And Libya goes on...

[JMA]

JMA:

I saw a bit of footage by a British reporter and cameraman who were in Misrata. There was a shot of a tank taken through what was in effect a peephole. They said the tank was one of the dictator's and it was sitting there in what looked to be the middle of a street basking in the sunshine. It doesn't seem as if it would be too hard to find and hit.

Good spotting Carl. Look at the location of the tanks that the Brits release footage of being taken out ... right out in the open.

I am pretty sure the good folk of Misrata don't remain in their homes when the fighting approaches down the road towards them. They get the hell out of the area. So I don't see where civilians will be found in the middle of the fighting ... unless there is a bold and rapid move by Gaddafi's forces trapping them.

JMAs Second Rule: If you can't hit the snake on the head, then crush its tail. In the case of Misrata cut off the Gaddafi forces logistic tail.

I would like to find out who started the crap about not being able to use aircraft in urban environments. Yet another poor excuse for failing to lift the siege of Misrata.

BTW where are the UAVs?

[Ken White]

Thanks for that Ken, it certainly makes my comment look alarmist and badly incorrect. I wonder how I was led to that impression.Possibly reading too many left wing publications or web sites? Or just paying attention to the US media who rarely get much right... :D
I will use this reference on the next "drama queen" who dares to suggest that the US can't afford the Libyan intervention.You could do that but you'd be wrong to do so. Libya, like everything, does cost and we are strapped -- almost bankrupt, I believe you wrote :wry: -- so no added costs where we really have no interests would be helpful. As you sort of imply though, the cost factor is more related to 'I don't want to spend my money on that' than it is to total inability to afford it. The cost is cited in the effort of getting Europe to step up and take care of things that are in their interest without involving the US. ;)
I consider myself duly "put straight" on the matter.Heh. LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO_wJEGmfQE).

[JMA]

You could do that but you'd be wrong to do so. Libya, like everything, does cost and we are strapped -- almost bankrupt, I believe you wrote :wry: -- so no added costs where we really have no interests would be helpful. As you sort of imply though, the cost factor is more related to 'I don't want to spend my money on that' than it is to total inability to afford it. The cost is cited in the effort of getting Europe to step up and take care of things that are in their interest without involving the US. ;)

But it changes everything. If it is not a case of the US really not being able to pay for such an intervention it merely becomes someone's opinion that they don't think the US should spend money on that intervention. Big difference... IMHO

[davidbfpo]

I know this is a sub-issue in this thread, mainly for our USA members and a few who live this side of the Atlantic - the perception that Europe is not paying it's way in European security and the USA is frustrated at this.

Can I point out that such criticism is a long standing factor in relations across the Atlantic, notably with NATO, later the EU and sometimes with others in Europe. At times the USA has sought help in places where some over here have demurred, for example in both Gulf Wars.

In the Libyan action very few European nations have an active role, even if the NATO command structure and more (logistics & bases) are being used. There is a political and public viewpoint that the action will not contribute to European security, indeed will have an adverse impact.

Nor are many European nations (whether in NATO, the EU or not) prepared politically to back 'liberal intervention', let alone have the will and capability to get "boots on the ground". Those nations sometimes contribute "boots" and cash to UN peacekeeping, e.g. Irish infantry being in eastern Chad recently to protect Sudanese refugees.

The USA during the Cold War made a massive contribution to West European security, which sometimes meant a high risk to those nations, notably Germany and NATO's two senior military commanders were American, still are in fact.

Yes, many European nations have "free-loaded" since the Cold War ended and now feel they decide on security policy, even if that means a political price is paid with the USA.

[Pete]

Yes, many European nations have "free-loaded" since the Cold War ended and now feel they decide on security policy, even if that means a political price is paid with the USA.
I like Europeans and a grandfather of mine was British, a 17th London veteran of 1915-19, so please take what I'm saying in that friendly context. American spending and leadership in things military often allows others to sit back and act as though they're morally and intellectually superior to the U.S. while we do most of the dirty and immoral stuff. Some years ago Simon Jenkins of The Times wrote that the B-52 bomber was the symbol of all that is wrong with American foreign policy, as though he'd forgotten about Harris' Bomber Command and the U.S. 8th Air Force back in the bad old days.

[Ken White]

JMA:
But it changes everything...Big difference... IMHOWell, I certainly agree it is a difference but I do not see it as a large one or think that it changes much of anything other than some skewed perceptions. Anyone who thinks the US is a liberal bastion who is ready and willing to intervene to help mankind isn't paying much attention. We may be a bit nicer and willing to 'help' than some but national interest still trumps. As it should..

davidbfpo:
Can I point out that such criticism is a long standing factor in relations across the Atlantic, notably with NATO, later the EU and sometimes with others in Europe. At times the USA has sought help in places where some over here have demurred, for example in both Gulf Wars.That's true and a lot of folks in the US overstate or wrongly state the issue and that is not helpful. With respect to joining in both Gulf Wars, some in Europe did, others did not as they saw their national interests. Nothing wrong with that and no thinking American objects to it.

What some do object to is the fact that during the Cold War, Europe spent less on a per capita basis for defense than did the US and devoted the difference to enhancing social democracy on the Continent. There is some truth in that but it is also true that the US spent (and still spends) far more per capita on defense than is required (for various reasons, some good, some not so good). So that's sort of the old Red Herring, Europe made choices as did we and second guessing it at this point is somewhat of a waste. It is also noteworthy that Europe has discovered what many on both sides of the Atlantic said all along, that model of governance and economic leveling is simply unaffordable. So Europe is largely abandoning the wilder excesses and the US is expanding them... :rolleyes:

However, IMO, the issue that most affects the US - European relationship with respect to defense matters is the insistence by some on both sides in varied rotation that the US must lead in issues that most Americans view as none of the US' business -- all the Balkan stuff is an example. We really tried to avoid Bosnia and Kosovo as not our business but European insistence that we help was acceded to.

The requests for US involvement were based, IMO, on two factors. Capabilities we could bring to bear and getting the US involved as a way to ameliorate costs as the perception was the US would not let an issue it was involved with -- or leading (see NATO) -- fail. In fairness, there's a two way payoff there but most things boil down to costs and the belief, rightly or wrongly, is that the US picks up a large part of those.
In the Libyan action very few European nations have an active role, even if the NATO command structure and more (logistics & bases) are being used. There is a political and public viewpoint that the action will not contribute to European security, indeed will have an adverse impact.Interestingly, the Libyan affair is another example. Rightly or wrongly, many Americans whom I've read and with whom I've talked seem to believe that Libya is a European problem and that we have absolutely no business there. Yet you believe Europeans do not see it as a good idea -- the Germans, wisely IMO, obviously do not. There's a US tale about a trip to Abilene on a hot Kansas summer day before car air conditioning in which everyone went but, after returning home, no one had really wanted to go at all, everyone was just dragged along by the moment. :wry:
Nor are many European nations (whether in NATO, the EU or not) prepared politically to back 'liberal intervention', let alone have the will and capability to get "boots on the ground". Those nations sometimes contribute "boots" and cash to UN peacekeeping, e.g. Irish infantry being in eastern Chad recently to protect Sudanese refugees.True and I don't think that is an issue in the minds of most Americans -- the majority of whom also are not at all enamored of liberal interventions -- the fact that smaller nations cannot afford large, diverse forces is generally if not universally understood but statements flowing from Europe that castigate the US for this or that bit of saber rattling from mid sized nation that also make warlike moves (as their own interests dictate) -- or are capable of it but elect not to do it do draw some criticism.
The USA during the Cold War made a massive contribution to West European security, which sometimes meant a high risk to those nations, notably Germany and NATO's two senior military commanders were American, still are in fact.True but the US is not responsible for geography and the command issue was based on the fiscal, equipment and personnel considerations. I do not agree that should be the criteria but I suspect I'm in the minority on that...

The US also contributed at some risk (and great cost, all sorts), arguably at least, to western European security during that period by global actions that taxed the Soviet government and economy and focused their attention elsewhere.. :cool:
Yes, many European nations have "free-loaded" since the Cold War ended and now feel they decide on security policy, even if that means a political price is paid with the USA.I don't think they "free loaded," they simply had different priorities. I also think most Americans don't much care. I think both those factors are larger issues in Europe than in the US.

[Pete]

JMA: ... statements flowing from Europe that castigate the US for this or that bit of saber rattling from mid sized nation that also make warlike moves (as their own interests dictate) -- or are capable of it but elect not to do it do draw some criticism.
That's somewhat unclear. Could you expand on that or rephrase it a bit?

[Dayuhan]

Near bankruptcy has many fathers and more than a few Mothers (of various types...) involved. However, the gross expense of Afghanistan, Iraq and all the rest since 9/11 is barely a condensation bubble on the side of the glass, about 1% of GDP

A better measure of affordability would be the cost of these wars as a percentage of discretionary federal spending... along with, of course, a look at what's competing for slices of that pie.


But it changes everything. If it is not a case of the US really not being able to pay for such an intervention it merely becomes someone's opinion that they don't think the US should spend money on that intervention. Big difference... IMHO

Of course we could spend money on the intervention. All we'd have to do is borrow some more from the Chinese, or tax our own citizens more (something our citizens generally don't like), or cut something else in that discretionary budget (also not popular). Can you provide any reason why the US would want to take any of these steps to pursue deeper involvement in a war that does not advance or protect our interests and which could, if we get pulled too deeply into it, actively undermine our interests?

Concerns about Misrata you'd have to take up with the French and the British... it's their show. Not that I make any decisions, but I'd be inclined to provide a little more help, if they ask for it very nicely (i.e. beg for it) and if they make it very clear that they can't do the work on their own, and if the involvement is clearly of very limited extent and duration. Limited, temporary, and transient involvement in an effort driven by NATO is about as far as the US should want to go in this.

[Surferbeetle]

I know this is a sub-issue in this thread, mainly for our USA members and a few who live this side of the Atlantic - the perception that Europe is not paying it's way in European security and the USA is frustrated at this.

With tongue firmly planted in cheek, :wry: I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt provided that the FT, Economist Intelligence Unit, The Economist, Ducati Motorcycles, BMW Motorcycles, Triumph Motorcycles, Guinness Beer, Hefe Weizen Beer, Polish Vodka, Senf, Swiss dark chocolate, and Dr. Who continue to make it across the pond on a very regular basis. Otherwise all bets are off :D

Heading back to the serious side of things the economics, energy, and politics of the EU appear to be firmly linked to the events in Libya (...and MENA = Middle East North Africa), and via globalization, firmly linked to those of us across the Atlantic and beyond.

Some of the EU themes/meta-narratives (the kids are referencing GIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_information_system) influences with that meta-narrative phrase) of concern include the coherence and financial viability of of the EU (core vs periphery - defaults & transfer union concerns which strengthen EU skeptics - True Finns, etc), stability of energy producers supplying the EU (Russia, MENA, etc.), increased energy needs (Germany's shut down of Nuclear Power Stations) increased ascendency of the far right (Gert Wilders, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and even the NPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany)), probable ruling party changes/weakening (France, Germany, Italy, etc) xenophobia, the demographics of aging and immigration, and changes to social contracts (UK, etc.). Europe certainly appears to have it's hands full, but then security concerns are merciless and never rest, nor sleep :cool:

In order to get through this particular reorganization of the geopolitical landscape fresh folks will need to break trail, while we all continue to prioritize, effectively allocate scarce resources, and continue to pull together. ;)

[JMA]

JMA:Well, I certainly agree it is a difference but I do not see it as a large one or think that it changes much of anything other than some skewed perceptions. Anyone who thinks the US is a liberal bastion who is ready and willing to intervene to help mankind isn't paying much attention. We may be a bit nicer and willing to 'help' than some but national interest still trumps. As it should..

It is this national interest thing again. If there was any agreement within the US of what constitutes US national interest it would help outsiders understand what the US is doing and take the US seriously.

Watching the US budget debate on TV (I can take a couple of minutes of that now and again) it quickly becomes obvious that there is no general agreement in the US over what is and what isn't supposedly in the US national interest. In fact it soon becomes horrifyingly apparent to the foreign observer that the "other" party's plan (for balancing the budget and just about everything else) is seen to pose a greater risk to US national interest than Osama bin-Laden. A truly bizarre spectacle.

Ken, you would have noted that I often ask some of the serial offenders in the use of "we" who in so doing somewhat arrogantly purport to speak on behalf of the American people on what basis do they believe they are able to speak on behalf of the American people. Never had a straight answer.

Now you have used the term national interest in terms of how it guides US decision making.

I have noted that supposed US national interest seems to change with every change in Administration. This has not done US credibility much good in the third-world or anywhere. In the good old bad days this could have meant that what you did last year was OK but if you do that this year you could receive a visit from a few squadrons of B52s. All very confusing.

I served with a fine ex-Marine officer in the 70s and asked him this question back then. His reply was something like this. The use of "national interest" is the fall back position for a person who has no sane and/or logical argument to support his position on normally some foreign policy issue. After that the argument degenerates into a "not it isn't", "yes it is" exchange where the merits of the various arguments are then lost.

So to my point. Who decides what is in the US national interest? How do those under possible threat of (nowadays) a drone strike find out what the Americans believe to be in their national interest before its too late?

[Ken White]

Pete:

Long history of that; there were some minor complaints during Korea in which some European support was provided (but only by the British in any reasonable strength), many major screams from Europe about Viet Nam (far worse than the noise about Iraq...). France, a noted intervenor in former French Colonies complaining about Iraq causing much frothing about the French to include the abysmally stupid 'Freedom Fries.' That and Russia complaining about US meddling anywhere are some examples of the castigation bit. Western Europe in general for not handling the Bosnian and Kosovo operations. Note I said "some" criticism -- it's quite minor but present and waxes and wanes with the mood of the day...

Dayuhan:
A better measure of affordability would be the cost of these wars as a percentage of discretionary federal spending... along with, of course, a look at what's competing for slices of that pie.Basically true in one sense but I broadly disagree as I strongly believe the Federal Government's overarching problem is that it is trying to do too many things that are none of its business and therefor fails to do a decent job of the things it should be doing. I also have hangups with the phrases 'entitlements,' 'non-discretionary' or 'mandatory' spending. Affordability is really dictated not by those things but by funds available and the priority accorded a particular issue. In essence, that 'discretionary' spending bit is a political sham -- all the programs, including Social Security and Medicare / Medicaid exist as whims of Congress. The entire Federal budget other than interest on the National Debt is actually discretionary.

However, in the interest of fairness, one can check this LINK (http://nationalpriorities.org/resources/federal-budget-101/budget-briefs/federal-discretionary-and-mandatory-spending/) and get a picture of all that. Note that about 25% of outlays are not Federal Business but Federal intrusions into State and Local business and are a mix of Federal expenditures (relatively small amounts) and grants and transfers to the States and Localities. Dumb way to do business but it gives the Federal government the ability to micromanage programs and people. Note also at the bottom of the page the amounts the Federal government disburses in the 'Mandatory' category on things also not its busness (IMO). :mad:

All that said, it is reality and the net cost of the wars over the past 10 years has averaged a little less than $120B per year. As 'discretionary spending averages about a third of the budget (average for the period 2.4T) or around 800B per year so the 'war cost' is about 15% of Discretionary Spending, 20% of DoD spending -- which is at it's historic level of approximately 20% of Federal outlays -- it's hovered there in most of our peacetime years since 1945. Here's another chart with a reasonably accurate 10 year breakdown. (LINK) (http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1103bm47s4.pdf).

Any way you look at it, the costs of these wars in dollars has not been excessive as a fraction of expenditures.

[Ken White]

It is this national interest thing again. If there was any agreement within the US of what constitutes US national interest it would help outsiders understand what the US is doing and take the US seriously.Heh. If there were any agreement within the US publicly available about what constitutes US national interests we'd all be smarter -- but nobody really takes us seriously and so that's okay. :D
Watching the US budget debate.. A truly bizarre spectacle.Yes it is. Been that way for 200 plus years. Our first big ship purchase in 1794 was six large frigates built in six shipyards in six different States. Madness. it's a minor miracle we'll still here. ;)
Ken, you would have noted that I often ask some of the serial offenders in the use of "we" who in so doing somewhat arrogantly purport to speak on behalf of the American people on what basis do they believe they are able to speak on behalf of the American people. Never had a straight answer.Those people -- me included -- are no more arrogant than you are. They are stating their opinion on an internet discussion board. They are stating their belief or sensing of the mood or issue. Most are probably reasonably accurate. With over 300M people from virtually every nation, total consensus is almost impossible so most people bounce back with responses that mirror their reading and conversations with others.
Now you have used the term national interest in terms of how it guides US decision making.True -- and that obviously is my opinion, hopefully reasonably well informed and as I see the actions and reactions of whoever constitutes the current administration added to long term or habitual US predilections.
I have noted that supposed US national interest seems to change with every change in Administration. This has not done US credibility much good in the third-world or anywhere. In the good old bad days this could have meant that what you did last year was OK but if you do that this year you could receive a visit from a few squadrons of B52s. All very confusing.It is confusing and it is not helpful; however it is a function of the governmental system we have and most of us are content with it-- while acknowledging that it does indeed cause problems in foreign policy. An added factor that many miss is that US domestic politics will always be a bigger driver of what occurs than most anything overseas. Always.
I served with a fine ex-Marine officer in the 70s and asked him this question back then. His reply was something like this. The use of "national interest" is the fall back position for a person who has no sane and/or logical argument to support his position on normally some foreign policy issue. After that the argument degenerates into a "not it isn't", "yes it is" exchange where the merits of the various arguments are then lost.There's some truth in that but it isn't really that simple. There is also the problem that an item of national interest can be known to many but for many reasons cannot be discussed openly -- an example is Franklin Roosevelt deliberately goading the Japanese into war. Everyone knew it, no one in the US government could talk about it in an open forum. There are a couple of hot items nowadays but to discuss them in an open forum isn't a good idea.

Still, some are out and long standing. For example, one enduring US national interest that has drawn responses from the US for almost two centuries is that Europe doesn't need to play heavily in the Western Hemisphere. Another is free passage and open sea lanes. Those and a few others are pretty well embedded while many if not most change with the Administration and its priorities -- some, like Afghanistan and Iraq occur when others decide the US will not react to a provocation.
So to my point. Who decides what is in the US national interest? How do those under possible threat of (nowadays) a drone strike find out what the Americans believe to be in their national interest before its too late?In theory, the Department of State and the National Security Council react to the President's desires in the are of foreign affairs. Presidents are people and they have beliefs and whims. They change every four or eight years. Some -- not much -- continuity is provided by DoD's excessive intrusion into the foreign affairs arena and by State but it still is the lead of the President that drives most things

[JMA]

I know this is a sub-issue in this thread, mainly for our USA members and a few who live this side of the Atlantic - the perception that Europe is not paying it's way in European security and the USA is frustrated at this.

Well maybe these same people with this perception have forgotten or choose to ignore that near bankrupt little Britain has been militarily overstretched in Afghanistan for the past five years in blind support of some US hair-brained scheme to prop up the certainly corrupt and probably criminal Karzai regime.

This could be fixed overnight. Redeploy 3 Commando Brigade (newly deployed on Herrick 14) to secure Misrata to lift the siege and see off Gaddafi's forces while concurrently redeploying all Brit air assets from Afghanistan to Italian bases or even better to Bengazi airfields (if suitable).

This is the best chance for the Brits to get out of Afghanistan... use it or lose it.

[M-A Lagrange]

JMA:

I saw a bit of footage by a British reporter and cameraman who were in Misrata. There was a shot of a tank taken through what was in effect a peephole. They said the tank was one of the dictator's and it was sitting there in what looked to be the middle of a street basking in the sunshine. It doesn't seem as if it would be too hard to find and hit.

I did read that the Italians wanted NATO to lead rather than the French because the French would have been inclined to do something, NATO would be inclined to do nothing much.

Italian is facing a big problem with Gaddafy. He owns 3% of Fiat and has lot of investments in many of the italian industries.
Clearly, italian government, especially berluscony, is not willing to remove Gaddafy.
For the French and the Brits, it's different, what ever the economical investments Gaddafy did in the country, there will be no problem to find new investors. But for Italia, this will be much more difficult.

[M-A Lagrange]

Well maybe these same people with this perception have forgotten or choose to ignore that near bankrupt little Britain has been militarily overstretched in Afghanistan for the past five years in blind support of some US hair-brained scheme to prop up the certainly corrupt and probably criminal Karzai regime.

This could be fixed overnight. Redeploy 3 Commando Brigade (newly deployed on Herrick 14) to secure Misrata to lift the siege and see off Gaddafi's forces while concurrently redeploying all Brit air assets from Afghanistan to Italian bases or even better to Bengazi airfields (if suitable).

This is the best chance for the Brits to get out of Afghanistan... use it or lose it.

Seems that the brits are the last chance as the french minister of defense is now back off. Personnaly I do not know how thy choose him. He is not what you would call a speciallist of the military questions and has been a desastrous minister in the past. But I get lost here.

[JMA]

Seems that the brits are the last chance as the french minister of defense is now back off. Personnaly I do not know how thy choose him. He is not what you would call a speciallist of the military questions and has been a desastrous minister in the past. But I get lost here.

This whole thing has gone on too long. This is a US (political) screw-up.

Obama admits on TV (SkyNews) last night that there is effectively a stalemate on the ground. It looks as if the US wanted that outcome as they could change that in a heart beat if they wanted to.

Now we are told that the air strikes will continue until Gaddafi goes (the logic being that the civilians will continue to be at risk for as long as Gaddafi is there). Now the question is do you wait for him to decide when he needs to go or do you help him on his way?

Where is Wikileaks when you need them? I would dearly love to know the breakdown of the political/military contribution to this Libyan screw-up.

[M-A Lagrange]

This whole thing has gone on too long. This is a US (political) screw-up.

Well, I do not see where it's a US screw up. It's rather a EU screw up.

I never understood why Germany was so against it (at least Fuch). Except in an internal EU military point of view and an old fashion franco-german political battle.

THe US are out of the game because it's an election year and they have different domestic issue, like the wrong perception their economy is bankcrupt because of small wars like Lybia, Ivory Coast or Somalia and not because of Irak and Astan. (debatable and arguable)

I also wonder why powers as SA, Nigeria or Egypt do not get more involved. After all Gadaffi is a pain in their ass too.

Getting Gaddafi out of the picture will allow other powers to rise in Northern Africa. The only problem is Sudan. US deceided that they can bargain South Sudan independance against no trial for Bashir. Now crazzy coocoo guys as Daffi believe they can kill who ever they want in their population and get along with it.
There should be some consistancy in everybody foreign policy.

[davidbfpo]

Mark Urban, a BBC reporter and ex-soldier has a film report on the situation amidst the rebels, which ends in the WW2 defences of Tobruk, alas I fear it will not be globally available:http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b010dqgv/Newsnight_15_04_2011/

His blog has a summary:http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/markurban/2011/04/the_task_of_forming_a_more_eff.html

Which ends well:
Victory in that desert war required strategic patience and vision. The question now is whether the Libyan revolutionary forces and their Nato allies share those qualities.

[Graycap]

Italian is facing a big problem with Gaddafy. He owns 3% of Fiat and has lot of investments in many of the italian industries.
Clearly, italian government, especially berluscony, is not willing to remove Gaddafy.
For the French and the Brits, it's different, what ever the economical investments Gaddafy did in the country, there will be no problem to find new investors. But for Italia, this will be much more difficult.

This is only a partial truth. Italy has specific interests in Libya too. Libya is a neighbour so for Itly to have some kind of a deal is NOT an option. One could argue about the specific personal style applied between Gheddafi and Berlusconi but don't be misled by these things.

The big problem is not italian economic exchange (everything is frozen up and I don't see any real problem with it). The big problem is the anglo-french strategic ends that are very difficult to understand.
In my opinion those ends are way above their means and they have no way to reach them. Now that their bluff has been called these two countries are in trouble. Anyone that could help them will ask for something. Italy has been very mistreated about the tunisian emigrants problem. And this is just a single problem. We could go on.

Could you please explain which strategic advantage could Italy obtain in helping France without a solid agreement about post-war?

Italy has no problem with the strategic acid-test: in this given situation time is on his side. Let France throw away a lot of money just to realize that is not able to reach the result. Let Gheddafi be weakened by the military presure, the sanctions etc...
We have absolutely no military capability able to flip the balance. Why confuse ourselves with the other neoimperialist? Let's wait for the political opportunity to play a specific and relevant role.

France and Great Britain has made a joke of EU common foreign policy. They have no legitimacy in judging italian and german choices.

[Dayuhan]

Obama admits on TV (SkyNews) last night that there is effectively a stalemate on the ground. It looks as if the US wanted that outcome as they could change that in a heart beat if they wanted to.

Now we are told that the air strikes will continue until Gaddafi goes (the logic being that the civilians will continue to be at risk for as long as Gaddafi is there). Now the question is do you wait for him to decide when he needs to go or do you help him on his way?

The US would love to see MG gone but they don't want to be the ones to remove him. Simple enough, and not unreasonable.


THe US are out of the game because it's an election year and they have different domestic issue, like the wrong perception their economy is bankcrupt because of small wars like Lybia, Ivory Coast or Somalia and not because of Irak and Astan. (debatable and arguable)

I don't think there's a widespread perception that the US is bankrupt because of small wars like Libya, Ivory Coast or Somalia or because of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a fairly widespread and not unreasonable belief that a nation in real financial straits should not be taking on additional burdens abroad, especially in places where we have no vital interest (or any interest at all) at stake.


There should be some consistancy in everybody foreign policy.

Policies will be consistent when perceived interests are consistent... which is not likely to happen often.


Could you please explain which strategic advantage could Italy obtain in helping France without a solid agreement about post-war?

I'm not sure anyone's in a position to commit to a solid agreement on postwar dispositions, given that neither of the contesting parties is likely to be able to govern Libya postwar and none of the intervening parties have shown any desire to govern Libya.

[Graycap]

given that neither of the contesting parties is likely to be able to govern Libya postwar and none of the intervening parties have shown any desire to govern Libya.


Absolutely. This is the problem to solve an this problem really needs time and political maneuver not more bombs. European countries can't bomb a solution out. This is the cornerstone of the italian position. We don't have to creae anew complete failed state in the Mediterrean. Libya was a pseudo-state and this "insurgency" should be leveraged towards a better end-state. A long controlled evolution is more promising than a "jawbreaker" replay. In this framewrk force could have a role.

We have to create a situation where no one can "win" and where everybody will have to search for a political solution. Italy, in my opinion, is working in this direction.

And, if we think about the regional turmoil, it could be the most promising one.

[M-A Lagrange]

Absolutely. This is the problem to solve an this problem really needs time and political maneuver not more bombs. European countries can't bomb a solution out. This is the cornerstone of the italian position. We don't have to creae anew complete failed state in the Mediterrean. Libya was a pseudo-state and this "insurgency" should be leveraged towards a better end-state. A long controlled evolution is more promising than a "jawbreaker" replay. In this framewrk force could have a role.

We have to create a situation where no one can "win" and where everybody will have to search for a political solution. Italy, in my opinion, is working in this direction.

And, if we think about the regional turmoil, it could be the most promising one.
I personnaly think that EU has been too quick to rehabilitate Lybia and Itali in the first place. This in the name of populaist domestic politic over immigration.

Lybia was a fake state, a failed state is something you can start to work with.

[Pete]

Long history of that; there were some minor complaints during Korea in which some European support was provided (but only by the British in any reasonable strength ...
If I recall correctly the Gloustershire Regiment received a Presidential Unit Citation for an epic stand it made in Korea. A retired U.S. Army field grade told me that the Brit battalions on his flank in Korea were solid as a rock. :cool:

[Ken White]

If I recall correctly the Gloustershire Regiment received a Presidential Unit Citation for an epic stand it made in Korea. A retired U.S. Army field grade told me that the Brit battalions on his flank in Korea were solid as a rock. :cool:They were -- and so were the Australians and Canadians (who also had units that got DUCs -- or PUCS as they now are, 3/RAR and 2/PPCLI. Some other nations elms also received one) and which Regiment or Battalion it was made little difference. The French varied, unit dependent. The Colombians were pretty good and so were the Turks -- both at times tactically suspect but brave and bold in all things...

There were more, those were all I worked with...

[JMA]

The US would love to see MG gone but they don't want to be the ones to remove him. Simple enough, and not unreasonable.

Sorry, don't buy that spin.

And for this the US administration is prepared to trade the lives of hundreds (probably thousands) of Libyans?

The US has a fundamental problem.

It has a packaged President almost right out of the 1972 movie The Candidate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Candidate_(1972_film)) - which should be required viewing by every American in every election year.

The Administration's policy is shaped by political consultants, lawyers, PR consultants, party hacks, assorted spin doctors etc etc - all of whom are more concerned with appearances than substance.

I can just imagine how this cluster of clowns freaked out at the thought of the Libyan rebels carrying out retribution on Gaddafi's kith and kin in Sirte as they followed on the coattails of the US/French/British air strikes westward. Then the last straw was the Russian criticism about supposed civilian casualties and there followed a collective bowel movement. The result? The US pulled out of the air action and effectively hamstrung the efforts to protect the Libyan civilians and the world saw the rebels rolled back to the gates of Benghazi with the people of Misrata being sacrificed on the alter of political expediency and "good" appearances.

How many Libyans have died as a result? Who cares right? As long as the US can't be seen to topple Gaddafi.

[Dayuhan]

I can just imagine how this cluster of clowns freaked out at the thought of the Libyan rebels carrying out retribution on Gaddafi's kith and kin in Sirte as they followed on the coattails of the US/French/British air strikes westward. Then the last straw was the Russian criticism about supposed civilian casualties and there followed a collective bowel movement. The result? The US pulled out of the air action and effectively hamstrung the efforts to protect the Libyan civilians and the world saw the rebels rolled back to the gates of Benghazi with the people of Misrata being sacrificed on the alter of political expediency and "good" appearances.

How many Libyans have died as a result? Who cares right? As long as the US can't be seen to topple Gaddafi.

I don't buy your spin either. The US said from the start that it intended to hand over command to NATO and phase down its own actions as soon as possible. There was never any suggestion that the US intended an extended commitment and there was never any commitment to remove MG. All of this was established well before the rebels advanced on Sirte and well before the Russians said anything. You're welcome to see what it pleases you to see but I see very little evidence to support that view. The US simply did what it said it was going to do from the start.

