NATO Warns Rebels Against Attacking Libyan Civilians

[Bosonic]

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the regime of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, according to senior military and government officials.

As NATO takes over control of airstrikes in Libya and the Obama administration considers new steps to tip the balance of power there, the coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will not shield them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the regime’s forces have been punished.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Bosonic.

[David__77]

2. But who ARE the civilians?

Lots of people on both sides are civilians according to many definitions. There's the "Republic of Libya" and the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya." People are acting as armed actors on behalf of both of those entities. But are they civilians, non-civilians, unlawful combatants, or what? What are the criteria?

[AndyTiedye]

7. That's the Sticky Part

A civilian is anybody without a uniform or a visible weapon.

Qadaffi's forces wear civilian clothes under their uniforms, and ditch the uniforms if they're losing.
The rebels, being rebels, have no uniforms.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Anyone who is not in the Libyan army

Combination of true civilians and insurgents wearing civvies.

[Igel]

13. And pro-Gaddhafi militias in civvies?

Are they civilians?

Why would one militia be civilian and the other not? Because we don't recognize the government?

If one militia puts down its weapons for dinner, do they suddenly stop being a militia because nobody issued them ID cards? So if a platoon of soldiers in uniform puts down its weapons, do we take their official status as "non-civilian"? What if they leave their official non-civilian ID cards in their other pants?

Yeah. It's kasha. Which is exactly what was obvious last week, and which the article quotes US military folk as saying. Only politicians 4000 miles away, it would seem, can look at the affair closely and see clearly what all the distinctions are and must be.

[indimuse]

3. Who's WHO?

Same as Iraq!

[ProgressIn2008]

4. What a stinking mess this is turning into. And, a mess so obvious in the making. nt

[Purveyor]

5. Indeed! +1 eom

[Baclava]

6. Obviously, if a village shoots back it is controlled by the "enemy" there are no "friendlies" there

Kill all the shootin' age males in any town firing back - that's what the "rebels" did in Kosovo.

Right?

[dipsydoodle]

10. This isn't Kosovo

.

[Baclava]

12. Not yet. Maybe Vietnam? Viet Cong controlled villages were burned to the ground.

The CIA built the ARVN too. (Vietnamization)






ARVN troops inspecting a Vietnamese village for signs of Viet Cong influence. If evidence was found that the villagers were supporting the Viet Cong the village could be burned to the ground. Not fair to the villagers. At night the Viet Cong controlled the area and during the day the Americans and their allies. Who to support?

[EFerrari]

11. A dead guy shot by Gaddafi is a civilian. A dead guy shot by NATO is a combatant.

And now NATO can say it has done due diligence.

[WatsonT]

8. And if they do?

Civilian reprisals go hand in hand with war, particularly bitter civil wars.

Do we then start bombing the rebels to keep them in line?

Or do we send in a few peacekeeping troops to keep order that must be rapidly expanded and remain their permanently?

Or do we wash our hands of the affair and walk away as the country descends in to anarchy?

Oh well, we had a UN resolution, no need to think about these very obvious possible outcomes.

WAR!WAR!WAR!