Nothing in UN resolution 1973 forbids ground troops in Libya

[Hugabear]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution

Here's the paragraph that authorizes the use of force:

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council

The key phrases here are "all necessary measures" and "excluding a foreign occupation force". Note that this does not say that ground troops cannot be used, just that there cannot be a foreign occupation.

[joshcryer]

1. Correct, they framed it as a foreign occupation force, which is up to interpretation...

...but certainly if they start landing western tanks and other vehicles there and troops disembark I'll be the first to decry such acts as an occupation force.

[The Magistrate]

2. Quite True, Sir: It Is A Remarkable Document, That 1973....

"Occupation force? I see no occupation force, only soldiers taking necessary steps to protect civilians. They've been doing it for years now, stout fellows...."

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Yes, but he still needs Authorization or a Declaration.

Once he gets that, it's his little sandbox.

[guruoo]

16. 60 days...

'The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

[The Magistrate]

17. In Practice, Sir, He Really Does Not

No one is ever going to press a War Powers Act matter though the courts: it is a pretty question whether it is an un-Constitutional infringement on Executive authority by the Legislature, or an un-Constitution ceding of power by the Legislature to the Executive, and no one wants to find out for sure, because the facade in place at present is too convenient for all concerned....

[sabrina 1]

3. The troops will be 'peace-keepers'. The language was chosen

carefully. I wonder how long it will be before there is a decision that peace-keepers are necessary until there is a stable government?

Paul Wolfowitz was drooling last night on CNN over the whole thing, He thought 'we' waited too long to take action, but better late than never, he said.

He also said that there would have to 'people on the ground' to 'find out what the revolutionaries need'.

The neocons are back. I guess they never went away.

[Amonester]

4. Sabrina 1

Who cares what that war criminal says?

http://moland.org/index.php?page=lafayette_joins_the_american_revolution

[sabrina 1]

5. I guess the MSM cares. Of course if they had done their

job, he would probably be in jail. The very fact that he is still asked for his opinion proves the close association of the press with the MIC and its various enablers.

[Amonester]

7. Yes, but *if* that difficult operation comes to a good enough ending,

I hope they won't be able to 'deride' the UNSC in the future (if they manage to repeat their Nov. 2000 'coup d'état) and decide to launch another round of BS propaganda in order to bully the world and invade Iran. :(

That's another reason why the UNSC resolution 1973 is important.


http://moland.org/index.php?page=lafayette_joins_the_american_revolution

[Catherina]

6. They already have *advisors* on the ground. Wesley Clark confirmed Sunday on CNN

that NATO nations have already planned to deploy ground troops. He didn't think it would be US troops.

Wait until the Libyans see the old French and Italian colonists who massacred millions of North Africans land. Clusterfuck won't even begin the describe what comes next.

[sabrina 1]

8. I also read that there were special ops there for several weeks.

I hope the Libyan revolution hasn't already been hi-jacked. If this continues to go the way it looks like it's going, the Libyans may wish for the old days. Just as the Iraqis now say, 'we were better off with Saddam Hussein'. And they were. We can't even straighten out this country and we are all over the world messing up other countries as well. Maybe if we focused on this one we could learn how to improve, rather than destroy nations.

[Amonester]

9. There would be no old days for them if they were to fail, I fear.

Their ruthless ruler for so long said NO MERCY for all of them.

I know, that billionnaire is crazy.

[sabrina 1]

11. Yes, which is why no one wanted them to fail.

And it is clear they needed help. The question is, what will be the price of that help for them? They are not unaware of what has happened to the Iraqis and have said so. That is why they were adament about no foreign troops on their soil.

[Catherina]

13. I daresay those *advisors* are all special ops. Isn't that how it usually works?

One thing that really started bugging me is that unlike Egypt and Tunisia I couldn't see where this was a revolution. It seems more like a group of people in one region who want a personality overthrow but have no political and socioeconomic goals. When the Tunisians and Egyptians rose up, they plastered their goals everywhere and were able to unite people for change. It's the same thing the French, the Russians, the Cubans and all other revolutionaries have done. Where is that here? And why is it mostly confined to one region where our diplomats informed Washington "here's a group of disaffected youth"? I think it was hijacked from the start and the regime-change proponents in the West tried to piggy-back on the other two and miscalculated sending a bunch of people to senseless death. I'm really curious what you think since I value your insight. I think that just getting out in the streets and pleading for people to join you is guaranteed to fail if people don't know what they're signing up for.


Here's the kind of statement the Egyptian youth were putting up everywhere after carefully organizing with labor groups and socialist organizations all over the world. The originals they used are buried in my bookmarks and I can find them if you want but the statement below gives you the general flavor.