[Dayuhan]

We have to create a situation where no one can "win" and where everybody will have to search for a political solution. Italy, in my opinion, is working in this direction.

Out of curiosity, what sort of political solution are the Italians working toward, and what are they doing to get there?

[JMA]

They were -- and so were the Australians and Canadians (who also had units that got DUCs -- or PUCS as they now are, 3/RAR and 2/PPCLI. Some other nations elms also received one) and which Regiment or Battalion it was made little difference. The French varied, unit dependent. The Colombians were pretty good and so were the Turks -- both at times tactically suspect but brave and bold in all things...

There were more, those were all I worked with...

What about the "The Flying Cheetahs" may I ask?

http://www.af.mil.za/bases/afb_makhado/images/Spotty.jpg

2 Squadron SAAF (http://www.af.mil.za/bases/afb_makhado/2sqn.htm)(South Africa Air Force) were awarded the DUC/PUC for:


During the war the squadron flew a total of 12,067 sorties, most being dangerous ground attack missions, accounting for the loss of 34 pilots and 2 other ranks. 74 of the 94 P-51 Mustangs and 4 out of the 22 F-86 Sabres were lost.

Pilots and men of the squadron received a total of 797 medals including 2 Silver Stars - the highest award to non-American nationals - 3 Legions of Merit, 55 Distinguished Flying Crosses and 40 Bronze Stars. 8 pilots became POWs.

More important than the political recognition is the following recognition from the then Officer Commanding 18th Fighter Bomber Wing - which is understood to be honoured to this day:


“In memory of our gallant South African comrades, it is hereby established, as a new policy, that all Retreat Ceremonies held by this Wing, the playing of our National Anthem shall be preceded by playing the introductory bard of the South African Anthem, “Die Stem van Suid Afrika”. All personnel of this Wing, will render the same honours to this anthem as our own”.

[JMA]

I don't buy your spin either. The US said from the start that it intended to hand over command to NATO and phase down its own actions as soon as possible. There was never any suggestion that the US intended an extended commitment and there was never any commitment to remove MG. All of this was established well before the rebels advanced on Sirte and well before the Russians said anything. You're welcome to see what it pleases you to see but I see very little evidence to support that view. The US simply did what it said it was going to do from the start.

If you are going to put up a counter argument then please at least be truthful.

It is the disgraceful failure to implement UNSC resolution 1973 (which they asked for) that is at issue here. Specifically:


...demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;

In my comments I have erred on the side of kindness towards the Obama Administration in saying that they did not wait until the mass graves were filling. But even apart from in Misrata, Zintan and the towns between Sirte and Benghazi what has happened to the people in Tripoli itself who had taken to the streets in the early stages of the uprising? Any still alive?

The betrayal of the Hungarians in 1956 can be used as an illustration of how little has changed.

There is a parallel in the betrayal of the Hungarians as there is in the betrayal of the Libyans in the West of the country.

The CIA's incompetence is paralleled. "A CIA paper concluded in June, 1956, that 'there really is no underground movement' in Hungary at all." No doubt with the assistance of Wikileaks we will find out that the CIA said the same about Libya in 2010.

Eisenhower continued the tradition of not having the courage to stand up to the Soviet Union but now it is even worse in that with the fear of what might be thought of the US on the Arab Street seems instill the same level of abject and craven fear.

GWB said in his Proclamation 8072 of October 18, 2006 (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/janqtr/pdf/3CFR8072.pdf) on the 50th Anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution:


The United States is grateful for the warm relationship between our countries...

What it should have been was how amazed and grateful he was that any self respecting Hungarian would give any American even the time of day after the betrayal that left them under the Soviet jackboot for a further 33 years.

...and he did not apologise for the leading them to believe through repeated broadcasts on Radio Free Europe that for example in November 1956 to keep fighting as:


'the pressure upon the government of the US to send military help to the freedom fighters will become irresistible'

Europe knows they can't trust the US government. What Europe, especially France and Britain who jumped into this first, are concerned about is that the US will jump ship when the going gets tough and they will be left holding the baby (so to speak)... which appears to be in the process of happening.

[Dayuhan]

It is the disgraceful failure to implement UNSC resolution 1973 (which they asked for) that is at issue here.

Since when is the enforcement of UN resolutions the specific and exclusive responsibility of the United States? The US has no more responsibility than any or every other member of the UN. Any given state in any given case decides what they are willing to contribute to an enforcement effort. The US contribution in this case has been significant, but the US never signed on as the sole party responsible for enforcement, nor is there any reason to impose such responsibility on the US.


In my comments I have erred on the side of kindness towards the Obama Administration in saying that they did not wait until the mass graves were filling. But even apart from in Misrata, Zintan and the towns between Sirte and Benghazi what has happened to the people in Tripoli itself who had taken to the streets in the early stages of the uprising? Any still alive?

How is that the responsibility of the Obama administration or the United States? Has the US been appointed sole saviour of anyone who rebels against a government they can't overthrow? When? By whom?


The betrayal of the Hungarians in 1956 can be used as an illustration of how little has changed.

There is a parallel in the betrayal of the Hungarians as there is in the betrayal of the Libyans in the West of the country.

I see no "betrayal" in either case? How can you "betray" someone to whom you have no responsibility?


The CIA's incompetence is paralleled. "A CIA paper concluded in June, 1956, that 'there really is no underground movement' in Hungary at all." No doubt with the assistance of Wikileaks we will find out that the CIA said the same about Libya in 2010.

The level of disorganization among the rebels suggests that there probably wasn't much of an organized "underground movement" in Libya prior to the Tunisian uprising. What's going on now looks less like an underground movement coming into the open than like a frantic attempt to bring some kind of organization to what was largely a spontaneous rebellion.


Europe knows they can't trust the US government. What Europe, especially France and Britain who jumped into this first, are concerned about is that the US will jump ship when the going gets tough and they will be left holding the baby (so to speak)... which appears to be in the process of happening.

Did the US ever promise to hold the baby when the going got tough? The US provided what it said it would provide. Why should it be obligated to do more?

[jmm99]

but I don't expect that we shall see the "Flying Cheetahs" (now flying Gripen C & Ds (http://www.saairforce.co.za/the-airforce/squadrons/1/2-squadron)) over Libya anytime soon.

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

but I don't expect that we shall see the "Flying Cheetahs" (now flying Gripen C & Ds (http://www.saairforce.co.za/the-airforce/squadrons/1/2-squadron)) over Libya anytime soon.

Regards

Mike

Probably not for two main reasons.

President Zuma (the ANC) is without doubt in Gaddafi's pocket and ...

SAAF boasts 23 fighter aircrew (http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11203:saaf-boasts-23-fighter-aircrew&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107)

...but that said what reflection may I ask does this have on the performance of the South African airmen and ground crews who served with the US 18th Fighter Bomber Wing in Korea nearly 60 years ago?

[Ken White]

...but that said what reflection may I ask does this have on the performance of the South African airmen and ground crews who served with the US 18th Fighter Bomber Wing in Korea nearly 60 years ago?However it is a good commentary on how all Nations, like people, have good times and bad times... :D

To echo Dayuhan, why didn't you let us know we were responsible for Hungary, certainly had we but known we were, we would have done something. :wry:

Alas, we knew not and determined it was not in our interest to attack the Bear at the time. Nor is it necessarily in our interest to throw Qaddafi out and the fact that you think we should have done both those things apparently matters little and it seems that many do not agree with you including US decision makers then and now. The fact that President Obama says Daffy has to go is political rhetoric. All rhetoric is cheap and easy, political ranting is particularly so. No matter who does it. :rolleyes:

Fortunately, most people pay little attention. ;)

[JMA]

To echo Dayuhan, why didn't you let us know we were responsible for Hungary, certainly had we but known we were, we would have done something. :wry:

Alas, we knew not and determined it was not in our interest to attack the Bear at the time. Nor is it necessarily in our interest to throw Qaddafi out and the fact that you think we should have done both those things apparently matters little and it seems that many do not agree with you including US decision makers then and now. The fact that President Obama says Daffy has to go is political rhetoric. All rhetoric is cheap and easy, political ranting is particularly so. No matter who does it. :rolleyes:

Fortunately, most people pay little attention. ;)

A lot of people block the unpalatable parts out as a coping mechanism.

Instead of facing the truth and living with it some resort to making light of the whole matter.

The US was not responsible for Hungary and can and possibly will deny responsibility for anything at any time at a moments notice.

If you remember the Hungarians had overthrown the government and overcome the Russian occupying force by November 1956.

In a July 20, 1960 speech delivered in Buffalo, New York, Congressman Michael Feighan (D-Ohio) stated that the State Department sent a cable to Marshall Tito on 2nd November 1956 (who no doubt passed it on):


"The Government of the United States does not look with favor upon governments unfriendly to the Soviet Union on the borders of the Soviet Union."

The Soviets invaded on the 4th November 1956 secure in the knowledge that they had US support.

You can spin this betrayal anyway you like Ken... it stinks... just like the way the people of Misrata being sacrificed by another gutless US Administration does.

The US has never had any intention of attacking "the Bear". Even today when the bear growls the current Administration wets itself. Nothing has changed.

[Pete]

The U.S. faced a similar policy dilemma during the uprisings in Hungary in 1956. If the last decade has reminded us of anything at all it's that wars are a lot easier to get into than they are to get out of.
I believe I was the first one to mention Hungary in this thread and that was more than a month ago. "Defending Freedom" in the abstract and starting World War III are two different kettles of fish entirely. After Hungary the Eisenhower administration and the Dulles brothers considerably toned down the bold rhetoric about "rolling back Communism."

[Entropy]

I believe I was the first one to mention Hungary in this thread and that was more than a month ago. "Defending Freedom" in the abstract and starting World War III are two different kettles of fish entirely. After Hungary the Eisenhower administration and the Dulles brothers considerably toned down the bold rhetoric about "rolling back Communism."

They were obviously dithering pant-wetters.


Europe knows they can't trust the US government. What Europe, especially France and Britain who jumped into this first, are concerned about is that the US will jump ship when the going gets tough and they will be left holding the baby (so to speak)... which appears to be in the process of happening.

Which explains why we bailed out of Iraq in 2007, Vietnam in 1968, Afghanistan in 2005, Korea in August 1950 - oh wait....

If anything, the US has the opposite problem. Besides, the Europeans are more than capable of taking out Qaddafi if they want to bad enough. Why should we do it for them? Britian, France and many other countries have qualified JTAC and combat controllers who could embed with the rebels to really enable air-based fire support. Why haven't they done so?

[Ken White]

A lot of people block the unpalatable parts out as a coping mechanism.You're funny. I've never looked upon biased silliness as unpalatable, merely thought it tedious. The last thing with which I had to cope was my second wife and I got rid of her almost 50 years ago. :cool:
Instead of facing the truth and living with it some resort to making light of the whole matter.Been involved in and making light of war since about the time you were born, I certainly see no reason to stop making light of things that are not nearly as 'serious' as some like to think (or would like others to think they think...).:wry:
The US was not responsible for Hungary and can and possibly will deny responsibility for anything at any time at a moments notice.As do all nations and a great many people... ;)
If you remember the Hungarians had overthrown the government and overcome the Russian occupying force by November 1956.I recall. We went to DefCon 3 and I was on alert to move to Europe with three days rats, a poncho and a basic load of Ammo. How 'bout you?
In a July 20, 1960 speech delivered in Buffalo, New York, Congressman Michael Feighan (D-Ohio) stated that the State Department sent a cable to Marshall Tito on 2nd November 1956 (who no doubt passed it on):Could be true -- check with Julian and see if he has a copy...
The Soviets invaded on the 4th November 1956 secure in the knowledge that they had US support.Mmm, I doubt you know that -- you can assume it if you wish. The USSR was also aware that US Army Europe, no small force at the time (plus the rest of NATO) and two US Based Airborne Divisions were on alert. I do not know the calculations of the Stavka but I suspect those forces received as much credit as did Congressman Feighan's speech.
You can spin this betrayal anyway you like Ken... it stinks... just like the way the people of Misrata being sacrificed by another gutless US Administration does.No betrayal, the Hungarians were not ours to betray -- just a failure (quite sensible in my view) to place foolish humanitarian dreams above national interests * as is also true with respect to Misrata -- a 'failure' to commit with which, as you know, I also agree. The whole Libya op was and is an exercise in folly -- as I told you a month ago...

The only thing that stinks in this thread is flaying dead horses for minor propaganda points. Some excel at that...

Don't you hate it when Nations do not do as you would do -- if you had the responsibility. Which you do not...
The US has never had any intention of attacking "the Bear". Even today when the bear growls the current Administration wets itself. Nothing has changed.Good ploy, take an essentially true statement and spin it negatively to denigrate others. Old Socialist trick. However, you are correct -- amazing what a difference in the perception of national interest can be when nuclear parity is involved. As is the difference when a bystander has no dog in the fight and no fear of getting involved if the Elephants are in musk. Nope, we do not need to tangle with Russia if it can be avoided.

Not so -- there has been a change. We now have an all knowing, all seeing oracle to inform us of this wetting phenomenon. Puts a whole new meaning on the term urinalysis. :D

* Lest I be accused of not stating the interest involved, it was specifically avoiding any potential to start a nuclear war with the USSR because the fallout, literally, would have destroyed Europe and resulted in far more deaths than would any USSR suppressive efforts in Hungary. The slightly earlier riots in Poland had also engendered calls from the uber liberal twitisphere for 'engagement.' Also declined , wisely, by Eisenhower for the same reason. Whether a USSR pol made a speech in Voronezh and said the USSR would use nukes if interfered with is not known by me...

During your service you may or may not have had to make decisions that entailed certain loss of a few persons to avoid probable loss of many others. If you did, you know the drill. It is not a pleasant position, If you were fortunate and did not have to do that, you might give the concept some thought.

[jmm99]

My response to this:



from JMA
... but that said what reflection may I ask does this have on the performance of the South African airmen and ground crews who served with the US 18th Fighter Bomber Wing in Korea nearly 60 years ago?

No reflection cast and no reflection intended - FULL STOP.

The current Cheetahs ultimately answer to a policy boss (Zuma) upon whom reflection was cast and intended - as you correctly noted.

Regards

Mike

[Pete]

When I mentioned Hungary in this thread on March 5th I was usurping one of Ken's traditional roles on the forum, in this case as its institutional memory. Hungary in 1956 was a case where domestic politics, overheated rhetoric, foreign policy and hard cold realities couldn't be reconciled. It was a turning point in the Cold War in the sense that after it happened we realized that Communism couldn't be rolled back in the areas of main-force confrontation, only in the perepheries, like in low-intensity places like Laos and South Vietnam :rolleyes:. After Hungary we realized that we were in the Cold War in Europe for the long haul.

[jmm99]

Like many folks, I spent hours during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution listening to the shortwave broadcasts of the English language services of Radio Moscow, the BBC, VOA and Radio Free Europe.

The facts concerning the Hungarian Revolution are complex - and the role played by one player, RFE, is subject to dispute. As of 2010, the Hoover Institute has restored all of the rare log tapes (low-quality recordings of short-wave transmitter output) for the crucial three weeks of the Hungarian Revolution (October 19 – November 13, 1956), RFE Broadcasts From Hungarian Revolution Digitized (http://www.rferl.org/content/off_mic_ross_johnson_hungarian_revolution/2209996.html).

A huge amount of original material exists online about 1956 Hungary - e.g., National Security Archive's, The 1956 Hungarian Revolution (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/), A National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book, Edited by Malcolm Byrne November 4, 2002 - contents with links to pdf files of:


1) Study Prepared for U.S. Army Intelligence, "Hungary: Resistance Activities and Potentials," January 1956 (24 pages)

2) Minutes of 290th NSC meeting, July 12, 1956 (5 pages)

3) Report from Anastas Mikoyan on the Situation in the Hungarian Workers' Party, July 14, 1956 (6 pages)

4) National Security Council Report NSC 5608/1, "U.S. Policy toward the Soviet Satellites in Eastern Europe," July 18, 1956 (2 pages)

5) Jan Svoboda's Notes on the CPSU CC Presidium Meeting with Satellite Leaders, October 24, 1956 (6 pages)

6) Working Notes and Attached Extract from the Minutes of the CPSU CC Presidium Meeting, October 31, 1956 (4 pages)

7) Minutes of the Nagy Government's Fourth Cabinet Meeting, November 1, 1956 (2 pages)

8) Report by Soviet Deputy Interior Minister M. N. Holodkov to Interior Minister N. P. Dudorov, November 15, 1956 (4 pages)

9) Situation Report from Malenkov-Suslov-Aristov, November 22, 1956 (8 pages)

10) "Policy Review of Voice for Free Hungary Programming, October 23-November 23, 1956," December 5, 1956 (28 pages)

11) Romanian and Czech Minutes on the Meeting of Five East European States' Leaders in Budapest (with Attached Final Communiqué), January 1-4, 1957 (9 pages)

12) Minutes of the Meeting between the Hungarian and Chinese Delegations in Budapest, January 16, 1957 (9 pages)

Google Advanced Search gives near 200K hits for this combo - "radio free europe" hungary 1956.

The point, of course, is that one's facts have to be correct; if not, one's opinions are garbage - GIGO.

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

The US has never had any intention of attacking "the Bear". Even today when the bear growls the current Administration wets itself. Nothing has changed.

Why would we have wanted to attack the bear? There's certainly enough to criticize in US Cold War policy, given the omniscience of hindsight, but it's over we won, and we didn't roast the world on the altar of ideology. Could have been a good deal worse.

I very much doubt that anything the US has or hasn't done has anything to do with anything the Russians said. As noted earlier, from the start the US commitment was intended to be phased down as early as possible.


You can spin this betrayal anyway you like Ken... it stinks... just like the way the people of Misrata being sacrificed by another gutless US Administration does.

If you think it stinks, stand upwind... or just get used to it. The US has not accepted or been offered the role of global saviour, and as noted before, you can't "betray" someone to whom you have no obligation.

[JMA]

My response to this:

No reflection cast and no reflection intended - FULL STOP.

The current Cheetahs ultimately answer to a policy boss (Zuma) upon whom reflection was cast and intended - as you correctly noted.

Regards
Mike

Thank you for that clarification.

[JMA]

No betrayal, the Hungarians were not ours to betray -- just a failure (quite sensible in my view) to place foolish humanitarian dreams above national interests * as is also true with respect to Misrata -- a 'failure' to commit with which, as you know, I also agree. The whole Libya op was and is an exercise in folly - as I told you a month ago...

You argue without providing any substance.

My position on Hungary remains that given the posturing and political bluster from the Eisenhower/Dulles circus starting from a policy of "rollback" then onto "containment" the Soviets would have realised that the US was all bark and no bite but the Hungarians were fooled into believing that US help would be forthcoming.

So like with the Marsh Arabs later encourage the Hungarians to rise up and when they do announce that it is not in the US national interest to get involved on their behalf?

I appreciate this is all very humiliating for the US. Better to admit the mistakes and move on. One can't learn from the mistakes of the past unless they are acknowledged as such.

So here is a piece which deals with how the Hungarians were "abandoned" 1956 - Come Clean in Hungary, Behind the '56 Revolt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001442.html?sub=AR) - and he is correct, Bush should have apologised to the Hungarian people for the most despicable betrayal in their greatest time of need.

Now the people of Misrata. I too was fooled into believing that the US really intended to take the necessary steps to protect civilians rather than just go through the motions in the most cynical manner.

If this had been the plan all along would the humanitarian answer not have been to arrange for a Dunkirk type flotilla to evacuate those civilians who wanted it from the port rather than just leave them, Hungarian/Marsh Arab style to their fate at the hands of Gaddafi?

The current biggest lie out of Libya does not come from Gaddafi but through the line taken hook, line and sinker by the western media that the use of air effort within Misrata is ineffective.

Sadly for the people of Misrata on whose behalf ostensibly the US sought specific wording in the UNSC resolution to protect they have the dubious honour to be added to a growing list those betrayed by a US government.

[Graycap]

Out of curiosity, what sort of political solution are the Italians working toward, and what are they doing to get there?

IMHO Italian strategic ends could be as follows:

- a united Libya
- a libyan government able to manage a transition (legitimated by a political solution and not by a direct intervention)
- a confirmation of the agreements signed in 2008
- keep France and GB at bay.

Let's talk about means:

- a political and diplomatic work to offer a possible partner that is not actually invoved in armed resolution of conflict (Our planes don't shoot! ;) ). If the shooting should stop tomorrow without "victory" Italy's status (politically speaking) would be unaffected.
- engage with CNT in a long term (let's be optimistic!) relation. Let's see the camel before of the money.
- Make clear to CNT that this is their liberation "war" and they have to make the real work.
- Avoid at all costs a direct intervention with the boots.
- Military speking make good of our position to gain at cheap price political weight.

And now ways:

-Mantain a low profile. This Libyan affaire could be very explosive in internal politics. (The French are working in this sense with the manipulation of tunisian immigrants issue).
-Let's the French bleed themselves in an absurd campaign with no beginning and no end.
- Do not take any position that could jeopardize our political maneuvering.
- Buy time. Time will show if CNT is for real or is just a spinned solution out of neocolonialism.
- Pose somekind of doubts about the overall posture (Out of Lebanon? Out of Afghanistan? Out of Kosovo that's pretty sure...)

Hope to have been able to make clear my points.

Greetings

[Ken White]

You argue without providing any substance.I wouldn't dignify this exchange with that term. It is rather nothing more than a feckless political tirade by you to which I foolishly responded...

Contrary to your opinion, nuclear parity did and does have substance and the threat of a nuclear exchange and its effect on all of Europe also had substance. Still does.. The fact that you discount it in an effort to tar a nation in retribution for its humanitarian position in opposition to a later effort in which you were involved is in marked contrast to your stated position in favor of humanitarian activity but whatever you need to write to assuage your itches...:wry:
My position on Hungary remains...I appreciate this is all very humiliating for the US. Better to admit the mistakes and move on. One can't learn from the mistakes of the past unless they are acknowledged as such.Agreed. The first statement goes without saying and as is true of all of your positions, it does indeed remain. Illogical and misrepresented to make a point but remain they do...

The second is correct as far as it goes but whether a given event or action is a mistake is viewpoint dependent. Your mistake is my good decision. You display a penchant for good decisions militarily and tactically. Politically and strategically, not so much IMO... ;)
...Bush should have apologised to the Hungarian people for the most despicable betrayal in their greatest time of need.What? Surely you joke. What precisely do such 'apologies' prove -- they change nothing, are rarely sincere but are indeed beloved by the previously mentioned twitisphere.

Yet again, as several have pointed out, one cannot betray a group to or with whom has only a superficial relationship. Your use of the word 'betrayal' is not only tedious, it's plain incorrect and an example of the use of socialist rhetoric to belabor a point in demonizing an opponent. The US is not an opponent of JMA but you may certainly tilt at any windmills you wish to charge. I think your lance is broken, though...:D
Now the people of Misrata. I too was fooled into believing that the US really intended to take the necessary steps to protect civilians rather than just go through the motions in the most cynical manner.You were fooled? By whom? Who told you that? The media...

Ah. Terrible thing when one hears or reads what one wants to believe (for real or for a lever).
If this had been the plan all along would the humanitarian answer not have been to arrange for a Dunkirk type flotilla to evacuate those civilians who wanted it from the port rather than just leave them, Hungarian/Marsh Arab style to their fate at the hands of Gaddafi?I'm unsure whether that 'plan' is inane or insane. In the interest of civility, I'll opt for inane. That's about as smart as apologizing decades later for something you didn't do.
The current biggest lie out of Libya does not come from Gaddafi but through the line taken hook, line and sinker by the western media that the use of air effort within Misrata is ineffective.You got no sympathy from me, JMA, I told you a month ago it wouldn't work, yet you insisted it must be done! It is likely that, as I said then, it will do more harm than good. These humanitarian deals most always do...

Sadly for the people of Misrata on whose behalf ostensibly the US sought specific wording in the UNSC resolution to protect they have the dubious honour to be added to a growing list those betrayed by a US government.Yeah. Long list that. It is heavily populated by persons, places and things that were involved with the US in efforts espoused by those with an overblown penchant for saving humanity from itself. Those fools have invariably caused more harm than necessary and forced ill conceived projects on an America that is entirely too willing too help others at some costs to itself and discovers, too late, that it was a really bad idea to begin with. Those efforts always fail for a variety of reasons, not least that their supporters rarely think the project through. Dunkirk indeed. :rolleyes:

[jmm99]

This post is not an intervention into the discussion between Ken White and JMA. Neither of them needs any assistance in asserting points and counterpoints. FULL STOP.

This post does have to do with my post above, 1956 Hungarian Redux, and its cite to the National Security Archive's, The 1956 Hungarian Revolution (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/) (a 2002 effort). It also has to do with JMA's cite of Come Clean in Hungary, Behind the '56 Revolt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001442.html?sub=AR). That was a WP article by Charles Gati (Wednesday, June 21, 2006).

Now Prof. Gati (then at Johns Hopkins) had published or was in the process of publishing Gati, Charles (2006). Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest, and the 1956 Hungarian Revolt (Cold War International History Project Series). Stanford University Press. pp. 264 pages. ISBN 0-8047-5606-6. Cited in Wiki - Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956). One would expect that Prof. Gati in 2006 would have known all the material sources then published - and as an independent academic, etc. ;), would not have stooped to "cherry-picking" facts (unless he had an axe to grind).

So, what should we make of this paragraph (from Gati's 21 Jun 2006 WP article):


We now know from Russian archives that the Hungarians did have a chance to gain some of what they sought. For on Oct. 30, one week after the revolt began, members of the Soviet Presidium (as the Politburo was called then) unanimously voted not to use military force. Their decision came in the wake of a series of conciliatory, post-Stalin policies, such as the 1955 Soviet withdrawal from Austria and reconciliation with Yugoslavia -- both of which are neighbors of Hungary -- as well as the first summit with the United States in a decade. In the end, the Kremlin intervened because it feared that the situation would spin out of control both in Hungary and elsewhere in the Soviet bloc. Radio Free Europe's exaggerated rhetoric only amplified these fears.

Pretty damning re: the US and RFE vs those nice Russkies - mutta, ei !

Prof. Gati fails to tell us of the 31 Oct 1956 CPSU CC Presidium Meeting (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/doc6.pdf) (Doc 6 in the NSA Archive I linked above):


Working Notes and Attached Extract from the Minutes of the
CPSU CC Presidium Meeting,
October 31, 1956

At the October 31 Presidium meeting, Nikita Khrushchev announced, seemingly unexpectedly, that the conclusions reached at the previous day’s momentous session should be re-examined. Soviet troops, he said, should not be withdrawn from Hungary and Budapest. On the contrary, the USSR “should take the initiative in restoring order in Hungary,” in other words in suppressing the revolution, which had been only one of the possible solutions under discussion just three days before, on October 28.

In stating his position, Khrushchev made no mention of the news coming from Budapest, nor did he refer to the Chinese views he had heard the previous day, nor to the American position. He did raise the weakness of the Hungarian communist government as a factor, but his argument was based mainly on the need to defend the Soviet empire’s prestige and on the implications of an eventual withdrawal for Soviet domestic politics. His warning made special reference to those “circles” which might have influence at the top levels of the party, the army, state security, and the party apparatus. He called attention to the risks of a possible power struggle and a rupture within the party. Interestingly, there is no indication in the meeting notes that Khrushchev’s measures were meant to be discussed; he seems to have intended simply that they be carried out.

The only detail on which Khrushchev was uncertain was whom to appoint as head of the provisional revolutionary government: Kádár or Münnich. Aside from the amount of time needed to make military preparations, this circumstance explains why the final decision was postponed for four days. Strangely enough, even though the plan was to overthrow the Nagy government, Khrushchev did not exclude the possibility of involving Nagy in the “normalization” process. Within the Politburo, Deputy Prime Minister Saburov was the only one who tried to uphold the “liberal” position, but at this point nobody supported him.

Full transcript and source (published open source 1995) in pdf. The Wiki gets this incident in context - not saying that the Wiki is the "last word" either, but it includes both the 30 Oct and 31 Oct meetings.

Gati's "selectivity" is as good an example of factual cherry-picking as I could hope for.

If one cherry-picks facts in court, one probably loses one's case. I expect that if one cherry-picks facts in combat, one probably loses one's life.

The Virtual World is, of course, quite different from the Real World.

I do not call for (and certainly do not expect) an end to paintball-punditry and piggy-style mud wrestling - and will probably be a gallery spectator to all of it. A bit less seriousness is probably called for - in this and a lot of other threads.

Regards

Mike

[Ken White]

If one cherry-picks facts in court, one probably loses one's case. I expect that if one cherry-picks facts in combat, one probably loses one's life.and this:
The Virtual World is, of course, quite different from the Real World.Yes it is...
I do not call for (and certainly do not expect) an end to paintball-punditry and piggy-style mud wrestling - and will probably be a gallery spectator to all of it.Heaven forbid. Well, you know what they say; Arguing with an Infantryman is just like piggy mud wrestling, everyone gets dirty and the pig loves it...:D

Er, I think that means two old Grunts can get dumBB -- with two 'Bs'.
A bit less seriousness is probably called for - in this and a lot of other threads.I'll vote for that. Place matters... :cool:

And thanks for being the voice of reason yet again.

[Ken White]

He notes in the book that the US sent mixed signals and was ambivalent with regard to the uprising. Per a JMA comment elsewhere, the World at large has great difficulty in understanding US Foreign Policy. That is true, was so with regard to Hungary in 1956 as well as with Libya in 2011 and, in fact, has always been true of this nation back unto the Barbary Pirates and the War of 1812 -- it is a function of our system of governance which we are unwilling to change simply because others cannot understand it and do not like the often conflicting signals it sends which in turns can frustrate their desire for own coherent policies. Those signals conflict not due to dithering but rather because our governmental milieu is conflicted by design.

