babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Libya, a current CF member's opinion
November 24, 2011 - 2:48pm
Hello. I've been lurking here a long time (since 2005 when I was stationed at Camp Mirage). Look, I know what many here think about the military. That's fine; freedom of expression is something I support, but I hope it will be kept civil (no pun intended). What "we" did in Libya (getting rid of a man who was using .50 cal and bombs on civilians) was on the whole a good thing. FYI, I was personally involved. Maybe, if things stay on the rails, I'll speak a bit more about what I do.
Russian Military Says Libyan Airstrikes Did Not Take Place March
No Evidence of Gadaffi Violence April
"Bombing His Own People?". Really? Evidence and Over-Active Imaginations on the Part of Gladio Gangsters
I wouldn't count on civility. To the mods though....does the board really need to be subjected to this shit.
Oh dear. They do not pay us enough for this job, Rebecca.
Camp Mirage? Was he ever really there? Could someone check on the Mirage claim?
you mean Canada's Dubai base once commanded by another murderous Canadian military psycopath Russell Williams?
Actually, I'd welcome input from CDN_forces, understanding that his perspective will probably be far from my own. We hear enough from the rightwing propaganda machine - how about the subjective impressions of one of it's cogs? Forces has troubled to post a civil and sincere invitation to discuss the matter. Is there nothing we can learn from this person? Must we be so ungracious? Particularly if we're pushing the argument that its the political leadership who is responsible and not those whose boots are on the ground?
Also, if we're going to shit on everyone who's not obviously on the team, we're going to be a pretty closed shop. Ideologically flawless, of course but kinda bored and lonely. And finally, that they've bothered to post here means they're interested. A good opportunity to bring a little light into someone's world and instead we bury them with kneejerk hostility?
Wouldn't it be better to draw them out a bit, learn what we can? You know, interact?
I wouldn't talk this way if Forces was a G20 cop, or Bouchard. But an off-the-rack soldier, fresh from the slaughter...well, I'm full of questions about what actually happened. The MSM was completely useless, who better to fill in the blanks!
So, CDN_FORCES, if you'll ignore my ill-mannered companions, can you tell us a bit about what you were involved in? Did Canada do anything beyond aerial bombing missions? Where were we in the c-and-c chain, how critical was our effort? How much intelligence, how well-informed did you think the upper ranks were? Did any of your colleagues have a personal interest in North African politics? Was there ANY cultural interaction, or was it limited to dropping bombs on people we'll never meet?
I would expect you to present whatever the standard party line of the armed forces was re: the Libyan mission. Have you any doubts or questions about the nature of our involvement there? What do you know of Moammar Gaddafi, and what did you know before the mission?
Oh yes. Many questions. If the others haven't driven you off, I'd really appreciate your observations.
Excuse me, Merowe - but why is the opinion of some soldier of any more interest to you (or us) than that of the workers who provided the weapons, uniforms, food, supplies, transportation, that went into this war? Would you like to hear from them? Or how about the taxpayers who financed it?
Why do you have a special interest in the character who was personally involved (as he says) in "getting rid" of Gaddafi (as he says)?
The rights and wrongs of such a war are a matter of public interest. To focus on the guy who killed people, and is proud of it, seems a bit morbid to me. At best, it may make for an interesting study in human pathology. But what is it doing on a progressive (or any) discussion board whose focus is political rather than psychological?
Having said that, I note that the thread has been opened in "babble banter" - in which case, I'm fine with it! Carry on.
Hey, here's some good banter: Did you hear the one about the guy who went off to war and never came back?? LOL!
I also see no reason why this person shouldn't banter away either - tell us about JTF2 involvement in Libya too please cog...
Merowe, I think we already are a pretty closed shop. :)
But I would echo Merowe's sentiments.
Let's not be naive. If we are serious about a lot of the domestic objectives we hold in common, things like better treatment of native people, a government that is less corrupt and more responsive to citizens, a society not controlled by the financial sector, etc;, then those changes-- which are huge, will not come to realization without bloodshed. And make no mistake: the blood shed will be ours.
We are starting to demand of the people who have accumulated power to share it. And before they decide or are forced to do so, they will WILL put the armed forces in the streets against us.
We've seen that time and again. Most recently at Oka.
And the turning point on these events is when the military decides to do thier real job and enforce the constitution and not the interests of the established powers.
And to accomplish this, we need dialogue and understanding between ordinary people and the members of Canada's armed forces.