Statement of the Revolutionary Socialists of Egypt: `Glory to the martyrs! Victory to the revolution!'

Hossam el-Hamalawy explains the origins of the Revolutionary Socialists, and its associated Center of For Socialist Studies:

Starting in the late 1980s, small circles of Egyptian students, influenced by Trotskyism, gathered to study, eventually evolving in April 1995 into an organisation named the Revolutionary Socialists’ Tendency... From a handful of members in 1995, the Revolutionary Socialists grew to a couple hundred activists on the eve of the second Palestinian intifada. Their ranks then swelled thanks to their role in the Egyptian movement of solidarity with the Palestinians... The radicalising influence of the intifada among youth helped to reawaken the Egyptian tradition of street politics, which had been virtually smothered by the Mubarak regime’s fearsome security services.

The Revolutionary Socialists are aligned with the International Socialist Tendency, led by the British Socialist Workers Party. The group produces a newspaper, The Socialist, a copies of which can be found here and here.

* * *
Statement of the Revolutionary Socialists of Egypt: Glory to the martyrs! Victory to the revolution!

What is happening today is the largest popular revolution in the history of our country and of the entire Arab world. The sacrifice of our martyrs has built our revolution and we have broken through all the barriers of fear. We will not back down until the criminal ‘leaders’ and their criminal system is destroyed.

Mubarak’s departure is the first step, not the last step of the revolution
The handover of power to a dictatorship under Omar Suleiman, Ahmed Shafiq and other cronies of Mubarak is the continuation of the same system. Omar Suleiman is a friend of Israel and America, spends most of his time between Washington and Tel Aviv and is a servant who is faithful to their interests. Ahmed Shafik is a close friend of Mubarak and his colleague in the tyranny, oppression and plunder imposed on the Egyptian people.

The country’s wealth belongs to the people and must return to it
Over the past three decades this tyrannical regime corrupted the country’s largest estates to a small handful of business leaders and foreign companies. 100 families own more than 90% of the country’s wealth. They monopolize the wealth of the Egyptian people through policies of privatization, looting of power and the alliance with Capital. They have turned the majority of the Egyptian people to the poor, landless and unemployed.

Factories wrecked and sold dirt cheap must go back to the people
We want the nationalization of companies, land and property looted by this bunch. As long as our resources remain in their hands we will not be able to completely get rid of this system. Economic slavery is the other face of political tyranny. We will not be able to cope with unemployment and achieve a fair minimum wage for a decent living without restoring the wealth of the people from this gang.

We will not accept to be guard dogs of America and Israel
This system does not stand alone. Mubarak, as a dictator was a servant and client directly acting for the sake of the interests of America and Israel. Egypt acted as a colony of America, participated directly in the siege of the Palestinian people, made the Suez Canal and Egyptian airspace freezones for warships and fighter jets that destroyed and killed the Iraqi people and sold gas to Israel, dirt cheap, while stifling the Egyptian people by soring prices. Revolution must restore Egypt’s independence, dignity and leadership in the region.

The revolution is a popular revolution
This is not a revolution of the elite, political parties or religious groups. Egypt’s youth, students, workers and the poor are the owners of this revolution. In recent days a lot of elites, parties and so-called symbols have begun trying to ride the wave of revolution and hijack it from their rightful owners. The only symbols are the martyrs of our revolution and our young people who have been steadfast in the field. We will not allow them to take control of our revolution and claim that they represent us. We will choose to represent ourselves and represent the martyrs who were killed and their blood paid the price for the salvation of the system.

A people’s army is the army that protects the revolution
Everyone asks: “Is the army with the people or against them?”. The army is not a single block. The interests of soldiers and junior officers are the same as the interests of the masses. But the senior officers are Mubarak’s men, chosen carefully to protect his regime of corruption, wealth and tyranny. It is an integral part of the system.
This army is no longer the people’s army. This army is not the one which defeated the Zionist enemy in October 1973. This army is closely associated with America and Israel. Its role is to protect Israel, not the people. Yes we want to win the soldiers for the revolution. But we must not be fooled by slogans that ‘the army is on our side’. The army will either suppress the demonstrations directly, or restructure the police to play this role.

Form revolutionary councils urgently
This revolution has surpassed our greatest expectations. Nobody expected to see these numbers. Nobody expected that Egyptians would be this brave in the face of the police. Nobody can say that we did not force the dictator to retreat. Nobody can say that a transformation did not happen in Middan el Tahrir.
What we need right now is to push for the socio-economic demands as part of our demands, so that the person sitting in his home knows that we are fighting for their rights. We need to organize ourselves into popular committees which elects its higher councils democratically, and from below. These councils must form a higher council which includes delegates of all the tendencies. We must elect a higher council of people who represent us, and in whom we trust. We call for the formation of popular councils in Middan Tahrir, and in all the cities of Egypt.