It confused the then 22 year old Hungarian Student Charles Gati in Budapest in the Fall of 1956 and it confuses others today. It causes many to think the US is inherently devious and untrustworthy. That's not really true. We are relatively trustworthy, more so than most nations BUT we should never be relied upon to be consistent due to that 2, 4, 6, and 8 year roil of government. Even one who has lived here as long as has Gati misses that factor. Sad but true and as that Ancient Oriental Philosopher once said, "Xin Loi." :wry:

[Pete]

Arguing with an Infantryman is just like piggy mud wrestling, everyone gets dirty and the pig loves it...:D
Redlegs are so much more cerebral -- "Lending dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl." (That saying first belonged to the British cavalry, but we done stoled it from 'em in 1917-18.)

[JMA]

You got no sympathy from me, JMA, I told you a month ago it wouldn't work, yet you insisted it must be done! It is likely that, as I said then, it will do more harm than good. These humanitarian deals most always do...

We are back full circle to where we were a few weeks ago.

I differentiate between the motive behind any intervention and the skill of the intervention itself.

I stand by my support for a humanitarian intervention in Libya.

The intervention has been incredibly interesting. The US/NATO effort has been disgraceful. Such an obviously simple exercise that started well enough then ground to a halt. The question that needs to be answered here is whether this situation was the result of a deliberate political plan or as a result of the allocated force not being up to the task.

Either way the reason for the shambles is political and/or military incompetence and as I have stated before should not be used to question the motivation behind the intervention.


Dunkirk indeed. :rolleyes:

Roll your eye as much as you like Ken, but I hear tonight that the Brits are going to fund the evacuation by sea of 5,000 odd African migrant workers and the evacuation of wounded by ship is becoming a regular thing. Unless NATO can get its act together and lift the siege of Misrata the UN/EU may need to scale up the evacuations to take all comers.

[J Wolfsberger]

This:


... we should never be relied upon to be consistent due to that 2, 4, 6, and 8 year roil of government.

Because it can not be over emphasized. Forgetting this fact will lead to much confusion and upset.

[davidbfpo]

JMA,

Yes I heard the UK Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, on BBC Radio 4 AM today talk about:
..the Brits are going to fund the evacuation by sea of 5,000 odd African migrant workers..(I don't recall next phrase) and the evacuation of wounded by ship...

BBC report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13115874

Details aside what is going to happen when the boats arrive and the Libyan residents seek to leave too? That would be interesting news footage, especially if it is women and children.

The BBC refers to medical aid going in and not an evacuation of the wounded.

[JMA]

He notes in the book that the US sent mixed signals and was ambivalent with regard to the uprising. Per a JMA comment elsewhere, the World at large has great difficulty in understanding US Foreign Policy. That is true, was so with regard to Hungary in 1956 as well as with Libya in 2011 and, in fact, has always been true of this nation back unto the Barbary Pirates and the War of 1812 -- it is a function of our system of governance which we are unwilling to change simply because others cannot understand it and do not like the often conflicting signals it sends which in turns can frustrate their desire for own coherent policies. Those signals conflict not due to dithering but rather because our governmental milieu is conflicted by design.

Its relatively simple Ken. If the US cannot put a coherent foreign policy together and articulate it clearly then it must accept that it will be misunderstood/distrusted/hated by people across the world.

I have noted with interest how shocked your average American is when he is confronted by hostility and distrust in places where they expected friendship and even a little respect and appreciation.

So Ken go ahead and flip the world and say "take us as we are or shove it" it just further reduces your circle of friends in the world.

The US has the unfortunate habit of wanting to be the bride at every wedding and the baby at every Christening but it often ends in tears when they end up as the corpse at the odd funeral.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Abu M and see:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2011/04/quote-day.html-0

Which cites WSJ reporting from Misurata; here there has been a flurry of reporting.

The important point being in Misurata the fighters are compared to
..the hapless rebels of eastern Libya..

I do wonder if the implied presence in Eastern Libya of observers and liaison officers has not been replicated in Misurata due to the perceived risk of capture.

That the Libyan regime can daily bombard the city eludes me, although I do note the rare map on the TV news shows a large part of the city is occupied by their forces.

[JMA]

JMA,

Yes I heard the UK Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, on BBC Radio 4 AM today talk about:

BBC report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13115874

Details aside what is going to happen when the boats arrive and the Libyan residents seek to leave too? That would be interesting news footage, especially if it is women and children.

The BBC refers to medical aid going in and not an evacuation of the wounded.

David, I understand that the medical evacuations are being handled by MSF - MSF carries out second medical evacuation by sea from embattled city (http://www.msf.org.uk/second_libya_boat_evacuation_20110416.news)

But yes, if it gets any worse in Misrata there could well be a rush on the ships that arrive which could lead to ugly situations.

[Ken White]

Its relatively simple Ken.Yet, this issue is indeed somewhat so. As is the solution to the perceived problem. That, simply is to be aware of the political milieu and adapt to the apparent lengthy decision cycles and in house acrimony. I understand that is difficult for most nations -- it is strangely difficult for many Americans to accept -- but to ignore the process is to invite confusion rather than to be prepared to deal with it.
If the US cannot put a coherent foreign policy together and articulate it clearly then it must accept that it will be misunderstood/distrusted/hated by people across the world.True. We can but only if severely provoked and will not ordinarily be bothered to do so. Yes, most of us know and accept that with only minor qualms but some Americans do rather wistfully wish to be liked or loved and would like to accommodate your observation.
I have noted with interest how shocked your average American is when he is confronted by hostility and distrust in places where they expected friendship and even a little respect and appreciation.Those would be the 'some' above. Sad so many believe myths they construct in their minds. That, BTW, applies to other than Americans... :wry:
So Ken go ahead and flip the world and say "take us as we are or shove it" it just further reduces your circle of friends in the world.It is not a question of flipping the world. Nor is it a question our way or the highway as the saying goes. It is a question of our unwillingness to modify a governmental process that works fairly well for most of us just to win friends and influence people. Just as most Americans dislike pandering (unless a politician does it for or to them...), the nation is incapable of bending to the will of others. As Americans tend to be more independent than most others national groups, so the nation reflects that. Rightly or wrongly, the US political class focuses intently on US domestic politics and pays little attention to the remainder of the world and that has been true through 220 years, a number of wars and many travails. It is unlikely to change barring extreme provocation. Many of us would like to see some changes to that -- we're unlikely to get any...:(

You should be pleased to note however that creeping socialism is changing that national characteristic of independence. Whether that results in a change to the national attitude to a more communitarian outlook remains to be seen. The current Administration is certainly doing its part to bring that about (mostly as a directly contrarian reaction to the previous Administration -- that too is a recurring feature of the US political scene which invariably exacerbates the consistency and continuity problems :rolleyes:).
The US has the unfortunate habit of wanting to be the bride at every wedding and the baby at every Christening but it often ends in tears when they end up as the corpse at the odd funeral.Huh? Interesting turn of phrase. I understand the desire to be liked, an embedded feature of the twitisphere (which the US media generally represents and therefor voices the attitude of which you write). However, haven't seen all that many tears and all funerals are odd (IMO).

I think I understand the gist of that garbled syntax, though -- and there's some merit in the statement. Not totally correct but accurate enough to stand provided one realizes that those with that desire to liked are a minority in this country. IOW, I know some feel that way, however, most do not in my observation. As Canadian newspaper Columnist Christy Blatchford once wrote "Some Americans care but most don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks..." Succinct and uncouth but distressingly accurate, confirming all your prejudices. :D

That is unlikely to change significantly until the demise of the American republic, and event that will certainly occur, however, probably not in the lifetime of ourselves or even our grandchildren...

[Ken White]

We are back full circle to where we were a few weeks ago.Back? Didn't know we'd ever left, don't think either of us changed our position in the slightest.
I differentiate between the motive behind any intervention and the skill of the intervention itself.You may certainly do that, however, if you do not consider the capabilities of your intervenors and the political situation in your planning, you're highly likley to be flummoxed and disappointed...
I stand by my support for a humanitarian intervention in Libya.And I by mine that it will be a fiasco and shouldn't be attempted due to that fact. Now what?
The intervention has been incredibly interesting...The question that needs to be answered here is whether this situation was the result of a deliberate political plan or as a result of the allocated force not being up to the task.If by "here" you mean for the operation in total and general, I suspect the answers will come out shortly and my bet will be on a whole series of minor errors and a few disparate political missteps culminating in a very flawed operation that would have been difficult for a powerful single nation with steel will to conduct. The minute it goes to the politically desirable coalition, thrown together hurriedly and with competing priorities, failure was assured. I contend that if failure cannot be assessed as highly improbable, then in most circumstances, the use of force should not be contemplated -- that's particularly true if the potential for great harm from such is present as it certainly was in this case. I also suggest the western gentrification has allowed a certain lack of political will to invade all operations of this nature and that opponents logically take advantage of that weakness. It is IMO unwise to play to the strengths of ones opponents. Better to devise alternative plans

If, OTOH by 'here' you meant on this board, I doubt our answers will affect much of anything... :wry:
Either way the reason for the shambles is political and/or military incompetence and as I have stated before should not be used to question the motivation behind the intervention.Cannot agree. If the shambles create a worsened condition, then the intervention is responsible for creating that worsening. If that potential for a shambles was or is recognized, then the whole idea should have been questioned.

As it was by many -- who were ignored by those who wanted to 'do good.' The Do Good fraternity means well and are nice folks. Unfortunately they dream of the world as a nice place populated by like souls. That's a dangerous fallacy.

To aid others is laudable, to harm them in the process is inexcusable and avoidable.
Roll your eye as much as you like Ken, but I hear tonight that the Brits are going to fund the evacuation by sea of 5,000 odd African migrant workers and the evacuation of wounded by ship is becoming a regular thing. Unless NATO can get its act together and lift the siege of Misrata the UN/EU may need to scale up the evacuations to take all comers.Consider my eyes again rolled. The Migrants can in theory be returned to their own nations. When or if you evacuate all comers, where are you going to take them?

Even aside from that question, the eye roll was engendered by the thought of the UN/EU getting their act together in the next few years much less days or weeks... :rolleyes: :D

[Dayuhan]

So Ken go ahead and flip the world and say "take us as we are or shove it" it just further reduces your circle of friends in the world.

Might be worth pointing out here that the current US policy of limiting intervention in other countries and intervening only with multilateral support is largely an attempt to regain the circle of friends, the influence, and the relatively almost sort of positive image the US enjoyed before the Bush administration decided that unilateral preemptive intervention was a Good Thing. The world at large is not very comfortable with the idea of an intervention-minded America, and Americans aren't too comfortable with it either: one reason why they voted for a guy who promised a more reticent policy toward intervention.

A more interventionist policy is not likely to win friends and influence people. More the opposite.

[Ken White]

and the relatively almost sort of positive image the US enjoyed before the Bush administration decided that unilateral preemptive intervention was a Good Thing."Almost sort of" is a good qualifier. Your post IMO is quite accurate.

In my travels here and there since 1947, it is my observation that the US has never been truly popular or well liked. There are many reasons for that but relative wealth and the unconscious and unintended flaunting of it have been a big factor. Another is that we have helped many -- and no one like to be indebted. That many Americans appear loud and brash, unsophisticated and apparently even relatively uneducated to many does not help...

We have been tolerated because most societies are polite to strangers -- and the wealth got spread. :wry:

Like all human phenomena, the liking and the respect fluctuate. The late 60, early 70s and Viet Nam were the lowest point in my estimation and we were slowly rebuilding some friendship, faith and trust from that debacle when first Reagan then G.H.W. Bush invaded other nations and our stock dipped slightly. That was followed by William Jefferson Clinton bombing or otherwise attacking four sovereign nations and the dislike and distrust soared. Then along came Jones -- er G. W. Bush -- and we went downhill again. Way down -- not to Viet Nam era levels but close. Obama intentionally started us back up (and thus his reluctance to be the one removing Qaddafi) and we'll have to wait to see how it goes.

But we're never going to be loved or deeply respected. We're too big and clumsy to do the things required to instill either emotion in most.

[SWJ Blog]

‘Boots on the ground’ to Libya (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/04/boots-on-the-ground-to-libya/)

Entry Excerpt:

According to the BBC, British Foreign Secretary William Hague just announced that Britain will send 10 soldiers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13132654)to Benghazi to assist Libya’s rebels with logistics, intelligence, and training. This announcement followed a plea from the chairman of France’s foreign affairs committee to send French commandos (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13124447)to Libya to direct NATO air strikes against Qaddafi’s forces.

In another surprising, if odd, development, Reuters is reporting that the European Union has developed a provisional plan (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/18/us-libya-eu-military-idUSTRE73H6SB20110418)to deploy a European military expeditionary force to Misrata, if requested by the United Nations. The mission of the expedition would be to protect aid deliveries to the city, which is currently under siege by pro-Qaddafi forces. What is odd is that according to Reuters, all 27 EU states endorsed this potential mission. Germany, which abstained during the UN vote authorizing military action in Libya and has refused to participate in the current NATO operation, might now be volunteering the Bundeswehr for a trip to the frontline in Misrata.

Each time a setback has occurred in Libya, the West has responded with military escalation. The arrival of Western journalists in Misrata is undoubtedly creating pressure on NATO's political leaders to take additional steps against Qaddafi’s forces.

President Obama and his team are trying to simultaneously be good allies while also strictly limiting the U.S. military commitment. The Obama team must he stunned that NATO is struggling to achieve military effects against the rump of Libya controlled by Qaddafi. Britain and France are rumored to be running out of precision bomb guidance kits.

Libya’s rebels have counted on a bailout from NATO. Europe may similarly be counting on a military bailout from the United States. Is NATO’s operation in Libya too big to fail?

Nothing follows.



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/04/boots-on-the-ground-to-libya/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[JMA]

In response to this:


Originally Posted by Ken White
... we should never be relied upon to be consistent due to that 2, 4, 6, and 8 year roil of government.

...this was posted:


This:
Because it can not be over emphasized. Forgetting this fact will lead to much confusion and upset.

Now we are making progress.

It is not a matter of who will "forget this fact" but rather that the US should tell all people they deal with politically, economically, militarily that at best the word of the United States of America is only good for less than two years at most (depending where it falls in the election cycle). After that all bets are off.

The world has learned this the hard way... now it is up to US citizens to understand the implication of their inability "to be as good as their word".

[AdamG]

Getting better, but still a Charlie Foxtrot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsMWvg2NDaU[/URL]

[JMA]

Cannot agree. If the shambles create a worsened condition, then the intervention is responsible for creating that worsening. If that potential for a shambles was or is recognized, then the whole idea should have been questioned.

Quite frankly Ken, this is the Homer Simpson approach to foreign policy. He said:


“Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.”

The trick is to get the implementation right.

To do that maybe America needs to start to elect competent presidents, maybe needs to turn the State Department inside out, close the CIA down and sadly maybe the military needs to get a good shake up as well.

Currently its a pretty pathetic situation.

[Rex Brynen]

Getting better, but still a Charlie Foxtrot

Their military skills may be severely lacking, but the video needs to be seen in perspective.

That's Misrata. Those folks--most of them civilians--are completely surrounded, but have been holding off 3-4 brigades of Qaddafi loyalists for over seven weeks with scrounged weapons and supplies. In many ways, its damned impressive.

[Ken White]

Now we are making progress.In the immortal words of Tonto, "What is this 'we' stuff, White Man?" WE -- J Wolfsberger and I were there, you're just catching up and trying to look like you were there all along... :D
It is not a matter of who will "forget this fact" but rather that the US should tell all people they deal with politically, economically, militarily that at best the word of the United States of America is only good for less than two years at most (depending where it falls in the election cycle). After that all bets are off.See -- you still don't get it. That's only true in some cases, not so in others -- as I've pointed out before (Monroe Doctrine, freedom os the seas...) and while on the one hand, it's not up to the US to tell anyone else in the World how the US policy machine operates, on another, that's broad public knowledge easily available to all. If one does not understand it, that's one's own fault...

As for dealing with it, not all that difficult. all it take is a little forethought (an item apparently in worldwide short supply nowadays, probably as a result of short attention spans caused by watching too much TV... :D).
The world has learned this the hard way... now it is up to US citizens to understand the implication of their inability "to be as good as their word".Again, you still don't understand. We know that. We understand. We're slightly sorry you don't get it -- but only slightly.

Part 2:
Quite frankly Ken, this is the Homer Simpson approach to foreign policy. He said: {Quote:}“Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.”Wouldn't know about Homer, don't watch Television. Do know that's not what I said -- that was:

""I contend that if failure cannot be assessed as highly improbable, then in most circumstances, the use of force should not be contemplated -- that's particularly true if the potential for great harm from such is present as it certainly was in this case. I also suggest the western gentrification has allowed a certain lack of political will to invade all operations of this nature and that opponents logically take advantage of that weakness. It is IMO unwise to play to the strengths of ones opponents. Better to devise alternative plans."" (Emphasis added /kw)
The trick is to get the implementation right.Well, yeah -- that's why I said devise alternate plans. Not that difficult a concept, one would think...
To do that maybe America needs to start to elect competent presidents, maybe needs to turn the State Department inside out, close the CIA down and sadly maybe the military needs to get a good shake up as well.I agree but that's not going to happen as there is no pressing need -- the fact that you and I see a need (as do many others) is not adequate cause to move the enormous Pachyderm that is the US government.
Currently its a pretty pathetic situation.Yep. That or close to it. :o

Look at the bright side -- it at least gives you something to fruitlessly fulminate about. :D

[JMA]

"Almost sort of" is a good qualifier. Your post IMO is quite accurate.

In my travels here and there since 1947, it is my observation that the US has never been truly popular or well liked. There are many reasons for that but relative wealth and the unconscious and unintended flaunting of it have been a big factor. Another is that we have helped many -- and no one like to be indebted. That many Americans appear loud and brash, unsophisticated and apparently even relatively uneducated to many does not help...

We have been tolerated because most societies are polite to strangers -- and the wealth got spread. :wry:

Like all human phenomena, the liking and the respect fluctuate. The late 60, early 70s and Viet Nam were the lowest point in my estimation and we were slowly rebuilding some friendship, faith and trust from that debacle when first Reagan then G.H.W. Bush invaded other nations and our stock dipped slightly. That was followed by William Jefferson Clinton bombing or otherwise attacking four sovereign nations and the dislike and distrust soared. Then along came Jones -- er G. W. Bush -- and we went downhill again. Way down -- not to Viet Nam era levels but close. Obama intentionally started us back up (and thus his reluctance to be the one removing Qaddafi) and we'll have to wait to see how it goes.

But we're never going to be loved or deeply respected. We're too big and clumsy to do the things required to instill either emotion in most.

Time to read The Ugly American (http://www.amazon.com/Ugly-American-Eugene-Burdick/dp/0393318672) again, Ken?

Has the US Diplomatic Corps changed much since then? Not according to what Wikileaks has exposed.

You are correct when you say no one likes to be indebted. So don't rub it in, don't keep reminding people of how much they owe you. Just get in, do the business then get out. Sooner or later they will come after you with thanks and appreciation.

I mentioned in another post about whose opinion was important and someone came up with a cute number calculation.

My point is simple aim to be liked and respected by those that matter and where you can be sure of what the people are thinking. - the 26 countries who are full democracies and maybe the 53 flawed democracies.

Down in the cesspool of the hybrid and authoritarian regimes, all 88 of them let the relationship be based on fear and respect.

A few months ago there were any number of self styled pundits who would venture a guess as to what the thinking was on the "Arab Street" but none of these experts foretold what was about to happen and therefore their knowledge of what the thinking on the "Arab Street" was and is pretty suspect.

When a tin-pot despot like Gbagbo refuses to take a call from the US President it has nothing to do with any anger at Saddam or the Taliban having been seen out of power but rather through the belief that the US is increasingly impotent.

In the last 50 odd years the world has seen that the US does not have the bottle to stand up to the Soviets or the Chinese so on this basis when the US invades Panama or Grenada it is obviously seen as nothing more than a bully boy. I would have thought this would have been obvious to Americans.

What you say and what has been seen is that there is no possibility that the US will ever have a consistent foreign policy. This is the problem.

People I know and have met in my travels don't hate the US and are only to be swayed to be pro the US if only the US gave them some reason to do so.

[JMA]

Interesting turn of phrase. I understand the desire to be liked, an embedded feature of the twitisphere (which the US media generally represents and therefor voices the attitude of which you write). However, haven't seen all that many tears and all funerals are odd (IMO).

I think I understand the gist of that garbled syntax, though -- and there's some merit in the statement. Not totally correct but accurate enough to stand provided one realizes that those with that desire to liked are a minority in this country. IOW, I know some feel that way, however, most do not in my observation. As Canadian newspaper Columnist Christy Blatchford once wrote "Some Americans care but most don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks..." Succinct and uncouth but distressingly accurate, confirming all your prejudices. :D

That is unlikely to change significantly until the demise of the American republic, and event that will certainly occur, however, probably not in the lifetime of ourselves or even our grandchildren...

Sadly it is more than a desire to be liked it is the desire to be the center of attention and in charge as well.

This is why the NATO partners were kept in their place. Now it is clearly ridiculous to be publicly critical of their inability to step out of the shadow of the US and flex their own muscles.

I am surprised that the NATO partners have been so subordinate and obsequious for so long having been treated with off-handed disdain. Expect to be on the receiving end of a few returned favours as they revel in their new found freedom.

[Pete]

People I know and have met in my travels don't hate the US and are only to be swayed to be pro the US if only the US gave them some reason to do so.

Oh well, the following was from before Ken was a Corporal ...


Welcome, BushrangerCZ. In May 1945 my late Dad was in the outskirts of Pilsen with the 97th U.S. Infantry Division when World War II ended. Later when he was in Prague in the 1970s a Communist Party official asked him whether he'd ever been to Czechoslovakia before and he said yes, near Pilsen in May 1945. The official said no, that can't be true, we were liberated by the great Red Army!


Pete, if I only could, I would buy your father whole crate of Pilsener Urquell. Commies really tried to persuade everybody that US soldiers in Pilsen were in fact Soviet soldiers dressed up like Americans. Most people knew the truth, but it was not good to talk about it. My grandfather handed some German POWs to US troops in my own hometown, so it is obvious that most people could not be blamed, but for example history teachers who taught about these facts could loose their job. Commies ruined the whole country, and now we are trying to catch up.

[Ken White]

Time to read The Ugly American (http://www.amazon.com/Ugly-American-Eugene-Burdick/dp/0393318672) again, Ken?Nah, wasn't that good -- besides, we have Ugly Folks From Elsewhere for entertainment.;)
...Sooner or later they will come after you with thanks and appreciation.That has not been my observation. the resentment tends to remain. Not a big thing.
When a tin-pot despot like Gbagbo refuses to take a call from the US President it has nothing to do with any anger at Saddam or the Taliban having been seen out of power but rather through the belief that the US is increasingly impotent.Your point is well taken but I think it is considerably more complex than that. The issue is not impotence, not at all but rather political will. Lack of that is not a totally US phenomenon...
In the last 50 odd years the world has seen that the US does not have the bottle to stand up to the Soviets or the Chinese so on this basis when the US invades Panama or Grenada it is obviously seen as nothing more than a bully boy. I would have thought this would have been obvious to Americans.It is obvious to most of us. It is also a mistake to presume -- something you do quite often -- that " the US does not have the bottle to stand up to the Soviets or the Chinese..." It is rather that there has been no need to do so. Many things aren't nearly as important as you seem to think -- nor should nations be judged as one would judge people. Bottle as you use it is not really appropriate applied to a nation. Nations do not have friends nor do they cower -- they have interests and the strength of those interests determines their reaction to many things.

Take the Cote d'Ivoire. Not a smidgen of US interest except probably the price of Cocoa. Obama and Gbagbo both know that and both know that the US is not going to punish the nation or Gbagbo so he had no reason to take the phone call. Obama really had no business making the call either -- but that's an example of the 'do good' mentality at work, do something, even if its futile and silly. Do-gooders seem to relish embarrassing themselves by prostrating before everyone...:rolleyes:
What you say and what has been seen is that there is no possibility that the US will ever have a consistent foreign policy. This is the problem.No, yet again you get it wrong -- not what I said. The US will likely never have a consistent policy in regard to unimportant things. If it is really important, we can and do focus and will be consistent. Frankly, a lot of things you seem to believe important are IMO not worth much worry. That, BTW, would include Libya and the Cote d'Ivoire among others...
People I know and have met in my travels don't hate the US and are only to be swayed to be pro the US if only the US gave them some reason to do so.Contrary to what you appear to believe, it is not a function of the US Government to give a fig for what others may think of it. The US is like every other nation, it has interests and it does things, some good and some bad. It generally tries -- too hard IMO -- to do good but does not always succeed. People will judge it on the overall balance of good and evil. We are too big and clumsy to be loved or even well liked. I learned to live with that fact in the early 1950s. Not much has changed since then. I also do not anticipate much change in your life time -- I could of course be wrong but that's a seldom thing... :wry:

[Ken White]

Sadly it is more than a desire to be liked it is the desire to be the center of attention and in charge as well.The Shrinks call that Projection... :D

Still, some truth in it. So? :cool:
Expect to be on the receiving end of a few returned favours as they revel in their new found freedom.This for that among nations. Novel concept. Who'd a thunk it... :wry:

[carl]

I don't know if I can frame this properly but looking at these videos and reading various stories, it appears as if there are some high quality people amongst the rebels. You read of this guy being a PHD and this other guy being a former fighter pilot etc. Also it appears that the population of Misrata itself is the rebel force so that may include a representative group of people which would include some fairly accomplished guys, merchants, small businessmen plus older guys. If this is true, would that make up somewhat for their total lack of training, especially when they are defending built up areas? To my tyro mind, it seems as if it might, especially as time goes on and they learn.

[davidbfpo]

In Post 791 JMA commented:
...when the US invades Panama or Grenada it is obviously seen as nothing more than a bully boy. I would have thought this would have been obvious to Americans.

Having been to Grenada several times I know a little more and not one local now opposes the intervention. Grenada went through a terrible period, verging on civil war; yes, it has many problems and the USA in this case was not a bully boy.

Meantime back to our normal programming.

[motorfirebox]

But we're never going to be loved or deeply respected. We're too big and clumsy to do the things required to instill either emotion in most.
This may be six of one / half a dozen of the other, but I think it's the fact that we're an empire. Our approval offers too great an advantage, and our disapproval comes at too great a cost, for us to have friends. The one possible exception to that rule is the UK, and even that 'special relationship' is frequently strained.

[Pete]

Officer Krupke, you're really a slob.
This boy don't need a doctor, just a good honest job.
Society's played him a terrible trick,
And sociologic'ly he's sick!
Armed forces are blunt instruments that kill people and break things, they're not social service organizations that can go overseas and cure all the evils in the world. It's unrealistic to expect that the U.S. Cavalry will always be willing to sally forth to resolve every crisis that might arise in the world. At present the American public and DoD are tired of interventions, not yearning to get into more of them. Perhaps those overseas should realize that a change has taken place, instead of implying that we're "breaking promises." The U.S. Armed Forces will only be committed when the U.S. decides to do it, not when others think we should.

[Ken White]

This may be six of one / half a dozen of the other, but I think it's the fact that we're an empire.I agree with your post but do take minor exception to the "empire." We have a lot of trappings -- and habits -- of an empire but really are not nor will likely be one. To rule or guide and empire, a nation has to be willing to be ruthless on occasion and we just are not so inclined. As Bill M. has said, we aren't mean enough...

The size and wealth factor is a near equivalent. I've herd folks from South America, several nations, different times, refer to us as "El monstruo del Norte." The tones used implied size, not a monster per se but were still not complimentary. Colussus of the North.

South and Central America are good examples of the foreign policy problems of the US. Several Presidents, FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Nixon, Reagan all tried to patch things up and pay as much attention to South and Central America as I and others think we should -- all got interrupted with other things in other places and the priority accorded to the South dissipated. :(

Pete:

I think you're right. Hopefully, anyway. What we've been doing hasn't worked too well. :rolleyes:

The Troops are always willing to give it a shot and give it their best but a lot of flawed policies and idea have been forced upon them. Not to mention the costs. No single war or operation has cost us that much but maintaining the force eats a big whack of dollars. We will not be able to afford too many interventions.

A Viet Nam era troopie cost about $500.00 bucks to clothe and equip -- today, it's pushing $25K. Everything else has gone up accordingly...

[Rex Brynen]

I don't know if I can frame this properly but looking at these videos and reading various stories, it appears as if there are some high quality people amongst the rebels. You read of this guy being a PHD and this other guy being a former fighter pilot etc. Also it appears that the population of Misrata itself is the rebel force so that may include a representative group of people which would include some fairly accomplished guys, merchants, small businessmen plus older guys. If this is true, would that make up somewhat for their total lack of training, especially when they are defending built up areas? To my tyro mind, it seems as if it might, especially as time goes on and they learn.

Well spotted. Misrata is arguably the most educated (and highest income) city in Libya, and the rebels do seem to have shown some innovation over time. Plus you've got to cheer for a city where the rebels strum Green Day tunes (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2011/04/17/world/africa/20110417_LIBYA-4.html).

[Dayuhan]

I think it's the fact that we're an empire.

We're not. Per OED:


1 an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state

[mass noun] supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority

Unless we rule over other countries or hold supreme political power over other countries, we're not an empire.

[JMA]

In Post 791 JMA commented:

Having been to Grenada several times I know a little more and not one local now opposes the intervention. Grenada went through a terrible period, verging on civil war; yes, it has many problems and the USA in this case was not a bully boy.

Meantime back to our normal programming.

David, for what its worth I supported both those interventions and am happy to hear that the locals have that view.

My comment related to the contrast as seen across the world of the US's fear and trepidation in its dealings with Russia and China as opposed to the alacrity of its resorting to military action against the small and the weak.

[Dayuhan]

the US should tell all people they deal with politically, economically, militarily that at best the word of the United States of America is only good for less than two years at most (depending where it falls in the election cycle). After that all bets are off.

The world has learned this the hard way... now it is up to US citizens to understand the implication of their inability "to be as good as their word".

All Americans know this already, as does everybody else. Other democracies are in exactly the same position: policies change with electoral cycles. The only way to avoid this is to stop being a democracy. Electorates are whimsical and they often want a change. If they vote for a guy who runs on a different platform than the last guy, policies will change.

Dictatorships aren't always consistent in their policies either. Perceived interests change, and policies change with them. Nothing new, or surprising. Always been that way.


My point is simple aim to be liked and respected by those that matter and where you can be sure of what the people are thinking. - the 26 countries who are full democracies and maybe the 53 flawed democracies.

