So, with apparently France and England taking the initiative and the US following behind with how much reluctance or enthusiasm it's not clear, the UN security council [with expected abstains from China and Russia but notable one from Germany] passes resolution to 'protect' what's left of the rebels in Libya by imposing a no-fly/no-drive zone on the country - and Qaddafi responds by calling for a truce. This raises many questions, not the least of which is of course, why now? The rebels have been pushed back to near extinction, reduced essentially to one city - are we, rather, is the UN going to help them retake what they lost? If the rebels decide to refuse the truce and attempt a renewal, are we not now committed to helping them? Does that mean the UN is at war with Libya? I mean, on the surface of it this looks very much like a humanitarian initiative to stop a possible slaughter of innocents in the last remaining rebel position, Benghazi - but depending on what the rebels do, that mission could morph very quickly - so has this coalition taken that into account? Because if it slips from being a humanitarian containment mission into an active support of a civil war mission, then that only happens with the US taking the lead - has the US agreed to this? Many, many questions here. Obama, not surprisingly, has essentially said nothing of substance on the whole matter - has he committed us to a war without so much as a word of explanation? How much more does this guy have to fuck up before the consensus becomes he's a horrible president? I mean, I of course in general do not support involving ourselves in Libya [and then jumping in late like this? I could be proven wrong, but that seems absolutely retarded] - that said, I also don't support a president who thinks he's doing his job by standing off in a corner apparently doing nothing and failing abysmally to enunciate anything even remotely resembling a strategic vision for the region and America's place in it [or worse, if one believes rumors swirling about re why Hillary decided to come out now and make it very clear she will not be serving another term as Secretary of State - ie, she's sick and tired of working for a president who seems overwhelmed by the job].
I don't know if there's any point commenting on this UN action until it becomes clearer what these people have in mind because, as I've said, I don't get the impression that the supporting members of this coalition are in complete agreement, or in any agreement at all, on whether this action amounts to a humanitarian mission or a military support mission. Now, as for Qaddafi, that he's called for a truce does not surprise - he doesn't need Benghazi in order to claim victory, he probably doesn't have the military wherewithal to take it anyway, and by turning it into an orphaned city he leaves this incoherent coalition with a rather large headache and conundrum to solve and deal with - not to mention, he makes the UN coalition look weak and foolish for only taking action when it was too late - and by excising the remaining rebel territory he rids himself of the malcontents without having to slaughter them later and thereby turning himself into an international pariah. Seems like a pretty cunning move on his part - although suppose unwise to completely rule out possibility that the call for a truce is a sign of weakness and panic - could be that, but right now it seems more like cunning to me. In fact, no reason right now not to think that this has been Qaddafi's plan from the near beginning - reclaim what we can and then call a truce and claim victory when the UN decides to wade into the mess. Neocons and others who are now crowing that this truce validates their call to arms are being incredibly short sighted if not outright fatuous with these assumptions - I'm not stupid enough to rule out entirely that maybe they were more right than me - but so far I see nothing to support that conclusion - on the contrary, it's not impossible at all that Qaddafi has decisively outsmarted his opponents.
And those comparing this to Bosnia are completely off the mark as far as I can see - Serbia started that war, it was slaughtering Kosovars, expelling them from their land and their homes - Qaddafi didn't start this war, the rebels did - he was just defending the nation as he saw fit - I mean, of course Qaddafi is a scumbag dictator and possibly a sociopath to boot, but as a matter of international law, I have trouble seeing where the justification is for the UN removing him from power or of handing large chunks of land over to the rebels - even if it can be proved that Qaddafi committed war crimes by deliberately killing civilians - and no doubt that will be very tough to prove - a UN take over of Libya, both as a practical and legal matter, seems like a huge stretch to me.
Needless to say, I'm hardly an expert on international law, but it kinda looks like Qaddafi has trumped his adversaries with this call for a truce - although reports are filtering in suggesting hostilities continue - we'll have to wait and see on that one.
update: nothing definitive about continuing aggression by Qaddafi forces - but impression is gaining weight that possibly the call for a truce was a ruse to cover further movements against Benghazi - if that ends up being true I'll have to take back my suggestion that possibly Qaddafi had 'out smarted' his foes - a fake truce call would seem to me amateurish and delusional, unless of course Benghazi is much more vulnerable to being overthrown by Qaddafi's forces than I've been led believe - regardless, the overall confusion, both as concerns practicality and international law, remains: has the UN declared war on Libya for the purposes of removing Qaddafi and installing a gov't of its choosing? The resolution can be read that way - this would be unheard of, no? And how exactly does anyone expect this to work? I mean, why is Qaddafi worse than any number of other dictators in the Mideast? Is the UN now in the business of toppling dictators and installing rebel gov'ts of dubious merits and reputations? The Saudis just sent troops into Bahrain to put down a rebellion - Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, in some ways as bad if not worse than Libya - are they next? Joking aside - the UN resolution leaves the door wide open for large scale attacks on Libya - I don't see the logic of this, I don't see how it works - I must be missing something I guess because this looks fraught with problems and complications to me.
