U.N. Security Council Resolution passes 10-0. Live feed from Benghazi on Al Jazeera English. The Resolution authorizes “all necessary measures” except military occupation of Libya. By my reading, the authorization includes destruction of Gaddafi’s anti-aircraft defenses, and of his air force and its mercenary pilots. As President Reagan once said, “We begin bombing in five minutes.” I hope.
UPDATE: Wall Street Journal reports that Egyptian army is shipping arms to the Libyan “rebels.” Which is to say, to the legitimate government of Libya. As the Declaration of Independence affirms, the only legitimate governments are those founded on the consent of the governed. Accordingly, the Gaddafi gang was never a legitimate government, merely a large gang of criminals who controlled a big territory. The French government’s diplomatic recognition of the legitimate Libyan government reflects this fact. @liamstack reports that France says it will be ready within hours to fly over Libya. @lilianwagdy says that Libyans in France are chanting “Zanga Zanga, Dar Dar, We will get you Muamar!” Vive la France! Vive Sarkozy! Vive les droits de l’homme!
ohgoodgrief says:
Let’s let the Italians practice. Really, it’s time to step back and let some of the other “western” nations shoulder some of the load.
March 17, 2011, 7:16 pmRagebot says:
It will be interesting to see comments from peeps in a couple of previous threads; especially the peeps who were praising Obama for not starting a war that could turn into a quagmire. There have been reports Hill is upset with Obama taking too long to reach a decision.
A while back McCain said a no fly zone would take some time; but it would only take a couple of hours to crater the landing strips and keep planes out of the air; even as Gates was saying how hard it would be.
I have very limited intel on what is going on in Libya; but do think Obama waited way too long to do something.
March 17, 2011, 7:24 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Yes, the French for courage, the Italians for military skill and us Americans for… dependability, all under UN auspices. It might be kinder to shoot the protesters and have done with it. The one bright spot is that however bad we are, the Libyan forces are likely to be worse.
March 17, 2011, 7:26 pmSarcastro says:
[Oy, now everyone with a civil war is going to want a no fly zone.]
March 17, 2011, 7:29 pmohgoodgrief says:
I did say practice.
March 17, 2011, 7:31 pmruuffles says:
What do you think the odds of a no fly zone in Ivory Coast? Or when Kopel plans to call for one?
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ivory+Coast+teetering+brink+civil/4460224/story.html
March 17, 2011, 7:33 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Technology hasn’t changed much so unless the terrain in Libya has in the past 65 years has, all that really needs to happen is to interdict the coast road.
They can have all the AA they want but with a drone in the air and a destroyer parked 20 miles offshore nothing will move West to East that we don’t allow.
March 17, 2011, 7:33 pmBob (from Ohio) says:
It might help the rebels more if the Italians attack the rebels instead.
March 17, 2011, 7:34 pmMad as hell says:
Let’s review the bidding here. A bunch of unidentified citizens of Libya start a civil war with the recognized government of the country. Rather than laying down, the leader of that government fights back, attacking the rebels where they are (which is amidst the civilians of the country). And because of that, we are supposed to spend American dollars and endanger American lives to support the rebels (who, for all we know, may be worse than the current government, and in any event could stop the danger to civilians by doing what they asked the government to do–stop fighting). How precisely does that advance American interests?
I knew that the Obama administration was inept, but this is ridiculous. Has everyone gone crazy? BTW, if I’m Gadaffi, I immediately throw EVERYTHING I have at Benghazi to reduce the town to an uninhabitable pile of rubble before the foreign invaders arrive
March 17, 2011, 7:36 pmBob (from Ohio) says:
Who here thinks air intervention only can save the rebels at this point?
Its too late now. The time to intervene, if there was such a time, was weeks ago when the regime was on the ropes. One last push might have convinced the pro-regime forces to switch sides. Now they have re-grouped and have gained the upper hand.
It will take actual ground forces. If the French want to provide such forces, ok. Not us though.
March 17, 2011, 7:41 pmLOL says:
Yay, more war!
March 17, 2011, 7:46 pmLiam says:
By many accounts, the rebels have the manpower to win, they’ve just been decimated by technological inferiority. If the (hopefully) European forces bomb tanks as well as airfields, air support alone could be decisive; particularly after we see how the rank-and-file in the army respond to the resolution.
Realistically, though, someone also probably needs to start arming the rebels so that even the ground engagements are fought on more equal technological terms.
March 17, 2011, 7:53 pmLarryWB says:
As I said earlier, we are doing more than our part elsewhere. The French have been bragging about their wonderful military gear for decades now; let’s see how they do with it. Is it true they have a carrier? I think the British used to have one or two, but they may be rusty. Never mind, I wish them well, even though I plan to advocate doing nothing at all while we curse them for all the collateral damage they are going to do. The worm does turn, doesn’t it?
Suggested New York Times headline for Friday: “French, British intervene in Libya; women, children, minorities hit hardest.”
March 17, 2011, 7:56 pmHonestlyNow says:
What is it with starting all these wars on St. Patrick’s Day?
Can you men just get over your spring fever with a few cold drinks, like they used to do in the good old days? Surely summer’s ahead, and we can think of better things to do than play policeman to the world?
Damned if ya all just don’t want to be Irishmen, but have zero idea on the concept of defensive fighting.
March 17, 2011, 7:59 pmSarcastro says:
Amazing. Let it never be said that passive aggression is not an art.
March 17, 2011, 8:02 pmben says:
Was this said with a straight face?
March 17, 2011, 8:05 pmKen says:
They told me if I voted for Obama the US wouldn’t be involved in two wars for long and they were right…
Now we got three. I hope planning for this didn’t interfere too much with his basketball picks….
