tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post3863472328355638569..comments2024-02-07T06:48:23.474-05:00Comments on Sudbury Steve May: May Right on Libya; NDP Fails Canadians Concerned About Civilian CasualtiesSudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-11146459913199998042011-06-21T09:45:05.907-04:002011-06-21T09:45:05.907-04:00I've seen a number of reports from rebel group...I've seen a number of reports from rebel groups, questioning just what NATO "support" means. Just last week, an acknowledged "friendly fire" incident killed a number of "friendly" rebels.<br /><br />This is a civil war. The civilians being bombed in Tripoli by NATO airplanes have friends and family amongst the rebels. When the war comes to an end, NATO's actions will be recalled by whoever ends up in power.<br /><br />And that's what Peter Worthington was getting at: just who are these rebels? Are they truly going to be friends to Western regimes, particularly ones which have participated in airstrikes against Libyan infrastructure? The media's take on this suggests that the rebels which have the best chance of emerging to fill the power vacuum might hold NATO to account for civilian deaths.<br /><br />Perhaps you should read the full text of May's speech to parliament, to obtain a better undertanding of where she is coming from. I admittedly chose a couple of quotes she made, disregarding the context in which they were spoken. However, if you remain a fan of aerial bombardments as an instrument of "winning the peace" (which appears to be the position our government has arrived at), your opinion may not change.<br /><br />Even as an instrument of conducting warfare, they can not be relied on. If we really want regime change in Libya, sending in the special forces would likely do the trick. In Afghanistan, an acknowledged theatre of war, those same Taliban which were removed from power by NATO air superiority, and chased away from Kabul by NATO groundforces (in both cases, read: American) are now, more than 10 years later, negotiating with the U.S. and it's puppet Karzai regime, so that Obama can start a troop draw down (because the U.S. can no longer afford to wage this expensive war).<br /><br />I understand that military intervention can save lives. If that's the case, why not truly get serious about this? If as you suspect, the majority of Libyans are not truly Ghadafi supporters, but are instead forced to support his police state through fear and intimidation, one would think that they would welcome a decisive form of intervention to remove their head of state.<br /><br />And of course, the same would be true in Syria and Yemen, and perhaps Bahrain. And Chechnya, and Sinkiang.<br /><br />Is Libya better off now, due to NATO intervention? I believe that's hard to say, and that we're going to have to wait until this all plays itself out. But after all these days of bombing, I would have hoped that we would be in a better position to know whether or not our campaign to help the rebels was the right thing to do.Sudbury Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-41240142261962561332011-06-21T01:58:46.123-04:002011-06-21T01:58:46.123-04:00“…there is no greater way to strengthen the resolv...“…there is no greater way to strengthen the resolve of a civilian people than aerial bombardment.”<br /><br />I respect Ms. May's position on Libya, but that statement is just idiotic.<br /><br />First of all, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, resolve is not the issue here. There is no evidence that the civilian population of Libya supports Gadhahi's as evidenced by the fact that he can't maintain control of any area where he doesn't have absolutely dominant security forces or mercenaries. The Libyan people are not "resolved" to prevent Gadhafi's ouster in the first place.<br /><br />Sure, aerial bombardment CAN strengthen people's resolve to oppose a given side in a war or armed conflict, but whether it DOES depends on many factors. The most obvious factor is whether there are large numbers of civilian casualties ("large", of course, being a relative concept).<br /><br />But we know there have been many cases where air strikes have led to fewer civilian casualties than other forms of warfare, turned the population against their leaders or both.<br /><br />NATO removed the Taliban--who initially had an army of hundreds of thousands--from power in less than 60 days, preventing incalcuable civilian casualities, because the Taliban army had no way to fight back against terrifying air strikes coming from planes they couldn't even see and so most just gave up and feld back to their homes. (The decision to remain in Afghanistan for a decade and begin using air strikes in a very different is a different matter.)<br /><br />In Kosovo, air strikes were used to stop a genocide with very minimal civilian casualties where an invasion would doubtlessly killed far more.<br /><br />In World War II, bombing only seemed to strengthen the resolve of the British people, but it totally demoralized the Germany people. While Hitler was ruthless in keeping a lid on descent, it can't be denying that morale played a role in the collapse of the Germany war effort.<br /><br />While I bristle at the sight of civilian deaths, May's comment belies a totally lack of understanding of the history and consequences aerial bombing. Sadly, as a progressive, I find this particular form of ignorance--singling out air strikes as a particularly evil form of warfare--all too common given that it is completely unsupported by the facts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com