You might perhaps have noticed that the people and governments of the world's democracies were not at all happy about the Bush-era policies of unilateral and preemptive intervention, and for the most part were extremely happy to see the US elect a President who promised a more restrained and more multilateral approach. The democracies of the world have typically seen American intervention, not the absence thereof, as "flipping the world off". The US policies you see now (and complain about now) are aimed largely at trying to be "liked and respected" by those 26 democracies.


A few months ago there were any number of self styled pundits who would venture a guess as to what the thinking was on the "Arab Street" but none of these experts foretold what was about to happen and therefore their knowledge of what the thinking on the "Arab Street" was and is pretty suspect.

What people think and what they do are different things. Pundits and others have known for a long time that there's a lot of resentment against Arab governments, but nobody knew what would set it off or when it would be set off. Even now nobody knows exactly how best to handle it. There are various opinions about, and various options, all imperfect. Whatever option is selected will be widely criticized, but there's no assurance that any other option would have done any better. there's no clear "right" choice, and any could go wrong, including the recommendations of backseat drivers around the world.


When a tin-pot despot like Gbagbo refuses to take a call from the US President it has nothing to do with any anger at Saddam or the Taliban having been seen out of power but rather through the belief that the US is increasingly impotent.

I honestly couldn't care less was Gbagbo thinks, or thought, and I see no reason why any American should. It's not about whether America is impotent or potent in any event, it's about whether America has any interest or not. In this case it was pretty clearly "not". I certainly don't think the US should be petty enough to run around punishing people who don't take calls from the President.


My comment related to the contrast as seen across the world of the US's fear and trepidation in its dealings with Russia and China as opposed to the alacrity of its resorting to military action against the small and the weak.

The Russians and Chinese haven't been exactly eager to provoke the US either, and the US has been way more involved in military action overseas than either Russia or China; if there's fear and reticence around you'd have to say they're showing some themselves.

The Soviet Union is gone, and the Chinese are no longer Communist in anything but name. Didn't Sun Tzu say something about subduing the enemy without battle being preferable to winning battles? I see no reason to think that a more aggressive, confrontational policy from the US would have been a better approach to the Cold War, and it could easily have been far worse.

[JMA]

Libyan city of Misurata pleads for NATO ground forces (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-plea-20110420,0,3668923.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+ Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29)

Interesting to note that NATO claims to have taken out 40 of Gaddafi's tanks around Misrata - I remember these tanks were the ones that couldn't be taken out from the air without unacceptable risk to civilians.

Anyway the hope for the people of Misrata lies with either or both the British and the French, as the yanks seem to have wimped out on this one.

A plea from who will do the trick? The people of Misrata, Libya's Interim Transitional National Council, the Arab League?

I say the Brits should pull the Marine Brigade out of Afghanistan and use their possible deployment into Misrata as a threat to force Gaddafi's forces to pull out of the city.

Then the trick would be to land the Marines through the port or along the coast while trapping Gaddafi's forces in their positions by deploying 2 & 3 Para inland... then kill the Gaddafi forces in place with the most violent means possible.

Once done... ask Gaddafi if he wants the same for Tripoli.

[Ken White]

Libya today and Hungary in 1956 is absolutely awesome. Weird but awesome -- any method to make a point? :confused:

Er, what is your point? :confused:

The idea of removing the British Commando Brigade from Afghanistan as they are in process of rotating in is a logistic feat in itself. As would be getting the also moving Para Battalions involved. :eek:

I've said before that your political acumen was suspect-- as the Hungarian Goulash indicates -- but praised your military skill. That military suggestion of yours re: Misrata brings my judgement of your judgement into grave question... :D

[JMA]

Libya today and Hungary in 1956 is absolutely awesome. Weird but awesome -- any method to make a point? :confused:

Er, what is your point? :confused:

The idea of removing the British Commando Brigade from Afghanistan as they are in process of rotating in is a logistic feat in itself. As would be getting the also moving Para Battalions involved. :eek:

I've said before that your political acumen was suspect-- as the Hungarian Goulash indicates -- but praised your military skill. That military suggestion of yours re: Misrata brings my judgement of your judgement into grave question... :D

[shrug]

[SWJ Blog]

‘Restrepo’ Director Killed in Libya (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/04/restrepo-director-killed-in-li/)

Entry Excerpt:

‘Restrepo’ Director Is Killed in Libya (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21photographers.html?_r=1) - C. J. Chivers, New York Times. BLUF: "Tim Hetherington, the conflict photographer who was a director and producer of the film “Restrepo,” was killed in the besieged city of Misurata on Wednesday, and three photographers working beside him were wounded."



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/04/restrepo-director-killed-in-li/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Pete]

The problem isn't the ease with which Gaddafi could be toppled but what comes afterwards. Basic issues like clean drinking water, food and electricity could lead to an extended stay for Western forces while they try to sort those things out. Before you know it we'd be advising them on the writing of their constitution. At some point the suicide bombings and insurgency might begin, and then the "You broke it, you own it" logic would kick in.

I suppose the COIN doctrine of a few years ago could be supplemented with a better "Whole of Government" approach -- DoD, State, AID, intel, law enforcement, Agriculture, etc, working together but I'm still skeptical that we're there now. No doubt we could come up with all sorts of organizational charts for how it might work, but I think the non-DoD elements would regard it as being a kind of durance vile assignment to be gotten over with quickly so they could move back to Alexandria or Fairfax and resume normal careers. It goes without saying that DoD and military guys would be guilty of their own versions of parochial stone-throwing as well.

One of my stray thoughts about occupation Germany and Japan in '45-'46 is what would have happened had the locals there started insurgencies. The Law of Land Warfare might have shown its limitations and there could have been mass retributions by the U.S. and Britain that are frightful to contemplate. Fortunately that never happened except for isolated incidents.

[motorfirebox]

Re: US as empire--That seems like a technicality when we've shown a ready willingness to topple governments to get what we want. We're not using our military to do it, a lot of the time, and we're not installing our citizens in positions of rulership, but the net result doesn't seem to be much different than if we did. We don't rule other nations; rather, we shape them so that they rule themselves in the manner we choose.

[Ken White]

Re: US as empire...We don't rule other nations; rather, we shape them so that they rule themselves in the manner we choose.More often it did not and we don't do that much nowadays. That is so partly due to the fact that methodology often did not provide the desired results, partly because the world is a bit nicer, partly because we've realized it is not a really efficient or effective way of operating. Mostly it is due to the fact that we as a nation do not really have the political will to do it and we as a nation are now far more aware of what our government is doing or trying to do (and, Boy, does the increase in knowledge and the 'What do you think you're doing?' queries upset the Mandarins inside the Beltway...:D).

That's a good thing. :cool:

[Dayuhan]

Re: US as empire--That seems like a technicality when we've shown a ready willingness to topple governments to get what we want.

Has it actually gotten us what we wanted? Where?


We're not using our military to do it, a lot of the time, and we're not installing our citizens in positions of rulership, but the net result doesn't seem to be much different than if we did. We don't rule other nations; rather, we shape them so that they rule themselves in the manner we choose.

Who exactly have we successfully shaped "so that they rule themselves in the manner we choose"?

[AdamG]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21rebels.html?_r=2&ref=global-home

BENGHAZI, Libya — A PKT machine gun, a weapon designed to be mounted on a Soviet tank and fired electronically by a crew member inside, has no manual trigger, no sights and no shoulder stock. That does not prevent many Libyan rebels from carrying it as if it were an infantryman’s gun.

A Carcano cavalry carbine — probable refuse from Italian colonization in Libya between the world wars — is chambered for a dated rifle cartridge that the rebels have not been able to procure. That did not deter four rebels recently seen wandering the battlefield with these relics, without a cartridge to fire.

Photos
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/21/world/africa/20110421-libya-rebels-use-old-modified-weapons.html?ref=africa

Note - bring enough magazines to the fight
http://cjchivers.com/post/4289036681/news-from-libya-saturday-night

[Rex Brynen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21rebels.html?_r=2&ref=global-home

BENGHAZI, Libya — A PKT machine gun, a weapon designed to be mounted on a Soviet tank and fired electronically by a crew member inside, has no manual trigger, no sights and no shoulder stock. That does not prevent many Libyan rebels from carrying it as if it were an infantryman’s gun.


...although the actual picture on the NYT website shows a truck-mounted PKT equipped with a home-made electrical trigger (note the cable running from the rear of the weapon, which probably runs from the PKT's solenoid trigger to a foot-switch and battery). That would work.

It might lack sights, but I'm not sure the Libyan rebels aim all that much anyway...

[Steve the Planner]

Dayuhan:

Ditto with this "Whole of Government" BS. Where has that ever worked?

They do love that whole "Three Cups of Tea" charade, but actual governance is just plain hard and messy---everywhere.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan:

Ditto with this "Whole of Government" BS. Where has that ever worked?

They do love that whole "Three Cups of Tea" charade, but actual governance is just plain hard and messy---everywhere.

Governance is certainly hard and messy, and even hard and messy governance has to evolve to suit the conditions in any given place. It cannot be installed or provided. We can drink all the tea in China and then some,and we still can't "create" a stable state or stable governance in Libya, Somalia, or Afghanistan.

[JMA]

I've said before that your political acumen was suspect-- as the Hungarian Goulash indicates -- but praised your military skill. That military suggestion of yours re: Misrata brings my judgement of your judgement into grave question... :D

Good thing I don't dish out my opinions of others freely around here.

Ken, because the current and probably the most inept US Administration in history has said there will be no "boots on the ground" does not mean that the use of ground forces is not an intelligent military option to those nations serious about bringing a quick end to the violence in Libya. (I think Gates may well be the problem here)

In the following article (published after my comments) by Rear Admiral Chris Parry RN (retired):

We can't put boots on the ground in Libya – but what about fins? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/8467636/We-cant-put-boots-on-the-ground-in-Libya-but-what-about-fins.html)

I particularly agree with a statement of his which I have alluded to in one of my earlier posts (I seem to remember):


We are, to paraphrase Tacitus, creating a stalemate and calling it peace.

Then there is this:

Royal Marines could be sent in to Libya as thousands flee fighting (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/royal_marines_could_be_sent_in_to_libya_as_thousan ds_flee_fighting_1_2616492)

I believe this figure could be 600 Marines as this article (which I found this morning) alludes to:

Britain to Send 600 Navy Marines, Ships to Libya, Times Says (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-03/britain-to-send-600-navy-marines-ships-to-libya-times-says.html)

I say, do it Britain and good on yer (and if you need a 58 year old to pass the ammo I'll get my kit out of the museum and report for duty ;) )

I also still maintain that by rerouting the the Marine Brigade and 2 & 3 Para from Afghanistan to Cyrus/Malta (either/or or both) is still the best solution to kill two birds with one stone. Get the troops out of (America's war) Afghanistan and (apply an effective force level to) deal effectively with the situation in Libya.

[JMA]

Libyan rebels pay a heavy price for resisting Gaddafi in Misrata (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/21/libyan-rebels-heavy-price-misrata)
With 1,000 dead and a further 3,000 injured, the two-month-old war has taken its toll on the people of the city

So much for the wording from UNSC Resolution 1973 in this regard:


Protection of civilians

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, ...

Then this:

Drones can be used by Nato forces in Libya, says Obama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/21/nato-wants-drones-target-misrata)

First comment. Thought it was obvious that UAVs were needed in Libya all along.

Second, this needs a specific Presidential authorisation?

Thirdly, the Brits have hit 58 targets in three weeks around Misrata being around two and a half per day. That's pretty pathetic. Who else has done what?

As the killed photojournalist Tim Hetherington posted on Twitter:

"In besieged Libyan city of Misrata. Indiscriminate shelling by Gaddafi forces. No sign of Nato."

[Tukhachevskii]

@ JMA

You know what I'd love to know is what You would do seeing as you seem to be the font of all wisdom. It's lovely sitting back and criticising the situation from your throne ain't it?;)

How would you frame the problem?

What is the "end state" you would seek to effectuate?

What strategy would you utilise to acheive that end (being aware of the paucity of means which will determine the ways you seek your end and of the disparate goals of the equally disparate parcitipants)?

[Ken White]

Good thing I don't dish out my opinions of others freely around here.Oh? Hadn't noticed -- though you do get high marks for sly flanking attacks as opposed to direct frontal assaults... :wry:
Ken, because the current and probably the most inept US Administration in history has said there will be no "boots on the ground" does not mean that the use of ground forces is not an intelligent military option to those nations serious about bringing a quick end to the violence in Libya. (I think Gates may well be the problem here)On the first item, possibly correct. On the second, the question really is whether "those nations" should be serious -- or involved at all, really -- in Libya. We differ on that. I would agree that if it's going to be done, it should be done properly but contend that knowledge that it likely would not be should have been included in the planning (I use that word loosely...).

On the last, you're probably correct --though I'd call it a voice of reason and not a problem.:wry:
(and if you need a 58 year old to pass the ammo I'll get my kit out of the museum and report for duty ;) )You young people are so impetuous... :D
I also still maintain that by rerouting the the Marine Brigade and 2 & 3 Para from Afghanistan to Cyrus/Malta (either/or or both) is still the best solution to kill two birds with one stone. Get the troops out of (America's war) Afghanistan and (apply an effective force level to) deal effectively with the situation in Libya.That expansion makes more sense than your original effort but the problem is still that you and the others who advocate(d) this operation are, I believe, not considering what comes after the 'successful' military operation. Removing Qaddafi is really not a difficult task for either the France, the UK or the US among others -- what follows is almost certain to be more problematic and that, not the military effort, is the real rub.

As it is in all such operations. It's great to wish to save the world or parts of it but the populace saved can and most often does then unsave itself with rather dire results...

[JMA]

@ JMA

You know what I'd love to know is what You would do seeing as you seem to be the font of all wisdom. It's lovely sitting back and criticising the situation from your throne ain't it?;)

How would you frame the problem?

What is the "end state" you would seek to effectuate?

What strategy would you utilise to acheive that end (being aware of the paucity of means which will determine the ways you seek your end and of the disparate goals of the equally disparate parcitipants)?

What are we dealing with here? Lets go once again to UNSC Resolution 1973:


Protection of civilians

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory,...

add this one:

6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;

...add the arms embargo and the asset freeze.

OK so the next part of the play is for the politicians to convert that into a mission for the military.

In 1986 the then UK Prime Minister said:


“You cannot run the details of an operation by politicians around the Cabinet table. You can set straight criteria, strict parameters, strict rules of engagement. Then, the precise way in which those are carried out is up to the Military.”

So the military would receive instructions as to the:

1. Objective
2. Means
3. Area
4. Time

... followed by the political aspects which would typically include the size of the force and the rules of engagement.

So the supplied Objective becomes the Commander's Aim and the rest of the stuff being imposed limitations.

Within the Brit context the the first Principle of War is The Selection and Maintenance of the Aim. To comply with this principle the following is important:


Within his strategic directive, a commander may have several courses of action open, each of which would fulfil the aim. The selection of the best course will lead to the mission and outline plan being issued, the mission being a statement of the aim and its purpose. The aim passed on to subordinate commanders may be precise or expressed in unambiguous and attainable with the forces available. Once decided the aim must be circulated as widely as security allows so that all can direct their efforts to achieve the aim.

Pause

Fast forward to now.

We know that the US/NATO action has failed to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack while succeeding in enforcing the no-fly-zone.

Looking at the above where would you see the problem lying? With the objective and its limitations as passed to the military by the politicians or a failure to comply by the military?

... please submit your answer before the next lesson... ;)

[Dayuhan]

OK so the next part of the play is for the politicians to convert that into a mission for the military.

You missed an important step.

The UN resolution authorizes member nations to act. It does not require or obligate them to act. So before any mission is framed for the military, policy makers have to determine whether they want to act at all, and if so, the extent to which they want to act. Obviously this decision has to involve factors not directly pertaining to Libya, such as involvements elsewhere, available means, domestic political support, compatibility with other policies, and on and on. Costs, benefits, and potential consequences have to be reviewed.

Many UN member nations have decided not to act at all. Others have chosen limited action. That's their choice to make: authorization to act doesn't require or obligate anyone to act.

You can't "betray someone to whom you have no obligation.

[jmm99]

Yes, the Res. does provide policy options for member states - "no go", "some go" - which I'm not addressing.

Of more interest to me, is that the Res. says "no all the way go" -


4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory,...

The UN Lord giveth and the UN Lord taketh away.

The final proviso would seem to exclude, say, a MAGTF - which has been the US military option of choice over the last 200 years "to protect civilians and civilian populated areas". (180 Landings of US Marines from 1800-1934 (http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/PDF_Files/Pubs/One%20Hundred%20Eighty%20Landings%20of%20United%20 States%20Marines%201800-1934.pdf)) - not all were about killing. Check out David Porter (since I yap about him re: pirates) - Puerto Rico 1824 (p. 157 pdf):


Commodore Porter landed with 200 Marines and sailors (officers and men), and addressed a letter to the Alcalde, dated November 12th, reciting the facts of the injury, demanding explanation and atonement, threatening to make the town responsible in case of refusal, and dispatched it by Lieutenant Stribling under a flag of truce. One hour was given for a reply. Lieutenant H.N Crabb, with 27 of his Marines was ordered to place himself in advance of the column and escort the flag of truce to the town. When within a short distance of the town the Marines halted to await the return of Lieutenant Stribling. A short time afterward he returned, in company with the Governor and Captain of the Port, who humbly apologized for the wrong they had done and promised thereafter to respect the rights of American officers. This apology was accepted, and after marching through the town the party returned to their vessels.

Commodore Porter was later CMd for exceeding his authority.

With respect to ground forces, the Res. is definitely a legal constraint on military planning options - ne c'est pas ?

BTW: I am opposed to any US intervention in this matter for policy reasons, which I'm not going to restate here. But, if you do decide to "do it", do it right.

Regards

Mike

[Pete]

Field Marshal Sir JMA is hereby invested with the Order of the Garter and shall hereby be known, by All Ye present, by the following commission that is thus hereby endowed:

"By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India, Commander of the Army, Navy and Air Force, and the Moral Conscience of the Western World."

[Dayuhan]

if you do decide to "do it", do it right.

That of course leaves the question of what's "right"... and "right" always depends on the specific policy objectives that are in play.

In the case of the US, despite all the rhetoric about protecting civilians, I suspect that the objective is not about removing MG or protecting civilians. It's about positioning the US somewhere between "we don't give a $#!t" isolationism and "it's broke, git in there and fix it" interventionism.

Purely in terms of interests, of course there's no reason for the US to be involved at all. Even if the Resolution allowed it (which it doesn't), the last thing the US wants is to be occupying another country and trying to cultivate "governance" in yet another inherently unstable "nation". Nothing there but trouble for us, and we've enough of that sort of trouble already. Of course sitting back and doing absolutely nothing is also not consistent with the image the US wants to portray... hence limited involvement in an operation led by others and within constraints established by the UN is a fairly obvious answer. It means we're not going to be the cavalry coming over the hill to Save And Protect Everybody, but that's not what we want to be or what we're trying to be.

Actions often seem irrational or incompetent to those who misconstrue the objective.

[SWJ Blog]

This Week at War: Billions for Libya? (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/04/this-week-at-war-billions-for/)

Entry Excerpt:

Is NATO willing to pay what it will cost to take out Qaddafi?

Here is the latest edition of my column at Foreign Policy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/22/this_week_at_war_billions_for_libya?page=0,0):

Topics include:

1) The cost of getting serious in Libya

2) Mexico's drug cartels try to control the message -- and spark a media insurgency

The cost of getting serious in Libya

A pattern has emerged in the Libyan conflict. Every setback to the rebels' prospects has resulted in an escalation of military activity by NATO. The alliance's initial intervention five weeks ago began when a powerful pro-Qaddafi armored column approached Benghazi, the rebel capital. This week, nasty house-to-house fighting in Misrata compelled Britain, France, and Italy to each send about ten military advisors (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/libya-vows-to-fight-any-foreign-troops-on-its-soil-rebuffs-eu-proposal/2011/04/19/AF7GP34D_story.html)to Benghazi. President Barack Obama did his part this week when he dispatched (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-authorizes-predator-drone-strikes-in-libya/2011/04/21/AFWELQKE_story.html) two Predator drones to Libya's skies. The NATO advisors sent to Benghazi are the vanguard of what is likely to be many more Western "boots on the ground" in Libya.

It is now clear that the Western policymakers who opted for intervention in Libya underestimated the resilience and adaptability of Qaddafi's military forces. These Western leaders -- perhaps led astray by the apparent ease with which air power alone compelled Serb leaders in Belgrade to abandon Kosovo in 1999 -- similarly overestimated what air power could accomplish against Qaddafi. The result is, at best, a military stalemate, assuming Misrata can hold out.

Libya's rebels, now openly supported by NATO, are far from accomplishing the de facto objective of the campaign, the removal of the Qaddafi family from Libya. The rebels and Western leaders had hoped that Qaddafi would quickly flee or be overthrown by a palace coup or an uprising in Tripoli. These may yet occur. But hoping for them is not a strategy. If anything, a month of combat has toughened Qaddafi's troops and his remaining inner circle. With Western prestige now heavily committed, what will it actually take to get rid of Qaddafi?

Assuming that Western leaders have ruled out a ground invasion of Libya, the only other course of action around which NATO can build a campaign plan is to prepare the rebel forces in Benghazi for the long march down the coast road to Tripoli. Such a course of action will provide NATO with an organizing concept and give the alliance the initiative. Anything less is just hoping for the best.

Click below to read more ...



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/04/this-week-at-war-billions-for/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[jmm99]

from jmm99

BTW: I am opposed to any US intervention in this matter for policy reasons, which I'm not going to restate here. But, if you do decide to "do it", do it right.

As to "do it right", IFF you decide "to roll", then you grant a complete hunting license to such as David Porter (then) or Jon Custis (now; as an example of a reasonable military mind).

They will not kill everything in the forest. In fact, they will usually not kill anyone but the knuckleheads who come at them - and I would not want to be among those knuckleheads (IIRC from 2003).

"Porter-Custis" know the difference between "OOTW" and "W" (writing in "Old Style"). The UN War on Libya is a "Limited War" - therefor to me, FUBAR. ?

I've seen too many of those to be a cheerleader. But, if we have to dance, I want the adverse dancers to suffer big time - real "big time". And that is a very good reason why intervention should be seldom (for me).

Regards (and hopefully this clarifies from whence I am; and please do not mistake me for whom I am not)

Mike

[Dayuhan]

As to "do it right", IFF you decide "to roll", then you grant a complete hunting license to such as David Porter (then) or Jon Custis (now; as an example of a reasonable military mind).

I've no doubt that either would be able to roll up the bad boys in the field and remove the senior bad guy from power in short order and with exemplary efficiency... but is that really what we want to do? The last few times we've done that we ended up bogged down in a morass of occupation with all the burdens of expensive and ineffectual "state-building". It is very difficult for us to extricate and walk away from positions like that, and we really don't want another such commitment on our plate.

I can understand and sympathize with the idea that if we're not going to take it all the way we should do nothing at all, but I can also see how those with the unpleasant responsibility of making policy might see some penalties in that course as well. The idea of "limited war", and of trying to do more than nothing but less than everything, may be by definition FUBAR, but it's something we're likely to be stuck with on occasion for quite a while. Strategy is the servant of policy and policy often imposes constraints that make life difficult for those who have to make strategy. In this case I don't envy either policymakers or strategy makers.


Regards (and hopefully this clarifies from whence I am; and please do not mistake me for whom I am not)

I didn't mean to mistake you for who you are not; apologies if it sounded that way. Some of the comments were primarily intended for others who frequent this thread.

[JMA]

You missed an important step.

The UN resolution authorizes member nations to act. It does not require or obligate them to act. So before any mission is framed for the military, policy makers have to determine whether they want to act at all, and if so, the extent to which they want to act. Obviously this decision has to involve factors not directly pertaining to Libya, such as involvements elsewhere, available means, domestic political support, compatibility with other policies, and on and on. Costs, benefits, and potential consequences have to be reviewed.

Many UN member nations have decided not to act at all. Others have chosen limited action. That's their choice to make: authorization to act doesn't require or obligate anyone to act.

You state the obvious.

In the case of Libya however, the US belatedly stepped up to the plate and led the process to get resolution 1973 passed. So you think they got more than they wanted/needed?

Yes then the politicians need to make the decisions like you mention. This they sadly seem to do in a haphazard and disorganized way (from a military point of view) where decisions seem to be worked out in conference. This is mainly why these operations are doomed to failure from the outset.

On the other hand the military has a much more formal approach. The US doctrine on this is probably available online the British maybe not.

The US politicians are likely to load the military objective with so many "limitations" that it is virtually unworkable. Why for this Libyan exercise they even appointed a "Political Committee" to oversee the actual operation. Little wonder it has turned out to be a complete shambles. The communist Political Commissar comes to the US military per kind favour of the Obama administration.

A good Command Sergeant Major at the Libyan operations HQ would by now have got a squad together, rounded up this Political Committee, marched them into the courtyard, had them blindfolded and then shot. ;)

OK, so we are at the point where I was with Tukhachevskii. Maybe you want to give it a shot?

Given what we know about how this operation has unfolded what Objective with accompanying limitations do you think the politicians presented to the military?

[JMA]

With respect to ground forces, the Res. is definitely a legal constraint on military planning options - ne c'est pas ?

Mike, you have a definition for foreign occupation force?

[Dayuhan]

In the case of Libya however, the US belatedly stepped up to the plate and led the process to get resolution 1973 passed. So you think they got more than they wanted/needed?

Weren't you saying earlier in this thread that the British and French led that process, with the US rather reluctantly following?


Given what we know about how this operation has unfolded what Objective with accompanying limitations do you think the politicians presented to the military?

Roughly, and of course oversimplified:

Degrade Libyan air defenses, ground forces, logistics, communications and other support facilities to the greatest extent we can achieve within one week, using air and naval assets.

At this point we will relinquish primary responsibility to the British, French, and other allies. Further assistance will be provided at their request, with requests evaluated on a case-to-case basis.

[JMA]

The UN War on Libya is a "Limited War"

Be careful with the use of the term "Limited War". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_war)

During the Cold War era Limited War as opposed to Total War or General War was used to describe a conflict where the use of nuclear weapons was not an option.

The Brits tend to talk more about Regional Conflicts and the Concept of Limitation and because all Regional Wars would be subject to limitation and constraint the continued use of the term Limited War can only only lead to confusion.

Any soldier: Does the US doctrine agree or differ?

[M-A Lagrange]

According to the french news paper Le Figaro, Gadaffi troops received the order to withdraw from Misrata.:D

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/80/20110423/twl-l-arme-libyenne-se-retirerait-de-mis-554568f.html
(Sorry, in French)

Just like in Kosovo, it's when the external powers get upset and start to send ground troops (so called liaison officers or diplomatic advisers) that air strike operations start to be fruitful. Not to forget the use of drones with capacity to target precisely mortar and snipers...

Now, let's take it up to the end!

[JMA]

Weren't you saying earlier in this thread that the British and French led that process, with the US rather reluctantly following?

Yes that was true up to the point when the US Administration realised that they had to get involved then in keeping with US practice being if they get involved they are going to run the show - previously described by me as the desire to be the bride at every wedding and the baby at every Christening - they moved in and elbowed the Limeys and the Frogs out of the way.

Remember now?

[M-A Lagrange]

JMA,

We have to face the fact that US are limiting their involvement in Africa to places where they can get access to oil and let the roastbeef and the froggies take the lead in places they can limit China access to oil...
They are in Nigeria, South Sudan and Uganda... France is in Ivory Coast and Lybia...
I don't think it's a bad idea to share leadership according to context.
The problem now is to find out how RSA will be able to maintain her claim to be a permanent security council member to represent Africa.

[JMA]

According to the french news paper Le Figaro, Gadaffi troops received the order to withdraw from Misrata.:D

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/80/20110423/twl-l-arme-libyenne-se-retirerait-de-mis-554568f.html
(Sorry, in French)

Just like in Kosovo, it's when the external powers get up sed and start to send ground troops (so called liaison officers or diplomatic advisers) that air stike operations start to be fruitfull. Not to forget the use of drones with capacity to target precisely mortar and snipers...

Now, let's take it up to the end!

Have you any idea how many Libyan civilians have died in Misrata, Tripoli and elsewhere since the US decided the military should take their foot of the gas? Keep score, this is blood on Obama's hands.

[M-A Lagrange]

Have you any idea how many Libyan civilians have died in Misrata, Tripoli and elsewhere since the US decided the military should take their foot of the gas? Keep score, this is blood on Obama's hands.

JMA,

War, as you know it, means killing people. I have never been a supporter of Wilf mentra: victory is measured by nb of ennemy killed but this is the basic reallity.
I believe we would like to see small scales wars with limited number of cusualties... But that happens only in hollywood.

This is blood on the hands of Gadaffi! And his familly! no one else!

And by the way, I was rather thinking of UK and French ground troops. CIA actions on the ground have probably happened but it seems that it was rather limited. Both UK and France have people trained to "paint" objectives.

[JMA]

JMA,

We have to face the fact that US are limiting their involvement in Africa to places where they can get access to oil and let the roastbeef and the froggies take the lead in places they can limit China access to oil...
They are in Nigeria, South Sudan and Uganda... France is in Ivory Coast and Lybia...
I don't think it's a bad idea to share leadership according to context.
The problem now is to find out how RSA will be able to maintain her claim to be a permanent security council member to represent Africa.

I don't think that is the US strategy, I truly think as a nation they are running out of steam.

They would not be sharing leadership, it would be more like delegating responsibility temporally until they want to or need to get involved then they will take over control again.

Your expectation of South Africa is too great. South Africa has shown little leadership in any African or international initiative. (NEPAD was a failure so you can write that off.) South Africa is no different to any other African country other than it inherited significant commercial and physical infrastructure. The President is a crook no different from so many others in the region and the country is becoming a classic African kleptocracy which means there is little money for service delivery to the poor - as a result we are starting to see riots in the townships - like in the bad old days..

[Dayuhan]

Yes that was true up to the point when the US Administration realised that they had to get involved then in keeping with US practice being if they get involved they are going to run the show - previously described by me as the desire to be the bride at every wedding and the baby at every Christening - they moved in and elbowed the Limeys and the Frogs out of the way.

