The Arab League puts a spanner in the works

John Montague

Mousa may shortly be facing the ballot box. He needs to maximise his popular support on Egypt's streets. He needs campaign funds too. Just a thought.

Tim Marshall, on the other hand, has been playing a blinder, the only British correspondent who seems to have bothered to understand the background and to really have his ear to the ground. Perhaps next, he'll tell us why the Misurata district is so important, being the Warfalla centre and all.

Oh... Mousa's just this second announced he's running …. how very convenient.

yank

Well, time for another quick recap.

Phase I is over. The US has whacked Khadaffi's air assets and air defense, and suitably intimidated the remainder. I suspect they didn't do a complete annihilation of it all, as that seems to be the under the table agreement with the "Arab League", which never made anything much formal in any event, and certainly nothing anybody would ever believe or run with.

Phase II commences now. The frogs and limeys are toothless, and will be left to yammer and face the rising heat at home as they fly jets aimlessly about. They can pinprick, but they're basically toothless, particularly in what is to come. Khadaffi will now do it the old fashioned way... sloooooowly. Fools rushed in... and Khadaffi is no fool.

A tribal split is defacto now, and it may become de jure, at Khadaffi's leisure. He's already on to his next phase, managing the coming UN dogpile to his advantage (you know, the one Call Me Dave has/had no clue of, doesn't understand, never gamed through, and of which he can only guess whether BP can manipulate)

Don't like all that? Do something about it. Go ahead. Do something. And a little hint: Flying your meager few frog and limey jets around ain't gonna do that something.

Are the frogs bold enough to send in some troops? They could be, yes. They goddamn well better, if their people are shot down.

Oh and by the way, the Argies just watched you Brits be forced to fly jets from your homeland, as there were no assets or capabilities to project them offshore in theater... not even after weeks and weeks of advance preparation time, not on land, and not on sea.

In other words, you just walked Operation Las Malvinas another few steps closer to potential launch... and Call Me Dave hasn't gamed that one through either.

johnc

A crazy thing is encouraging Libyans to kill Libyans.
Let the west walk away from helping and let the Arab League who will let a government kill 100,000 of Libyan people rather than a few that need killing

pip

Are there many people out there who feel angry, shocked at this attack? I am no fan of Gadaffi nor of the rebels, but this attack, agreed by the corrupt UN, smells of something horrible. Why this country? Why Libya and not Iran? Iran daily abuses human rights in bagloads. Someone somewhere is not telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Cameron needs hauled up about this, questions need to be asked and answered, because this attack on Libya utterly STINKS.

MaxSceptic

Hahahahahahaha!

Why am I not surprised?

So here we are with the US, Britain and France foolishly doing the Arab World's dirty work (i.e. sorting out one of their regular nasty little fratricidal spats) and all set to be the fall guys when everything goes tits up.

TomTom

Whatever did they promise The Arab League to get assent to a figleaf ?

Jez

Wow.

Didn't see that coming.

France, Britain and the US go berserk and blow the shit out of anything that moves, on the anniversary of the last Gulf War without the full cooperation of Russia, India, Germany and China.

Listen, you well informed intellectuals at the Spectator, there are some pretty run down public toilets in the local park that need cleaning. It may be a little out of the comfort zone regards getting your heads round real life situations but bring a bucket and I'm sure you'll manage...... er, actually- reading the past calls to War in Libya by you lot, maybe not.

David Booth

MaxSceptic, 5:02pm.

My thoughts exactly, we are being drawn into conflict for Arab politicians to exploit. The people who are cheering us on in the Arab world today will in the very near future be screaming at us to get out.

As my old granny would say "never get into a fight with a chimney sweep because win or lose you will end up covered in sh(1)t"

Publius

What did people expect - a computer game?

Ah well, now it has begun it had better be finished, and finished properly - which means the removal of Gaddafi.

But I fear that once again the Coalition of the Willing will reveal itself to be a coalition of the wet and the timid.

Hugo Chav

Wonder how long Joe & Jane Public are going to agree with the Blair Clone on Libya, whilst economic growth is downgraded, unemployment rises, inflation escalates, house prices fall and living standards shrink.

The Heir to Blair could soon be dive bombing in the polls.

Fergus Pickering

Close the toilets. Buy more planes.

Noa.

Yank
"In other words, you just walked Operation Las Malvinas another few steps closer to potential launch... and Call Me Dave hasn't gamed that one through either.."