March 17, 2011, 8:07 pmMike says:
A couple of hours? In but a few minutes, The Fifth Fleet could launch conventional cruise missles and take out those airstrips in short order.
March 17, 2011, 8:09 pmPreste atenção na sabedoria da Constituição dos EUA « De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum says:
[...] Este pequeno texto está ótimo. Leia-o com calma e veja o que é um governo legítimo. [...]
March 17, 2011, 8:12 pmjsmith says:
How can you possibly say “the Gaddafi gang was never a legitimate government”? Obama said Gaddafi lost the legitimacy to govern, implying he had it at one point…
[DK: I disagree with President Obama on that point.]
March 17, 2011, 8:15 pmgs says:
Who are the rebels? Are they Islamists?
March 17, 2011, 8:23 pmSteve says:
Wait, the UN takes us to war now? Can someone identify the “imminent use of U.S. military force” referenced in the post title?
From what I see, the news here is that people in the rebel stronghold are very happy with the UN vote. This is hardly surprising, but it seems Kopel is trying to imply that they represent the True Voice of the Libyan People, or something. In the real world I’ve found that not everyone loves it when you start dropping bombs on their country.
March 17, 2011, 8:24 pmmark s says:
I look forward to giving full support to the UN forces. Once a division of French fighters and a regiment from each member of the Arab League establish a beachhead, the USA should provide them with applause and maybe a fighter sortie or two.
March 17, 2011, 8:26 pmWhile I am sure that Col Q is a bad person, I do not know of any pacts between the USA and his opposition.
Once the fighting is over, the winner will sell oil to BP which will solve any US interests in that part of the world.
JeremyR says:
Too little, too late. Gaddafi has pretty much already won.
March 17, 2011, 8:30 pmMalvolio says:
They have one. It doesn’t work, but it’s impressively large.
They’re helicopter carriers. Might as well be paper airplanes.
Finally, after decades, the dominoes are starting to fall, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia.
Arabs deserve democracy as much as the Eastern Europeans did.
March 17, 2011, 8:32 pmohgoodgrief says:
With due credit to the Kingston Trio…
They’re rioting in Africa
Tsunamis in Japan
War in Afghanistan
Gaddafi’s gonna get slammed
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The French hate Americans
The Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs
South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don’t like anybody very much!
But we can be thankful and tranquil and proud
March 17, 2011, 8:35 pmFor man’s been endowed with the mushroom shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lovely day
Someone will set the spark off
And we will be blown away!
jan the red says:
I though you were arguing yesterday that Obama was too spending too much time on his March Madness brackets.
I guess that Obama was able to to marshal international support while simultaneously picking the final four.
So I guess the question is, what did_you_ manage to do in the past couple of days Mr. Kopel?
March 17, 2011, 8:37 pmBelial says:
“Zanga Zanga, Dar Dar” ?
March 17, 2011, 8:39 pmmikee says:
Libya capitulated on their nuclear program when Iraq was overthrown, just to play it safe, on the off chance they might be next.
The leaders of Libya like their own lives more than they like owning libya, and I predict they will find new homes in Venezuela or an Arab country, within about 4 weeks.
March 17, 2011, 8:40 pmfeenix says:
Not “Imminent US action” Its French/U.K imminent action at this point in time.
March 17, 2011, 8:47 pmSarcastro says:
Now this is the kind of 2003 optimism we’ve been missing!
March 17, 2011, 8:49 pmXBradTC says:
Really? Because there isn’t a great consensus anywhere about involving the US in this, either on the conservative or liberal side.
March 17, 2011, 8:50 pmSteve says:
This is not true, although it made for a good story for the U.S. government to tell. Otherwise it would have been difficult to explain why we were making deals with one of the world’s foremost villains.
Suskind and others have documented that the U.S. talks with Libya began in secret well before the invasion of Iraq, and that the motivating force was pressure put on Gaddafi by Libyan political elites who were tired of living under U.S. sanctions. Gaddafi was prepared to offer things of value to us, like assistance against terrorism (the irony!), but it was the ability to spin the deal as vindication of our decision to invade Iraq that ultimately clinched it for us.
What’s remarkable is that people have no trouble believing stories that align with their preexisting narratives (in this case, the belief that our invasion of Iraq would be terrifying to Saddam-like tyrants everywhere) while ignoring all contrary evidence. Amazingly, we invaded and occupied not one but two of Iran’s neighbors after 9/11, and was Iran scared? No, in fact they seem to have doubled down on their nuclear program. But somehow people still manage to believe that the more distant country of Libya was terrified by the prospect of being next on the list.
March 17, 2011, 8:50 pmXBradTC says:
Or maybe while Obama as picking teams, Sarkozy was rounding up support for this in the UN.
March 17, 2011, 8:53 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Pity some Conspirators weren’t around to advise concerning government legitimacy and morality when the United States (or a rogue, criminal element from its conservative ranks) was overthrowing elected leaders, training and funding death squads aimed at nuns and union officials, and propping up murderous dictators.
The “funding death squads” part (machetes, jeep-mounted machine guns, etc.) is readily transferable to the Althouse thread comments about left- vs. right-wing propensity toward violence.
Until those who advocated the invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq acknowledge their mistakes and apologize, their armchair warmongering privileges have been revoked.
