Gaddafi advances, no-fly diplomacy falters

[oberliner]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - The Libyan army shelled a rebel-held city and closed in on the opposition bastion of Benghazi on Wednesday as diplomatic steps to stop Muammar Gaddafi crushing a rebellion ran aground.

In Geneva, former French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner berated the international community for its delay in imposing a no-fly zone, saying it was already too late to save lives.

"A no-fly zone is a minimum. It's certainly already too late," Kouchner said of Gadadfi's crackdown on the increasingly vulnerable-looking uprising, which was inspired by pro-democracy rebellions that toppled the Egyptian and Tunisian presidents.

"Even if we were able to decide today, it's so late," he told World Radio Switzerland. "We've known since three weeks that the poor civil society, the poor people, are dying. And we are doing nothing."

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110316

[nalnn]

1. It appears as though

The dictator may soon regain control of his country while the rest of the world stands by and watches. I hope I am wrong.

How does that make other people here feel?

[cosmicone]

2. He must have had more popular support than the rebellion.

It is foolhardy to think that all Arab dictators are hated by their subjects.

[oberliner]

4. You really think this? Or is it sarcasm?

Popular support? Really?

[cosmicone]

12. Yes.

If he had no substantial support, he would have been gone just as the Shah of Iran, Marcos of Philippines and Mubarak of Egypt.

Dictators cannot survive without at least some level of support.

[oberliner]

13. Couldn't it be that he has more resources, weapons, and money?

Isn't it possible that the rebels are more popular than he is, but that he has a great deal of wealth that he can use to buy support from mercenaries and that he has deliberately kept the military power in the concentrated hands of a small, loyal few?

[cosmicone]

14. No doubt. But,

He wouldn't have succeeded even with those things without the loyalty of the military and thus significant popular support.

I am not saying he would win by a landslide in case an election were held but that he enjoys the loyalty and support of at least a third of the population.

[oberliner]

16. There is no military to speak of

He kept the military small, weak, and insufficiently supplied to that his coterie of "bodyguards" and other assorted private, personal forces had the most power - precisely so that he need not fear a military coup.

I would like to know the basis for your claim that "he enjoys the loyalty and support of at least a third of the population" - that seems pretty far-fetched, with all due respect.

[cosmicone]

21. It was just a guess. I didn't poll the Libyans.

However, it is unlikely that Gaddafi could hang on if it was just him, his fighters and a few people against all Libyans.

[oberliner]

22. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out

My hope, of course, is for no more loss of life, especially among civilians.

And maybe an election would be good. Qaddafi has been in power for decades without one.

[joshcryer]

26. That's false, he bombed eastern munitions depots very early on, 3 of them.

It rendered the opposition without arms to fight with.

Sticks and stones vs guns, the outcome is trivial.

(Only in this case it's arty+10s of jets+rockets+tanks vs small arms+2 jets+a half dozen or so anti-air.)

[joshcryer]

24. Paid support is not the same thing as geniune loyalty.

Wtf is this crap.

[dipsydoodle]

9. You may well be correct

We only get reports from those who are dissatisfied : not from those who are content.

This is a civil war.

[No Elephants]

18. Are both sides equally prepared and armed, though?

[joshcryer]

27. That's outright dishonest.

There are "Gaddafi supporters" and the media, particularly CNN, reported them as if they were geniune supporters of Gaddafi. Later we see stuff like supposed terrorists denouncing Gaddafi contrary to the forced confession that was attempted.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Yes, Gaddafi is popular, that's why he needed to bring in all those mercenaries

as a means to enforce his popularity.

[joshcryer]

28. If by "popular support" you mean paid thugs, sure.

[robcon]

3. Where's America on this?

Why don't we enforce a no-fly zone?

[oberliner]

5. You support the US enforcing a no-fly zone?

You don't think that could embroil us in a protracted civil war?

[No Elephants]

7. If we never land, no--unless Gaddafi shoots down one of our planes. Either way, it

wouldn't be a purely civil war.

One ruler's no fly zone is another ruler's act of war.

[Baclava]

10. You mean go it alone, without a UN Security council resolution backing?

Where have I heard that before.

[joshcryer]

29. We are, just getting UN approval + Arab League. Hopefully it's not too late.

Gaddafi knows if it's enforced he can't win against the revolutionaries.

[No Elephants]

6. Since when does enforcing a no fly zone = diplomacy?

[oberliner]

8. "No-fly diplomacy" - as in negotations to agree on the no-fly zone

It failed in that they did not agree to implement one.

[No Elephants]

19. I knew what was literally meant, but thanks.

[oberliner]

20. Sorry - thought you misunderstood the phrase

In any case, I take it you oppose US involvement in implementing a no-fly zone?

[joshcryer]

30. Since the forces killing innocent civilians took diplomacy off the table?

When diplomacy fails the only solution is action.

[mcollins]

15. Ethiopia vs Italy, v2.0

Sad, really.

[oberliner]

17. In what sense?

Can you explain the comparison in more detail?

[mcollins]

33. Not so much the sides,

Highly industrial nation vs non-industrial nation, but the fact the UN is sitting around trying to figure out what to do (rest of the world, so to speak) while the war goes on.

That is what I was talking about. All it takes for evil to flurish is for good people to stand aside doing nothing.

[Matilda]

23. Rwanda all over again.

And Kosovo. And anywhere else where there's civil war.

I do sometimes wonder just what the U.N. is there for - nobody's asking that they take sides, just impose a no-fly zone so that Gaddafi can't bomb his own people.

He will win, by force of military power - planes, tanks and machine guns against rifles and pieces of wood. And when it's all over, the protesters will be sought out and beaten and killed. No way is he going to forget what has happened, and the people will pay dearly.

Wonder how long it will be this time before the West decides they need his oil enough to embrace him once again?

[defendandprotect]

25. Kaddafi will have killed everyone before any help gets to the Libyans...!!

but, still, there is no way that the world can let this man stay in power --

[joshcryer]

31. The revolutionaries will fight for Benghazi as hard as they did Al-Zawiya.

It will take at least a week or more for Gaddafi to take Benghazi.

The losses will be enormous, though.

[defendandprotect]

32. I'm so shaken by the world permitting this Monster to so viciously attack these

people that I've had to disconnect from the news on it --

And that's really what it is -- the world is permitting Gaddafi to

commit genocide -- and he will torture and destroy these people -- as

he is already doing!!

[freedomnorth]

34. I hope you dont use the word genocide in vain

crushing rebellion doesent sound like genocide to me.

[MellowDem]

35. So...

Iraq and Afghanistan were all good then.