PDA

View Full Version : And Libya goes on...



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Dayuhan
03-01-2011, 01:56 AM
Today's item...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/28/2090791/us-moves-ships-aircraft-as-libya.html



U.S. moves ships, aircraft as Libya fighting rages

Moammar Gadhafi came under intensified international pressure Monday to halt attacks on anti-regime protesters, with the Pentagon dispatching ships and aircraft to the Mediterranean Sea and the Treasury Department freezing a record $30 billion in assets tied to the embattled dictator and his family...

...Pentagon spokesmen didn't detail the purpose of the U.S. ship and aircraft movements, but the moves didn't appear to signal direct U.S. military intervention in Libya. Among the ships being sent, reports said, is the USS Kearsarge, which carries nearly 2,000 Marines and dozens of helicopters.

"We have planners working and various contingency plans and I think it's safe to say as part of that we're repositioning forces to be able to provide for that flexibility once decisions are made," said Marine Col. David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman...

..."No foreign intervention. We don't want to be like Iraq," said Ahmed Sukaya Pobaee, a lieutenant in the new anti-Gadhafi army.

I'm actually intrigued by the general lack of discussion on the Libyan situation here... as opposed, to, say, the Egyptian revolt at its peak.

I would not want to see US ground forces involved, but a no-fly zone seems reasonable, and it does seem that if at some point a specific concentration of pro-regime forces could be identified, a cruise missile in time (channeling JMA here, I know) might have a real impact on the calculations of others.

It might also be possible to offer air support to rebel forces in Zawiyah and Misurata, or to declare that government forces moving toward those locations would be subject to attack.

Might also be worth considering making a blanket offer to the mercenaries: anyone who jumps ship now gets a ride home and a little packet of cash. It must be crossing some mercenary minds about now that if the regime goes down the neighborhood would likely become extremely unhealthy for them. The big man presumably has a jet waiting to take him to some undisclosed location where he has substantial assets in place, but there would not be room for the boys on the street and the populace might be a wee bit hostile.

I have some doubts over the impact of sanctions in a case like this.

tequila
03-01-2011, 02:44 AM
I think long-term sanctions would be useless. Aggressive, short-term interdiction of aerial resupply for Qadhafi regime forces would probably be quite productive, though.

I think any active armed intervention should wait for either an invitation from a Free Libyan provisional government that may coalesce in Benghazi, or if Qadhafi forces turn the tide and are threatening to overrun Benghazi and other major opposition-held population centers. The retaliation that could result from such a scenario might look like southern Iraq post-Gulf War I.

Fuchs
03-01-2011, 02:21 PM
What supply? They have all they need in their country.

A no-fly zone is tricky as well. The Iraq NFZs haven't exactly a good reputation, as they were mis-used to bully Iraq for a decade, long after the end of the short shi'ite uprising. The Iraq NFZs also artificially held an otherwise long-resolved conflict (Kuwait as liberated already) lingering for a decade.

NFZs are also an infringement on the sovereignty of Libya. The UN will likely not step over this Rubicon unless
- Libya is expelled
- Libya's Ghaddafi government outlawed as waging war against its people, not just its armed opposition (war crimes)
- another Libyan government than Ghaddafi's get international recognition (and agrees with foreign meddling in domestic affairs)


The principles of the UN are an important component of the national security for most countries, they're a huge red line in international politics.
The U.S. got away with violations thanks to its UNSC veto right, its networking with allies and its sheer size, but the potential for political power loss and backlash has always been huge.

Stan
03-01-2011, 04:06 PM
Today's item...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/28/2090791/us-moves-ships-aircraft-as-libya.html

I'm actually intrigued by the general lack of discussion on the Libyan situation here... as opposed, to, say, the Egyptian revolt at its peak.
Reading most of the current American concerns seems we’re content so long as the rebels in the east continue to promise oil flowing even if Gadhafi clings to power in the capital. I guess we all have our priorities!

I would not want to see US ground forces involved, but a no-fly zone seems reasonable, and it does seem that if at some point a specific concentration of pro-regime forces could be identified, a cruise missile in time (channeling JMA here, I know) might have a real impact on the calculations of others.
It might also be possible to offer air support to rebel forces in Zawiyah and Misurata, or to declare that government forces moving toward those locations would be subject to attack. .
This one bugs me a bit. How do we claim to stay neutral in all this after we shoot aircraft down over a sovereign country? We hid behind some UN chapter in 1986 (barely), had no support from neighboring countries (for an over flight clearance), blew up the French embassy in Tripoli with guided munitions, and, we have no clue at this point who will emerge as the critical opposition.