Call to Egyptian workers to join the ranks of the revolution
The demonstrations and protests have played a key role in igniting and continuing our revolution. Now we need the workers. They can seal the fate of the regime. Not only by participating in the demonstrations, but by organising a general strike in all the vital industries and large corporations.
The regime can afford to wait out the sit-ins and demonstrations for days and weeks, but it cannot last beyond a few hours if workers use strikes as a weapon. Strike on the railways, on public transport, the airports and large industrial companies! Egyptian Workers! On behalf of the rebellious youth, and on behalf of the blood of our martyrs, join the ranks of the revolution, use your power and victory will be ours!

Glory to the martyrs!

Down with the system!

All power to the people!

http://links.org.au/node/2144

[joshcryer]

14. Wow.

No words.

[sabrina 1]

19. They definitely were far more organized in Egypt and we now

know that they had been studying many writers and philosophers on how to conduct a successful revolution for a long time. Still, I think, as your link says, they never expected the huge response from the masses of people who came out on the streets. But it appears they were ready when they did. I agree that organizing a huge labor movement was brilliant. As the last paragraph says, the government could sit out demonstrations and still function, but they could not overcome massive, nationwide strikes. These people appear to be very smart, very organized and definitely capable of running the country.

Libya is very different. I am certain that the people there are sincere about wanting to be free. It may be that they were inspired by the other revolutions and did not take enough time to organize. Or, it may have been more difficult in Libya for a variety of reasons. Also the surprise element in both Tunisia and Egypt gave them an advantage. Now, the powerful are more prepared.

I was thinking today, how did WE think they could possibly overthrow the Qaddafi regime? I admit, as we watched what seemed like victory after victory from town to town, I did think they could do it, although I was afraid for them going into Tripoli.

But looking at the predictions of what might happen, even with this military intervention and arming the revolutionaries, analyst believe that Qaddafi could last for months. I can only speak for myself, but I think it was unrealistic now to think they could do it. And I feel it was irresponsible for anyone who understood the reality of the situation to urge them to keep advancing towards the west.

If it's true that Qaddafi could last as long as some analysts predict even now, then there was no hope of victory for the revolutionaries.

I don't know what the solution is. As it was, it's clear that had they continued without assistance, there would have been horrendous carnage. And if they were defeated, they knew what would happen to them so they didn't have the option of giving up.

And I am afraid that as this progresses they may end up toppling the Qaddafi regime, but the real revolutionaries are not likely to have much say in what happens after that. It definitely could turn into another Iraq, exactly what they were so afraid of.

There is one other possibility to be optimistic for a moment. The coalition could be telling the truth and are there to help only. I know, but we can dream ~

I think I am going to try to learn a lot more about the people of Libya themselves. We really don't know much about them. It was easier in Egypt and Tunisia as the people there made themselves known to the rest of the world.

I do really value your input. And I truly believe that what happens in Libya is extremely important as far as whether or not the drive for freedom and democracy will continue or not. That is the nagging fear I have about Libya, that there will be an effort to control the outcome and to halt the spreading of the spirit that toppled two western allies, before they lose control of the whole region.

[Catherina]

20. You bring up an important point

about the powerful being more prepared, more ruthless too.

I thought they could do it too. I still hope they do if Libyan support for this is widespread. I'm not convinced it's as widespread as they think. I agree with you about the irresponsible urging. I noticed they were being advised to do things that were downright impossible like go capture and destroy airfields.

The don't have the option of giving up now. Shit, what a mess.

Did you read this comment? The last sentence is alarming.

The Mustafa `Abd Al-Jalil council
"The behavior of the fledgling rebel government in Benghazi so far offers few clues to the rebels’ true nature. Their governing council is composed of secular-minded professionals — lawyers, academics, businesspeople — who talk about democracy, transparency, human rights and the rule of law. But their commitment to those principles is just now being tested as they confront the specter of potential Qaddafi spies in their midst, either with rough tribal justice or a more measured legal process.

Like the Qaddafi government, the operation around the rebel council is rife with family ties. And like the chiefs of the Libyan state news media, the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior." I should only add that the `Abd Al-Jalil marginalized the lawyers and professionals and secularists.
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 8:53 AM

This is an aside but I always click on his links and this NYT piece was under "behavior"

But the legacy of such tribal rivalries in Libya may in fact be fading, thanks in part to the enormous changes that Colonel Qaddafi — a modernizer, in his idiosyncratic way — helped bring about. Coming to power just before the oil boom, he tapped Libya’s new wealth to provide schools, hospitals and other benefits for Libya’s desperately poor, semi-nomadic population.

