Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:
There's a difference between should and would. Why would a nation declare a rebel group as the sovereign government of a nation? If you can answer that one for me then go ahead, I want to hear how your understanding of international politics works.

There are a number of possible reasons.

1: The nation in question believes that the rebels are winning, and wishes to show support. Generally this is about getting on the good side of the future government.

2: The nation in question believes that the rebels are losing, and wants to show support. Generally this is about making an explicit regarding the designs said nation has relative to the political affairs of the country in which rebellion is occurring.

3: The nation in question believes that the generally recognized state has no capacity to enforce its own sovereignty, and therefore does not differentiate between the two groups in the sense of rebels v. establishment. Instead they see only two competing, equally important, factions.

4: The nation in question is engaged in a collective conversation with a group of other states regarding what should be done about the conflict in another state, and wishes to lend additional credence to its diplomatic position (this is probably why France recognized the Libyan rebels as the legitimate government of Libya).

5: The nation in question has a compelling financial reason to recognize the rebels as the legitimate government, regardless of whether or not they have a significant chance of victory.

6: The nation in question has compelling, internal political reason to recognize the rebels as the legitimate government, regardless of whether or not they have a significant chance of victory.

The list goes on, and on again if you're not speaking in generalities.

Edit: Also, while there is a difference between should and would, I'm confused as to why you believe that the recognition of one particular government as legitimate should entail a military commitment. Not only has that never actually been the case, but if it were it would lead to a great many wars.

So it has reasons for supporting them right? Now if the nation in question's reason for supporting the rebels is further endangered by the loyalists what steps are next for the nation in question?

Lets go with economics because they're usually popular.

The nation in question is interested in product 'X' from Libya and declares the rebels as the new leaders of Libya. Let's say that the rebels have a strong chance of losing after an offensive carried out by loyalist forces.

What would the nation in question do next?

Also,

dogma wrote:
4: The nation in question is engaged in a collective conversation with a group of other states regarding what should be done about the conflict in another state, and wishes to lend additional credence to its diplomatic position (this is probably why France recognized the Libyan rebels as the legitimate government of Libya).

Sounds like France is using diplomatic action to get other nations involved in the situation in Libya to me. Either that or France is using diplomatic action to justify further steps.

halonachos wrote:So it has reasons for supporting them right? Now if the nation in question's reason for supporting the rebels is further endangered by the loyalists what steps are next for the nation in question?

Lets go with economics because they're usually popular.

The nation in question is interested in product 'X' from Libya and declares the rebels as the new leaders of Libya. Let's say that the rebels have a strong chance of losing after an offensive carried out by loyalist forces.

What would the nation in question do next?

Maybe they apply more pressure, or maybe they apply less. It depends on how important the product is to the pressuring nation, and how much support they have for their actions.

halonachos wrote:
Sounds like France is using diplomatic action to get other nations involved in the situation in Libya to me. Either that or France is using diplomatic action to justify further steps.

Most likely, but as has been said many times before, that doesn't make the conflict similar to Vietnam. If for no other reason than the fact that France didn't draw the United States into Vietnam.

The nation in question is using the move(calling the rebels the new government) to justify their actions. I don't know if Libya has any real sources for economic pressure, but let's say oil. Oil's a pretty popular resource and the rebels have a major oil port in control. The loyalist forces are pushing towards this point and if the loyalists win, the nation in question may most likely suffer from its decision.

It would apply pressure in this situation I think.

If product 'X' was something like dates or figs then they would reduce the pressure although what has been done has been done.

Ghadafi will find a way to punish the nation in question if he remains in power either with suppressing the supply of product or through sponsored agents. So the nation in question decides to apply further pressure, how would it do that?

@second point.

Why did the US enter Vietnam then?

halonachos wrote:The nation in question is using the move(calling the rebels the new government) to justify their actions. I don't know if Libya has any real sources for economic pressure, but let's say oil. Oil's a pretty popular resource and the rebels have a major oil port in control. The loyalist forces are pushing towards this point and if the loyalists win, the nation in question may most likely suffer from its decision.

It would apply pressure in this situation I think.

Not necessarily. There are more variables to consider than value of resource X, and threat to resource X. You also have to look at the support for any action to protect resource X, the severity of threat to resource X, the cost of action against resource X, etc.

Every government in the world pays lots of people a good chunk of money to do this sort of work, it isn't the type of thing that can generally be reduced to two variables.

halonachos wrote:
Ghadafi will find a way to punish the nation in question if he remains in power either with suppressing the supply of product or through sponsored agents. So the nation in question decides to apply further pressure, how would it do that?

