tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post6467818606862300289..comments2024-02-23T11:23:45.971-05:00Comments on Lost Motorcyclist: Why There is a No Fly Zone Over LibyaLost Motorcyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08873504561959138792noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post-14519972481571111972011-03-23T12:11:19.371-04:002011-03-23T12:11:19.371-04:00If by "at best" you mean the best that h...If by "at best" you mean the best that has been put in practice so far, I concede the point.<br /><br />I don't think the no fly zone will ever stop the killing on the ground, but killing from the air is potentially much more devastating, with greater range, and more impersonal than the ground struggle. I see it kind of like the existing moral disapproval on the use of poison gas, atomic weapons, germ warfare, (esp. against your own people.)<br /><br />But by nullifying governmental air superiority over its own people, it might eventually weed out (over a long period of time, like Darwin's natural selection) the "worst" governments. I was also trying to not make any moral judgments on who is right in the struggle in Libya. But I am assuming governments that need to use air power to put down popular uprisings are not very democratic, or at least do not respond to the peoples' needs very well. No fly zones like this are not democracy, but a small step closer.<br /><br />But as you said already, people have gone way overboard and are already thinking it is all out war where regime change is the goal.Lost Motorcyclisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08873504561959138792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post-59410809485951880652011-03-23T11:13:04.106-04:002011-03-23T11:13:04.106-04:00A no-fly zone is, at best, a convenient political ...A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_zone" rel="nofollow">no-fly zone</a> is, at best, a convenient political device, and in practice a chimera.<br /><br />Interdiction of air activity involves patrols; it does <b>not</b>, as in the current Libyan intervention, involve launching Tomahawk missiles and bomber attacks against ground targets at will.<br /><br />Conversely, a true no-fly zone, in and of itself, can do little to stop the killing on the ground. Sooner or later, the 'no-fly zone' involves attacking ground targets, with the inevitable 'collateral damage.' <br /><br />What is especially egregious in the case of Libya is that the coalition continues to spout cant about democracy and freedom, while turning a blind eye to its 'allies' - for example, Saudi Arabia, the leading member of the Arab League, which has sent its own forces to repress the uprising in Bahrain. <br /><br />In the end, it comes down to expediency and <i>realpolitik</i> ... and the hypocrisy about democratic ideals masking the real agenda of controlling supplies of those precious hydrocarbons.Madeyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593933575568389288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post-6732931056239151002011-03-23T10:37:12.721-04:002011-03-23T10:37:12.721-04:00Here is how I see it, but obviously not everyone s...Here is how I see it, but obviously not everyone sees it the same way. Since WW2, we have gradually worked toward a new international moral standard where no country can invade another. (The main reason I think Bush is an idiot is because he violated this new morality). Unfortunatley that left a lot of governments more or less free to massacre people within their own arbitrary international boundary. <br /><br />Now I would like this post WW2 moral code to be extended a little. Let's add "No one-sided use of air power against people within borders", the punishment being "No-fly" zones. i.e your air force and supporting structures demolished by international air power. Nothing more.<br /><br />But since we seem to not even be able to really understand "do not invade other countries", what hope is there for any real understanding of "No air strikes against protesters in your own country", or even any understanding of a no-fly zone.Lost Motorcyclisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08873504561959138792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post-2185544681277615242011-03-23T08:43:02.108-04:002011-03-23T08:43:02.108-04:00I believe there are several aspects of the interve...I believe there are several aspects of the intervention in Libya that merit more attention ...<br /><br />UN Security Council <a href="http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement" rel="nofollow">Resolution 1973</a> simply demands a cease fire and authorizes '<i>protection of civilians</i>.' There is <b>no</b> authorization in that resolution for 'regime change.'<br /><br />So I find it discouraging hear our Prime Minister referring to this intervention as an 'act of war' intended to effect '<a href="http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/print.aspx?postid=470931" rel="nofollow">regime change</a>.' And distressing to hear Minister Cannon so prepared to put '<a href="http://politifi.com/news/Canada-will-have-boots-on-the-ground-1791390.html" rel="nofollow">boots on the ground</a>' - in violation of Section 4 of Resolution 1973, which 'exclud[es] a foreign occupation force of any form.'<br /><br />Although Resolution 1973 <i>was</i> adopted, it was done so with China, Russia, India, Germany and Brazil abstaining. Without the ambivalent support of the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/22/arab-league-libya-no-fly" rel="nofollow">Arab League</a>, this intervention would have limited legitimacy. And with Arab support wavering, this may readily become perceived as another 'Western Crusade' against a Muslim nation.<br /><br />There is a crucial difference between Kuwait and Libya. Iraq committed a naked act of aggression against a small, relatively defenseless sovereign state. The situation in Libya is entirely different: it is civil war - an internal struggle for power.<br /><br />History clearly shows that foreign intervention in civil wars is always fraught with risks and seldom achieves its objectives; we need look no further than Afghanistan and Iraq - and, of course, Vietnam. The Libyan situation is especially problematic, because the objectives are <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/the-coalition-of-the-conflicted-goes-to-war-in-libya/article1952331/" rel="nofollow">so unclear</a>.<br /><br />Although it is always distressing to witness civilian casualties, that is an inevitable consequence of internal conflict, and civilian casualties are not likely to be signficantly reduced by this UN intervention in Libya.<br /><br />But I find it even more distressing to witness Stephen Harper, on the eve of an inevitable general election, resorting to the cynical age-old tactic of 'talking tough' in order to indirectly garner popular support for his domestic political agenda - it is clear that when a nation is 'at war' (as Harper would have us believe), voters tend to support the incumbent.<br /><br />And, generally, isn't it curious that 'The West' seems prepared to intervene when the stakes include energy concerns (Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) but seems to have little interest otherwise (Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo, Angola, &c., &c., &c.)?Madeyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593933575568389288noreply@blogger.com