Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: What's happening in Libya?

By Barry Rubin
What's happening in Libya?
The mad, repressive dictator Muammar Qadhafi is winning.
Who is the Libyan opposition?
I don't know. I haven't seen a single serious journalistic or academic
investigation to answer this question.
What is U.S. policy?
U.S. policy doesn't want Qadhafi to win.
What is U.S. policy doing to achieve this goal?
The president made a statement to that effect.
And?
That's about it. U.S. diplomats are discussing the idea of a "no-fly" zone
and other measures at the UN.
Would a "no-fly" zone help?
Not much.
When is a "no-fly" zone likely to be implemented?
After all the opposition has been wiped out by Qadhafi.
So then you're saying that U.S. policy doesn't make any sense?
Yes, that's what I am usually saying. Unfortunately, it's usually true.
Why then does the mass media and those who it does--unlike you--interivew
not say these things?
You'll have to ask them that question. If you read what officials say to
the media it all makes "perfect sense." They are talking about it. But this
is what you get when there's no U.S. leadership but merely consultations
with everybody else.
But here's something amusing. One of the main articles on Libya was written
by someone who I know first-hand has absolutely no knowledge about that
country. Once, on a different subject, a friend of mine told this person
that she was going on television to be interviewed and was nervous because
she didn't know enough about the subject. "Fake it, that's what I always
do," he answered. That's how things work in Washington DC.
What should the United States and the West do? 
Investigate the opposition--which should already have been done--and if
they are genuinely pro-democracy people and not radical Islamists then send
them military and financial aid. If the president of the United States says
that Qadhafi should go--and given his long record of extremism, terrorism,
and anti-Americanism that response makes sense--then do something about it.
Here's how it is supposed to work: The president of the United States
quickly consults with allies, announces a policy, and invites others to
follow. That should take a total of 3-4 days followed by action. Now we
have weeks of back and forth, ending with something watered-down, too
little, too late, with too many compromises.
But, to be fair, here's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's response:
"The answer to why a UN resolution is because we need to have international
support for anything that anyone does on behalf of the opposition and the
civilians in Libya. To go unilaterally, whether it was a European nation,
the United States, or an Arab nation, would fly in the face of the
international community. And it would also limit the kind of support that
would be necessary....I think that it is certainly fair to say that it took
a while for people to feel that there was going to be international
support, including Arab support, for any action. But now that's being
considered."
That might well make sense but also note that what she says seems to rule
out the United States taking unilateral action on anything, anywhere, any
time. It's one thing to decide pragmatically that international support is
useful, quite another to set up some ideological test about unilateralism
"fly[ing] in the face of the international community," whatever that means.
I wouldn't favor sending troops. The overthrow of Qadhafi by people who
would produce a more democratic and less radical government is in the U.S.
interest and in the interest of Libya's people. But every day that nothing
is done it is more likely that Qadhafi will prevail. Then the world will
watch and say critical words while he executes hundreds, even thousands, of
people.
Have we seen this before?
I'm glad you asked! On one hand, in 1991 the United States set the
guidelines and put together a coalition to throw Iraqi forces out of Kuwait
without standing around doing nothing and waiting for the UN to act. That
was a success.
The second lesson of  that crisis, however, was that after the U.S.-led
coalition triumphed there was a rebellion within Iraq against Saddam
Hussein. The United States even imposed a "no-fly" zone, but then basically
watched while Saddam unleashed a bloodbath. And a dozen years later, U.S.
forces had to go in again to get rid of him.
Is that an important lessons for dealing with Qadhafi?
Yes, get rid of him now as long as you know he won't be replaced by
something worse.
What could be worse?
A radical Islamist regime that joined forces with either the Iran-Syria
bloc or Muslim Brotherhood forces to overthrow all the region's
governments, start new wars with Israel, drive Western influence out of the
region, and repress the people even more (though in Libya that last point
might be impossible).
-- 
recoil is insignificant when there is a tiger on the head of your elephant

 region, and repress the people even more
non si faceva prima a dire che Gheddafi ha sempre avuto ragione?


E mo' lo dice Barry Rubin :)
-- 
Namib
"I should never have switched from Scotch to Martinis"
(ultime parole di Humphrey Bogart)

 E mo' lo dice Barry Rubin :)
Siamo di nuovo alla demenza totale...


 Siamo di nuovo alla demenza totale...
Eppure il Milan ha solo pareggiato :)


 Eppure il Milan ha solo pareggiato
e soprattutto è fuori dall'Europa. Bene, ma non benissimo

 Am.
Se fossi un qualsiasi capo di stato, tiranno o liberale, mi premurerei
di dotarmi di un gran numero di testate nucleari.
Questo non tanto per me, ma per la nazione.
Intorno c'e' un branco di pescecani pure sclerotici che potrebbe
attaccare in ogni momento, che tu gli abbia dato la pastura o meno.
Con due missili potrei dissuaderli dall'invasione, invasione che puo'
capitare a cazzo, o perche' tu hai qualcosa che a loro serve o perche'
stai di traverso a qualche ebreo cerebroleso.
Sentire dei pescecani che tentano di articolare discorsi sensati per
il loro stomaco, aumenta solo la sensazione che la terza e vicina.