At 19:30pm on 22nd Mar 2011, Tinkersdamn wrote

• . At 19:30pm on 22nd Mar 2011, Tinkersdamn wrote
• . At 19:30pm on 22nd Mar 2011, Tinkersdamn wrote:  
  Considering our Navy was off the Libyan coast, surely with NSA assets, when Gaddafi announced an imminent attack "without mercy" as his forces repositioned toward Benghazi, I suspect hard evidence kept Russia and China from using their veto over the current engagement. The more closely we contain our actions to the prevention of large scale massacre, while otherwise leaving the Libyans to determine their own future, the better we will serve the human interests of Libya, the region, and ourselves.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 4. At 19:31pm on 22nd Mar 2011, Illogicbuster wrote:
  Mark inexplicably stated: "There is, after all, no contradiction in the White House position that the UN-sanctioned military mission is restricted to protecting civilians but that the longer-term, broader political aim is to remove Col Muammar Gaddafi."
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  So, Mark, WHERE in the UN resolution does it say that the long term aim is to "remove Col Muammar Gaddafi"?
  
  Show us all or admit you are making this all up as you go.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 5. At 19:48pm on 22nd Mar 2011, William Johnson-Smith wrote:
  Personally, I think this is a rather ill-thought out piece of journalism.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 6. At 20:04pm on 22nd Mar 2011, wishy-washy wrote:
  @Illogicbuster: I think what Mark is saying is that removing Gadaffi is a longer-term US aim, rather than a UN aim.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 7. At 20:07pm on 22nd Mar 2011, Maria Ashot wrote:
  The bombardments and Coalition operations will go on until such time as everyone on the ground finally decides to stop fighting.
  
  I believe the side of the Libyan Transitional National Council; so does President Sarkozy. Others are inclined to believe them, but skeptical to different degrees.
  
  The point is that the side making official pronouncements out of Tripoli, with some kind of production values (as opposed to the bare-bones efforts from Benghazi), has hopped up and down and sworn cease-fires not once, but twice since the UN Security Council resolution was adopted. And yet those cease-fires have been nothing but cheap tricks.
  
  The massacres, torture (depriving people of water & power & the possibility of urgent medical attention for grievous wounds) and mayhem continue.
  
  As soon as those stop -- if Q/G/K is even capable of issuing a credible order anymore -- the Benghazi side will be able to stop fighting as well.
  
  This is pretty straightforward stuff, Mr Mardell.
  
  "Installing" may be a poor choice of words, unless one is actually referring to desks and chairs for a conference -- but basically, under the auspices of the UN, regional players, and the Coalition command which basically has to remain on duty (perhaps rather light duty) until there is security on a par with what today exists in Tunis or Egypt, next door -- the people of Libya who are older than 20 or 21, male and female, and whose record does not include engaging in atrocities, will vote in an election that needs to be 100% open and transparent. And that will be a start.
  
  They will vote for representatives who will then lay out some plans for a Constitution, a judiciary, an executive branch, a legislature.
  
  There has been plenty of precedent and experience with such efforts.
  
  Might I remind you of Germany's own recent experience creating institutions and an integration process for East Germany, after the reunification?
  
  There are many precedents, there are similarities with well known cases. This is not by any means terra incognita.
  
  Libyans need to take the lead and responsibility for their own destiny. They need to define citizenship. They need to accept that after all this effort, the Coalition powers will expect them to create a Constitution that is consistent with the UN's International Declaration of Human Rights -- the one Q/G/K gleefully ripped to shreds during one of his last appearances before the General Assembly.
  
  In other words, full equality for women, protections for law-abiding dissenters, protections for minorities and the vulnerable (children, the disabled) and due process to the standard of the typical European state.
  
  None of this is as hard as it sounds. It is work -- a job creator -- it takes time and effort, but it is not any kind of tall order.
  
  Complain about this comment
• 8. At 20:33pm on 22nd Mar 2011, bigrog37 wrote:
  Is anyone else nervous about our involvement in this escapade? I’m yet to be persuaded that any successors to the present government are likely to be any less corrupt. Who are the leaders of these rebels? Are they really in favour of democracy? It seems to me that installing democracy in Libya will require our troops to be on the ground long term. Has our government really thought this through?
  
  Complain about this comment
• 9. At 20:36pm on 22nd Mar 2011, LucyJ wrote:
  wishy washy 6,
  
  I believe President Obama's aim is to get the rebels themselves to oust Gaddafi...
  
  But as Mardell and others have pointed out, if the rebels do not oust Gaddafi, it will likely end in stalemale and ppl are saved, but for how long before Gaddafi pulls the same stunts again?
  
  Mardell: What is left unsaid is that presumably the man giving the orders to kill civilians is Col Gaddafi. Getting rid of him would protect civilians.
  
  Exactly...so why don't we do the humanitarian act of ousting Gaddafi ourselves?
  
  Complain about this comment
• 10. At 20:41pm on 22nd Mar 2011, donpittodrie wrote:
  Can we ask BBC journalists to ask our leaders why there was no action to protect civilians in Bahrain, Yemen, Gaza etc etc?
  
  Such glaringly selective approaches to defending innocent civilians need to be exposed, especially since the argument for all these interventions always swings round to 'installing' democracy.
  
  Let's face it, the concept of democracy in our own country is not exactly clear cut - i.e. minority parties take power and then do the exact opposite of the signed pledges they made in advance of the election.
  
  One other thing - can anyone tell us the cost of all this military action, so we can assess it against the cuts we're being asked to accept at home?
  
  And finally - how about some more searching examinations of the position of 'opposition' leaders. If everyone in Parliament is in favour of this action, then surely we need some capable journalism to ask the right questions?