Of course any one can claim to be a member. As anyone can make any claim here. But give people credit for figuring things out as we usually do-- or don't.
Well here I have to protest. The hostility is quite considered actually.
If the Libyan war was about saving lives, it was a catastrophic failure
What we did in Libya was to encourage hostilities to continue because we had already decided who we wanted the winners to be -- a rebel movement that was coopted by senior members of the Gaddafi regime who defected because they saw an opportunity. If our priority had been the protection of civilians we would have enforced an immedate ceasefire on both sides so Libyans themselves could look for a peaceful solution. But that's not what we did and we have blood on our hands because of it.
The fact that many Armed Services people have returned from missiions like Afghanistan or peace keeping in Bonsnia traumatized speaks volumes. We can argue, and we will, about the merits of those missions, and over the broader idea of might can be used in the service of right.
But putting that aside those people-- people like us-- went to make a difference and were doing what they thought made a difference to people in dire need in those places. Again, the merits of that are part of valid debate.
But what isn't up for debate is that there are members of the C.A.F. who are decent, who are not entirely foreign to our way of thinking, even if we think they may be mislead or under some missaprehensions of facts.
Dismissing them out of hand, tarring all with the same brush is exactly the knee jerk reactionaryism we find so distastefull on the right.
And yes, Russell Williams was a member of the CAF. The Green River serial killer was an industrial worker like me. In fact, the products I helped make at my plant went to his plant and he surely touched what I touched.
Want to ostracize me and other industrial workers for having such chance associations?
C'mon, we're better than this nonesense.
Thanks Merowe. Like I said at the top I've been lurking a long time so I know who all the players are, and I know who has left or been banished from the island.
So. I'm in a senior position in the Canadian military and served four tours overseas in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I didn't mean to imply that I was personally involved in getting Moammar, but I did serve on Operation Mobile, which was the Canadian portion of Operation Unified Protector. I was based in Italy but carried out operations over Libya and its airspace. I'll post some unclas pictures on Flicr for you. I wasn't dropping bombs, but did play a role in where the ordance would be targeted.Overall the level of care taken to avoid collateral damages was outstanding. Certainly over 95% of the missions that delivered GBU-10/12 had 0% chance of hitting civilians owing to the robust sigint/humint and visual identification protocals. Contrary to what some here believe, the anti-regime forces were instrumental in achieving victory. Without boots on the ground there's no way to force someone with total power from giving up.
The general consensus is that proud as pudding imperialism apparently has the green light to live and breathe here, and to offer its explanations, just as it does everywhere else. Knock yourselves out. No really.
Thanks for dropping by and giving us your perspective, CF, knowing what you know about the response you're likely to get here from some. As I'm sure you know, we're sure to run in to some unbridgeable ideological divides between a CF man and many anti-war, anti-imperialist babblers. If you're game, I'm sure they will be too.
By golly, ain't that the truth.
Who did that, Tommy - other than your straw-man factory? Someone comes on here, says quite proudly he was involved in the thousands of bombing missions against Libya and the countless casualties that caused, and says that it's a "good thing" that "we" got rid of Gaddafi. Are you suggesting this sentiment is shared by all members of the forces? Because if it is, they shouldn't complain about the same brush being used to tar them.
In fact, in real life, there are many who find ways not to serve in the overseas adventures - who quit, or fall "ill" - not enough yet who desert, but that happens as well. And there are those who participate, but do so with doubts and misunderstanding, and an openness to discussion and thought.
That's not the case for the opening post here. NATO, the U.N., and the Harper government spent months claiming that regime change was NOT the goal of the bombing - nor was helping one political faction over another - rather, it was the protection of civilians. Yet the opening poster beats his chest about how we got rid of Gaddafi - and moreover, he comes quite deliberately onto this board, introducing himself by alleging that we don't like the military, but he's going to carry on anyway, and expects us to be civil.
Quite frankly, it would be hard for me to imagine a more scummy introduction by a newbie here. I know members of the forces, and not one of them is this arrogant and cynical. So he can expect to get a far more hostile and vicious brush from this here keyboard than the majority of our troops, who are just unfortunate cannon fodder, rather than arrogant war criminals.
Oh Wrongnionist, you do go on.
I guess mods have 3 kinds of ways to pipe up in a thread like this:
1. Express on-topic opinions or contributions of fact, news, etc.
2. Ensure orderly discussion and respect for the rules.
3. The ones quoted above.
So what do you think about al-Qa'eda flags hoisted over Benghazi today? What kind of revolution is it when Libyans are harassed and murdered and imprisoned for being suspected Gadaffi supporters?
