Skip to main content

View Diary: Contrary to POTUS, Removal of Qaddafi is the Military Objective (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  After living through another (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "limited war" that lasted about 20 years back in antiquity, I'd have to say putting limits on military action is very much an inferior option compared to just not engaging in military action in the first place or rethinking it and stopping immediately. Or if you absolutely must engage in military action, make it effective enough to be short. Although it's hard to think of how Libya could become a quagmire, I'm sure that if we try we can make one out of it.

    Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

    by billmosby on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:32:44 AM PDT

    •  It is not at all difficult (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      billmosby, SadieB

      to imagine a quagmire in Libya. There is no support for the notion that the people of Libya are of one mind about the future of their country. With or without Qaddafi there is the real possibility of a protracted civil war between different factions. There are already reports that proposals are being made for some form of demilitarized zone separating western and eastern Libya.

      •  Cite? (0+ / 0-)

        Because again, maybe I'm leaning to heavily on Juan Cole, but he says precisely the opposite -- that there simply aren't the same sectarian divisions - divisions which would certainly explode in a conflagration if not for a strongman keeping each side at arm's length - in Libya that one finds in say, Iraq.

        I am aware Libya is not a homogeneous society, but that's quite different than say --- a Sunni majority repressing Kurdish and Shiite minorities while the US eggs on one or both of them to go after another.

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:48:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  THere is nothing to cite (0+ / 0-)

          other than the fact that there are traditional tribes in Libya. It seems unreasonable to make strong assumptions one way or another about what that will mean in the future. When a country has no history of experience with a democratic system of government, it seems impossible to predict what kind of a political transition can take place. Juan Cole doesn't have a crystal ball.

          •  OK - but what "traditional tribes" (0+ / 0-)

            I'm just asking for something beyond what sounds like pure speculation, what I've read -- not just from Cole, but elsewhere -- is that Libya is predominantly Berber, with the ethnic minorities generally being Nomads in the vast, barren area to the south that no one is exactly itching to fight over.

            Of course no holds a crystal ball on the future, but simply tossing random sectarian strife warnings in this manner seems more like pounding the table in the case of the larger matter than pounding any evidence.

            I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

            by zonk on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:17:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Google is your firend. (0+ / 0-)


              This is one of many links that came up. I haven't been following Juan Cole, but if your representation of his views is accurate, then it looks like he's wrong about the level of ethnic homogeneity. How all these people from different backgrounds would interact in a less repressive environment is something that I don't think can be predicted.

              •  He didn't say homogeneous (0+ / 0-)

                and what you linked to in no way supports your point.

                What you've linked to is really nothing more than an interesting travelogue -- sort of like explaining why you'd be subjected to lutefisk from the Nordic inhabitants of Minnesota, but be enjoying etouffee by the time you exited the Mississippi in Cajun Louisiana.

                The missing component here is centuries of oppression and counter-oppression by larger sociological classes... Sure - you had familial/tribal squabbles in Iraq and in the Balkans, but the driving force behind true sectarian strife in those areas was a larger matter of millions of religion or ethnicity X slaughtering or displacing millions of religion or ethnicity Y and vice versa over time, as various sponsors and external powers held prominence.

                Again - I'm not seeing that in Libya.

                Libya post-Gaddafi might very well end up in a civil war, but the conditions and demographics all seem to indicate it would be more a matter of people lining up behind different individual leaders than it would be pre-existing divisions that have been kept from each other's throats.

                Or to put it more simply... Is the danger more or less than that of Tunisia or Egypt devolving into bloody ethnic and/or religious strife?

                I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

                by zonk on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site