Remember now?

I remembered before. Of course the US has never expressed any desire or intention to "run the show" in this case: it was clear from the start that the US intended to play a supporting role and relinquish control to the French and British as soon as possible. Ideally the US wouldn't be there at all, but as we do have some capacities that the French and British lack, we helped them out in the early stages. We're still providing help as they request and as we see fit. We're supporting an effort led by allies. How is that so complicated?


Have you any idea how many Libyan civilians have died in Misrata, Tripoli and elsewhere since the US decided the military should take their foot of the gas? Keep score, this is blood on Obama's hands.

Complete load of bollocks. M-A is right, the blood is on MG's hands, nobody else's. Obama and the US have no responsibility whatsoever to provide any help at all to Libyan rebels. They have chosen to provide some, to the extent consistent with perceived US interests, but that's a choice, not an obligation.

[Dayuhan]

We have to face the fact that US are limiting their involvement in Africa to places where they can get access to oil and let the roastbeef and the froggies take the lead in places they can limit China access to oil...

The US has no need or capacity to limit Chinese access to oil. None. Access to oil is a function of money, and China has plenty. They can buy it from anyone who has it, and they will.

[JMA]

JMA,

War, as you know it, means killing people.

What we are seeing in Libya is a war? It is merely a very limited military intervention for humanitarian purposes.


I have never been a supporter of Wilf mentra: victory is measured by nb of ennemy killed but this is the basic reallity.

Number of killed? Who soldiers? Militias? Civilians?

There are too many dynamics to be so simplistic. What happened in Ivory Coast? Once the head of the snake was taken out/captured his armed support all but collapsed. (Of course the civil war would not have even reignited if Gbagbo (and his loyal military commanders) had been taken out months ago.)


I believe we would like to see small scales wars with limited number of cusualties... But that happens only in hollywood.

Why not? The modern armies (US and NATO) are trained for "big" wars and their systems and doctrine make just about anything complicated to execute. Maybe its time to look at a simple intervention like the Brits intervention into Sierra Leone in 2000 and then consider some reverse engineering of their systems and doctrine to be able to take on essentially Mickey Mouse Regional Conflicts in the simple terms they require.


This is blood on the hands of Gadaffi! And his familly! no one else!

Him too. But if you stand back and watch people getting butchered when you are there and empowered to prevent just that happening then are you not at least an accessory?

This is close to the Israeli's Sabra and Shatila massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre) shame. The Israeli's there and Obama in Liyba cannot avoid charges of complicity or responsibility.


And by the way, I was rather thinking of UK and French ground troops. CIA actions on the ground have probably happened but it seems that it was rather limited. Both UK and France have people trained to "paint" objectives.

You need more than just troops to paint targets for air strikes. You need a bit of muscle to apply at a couple of pressure points to show the Gaddafi forces the futility of their continuing actions against Libyan civilians.

[tequila]

There are too many dynamics to be so simplistic. What happened in Ivory Coast? Once the head of the snake was taken out/captured his armed support all but collapsed. (Of course the civil war would not have even reignited if Gbagbo (and his loyal military commanders) had been taken out months ago.)


Actually I seem to recall the "New Forces" surging across the ceasefire line and overrunning most of the country before Gbagbo surrendered.

Gbagbo had some holdout forces in his bunker and some neighborhoods in Abidjan, but most of the country and indeed Abidjan was out of his control, mostly because his forces had either deserted, surrendered, or gone over to the other side.

[JMA]

Actually I seem to recall the "New Forces" surging across the ceasefire line and overrunning most of the country before Gbagbo surrendered.

Gbagbo had some holdout forces in his bunker and some neighborhoods in Abidjan, but most of the country and indeed Abidjan was out of his control, mostly because his forces had either deserted, surrendered, or gone over to the other side.

And your point is?

[JMA]

Have not seen any obvious difference between the individual soldiering skill between Liberia and Libya.

http://cdn.wn.com/ph/img/55/c6/bbd624828e57306307a4e6491bad-grande.jpg http://www.aljazeerah.info/images/2011/April/21%20p/Libyan%20rebels%20exchange%20fire%20with%20governm ent%20troops%20in%20downtown%20Misrata,%20Libya,%2 0April%2021,%202011%20xin.jpg

Anyone seen a photo of someone using their weapon sights?

[davidbfpo]

JMA asked;
Anyone seen a photo of someone using their weapon sights?

Yes, in the BBC TV footage in Misrata in the last week or so. It was an adult male aiming a FN SLR with a scope through a loophole and firing a round. Yes, a film clip taken for TV.

[JMA]

JMA asked;

Yes, in the BBC TV footage in Misrata in the last week or so. It was an adult male aiming a FN SLR with a scope through a loophole and firing a round. Yes, a film clip taken for TV.

David, thanks. I'm trying to get a feeling for what the rebels quality is as they seem to have done pretty well keeping Gaddafi's forces at bay. The advantage of local knowledge in an urban environment is massive but if there are now trained soldiers among the rebels then defending against trained/semi-trained soldiers is a tough ask. Once this is established them one can figure out what the quality of Gaddafi's forces is.

Interesting what you saw. Did he look like a confident trained soldier/sniper? If there are these guys hanging out there with the rebels in Misrata (AQ and the like) then I would have thought they would avoid being filmed or photographed. Your thoughts?

[tequila]

And your point is?

Don't you think that an accurate representation of the history of the crisis is important?

Saying that Gbagbo's forces collapsed due to his capture is not accurate and would seem to indicate that the key to the resolution of the crisis was the removal of Gbagbo. Instead it appears that Gbagbo himself was to a large degree irrelevant - that the important thing was the removal of the false ceasefire line and empowerment of armed gangs aligned with Gbagbo, who were using the protection of said ceasefire line to loot Cote d'Ivoire's cocoa industry for as much as they could get out before the end came. Once the New Forces stopped respecting that line, the only thing stopping them was the distance between their line of departure and Abidjan.

Back on topic:

Libyan rebels firmly in control in mountainous West (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-zintan-20110423,0,1326928.story)


Reporting from Beirut— Moammar Kadafi's forces came by the thousands with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers to quell an uprising in the forbidding Western Mountains region of Libya.

They left Zintan last month in a rout, rebels and Western journalists say, running through the woods as residents of the rebellious city pursued them using weapons and equipment seized from troops. It was a decisive battle that exposed the far western flank of Kadafi's security forces.

"What happened here was a beautiful thing," Milad Lameen, a 59-year-old former Libyan Airlines official and businessman who now serves as a political leader in Zintan, said in an interview conducted over Skype. "The equation was absolutely against us. But his troops and his mercenaries did not have a winning cause. We have a good cause."

While international attention has been focused on the rebel-controlled stronghold of Benghazi in eastern Libya and the besieged coastal city of Misurata, tens of thousands of Libyans have taken control of a mountainous region stretching about 100 miles from the Tunisian border toward the capital, Tripoli. The provisional government in the far west is in touch with the rebels in Benghazi but not under their authority.

On Thursday, Kadafi's forces suffered another blow in the Western Mountains region when rebels took over the Wazin-Dehibat border crossing with Tunisia, giving them access to supplies to sustain their enclave. The Libyan government denied that the border post had fallen, even as photographs show protesters there waving the pre-Kadafi flag of Libya ...

[davidbfpo]

David, thanks. I'm trying to get a feeling for what the rebels quality is as they seem to have done pretty well keeping Gaddafi's forces at bay. The advantage of local knowledge in an urban environment is massive but if there are now trained soldiers among the rebels then defending against trained/semi-trained soldiers is a tough ask. Once this is established them one can figure out what the quality of Gaddafi's forces is.

Interesting what you saw. Did he look like a confident trained soldier/sniper? If there are these guys hanging out there with the rebels in Misrata (AQ and the like) then I would have thought they would avoid being filmed or photographed. Your thoughts?

JMA,

From my armchair I'd say he was in his mid-thirties and since Libya has selective conscription he could have been trained. He just poked his rifle out, squinted through the sight and fired a shot.

What did puzzle me was the FN SLR with a scope, which appeared in excellent condition. I had expected to see a standard Soviet-type weapon, as most footage shows. Elsewhere others have commented on old weapons appearing, e.g. a WW2 German SMG, minus a magazine.

I expect, no suspect that Libya has retained every generation of weapon it has purchased or acquired. There has been the widespread looting of state armouries, not just the military and private individuals have legal and illegal weapons.

As I have posted before (from Abu M citing WSJ) the rebels in Misrata do appear to be organised and well-motivated. As for being filmed that was not an issue, they know defeat means death.

[davidbfpo]

Tequila,

Good catch the LAT report.

The capture of a border crossing was reported here without any context or helpful comment; almost as if the rebels had crossed over the border.

I am sure SWC readers have noted the lack of any reporting - except on migrant workers leaving - from the Tunisian border. Where does the new Tunisian government stand? Perhaps our two local observers (Italian & Spanish) can comment.

[jmm99]

JMA, in using the Wiki - Limited War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_war) as a doctrinal publication (quoting from it: "This military-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." - go to it, young South African, go to it !!).

That being said, its minimal content does mention Korea and Vietnam - which allows me to segué into what I was going to post anyway.

During and since Korea, US practice has been for civilians to not only intervene in the military decision-making process, but to control it and make military decisions. In short, we have seen a steady increase in the amount of civilian micro-management of military operations. Given today's technology, the President of the United States could indeed be that legendary Strategic Corporal - and a Tactical Corporal as well. (thumbs down)

Sticking within the timeframe of JMA's Wiki, I've known some of the civilian players in the national security civilian-military interface from those conflicts. One could rank their competence in their civilian pursuits over a range to which reasonable people might differ (all were certainly NOT outstanding).

But, one conclusion as to which I have a firm belief, is that none of them that I've known was competent to make military decisions. None of them. FULL STOP. I'm NOT competent to make military decisions; but at least I try to understand them and military doctrines.

Coming back to "limited war", you'd have a ton of paper (if you'd print it out) on US doctrine and commentary on "limited war". Someone else can provide a reading list.

This snip (written by Dave Petraeus in the 1980s) simply illustrates the futility of relying on "limited war" as some sort of "cost control":

1449

Gavin et al speak for themselves.

-------------------------------------

No, I've no definition for "foreign occupation force" as used by the UN in Res. 1973. The language "of any form on any part" seems a strong limitation to me. That, however, is an intuitive, gut reaction and not the product of legal research.

Googling - "foreign occupation force" - yields 590,000 hits. Go ye forth young man and engage the Virtual World. Get some for me.

Cheers

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

JMA:

What we are seeing in Libya is a war? It is merely a very limited military intervention for humanitarian purposes.

A war, to use a well known author (Clausewitz) is the use of force to impose a political change to an opponent (excuse me if I do not quote word for word).
In deed, in Libya, there is a war. Who does conduct that war is another question and I believe the rebels are fighting a war.

Secondly, about humanitarian military intervention:
I would encourage you to read this:
Humanitarian Military Intervention: The Conditions for Success and Failure
by Taylor B. Seybolt
ISBN 978-0-19-925243-5 (hardback) 978-0-19-955105-7 (paperback)
http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=335

Humanitarian military intervention is controversial. Scepticism is always in order about the need to use military force because the consequences can be so dire. Yet it has become equally controversial not to intervene when a government subjects its citizens to massive violation of their basic human rights. This book recognizes the limits of humanitarian intervention but does not shy away from suggesting how military force can save lives in extreme circumstances.

Contents
1. Controversies about humanitarian military intervention (download sample chapter)
2. Judging success and failure
3. Humanitarian military interventions in the 1990s
4. Helping to deliver emergency aid
5. Protecting humanitarian aid operations
6. Saving the victims of violence
7. Defeating the perpetrators of violence
8. The prospects for success and the limits of humanitarian intervention

About the author
Dr Taylor B. Seybolt (United States) is an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. He was previously a Senior Program Officer at the United States Institute of Peace and Leader of the SIPRI Conflicts and Peace Enforcement Project. His publications include ‘The Darfur Atrocities Documentation Project: a perspective from Washington, DC’, in Genocide in Darfur: Investigating the Atrocities in Sudan (Routledge, 2006, edited by S. Totten and E. Markuson); ‘Humanitarian intervention and communal civil wars: problems and alternative approaches’, Security Studies (2003, with Daniel Byman); and a number of contributions to the SIPRI Yearbook in 2000–2002. He received his PhD in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
And the wiki about military humanitarian intervention which is of quality with numerous links to relevant documents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention



I believe we would like to see small scales wars with limited number of casualties... But that happens only in Hollywood.
Why not? The modern armies (US and NATO) are trained for "big" wars and their systems and doctrine make just about anything complicated to execute. Maybe its time to look at a simple intervention like the Brits intervention into Sierra Leone in 2000 and then consider some reverse engineering of their systems and doctrine to be able to take on essentially Mickey Mouse Regional Conflicts in the simple terms they require.
The zero casualty theory is a nice dream that does not change the nature of war: use of violence to impose by killing combatants and destruction of properties a political end.

And finally, I would like to flag Save the Children report on Libya which is quite disturbing:

Michael Mahrt, Save the Children's Child Protection Advisor who is currently conducting the assessment, said: "The reports of sexual violence against children are unconfirmed but they are consistent and were repeated across the four camps we visited.
"Children told us they have witnessed horrendous scenes. Some said they saw their fathers murdered and mothers raped. They described things happening to other children but they may have actually happened to them and they are just too upset to talk about it - it's a typical coping mechanism used by children who have suffered such abuse.
"What is most worrying is that we have only been able to speak to a limited number of children - what else is happening to those who are trapped in Misurata and other parts of the country who do not have a voice?"http://reliefweb.int/node/398089

[Dayuhan]

Maybe its time to look at a simple intervention like the Brits intervention into Sierra Leone in 2000 and then consider some reverse engineering of their systems and doctrine to be able to take on essentially Mickey Mouse Regional Conflicts in the simple terms they require.

Why would the US want to get involved in "Mickey Mouse Regional Conflicts" where no US interests are at stake?


Him too. But if you stand back and watch people getting butchered when you are there and empowered to prevent just that happening then are you not at least an accessory?

Fascinating. The UN Resolution does not just "empower" the US to to prevent what's happening. It empowers all UN member states. Why then do you say the blood would be on Obama's hands? Many UN member states are doing nothing at all... do they have blood on their hands? What about the British and French, who were out front pushing for intervention? By what logic does saving Libya become an American responsibility?

I'm also fascinated by this notion that the US has somehow "lost its steam" because it declines to intervene in regional conflicts. If that's the case, we lost steam decades ago, if we ever had it. Just off the top of my head... did you see US intervention in the Indonesian massacres or the Nigeria-Biafra war in the 60s? In the Cambodian massacres in the 70s? I could go on, and on, as could any of us, but I think any of us who has a third of an eye on history would know that reluctance to intervene in foreign conflicts where the US has no direct interest at stake is nothing new for the US, even when those conflicts are very bloody..

[JMA]

Don't you think that an accurate representation of the history of the crisis is important?

I have said a lot of things over on the Ivory Coast thread and I am not concerned about your attempt to score a point and in the process produce a ridiculous interpretation of the events in Ivory Coast.

I will concede that to protect myself from such nit-picking in the future I should be a little more careful in my choice of words.

For example, instead of using "Once the head of the snake was taken out/captured his armed support all but collapsed."

... I should have used "Once the head of the snake was taken out/captured his remaining armed support all but collapsed."

Now if you want to argue over my interpretation of the events in Ivory Coast I am game, so take to it over to that thread.

[JMA]

No, I've no definition for "foreign occupation force" as used by the UN in Res. 1973. The language "of any form on any part" seems a strong limitation to me. That, however, is an intuitive, gut reaction and not the product of legal research.

Googling - "foreign occupation force" - yields 590,000 hits. Go ye forth young man and engage the Virtual World. Get some for me.

Cheers

Mike

I responded to this that you posted:

"With respect to ground forces, the Res. is definitely a legal constraint on military planning options..."

...I was wondering if I understood you correctly as the how you saw the Res 1973 as being a constraint on military operations?

Here is something from the House of Commons Library, which is good enough for me.

Interpretation of Security Council Resolution 1973 on Libya (http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05916.pdf)

[JMA]

JMA, in using the Wiki - Limited War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_war) as a doctrinal publication (quoting from it: "This military-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." - go to it, young South African, go to it !!).

That being said, its minimal content does mention Korea and Vietnam - which allows me to segué into what I was going to post anyway.

During and since Korea, US practice has been for civilians to not only intervene in the military decision-making process, but to control it and make military decisions. In short, we have seen a steady increase in the amount of civilian micro-management of military operations. Given today's technology, the President of the United States could indeed be that legendary Strategic Corporal - and a Tactical Corporal as well. (thumbs down)

Sticking within the timeframe of JMA's Wiki, I've known some of the civilian players in the national security civilian-military interface from those conflicts. One could rank their competence in their civilian pursuits over a range to which reasonable people might differ (all were certainly NOT outstanding).

But, one conclusion as to which I have a firm belief, is that none of them that I've known was competent to make military decisions. None of them. FULL STOP. I'm NOT competent to make military decisions; but at least I try to understand them and military doctrines.

Coming back to "limited war", you'd have a ton of paper (if you'd print it out) on US doctrine and commentary on "limited war". Someone else can provide a reading list.

This snip (written by Dave Petraeus in the 1980s) simply illustrates the futility of relying on "limited war" as some sort of "cost control":

1449

Gavin et al speak for themselves.


My post was merely to draw attention FWIW that according to the current Brit doctrine the use of Limited War can be confusing as it is increasingly seen as an anachronism from the Cold War days (for the reasons I mentioned).

I tend to find URLs of items suitable to explain/expand upon what I an saying as much of what supports my comments is on hard copy or personal communication in confidence. Wikipedia often suits that purpose as does a simple Google search.

I have raised the issue of civilian/politician competency in the piracy thread and also in personal correspondence here and elsewhere.

If you have followed my comment on this matter you will have noted that I am in agreement that as fart as civilians/politicians are concerned "none of them that I've known was competent to make military decisions." I would extend that to a question whether any are or have been, hence the problems experienced by the military in say (to keep it simple) the last hundred years.

This is why I am attempting to expose the role of the politicians in the Libyan exercise (and elsewhere) and where and how it affects the military and thereby the outcome of the operation. Bear with me (or contribute) as it may take a little time.

[JMA]

Why would the US want to get involved in "Mickey Mouse Regional Conflicts" where no US interests are at stake?

Fascinating. The UN Resolution does not just "empower" the US to to prevent what's happening. It empowers all UN member states. Why then do you say the blood would be on Obama's hands? Many UN member states are doing nothing at all... do they have blood on their hands? What about the British and French, who were out front pushing for intervention? By what logic does saving Libya become an American responsibility?

I'm also fascinated by this notion that the US has somehow "lost its steam" because it declines to intervene in regional conflicts. If that's the case, we lost steam decades ago, if we ever had it. Just off the top of my head... did you see US intervention in the Indonesian massacres or the Nigeria-Biafra war in the 60s? In the Cambodian massacres in the 70s? I could go on, and on, as could any of us, but I think any of us who has a third of an eye on history would know that reluctance to intervene in foreign conflicts where the US has no direct interest at stake is nothing new for the US, even when those conflicts are very bloody..

Your posts are entertaining.

I have asked before how does anyone know what is the the US's interests at any given time? Any given two Americans will probably not agree on this.

So when in doubt take it from the President of the day.

Suggest you read the Obama Libya statement transcript (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-president-obamas-address-nation-military-action-libya/story?id=13242776) and let it guide you from here on.

[JMA]

JMA:

A war, to use a well known author (Clausewitz) is the use of force to impose a political change to an opponent (excuse me if I do not quote word for word).
In deed, in Libya, there is a war. Who does conduct that war is another question and I believe the rebels are fighting a war.

Technically you are correct. But in reality the Libyans in Misrata and a few other places are fighting each other while the majority of the NATO air effort overflies Libya at a safe height while a few Brit/French/? aircraft go through the motions of carrying out ground strikes to give the impression NATO is really attempting to protect civilians. Its all very relaxed it you are operating under NATO in Libya but a different story if you are living in Misrata with your family.


Secondly, about humanitarian military intervention:
I would encourage you to read this:
Humanitarian Military Intervention: The Conditions for Success and Failure
by Taylor B. Seybolt
ISBN 978-0-19-925243-5 (hardback) 978-0-19-955105-7 (paperback)
http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=335

Humanitarian military intervention is controversial. Scepticism is always in order about the need to use military force because the consequences can be so dire. Yet it has become equally controversial not to intervene when a government subjects its citizens to massive violation of their basic human rights. This book recognizes the limits of humanitarian intervention but does not shy away from suggesting how military force can save lives in extreme circumstances.

[snip]



This is a subject of its own but my position is (as you may have gathered) to intervene before the situation becomes "extreme". This requires skill, local knowledge, judgement, finesse and the rest. Here lies the problem.


The zero casualty theory is a nice dream that does not change the nature of war: use of violence to impose by killing combatants and destruction of properties a political end.

Did I say something about zero casualties? As one who has buried friends and comrades in a conflict I could never contemplate or support an exercise where soldiers lives are placed at unnecessary risk. The way to intervene in these Mickey Mouse countries IMHO is through a specifically targeted, very carefully planned and skillfully carried out intervention before the killing/genocide/war starts and the body count begins to rise.


And finally, I would like to flag Save the Children report on Libya which is quite disturbing:
http://reliefweb.int/node/398089

Sad indeed. But it gets worse when limbs get severed and the like. I suggest that these reports support my case for early intervention.

[Dayuhan]

I have asked before how does anyone know what is the the US's interests at any given time? Any given two Americans will probably not agree on this.

We elect people to decide. They may be right or wrong, but they get to decide, until somebody else gets elected.


Suggest you read the Obama Libya statement transcript (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-president-obamas-address-nation-military-action-libya/story?id=13242776) and let it guide you from here on.

Public statements by elected officials are about putting a noble face on a decision, and say very little about the actual reasons for a decision and the balance of perceived interests that went into a decision. Not a good basis for any assumptions about perceived interests.

I've yet to see any credible argument from anyone, elected or not, suggesting that any US interest, let alone any vital US interest, is at stake in Libya.

[M-A Lagrange]

Technically you are correct. But in reality the Libyans in Misrata and a few other places are fighting each other while the majority of the NATO air effort overflies Libya at a safe height while a few Brit/French/? aircraft go through the motions of carrying out ground strikes to give the impression NATO is really attempting to protect civilians. Its all very relaxed it you are operating under NATO in Libya but a different story if you are living in Misrata with your family.
True, too true for the people. And I do agree with you and join your point on the need to reconnect military with normal people condition during conflicts. Especially when you have such a technology distance between people on the ground (who get assassinated indiscrimialy) and strikes conducted from the air.


This is a subject of its own but my position is (as you may have gathered) to intervene before the situation becomes "extreme". This requires skill, local knowledge, judgement, finesse and the rest. Here lies the problem.
Agree also, just past the link to show that "humanitarian military interventions" are not an easy task and requieres more than just a bunch of "stallone's expendables".


Did I say something about zero casualties? As one who has buried friends and comrades in a conflict I could never contemplate or support an exercise where soldiers lives are placed at unnecessary risk. The way to intervene in these Mickey Mouse countries IMHO is through a specifically targeted, very carefully planned and skillfully carried out intervention before the killing/genocide/war starts and the body count begins to rise.

Short wars as 6 days or 2nd shabba wars are rare. Even Lebanon 2006. I agree with you on the spirit but must admit that conflict are long... :o
Unfortunatelly, Libya is not a mickey mouse country. Do we like it or not, Gadaffi did train most of the African leaders/rebel groups and still has likes with many of them. Countries like Kenya or Uganda are reluctant to frozze his bank accounts... Chad is playing dirty with Gadaffi to get ead of some tribal fighters by sending them to support him and so does Mauritania.
It may look insignificant from Washingtown or L.A. but it does and will impact power in Africa.
The other problem I can see is that interviene too early to prevent is opening a door to what could be seen has a R2P fascist/military dictature. Exactly what Carl Schmitt points in his critics of the Just War concept.
The problem is that you have to wait until there are massive human rights abuse before launching anything. But once you started: YOU HAVE TO GO UP TO THE END.
Otherwise: just don't do it, you will end up with more ennemies than friends.
Sirya case is also interresting. I personaly believe that "Western" States (and specially US) are now facing a new dilemma: they pushed for people up rise in the name of freedom and democracy. And now that it's arriving, they are backing back saying: well... get organised, do it yourself, it's domestic problems... It's not good foreign policy, it's not defense policy. Basically the onces who are the most shaken in that story are the military and administrations of "Western powers" who finally do not want to see things changing cause it would mean they have to change too. It's more confortable to play with fire by yelling advises than actually facing it.


Sad indeed. But it gets worse when limbs get severed and the like. I suggest that these reports support my case for early intervention.
Cf what I just said.

[M-A Lagrange]

I've yet to see any credible argument from anyone, elected or not, suggesting that any US interest, let alone any vital US interest, is at stake in Libya.

Dayuhan, this looks rather like a I do not want to get out of my confort zone rather than a good argument to not go there.
And this illustrates my point: Bush administration said we will build a new Middle East and failed cause you cannot impose that from outside. Now people of Middle East are fighting to change it and the US (and others) are saying: do it yourself, not interrested anymore. And when an elected administration is saying let's go for it during an electoral period, the first and louder voice is: NO. Why? BECAUSE!
This is exactly what JMA is criticising: a complete lack of consistency in US foreign policy. US cannot start a fire and then say, I have changed my mind and will not play the firemen anymore now.

[Graycap]

Tequila,

Good catch the LAT report.

The capture of a border crossing was reported here without any context or helpful comment; almost as if the rebels had crossed over the border.

I am sure SWC readers have noted the lack of any reporting - except on migrant workers leaving - from the Tunisian border. Where does the new Tunisian government stand? Perhaps our two local observers (Italian & Spanish) can comment.

David, I don't know if I'm the "italian" involved but I'll try to do my best ;)

AFAIK the tunisian government is very, very, weak. It's trying to prepare some kind of political evolution to stabilise the internal situation. IMHO they could be available to support some kind of help by western powers towards western rebels. In exchange for some badly needed help.
Gheddafi regime could have been a great enemy for any kind of political evolution in Tunisia and Tunisia could become a sort of refuge and safe heaven for rebels in the worst case scenario. In tunisian eyes a Gheddafi's victory could be a disaster.

IMHO if you would like to search for Gheddafi's friends you should look a little bit in western direction. Algerian and Libyan army trained together quite often.

Anyway the most important problem is the lack of political unity between the western and eastern rebellions. This could be very dangerous. If it could be possible I think that it should be urgent to engage the western rebels as soon as possible.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan, this looks rather like a I do not want to get out of my confort zone rather than a good argument to not go there.

You don't need a good argument to not go there. Not going there is and rationally should be the default reaction to other people's problems. You need a good argument to justify going there.


US cannot start a fire and then say, I have changed my mind and will not play the firemen anymore now.

How exactly did the US start this fire?

But yes, certainly US policy is inconsistent. That's a consequence of democracy. The Bush administration's policies drove the US into two unpopular and horribly expensive wars, greatly diminished US influence abroad, created all manner of controversy at home, etc. The party that embraced those policies was voted out of office, partly because of those policies. Naturally, those policies changed. Why would anyone want to be consistent with policies that didn't achieve the desired effect and produced all manner of adverse unintended consequences? Why be consistent when something doesn't work?

[JMA]

I've yet to see any credible argument from anyone, elected or not, suggesting that any US interest, let alone any vital US interest, is at stake in Libya.

Well your President believes it and I accept that as being the official US position on the matter... and suggest that if you have a problem with that you take it up with him.

[JMA]

This is exactly what JMA is criticising: a complete lack of consistency in US foreign policy. US cannot start a fire and then say, I have changed my mind and will not play the firemen anymore now.

Exactly... and the Hungarians are still waiting (since 1956) for the US support to arrive which Radio Free Europe implied would be forthcoming.

It is evident that each successive generation of Americans either doesn't care or does not bother to learn from their own history.

I believe it is this everything is negotiable culture that has developed in the US where they will sell their anyone on the street corner if need be so what chance does a Hungarian or a Libyan have when push comes to shove.

[Dayuhan]

Well your President believes it and I accept that as being the official US position on the matter... and suggest that if you have a problem with that you take it up with him.

And you know what the President believes... by telepathy?

The best indicator of the official US assessment of interests in Libya is the level of actual commitment: actions speak a lot louder than words. The very limited US commitment in Libya and the evident desire to avoid further entanglement and withdraw as soon as possible suggest strongly that no significant interests are perceived... no matter what anyone says in a public statement.

[davidbfpo]

Graycap,

You asked:
David, I don't know if I'm the "italian" involved but I'll try to do my best

Yes, you are the Italian and thank you.:)

I was aware of Gadafy's role in Africa, which has complicated any response by the AU and others. The comment on Algerian-Libyan military links was news to me, although after a few thoughts makes sense.

[Dayuhan]

Exactly... and the Hungarians are still waiting (since 1956) for the US support to arrive which Radio Free Europe implied would be forthcoming.

So what somebody inferred from a radio broadcast is suddenly a binding commitment for the American people?


It is evident that each successive generation of Americans either doesn't care or does not bother to learn from their own history.

What were we to have learned from the Hungarian episode? Do you really think anyone in Hungary, or anywhere in Europe, would have been better off if the US had gone to war with the Soviet Union in 1956? Have you given no thought at all to the probable consequences if the US had gone riding to the rescue in Hungary? Consequences up to and likely including nuclear war?


I believe it is this everything is negotiable culture that has developed in the US where they will sell their own mother on the street corner if need be so what chance does a Hungarian or a Libyan have when push comes to shove.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but if you want anyone to take that belief seriously you'll need to present some shred of evidence supporting it. You might start by explaining why you would hold the US responsible for what happens to a Hungarian or a Libyan in the first place.

As previously noted, the UN Resolution does not mention the US. It addresses all member states. So how do you contrive to place responsibility on the US? Has the US ever been assigned, or accepted, the role of protector Of Everyone Everywhere All The Time? Do you propose that we appoint ourselves to that role?

