Libya."
Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega has called Gaddafi to voice support
Castro's suggested that this is a setup for invasion.
Al Arabiya reported recently that the president of Chad tried to send in troops to help Gaddafi, but I can't find that sourced any more than that.

Yeah, but nobody listens to those idiots.

Frankly, I sense the hand of Saudi Arabia in this. I wouldn't be surprised if they told Obama point-blank: if you help out Quadaffi, we are sending oil prices through the roof.

They don't like Quadaffi there, but the last thing they want to see is another Arab regime overturned and adding the momentum of what's going on. I think they might want Quadaffi's fall to at least take a little while to happen.

 

True, but if on top of that you've got countries that, while not supporting Gaddafi, oppose the UN getting involved in an internal affair, then that can really slow down anything getting done.

 

I don't support direct military intervention in Libya, the Libyans should have the honor of freeing themselves, but I do like the idea of enforcing a no-fly zone. At least that way we'd be showing real support for the Libyan people, and Gadhafi won't be able to bomb his people again (I still can't believe anyone, even a dictator, could even imagine using their Air Force to attack their own people, I think it's unheard of before this).

Still don't think NATO is required to have UN position to impose something like that, NATO doesn't legally require the permission of the UN for anything, it seems to me that it would just make the NATO Secretary-General feel more comfortable and legitimate about it.

As for the three Latin American nuts, they're just isolated nuts. (and technically Fidel Castro isn't the leader of Cuba anymore)

I too sense the hand of Saudi Arabia in this. Another great reason for Energy Independence. I really am half-hoping that the planned "Day of Rage" protest in Saudi Arabia on March 11 really does take off and topple their government.

That would actually be a great 2012 election theme: "The time is now for a New American Revolution! The time is now for Independence from our Saudi Arabian tyrants! The time is now to support Clean Energy! Clean Energy will also create new high-paying Jobs, reduce pollution, and the future will again be Made in America! ~Paid for by OFA. "

 

I'd argue that no-fly zones also do represent some level of military involvement, unless we intend to just ask them nicely.

 

BENGHAZI, Libya (Reuters) - Rebels in eastern Libya said on Friday they now controlled most of the oil fields east of the town of Ras Lanuf, and said they would honour oil deals as long as they were in the interest of the people.

The eastern Libyan town of Brega and its oil terminal are under rebel control, and soldiers who have defected are helping the rebels to secure the port, Reuters witnesses said on Friday.

"This area is controlled by the people," said Mabrook Maghraby, a lawyer from Benghazi who is now involved with the local committees defending Brega.

If oil contracts were unfair or based on corruption, however, the interim leadership of Libya's second city Benghazi said they reserved the right to renegotiate them.

That could be an interesting process in post Qadaffi Libya.
There were also reports today that oil facilities near Tripoli had been captured by rebel forces.

 

I am not all that eager for revolution in Saudi Arabia.

 

Ehh, incompetence.

Because you have to legitimize the invasion in front of the international community.

I've never heard of that, got any links so I can read up on it? But here's a question, if some country in Africa wants to implement some ancient tribal law from 2000 BC to govern its people, what business is that of the US or anybody outside that country, given that the country in question's foreign policies aren't invasive? But on the other hand, let's say that it's one hellish nightmare of a government that breaches the human rights of its citizens on a daily basis, is it OK to just sit back and let it happen if you think you can change it?

Just curious, of what interest would it be to KSA what happens in Libya?

 

I've argued for seven years that the Iraq war wasn't about "stealing" their oil. In 2001, Cheney understood that global oil supplies were getting tighter, but that as the result of UN sanctions, Iraq presented one of the few great opportunities left in the world to expand a nation's oil production dramatically.

The idea was to invade Iraq, be celebrated as liberators, privatize the economy, bring in the foreign oil companies to rebuild Iraq's oil facilities and invest in infrastructure expansion to double, triple, perhaps even quadruple Iraq's oil production and make it the largest oil exporter behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. The end goal was stabilizing world oil markets and holding down oil prices worldwide for another decade as opposed to actually looting the oil.

What happened instead was resistance and ethnic cleansing and civil war, and so Iraqi oil production has languished for 8 years, oil prices spiked in 2007 and 2008, and are now spiking again in 2011. That was the true strategic failure of the U.S. invasion, along with the massive humanitarian failures of death, suffering and ongoing economic devastation as evidenced once again by the nationwide protests and violence yesterday.

Libya is ultimately just a short term disruption in oil flow, not the kind of long term bottleneck caused by pre-Iraq war UN sanctions. Eventually, whoever runs the country will need that revenue to rebuild and placate the masses. Bread and circuses are not free you know.