Maybe Gaddafi applies pressure, maybe he doesn't. Regardless of his political goals, he depends on oil for his own security, and that means he has to deal with the global oil price (over which he has very little control) and the set of possible buyers (reducing his option with respect to sale).

But, to answer your question, sanctions generally are the next step. Sanctions are also often thought of as the equilibrium step in that they tend to remain in place for really long periods of time with no real change in the state of affairs.

halonachos wrote:
Why did the US enter Vietnam then?

Doctrine of containment.

We have history of Ghadafi having backwards thinking though. After his house was bombed in the 80's he didn't rebuild it out of defiance. How not rebuilding a house shows defiance is beyond me, but that's what he said. Ghadafi also supported terrorists which was the major factor for us bombing Libya in the 80s. He has been bombing his own citizens, I think it would be safe to say that Ghadafi will try something should he stay in power.

Given Ghadafi's history how would he respond to a sanction do you think?


@second point:

To contain communism, domino effect, red scare, etc. Why were the communists invading?

halonachos wrote:
Given Ghadafi's history how would he respond to a sanction do you think?

He has also tried to ingratiate himself to the West (giving up WMDs in particular) so it is difficult to say. It seems as though he realizes that he is walking a tightrope (if it is actually him that is in power) so I would guess that any action he might take would be either nonexistent or delicate.

halonachos wrote:
To contain communism, domino effect, red scare, etc. Why were the communists invading?

The Communists didn't invade.

halonachos wrote:
@second point:

To contain communism, domino effect, red scare, etc. Why were the communists invading?

As a joint IR-History major, let me help answer that. I believe I previously explained all this too...

Basically, the French attempt to hold onto colonial power failed, and they were ousted by insurgent forces in the North who were supported by Communist powers. In the Genever Accords negotiating the French withdrawal from Indochina, it was agreed that Vietnam would be 'temporarily' divided in two, similar to how Korea had been divided at the end of WW2. The Communist forces withdrew North, while pro-Western forces withdrew south prending a referendum that would decide who would be the final government of the country.

However, this was not to be the case. The Ngo Dinh Diem took control of the State of Vietnam in a rigged election (the guy got 133% of the vote in Saigon...I mean c'mon! At least try to cover your tracks!), and set about consolidating control of the South in a more..dictatorial fashion. Those people in the South who were opposed to this formed the Vietcong, who gained a lot of support from the Communist North.

In fears that the nation of Vietnam would fall to Communism, the US began to send military advisors to Vietnam. Under Kennedy, these were limited to advisors who helped train South Vietnamese forces, and under Johnson (after the Gulf of Tonkin incident) the US upgraded to bombing North Vietnamese installations. Later on, the United States began sending combat troops into South Vietnam to help fight the Vietcong insurgency....and the whole thing snowballed from there.

In any case, the French never dragged us in, we got involved of our own accord. The Communists never invaded, that was the biggest problem. If they invaded, the US could have unleashed its full conventional military might, and secured all of Vietnam. However it wasn't an invasion, it was a guerilla war fought in the jungles of South Vietnam, against North supplied and backed up forces.

Chris, Dogma, you guys have the patience of a saint. I bow out at this stage, the fact he actually tried to argue that sentence I queried tells me all I need to know about the odds of actually convincing Halo of the lunacy of his position.

Ketara wrote:Chris, Dogma, you guys have the patience of a saint. I bow out at this stage, the fact he actually tried to argue that sentence I queried tells me all I need to know about the odds of actually convincing Halo of the lunacy of his position.

So easy to attack, too hard to contribute. I would like to see you contribute something other than an attack on my state of mind, seeing as though each of your posts going against me have been some sort of insult. And from a mod no less...


@Chris and Dogma.

France tried to hold onto their colony and ended up failing at that, we can agree on that point. However, what happened after Dien Bien Phu and the ousting of the French from Vietnam?

I'm pretty sure the only reason anyone would pick Vietnam for their comparison to this situation is because it is the only French operation they are aware of, and they have little or no idea about the actual specifics of events in Algeria or Vietnam.

Algeria is closer geographically and in terms of the actual events it seems a much more natural point of comparison. Vietnam is on the other side of globe, was subject to vastly different political forces, a product of very different history, and being treated in very different ways than France and the US are treating Libya.

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with being unaware of all the foreign adventures of some other country, or about the situations in Libya and Vietnam. We can't be expected to know everything about everything. But once your errors have been pointed out, carrying on insisting that your original view is sensible and well informed is just being inane. It is okay to admit that an earlier argument was weak and poorly considered, and to retract it. It might hurt your ego for a little bit, but people will actually think more of you for it.

halonachos wrote:
However, what happened after Dien Bien Phu and the ousting of the French from Vietnam?