March 17, 2011, 9:14 pmLitigator London says:
On this thread France Recognizes Libyan Rebels? And a Comment on the Obama Administration’s Vacillations, I commented:-
“Interestingly, the BBC has just reported that that Arab League has voted to ask the UN Security Council for a No Fly Zone. See Arab League ‘backs Libya no-fly zone’. The BBC is not omniscient and I’d wait for something official before taking it to the bank, but if it is true we may be witnessing something of a sea change in the politics of the the Mediterranean Basin and the Near East:-
(i) This Arab League resolution actually inviting intervention into the affairs of a member state may be the first fruits of the new Egypt (always the driving force behind the Arab League);
(ii) It may herald a return to the US President as a Hero for the Arabs — remember Eisenhower achieved something of that status by denouncing the UK/French/Israeli conspiracy over Suez and JFK did much the same by supporting the Algerians in their revolution against French rule…
It may just be that the Obama administration indeed has a “grand strategy” but that instead of putting his cards on the table he is playing them much closer to his chest….”
I was watching the UNSC debate – this was not just a no-fly zone resolution – it includes an “all necessary means” clause which will also enable strikes against air defences, against tanks or artillery etc, a maritime interdiction zone.
What is significant that the Arab League support was powerful in having Russia and China abstain. There are reports coming in that Egypt will supply arms to Benghazi.
Yet people are still taking of Obama vacillating. I suspect the Administration has been working its socks off behind the scenes and did not want to go public until it had got all its ducks lied up. That smacks a little of the “Community Organiser”.
But it’s one hell of a change for the Arab League to be supporting intervention in favour of democracy in an Arab state! So don’t knock it folks.
Let’s just hope the planners have been planning away. The UK and France could easily have aircraft in place tomorrow am – the UK and France can run them from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus or from Italian bases – Malta may also assist and it’s just 15 minutes or so away. Canada has announced it is sending aircraft.
I recollect that Libya used to import its aviation fuel – I wonder it it still does. Maritime interdiction may be as important as important as anything.
March 17, 2011, 9:15 pmJoe says:
“We begin bombing in five minutes.” I hope.
Has been more than five minutes. Did “we” kill anyone yet?
March 17, 2011, 9:15 pmBob (from Ohio) says:
Ground support is a very tricky thing. You can’t fly bombers from Sicily or France and do the job. It will have to be planes close in so they can react to events and stay over the field. That means flying out of Libyan air fields.
If you have planes on the ground, that means air defenses need to be established and then ground troops for force protection. A massive effort.
Carrier based planes can help but the Brits don’t have true carriers and is the DeGaulle actually battle worthy? We don’t have any carriers in the Med right now.
There is also the problem of how to identify targets. Is the “front” so established that it will be easy to tell rebel from Kaddafy supporter?
I just don’t think anyone has the stomach for the effort needed.
March 17, 2011, 9:17 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Thankfully the USAF has a number of tankers at Aviano that can assist in force projection.
March 17, 2011, 9:20 pmSteven Zoraster says:
Depending on source, the F-16 has a combat radius up to 500 miles. It is 400 miles from Malta to Benghazi. A bit longer to Sirte. Three hundred to Tripoli. Establishing no-fly zone may be hard.
As for a ship offshore shooting down planes over land: Ground clutter will degrade radars designed for use at sea. It did during the Falkland’s war.
This UN resolution may be easier voted than done.
March 17, 2011, 9:23 pmMalvolio says:
There’s a guaranteed winning: mischaracterize events of 30 years ago to … well, I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish, but I’m sure it’ll work.
Arthur, if you have this ability to unilaterally adjudicate disputes, why don’t you try it in Libya?
March 17, 2011, 9:48 pmMad as hell says:
Angela Merkel for President
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/germany-rules-out-libya-military?CMP=twt_fd
March 17, 2011, 9:48 pmPierre Corneille says:
I admit, without any great reluctance, that Qadaffi is not the legitimate government of Libya. But do we really know that the rebels are the legitimate government? Chances are, things are very murky on the ground, with some everyday people supporting Qadaffi and some not, and with some everyday people supporting the rebels, and some not. Maybe there are competing factions among the pro-Qadaffi forces and among the rebels that are worse than what Libya has now.
On the other hand, maybe I’m wrong, and the best thing for us [i.e., US soldiers] to do is to help them. I do question, however, the assertion that the rebels are the “legitimate government of Libya,” especially if we are stressing the consent of the governed as a standard. But then, I am a mere mortal.
March 17, 2011, 10:05 pmMichael Chaney says:
I sometimes wondered if I was the only one who noticed that.
March 17, 2011, 10:06 pmGrover Gardner says:
I think the guy who wrote to Ann Althouse hijacked Kopel’s VC account.
March 17, 2011, 10:16 pmJoe Kowalski says:
Just say no to bratwurst! Freedom Sausage FTW! No more Volkswagen, or BMW, Freedom Cars!
March 17, 2011, 10:18 pmmemomachine says:
Hmmmm.
Frankly I was going to snark about Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. But really what’s the point? The same people decrying the invasion of Iraq were pushing for American soldiers to be deployed in Darfur. The same people screaming about “Crimes Against Humanity” by Bush for the invasion are shouting for American forces to intervene in Libya.
Instead please go ahead and imagine a witty yet snarky reply here by me that impresses all with the erudition and thought. Because I simply can’t be bothered to actually write the silly thing.
March 17, 2011, 10:34 pmSaxon says:
@ Arthur Kirkland,
You forgot to list the atrocities John effing Kerry said the US committed in Vietnam. Lybians will have liberty and peace soon. But you will remain a miserable little person.
March 17, 2011, 10:35 pmNo Theory of Jurisprudence says:
Do you think there are some people who don’t deserve democracy? I am open to the possibility.
March 17, 2011, 10:36 pmLitigator London says:
Granted. Also its a long coastline to patrol. But see this from The Times of Malta Inspectors will certify ‘Libya’ tanker is empty.
That sounds to me as if the Tripoli side of the country is having problems getting supplies of refined product. There is only one road to disrupt. Provided one can interdict coastal tankers there could quickly be quite a fuel shortage.