In governance there is very little that is not negotiable. Those who govern have to weigh all manner of competing interests, possible effects of proposed actions, varying opinions, possible risks and rewards. Many of these involve substantial uncertainty and substantial chance of unintended consequences. If they don't make a decision you approve of, it doesn't mean they're incompetent. It more likely means they're considering factors that you're not seeing, and that the people who don't agree with you have some pretty convincing arguments too.

It's easy to argue from a position of self-proclaimed omniscience, but it's rarely very convincing.

[M-A Lagrange]

But yes, certainly US policy is inconsistent. That's a consequence of democracy. The Bush administration's policies drove the US into two unpopular and horribly expensive wars, greatly diminished US influence abroad, created all manner of controversy at home, etc. The party that embraced those policies was voted out of office, partly because of those policies. Naturally, those policies changed. Why would anyone want to be consistent with policies that didn't achieve the desired effect and produced all manner of adverse unintended consequences? Why be consistent when something doesn't work?

I am not calling for a come back to bad policies and bad administration in the US. Far from it. Your arguments are sound and reflect a probably general domestic public opinion.

Like JMA, I believe, I'm stund by the incapacity of western world to committe to the people onces expectations have been build and raised.
Also, I am regularly disappointed by so called free world government (France, US, Italy, UK... Name it) discourse on the right of the people to live in a safer peacefull world that would benefit everybody and the fact they turn their back anytime something happens in that direction.
It's probably due to the nature of our governmental structures.
It's sad, that's all.

I just support the idea that if people try to break free, this should be regarded as a major concern from all of the "democratic states" and efforts should be made to support them, as a basic policy.

[Dayuhan]

I just support the idea that if people try to break free, this should be regarded as a major concern from all of the "democratic states" and efforts should be made to support them, as a basic policy.

Efforts have been made to support them. The question is who's expected to make the effort, and how much effort any particular "democratic state" can reasonably be expected to apply.

If we're going to maintain that "democratic states" should assist people who want to "break free" with military force, there has to be some effort made to develop a structure where all democratic states would share in the responsibility and expense. It's not realistic or reasonable to always look to the US, Britain, and France. There also has to be some consideration given to responsibility for what happens after a dictator is deposed: if the people who did the deposing are going to be expected to pick up the pieces and put things back in order, it will be very, very difficult to persuade anyone to act.

All very well to proclaim that the developed democracies have a hypothetical "responsibility" to help "the people" against "the dictator"... but that has to be weighed against other responsibilities, notably to their own people, and recognition that what may superficially appear to be a case of "the people" fighting for "freedom" against "the dictator" may in fact be a lot more complicated and may present a situation that rational people might easily want no part of.

PS: It's not incapacity to commit, it's unwillingness. It's also not that hard to understand, if you consider where that kind of commitment can lead. Commitments are not things to be lightly undertaken, and expecting others to make them is a lot easier than taking them on yourself.

[JMA]

Roughly, and of course oversimplified:

Degrade Libyan air defenses, ground forces, logistics, communications and other support facilities to the greatest extent we can achieve within one week, using air and naval assets.

At this point we will relinquish primary responsibility to the British, French, and other allies. Further assistance will be provided at their request, with requests evaluated on a case-to-case basis.

Why do I not see any reference to civilians here? Was their protection not the primary reason for the intervention after all?

First, I would suggest was the requirement to save Benghazi from being sacked by Gaddafi - this the French did in five minutes on 19 March.

Second, would have been the requirement to enforce the no fly zone. This would have had a time factor attached of say 7 days or sooner and have a "no collateral damage" limitation attached - with the requirement of political oversight of the target lists. This would have been carried out by US assets off the carrier and whatever Brit and French assets available. - after 28 March no further mention of Gaddafi air assets (that I could find) - no fly zone effective - allowing the the "just going through the motions" nations to "enforce" the no fly zone risk free at high altitude yet be seen to be involved. On 31 March the US passed command of air ops to NATO.

Thirdly, the naval blockade quickly enforced by air and ship and command handed over to NATO on 24 March.

Fourth, the civilians other than those in Benghazi drew the short straw. With the US packing up and going to sit on the carrier after 12 days there were never going to be enough aircraft to protect the civilians other than in Benghazi from attack from Gaddafi's forces which other than its air and anti-aircraft assets were still more than a match for the rebels. Obama would have known this.

Also rough.

My read of the situation is that little if any consideration was given to civilians other than those in Benghazi and that a conscious decision was made not to go after Gaddafi's ground forces themselves (to any serious extent) other than their war materials to the extent that Mullen said two days ago (or so) that more than a third of Libya's forces had been destroyed (30-40%).

So the very civilians the US and NATO are there to protect are being abandoned to their fate while the Gaddafi forces being the cause of this misery and suffering remain at a 60-70% level of existence and a significant threat to civilians.

I have no doubt that the US forces involved did the best they could (and by all accounts that was a superb effort) and the Brits and French likewise given their limited resources within the operational parameters laid down by the politicians.

...but the intervention has failed in its primary task of protecting civilians. If there is a stalemate it is because Obama wants it that way. If people continue to be killed and maimed in Misrata and elsewhere it is because Obama doesn't care. Gaddafi's forces could have been destroyed in a very short time had Obama wanted the military to do just that. He didn't. Obama has the blood of the civilans in Misrata and elsewhere on his hands.

Autocrats and dictators can only remain in power if the security apparatus, army, police, paid spies and informers remain effectively in place.

[JMA]

True, too true ...

Agree also, ...

OK, lets skip what we agree on...


Unfortunatelly, Libya is not a mickey mouse country.

This is where we disagree.

The US off that carrier (had there been a war against Libya) would have been able to crush Libya in an afternoon. Militarily Libya was a Mickey Mouse setup. The fact that they brought in African mercenaries (of dubious military quality) to help out and together with the trained Libyan forces only have an edge on the rebels through tanks and artillery. Watch the videos carefully, it is quite revealing.

Yes, Gaddafi has exerted significant political influence across Africa, but you need to accept that it was "bought and paid for" rather than through any great leadership and a realistic vision for Africa. Look at who are in his pocket. Buying a dictator is not the same as gaining the support of the whole country. These dictators are just being loyal to their paymaster for as long as the money keeps landing in their Swiss bank accounts (which they no doubt hope will be for many more years to come).

These fellow dictators probably correctly know that after Gbagbo and Gaddafi their number may well come up next. Can't wait, we live in exciting times.

--------------------

Just found this online:

Why John McCain Is Optimistic About Libya (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2067261,00.html)

Agree with just about everything McCain is reported to have said (and have probably said so already). The bad news is that because he says it the Obama Administration probably won't do it.

Not sure though whether he thinks a negotiated settlement with Gaddafi is the final solution. If so we disagree on that.

[Rex Brynen]

I believe it is this everything is negotiable culture that has developed in the US where they will sell their anyone on the street corner if need be so what chance does a Hungarian or a Libyan have when push comes to shove.

Has developed? And only in the US?

I must admit that I somehow missed the golden age of selfless American interventions around the world in support of democracy and human rights (or, for that matter, similar interventions by anyone else).

Indeed, the current intervention in Libya comes as close as any—so perhaps Washington today is less willing to put narrow interests before broader principles than during the cynical, dictator-supporting days of the Cold War. There are legitimate concerns over the costs and possible implications of NATO intervention, but the impulse at least deserves praise rather than condemnation.

[jmm99]

is what it used to be called by "vulgar folks" - a "punitive raid" or "regime removal" (not "regime change") are less "vulgar" terms.

The idea is that you go into a territory, kill and/or capture armed groups, destroy installations and even remove a regime by killing or detaining boss man and his backups - without intent to exercise any governance over the territory and without attempting to establish or assist a follow-on governance. In short, invade, achieve limited objectives (one way to define a "limited war") and leave !

For most of my lifetime, "butcher and bolt" has not been the dominant theme in US armed conflicts (two somewhat "b&bs" were Grenada and Panama, I suppose). WRT OIF, I was unpopular about the local watering trough for asserting a "butcher and bolt" approach. According to John Bolton, he was asserting (unsuccessfully) the same thing in the WH - invade, get rid of SH and leave (gifting the Iraqis a copy of the Federalist Papers on the way out the door).

The dominant view is that invasion must somehow be followed by occupation ala WWII Germany and Japan - the "you break it; you buy it" theory (albeit a fallacy).

The approach taken by the HCL study (http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05916.pdf) is interesting (although some may think that its section on "foreign occupation" has more than a bit of legal-political sophistry) (footnotes in original omitted here):


7 Can the coalition send ground forces in?

The resolution excludes the possibility of a “foreign occupation force”. Legally, that means that ground forces can be used as long as they do not exercise effective control over the territory.

Asked whether he could guarantee that no ground forces would be used, Mr Cameron told the Commons:


What I can guarantee is that we will stick to the terms of the UN resolution, which absolutely and specifically rules out an occupying force. We have to be clear: we are not talking about an invasion; we are not talking about an occupying force; we are talking about taking action to protect civilian life, and I think that is the right thing to do.

There is speculation that British Special Forces are on the ground in Libya, helping the Air Force to select targets and, it is reported, aborting one RAF mission because civilians were too close to the target. The government has denied the suggestion.

On 3 April, Mr Hague clarified the government’s position:


We’re sticking very closely here to the United Nations resolution… which makes very clear there must be no foreign occupation of any part of Libya and we will stick to that. There have already been circumstances in which we’ve sent small special forces in to Libya. We rescued people from the desert a few weeks ago as you will remember through doing that. So circumstances can arise where limit, such limited operations take place, but there is going to be no large scale ground force placed in Libya by the United Kingdom.

The distinction between what is said here and what Bolton (as I've understood his post-OIF remarks) and I said re: OIF, hinges on this concept (from the quote above):


Legally, that means that ground forces can be used as long as they do not exercise effective control over the territory.

WRT OIF, we (Bolton and I) were taking Iraq as a whole - and suggesting that we decline to exercise control over the entire nation - defining all Iraq as "the territory". Factually, even a lawyer should recognize that, in order to achieve even a limited objective, military forces must exercise effective control over some geographic area.

If the UNSC Res merely excluded a "foreign occupation force" in Libya, the Bolton-jmm99 type of argument would have a better chance of holding up - even though most of the "I Law World" probably is contrary to "butcher and bolt" to begin with.

But, the addition of the language "of any form on any part" would literally exclude ground forces in any form (a squad) because a squad has to control the ground it occupies. That is not a "lawyerly" argument; but simply a factual inference.

I probably won't respond to anything said about this legal point. I followed this discussion at SWC - and the legal discussions at Lawfare and elesewhere. My UN delegation would have voted with Germany on this issue and no cruise missiles would have flown into Libya. No change.

Regards, JMA - and bonne chance in your attempt to convert others.

Mike

[Stan]

Why do we (continue to) justify humanitarian intervention when all we are into is another regime change that we just screwed-up a decade earlier ? :rolleyes:

I never really "got" why we argue about whether nations have the duty to intervene in the affairs of others. In fact, the meddling I witnessed leaves me wondering.

Libya is another can of worms we opened in Africa with one side arguing that international forces can prevent or end humanitarian suffering while others assert that intervention is based on the inconsistent application of bleak and puzzling principles which amount to little more than the US looking like oil-hungry imperialists.

IMHO when we stuck our noses into this mess under the guise of "responsibility to protect", we ran the risk of what comes next (assuming we ever end up successful at this FUBAR with a sound exit strategy).

Everyone and someone: Seems we've hashed this issue in Africa over four decades and some conclude "everyone" while the rest are content with just "someone" (being spared). As a pessimistic former NCO I'll accept "someone" knowing I can't realistically spare "everyone" when the town goes Tango Uniform.

When has there ever been an assessment from the ground prior to military operations in Africa ? We have the people and intel, but we let blind politicians lead us into a hamstrung operation in the middle of a financial debate over debt reduction and elections :eek:

Who has doctrine that outright justifies humanitarian intervention by a military force because the current dictator that we helped into power is no longer in our good graces and has to go :wry:

Give me a break already !

[M-A Lagrange]

Stan,

The question, at least for me, in the case of Lybia is different than removing a dictator US or France put in place and wants to change.
My point is that in this particular case, people have chosent to change the regime.

Mike,
I would have vote as France did. May be because of youth idealism. Also, because there are national interrest a stake in neigbouring countries.

Dayuhan
We could enter in an endless debate on where were the threats to US national security in Irak... I can see why US feels tired of being the sherif of the world. And France is not going to the replecement neither.
But there is a need to go deeper than just unwillingness because of possible bias, pitfall and what ever bad interpretation of such political line.
But still, it might be youth idealism.

[Dayuhan]

Why do I not see any reference to civilians here? Was their protection not the primary reason for the intervention after all?

Don't confuse the purpose of the intervention with the purpose of the US role in the intervention. Two different things. A specific US commitment to protect civilians would have been far too open ended and made it far too easy for the US to be pulled into a greater role than it wanted. The US role from the start was to use its unique capacity to create an environment where a NATO-led mission dominated by the British and French could pursue the wider objectives. The intention from the start was to scale down and hand over the operation once that limited objective was achieved.

Of course I know al about the inflated rhetoric used in justifying the participation (that was well overdone, IMO). Like most inflated rhetoric, it doesn't mean much. Looking at what was actually done gives a much better idea of what was intended. I see no reason to suppose that the US ever intended to take on the blanket role of protector of Libyan civilians, nor can I see any credible reason why the US should have or should take on that role.


If there is a stalemate it is because Obama wants it that way. If people continue to be killed and maimed in Misrata and elsewhere it is because Obama doesn't care. Gaddafi's forces could have been destroyed in a very short time had Obama wanted the military to do just that. He didn't. Obama has the blood of the civilans in Misrata and elsewhere on his hands.

Repeating that a thousand times won't make it anything but nonsense. The US has no more responsibility to protect Libyan civilians than any other UN member state... and the UNSC Resolution authorizes military action, it doesn't require it.


Agree with just about everything McCain is reported to have said (and have probably said so already). The bad news is that because he says it the Obama Administration probably won't do it.

Not sure though whether he thinks a negotiated settlement with Gaddafi is the final solution. If so we disagree on that.

What struck me about McCain's comments was the complete lack of any consideration for what comes after. he seems to treat the removal of MG and victory for the rebels as an end point in itself, which anyone who actually has power in the US can't afford to do. The primary goal of any US involvement in Libya, IMO, has to be assuring that the US is not sucked into any involvement in post-MG stabilization and "nation-building". McCain doesn't seem to acknowledge that getting rid of MG will be only the first step in a process that's certain to be long and likely to be an enormous mess.


My point is that in this particular case, people have chosent to change the regime.

Some people have chosen that. Don't forget that MG still has a substantial base of support, and there's likely to be conflict between those factions of the populace long after MG leaves.


I can see why US feels tired of being the sherif of the world. And France is not going to the replecement neither.
But there is a need to go deeper than just unwillingness because of possible bias, pitfall and what ever bad interpretation of such political line.
But still, it might be youth idealism.

If we're going to hold up humanitarian intervention as a goal, the first requirement has to be acceptance that neither the US nor anyone else can be "Sheriff of the world". Any nation stuck in that role would have to balance the responsibilities of that role with its own perceived interests at any given point, and with its responsibilities to its own people. Any nation in that role will be suspected by the rest of the world of using the badge to advance its own interests, and that suspicion will often be justified. if there's going to be a responsibility to protect, there has to be a way of sharing the responsibility for both the decision and the execution.

I've nothing against humanitarian intervention in principle, if it's used with caution and with appreciation for the full range of issues and potential consequences involved. I just don't want the US stuck with the role of making the decisions, executing the decisions, and taking responsibility for the outcome.

[jmm99]

MAL .....


Mike,
I would have vote as France did. May be because of youth idealism. Also, because there are national interrest a stake in neigbouring countries.

What ? You are placing me amongst all the Old Ba$tards of SWC - you'd think I'm going to turn 69 this August ! :D

"My" UN vote (in any case) would be based on my conclusion (well, a bit more than "me" - see next paragraph) about what is or is not in the best national interests of the US. As, for example, Dominique de Villepin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_de_Villepin) represented the best national interests of France in 2003 (as I saw his performance).

When I was young and idealistic, I had a conversation (in LBJ times) with my teacher and mentor Eric Stein (http://www.law.umich.edu/historyandtraditions/faculty/Faculty_Lists/Alpha_Faculty/Pages/EricStein.aspx) (a great person - still teaching into his 90s). His bottom line was along these lines: "You are still young and idealistic. You believe that if you get into a position of power you can move along great changes. Be aware that even the President of the United States is subject to many constraints. One of them is that 100s or 1000s of people will be involved in any Presidential decision."

The point, of course, is that one should not throw away one's idealism (Dr Stein didn't); but that one should temper it with realism.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

I didn't have this at my fingertips when I mentioned Dr Stein, but it's a great bio about Eric Stein, the person (http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/1197/The-Peacemaker/).


But what about the UN's status today? What about Iraq? And more important, what about the people who make laws and draft resolutions and create new constitutions? Can a lawyer's work make humanity's future better than its past? I ask Stein these questions in his office one morning as the radiator clanks. He tips back in his chair. I expect a hearty answer in the affirmative. But he looks at me squarely through his thick-framed glasses, and I become horrifyingly aware of the 60 years of living he has on me. "I have my doubts," he says. "I would like, by instinct, to be optimistic. But by my experience, I have constantly the feeling to control that instinct." Later, he adds: "There has been progress in human rights. I was in the chamber of the UN in '48 when they adopted universal human rights. Just think of the recognition that 'human being' included women. This was wonderful. But no one knows how long it will last. No one knows how deep the trend is. People learn from history only so well."

No one knows how long it will last. Human rights may be only a trend. I ask Stein how he has mustered such effort for so long on a project—that's what cooperative government is, really: a project—that is so intrinsically experimental, so uncertain. "It is perfectly plausible that the Earth will be destroyed," he says. "The question is, What to do now? This is what I think of." He brings up a poem by Wallace Stevens, The Man with the Blue Guitar, from which he quotes in his book Thoughts from a Bridge. A line from the poem reads, "I cannot bring a world quite round / Although I patch it as I can."

This reflects in part from whence I come.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

Just overheard a very direct report by Marie Colvin, The Times reporter in the city, very similar to "Where is NATO, this city is being shelled, why cannot they stop them?".

Undoubtedly the media are going to press on with this aspect.

A BBC report from the city has little new, such as this:
During a three-day stay in the city, we heard Nato warplanes overhead several times, but did not see or hear any fresh air strikes.

But another soundtrack became very familiar - the percussion of war. Both day and night were punctuated by the cracks, thumps, and thuds of heavy artillery and mortars.

Except for this:
A three-man French team had arrived in the city, they said, to help pinpoint the location of Col Gaddafi's forces.

Given the speculation about AQ's role I liked this:
Please don't think we are al-Qaeda," he said. "We all agreed not to shave until Col Gaddafi was gone," he said. "Nobody thought it would take this long.


Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13188444

[JMA]

Lets deal with this aspect first:
What struck me about McCain's comments was the complete lack of any consideration for what comes after. he seems to treat the removal of MG and victory for the rebels as an end point in itself, which anyone who actually has power in the US can't afford to do. The primary goal of any US involvement in Libya, IMO, has to be assuring that the US is not sucked into any involvement in post-MG stabilization and "nation-building". McCain doesn't seem to acknowledge that getting rid of MG will be only the first step in a process that's certain to be long and likely to be an enormous mess.

Here's my take on the McCain article in Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2067261,00.html):

First of all this article seems to have been put together after two chance/random conversations between the author and McCain. So I for one did not expect the article to reflect McCain's definitive position on Libya.

MIRAS (McCain is reported as saying) "Gaddafi is a third-rate military power," - he is correct

MIRAS "...one thing we know about mercenaries is that if they think things are going in the wrong direction, they'll get out of Dodge." - correct, that's why they need to be on the receiving end of some ordinance so that get a strong feeling things are going in the wrong direction.

MIRAS - "the West still has tools at its disposal that can bring about Gaddafi's downfall, even without a major commitment of U.S. military force. "- indeed and if they had aggressively acted against Gaddafi's forces from the outset this would have happened in the first few weeks. The wimp in the WH vacillated and the opportunity passed and the people of Misrata died.

MIRAS - "By the time they arrived in Benghazi, a 20-hour journey by sea, wounded rebel fighters had little chance for survival. " - so what to do about it? Is assistance with medical supplies, treatment and evacuation either a breach of the UNSC resolution or not in the US's best interests?

MIRAS - "The rebels have "learned by doing" — they have neutralized Gaddafi's advantage in weaponry by improving their use of guerrilla tactics." - yes, as stated the local knowledge of all the lanes and alley ways is a massive advantage for the rebels. But is this a skill that should be fostered among Libyans? Who could they use these guerrilla tactics against next?

MIRAS - "We're talking about a fourth-rate power taking on a third-rate power," - yes and its in the interests of Libya, the region and the continent that Libyans do not learn to become first rate soldiers.

MIRAS - "the citizens of Benghazi cheered McCain, they also said they were baffled at the West's seeming unwillingness to take more aggressive steps to stop Gaddafi's shock troops. "There is some anger, but a lot of it is just, 'I thought the Americans would help us," - and with just reason the anger will rise. There was an opportunity to improve the goodwill towards the US by aggressively going after Gaddafi forces and thereby protecting the civilians. An opportunity lost.

MIRAS - "We should recognize" the rebel leadership as a provisional government, " - should have been done long ago... or withdrawing the recognition of the Gaddafi regime.

MIRAS - "get the rebel satellite phones and uniforms" - should have been done long ago.

MIRAS - "Most importantly, the Obama Administration needs to reclaim ownership of NATO's air campaign. "I love the British and I love the French, but they do not have the military capabilities of the United States of America ... We are fighting half a war. You can never win conflicts unless you do what is necessary to win." - Handing over to NATO was another supposedly "smart move" that proved to be a mistake. The soloution is to admit it, fix it and finish this business... quickly.

MIRAS - "I don't think it would be a lengthy campaign." - of course. You let those boys on the carrier loose on Gaddafi's forces and it will be over in an afternoon.

Quite simply Gaddafi must be forced out of power. The world should expect and should accept that him, his sons and inner circle will face the death penalty and let it happen. Thereafter let the Libyans sort their country out for themselves. Why, the US could even charge them a few billion for the military assistance and I'm sure the Libyans would cheerfully pay. An oil rich country, the one thing they have is the money.

[Dayuhan]

Sound oddly reminiscent of all the reasons given for invading Iraq and removing Saddam. I distinctly recall being told that the Iraqis would dance in the streets, welcome us with open arms, and be eternally grateful, and that Iraqi oil would pay the cost of the operation. Hasn't quite worked out that way.

[JMA]

Sound oddly reminiscent of all the reasons given for invading Iraq and removing Saddam. I distinctly recall being told that the Iraqis would dance in the streets, welcome us with open arms, and be eternally grateful, and that Iraqi oil would pay the cost of the operation. Hasn't quite worked out that way.

Well yes, the weak constant with Libya and Iraq (and Afghanistan) is the State Department and the CIA. As long as the US has to rely on these clowns for briefings, guidance and intel the planning and execution will be like going blindfolded into the great unknown.

Further to that it should be asked what the US has learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan. Now older, wiser and more experienced heads will not make the same mistakes... but we have a brand new bunch of arrogant clowns in the Administration now who seem intent on reinventing the wheel. So the 4 to 8 year cycle continues.

[JMA]

In short, invade, achieve limited objectives (one way to define a "limited war") and leave !

I recalled you saying more on the limited concept before. Found it here:

Limited result vs limited means (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=10983&highlight=insurgency&page=7)

I would just comment that the politicians determine the objectives which almost certainly will be limited and will limit the means the military will have for achieving these objectives. The Concept of Limitation (in British doctrine) has bearing and as mentioned elsewhere has four general categories: objectives, means, area and time.

BTW... I agree with hitting hard and leaving... with the promise that "if we have any more trouble from you lot, we will be back with some more of the same."

[Dayuhan]

Well yes, the weak constant with Libya and Iraq (and Afghanistan) is the State Department and the CIA. As long as the US has to rely on these clowns for briefings, guidance and intel the planning and execution will be like going blindfolded into the great unknown.

You might find a few parallels between Iraq and Libya without straining to look too hard. Long-standing dictatorships, deeply divided "nations" held together only by force, etc.

I'd suggest that the problem in Iraq in particular was less with planning and execution than with the decision to go there in the first place... and still more with the "idea" (using the term very loosely indeed) that the US could "drain the swamp in the Middle East" by "installing" a democracy in Iraq. Start with that set of delusions and no amount of planning and execution is going to produce anything but disaster, even with the best briefings, guidance and intel on the planet. There are things you just shouldn't try to do, usually because they are dumb.


Further to that it should be asked what the US has learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan. Now older, wiser and more experienced heads will not make the same mistakes... but we have a brand new bunch of arrogant clowns in the Administration now who seem intent on reinventing the wheel. So the 4 to 8 year cycle continues.

They seem to have learned that charging into places you don't belong and trying to remove or replace governments is often not a good idea. That's a start. They seem less inclined to unilateral intervention and more inclined to place sharp limits on intervention, and that's not half bad either. Long way from perfect, but a step in the right direction.

I suppose you could argue that a nice permanent dictatorship would give greater continuity to US foreign policy and a better opportunity to learn from mistakes... in fact it sounds like you're arguing exactly that. Alas, we're quaintly attached to this notion of democracy. Incomprehensible, of course, but there it is.

The repetitive and tedious accusations of arrogance, incompetence, cowardice and what have you really don't do your arguments much service, and are easily perceived as a rather shallow sort of bluster in the Colonel Blimp vein. I doubt they are intended to be that, but they easily leave that impression.

[JMA]

You might find a few parallels between Iraq and Libya without straining to look too hard. Long-standing dictatorships, deeply divided "nations" held together only by force, etc.

Well yes, there will be parallels and there will be significant differences. Each case has to be handled on its merits. The current WH and State clearly is all at sea over how to handle the Arab Spring. An opportunity lost.


I'd suggest that the problem in Iraq in particular was less with planning and execution than with the decision to go there in the first place... and still more with the "idea" (using the term very loosely indeed) that the US could "drain the swamp in the Middle East" by "installing" a democracy in Iraq. Start with that set of delusions and no amount of planning and execution is going to produce anything but disaster, even with the best briefings, guidance and intel on the planet. There are things you just shouldn't try to do, usually because they are dumb.

Well maybe. But like with GWB Obama brought certain preconceived ideas to the presidency. That is why I refer to "a brand new bunch of arrogant clowns" replacing another. What I suggest to you is that the "cock-ups" have been as a result of all too smart politicians getting beyond themselves which reflects badly on the military in the end. But that said if the briefings, guidence and intel from State and the CIA were better the chances are that the WH would make better decisions. You want to cut costs? Do it at State and the CIA.


They seem to have learned that charging into places you don't belong and trying to remove or replace governments is often not a good idea. That's a start. They seem less inclined to unilateral intervention and more inclined to place sharp limits on intervention, and that's not half bad either. Long way from perfect, but a step in the right direction.

Well you see if the new Administration can't make an intelligent deduction from the facts before them there is the reason why the world sees one shambles follow the next every 4 or 8 years. Not good for world peace.


I suppose you could argue that a nice permanent dictatorship would give greater continuity to US foreign policy and a better opportunity to learn from mistakes... in fact it sounds like you're arguing exactly that. Alas, we're quaintly attached to this notion of democracy. Incomprehensible, of course, but there it is.

I am not arguing that... but if all you have left is to misrepresent what I say then that's a new low.


The repetitive and tedious accusations of arrogance, incompetence, cowardice and what have you really don't do your arguments much service, and are easily perceived as a rather shallow sort of bluster in the Colonel Blimp vein. I doubt they are intended to be that, but they easily leave that impression.

Yes, the truth is often unpalatable... but to turn that into personal innuendo is a little cheap don't you think?

[Bob's World]

Have not seen any obvious difference between the individual soldiering skill between Liberia and Libya.

http://cdn.wn.com/ph/img/55/c6/bbd624828e57306307a4e6491bad-grande.jpg http://www.aljazeerah.info/images/2011/April/21%20p/Libyan%20rebels%20exchange%20fire%20with%20governm ent%20troops%20in%20downtown%20Misrata,%20Libya,%2 0April%2021,%202011%20xin.jpg

Anyone seen a photo of someone using their weapon sights?

History is a pretty long list of professional armies and their leadership who had great sport in their assessments of the unprofessional, populace rabbles they confronted.

Right up to the point where they realized that the "rabble" had somehow defeated them.

Often the pursuit of liberty is the powerful cause that elevates such rabble over professionals fighting for 3 hots and a cot; and who believe their own liberty is not at stake in this match.

[JMA]

History is a pretty long list of professional armies and their leadership who had great sport in their assessments of the unprofessional, populace rabbles they confronted.

Right up to the point where they realized that the "rabble" had somehow defeated them.

Often the pursuit of liberty is the powerful cause that elevates such rabble over professionals fighting for 3 hots and a cot; and who believe their own liberty is not at stake in this match.

Yes did happen Bob.

My interest in this is not to denigrate the Libyan rebels but rather to understand who they are and what they have to offer (see my later comment to David).

Its a "know your enemy" thing ... as in Sun Tzu

Interesting that these people have held Gaddafi's forces and mercenaries at bay in Misrata for weeks now. By knowing the rebels skills and capabilities one learns much about the skills (or the lack thereof) of Gaddafi's forces. McCain is correct, it is the third rate against the fourth rate.

[jmm99]

JMA,

Yes, I have distinguished between "limited means" (in military strategy and/or tactics), as opposed to a "limited result" (in the policy end goal which underlies the war) - Limited result vs limited means (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=104806&postcount=138).


I'd suggest that the problem lies in confusion with the concept of "limited war", where that concept is considered to require "limited means" (in military strategy and/or tactics), as opposed to a "limited result" (in the policy end goal which underlies the war).

E.g., we (say the political masters) will conquer only the south 20 miles of the opponent's country - the "limited result". The means used do not have to be limited and may in fact take everything off the table - and use it. An example was Ike's back-channel proposition to the North Koreans, which would I suppose be patently illegal today (according to the ICJ) because it involved the threat to use nuclear weapons.

So, a "limited result" may be logical as a policy; but then all means necessary to that end goal must be employed.