Might also be worth considering making a blanket offer to the mercenaries: anyone who jumps ship now gets a ride home and a little packet of cash. It must be crossing some mercenary minds about now that if the regime goes down the neighborhood would likely become extremely unhealthy for them. The big man presumably has a jet waiting to take him to some undisclosed location where he has substantial assets in place, but there would not be room for the boys on the street and the populace might be a wee bit hostile.
Seems cheaper and very doable. Say 50K for him dead or alive !

I have some doubts over the impact of sanctions in a case like this.
Fully concur. But, we froze his money (never understood who actually gets that cash each time we freeze it), so all he has left is to squander what’s available in-country before he sets sail for Venezuela to hang with Hugo (who wasted no time bashing the USA).

tequila
03-01-2011, 09:10 PM
A couple of interesting articles about the storming of the Benghazi military base:

In Libya, an unlikely hero of a youth-led revolution (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022805298_pf.html)

The day the Katiba fell (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/libya/2011/03/20113175840189620.html)

Dayuhan
03-02-2011, 12:47 AM
This one bugs me a bit. How do we claim to stay neutral in all this after we shoot aircraft down over a sovereign country?

At that point we wouldn't be neutral any more... but since Obama has already come out with "Gadhafi should go", that's already the case. It wouldn't really be about the military impact, more a matter of a visible action that would convince the remaining armed supporters that it's time to bail. Certainly we don't want to be seen supporting any opposition faction, but since we've already declared that we think he should go, a concrete step in that direction would not be inconsistent.


Seems cheaper and very doable. Say 50K for him dead or alive

I doubt that he'd let any of the mercenaries into a position to take advantage of that offer. He's crazy, but he's not completely stupid and there's no paranoia deficit there.

tequila
03-02-2011, 08:18 PM
Libyan Rebels Repulse Mercenary Attack on Eastern City of Brega (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/africa/03libya.html?pagewanted=print)

Libya Rebels Rout Gadhafi force attack on oil port (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7453288.html)



BREGA, Libya (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Libya) — Rebel forces routed troops loyal to Moammmar Gadhafi in a fierce, topsy-turvy battle over an oil port Wednesday, scrambling over the dunes of a Mediterranean (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Mediterranean_Sea) beach through shelling and an airstrike to corner their attackers. The daylong fighting blunted the regime's first counteroffensive against opposition-held eastern Libya.

At least 10 anti-Gadhafi fighters were killed and 18 wounded in the battle over Brega, Libya's second largest petroleum facility, which the opposition has held since last week. Citizen militias flowed in from a nearby city and from the opposition stronghold of Benghazi (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Benghazi) hours away to reinforce the defense, finally repelling the regime loyalists.

The attack began just after dawn, when several hundred pro-Gadhafi forces in 50 trucks and SUVs (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Sport_utility_vehicle) mounted with machine guns descended on the port, driving out a small opposition contingent and seizing control of the oil facilities, port and airstrip. But by afternoon, they had lost it all and had retreated to a university campus 5 miles (7 kilometers) away.

There, opposition fighters besieged them, clambering from the beach up a hill to the campus as mortars and heavy machine gun fire blasted around them, according to an Associated Press reporter at the scene. They took cover behind grassy dunes, firing back with assault rifles, machine guns and grenade launchers. At one point a warplane struck in the dunes to try to disperse them, but it caused no casualties and the siege continued.

"The dogs have fled," one middle-aged fighter shouted, waving his Kalashnikov over his head in victory after the Gadhafi forces withdrew from the town before nightfall. Cars honked their horns and many people fired assault rifles in the air in celebration ...

Stan
03-02-2011, 08:26 PM
I doubt that he'd let any of the mercenaries into a position to take advantage of that offer. He's crazy, but he's not completely stupid and there's no paranoia deficit there.

On the contrary, not a mercenary for that little money, but a common citizen barely making ends meet... like much of the entire continent. Wait til a common citizen obtains a hand grenade and chucks it into a market full of people only to steal a single fish to feed his family.

Surferbeetle
03-02-2011, 08:41 PM
From The Economist's Defence, Security, and Diplomacy Blog Clausewitz; The limpet's legions (http://www.economist.com/blogs/clausewitz/2011/03/libya), published Mar 2nd 2011, 16:27 by M.S.