Further, while, warships may have problems dealing with aircraft in flight, a sport of naval gunnery might be able to accomplish a fair bit in relation to aircraft on the ground and airbases. Now that would encourage pilots to defect.
UAE and QATAR have said they’re joining the party.
March 17, 2011, 10:59 pmByung Kyu Park says:
But has Congress outlawed Libya?
In seriousness, if U.S. forces become involved, before actual congressional declaration of war, I think this might be another right-wing/conservative talking point on which to criticize Obama—ironically, both for being too slow to act and too quick to act.
March 17, 2011, 11:06 pmU.Va. Grad says:
Yay! More war! More guys I went to high school with can die while the David Frums and Bill Kristols of the U.S. can demand military intervention in the Middle East from their bubbles in Washington.
Rand and Ron Paul piss out more integrity three times a day than Washington’s institutional neocons have ever had in their body.
March 17, 2011, 11:07 pmHarry Eagar says:
Good.
The Republicans propped up Saddam to block Iran, then changed their minds and took him out, giving Iran control of Iraq.
Obama couldn’t do worse.
March 17, 2011, 11:14 pmHey Skipper says:
AWACS, tankers and F-22s can quite easily turn Libya into a No Land (in one piece) zone.
The last time I checked, during exercises F-22s have a 144-1 kill ratio against US F-15s. The Eagle drivers never even knew the Raptors were there.
Just a guess, but I’m thinking that will cause Qaddafi to have some pilot retention issues.
March 17, 2011, 11:19 pmjmaie says:
FWIW I have heard statements from civilians inside Libya claiming that Qadaffi mostly is using helicopters to attack the rebels. If correct that changes the calculus somewhat.
March 17, 2011, 11:24 pmByung Kyu Park says:
Well, hopefully rebels have something to attack helicopters with.
I mean, the point of the no-fly zone was to stop the fighter jets and bombers that rebels have no hope to counter, not to simply hand the victory to the rebels, right?
March 17, 2011, 11:34 pmgooners says:
It has to be to hand victory to the rebels – or at least defeat to Qaddafi. Either in or out.
March 17, 2011, 11:40 pmByung Kyu Park says:
Well.
Can that be done without involving ground troops? If we go in with an army, will we be greeted as liberators like in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I’m guessing most people are hoping this will resemble Kosovo than anything else, where only air force had to be involved and there were no U.S. casualties (I think).
March 17, 2011, 11:44 pmdmitry says:
Let be honest here. The civil war in Libya started as an small aftershock of Egypt, but was actively nurtured by West both militarily (weapons, instructors, logistics, SAS, Egypt special forces etc.) and informationally (the horrible reports in MSM without even one photo). Gaddafi played cool, and succeeded to win by waiting: the not so popular rebellion is losing steam as the horrors told to the world turn out to be pure falsification. West doubles by starting open intervention.
It is not that I am against overthrowing Gaddafi: he is a bloody terrorist, dictator etc. (though not even approaching Saddam). But we should see the situation clearly: we start military action against oil-rich Arab dictatorship in order to bring dictator down and put instead more convenient regime, and without even a hint of a strategy. All criticism of GWBush’s war in Iraq applies here much better. E.g. “we should bring more troops”, “he does not have WMD” etc., apply them just one by one.
March 17, 2011, 11:47 pmgooners says:
I have no idea. Now that it has started all we (who will not be fighting) can do is hope for swift end and for everyone to stay safe.
March 17, 2011, 11:52 pmChrisTS says:
@dmitry:
Actually, we have found the Colonel fairly convenient in recent years.
March 17, 2011, 11:59 pmAdam Sullivan says:
The US developed the idea of a “no fly zone” because of Iraqi helicopter gunships that were being used to strafe Shia towns in southern Iraq in the weeks after the Gulf War. So the standard of “no fly” includes no rotary wing aircraft.
Sadly, we put that in place after Saddam had split and isolated the populations in rebellion. What he then did was simply send in armor and flatten houses with occupants inside. They would shoot up the towns too, but when they started running low on bullets they’d round up a portion of the population, bind them and lay them on the ground and then run over them with the tanks (they had plenty of fuel and rope). Those spared were forced to watch.
Few people in the US realize the level of barbarity that we as human beings can descend into in the name of pride, honor and self preservation.
March 18, 2011, 12:05 amSteve says:
Really? I am genuinely curious if anyone can name one such person.
March 18, 2011, 12:21 amChrisTS says:
@Steve:
I admit to having thought [not screamed] “This is unjustified” about our invasion of Iraq and having thought [not shouted] “I’m glad the U.N. has passed this resolution and that the Brits and French (and Egyptians) are taking action.”
Yeah, okay, doesn’t quite fit the bill.
March 18, 2011, 12:25 amByung Kyu Park says:
I hope you don’t work for NPR …
March 18, 2011, 12:29 amPatty Shundynide says:
After the pasting Kopel took in the last thread, can’t blame him for overdoing the triumphal, celebratory tone in this one.
March 18, 2011, 12:36 amSteve says:
I am baffled, too, by Kopel’s assertion that the rebels are the legitimate government of Libya. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Gaddafi is not a legitimate ruler – although I doubt anyone is prepared to deal with the foreign policy consequences of declaring that every unelected tyrant in the world is an illegitimate ruler with no legal standing.
But even if we make that assumption, does it really follow that the first group of rebels to issue a declaration of independence gets to be the legitimate government? That would really suck if it was, you know, al-Qaeda in Libya or something. How has Kopel determined that the rebels now enjoy “the consent of the governed”? So far his evidence seems to consist of (1) the cheers of civilians in the rebel stronghold, and (2) the implicit approval of expatriates in France who probably don’t care about much other than getting rid of Gaddafi.