I think I have been reasonably consistent with that distinction since 1964, when my mantra (as to policy vs North Vietnam via Lemay's stalking horse) was:

Choice Lemay,
Not LBJ.

2/3 of the US disagreed and voted for the "Peace Candidate". We soon entered into an Asian ground war and a halfa$$ed limited means bombing of North Vietnam.

Still a No Go on Libya - Nice try, though

Regards

Mike

[Ken White]

BTW... I agree with hitting hard and leaving... with the promise that "if we have any more trouble from you lot, we will be back with some more of the same."That makes much more sense than the ineffectual efforts seen over the last 50 plus years -- and today.

Now, if we can just get the inane politicians geared up (the Media will not be a problem, they'll jump at the idea...). :wry:

[JMA]

JMA,

Yes, I have distinguished between "limited means" (in military strategy and/or tactics), as opposed to a "limited result" (in the policy end goal which underlies the war) - Limited result vs limited means (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=104806&postcount=138).

I think I have been reasonably consistent with that distinction since 1964, when my mantra (as to policy vs North Vietnam via Lemay's stalking horse) was:

Choice Lemay,
Not LBJ.

2/3 of the US disagreed and voted for the "Peace Candidate". We soon entered into an Asian ground war and a halfa$$ed limited means bombing of North Vietnam.

Still a No Go on Libya - Nice try, though

Regards

Mike

OK I believe I understand where you are coming from now.

Politician to General: General, this is your mission nothing more, nothing less. To achieve this mission within the laid down time frame what means do you require?

I believe that by limiting the means at the disposal of the commanding general it probably ensures that only a limited result can be achieved (with an unnecessary higher cost of soldier casualties).

As to Libya, once you realise the enormity of Obama's strategic error I hope you will appreciate that there was a quick, clean and easy (and low cost) option that could of/should of been attempted.

[jmm99]

Hello South Africa,

I do not believe that, usually, "quick, clean and easy (and low cost) options" exist in the military realm. I bolded "believe" because you obviously have a different belief - beliefs are not subject to argument.

That being said, let's have a conversation - going back to 1964. A number of options existed.

1. One was a very large infusion of ground forces into South Vietnam and the Laotian Panhandle - JCS estimated ca.1954-1962 up to ~600K for SVN and ~100-150K for the Laotian Panhandle. A Marine Staff study ca.1964 estimated ~700K would then be required for both the SVN and Laotian efforts. That plan (never executed, of course) would have reversed the geographic disadvantage which we sustained in SVN by losing Laos and Cambodia 1959-1962. This option was definitely not a "quick, clean and easy (and low cost) option"; and might have required some direct action vs NVN as well.

2. From Lemay's viewpoint (informed by WWII), NVN had by 1964 completed a decade of re-building; and its riverine system had an extensive flood control system (dikes, etc.). So, there were targets to hit. As a initial step, Lemay wanted a non-graduated "hard knock" bombing. It would have looked something like the 1972 Xmas bombing (Linebacker II), but probably much more extensive and violent. If not a "win" (hard to "win" with air power alone), the idea was to buy time at the least.

3. What LBJ, McNamara, et al, came up with was "graduated pressure" vs NVN and the Viet Cong in SVN - treating each as nearly separate issues. And so it went on and morphed and morphed, with increases in both ground forces and bombing. And, of course, this exchange was certainly absent in LBJ's interface:


Politician to General: General, this is your mission nothing more, nothing less. To achieve this mission within the laid down time frame what means do you require?

and targeting was done by the civilian staff.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

I missed this. An IISS list of contributions and a map:http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-voices/operation-odyssey-dawn-ellamy-harmattan-mobile/

IIRC some nations within NATO have declared no ground attack role.

[Dayuhan]

Well yes, there will be parallels and there will be significant differences. Each case has to be handled on its merits. The current WH and State clearly is all at sea over how to handle the Arab Spring. An opportunity lost.

I don't see that they are "lost and at sea", they simply have a policy that's not what you approve of. The general idea appears to be to support change of government, but with minimal actual involvement, which worked fine in Egypt and Tunisia. Libya's a little more complicated and has to be handled as it emerges: nobody here has a crystal ball, and nobody in the US government does either. While you are personally convinced that you have a better way of doing things that would yield better results, that's only an opinion, and a lot of competent and well informed people don't share your opinion. That doesn't make them incompetent or cowards or fools or anything else of that sort; it means there's a variance of opinion.


Well maybe. But like with GWB Obama brought certain preconceived ideas to the presidency. That is why I refer to "a brand new bunch of arrogant clowns" replacing another. What I suggest to you is that the "cock-ups" have been as a result of all too smart politicians getting beyond themselves which reflects badly on the military in the end. But that said if the briefings, guidence and intel from State and the CIA were better the chances are that the WH would make better decisions. You want to cut costs? Do it at State and the CIA.

Anyone running for office has to bring preconceived ideas and general policy outlines: nobody will vote for a tabula rasa. The Obama administration is staying as close as it can to the policy framework that it campaigned on, and that the people voted for, which does not seem unreasonable to me.

Smart politicians have often gotten ahead of themselves and messed things up. Dumb ones have often done the same. More often than not they've cocked things up by pushing the US into places it doesn't belong, which is one good reason why intervention in other nations hasn't got a great deal of support in the US.

Guidance from State and Intel is only one of many influences on political decision-making in the US, and often not the most important one... and for better or worse, the State and CIA budgets are too small to make much difference in budget reductions.


Well you see if the new Administration can't make an intelligent deduction from the facts before them there is the reason why the world sees one shambles follow the next every 4 or 8 years. Not good for world peace.

Their deductions are different from yours. That doesn't necessarily make them unintelligent... and world peace is not going to be achieved by anything the US does or doesn't do. The US does not run the world. I have my own criticisms of US policy, and have for many years... but I can't guarantee that my own preferred policies would have generated better results, and neither can you.


I am not arguing that... but if all you have left is to misrepresent what I say then that's a new low.

Then what are you arguing? The electoral cycle is implicit in democracy; you can't have a democracy without it. The right of the populace to choose leaders with different policies is implicit in democracy. If you're complaining about the impact of the electoral cycle on democracy, you're complaining about democracy, because you can't have one without the other.


Yes, the truth is often unpalatable... but to turn that into personal innuendo is a little cheap don't you think?

It's not the truth, it's your opinion. Your occasional failure to distinguish between these two very different things is what creates the impression I described earlier.

[Dayuhan]

Noted the comments below...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110430/ap_on_re_us/us_libya_prizing_predator


Stephen Biddle, a military analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the reasons are as much diplomatic as military.

"A big part of what's going on is our British and French allies want to get out of what looks to be a stalemate that they now own, so they are busy pressuring us to escalate, and we don't want to escalate," he said. "One of the things the Predators do is they give you something that allows you to say to the British and the French, `We're doing more,' but doesn't get us a lot more committed."

Biddle called the addition of two Predators a "marginal" gain for NATO that won't give the alliance the upper hand or stop Gadhafi's attacks on civilians.

"But it helps solve the immediate issue of responding to pressure from allies," Biddle said.

That's consistent with what I've thought from the start: the US effort is less about achieving any specific end state or result on the ground in Libya than about establishing a US position. The administration does not want to be seen in a fully isolationist "doesn't give a $#!t" role, does want to be seen working through multilateral organizations, but does not under any circumstances want to take "ownership" or take over any kind of a lead role that could lead to "ownership". Given recent history it's easy enough to understand why: getting rid of an undesirable government can easily be the start, not the end, of the problems if one accepts that "ownership" role.

[JMA]

Noted the comments below...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110430/ap_on_re_us/us_libya_prizing_predator

That's consistent with what I've thought from the start: the US effort is less about achieving any specific end state or result on the ground in Libya than about establishing a US position. The administration does not want to be seen in a fully isolationist "doesn't give a $#!t" role, does want to be seen working through multilateral organizations, but does not under any circumstances want to take "ownership" or take over any kind of a lead role that could lead to "ownership". Given recent history it's easy enough to understand why: getting rid of an undesirable government can easily be the start, not the end, of the problems if one accepts that "ownership" role.

What is consistent is the evidence that the Obama Administration does not have the vaguest idea of what's going on and how to proceed in Libya. What we are quite possibly witnessing is the most inept Administration in US history.

Spin the situation as much as you wish but what the world is witnessing is the horror of a US President Leading from behind (http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/27/leading_from_behind)


But "leading from behind" doesn't produce that outcome. It produces resentful allies who feel we set them up to fail, resentful rebels who feel we would not help them win, resentful victims who continued at great danger to resist despots. It produces governments that ponder whether another powerful state should be assisted because it might prove less aggravating than we are.

[Dayuhan]

What is consistent is the evidence that the Obama Administration does not have the vaguest idea of what's going on and how to proceed in Libya. What we are quite possibly witnessing is the most inept Administration in US history.

They're not proceeding as you think they should. That doesn't mean they don't know whats going on and it doesn't mean they're inept, it just means their opinions on appropriate response are different from yours.


Spin the situation as much as you wish but what the world is witnessing is the horror of a US President Leading from behind (http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/27/leading_from_behind)

I decline to be horrified, and I find your spin to be on the hyperventilated and over-horrified side... but if that's what pleases you, spin away.

[JMA]

They're not proceeding as you think they should. That doesn't mean they don't know whats going on and it doesn't mean they're inept, it just means their opinions on appropriate response are different from yours.

Dithering, vacillation, hesitancy etc are hardly indicators of self assured policy implementation.

You should read the article and also the one in the New Yorker - THE CONSEQUENTIALIST (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/02/110502fa_fact_lizza)

Then do try to read a little more widely. It might seem clever to present what I say here to be merely the personal opinion of an individual. You will be amazed how many people there are out there who do not share your interpretation of how Obama is playing the Libyan situation ... and so would not be buying your spin anytime soon.

[blueblood]

Nato strike 'kills Gaddafi's youngest son'


Libyan official says son and three of Libyan leader's grandsons killed in air strike, but NATO is yet to confirm deaths.

Saif al-Arab Gaddafi, the youngest son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and three of his grandchildren have been killed in a NATO air strike


The 29-year-old Saif al-Arab Gaddafi is the most unknown of the Libyan leader's children, Al Jazeera's Anita McNaught, reporting from Tunisia, said. He's one of the low-profile of his children and has been largely invisible since the conflict began", He hasn't been visible in any significant form. He hasn't appeared on TV or made any speeches, he hasn't been on any crowd-rallying marches.

Al Jazeera's Sue Turton, reporting from Benghazi, said there were "an awful lot" of suggestions in Libya that the news of the deaths could be fabricated.

NATO statement:
NATO continued its precision strikes against Gaddafi regime military installations in Tripoli overnight, including striking a known command and control building in the Bab al-Azizya neighbourhood shortly after 1800 GMT Saturday evening. All NATO's targets are military in nature and have been clearly linked to the... regime's systematic attacks on the Libyan population and populated areas. We do not target individuals..

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/2011430224755721620.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/30/us-libya-attack-idUSTRE73T2HV20110430

http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/01/nato-air-strike-kills-qadhafi%E2%80%99s-son-govt-official.html

[Dayuhan]

Dithering, vacillation, hesitancy etc are hardly indicators of self assured policy implementation.

Again, all of those are your own opinions.


You should read the article and also the one in the New Yorker - THE CONSEQUENTIALIST (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/02/110502fa_fact_lizza)

Then do try to read a little more widely. It might seem clever to present what I say here to be merely the personal opinion of an individual. You will be amazed how many people there are out there who do not share your interpretation of how Obama is playing the Libyan situation ... and so would not be buying your spin anytime soon.

I read widely and make up my own mind. Your opinion is only your opinion, as mine is only mine. There are plenty of people out there who do not share your interpretation of how Obama is playing the Libyan situation, and will not be buying your spin any time soon. Not all of them agree with how the situation is being handled, but their disagreements aren't necessarily yours. As always, there's a wide diversity of opinions out there, and none of them are necessarily right. To characterize those that differ from yours as incompetent dithering nutlessness or apologism for the same is to assign your own opinion an exalted status that no opinion deserves.

Worth noting that SWJ is a place that attracts a specific audience that is better informed and more aware of these matters than most general audiences would be... how many here share your opinions?

[Entropy]

It might seem clever to present what I say here to be merely the personal opinion of an individual. You will be amazed how many people there are out there who do not share your interpretation of how Obama is playing the Libyan situation ... and so would not be buying your spin anytime soon.

I would not be surprised at all. Non-trivial numbers of people believe all kinds of things, and some of those things are fatuous nonsense. Others are merely differences of opinion while still others may agree, but prioritize differently. People disagree with President Obama on a lot of things - so what? Second-guessing Presidential decisions isn't exactly new.

[William F. Owen]

I have never been a supporter of Wilf mentra: victory is measured by nb of ennemy killed but this is the basic reallity.


I don't know which Wilf said this, but if it is attributed to me, then I would this is incorrect in absolute terms.... but....

a.) The primary means of breaking enemy will is delivered via lethal force.
b.) Success in battles and engagements is about breaking will to persist in combat.

That puts a primacy on "killing effectively", and not just on killing anything and anyone. Generally speaking, if you are killing more of the enemy than they are killing of you, you are conducting highly effective military activity.... but this may not win you war! Why? Read Clausewitz. It's all in there. :wry:

[Entropy]

Welcome back Wilf!

[JMA]

Worth noting that SWJ is a place that attracts a specific audience that is better informed and more aware of these matters than most general audiences would be... how many here share your opinions?

And I am supposed to give a rats ass about that?

Some around here seem to be pretty informed and provide valuable information to those seeking it... then there are a fair percentage that are clearly way out in left field and have little idea of what they are talking about.

[JMA]

Hello South Africa,

I do not believe that, usually, "quick, clean and easy (and low cost) options" exist in the military realm. I bolded "believe" because you obviously have a different belief - beliefs are not subject to argument.

You need to analyse carefully what you are up against before believing that "quick, clean and easy (and low cost) options" exist.

Grenada and Panama are probably pretty good examples from the US point of view as much as Vietnam should not have been. Vietnam was the place where the French got punished for a massive strategic error yet did the US (or anyone in the US) really think it would be a walk in the park.

Lets look at Africa. Apart from Egypt and Algeria (through quantity rather than quality) the potential for "quick, clean and easy (and low cost) options" is there for all the rest. The exercise which would taken out the Presidency and effectively neuatralise the military would take between a few hours to a weekend. Thereafter they would be running around in the bush (a lot like the Taliban were in 2001). And all this could probably be done off the back of one carrier strike group with no boots on the ground other than to extract US embassy staff and nationals.

Libya falls into that second group... would have been wrapped up in an afternoon, had there been the will.

[Dayuhan]

And I am supposed to give a rats ass about that?

You're the one that suggested that I should give a rat's ass about opinions published elsewhere... why would those opinions be more significant than those expressed here? Is the significance of an opinion proportional to the extent to which you share it?

I realize that in your mind you have all the answers and anyone who doesn't share your opinions is useless, but you must realize tha's not a very effective starting point for a discussion.


Some around here seem to be pretty informed and provide valuable information to those seeking it... then there are a fair percentage that are clearly way out in left field and have little idea of what they are talking about.

In other words, they disagree with your omniscience. So it goes. That doesn't mean they've little idea what they're talking about, it means they disagree with you.


Libya falls into that second group... would have been wrapped up in an afternoon, had there been the will.

What would have been wrapped up? Removing MG?

Must it be written in letters of fire across the computer screen? The problem isn't removing MG, the problem is making sure we don't get stuck with responsibility for doing it, and thus responsibility for the mess that comes after. Yes, if we wanted to remove MG we could have done it very quickly, just as we removed Saddam and the Taliban very quickly. Removing a bad government does not wrap things up. That's not where the problems end, it's where they start.

Just because you can do something doesn't make it a smart thing to do.

[JMA]

You're the one that suggested that I should give a rat's ass about opinions published elsewhere... why would those opinions be more significant than those expressed here? Is the significance of an opinion proportional to the extent to which you share it?

I said to take cognisance of. The opinions here are generally few and far between (I think mainly because many are serving or dependent on the DoD/military/whatever for their income that there is less chance of any lively debate).


I realize that in your mind you have all the answers and anyone who doesn't share your opinions is useless, but you must realize tha's not a very effective starting point for a discussion.

I have many opinions. Over time I tend to be proven more often correct than wrong. That's why I said lets wait and see.

Exactly the same could be said about you. I suggest our exchanges have run their course.


In other words, they disagree with your omniscience. So it goes. That doesn't mean they've little idea what they're talking about, it means they disagree with you.

I read what someone writes and am free to agree or disagree and express it.

If someone says the US/Brits/French/NATO were wrong to intervene in Libya I will say that IMO they are wrong.

If someone tries to suggest that the intervention as carried out by the US (putting in a hit then handing over the baby to NATO) is an intelligent military plan which represents the best course of action I would go further than just disagree and suggest that they are quite probably insane.

OK, so I will move on from this stuff with you now. I will ignore the personal non-topic specific stuff from now on and only engage with you if at all in response to substantive issues where you go beyond merely criticising to provide an alternative.

[Dayuhan]

If someone tries to suggest that the intervention as carried out by the US (putting in a hit then handing over the baby to NATO) is an intelligent military plan which represents the best course of action I would go further than just disagree and suggest that they are quite probably insane.

That would depend on the purpose of the action, would it not?

if the purpose of the action was to remove MG or protect the Libyans, yes, the course of action taken would be considered ineffective.

If the purpose of the action is to be seen contributing to a multilateral effort without taking leadership or being sucked into responsibility for the aftermath, the course of action taken makes a lot more sense. The effectiveness of a course of action is measured by the extent to which it achieves its goals. You can't measure that if you assume the wrong goals.

It's easy to say that history proves your opinion right when you make assumptions about where the road not taken might have led, but any such assumption is by nature highly speculative. Just because what was done didn't work out doesn't mean that the course you advocated would have worked any better.

[JMA]

How rebels held Misrata (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ilvD1q4vyGXoxlKxpIiP_-i2rYAA?docId=677ea44b0fdd457088ebd1cf5e265b28)

http://maps.google.com/staticmap?center=32.374298,15.09492&markers=32.374298,15.09492,red&zoom=5&size=186x186&key=ABQIAAAA4nur-ime_GQysVNAB3EOPBSsTL4WIgxhMZ0ZK_kHjwHeQuOD4xTtIva Bhsv7I_yMlYRReNzvEBSUcQ

Just thought I would put my hand up for the people of Misrata, which I believe the last journalist abandoned today, and wonder aloud whether it is indeed possible for a NATO force (sans the US) to be so utterly incompetent in protecting the civilians as they were authorised through a UNSC resolution which they specifically sought.

[carl]

JMA that was a completely fascinating article. SWJ evolved from the Urban Operations Journal I think and this article is the partial story of one hell of an urban operation. I hope we get the full story some day.

The dictator's forces seem to have nothing much besides heavy weapons and some organization. The rebels have human material and heart. The dictator's forces keep getting chipped away at by NATO and small defeats. The rebels are learning on the job and maybe through training in the east that we don't hear much about. An interesting situation.

[Dayuhan]

This struck me as a significant comment...


Unlike fighters in eastern Libya, who retreat across stretches of desert when attacked, Misrata's rebels can't run; their backs are to the Mediterranean Sea.

Maybe the rebels in the east need to learn something from their compatriots in Misrata. Instead of retreating across the desert when attacked (according to many accounts, retreating at the first sign of attack) and complaining that NATO isn't winning their war for them, they might accomplish more, and learn more, if they emulated Misrata and fought.

Ultimately the Libyan rebellion has to be fought and won by the Libyan rebels, not by NATO. NATO can help the rebels, but it can't and shouldn't do the jo for them. It's not NATO's responsibility to settle the fight, and anyone who expects NATO to solve Libya's problems, now or after MG's departure, needs to adjust their expectations.

[carl]

I've read that is easier for inexperienced people to fight from built up positions, which a city can probably be viewed as. The people of Misrata had the misfortune of not having anyplace to run to and the ironic good fortune of not having anyplace to run to. But they did have the heart. So maybe it is too much to ask the rebels in the east not to run like rabbits if they can; even if they do have the heart, they don't have the engineering capability to build fortifications in the open desert. They've had some time though and who knows what capabilities that time will give them.

[Dayuhan]

I've read that is easier for inexperienced people to fight from built up positions, which a city can probably be viewed as. The people of Misrata had the misfortune of not having anyplace to run to and the ironic good fortune of not having anyplace to run to. But they did have the heart. So maybe it is too much to ask the rebels in the east not to run like rabbits if they can; even if they do have the heart, they don't have the engineering capability to build fortifications in the open desert. They've had some time though and who knows what capabilities that time will give them.

To a large extent true... but accounts from journalists have quite persistently and repeatedly described rebel forces in the east running at the first sign of attack and breaking off attacks at the first sign of resistance, though they apparently resisted effectively early on when they were pinned back into Benghazi.

Obviously there are limits to what we know from a distance, but it does seem that if the rebels want to win they are going to have to fight effectively even when their backs are not up against a wall. Available reports suggest that they haven't done that so far.

The upside of that, of course, is that the rebels will in the process develop some kind of leadership structure and organization, both military and civilian, which they will desperately need if they ever take power. One of the problems that comes up when an old rotten government simply collapses in the face of disorganized street protests is that the old elite typically retains control, because there's no remotely organized force representing the interests of those who rebelled.

[JMA]

In reply to my comment:


Originally Posted by JMA
BTW... I agree with hitting hard and leaving... with the promise that "if we have any more trouble from you lot, we will be back with some more of the same."

Ken responded:


That makes much more sense than the ineffectual efforts seen over the last 50 plus years -- and today.

Now, if we can just get the inane politicians geared up (the Media will not be a problem, they'll jump at the idea...). :wry:

I noticed your reply in the Journal - From Roman Legions to Navy SEALs: Military Raiding and its Discontents (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/05/from-roman-legions-to-navy-sea/#c019968) where you quoted Stonewall Jackson as follows:


"War means fighting. The business of the soldier is to fight. Armies are not called out to dig trenches, to throw up breastworks, to live in camps, but to find the enemy and strike him; to invade his country, and do him all possible damage in the shortest possible time. This will involve great destruction of life and property while it lasts; but such a war will of necessity be of brief continuance, and so would be an economy of life and property in the end. To move swiftly, strike vigorously, and secure all the fruits of victory is the secret of successful war."

Having not read that quotation before I was excited by how well it explained how I feel in this regard. Truly nothing new under the sun. I must read more about this man to understand what made him tick and how he put these words into action.

I did take a quick look at some other quotes and found this one also resonates with me:


"Once you get them running, you stay right on top of them, and that way a small force can defeat a large one every time... Only thus can a weaker country cope with a stronger; it must make up in activity what it lacks in strength."

Great stuff and this one:


"I yield to no man in sympathy for the gallant men under my command; but I am obliged to sweat them tonight, so that I may save their blood tomorrow."

Must have been some soldier this man Jackson... in the days when officers were leaders and not managers.

[AdamG]

AJDABIYA, LIBYA — The United States, European allies and other nations have dispatched representatives to the Libyan opposition’s ruling council. But on the ground here, credit for helping to get the rebel army into shape goes to military advisers from the tiny Arabian Peninsula emirate of Qatar.

Qatar was the first Arab country to formally recognize the political legitimacy of the rebel council in Benghazi and the first to provide military assistance, sending six Mirage fighter jets to help NATO enforce the no-fly zone in March. Qatar also helped the rebel leadership sell oil to help finance the fledgling administration. Now, it is alone in providing military training to the rebels, officials say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/qatari-military-advisers-on-the-ground-helping-libyan-rebels-get-into-shape/2011/05/11/AFZsPV1G_story.html

[jmm99]

The definitive biography (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0760779546/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0306803186&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=07AFJA8W5GXH195539BW) (unless Ken disagrees ;)) is by a Brit, G.F.R. Henderson - good book and good maps. Jackson (like any number of other American Jacksons) was Irish - from Uster, of Scots-Irish ancestry, his great-grandfather came to the future US in 1748. Lewis Puller (http://www.amazon.com/Marine-Chesty-Puller-Burke-Davis/dp/0553271822) (not a bad tactician himself) carried a copy of Henderson's book along with him (a present from his wife) on Puller's campaigns through the PTO in WWII.

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

I appreciate in the greater scheme of things that it does not mater if I know what NATO is up to in Libya. My question is whether NATO know what they are up to there?

[davidbfpo]

A good analysis of the Libyan situation and the problems with intervention:


As the war in Libya drags on, the United States faces a familiar predicament: Why, despite possessing overwhelming military superiority over any foe, does it have such a hard time using the threat of force to push much weaker dictators around?...This isn't a new problem....The short answer was that political constraints often bind the United States and its coalition partners much more tightly than their adversaries, and in ways that offset advantages in raw military power.

Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/02/libyan_limbo?page=0,0

Other issues have removed the daily reports on the situation - on the main UK media - and I almost missed that the rebels in Misrata have pushed the Gadafy loyalists out of the city and beyond artillery range:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13421646

Whether the intermittent defections from Gadafy amount for much is a moot point, likewise for the "stiffening" of the rebels and whether air power can do enough.

[JMA]

A good analysis of the Libyan situation and the problems with intervention:

Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/02/libyan_limbo?page=0,0

Other issues have removed the daily reports on the situation - on the main UK media - and I almost missed that the rebels in Misrata have pushed the Gadafy loyalists out of the city and beyond artillery range:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13421646

Whether the intermittent defections from Gadafy amount for much is a moot point, likewise for the "stiffening" of the rebels and whether air power can do enough.

David, I believe that despite the experience of air only campaigns in the past (Bosnia - Yugoslavia) the current set of smart guys in DC decided that a "no boots on the ground" campaign had the right PR ring to it. A few months (and a few $billion) into the Libya campaign and with the Gaddafi regime is still very much entrenched voices of criticism are starting to emerge here and there.

I don't expect to hear too much of that criticism here where there are many obviously serving members and others somewhat dependent on their government/military links.

The simple truth is that they got the strategy wrong.

They jumped in and fired off $500million in missiles in the first few days then took their foot off the gas. Worse still the US then dumped it all on France and the UK while still commanding the operations of NATO (serves the Limeys and the Frogs right for wanting to rush into it in the first place do I hear them say).

The problems right now all relate how long this campaign has taken.

Another example of a decision made by a committee (in Obama style).

At the start of all this my position was to not allow the Libyan people to become militarized as once that genie is out of the bottle it is impossible to get it back inside.

This is another case study in the failure of political leadership at the highest levels of a super power.

It is getting so bad that one must begin to question the moral courage of the chiefs of the services where they (probably for career and pension reasons) choose to play along with the Administration despite the continuing downward spiral in competence.

[Ken White]

The simple truth is that they got the strategy wrong. Yes.
They jumped in...Yes.
Another example of a decision made by a committee (in Obama style)...It is getting so bad that one must begin to question the moral courage of the chiefs of the services where they (probably for career and pension reasons) choose to play along with the Administration despite the continuing downward spiral in competence.Not that simple. The West has gotten conditioned to government by Committee. That will be hard to undo lacking a major trauma. Libya didn't amount to a question, much less an annoyance -- as Afghanistan and Iraq were and are -- and doesn't even approach being a trauma. Except for the poor Libyans who are arguably worse off than before. Everything that has happened was easily predicted.

It was a dumb idea in the first place. To do what you wanted early on, which made sense, would have required that someone be in charge. No one was, is or will be and that should have been realized going in in. It almost certainly was by some but the 'do-gooder' mentality overrode common sense. Western 'leadership' is in decline due to the committee-ization of government. No one is in charge. Not in the US, not in the UK, not in France, certainly not in all three together plus others...

I suspect a coalition of JMA, David and Ken would be just as unwieldy. ;)

[JMA]

Yes.Yes.Not that simple. The West has gotten conditioned to government by Committee. That will be hard to undo lacking a major trauma. Libya didn't amount to a question, much less an annoyance -- as Afghanistan and Iraq were and are -- and doesn't even approach being a trauma. Except for the poor Libyans who are arguably worse off than before. Everything that has happened was easily predicted.

It was a dumb idea in the first place. To do what you wanted early on, which made sense, would have required that someone be in charge. No one was, is or will be and that should have been realized going in in. It almost certainly was by some but the 'do-gooder' mentality overrode common sense. Western 'leadership' is in decline due to the committee-ization of government. No one is in charge. Not in the US, not in the UK, not in France, certainly not in all three together plus others...

I suspect a coalition of JMA, David and Ken would be just as unwieldy. ;)

You saw it coming while I for a moment thought that it was all pretty straight forward and would play itself out in a short sharp intervention. My distaste for the political classes continues to grow as a result but I believe that the upper echelons of the military have to a greater or lesser extent been sucked into the political ways to the detriment of the military. I still cling to the hope someone will prove me wrong on this... but I'm not holding my breath.

Military commanders don't command by "committee" they use their service and corps reps to put together various aspects of the overall plan. I certainly hope the military planning cycle has not deteriorated into a 20 person chat shop where everyone gets to voice an opinion even if it is outside their field of expertize. That is certainly what goes on in today's WH (see what was published about the OBL matter) but not sure what happened in earlier WHs.

It just gets so infuriating when the relatively simple gets turned into a complex and often unworkable operation. With the Brits the military only seem to complain when the leave the service with pension secured. Don't hear much from the US ex servicemen ever. (correct me if I'm wrong)

[motorfirebox]

I'm not sure it's all that accurate to describe the issue as being based in number of people involved in the decision. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that statement itself smacks of politics. It's not like we don't have recent examples of things going crushingly awry on the say-so of one strong-willed leader.

[ganulv]

My distaste for the political classes continues to grow as a result but I believe that the upper echelons of the military have to a greater or lesser extent been sucked into the political ways to the detriment of the military. I still cling to the hope someone will prove me wrong on this... but I'm not holding my breath. […]

It just gets so infuriating when the relatively simple gets turned into a complex and often unworkable operation. With the Brits the military only seem to complain when the leave the service with pension secured. Don't hear much from the US ex servicemen ever. (correct me if I'm wrong)

The phenomenon is not unknown in the U.S. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90229404), though it seems that it might be more associated with members of the civilian leadership like Robert McNamara (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/) and Colin Powell (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/16/colin-powell-cia-curveball).