Vietnam was partitioned during the 1954 Geneva Conference. The two partitions were meant to reunite following the 1956 elections, but the State of Vietnam (the South), first supported by the French and then the Americans, did not support the partition agreement; eventually leading to war.

In any case, the driving force behind American involvement was the overall struggle against Communism. There is no comparable dynamic present with respect to Libya.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Algeria is closer geographically and in terms of the actual events it seems a much more natural point of comparison.

And even then its way, way off.

dogma wrote:And even then its way, way off.

Yeah, I actually had a sentence in there saying that, but it caused the paragraph to scan badly so I cut it. Then I thought about dropping the reference to Algeria entirely, then figured 'feth it I'll just post what I've written'

Thinking about it, a far more fun comparison would be to the French support given in the American War of Independance...


At the end of the day this whole thing is ridiculous, because it's predicated on the idea of France being involved in Libya, as if a government resolution recognising a rebellion is somehow comparable to sending money, guns, or men. It doesn't commit the French to anything, let alone the US. It's not the only point of ridiculousness in halonachos' argument (claiming the French somehow dragged the US into Vietnam is another, as is pretending the Libyan rebellion has any relation to the history, politics, or military operations in Vietnam) but it is the first and clearest point of failure.

sebster wrote:
Thinking about it, a far more fun comparison would be to the French support given in the American War of Independance...

Oh, I agree completely. In fact, my final paper for my class in Modernization is going to based on a comparison between the American Revolution, and the conflict and Libya.

But in the American War of Independance France was helping a colony break away from its home country. Not too mention the fact that France and England were bitter rivals during that time period.

The Libyan war isn't about a colony fighting for its independence as you noted in attack of my relations, so its not really the same as the War of Independence. Even then France would have to be supporting the colony of a long-term enemy.

Well the immediate superficial similariries are that a rebel group is attempting to overthrow the rule of a 'tyrant', and France has a beef with said tyrant. (The West really doesn't like Gadaffi too much.) To show their support for the rebels, the French recognized their government as independe nt from the tyrants. Pretty superficially similar.

I'm sure dogma could give a better explanation, as he is writing a paper on the subject.

halonachos wrote:
The Libyan war isn't about a colony fighting for its independence as you noted in attack of my relations, so its not really the same as the War of Independence. Even then France would have to be supporting the colony of a long-term enemy.

The argument is that states will engage with conflicts when they feel that their interests are threatened, even when that "threat" is somewhat tangential to the actual matter.

France is engaging the Libyan issue due to its relationship with the several other North African nations, and they engaged with the American issue for essentially the same reason (issues with England, and claims to North America).

halonachos wrote:But in the American War of Independance France was helping a colony break away from its home country. Not too mention the fact that France and England were bitter rivals during that time period.

So when comparing the American War of Independance and Libya the political drives of the combatants matter.

But they didn't when comparing Libya to Vietnam...

For me, no I can see where the wars can be compared. I tend to have an easy ability to relate one thing to another albeit somewhat simple to some people.

I was trying to compare my comparison to their comparison.

Where my comparison has been completely thrown out the window save for the involvement of France they feel that the American Revolution is similar to the Libyan situation.

I am trying to take the same arguments they had against me and throwing it against them.

They said that Libya and Vietnam cannot be compared due to the context of the combat(communism, colonial status, etc). The context of the American Revolution involved an English colony fighting against England in order to establish itself as a new nation. France gave military aid to the colonies because they didn't like the English and they had some territories in the North American continent, not to mention the fur trade.

In Libya we have a nation's citizens rising up to fight its own nation. However, the Libyan rebels are not fighting to establish a new country but merely trying to oust Ghadafi from power. Now if the Colonists had tried to remove the King of England from power then the two would be similar.

France also gave direct military aid to the colonists where no direct military aid has been given in Libya.

So to sum it up:
Differences:
1) Colonists in Revolution were attempting to establish their own nation vs ousting a regime.
2) France gave direct military aid vs no military aid.
3) France had territory on the North American continent it wanted to protect vs no territory in Libya to protect.
4) France was attempting to harm the English economy vs France trying to hurt the Libyan government.

Similarities:
1) France was involved.
2) Economics reasons, although the specifics are different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
The Libyan war isn't about a colony fighting for its independence as you noted in attack of my relations, so its not really the same as the War of Independence. Even then France would have to be supporting the colony of a long-term enemy.

The argument is that states will engage with conflicts when they feel that their interests are threatened, even when that "threat" is somewhat tangential to the actual matter.