[DK: As a practical matter, the U.S. maintains diplomatic relationships with many de facto "governments" which have no legitimacy according to the political principles upon which our own nation exists. For a country where the so-called "government" has eradicated all formal means (e.g., elections) for determining the People's consent, decisions about whether a self-proclaimed new government is relatively more legitimate than the old dictatorship are necessarily an educated guess. Based on all the available facts, Sarkozy made such a guess, and I think he chose wisely.]
March 18, 2011, 12:41 amSteve says:
Maybe Kopel should discuss some of the reasons why the rebels should be considered the legitimate government of Libya, because right now all I see is “they’re not Ghaddafi, so they must be the good guys!” How confident are we that if the rebels somehow overthrew Ghaddafi, they would even have the ability to govern the country peacefully?
March 18, 2011, 1:17 amMalvolio says:
Plausible as it may sound, “Qatar” is not actually an acronym.
March 18, 2011, 1:22 amNM Kerr says:
Simple version citizens decide to stop the crazy, known mass murdererwe killing them and ruining their country
If you were Gadaffi I would love to see you and yours reduced to a smoldering holes in the ground and debris. Even Gadaffi was smart enough to know that if he pushed to far it was simply a quicker method of suicide.
March 18, 2011, 2:15 amNM Kerr says:
Way back in the 60′s they invented aerial refueling, all the nation involved are capable of it. 600 Mile missions were not out of the box in WWII and are comparatively easy now.
Radars have gotten a LOT better in the 30 years since the Falkland’s war
March 18, 2011, 2:27 amNM Kerr says:
It does change things helicopters are even easier to kill
March 18, 2011, 2:31 amTrashhauler says:
Getting a no fly zone (or even close air support) when you are backed into your last stronghold is like getting an extra time out when you have the ball on your own three yard line and you’re ten points down with a minute to go.
Simply interdicting the single coast road by air might have done something four days ago. But that would have required a decision to act without a UN resolution. Unlikely. It took a bit too long to organize this particular community.
March 18, 2011, 2:51 amNunzio says:
How many UN resolutions were there on Iraq before the US invaded again?
Let France take care of this. The US has done enough.
March 18, 2011, 2:51 am1040 says:
I am sure he was making sure he and his family will be on the frontlines of the war he is cheerleading.
March 18, 2011, 2:58 amMark Horning says:
Nobody deserves democracy. The tyranny of the majority is no better than the tyranny of the minority or of a single individual.
March 18, 2011, 3:20 amLitigator London says:
The UK policy is to recognise states not governments – therefore one deals with the government in control of the state however little one likes it.
March 18, 2011, 3:23 amByung Kyu Park says:
Except in one aspect: speed.
It takes time for a tyrannical majority to decide how to abuse its power, at least definitely longer than it would take a single dictator or a cabal of oligarchs.
And who knows; the tyrannical majority might even break up into factions before deciding on how to yield its tyrannical power, with ambition being made to counteract ambition.
March 18, 2011, 3:28 amByung Kyu Park says:
Oh? How does U.K. handle diplomatic relations?
Can any de facto government, regardless of existence of any de jure government (perhaps in exile), can obtain recognition from U.K.?
e.g. Those years when U.S. was recognizing Taiwan as the de jure government of China, was U.K. dealing with mainland China as the legitimate government?
March 18, 2011, 3:31 amPrasad says:
Whatever decision has taken by the U.N. is absolutely correct
March 18, 2011, 4:34 amcaptcrisis says:
A friend of mine, originally from Massachusetts, moved to Alabama when she was in high school. This was when Reagan was bombing Libya in the 1980′s. It was announced that the bombing had taken place, and that Khaddafi’s infant child had been killed. The class cheered. My friend was shocked and badly shaken by this reaction.
March 18, 2011, 6:16 amoilthieves says:
The french and british governments hate their own white poor people,
but they hate black people more.
their hatred for black people is racist and genocidal. they can’t control their urges to rape, torture and mass murder Africans.
so they are pretending to protect the lives of Libyans.
they are pretending to attack gaddaffi, in fact they are attacking all libyans to steal their oil and gas
destabalzing the country, inciting civil war,
so their oil multinationals get more and cheaper contracts -
This is the start of the imperialist invasion of africa
The british and french and US goverments bribed the entire UN security council to support their war crimes
they told China Russia and Germany that they would steal Libya’s oil -but they would share the oil with them if they abstained or supported the no-fly zone and turned a blind eye – as they provoked a full scale civil war (like they did in iraq, and in every country in south america) to murder millions of Libyan civilians.
This confirms to Africans that the evil imperialists should never be trusted and must be destroyed economically with God’s help.
March 18, 2011, 6:24 amTrashhauler says:
Your friend was the victim of an unrealistic and too sheltered worldview.
March 18, 2011, 8:47 amAnderson says:
I though you were arguing yesterday that Obama was too spending too much time on his March Madness brackets.
I was wondering what Kopel would say about his earlier criticism of Obama, which apparently was as mistaken as it was foolish.
The answer, thus far, seems to be “nada.”
… Meanwhile, in Yemen, “Government supporters shot at protesters from rooftops on Friday, killing at least 26 people.” Time to invade Yemen! Whee!
March 18, 2011, 9:37 amSteve says:
I actually think the impetus for this UN resolution comes from Europe, not from the U.S. Since I think a no-fly zone would be wasteful, ineffectual and a dangerous first step towards wider involvement, I wouldn’t personally be inclined to compliment Obama if I found he accomplished this feat through multitasking. The criticism of Obama for playing golf was silly, but in a sense I would just as soon he played golf.
