Let me state this again: A humanitarian mission MUST include a diplomatic component.

[howard112211]

If it doesn't, it is not a humanitarian mission, but something else.

One cannot state that the goal is to "protect civilians" and then conclude that in order to do so one should completely destroy one side of a conflict.

If one wants to minimize casualties among innocents, which may or may not include conscripts depending on how one sees it, then the thing to do is force a cease-fire. To try and break up a stalemate will always mean sacrificing more people, also civilians.

The rationale that by destroying one side completely this will create security is highly cynical.

I think at this point the Ghaddafi regime has received the message that NATO means business and would likely be open for talks. That talks are not occuring tells me that "protecting civilians" is not the prime objective here.

"Force regime change" is NOT equal to "minimize civilians casualties". In some sense they can be seen as exclusive.

I have a problem with a government that tells me that "protecting civilians" is priority when "regime change" is really the priorty.

I could tolerate it more if at least they were honest about it.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. we've taken sides in a civil war

and we are attacking ground units in air support of offensive operations by one side in that civil war. This is not and never has been a humanitarian mission.

As usual we are being lied to and treated like the imbeciles that, in general, we actually are. Once again our military forces are being used to re-arrange the deck chairs on a global civilization teetering towards a collapse that was not inevitable but that we are doing nothing at all to prevent.

[Catherina]

2. Gaddafi has been open for talks. Rebels refuse and UN blocks the initiatives

First with the Chavez Peace commission, then with the African Union's and also Erdogan's initiatives but the rebels refuse. Anyone who even remotely suggests peace talks was demonized by the war hawks.

The Western Nations that so brutally colonized and keep plundering Africa want war at all costs. Rec'd

Head of African Union: UN blocked mediation efforts in Libya

In an interview with the French-language magazine of African affairs Jeune Afrique, the head of the Commission of the African Union, Jean Ping, has said that an African Union (AU) delegation attempting to mediate between the warring parties in Libya was denied authorization to visit the country by the UN Security Council. The five-member delegation was scheduled to visit the Libyan capital Tripoli on March 20 and Benghazi, the capital of the rebellion, on March 21. The bombing of Libya by coalition forces began on March 19.

Nonetheless, according to Ping, the members of the AU delegation requested permission from the UN Security Council to pursue their mission anyway and were refused. Ping told Jeune Afrique that the Security Council refused the request “because it would have been too dangerous.”

More generally, on the AU’s opposition to the Western-led “humanitarian” intervention in Libya, Ping explained,

We have already experienced this type of intervention. Remember Somalia. President Siad Barré was overthrown in 1991. Then the UN operation Restore Hope occurred. And then what? The international community came in and it ran away. For twenty years now, Africa has been left to face the problem of Somalia alone.

Ping noted that Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi had accepted the four-point “road map” for resolving the crisis proposed by the African Union. “But for there to be a cessation of hostilities,” he added, “the other side has also to stop fighting.”

...

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/29/head-of-african-union-un-blocked-mediation-efforts-in-libya/

AU, AL chiefs discuss roadmap to end Libya crisis
March 27, 2011Laaska News
Laaska News March 27,2011.

CAIRO, March 26 (Xinhua) — Arab League (AL) Secretary General Amr Moussa said here on Saturday that new suggestions concerning the situation in Libya was in coordination with the African Union (AU).

Moussa met with visiting AU Commission Chairman Jean Ping in the AL headquarter in Cairo, where they discussed the recent developments of the Libyan crisis after the UN imposed a no-fly zone over the North African country.

The AL was informed by Jean Ping about the results of an AU meeting with the Libyan governmental delegation in Addis Ababa Friday over the Libya issue, Moussa said in a joint press conference. The Libyan governmental delegation confirmed that they agreed with the AU roadmap suggestion for resolving the crisis in Libya, he said.

Jean Ping said the AU’s roadmap was supposed to be executed on March 21 in Benghazi city, but was rejected by the UN Security Council after the adoption of the Resolution 1973.

...

http://laaska.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/au-al-chiefs-discuss-roadmap-to-end-libya-crisis/

More from Ping

...

“All our programmes which I mentioned to you were stopped by the decision of UN Security Council. We were supposed to go to Libya on the 18th in Tripoli and on the 19th to Benghazi. Then the decision of the Security Council came. We asked permission to go too they say don’t go. So we stopped going there,” he said.

He said a meeting was scheduled in Paris with the AU but nothing has been heard ever since, even though ministers of western countries on their own have made attempts to resolve the crisis in Cairo.

“Nobody talk to us; no body consult us” he lamented.

Asked if the AU has been ignored in the UN, his answer was blunt: “Totally, totally,” he said.

...

http://www.ghanadiscuss.com/showthread.php/4255-Jean-Ping-AU-feels-quot-totally-quot-ignored-by-UN-on-Libya

[howard112211]

3. This is as much a failure of the media as was the Iraq war.

[xchrom]

4. recommend

[lindalou65]

5. Libya and humanitarian mission

Hey folks----do you all believe that Ghaddafi is a reasonable and sane man? How can one believe that he is "open for talks?" It is either his way or the highway from what I have seen. Maybe we are living in different realities here. He has no respect for his people or their well-being, only his well-being and wealth. History has not shown him to be a reasonable and humanitarian person. How many chances do you give someone like him? Can you risk more lives (than have already been lost) to trust this man? I can't.

[howard112211]

6. Ghaddafi is a dictator, but he is certainly no "mad man". If he were, his reign would'nt have lasted

as long has it has. So yes, I think he is "sane" in the sense of not being mentally ill. Does he have the well-being of his nation in mind? Hard to say. I think autocrats tend to view themselves as one with their nation. Any opposition to them as a person is set equal to opposition to the nation, and thus needs to be battled as any foreign intruder would. Even though this premise seems medival to us, I would not think this makes such a ruler incapable of engaging in negotiations per se.

One thing seems for certain: He seems to be dead set on battling the invasion to his last breath. It will be really hard to take the Western cities without destroying them.

[jeff47]

7. Diplomacy towards who?

Ghaddafi has made it clear he's not interested in talking with the rebels. So could you specifically list what diplomatic actions that should be taken and are not being taken?

[howard112211]

8. In most fights there are bargaining points. If one is sincere about the humanitarian nature

of the mission, one should not skip out on any of them.

[jeff47]

9. Ok....so what specifically should be done?

It's a fine theory....now how should we be applying it?

[howard112211]

10. Well for one ...

... I have read here on DU that there were actually offers to negotiate a cease fire that were turned down by the rebels. Do you think these accounts were false?

[jeff47]

11. Neither side has shown any interest in negotiation

So now what?