Mr Qaddafi’s ability to move reinforcements rapidly around the vast country has already proved important. According to intelligence estimates, far from being the delusional loon he affects to be, the Libyan leader has been preparing for the situation he finds himself in today for many years. Unlike the well-equipped, albeit poorly run, air force, the nominally 50,000-strong Libyan army (most of whom are conscripts) has long been distrusted by the regime and kept on short rations. In contrast, Mr Qaddafi and his sons have built up a paramilitary force of some 20,000 well-armed and well-drilled tribesmen loyal to their clan and supplemented by handsomely paid mercenaries from Chad and Niger.

For those of you who are following the money it is interesting to catch glimpses of who is controlling what oil export terminal (and this is not a complete list):


Tubruq



Benghazi



Zueitina



Zawiya



Ras Lanuf



Es Sider



Marsa El Brega


Here is a twitter map (http://twitpic.com/42yf66) and a google map (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=208005345448417215163.00049cf3a2cdebe5bd17f) of the current goings on.

Surferbeetle
03-03-2011, 04:43 PM
Libya's Significance (http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/741/libyas-significance), by Mouin Rabbani, on 25 Feb 2011 at the website Jadaliyya, via a link from from the Blog The Arabist (http://www.arabist.net/)


The abiding weakness if not absence of Libyan institutions to mediate conflicts and prevent new divisions from turning violent of course also means it can all go horribly wrong. Nevertheless, there are reasonable causes for optimism. The first is the extraordinary collective spirit, voluntarism, creativity, and unity of purpose unleashed by the uprising. A second is the likelihood that enough Libyans will reflect on their miserable fate during the past several decades and insist upon – and act to ensure the application of – iron-clad guarantees that they won’t be subjected to another lifetime of tyranny. Third, the regime’s desperate attempts to manipulate tribal and regional differences in order to sow division appear to have failed, despite a previous record of relative success. Last but by no means least, the entire Arab world is watching – and participating. Just as Qaddafi is unable to escape being held to account by his own people, so Libya will be held, and appears keenly aware it will be held, to the new standard of Arabism – including dignified governance – that is being forged across the region. Just as Egyptians began walking like giants after simultaneously shedding themselves of Mubarak and the stereotype of docility, so Libyans appear equally keen to walk with their heads high after years of being maligned by fellow Arabs on account of Qaddafi’s antics.

On the other side of the ledger Libya is and will remain a rentier state, and such entities have a tradition of producing absolutism and the means to keep their populations quiescent. But that is precisely why the Libyan case is of such significance. It is not Syria or Morocco, but rather the “Kuwait” of the Maghreb. More to the point, and despite its huge resources and small population, socio-economic discontent appears to have played a prominent role alongside political fury in unleashing the uprising. True, Libya is not a Gulf state and unlike the latter proved incapable of resisting the winds of change during an earlier revolutionary period. But Bahrain is already on fire, and the implication is that the prospects for upheaval in some of the latter’s neighbours – particularly Kuwait and Saudi Arabia – is more than wishful thinking. Why, indeed, do the potentates of such islands of eternal stability feel suddenly obliged to gift their subjects billions if they are immune to the Tunisian virus that has become an Arab disease?

Another noteworthy aspect of the Libyan experience is the significant role the diaspora has played in demolishing regime legitimacy. Reminiscent of the role played by Iranian students in the 1970s, and exceeding the previous efforts of overseas Tunisians and Egyptians, it has in this case been Libyan diplomats who have taken the lead. By vociferously deserting the regime they represent in droves, they have sent an unambiguous message to their compatriots that the ship is sinking and thereby encouraged others to turn against Qaddafi. Given the sheer magnitude of Arab diasporas – itself an indication of the staggering scale of misrule – and the visible impact of Libyans abroad, diasporas are likely to respond more energetically in future.

And for the oil futures crowd - or anyone who relies upon fossil fuels, Oil Declines Most in a Week on Arab League’s Libya Crisis Resolution Plan (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-03/oil-declines-most-in-a-week-on-arab-league-s-libya-crisis-resolution-plan.html), By Grant Smith and Christian Schmollinger - Mar 3, 2011 6:38 AM MT, at Bloomberg


Crude dropped the most in a week after the Arab League said it’s weighing an offer by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez to intervene in Libya’s civil conflict. Muammar Qaddafi’s warplanes bombed rebels yesterday as his troops fought unsuccessfully for a major oil port, and opposition leaders appealed for foreign nations to launch air strikes. Prices may be starting to hurt global economic growth, said Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank AG.


Crude for April delivery slid as much as $1.86, the biggest decline since Feb. 24, to $100.37 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange and was at $101.19 at 1:34 p.m. in London. Yesterday it settled yesterday at $102.23, the highest since Sept. 26, 2008.

Brent crude for April settlement fell as much as $3.26, or 2.8 percent, to $113.09 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange, the biggest decline since Nov. 12.