March 18, 2011, 9:44 amsardonic_sob says:
IIRC it has the largest seagoing wine cellar in the world, although that statistic may come from before the “Of the Seas” superliners.
After that, the mere fact that its top speed is something like 30% below design spec is a mere irrelevant detail.
March 18, 2011, 10:26 amsardonic_sob says:
I beg to differ. This principle has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy for many, many decades.
“They’ve got to be protected,
all their rights respected…
until someone we like can be elected!”
Unelected dictators are subject to recall without notice by the US State Department. Only dictators who weren’t clients of said entity and had a powerful protector of their own were mostly safe from this policy.
March 18, 2011, 10:41 amAnderson says:
I actually think the impetus for this UN resolution comes from Europe, not from the U.S.
Do we really know yet? Maybe the White House has been doing nothing. That seems unlikely.
Getting something through the UN, and in particular obtaining a no-vote from certain obstructionists on the Security Council, takes some time and effort.
March 18, 2011, 11:32 amKen Arromdee says:
The “Kadaffi’s infant child” was an adopted child who nobody had ever heard about before. In other words, probably fake propaganda.
(And are you seriously suggesting your classmates cheered because of the child?)
March 18, 2011, 11:32 amAnderson says:
Regardless, Ken, nobody should be cheering the death of anyone’s child, except perhaps if the child is Damien in The Omen.
March 18, 2011, 11:35 amSteve says:
There’s hardly a bright line there. Allende was elected, we just didn’t like his politics. It seems more accurate to say that the US reserves the right to depose bad guys, and unelected dictators are more likely to be bad guys – but I don’t think we should cloak it behind this “consent of the governed” BS. It’s simply that we claim the right to declare who the bad guys are.
March 18, 2011, 11:38 amcaptcrisis says:
Trashhauler, KenArromdee:
Quite the opposite to what Trashauler says. It was the Alabama kids who had a sheltered worldview — most had not known any “A-rabs”, unlike my friend who grew up in Worcester.
The announcement was that Khaddafi was not in the building at the time, so he wasn’t hurt — “but his infant child had been killed”. Loud cheers.
Does it matter if the child was real? The point is the reaction. Once you get war fever going, Americans no less than anyone else become downright bloodthirsty and get into “ethnic cleansing”.
March 18, 2011, 11:47 amPierre Corneille says:
Mr. Kopel here is being refreshingly more modest and honest than his post or his update.
I would add, and I mean this respectfully now that Mr. Kopel is refraining at the moment from lobbing question-begging slogans at us, that Mr. Sarkozy’s “guess” probably has as much to do with his perception of France’s national interest as it has to do with his yearning need to be humanitarian. If I am right, than this does not mean that Mr. Sarkozy is making the wrong decision, but it might be cause for second thought before engaging in adoration of the French government.
March 18, 2011, 11:48 amMichael says:
I am a fan of self-government. That said, it is a good idea to look to history for some guidance here. First, some of the American founders assumed that the French Revolution would be like ours. When, in reality, it turned into a back and forth between political parties killing their opponents and outside governments attempting to push in their own puppet regimes. If you don’t like the French example, one can look to Afghanistan, where the result of picking a horse and arming it was to create the power base of the Taliban and the ultimate corporate headquarters nation of Al Queda.
What do we really know about the Libyan rebels? Are they a general uprising of the people? I think so, but I’m not sure. I am certain that at least some of them have religious and “moral” beliefs they would like to see codified into law. Do we have enough intelligence to make a good guess as to the just group to fortify?
And then there is the diplomatic situation. Assume that both outcomes are equally possible. That the rebels may take control and that the current regime may put down the uprising. What will US involvement do to regional stability in each case? What could an antagonistic relationship with Libya do to US interests in the region? What would US involvement do to the perceived legitimacy of a rebel-formed government both with its own people and with its neighbors?
With all of that uncertainty, I’d be very reluctant to engage our nation in yet another regime-change conflict on another continent. That said, on a personal level, there’s a part of me that really would like to take up arms and stand beside the people.
March 18, 2011, 12:48 pmOrenWithAnE says:
F22s are too thin to deploy to a forward zone. They are reserved for US mainland defense and a few key overseas installations.
March 18, 2011, 1:39 pmHonestlyNow says:
FREE HAITI… again!
“Amid Uncertainty, Aristide Returns to Cheers in Haiti
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the former priest who rose to become the nation’s first democratically elected president before being forced into exile twice, returned home to an uncertain political climate on Friday, only days before a presidential runoff intended to settle months of discord in this rattled nation.
March 18, 2011, 2:26 pmHonestlyNow says:
or, Give it Time, David.
There’s always cheering at the beginning. (Remember Iraq, or are you too young for that?)
Once the bombs start raining on innocent civilians too, and make no mistake, they always do in wars like this — let’s see who’s leading the cheerleading the, eh Dave?
March 18, 2011, 2:28 pmHonestlyNow says:
one more ‘graph from the Haiti story above:
A big cheer rose up from the Haitian journalists and supporters lined up behind a rope 200 yards from his plane as Mr. Aristide — who left Haiti in 2004 under strong American pressure as rebels closed in on the capital — landed at about 9:05 a.m. local time and stepped back onto Haitian soil.
Tough being the World’s Policeman these days…
March 18, 2011, 2:32 pmByung Kyu Park says:
Interesting. So, F-22s are so good and rare … that they are reserved for the rarest scenarios?
Have F-22s been used in actual combat situations? If not, how do they know how well it’d perform and how can they know for sure that simulations and exercises are good enough for pilot training?
March 18, 2011, 2:35 pmgecko says:
Obama blew his load when he thought the Libyans were going to win this war for him. Now he feels compelled to step up or he’ll look like a fool.
