Doug gets it wrong again
I heard earlier today that the UN Security Council had passed resolution 1973 explicitly authorising "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya - i.e. a no-fly zone and aerial attacks.
I'd been thinking very negative thoughts about a no-fly zone. As a pacifist, I'm opposed to any use of force. I fully expected that if authorised (which I wasn't sure would happen), it wouldn't "work" even in the terms its proponents set out. I'm no military history expert, but I can't help remembering it happening in Kosovo, where it ended truly dreadfully, and in Afghanistan, where it ended ... well, part of the problem with that one is that there isn't an end in prospect. By comparison, it wasn't such an unmitigated disaster in Iraq, but it's hardly a parallel that's likely to inspire confidence. My guess was that "absolutely air only" would turn in to "limited ground operations in support", perhaps via the ludicrous "without a shot being fired" (thanks John Reid for that one) and then to "no permanent occupation, no really".
But - tentatively, at least - it looks like I could be wrong. The threat of force appears to have induced Gaddafi to declare a ceasefire. And it was all done via the UNSC, not some dodgy illegal stitch-up.
However, I note that David Cameron has just said that Libya will not become another Iraq. I do hope events treat that prediction rather better than they tend to treat predictions of things not being another Vietnam.
(I've another predicty post brewing, about whether or not The Big One is imminent in San Francisco, given the meme circulating that points to recent-ish newsy earthquakes round the Ring of Fire in Indonesia, Chile, New Zealand and now Japan ... but not the West Coast. I suspect you have to do some serious cherry-picking of the data to make that stand up, and ISTR there have been a couple of quakes round California way recently anyway. But you won't catch me moving to Silicon Valley whatever that data says. A visit, however, would be wonderful, before it goes. Must. Go. To Bed.)
This entry crossposted to http://doug.dreamwidth.org/220580.html, where there are
comment(s) not shown here.
I'd been thinking very negative thoughts about a no-fly zone. As a pacifist, I'm opposed to any use of force. I fully expected that if authorised (which I wasn't sure would happen), it wouldn't "work" even in the terms its proponents set out. I'm no military history expert, but I can't help remembering it happening in Kosovo, where it ended truly dreadfully, and in Afghanistan, where it ended ... well, part of the problem with that one is that there isn't an end in prospect. By comparison, it wasn't such an unmitigated disaster in Iraq, but it's hardly a parallel that's likely to inspire confidence. My guess was that "absolutely air only" would turn in to "limited ground operations in support", perhaps via the ludicrous "without a shot being fired" (thanks John Reid for that one) and then to "no permanent occupation, no really".
But - tentatively, at least - it looks like I could be wrong. The threat of force appears to have induced Gaddafi to declare a ceasefire. And it was all done via the UNSC, not some dodgy illegal stitch-up.
However, I note that David Cameron has just said that Libya will not become another Iraq. I do hope events treat that prediction rather better than they tend to treat predictions of things not being another Vietnam.
(I've another predicty post brewing, about whether or not The Big One is imminent in San Francisco, given the meme circulating that points to recent-ish newsy earthquakes round the Ring of Fire in Indonesia, Chile, New Zealand and now Japan ... but not the West Coast. I suspect you have to do some serious cherry-picking of the data to make that stand up, and ISTR there have been a couple of quakes round California way recently anyway. But you won't catch me moving to Silicon Valley whatever that data says. A visit, however, would be wonderful, before it goes. Must. Go. To Bed.)
This entry crossposted to http://doug.dreamwidth.org/220580.html, where there are
comment(s) not shown here.