Libyan oil production may not return to recent levels if Qaddafi is overthrown, following a trend set by fellow OPEC members Iran and Venezuela when their own governments last changed, according to a Baker Institute analyst.

“You could see, in the case of Qaddafi being overthrown, particularly if it’s violent, prolonged diminished capacity from Libya,” said Ken Medlock, an energy fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, in a telephone interview. “Regime change, even if it’s good for democratic movements, it’s generally not good for technical industries.”

From the Financial Times Blog Alphaville, Why you really can’t swap Libyan crude easily, at all (http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/03/02/501681/why-you-really-cant-swap-libyan-crude-easily-at-all/), Posted by Joseph Cotterill on Mar 02 14:07.


We’d note the mention of Nigeria, of course, because its light sweet grades have been among those most favoured as immediate Libyan replacements, and might play an important part in any Saudi bid to support markets later on.

CrowBat
03-05-2011, 05:29 PM
I'm actually intrigued by the general lack of discussion on the Libyan situation here... as opposed, to, say, the Egyptian revolt at its peak.Sorry, was busy monitoring the air warfare in Libya....and there is a lot of it.

The Libyans appear to fly less than they used to before the outbreak of the unrest, and their pilots behave...well, kind of weird. At least it is quite clear that there are two kinds of pilots there: Libyans and...well, "non-Libyans". Nobody knows who are the latter for sure. And the best the Libyans do have appears not to be around, or at least rather busy keeping their "peace of mind". Their actions certainly have nothing to do with their levels of professionalism.

Losses are quite heavy too. It's not only that two Su-22-crews ejected out of entirely intact aircraft (total of three pilots; one of whom was subsequently arrested by the rebels because he actually did not want to eject), or that two freshly-overhauled Mirage F.1ED fighter-bombers were flown to Malta, but it seems a Su-24 was shot down just a few hours ago. Helicopter losses should be even heavier, and might include one of brand-new, Italian-supplied, Agusta A.109s of the Police - shot down by small-arms fire over downtown Tripoli.

Anyway, that with the "NFZs"...Isn't there a very strange situation: my understanding is that the West - and the US public in particular - is actually fed up with foreign interventions. Yet, all of a sudden everybody seems to be thinking that the US, Brits and everybody else should intervene - so that, should things go wrong, everyone can also be critic...? ;-)

At least pull one of those antiseptic, "air alone" wars (which are a bit more messy for those on the receiving end, of course).

Now, like every normal person, I also love the smell of napalm in the morning - as long as somebody else is being bombed, of course. And it would be kind of "sexy" if the US would simply go in and wipe out the entire Libyan Air Force, wouldn't it?

But, at least as importantly... well, at least in my humble opinion...the majority of the Libyans I heard from prefer not to have any kind of foreigners "helping" them. They want to finish what they started. Even those in az-Zawiya, where Qaddaffi's thugs are in these hours doing their best to match the performance of Syrian "security" services from Hamah.

That aside, the rebels in the East are currently following the best traditions of their predecessors (sure, they replaced camels with Toyotas, Hyundays and KIAs), and are exploiting the ongoing desert storm for a very rapid advance towards the West. If everything goes well, they might reach Syrte this evening. And, from what one can hear from there, in-fighting between the Qaddafa and another tribe is already going inside that place.

Perhaps a very discrete air attack on the three of regime's brigades concentrated near az-Zawiya might not be a bad idea. Say, send a pair of B-2s and splash their tanks with a combo of something like 160 JDAMS. But, actually, the situation there is playing into hands of the rebels. Then, even though the locals are likely to lose their stand there and end massacred to the last one, they are causing heavy losses to the "crack" units of the regime too, and keeping them busy while those form the East can complete their part of the job.

So, I think it might be worth considering that the Libyans are capable of sorting out this one on their own too...?

One nice day, when Q's and cadavers of most of his family are going to hang from some laterns in downtown Tripoli, drying in the sun Mussolini-style (that is, provided the rebels left them intact once they get them into their hands), the Libyans will not only have something to be proud about, but also something that's always going to remind them what are they capable of achieving, if they all pull on the same string.

Pete
03-05-2011, 06:58 PM
Isn't there a very strange situation: my understanding is that the West - and the US public in particular - is actually fed up with foreign interventions.
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 it's that wars are a lot easier to get into than they are to get out of.

Fuchs
03-05-2011, 09:10 PM
Libyans and...well, "non-Libyans". Nobody knows who are the latter for sure.

IIRC Ghaddafi used Pakistani mercenary pilots in the past.