March 18, 2011, 2:42 pmcaptcrisis says:
Per Michael:
Good point.
Places where there was a tradition of democracy and the rebels threw off the dictators to good effect:
American Revolution, Czechoslovakia, Poland.
Place where there was NOT a tradition of democracy and the rebels threw off a dictator to bad effect:
March 18, 2011, 2:45 pmFrench Revolution, Russian Revolution . . . Libya?
gooners says:
Read up about them – there is plenty of info. Production was recently stopped under some controversy. They were never used in Afghanistan or Iraq. Proponents of ending production, including Gates, said they were costly and not useful in the type of conflict the US is engaged in. Proponents said. “hey, those are made in my district”. Wired is reporting they may be deployed to Libya.
March 18, 2011, 2:56 pmLarryWB says:
The British and French are meeting in Paris. Ghadaffi is in trouble now! Just kidding.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has an amphibious group there and is sending another one. Amphibious? Doesn’t that mean land and water? To enforce a no-fly zone? Is there mission creep ALREADY?
Whether F-22s are good or not, where will they be based? Spain? Italy? Malta? Just curious.
Today’s news reports are extremely sparse in their reporting on exactly how “the West” plans to do whatever it is the U.N. “authorized.”
But Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric is fascinating. For a moment, reading her comments, I had a flashback and thought it was 2003 and she was Colin Powell.
March 18, 2011, 3:29 pmHarryEagar says:
And supports a clearly illegitimate government in Baghdad which the Kurds have not consented to and made clear they want a government of their own, in a place where we claim to have fought a war to establish legitimate government.
If you are going to argue principle, you need to go find a different government than the United States of America to use as an example. Ever since Wilson, our record has been despicable.
March 18, 2011, 5:34 pmLarryWB says:
“And supports a clearly illegitimate government in Baghdad which the Kurds have not consented to and made clear they want a government of their own …”
Huh? The Kurds are not only part of the Baghdad government, they have been a mainstay of it since the beginning. It’s true, some Kurds want a separate country, but they also want part of Turkey to be included in it. Should we support that?
And under what criteria is the Iraq government “clearly illegitimate”? Oh wait, it’s “clear” so there can be no disputing that. Sort of like “settled science,” I guess?
March 18, 2011, 6:30 pmLitigator London says:
It is certainly true that the Kurds have always wanted their own state. That were thwarted after WW1 and a significant motivation was the interest of oil – to keep the oilfields of Mosul inside the borders of the nascent Iraq. So there are presently Kurdish minorities in Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey.
The Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq is presently the place where Kurds are best off. The situation in Turkey is improving largely because it is official EU policy to encourage and protect linguistic and ethnic minorities and therefore this is a human rights obstacle to Turkey’s application for EU Membership. Turkey is also getting a lot of contracts in Iraqi Kurdistan.
If Turkey’s application to join the EU eventually succeeds (far from certain), the EU border would be with Iraqi Kurdistan and I think an association agreement with Iraqi Kurdistan might fairly quickly follow. The border is pretty porous even now.
March 18, 2011, 6:59 pmLitigator London says:
The answer has to be that almost anything would be better than the present régime. From the EU perspective, the hope is that liberal assistance through the Euro-Med arrangements will help with transition to a stable democracy. The Arab Maghreb is in that sense really very different to the Near East because there are very important trade lnks with Europe, there are many migrants from these states already in Europe and people watch the same satellite channels on both sides of the Med.
March 18, 2011, 7:14 pmleo marvin says:
As much as my sympathies are with the Lybian rebels, I have the same concerns I have about any invasion, Iraq included, that isn’t in response to a direct threat to our national survival. Before getting into such wars I’d like to hear the President articulate:
(1) an objective
(2) what distinguishes that objective from any of the myriad other worthy objectives we could pursue with military force
(3) a strategy and its likelihood of success
(4) a cost benefit analysis of likely outcomes
On Iraq we were given (1), (3) (4), all of which turned out to be nonsense or worse, and nothing at all on (2). So far on Lybia I think we have a rough idea of (1), but that’s it.
Like for many people, Kosovo was my idea of a successful military intervention. But that’s easy to say that in retrospect, because it accomplished something worthwhile for a modest cost. But just because it went well doesn’t mean it was a more worthy mission than many we’ve ignored, like Darfur.
I’ll give G.W. Bush credit for giving much of the appearance of principled leadership. It just turned out that everything he said was bullshit. I hope Obama at least makes the effort.
March 18, 2011, 7:31 pmLitigator London says:
Perhaps the problem was that GWB really had little experience of the world outside the USA. And he was too prone to rely on advisers. Further he was never a reader. I remember a rather cruel comment that GWB wanted to model himself on Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan character, but had never been able to finish any of the novels (too thick – too many words – no pictures) and therefore always had to wait for the movie.
Obama is so very different. I was struck by this evaluation by the BBC’s North American Correspondent: The Obama doctrine: The limits to American power.
If that is a correct evaluation – and it resonates with me – then it points to a high degree of realism and that’s no bad thing in the conduct of foreign affairs.
March 18, 2011, 7:57 pmLitigator London says:
The resolution provides for a lot more than a “no fly zone”. I mentioned above the question of refined petroleum products. There has just been a discussion on Al Jazeera in which it was stated that Quadaffi’s forces are faced with a severe fuel shortage. Resupply will have to be road/sea from the East. So maritime interdiction will be important.
March 18, 2011, 9:03 pmLarryWB says:
“The resolution provides for a lot more than a “no fly zone”.”
Actually, it doesn’t, and Obama Administration spokesmen have promised even less. Oh, I know there’s some verbiage in the UNSC document about “all necessary” whatever, but Obama has also promised no ground troops (half of the amphibious operations just vanished) and that the only goal is “protection of civilians in Libya.” He overruled Hillary Clinton’s #2 goal, which was getting rid of Ghaddaffi, almost before she got off camera.