How do you feel about Britain and the U.S. having propped-up militant Islam in Asia, Africa and Middle East since the 1950s?
Are you paid to spy on Canadians?
The military provides you with mind reading machines?
You are part of the military propaganda machine, embedded journalism, and all of the mechanisms that attempt to suppress freedom of expression. "The first casualty when war comes is truth."
And, to really keep civil, I would advise that you quit your job.
Murder without a trial is not a "good thing."
Everything is personal.
You are on the rails and you are paid to lie. I would get off because the train is coming.
I mean, after all SJ, a good proportion of those here already wear the motorcycle jacket of a 'loyal' opposition that approved and cheer-led this war and warmakers...But make no mistake - having taken note of those who have been shown the door here and for what, this is definitely a precedent that will have to affect future zapping decisions. If we permit someone to come on here and argue that we had a good war, then you can hardly suppress a discussion of the 'steering' of the Arab Spring, for instance, in my view
But shouldn't we consider it dicey business at this point to talk about precedence? You do make an interesting point however; I had given little thought, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time for that, to the existing full patch supporters of the Afrika Corps.
Mmphosis, your post is filled with personal attacks. Stick with the issues at hand and attack the ideas, not the individual.
Yes, you ingrate. Show some respect for this high-ranking military officer who risked his life for freedom and democracy by sitting in an office in Italy while carrying out "operations over Libya and its airspace" and helping Charles ("The Butcher") Bouchard decide "where the ordnance would be targeted".
Rebecca, thanks.
M.Spector
I was based in Italy and flew missions over Libya. All the Canadian aircraft except the Sea King were based there.
Facts. The days of mass bombardment are long gone and every single bomb dropped by RCAF aircraft was either laser-guided or GPS guided. The targets had to be confirmed (by the pilot or a spotter) as anti-regime otherwise there was no authorization to release the weapon (LGen Bouchard held the red card, which means it was ultimately his responsibility). Around 600 RCAF bombs were dropped on various weapons depots, tanks, command centers and technicals. I'm not telling you this to make war sound sexy or fun because it isn't. What it is is highly complex and dangerous and shouldn't be entered into unless other options have failed.
OK, so you were a spy.
I think you mean "pro-regime". Or did you keep getting confused about which side were the "bad guys"?
Except in this case no other "options" were even considered.
And notice the "mission creep". You call it "war" and yet it was supposed to be a UN mission to protect civilians. You talk about confirming which side the targets were on before destroying them, as if only those on the side of Qaddafi were threats to civilians. Thousands of civilians were killed by anti-government forces; would it be violating official secrets if you could tell us if there was one single instance of NATO forces targeting anti-government "depots, tanks, command centers [they've even got you spelling like an American], and technicals" in order to protect civilians?
1. There's no such thing as military spies (that's done by CSIS). There are military G2 Officers (in the Continental Staff System, G2 is Intelligence). I don't do that either.
2. Yes pro-regime, but anti-regime forces were also deliberately targetted. Only a few times but it did happen, mostly as warning since the lines were moving so fast in the final days. They were never targetted once they got inside towns or cities due to the high risk of CD.
3. It's easier to sell "RTP" or "no-fly-zone" to the general public than "war", but despite what the media and politicians called it, that's what it was.
4. Regime change was the unstated goal fom the very start, which any thinking person should have figured out the moment the UN signed on. There's no way NATO and the EU were going to carry out an open-ended aerial patrol of Libya in order to prevent Muommar's forces from attacking the rebel cities. The US did that in Iraq from 1991-2003 and it cost billions. Since there were some EU and US financial concerns, NATO wanted a quick in-and-out and that was only going to happen with Muommar out of the picture. It was either that, or not get involved at all and watch another Rwanda. Considering the flak Clinton took over that debacle there's no way Sarkozy and Obama wanted that on their record. And just keep this honest I happen to agree with their decisions.
CDN_FORCES, you're saying that Russia and China knew that by abstaining in the UN 'humanitarian no fly zone' vote knew they were authorizing "war" and regime change in Libya by NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council? Sorry, I think Russia and China fell for the okey doke. Putin was pissed that Medvedev authorized abstention and I believe that's why Medvedev has since been sidelined. Russia won't make the same mistake on any NATO-sponsored 'humanitarian' resolutions on Syria or Iran.