Whilst most people around CH share at least some of these views, how should we judge your comments Master kriegspieler? Are they a warning from a friend? Or is it simply gloating?

Yarnesfromhorsham

Think Im with MaxSceptic on this one.Anybody seen the Arab league yet? What about a peace keeping force from the Arab League members. If we are in for the ride lets keep it to NFL only operations. Lets not get oursleves talked into another ground intervention - not even on supposed humanitarian grounds.

arnoldo87

" although quite what he thought he was agreeing to in the first place is anyone’s guess."

How nostalgic! Just like resolution 1441 in 2002. Then, the UN told Saddam that there would be "serious consequences" if he did not demonstrate that he had destroyed all of his WMD.

For some "serious consequences" meant that they would carry on doing what they had been doing for the previous 11 years - absolutely bugger all.

Verity

Pip. I'm absolutely in accord. There's something rotten in the state of Britain, here. Something is way off kilter.

JohnPage

Perhaps this hypocrite would care to watch (if I have understood the youtube code right)

Craig Strachan

yank: "Oh and by the way, the Argies just watched you Brits be forced to fly jets from your homeland, as there were no assets or capabilities to project them offshore in theater"

Bit like the US strike on Gadaffi in 86, then, which we recall flew from U.K. bases -and around French airspace.

Baron

pay little attention what Moussa says, John Montague @ 4.35 explains why, let the boys from the Arab countries have a visible go, locate the tent with the nutter in, last but not least, hospitalize yank, he ain’t much of a danger to others, a lot to himself though.

Publius

@pip
"Someone somewhere is not telling us the whole truth" etc.

Oh, do grow up.

Dimoto

Ha-ha, If the poor old Egyptians think Mubarak was bad, they ain't seen nuttin' yet, (if they are daft enough to vote in that windbag Amr Moussa).

Entirely predictable.
Let's call it a mistake, apologise profusely, pull out and let old Amr sort it out.
He'll have a massive global conference organised in no time !

Noa.

Pip, Verity.

Yes, I'm in absolute agreement; angry, livid, ashamed. Friends and colleagues are flying and maintaining those Tornadoes flying from Marham and Coningsby in support of "Two wars" Dave's vain glorious and self serving "petit guerre".

And I hold him personally accountable for every life lost in this desert farce/tragedy.

Noa.

Baron 7:07pm

"hospitalize yank, he ain’t much of a danger to others, a lot to himself though".

Ha ha!

John Montague

Word on the street is that Gadafi has promised a certain Egyptian candidate $2,000 million. Just a silly rumour, of course, nagaawtabm, but it does show how people see these things.

logdon

Let's see how they feel when the situation in Bahrain, Saudi, Yemen and Syria escalates? Let the Arab League clean up it's own backyard?

These people are the World's opportunists par excellence. As is said here of this U- turn 'quite what he thought he was agreeing to is anyone's guess'.

What he was agreeing to in classic Arab manner was his own version of agreement and that could change dependent on circumstances or his own vicissitudes.

Read the history of Islam, Bernard Lewis is good or try The Arab Mind by Raphael Patai and it's all there in black and whte.

yank

Craig Strachan
March 20th, 2011 6:27pm

yank: "Oh and by the way, the Argies just watched you Brits be forced to fly jets from your homeland, as there were no assets or capabilities to project them offshore in theater"

Bit like the US strike on Gadaffi in 86, then, which we recall flew from U.K. bases -and around French airspace.

.

Nope, not in concept, not in demonstrated capability, not in effect, not in intent, not in anything besides airfield geography.

Unlike today, there were adults at the top of the 2 piles back then, and one was going to strike, and the other clearly wanted to send a message of support for that strike.

Remember, this was back in days before one of the pile toppers was staffed with convicted- mass-murderer- trades- for- BP- contracts types of folk. Thatcher had her head screwed on straight.

And the frogs wanted to send another type of message than the big haired gal, as you mention, more in line with your murderer/BP trader types of today (and we can still only speculate whether the frogs sent another message... to Tripoli... pre-raid).

The US can deliver, then and now, munitions about anywhere it needed to. So could the Brits... back then. There were deliberate choices made here, by both pile toppers, and not forced by means, circumstance or nothin'. It's what leaders do.

There were adults on top of the piles, remember, unlike today.

Not now though. And the Argies see it, because you've shown them. Nothing better than watching the other guy's capabilities mapped out right in front of you. Somewhere soon, in the after action white paper drawn up at Argie HQ, some smart ass is gonna scrawl "Muchas gracias, Dave."