So far, the Harvard intellectual Obama has been following Goerge W. Bush’s non-reading, evil-adviser policies exactly in Iraq and Afghanistan, (maybe Obama wants to be Jack Ryan, too?) but now he’s on his own. My advice: if you’re British, don’t get too far out front, expecting Obama to have your back. It’s very crowded under his bus.
March 18, 2011, 10:03 pmHarryEagar says:
Of course, and let them have self-determination in the parts of Syria and Iran where they live.
Or don’t you believe in self-determination?
March 19, 2011, 12:03 amLarryWB says:
Please. Self-determination for Kurds in parts of Turkey means NON-self-determination for non-Kurds in those parts of Turkey. In Iraq, at least three major segements of the population had to give up autonomy in order to create a functioning country-wide government (Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds) and the Baathists had to essentially disappear entirely. So who got “self-determination”? Over-simplifying a situation doesn’t help. My question about supporting the asipirations of SOME Kurds was meant to make that point: these things are not as easy as most formulations of them on blog comments would have you believe.
March 19, 2011, 12:40 amMichael says:
There is nothing more naive than the assertion that it can’t get worse. History is full of regimes a LOT worse than this guy, though I can’t think of any that blended it so well with a Michael Jacksonesque style of attire. That is no reason to support him, and I don’t. But I can not see a moral or national-interest cause that is forwarded by backing random-might-be-al-queda-or-Ghandi figure who hasn’t emerged yet.
And let’s be honest, if we start killing Libyans to turn the tide of this thing, then they aren’t really self-determining any more. If the rebels succeed only to break into factious civil war after we destroy the standing armies, then what? Are we going to help them by putting an occupying army in their country? By killing civilians with drones?
There’s about a hundred different ways this thing can turn out and only in a fairytale scenario is it good for US interests if we get involved. So shy of there being a moral absolute or a situation where US interests are are going to be more harmed than the worst possible outcome if we get involved, a smart, pragmatic leader would wait.
March 19, 2011, 2:34 amHarry Eagar says:
So you will deny 20,000,000 Kurds self-determination in favor of some insignificant number of unspecified others.
I suggest you make a list of states as now constituted in that part of the world, ranked by population, and see if your method might possibly create some difficulties.
In any event, no one in his right mind can argue that minorities under a Kurdish government would fare worse than Kurds do under Iragi, Syrian, Turkish or Iranian rule.
March 19, 2011, 2:56 amPatty Shundynide says:
Your smug yet amusingly credulous acceptance of the assertion that Bush models himself after Jack Ryan is as embarrassing as his alleged lack of interest in reading.
March 19, 2011, 5:09 amOld Patriot says:
Just think how great it would be to have a dozen or so carrier-based A-10s right now, manned by Marine pilots aboard a US super-carrier. Ask the Iraqis what they think of the A-10. Or the Taliban, for that matter, but don’t expect a coherent answer.
March 19, 2011, 1:11 pmElli Davis says:
Listening to Obama’s recent statement I was not sure whether stability in the region is directly connected to removing Kadhafi from power because he didn’t mention what the US and its allies intend to do with the dictator. I think the primary goal of this military operation should be forcing the Libyan president to leave office.
March 19, 2011, 6:27 pmMichael says:
We’re killing Libyans. You, me, the US, Europe. In the final analysis, we are killing Libyans.
McCain’s a good guy, but he’s living in the 60′s. We are not prepared to accept a ten percent loss of aircraft or a large-scale killing of civilians or a twenty percent success rate of bombing runs of Libyan air fields. First, we’re going to find their air defense systems. Then, we are going to destroy them and kill the people who took an oath to defend and protect Libya that are sitting inside them. Then we are going to crater their military airfields and destroy as much of the air power on the ground as we can so that we don’t have to prevent humanitarian supplies from being able to be airlifted in a week from now because we cratered the civilian air fields as well. And, in so doing, we’re going to kill more Libyans who took an oath to protect their country that are simply trying to keep the planes working so that pilots can come home safely to their families.
And, we might be doing the right thing. Grounding the Libyan air power might give civilians a reprieve, might let the rebels reinforce, might give the people a chance to remove a dictator and start self-rule. Or we might just be killing patriotic kids on the wrong side of a political debate. We might be showing the world we stand behind our principals. Or we might be convincing North Africa that it is as subject to our capricious murdering of its people as Iraq was. We may be convincing the world that no matter who sits in the Oval Office, the US will forever forward be an imperialistic nation with its own concept of international law with only one punishment – the death penalty – meted out randomly against a nation’s population by robots and men in machines so far away they barely see the flash of the detonation.
March 19, 2011, 9:08 pmTGGP says:
I’m with Spooner and Stirner. I recognize no government as “legitimate”, just ones I’m scared to openly defy. As noted by St. Augustine long ago, the difference between pirate and emperor is merely one of scale.
March 20, 2011, 6:23 pmA war monger review, looking at the articles advocating a US war with Libya « Fabius Maximus says:
[...] “Ecstatic crowds in Libya celebrating imminent use of U.S. military force against Gaddafi“, David Kopel (attorney, research director for the Independence Institute), The Volokh Conspiracy, 17 March 2011 [...]
March 21, 2011, 8:02 pmJoseph Moroco says:
“Ecstatic crowds in Libya celebrating imminent use of U.S. military force against Gaddafi“
“Do not trust to the cheering, for those persons would shout as much if you and I were going to be hanged.”
So spoke Oliver Cromwell to his lieutenants as he was heading north to fight the Scots.
March 23, 2011, 9:45 am