I once worked with a retired career officer—certainly not upper echelon—who told me repeatedly that it was vital that the military never be involved in the formulation of policy, that in America the way it worked was that politicians formulated policy and that members of the military carried it out. His is just one interpretation, but I have assumed since knowing him that this is generally the way civilian control of the military is conceived by professional soldiers in the U.S. Anyone care to confirm or deny?

[Ken White]

You saw it coming...Way too many. Made me old before my time...
I believe that the upper echelons of the military have to a greater or lesser extent been sucked into the political ways to the detriment of the military. I still cling to the hope someone will prove me wrong on this... but I'm not holding my breath.Good plan, keep breathing because your belief is -- distressingly -- accurate. :mad:
Military commanders don't command by "committee" they use their service and corps reps to put together various aspects of the overall plan. I certainly hope the military planning cycle has not deteriorated into a 20 person chat shop where everyone gets to voice an opinion even if it is outside their field of expertize.Commander dependent. Too many though, do in fact go the chat shop route -- touchy feely r us... :rolleyes:

The real problem is not flawed Commanders, most are okay. Upon actual commitment, they and the system work as they should -- it's all the processes that occur in peace and war which occur until that actual commitment -- and then the behind the scenes, rear echelon foolishness and politically driven interference that occurs. The bureaucracy and its stifling effect have to be seen to be believed... :mad:
That is certainly what goes on in today's WH (see what was published about the OBL matter) but not sure what happened in earlier WHs.Much the same thing. Only the Bushes were notable for a hands off attitude. The more left leaning the incumbent of that dwelling, the more attention paid to 'collegiality.' :eek:
It just gets so infuriating when the relatively simple gets turned into a complex and often unworkable operation. With the Brits the military only seem to complain when the leave the service with pension secured. Don't hear much from the US ex servicemen ever. (correct me if I'm wrong)It is quite infuriating (and that's my weekly massive understatement...).

US Retirees are -- like the rest of the US -- a mixed bag, some are voluble, some are not. Mostly they tend to drown each other out. There are an awfully large number of them and their disparate views counteract each other to a great extent. Few have any real effect or garner much of a following or even an audience. The Class cachet is missing here and our mostly pathetic news media doesn't have much idea of what is or may be important.

[Ken White]

I once worked with a retired career officer—certainly not upper echelon—who told me repeatedly that it was vital that the military never be involved in the formulation of policy, that in America the way it worked was that politicians formulated policy and that members of the military carried it out. His is just one interpretation, but I have assumed since knowing him that this is generally the way civilian control of the military is conceived by professional soldiers in the U.S. Anyone care to confirm or deny?there are too many variations to easily generalize. :wry:

IMO, a majority almost certainly agree with your person however, there are a few that disagree and some quite strongly. They tend to believe -- with some justification -- that the inept Politicians need a lot of guidance... :rolleyes:

The tradition of civilian control is quite strong however and only when a military senior leader of strong personality who's worried about civilian ineptitude does any heavy lobbying occur. Even more rare is a MacArthur like usurption of or challenge to that civilian primacy. Most will accede to what the civilian master wants (or thinks he or she wants...) with little complaint, no matter how dumb a particular set of policies happens to be.

The Forced retirement of Jack Singlaub, Michael Dugan and Stanley McChrystal (there have been others of lesser stature) are examples of why this is so...

[Ken White]

I'm not sure it's all that accurate to describe the issue as being based in number of people involved in the decision. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that statement itself smacks of politics. It's not like we don't have recent examples of things going crushingly awry on the say-so of one strong-willed leader.Did they go wrong because though that leader made the right decision, the committees below him or her made a total mess of the problem? :wry:

[motorfirebox]

Did they go wrong because though that leader made the right decision, the committees below him or her made a total mess of the problem? :wry:
That's one possible scenario, but the one I'm thinking of illustrates the point that the right person can make decisions just as bad as any made by a committee.

The air campaign has a significantly lesser chance of achieving the goals set forth, but it also has a significantly lesser chance of turning into a decade-long bog--both of those in comparison to fully committing to Libya, boots on the ground and all. If the air campaign is more politically palatable, well, this entire adventure is an exercise in political palatability regardless of what strategy we pursue. This is about showing the flag and making sure we're involved, or at least a consideration, in the major changes sweeping the ME.

[Ken White]

... the one I'm thinking of illustrates the point that the right person can make decisions just as bad as any made by a committee.Could be, don't know which one that is so can't comment further.
The air campaign has a significantly lesser chance of achieving the goals set forth...That's a massive understatement. True of all 'air campaigns' -- and before Airpower Advocates rush to correct that and say "If it were allowed to be properly conducted..." I agree -- but it never has been so allowed and is unlikely to ever be. Airpower could unquestionably do more but if it isn't to be allowed to do more, planners should factor that in. They are remiss in not doing so (applies to this and many previous operations ranging back to 1950 at least)...
...This is about showing the flag and making sure we're involved, or at least a consideration, in the major changes sweeping the ME.Yes. Very flawed methodology with far more downsides than pluses, though. There were better ways -- and I suspect the "decade long" effort will still occur. It'll just cost a little less. :rolleyes:

[motorfirebox]

There were better ways -- and I suspect the "decade long" effort will still occur. It'll just cost a little less. :rolleyes:
Heh, well, I'm not in favor of even a minute-long effort, so to me anything that reduces the overall cost to us is a plus.

[davidbfpo]

A lengthy IISS Strategic Comment on the situation:http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-17-2011/june/nato-steps-up-the-pace-in-libya/

A shorter article - with a map - illustrates how the situation is changing in Western Libya:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8570258/Rebel-gains-spark-fierce-battle-for-west-of-Libya-as-Gaddafi-regime-under-pressure-from-all-sides.html

Note the situation at Misrata has changed, with the rebels expanding far beyond the port city, but I did hear a BBC radio item that Gadafy's artillery are still firing on the city.

Hopefully some clarity on what is really happening - amidst the sand and smoke.

[AdamG]

Busted! (http://youtu.be/nnDUS-MR2g8)

[ganulv]

Busted! (http://youtu.be/nnDUS-MR2g8)
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001404513/ROFL_MAO_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg

[M-A Lagrange]

Obama Libyan Actions Attacked on Two Fronts: Political and Legal
http://www.suite101.com/content/obama-libyan-actions-attacked-on-two-fronts-political-and-legal-a375803#ixzz1PQ4NLviV

Discussing the decision to go to war is always difficult and requires an in-depth knowledge of the legislation and its practice.
Also, the political debate pitfall is always there.
But still, I am very interested in how the SWJ community perceives that particular action against the decision of a president to engage forces (In the light of military action decision, not domestic politic).
Would Libya be a “jurice prudence” (in both way: wait for congress approval or not) and to which extend this might affect the use of force by USA to defend and protect civilian population under threat of mass murder and human rights abuses.

[motorfirebox]

"It's not that kind of conflict" is about the dumbest thing I've heard this month. To call it a shaky legal basis is giving it too much credit, and politically it's an incredibly dangerous precedent.

[davidbfpo]

A curious mixture of photos of rebel weapons, I noted the FN SLRs:http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/06/diy-weapons-of-the-libyan-rebels/100086/

A commentary from Australia, which draws attention to AK100's being spotted and associated al-Jazeera film clip:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/06/15/Libyas-Rebel-Arsenal-Where-are-the-Weapons-Coming-From.aspx

[ganulv]

But still, I am very interested in how the SWJ community perceives that particular action against the decision of a president to engage forces (In the light of military action decision, not domestic politic).
They’re inseparable. There is plenty of evidence that Dennis Kucinich actually cares about the War Powers Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution). I have a hard time believing that John Boehner does.

[JMA]

Obama Libyan Actions Attacked on Two Fronts: Political and Legal
http://www.suite101.com/content/obama-libyan-actions-attacked-on-two-fronts-political-and-legal-a375803#ixzz1PQ4NLviV

Discussing the decision to go to war is always difficult and requires an in-depth knowledge of the legislation and its practice.
Also, the political debate pitfall is always there.
But still, I am very interested in how the SWJ community perceives that particular action against the decision of a president to engage forces (In the light of military action decision, not domestic politic).
Would Libya be a “jurice prudence” (in both way: wait for congress approval or not) and to which extend this might affect the use of force by USA to defend and protect civilian population under threat of mass murder and human rights abuses.

This discussion would be purely of an academic historical nature had a decisive and short sharp intervention been carried out in response to UNSC resolution 1973. The civilians needing protection were more than merely those living in Benghazi (the saving of which is being spun as being the victory arising from this shambles) but also Misrata, Zintan etc etc and not to forget Tripoli itself. We will no doubt learn about the mass graves in all those places (criminally) neglected by the actions of a waning super-power and a woefully dependent and under militarily resourced Europe.

Too many lawyers are getting involved in these matters and hence the success rate is as low as it is as they continue to hedge their bets (like the no boots on the ground crap - but it has a nice ring, yes?). It is simple in this case where it is a UN authorised humanitarian intervention. The problem is the implementation has been even less than pathetic. Neither Gates nor Mullen should be allowed to slip away into lucrative retirement but should be called to explain themselves (leaving Obama to the voters in a year or so).

Now with a safe pension, Admiral Lord West, a former First Sea Lord has gone on record stating that had there been "more dramatic action earlier on" more progress would have been made by now. That dear admiral is obvious.

I suggest that what we are seeing is the classic deterioration of the Libya matter into philosophical and pseudo-academic discussion of the rights and wrongs rather than asking the simple question "who is responsible for the cock-up"? This followed by "what should the consequences of their failure be"?

[Dayuhan]

Neither Gates nor Mullen should be allowed to slip away into lucrative retirement but should be called to explain themselves (leaving Obama to the voters in a year or so).

Why would US voters care about Libya? Very few of them will even remember; they're paying attention to matters far closer to home. If Obama had sent ground troops in or declared regime change as a goal he'd likely be punished for that come election time, but neither he nor his political advisers were foolish enough to go down that road. As it is, Libya is unlikely to be an issue of any significance at all.


Now with a safe pension, Admiral Lord West, a former First Sea Lord has gone on record stating that had there been "more dramatic action earlier on" more progress would have been made by now. That dear admiral is obvious.

Progress toward what?


I suggest that what we are seeing is the classic deterioration of the Libya matter into philosophical and pseudo-academic discussion of the rights and wrongs rather than asking the simple question "who is responsible for the cock-up"? This followed by "what should the consequences of their failure be"?

Where's the cock-up? The primary goals have been met, at least on the US side: action was taken, the sack of Benghazi was prevented, and the US avoided excessive commitment or responsibility for managing the aftermath.

If the goal had been US-driven regime change, then yes, we could see it as a cock-up... but was that ever the goal?

[SWJ Blog]

NATO After Libya (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/06/nato-after-libya/)

Entry Excerpt:

NATO After Libya: The Atlantic Alliance in Austere Times (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67915/anders-fogh-rasmussen/nato-after-libya) by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Foreign Affairs. BLUF: "The economic challenges that European nations face are immense, but that must not prevent them from seeing the wider strategic picture. Uncoordinated defense cuts could jeopardize the continent's future security. Libya can act as a wake-up call, but this mission needs to be followed by deeds."



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/06/nato-after-libya/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Rex Brynen]

Where's the cock-up? The primary goals have been met, at least on the US side: action was taken, the sack of Benghazi was prevented, and the US avoided excessive commitment or responsibility for managing the aftermath.

If the goal had been US-driven regime change, then yes, we could see it as a cock-up... but was that ever the goal?

Generally agreed, although I think regime-change was indeed a goal, although not US-led. Rather, NATO sought to tip the military balance at a manageable political cost while leaving the Libyans to do most of their fighting for their own freedom.

The TNC is slowly making progress against Qaddafi, and the struggle is actually having a unifying effect on the otherwise fractious Libyan opposition (witness, for example, Benghazi's regular maritime arms-and-supply runs to Misrata, which was essential in pushing back the loyalist siege).

The approach is somewhat similar to French assistance to the American Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War). From an American point of view, that turned out OK.

[Ken White]

This discussion would be purely of an academic historical nature had a decisive and short sharp intervention been carried out in response to UNSC resolution 1973.Never possible in this day of humanist world guvmint...
I suggest that what we are seeing is the classic deterioration of the Libya matter into philosophical and pseudo-academic discussion of the rights and wrongs rather than asking the simple question "who is responsible for the cock-up"? This followed by "what should the consequences of their failure be"?The cock up -- in your eyes, though I'm inclined to agree with Dayuhan and Rex -- was eminently predictable and politically virtually inescapable. Did I earlier mention that? ;)

The West no longer does consequences for failure. Hard to punish the entire Committee, you see... :rolleyes:

[ganulv]

The approach is somewhat similar to French assistance to the American Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War). From an American point of view, that turned out OK.

I have to respectfully disagree with the comparison (again (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=117438#post117438)). The Treaty of Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Alliance) was a bet on a longshot. The whatever-the-US-is-doing-in-Libya is taking on a charity case.

[davidbfpo]

Thanks to Enduring America for the signpost to an update on the rebel activity in the western mountains of Libya - in the NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/world/africa/26libya.html?_r=1

[Rex Brynen]

The whatever-the-US-is-doing-in-Libya is taking on a charity case.

What the US--and others--are doing in Libya is perfectly clear. They are:

1) Preventing Qaddafi from overrunning Benghazi. Any mass killings that might have involved would inevitably have been blamed on the US.

2) Tilting the military balance in favour of the rebels, in the hope that a post-Q regime will be gratefully oriented towards the West.

3) Underlining the shift in US/Western policy towards one more supportive of Arab democratization. In doing so, they are also undermining the jihadist narrative that the West is an ally of repression.

4) Sending signals that might limit the level of repression used by other authoritarian regimes.

I've yet to meet a Canadian decision-maker involved in the mission that was unclear on this, and I doubt the US, UK, or France are either.

As to the objectives, #1 has been achieved, and #2 is being achieved (although the long-term nature of a post-Q regime remains to be seen). There is clear evidence that #3 is being achieved too: while AQ struggles to frame the Arab Spring and jihadists have largely been marginalized within it, there has been widespread Arab tolerance and even support for coalition action in Libya. In April's Doha debate (http://www.thedohadebates.com/news/item.asp?n=12620) on the topic, there was majority support for NATO involvement, something that would have been unthinkable at almost any earlier point between 1948 and 2010.

Whether #4 is being achieved at all depends on whether one believes Syria's response has been at all constrained by the Libyan example. Discussing that in any informed way would require information on the Syrian regime's internal deliberations, so we can't really resolve it here. It clearly didn't stop the clampdown in Bahrain.

Support for Libya is indeed a "bet on a longshot" (although perhaps not such a "longshot"). It is precisely the sort of calculated risk that policy-makers are supposed to weigh. While very cogent arguments can be made that the probability and magnitude of the payoff is not worth the financial cost, it is a little naive to believe that the operation was undertaken solely as a "charity case."

Incidentally, it is my understanding that France clandestinely provided arms and other supplies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderigue_Hortalez_and_Company) to the American revolutionaries prior to Saratoga, and allowed American privateers to shelter in French-controlled ports. Had NATO had the luxury of a clandestine-first strategy in Libya it might have adopted that approach too, but given the speed of Q's advances and the military situation of the rebels it simply wasn't an available policy choice in March 2011.

[The Cuyahoga Kid]

that is a bit uncomfortable, but I think needs to be asked. What exactly has the conflict in Libya shown us about the state of the armed forces of Western Europe, Britain and France in particular? Going off purely anecdotal evidence about munitions and spare parts shortages I get the feeling that chronic underinvestment is taking its toll on the US's European partners, and reading Secretary Gate's comments from a few weeks ago, that the DoD is getting increasingly impatient with it's European counterparts.

Then again, I'm back in the nosebleeds, thoughts from those sitting closer to the action?

[ganulv]

but not so much so a few years out. How might you reconcile nos. 1 & 2 in your list, Rex, with the so-called fact that U.S. forces are not engaged in hostilities in Libya (http://m2.wnymedia.net/files/2011/06/Obama-Libya-definition.jpg)? (As if the answer to such a question matters in the post-fact society that the United States has become.) There does seem to be a general problem with thinking beyond the next election…


Had NATO had the luxury of a clandestine-first strategy in Libya it might have adopted that approach too, but given the speed of Q's advances and the military situation of the rebels it simply wasn't an available policy choice in March 2011.as NATO members had the luxury of taking Gaddafi back into the diplomatic fold (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/24/AR2011022407696.html) and availed themselves of it. Hell, I only know what I hear on NPR but 17:00–19:20 of the 07 March 2011 Fresh Air (http://www.npr.org/2011/03/07/134330700/a-covert-affair-when-cia-agents-fall-in-love) seems relevant here.

[Bob's World]

Some thoughts on Libya and the US role there:

http://www.c4ads.org/global-security-monitor/libya-and-catastrophic-success

[Rex Brynen]

but not so much so a few years out.

Actually, I would have argued that what the US was doing in Iraq was never all that clear.


How might you reconcile nos. 1 & 2 in your list, Rex, with the so-called fact that U.S. forces are not engaged in hostilities in Libya?

The hostilities/war powers issue is US domestic politics--it has nothing to do with strategic purpose.


as NATO members had the luxury of taking Gaddafi back into the diplomatic fold and availed themselves of it.

Of course they did. Smart move, as it turned out.

[Dayuhan]

Some thoughts on Libya and the US role there

From the cited article....


Implicit long term goals of NATO military action are to enable a stable, prosperous Libya that provides energy resources at market-driven prices; eliminates sanctuary for state-sponsored terrorism and transnational crime; reduces de-stabilizing migration from North Africa. This is extremely unlikely to occur in the next decade, even with expert policy and execution.

I agree completely with the last sentence, and if the goals delineated there are in fact our goals, implicit or explicit, we're setting ourselves up for failure. Best to accept that post-MG Libya is going to be a mess, and do what we can to assure that it's not our mess.

[SWJ Blog]

Ode to NATO’s Fiscal Farce in Libya (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/07/ode-to-natos-fiscal-farce-in-l/)

Entry Excerpt:

Ode to NATO’s Fiscal Farce in Libya
by Jim Egan

Is it not unconscionable that the US, UK & French military
have failed in 100 days and £400m to route Col. Gaddafi?

There are ways to prompt him to flee,
And end his strange reign of tyranny.

In a previous life Jim Egan served on staffs on Capitol Hill, at a Pentagon software contractor, and in the White House. Today he is a technologist active in digital futures initiatives that can influence the emotions, brand loyalties and discretionary spending patterns of 100m-sized online audiences.



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/07/ode-to-natos-fiscal-farce-in-l/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Rex Brynen]

I was in Benghazi earlier this week, and the degree of pro-NATO feeling there is striking, from the giant "thank you France" billboard outside the airport, to French and British flags for sale on roadside stalls (fewer US ones--apparently French ones are easy to make, British ones were already being made for export in the city, but US ones are fiddly to manufacture!), to US flags at revolutionary rallies, to random strangers thanking you if they realize you're from a NATO country.

Such overt popular pro-Americanism (and pro-French/UKism) is really something I'm not used to in the Middle East ;)

[Bob's World]

I was in Benghazi earlier this week, and the degree of pro-NATO feeling there is striking, from the giant "thank you France" billboard outside the airport, to French and British flags for sale on roadside stalls (fewer US ones--apparently French ones are easy to make, British ones were already being made for export in the city, but US ones are fiddly to manufacture!), to US flags at revolutionary rallies, to random strangers thanking you if they realize you're from a NATO country.

Such overt popular pro-Americanism (and pro-French/UKism) is really something I'm not used to in the Middle East ;)

This is what happens when we decide to out-compete AQ and similar non-state actors as the "De Oppresso Liber" force. For some reason we find that role easier to step into when the government is one such as that of Gaddafi's or even Mubarak's. We find it more difficult to do so when faced with a problem such as Saudi Arabia presents. Too often we end up just building government security force capacity and helping them directly and indirectly to keep the populace suppressed. The sooner we get out of the business of maintaining "friendly dictators" in such fashion the better.

It sounds like we have made progress in venting some of the energy that AQ has drawn upon in Libya to run their own agenda in the region. That is a good thing.

[Dayuhan]

This is what happens when we decide to out-compete AQ and similar non-state actors as the "De Oppresso Liber" force.

I thought the Libyan rebels were the "De Opresso Liber" force, and we're just helping them out. That works and is a reasonable idea, IMO, as long as we don't decide to take over as the "De Opresso Liber" force.

Assisting people striving for liberty is a good thing, within the bounds of national interest and reasonable caution. Trying to initiate that struggle in another country... not such a good thing, and likely to make a huge mess.

Agree that "maintaining friendly dictators" is bad business, but a lot of today's friendly dictators - notably the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Qataris et al - do not depend on us and are not subject to our influence in any significant degree. Imagining influence we haven't got is risky, acting on that fantasy is downright dangerous.

[Rex Brynen]

While Younis was one of the dodgier members of the rebel NTC—he had been deeply involved in Qaddafi's repression—it is never a good sign when 1) you can't trust your senior military commanders, and 2) armed groups take revolutionary security into their own hands:


Libyan rebels say military commander shot dead (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/libyan-rebels-say-military-commander-shot-dead/article2113326/)
RAMI AL-SHAHEIBI
Benghazi, Libya— The Associated Press

The head of the Libyan rebel's armed forces and two of his aides were killed by gunmen Thursday, the head of the rebel leadership said.

The death of Abdel-Fattah Younis was announced at a press conference in the de facto rebel capital, Benghazi, by the head of the rebels' National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil. He told reporters that rebel security had arrested the head of the group behind the killing.

Rebel security had arrested Mr. Younis and two of his aides early Thursday from their operations room near the rebels' eastern front. Security officials said at the time that Mr. Younis was to be questioned about suspicions his family still had ties to Moammar Gadhafi's regime.

Mr. Younis was Mr. Gadhafi's interior minister before defecting to the rebels early in the uprising, which began in February.

Mr. Abdel-Jalil said that Mr. Younis had been summoned for questioning regarding “a military matter.” He said Mr. Younis and his two aides were shot before they arrived for questioning.

The mutual suspicions/rivalries among some NTC commanders in the East has severely undermined efforts to capture Brega, let alone advance beyond that.

[ganulv]

C.J. Chivers (http://cjchivers.com/) was interviewed on today’s Fresh Air (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/28/138603244/reporting-in-libya-and-dodging-bullets-bombs) in regards to his work in Libya. Worth a listen.

[taabistan]

I'm constantly amazed by westerners and their inability to understand what is a very simple concept: keep out of the affairs of other nations.

Libya is neither an enemy of the United States nor is it a threat to Europe and North America.

As a Muslim, I deeply admire the ability of Americans to taking care of their children, having stable careers and zero civil disorder within your state. I wish all Muslim and Arab states have healthy trading relations and relative peace with one another. I am, however, disgusted by the constant need to interfere either in the name of "peacekeeping" or "regime-change". Call it what you will. It's breaching the sovereignty of our nations.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia... when the hell does this end? al-Qaeda attacked you on 9/11, not the entire Muslim community.

It's about time these conflicts end and peace prevails.

P.S. In case someone accuses me of being a "closet Jihadi", I equally hate it when countries tell Israel to freeze building settlements or how it should defend itself. It's their domestic policy, none of anyone's business.

[JMA]

I'm constantly amazed by westerners and their inability to understand what is a very simple concept: keep out of the affairs of other nations.

And I am amazed that you think this is a problem only with westerners.

[taabistan]

Uh, where did I say that? Western intervention has been the most blatant form of intervention in the last 15-20 years, which is why I mentioned it. Any form of military intervention in a sovereign state is heinous.

Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya... for the love of God, if you don't have any respect for the "enemies'" dead, at least have some respect for your own.

[Rex Brynen]

Any form of military intervention in a sovereign state is heinous.

Why? Why should sovereignty trump everything else, including human rights?

I have little doubt that a majority of Libyans welcome external support for their effort to overthrow the Qaddafi dictatorship. Indeed, if anything, their primary complaint at present seems to be that NATO isn't doing enough.

[taabistan]

You're right. Why do we even have borders? Let's get rid of those as well.

[ganulv]

The tension between local sovereignty and universal rights can be a productive one. But I do wish we had something like an interventionists’ Hippocratic Oath.

[AdamG]

It just got weirder.


BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) -- The Libyan rebels' military commander was killed by his comrades while in custody after he was arrested by the opposition's leadership on suspicion of treason, witnesses said Friday, in a sign of disarray that posed a major setback for the movement battling Moammar Gadhafi.

The slaying of Abdel-Fattah Younis raised fear and uncertainty in Benghazi, the de facto rebel capital. Thousands marched behind his coffin, wrapped in the rebels' tricolor flag, to the graveyard for his burial, chanting that he was a martyr "beloved by God." Troops fired a military salute as the coffin arrived, and angry and grieving supporters fired wildly into the air with automatic weapons.

At the graveside, Younis' son, Ashraf, broke down, crying and screaming as they lowered the body into the ground and - in a startling and risky display in a city that was the first to shed Gadhafi's rule nearly six months ago - pleaded hysterically for the return of the Libyan leader to bring stability.

"We want Moammar to come back! We want the green flag back!" he shouted at the crowd, referring to Gadhafi's national banner.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_LIBYA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-29-11-49-41

[JMA]

Nightly Britain bombs Tripoli. Bar death, what do we achieve? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/02/britain-bombs-libya-whitehall)

Jenkins misses a point that if the politicians decide that military intervention is necessary then the military must salute and get on with the job.

The thought of some chinless wonders in the civil service being able to constrain the will of an elected government is more scary than what the Bush/Blair combination got up to.

What has led to the failure is that the military were constrained in how they were carry out the intervention to the point of an emasculated effort.

Yes Cameron and Sarkozy were probably influenced to act through domestic political pressure but were unable to carry out any meaningful intervention without the US leading the charge.

A reluctant Obama agreed to a solid 48 hours to kick the intervention off but then through the council of his chorus of clowns came up with the "no boots on the ground" crap and left the rest up to hopelessly inadequate NATO assets while remaining firmly in charge.

Anyone remember the three stooges?

The West is not only in trouble on the economic side, international foreign policy is in a total shambles...

[JMA]

Why? Why should sovereignty trump everything else, including human rights?

Surely only a nation governed by the will of the people can be considered sovereign.

For example (and using the Democracy Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)) there are 26 full democracies whose sovereignty should be respected to the fullest extent (unless they invade a neighbour or some other action such as this).

One should display some patience and tolerance towards the 53 flawed democracies .

While the 32hybrid regimes and the 56 authoritarian regimes should not be recognised as sovereign states (unless you need their oil ;) )

Not everything should be negotiable.

[M-A Lagrange]

From New York Times:

Libya Allying With Islamists, Qaddafi Son SaysThe leading Islamist whom Mr. Qaddafi identified as his main counterpart in the talks, Ali Sallabi, acknowledged their conversations but dismissed any suggestion of an alliance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/world/africa/04seif.html?_r=2&hp

Libya made alliance with islamist Ali Sallabi? Well what a great news. In 2009 this guy was already working for Kaddafi:


Libyan Islamists Back Away from al-Qaeda Merger in Reconciliation with Qaddafi Regime
Dr. Ali Sallabi, a Qatar-based Libyan Islamist and the main mediator between the imprisoned LIFG leaders and the authorities, has been quoted as saying the talks “are very encouraging” after meeting the six Shura Council members of the LIFG in their Tripoli prison (Dar al-Hayat, June 15).http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=35147

Then Kaddafi made alliance with LIFG? I do have some doubts about it.
Just take a look at the LIFG profile on the STARS project:

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) is dedicated to two principle objectives. The founding goal of the terrorist group is to overthrow the current Libyan government led by Muammar Qadhafi. LIFG was founded on the belief that Qadhafi and his government are un-Islamic and should be overthrown.http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data_collections/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=4400

Don't get too easily abused by the accidental gerrila syndrome.

[davidbfpo]

The Quilliam Foundation published 'Libya after General Younis’s murder: Q and A with Noman Benotman' on the 3rd: http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/61-press-releases/842-latest-libya-briefing.html

Benotman being a member of the disbanded LIFG,his Q. bio is here:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/noman-benotman.html

[Dayuhan]

Worth citing the following from the article referenced above:


When we talk about a genuine democratic Libya that means the Libyan people themselves need to be democratic. The harsh reality is that due to the 42 years of Gaddafi’s dictatorship, Libya does not have real democratic values. Without these values it is very difficult to create and establish a democratic state system and government.

That applies equally to Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq and others. It's completely unrealistic to expect a rapid transition to functioning democracy. It's not just a question of "democratic values"... a culture of democracy has to emerge, in practice, and that takes time. The initial impulse is often for multiple parties to emerge, differentiated along sectarian, tribal, or individualist lines, often representing little if any "choice" in policy or ideological orientation. With numerous contending parties it's easy to get elected officials with a small minority of the vote. Gridlock may be severe, and early "democratic" governments may be unable to do very much beyond incessant talk. Populaces with huge expectations often become intensely frustrated with the emerging process, and there's often nostalgia for a dictator who could and would actually do something... even something awful.

All of this is to be expected, at least if we pay any attention at all to the history of transition out of extended dictatorship. Democracy is a wonderful thing, but it's no magic bullet and it's no assurance of stability, prosperity, or functioning government, especially in the short term.

[Rex Brynen]

Meanwhile, the rebels continue to make progress in the West--aided in part by considerable reorganization of their forces and command and control structures in recent weeks...

[M-A Lagrange]

On August the 3rd, Libyan rebels adopted a constitution.
Here is a link to the document in French. I could not find a link to it in english but I'm sure it does exist.
http://static.lexpress.fr/imgstat/pdf/constitution_libye.pdf

[Dayuhan]

Foreign Affairs just released this, on the internal politics of the rebel movement...

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68198/dirk-vandewalle/rebel-rivalries-in-libya

[SWJ Blog]

Lessons for Libya: Law Enforcement from Day Zero (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/lessons-for-libya-law-enforcement-from-day-zero)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/lessons-for-libya-law-enforcement-from-day-zero) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

This Week at War: Talking Time in Libya (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-talking-time-in-libya)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-week-at-war-talking-time-in-libya) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[davidbfpo]

Moderator's Note

I have opened a new thread :http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=13986

I have temporarily 'locked' this thread and can new posts be placed on the new thread.