France is engaging the Libyan issue due to its relationship with the several other North African nations, and they engaged with the American issue for essentially the same reason (issues with England, and claims to North America).

If that's so then every war on Earth may be compared to one another. If the argument is indeed "states will engage with conflicts when they feel that their interests are threatened" then Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf Wars, the Libyan war, etc can all be compared.

Korea and Vietnam both have political interests(containment), the Gulf Wars and the Afghanistan war had political/economic/militaristic(terrorism sponsors), the Libyan war has political reasons(maybe economic as well), and the Revolutionary war had political/economic reasons. The 'argument' you propose is too vague to do any good. In all of the listed wars some nation had their interests threatened and then engaged in conflict(save for Libya so far). You need to fine tune it to exclude certain parameters in my opinion.

The point does still stand though that the American Revolution is more comparable to the current situation in Libya than the Vietnam war.

Emperors Faithful wrote:The point does still stand though that the American Revolution is more comparable to the current situation in Libya than the Vietnam war.

How?

France is not aiding the rebelling colonists of another nation, it is not getting militarily involved, it is not protecting territory, its not aiding the 'rebels' to get back at another country, and its not aiding the creation of a new country.

Although I guess that the colonists were called 'rebels' in the Revolutionary war and the Libyan war also has rebels is another similarity.

halonachos wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:The point does still stand though that the American Revolution is more comparable to the current situation in Libya than the Vietnam war.

How?

France is not aiding the rebelling colonists of another nation, it is not getting militarily involved, it is not protecting territory, its not aiding the 'rebels' to get back at another country, and its not aiding the creation of a new country.

Although I guess that the colonists were called 'rebels' in the Revolutionary war and the Libyan war also has rebels is another similarity.

Which, hilariously, STILL makes it more comparable than Vietnam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vietnam:
-Militarily involved
-Preserving their colony
-Resisting popular movement
-Lost

American Revolution:
-Militarily involved
-Supporting popular movement
-Support requested specifically
-Won

Libya:
-Not militarily involved (yet, though no real reason that it should be)
-Supporting popular movement
-Support requested (though not specifically)

halonachos wrote:
If that's so then every war on Earth may be compared to one another. If the argument is indeed "states will engage with conflicts when they feel that their interests are threatened" then Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf Wars, the Libyan war, etc can all be compared.

Yeah, in the sense that they're wars. Its like saying that Einstein might be compared to McCarthy because both were human.

Oh noes! General Relativity initiated the Red Scare of Gregor Mendel!

halonachos wrote:

Ketara wrote:Chris, Dogma, you guys have the patience of a saint. I bow out at this stage, the fact he actually tried to argue that sentence I queried tells me all I need to know about the odds of actually convincing Halo of the lunacy of his position.

So easy to attack, too hard to contribute. I would like to see you contribute something other than an attack on my state of mind, seeing as though each of your posts going against me have been some sort of insult. And from a mod no less...

Sir, I would honestly not know where to begin. If someone makes a statement such as 'the sky is green', and then continues to defend it despite a couple of chaps rolling up with a census from the majority of the world population certifying its blueness, and all supporting scientific evidence with regard to the effect of light on the eye, there is little to argue. There is nothing I could state that has not already been stated on the issue. Continued adherence to views such as:-

France is saying that the rebels are now the legitimate government. Now that means they should be willing to support the legitimate government militarily if need be.

in light of several people repteadly demonstrating the fundamental incorrectness of such a statement just boggles the mind. I'm sorry, but to my mind, with regards to politics/IR, this is equivalent to the 'sky is green' comment. You then go on to start trying to subdivide the question and debate the meaning of 'should' in this case.

And then you start talking about invading communists? In a subject with regards to a civil war in Northern Africa with no ideological connotations?

I'm sorry if this comes off as high handed, I really am, but there are so very many things wrong with what you're saying, it genuinely is a case of 'easy to attack, too hard to contribute'. Because that the contribution (or appropriate refutation in this case), has been made several times over by separate people, and it seems to fail to register on you at all.

halonachos wrote:Where my comparison has been completely thrown out the window save for the involvement of France they feel that the American Revolution is similar to the Libyan situation.

I don't think it's a particularly useful comparison either, I just said it was a more fun one. For my mind both are so loose as to be entirely ridiculous.

dogma offered an approach that gives a decent parallel between the two, though the terms are vague enough that it could probably be used to describe a lot of conflicts - the proof will be in the paper itself.