And Noa, judging my posts is up to you, and I don't give a FF how you do it (as long as you're not sticking your hands into my pockets doing so).

El Sid

Of course the Arab League aren't going to sign up to a repeat of GW1+2. And it's probably not in our strategic interests to do so, nor even to kill Gadaffi as many people seem to assume.

If NATO kill Gadaffi, then half the guests at the Royal Wedding will be rethinking their retirement plans.

The average emir isn't cheering on the freedom fighters of Benghazi, he's wondering if he's next. And if that's the way his current allies treat his peers, then perhaps the emir should be making some new friends who are more attuned to the his vision of the future. Which involves doing the 72-virgin thing in this life not the next, somewhere with a convenient branch of a Swiss bank.

So of course the Arab League don't want to take things too far in Libya. At the same time their interests coincide with ours to a large extent, particular when it comes to Saudi. Significant disruption in Saudi would cause massive damage to the fragile economies of the West via an oil spike, Libya is just a sideshow in comparison but has turned into a trial run for the main event in Saudi. Hence the reluctance of Obama to upset the status quo in Libya. However it seems that the Saudis have appeased the likes of Sarko (hawkish for all the wrong reasons) with a deal that lets Sarko strut his stuff whilst giving Saudi insurgents a preview of what might happen to them. Unlucky for the Bahrainis that they got caught up in the deal, but that's life.

Baron

yank, listen up, your rabbiting about BP’s is getting more than tiresome, the outfit is owned as much by our pension funds, investment trusts and stuff as it is by yours, it’s almost 50-50, it employs more people from your neck of the woods than from ours, it’s even run now by a man who speaks with your accent rather than proper English. On top of it, thanks to the White House messiah, it’s paying for the recovery of your folk in the Gulf of Mexico, abit beyond, so will you please be very kind, shut up about the company.

Craig Strachan

yank: "Nope, not in concept, not in demonstrated capability, not in effect, not in intent, not in anything besides airfield geography"

Well, the intent in '86 was to target Gaddafi personally, which didn't work out so well - hence we're back at it now.

TomTom

"Well, the intent in '86 was to target Gaddafi personally, which didn't work out so well - hence we're back at it now."

They killed his son. I doubt it was intended to kill him, it was unworkable which is why Liam Fox advocates it now. It was a warning in 1986.

salieri

yank @10.25

One naturally recognises the immense value, to simple frogs and limeys like ourselves, of a nuanced, informed and historically accurate American point of view on this conflict: a veritable Weltanschauung, indeed, since the wisdom on display is so all-encompassing, an embarras de richesses replete with insouciant apophthlegmata.

One must also acknowledge the sheer intellectual demands of so many daily contributions on so many topics, offered so ungrudgingly, given the authority of that lone informed opinion.

The sad fact remains, however, that despite assiduously reading and re-reading these pearls of wisdom, in an avid search for enlightenment, some of us simple limeys utterly fail to grasp what the Master is actually trying to tell us.

Perhaps there is an amusing paradox at work here: in order to teach the natives the error of their ways, our valued American guru will find himself obliged to speak to them not in his own language but in theirs.

Unhappily he has yet to perceive this.

Baron

Salieri @ 9.30: top notch, it should do the job, one hopes.

logdon

salieri
March 21st, 2011 9:30am

Two nations divided by a common language?

I wonder if yank realises why he speaks English?

Sorry, silly me, in his mind it's probably American.

yank

Craig Strachan
March 21st, 2011 2:46am

"Well, the intent in '86 was to target Gaddafi personally, which didn't work out so well - hence we're back at it now."

.

No, the intent in 1986 was to send a message, and take an eye for an eye.

The limeys don't really believe in that anymore, it appears. Now it's convicted terrorist mass murderers for BP's contracts, evidently. The eye for eye thing is sorta passe.

The US is back at it now for humanitarian reasons. Always unclear what the terrorist trader types are doing, however, and why. You may depend BP would be close about though, much as when the Brit government was hopping about last Summer over it all.

yank

salieri
March 21st, 2011 9:30am

"Perhaps there is an amusing paradox at work here: in order to teach the natives the error of their ways, our valued American guru will find himself obliged to speak to them not in his own language but in theirs."

.

Seems to have worked, Mr. salieri. You do seem to acknowledge the errors of your ways, so something's gotta be hitting home.

Not that that's of primary consideration, nor is somebody's "judgement" of my posts. I'd say they get through clear enough though. Maybe you're just a thick limey... like you say.