Well, this is one way to guarantee that no matter which side wins, we lose.
“We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official. “We are working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don’t confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to defend civilians.”
The warnings, and intense consultations within the NATO-led coalition over its rules for attacking anyone who endangers innocent civilians, come at a time when the civil war in Libya is becoming ever more chaotic, and the battle lines ever less distinct. They raise a fundamental question that the military is now grappling with: Who in Libya is a civilian?
Aren’t the rebels mostly, scratch that, all civilians by definition?
The situation is as complicated legally as it is militarily. The United Nations Security Council resolution that authorized a no-flight zone and other steps in Libya makes no distinction between pro-rebel and pro-Qaddafi civilians.
Senior legal advisers to the military campaign say that unarmed civilians, whether living in towns or fleeing the fighting, are clearly meant to be protected by the United Nations resolution, while opposition forces taking an active part in combat away from cities are currently seen as falling outside of its protection. But one such official acknowledged that there are other situations that are much less clear.
Start with muddled, unclear principles and goals, end up with muddy, unclear directives. Somebody in this administration really needs to pick up The Art of War Kinetic Military Action and do a powerpoint on it for the rest of the team.
At least a future scapegoat has re-emerged.
On March 21, in a briefing with reporters, Tom Donilon, the national security advisor to President Obama, appeared not to distinguish between armed rebels and other citizens of Libya who opposed the Qaddafi government.
PJM has examined Donilon’s role in this before. If there’s a head that should roll over this mess, it’s his.
Aren’t the rebels mostly, scratch that, all civilians by definition?
No, they are almost certainly by definition (drum roll, please): unlawful combatants. Here’s the big 4 from the 3rd Geneva Convention:
(a) [...] being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) [...] having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) [...] carrying arms openly;
(d) [...] conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
I haven’t been watching things at all closely but I strongly suspect they’re at best solid only on (c) (this is an open insurrection).
Needless to say, what we’re seeing from Team Obama are in part the results of a real “rush to war”.
So drop off a few special forces guys to teach them to
(1) pick a rebel leader, and assert that their orders come from them
(2) have them wear an arm band of the same color
(3) don’t slide pistols down the front of their trousers
(4) don’t cut off heads, fingers, toes as interrogation methods.
This article is just blatantly wrong. We recognized the rebels as the only legitimate government of Libya, meaning that all the rebels engaged in armed violence are part of the Rebel Army and as such are “by definition” not civilians.
Do you really think that the Libyan rebels should be able to massacre as many civilians as they want, with NATO protecting and enabling them to do so? Obviously not. If anything, NATO just needs to say this.
Bomb all Libyan combatants, they’ll hate the US equally before this ill-concieved adventure is over anyway.
Imagine an anti-war president starting a war..it’s easy if you try.
The goal is war, not for one side to win or another. This is why bombing both sides is part of the policy. Just the zionists making a power play who will walk into the country after both sides are exhausted.