Meanwhile, you're still missing the biggest problem with your comparison to France getting bogged down in Vietnam. France hasn't done anything in regards to Libya, apart from give warm fuzzies. They recognised some rebels. They didn't give them money or guns, or done anything that'll commit them to such down the track.

dogma wrote:Oh noes! General Relativity initiated the Red Scare of Gregor Mendel!

This made me laugh more than it probably should have.

sebster wrote:

halonachos wrote:Where my comparison has been completely thrown out the window save for the involvement of France they feel that the American Revolution is similar to the Libyan situation.

I don't think it's a particularly useful comparison either, I just said it was a more fun one. For my mind both are so loose as to be entirely ridiculous.

dogma offered an approach that gives a decent parallel between the two, though the terms are vague enough that it could probably be used to describe a lot of conflicts - the proof will be in the paper itself.

Meanwhile, you're still missing the biggest problem with your comparison to France getting bogged down in Vietnam. France hasn't done anything in regards to Libya, apart from give warm fuzzies. They recognised some rebels. They didn't give them money or guns, or done anything that'll commit them to such down the track.

Which means the Libyan war cannot be compared to the Revolutionary war.

Vietnam= France involved militarily, French colony, France attempting to preserve territory, lost.
Revolution= France involved militarily, English colony, France attempting to preserve territory, won.
Libya= France involved politically, previous Italian territory, France has no territory to preserve, N/A.

@ketara, I didn't bring up Communism so you'll have to look at Dogma or EF for that.

@Dogma, you made the vague argument. Don't criticize me for pointing it out.

halonachos wrote:
Which means the Libyan war cannot be compared to the Revolutionary war.

Vietnam= France involved militarily, French colony, France attempting to preserve territory, lost.
Revolution= France involved militarily, English colony, France attempting to preserve territory, won.
Libya= France involved politically, previous Italian territory, France has no territory to preserve, N/A.

For full disclosure, the paper in question is being written half in jest. I don't take my class assignments very seriously, because they really don't have anything to do with the work that I'm interested (applying higher mathematics to the analysis of politics).

In any case, you're oversimplifying. France has provided no material aid (that I'm aware of) to the Libyan rebels. However, in recognizing them as the legitimate government they have taken an official measure that parallels the de facto recognition granted to the American colonies.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that France was attempting to preserve territory during the Revolution. They had interests in North America, sure, but their territory there was not under threat.

I would say that France took preventative steps when it came to their territory. France supported the colonists to hurt England, that's almost guaranteed, but France may have feared what would happen to its land after the war. If France had not supported the colonists and they won, the colonists may have felt strong enough to try to take French territory. By allying with the colonists France could say that they were allies all along and use that to prevent the new America from attempting to take any land.

If France had not done anything and England suppressed the colonists, then France would have to worry about the English government using the colonies as a staging ground for their troops a la the French-Indian War.

So by aiding the colonists they created an ally on the coast of the continent closest to Europe(the French had lost Canada by this time), they reduced the amount of land the English could land in(by reducing their coast to the eastern Canadian coast), and by making an ally they prevented the new country from taking French territory.

I like to think of it like WW2. Germany couldn't successfully invade America unless they had a staging ground for the invasion closer to America. America was able to use the British Isles as a staging ground and was able to invade Europe.

Now I want it to be clear that I am not comparing WW2 to the Revolutionary War, but trying to explain the whole 'staging area/landing point' reasons for why France was defending their territory.

Also: I count giving weapons as a military move, which they have yet to do so according to the press. They have only made a political move so I will say that France has only made a political move until either shady dealings are discovered or France openly gives the rebels weapons.

halonachos wrote:If France had not supported the colonists and they won, the colonists may have felt strong enough to try to take French territory. By allying with the colonists France could say that they were allies all along and use that to prevent the new America from attempting to take any land.

Nah, no one was worried about the American colonists taking over anything. Their military was pathetic.

halonachos wrote:
If France had not done anything and England suppressed the colonists, then France would have to worry about the English government using the colonies as a staging ground for their troops a la the French-Indian War.

Sure, but that wasn't a condition related to the war, but the fact that the English controlled a certain tract of land. The Revolution was an opportunity to end that control, but nothing more.

halonachos wrote:
So by aiding the colonists they created an ally on the coast of the continent closest to Europe(the French had lost Canada by this time), they reduced the amount of land the English could land in(by reducing their coast to the eastern Canadian coast), and by making an ally they prevented the new country from taking French territory.

They didn't prevent the new country from taking French territory. The Americans could have, had they been able to, taken the territory anyway; regardless of any "sentiment" that might have existed. France supported America because it hurt the English, and because any state that might form after the revolution would be no threat to France, under any circumstances.