Gradually, Libya became overwhelmingly urban, with about 85 percent of its populations clustered around its two main urban centers — Tripoli and Benghazi.

The article is worth reading in full. I have a feeling he has more genuine support than people are letting on.

I don't know what the solution is either at this point because both sides are too far along. There isn't a government in the world, including ours, that wouldn't lock up anyone involved in an armed insurrection. I think it will come down to a Yugoslavia style break up but the Libyans need to work that one out without outside interference. People like Sarkozy don't have a decent bone in their body but yeah, we can dream. I wish they did.

Thanks for answering Sabrina. I like thinking about the points you always bring up. You've helped me many times throughout the years with your perspectives.


Al Jazeera is now announcing that Abd Al-Jalil is now the transitional Prime Minister. Just great.

[PurityOfEssence]

10. All he needs to do is get an Authorization or a Declaration of War and he can torch the place

Once again: NOTHING the UN says allows the President to commit forces without complying with the Constitution of the United States. Period. It's very clear, as is the UN Participation Act.

The only way he can commit forces without a Declaration or Authorization is if we're attacked, and he must CONSULT, not merely inform by letter IN ALL CASES.

The Supreme Court is very clear that the Constitution supersedes Treaties. Treaties are the law of the land, too, but if they ask for or allow something that the Constitution says has to then undergo the mechanism of the checks and balances of the separation of powers, the mechanisms of the Constitution MUST be followed.

What has been peddled as a "no-fly zone" actually has very broad scope, and would allow for a complete land war with boots, tires, treads, hooves, sandals and anything else on the ground with anything else we wish with us to make war as brutally and thoroughly as possible. The only restriction is that we don't stay.

It's worded in a mealy-mouthed way so that it can only be for the altruistic and chivalrous protection of the innocent civilians, but it's easily stretchable to imply that helping the armed insurgents is necessary to protect those civilians, as is a regime change and presumably killing (in honorable combat, of course) of Qaddafi and anyone else deemed dangerous to those innocent civilians.

Sure, he can shock and awe 'em with pretty much everything he pleases, as long as he leaves when it's "done", but FIRST, he has to get permission of Congress. We were not attacked, so he HAS to get an Authorization or Declaration from Congress.

The Constitution takes precedent, PERIOD.

[Catherina]

15. This will turn into an even bloodier fight now. With all the Arab revolutionaries united against us

It's not lost on them that the western politicians suddenly claiming to be friends of the uprisings immediately started roaming the region to peddle arms and sell more guns to the monarchs quashing the revolutionaries.

A few days ago, on Thursday a US drone slaughtered 38 people in Waziristan, Pakistan.

The hypocrisy isn't lost on them.

Send in ground troops and we'll soon see a bloody mess all over the Middle East. Maybe that's the ultimate goal.

Here's an excerpt of 12 reasons to oppose the No Fly Zone that one of the Egyptian revolutionaries highlighted on his blog 4 days ago. I can't tell if he wrote this but he contributes to the paper that published this.

No to intervention in Libya! Victory to Arab revolutions!

...

9. The air war will almost certainly lead to escalation. If air strikes don’t break Gadaffi, then the argument will grow for troops and an invasion. Intervention could lead to the partition of Libya and the creation of a NATO-backed enclave. It will be an outpost of imperialism and could be used to halt further developments of the revolutionary process in Egypt and elsewhere.

10. Western military intervention will allow Gaddafi to pose as an antiimperialist. It can help to strengthen him.

11. Imperialist intervention is never in the interest of the oppressed and exploited. It will strengthen those elements that seek to impose the power of capital across the Middle East and North Africa and across the globe. It will be throwing into reverse the process of revolution which has been an inspiration to us all.

12. We want Gadaffi’s regime to go. But the only effective way to remove Gaddafi and to break the Libyan military in the interests of workers and the masses is the development of the process of revolution across the Arab world – in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere. That is not an abstract idea. The glorious movements that tore down Ben Ali and Mubarak have continued to demand further political and social change. This is the hope for the region and the world.

...

[The Magistrate]

18. Why Not Just say 'Socialist Worker U.K.' And Have Done With It, Ma'am?

Still, always a treat to read antique boiler-plate like "break the Libyan military in the interests of workers and the masses"....

[Countdown_3_2_1]

21. A UN resolution is NOT a Congressional Vote for War. Boots on the ground require a vote!