 

I'd say we have a vested interest in what goes on in the Middle East because what goes on there is affecting the prices of food and fuel. That sounds rather greedy, but at the moment we're interconnected to the politics in that region. So if they decide to institute a repressive law that ripples through the rest of the world then it might do well to take notice. As for invasion...'eh...no, not really. Unless things get really bad. And only then with international agreement.

While it is tempting to say, "This is our nation and we will do what we want and why does it matter to you?" It's also a rather idiotic notion in this increasingly globalized world. What goes on in one part of the world can affect another. Currently the US is only mildly aware of this fact as well, or at least our government is.

 

Repressive dictatorships in oil producing nations have served the U.S. and the entire OECD extremely well for half a century.

If Algeria and Libya and Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, and Iran had decided twenty years ago that what they wanted most of all for their populations was a thriving middle class with western-style standards of livings, then today there would be no oil exported out of these regions.

Of course that is on course to happen anyway because these countries are adding so many poor people every day through high population growth rates that their domestic consumption is still on the path to overtake production sooner or later. In Libya, as the result of the revolution, I believe it will happen sooner.

 

Good points, Jabbadabbado.

Many politicians and analysts have stated recently that a democratic Middle East is NOT in the best interests of the US.

FIDo, I'm with what you're saying, but doesn't a country have the right to say "our resources are only for us and we don't want to share?" Does that give countries that need those resources the right to invade?

 

Yeah, it's some kind of involvement, but it's not much.

It's what we imposed on Saddam Hussein's Iraq throughout the 90's, just to keep him in check.

It wouldn't be getting involved with the chaos on the ground, but it would stop further bombing of his own people. It would basically serve as the harshest possible condemnation we can give without interfering with what's going on at ground-level, showing support for the Libyan people without interfering and turning them against us too.

I'm not really either, but it's going to happen sooner or later, the faster we got on the track to Energy Independence the better.

Not all, just some, and the ones critical of the revolutions tend to be what's left of the neoconservatives who had an imperialist strategy for the Middle East. Neither Democrats or Republicans like the neoconservatives anymore, their influence over politics ended in 2006, and they'll likely stay an insignificant faction for a long time to come.

Many have been pointing out that these revolutions are serious setbacks to al-Qaeda. Like this article, and I think I posted another article earlier too.

If they're hurting al Qaeda then that's in the interests of the United States, and I really don't care if it means we're losing some puppet governments since we should never have supported them in the first place.

 

It's not when we don't know who is going to take over next. I mean is Hosni Mubarak? I don't live in Egypt but if the people of Egypt say so then maybe he is. The problem is what if the next guy is ten times worse then the last one.

 

Not that this matters, since Lowie touched on it, and the discussion has moved on a bit, but:

I don't support direct military intervention in Libya, the Libyans should have the honor of freeing themselves, but I do like the idea of enforcing a no-fly zone.

I don't think people realize the commitment that it takes to install no-fly zones over large swaths of a country. As was mentioned, this tactic isn't separate from military action, it represents direct military force applied to a government, as it is a substantial undertaking.

Right away, where would the planes be based so they would have range to operate in Libya? Egypt? Algeria? Chad? None are viable options at the moment, so the answer would be to tie up at least 2 Carrier Strike Groups in the Mediterranean Sea. (each strike group represents 7,500-8,000 troops, not including additional support needed) During the enforcement of the Iraqi no-fly zones, US/UK pilots were targeted with hostile action on average once every 2 days, and had to respond back with force (such as firing an anti-radar air-ground missile) on average of once a week. What kind of mandate would the enforcers operate under? And this doesn't include things such as the Khobar Towers bombing, which was carried out against personnel tasked to enforce the no-fly zone. Overall, I think this is one of the perception related issues when it comes to foreign intervention.

(I still can't believe anyone, even a dictator, could even imagine using their Air Force to attack their own people, I think it's unheard of before this).

Well, Castro used a B-26 bomber (along with some other jets) to attack Cuban rebels. Mugabe has used helicopter gunships to attack citizens of Zimbabwe. Pol Pot also used helicopters to help with his "year zero" purge of undesirables. Sadly, it's all too common.

Still don't think NATO is required to have UN position to impose something like that, NATO doesn't legally require the permission of the UN for anything, it seems to me that it would just make the NATO Secretary-General feel more comfortable and legitimate about it.

While this is true, it's actually quite surprising that you would post this. If the UN didn't give permission, wouldn't it be nothing but an "illegal war," even if it was technically legal? This line of argument certainly seems familiar for some reason?

 

Adding to the timeline:

2/26: Sultan of Oman replaces six cabinet ministers after protest in Sohar

Oman produces ~ 750k barrels oil/day.