CrowBat
03-06-2011, 06:58 AM
IIRC Ghaddafi used Pakistani mercenary pilots in the past.
Pakistanis used to train Egyptian and Libyan pilots on Mirage 5s of the Libyan Arab Republic Air Force, in Libya, back in the early 1970s (before and during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War).

They might have acted as instructors when LARAF purchased Mirage F.1ADs and F.1EDs, in the late 1970s, again, but that remains unconfirmed. Eventually, the Pakistani connection functioned until 2004 or so, when the Pakistani Air Force bought all the remaining Mirage 5Ds and 5DDs (two-seat conversion trainers).

The Yugoslavs have constructed the entire Air Academy at Misurata, supplied more than 100 G-2 Galebs and J-21 Jastrebs for it (Italians then sold over 260 SIAI-Marchetti SF.260 basic trainers), and subsequently helped in maintenance of the same aircraft, as well as of MiG-21s - partially in Libya, but foremost in Yugoslavia. Large numbers of Libyan (as well as Palestinian) pilots were trained in Yugoslavia too.

Syrians manned two complete MiG-23 units through the 1980s, and - together with Iranians - maintained the LARAF Su-24 fleet during the 1990s (that's why some used to call the LARAF the "Syrian Air Force West" at those times). The Iranians were also maintaining the Libyan fleet of CH-47 helicopters during the 1990s.

The Soviets mainly acted as advisors at air base/wing level, during the 1980s, since the quality of work provided by their instructors (for MiG-23s, for example), was found insufficient and most of these were kicked out already by 1977.

But, that's all "past tense".

Most authoritative reports from recent times indicate the presence of Belarussian, Ukrainian and/or Serbian mercenaries. Sadly, my sources simply can't recognize the language they use while flying.

BTW, a Su-24MK was shot down by the rebels near Ras Lanoof, yesterday. The crew of two was killed in the crash. A Sudanese ID was found at one of them...

Steve the Planner
03-06-2011, 03:29 PM
I don't get it about all this no fly and military stuff.

Do the math. Two million or so folks in Tripoli, a large metropolitan city which has no indigenous food/water supply.

Two million people need how much food, water, medical supplies, on a daily basis, to be happy and productive?

If ports are open in the east (where the oil is anyway) and closed in the west due to instability (and increasing lack of oil to operate things), how long does it take for events to play out?

International assets are already frozen, and could, for example, be earmarked for humanitarian relief to the east (but not to the west), so trade, and especially new weapons, will be chaotic at best, begging the question of whether even a naval blockade is critical. If no access to global credit, what shipments need to be intercepted?

At the same time, a limited, but well distributed, supply of hand-held devices (and IEDs) can stop the biggest of armies/air forces in its tracks, as we know. Chasing adequately armed, but highly dispersed, local opponents can break the back of any army not highly motivated, equipped and civilian-supported.

Didn't we learn all this stuff already?

Where are the main water/waste water supply systems feeding Tripoli?

Game, set, match.

CrowBat
03-06-2011, 04:26 PM
If ports are open in the east (where the oil is anyway) and closed in the west due to instability (and increasing lack of oil to operate things), how long does it take for events to play out?Obviously, this is the crucial question (i.e. how long can the regime hold out at the current rate of fighting).

Usually, countries have anything between 6 and 12 months of strategic reserve in fuels, something like 6 months in ammo and spares etc. But, here we're talking about Libya. Following the 1973 War, they were buying a lot more arms, equipment and spares than they could need in years.

Just one example: they purchased a total of 110 Mirage 5s in the early 1970s. Although a large number of these was sent to Egypt during the 1973 War with Israel (where at least a handful was shot down), and they saw plenty of fighting not only against Egypt in 1977, but also in Chad, from 1981 until 1988, etc., there were still no less but 54 of them in 1st class condition, with less than 1000hrs on their clocks when Pakistan decided to buy them, in 2004 (together with a significant reserve of spares, including some 50 spare engines). The Libyans never operated more than four squadrons of these fighters, and at least one third of the fleet was always kept in stored condition. They would regularly replace used aircraft with stored examples, and so on. Thus, none of the aircraft became "spent" even after 40 years in service.

Another example: at the start of the uprising in Libya, on 17 February, a transport loaded with 2,000 rifles and US$18 Million in cash arrived in Kufra. These weapons and money were destined to arm and pay the locals so they would fight for the regime. The locals "captured" (i.e. grounded) that plane, armed themselves with rifles, deposited the money at the local bank, and said "no thanks" to the regime.

Overall, there is really plenty of armament stored around various parts of Libya. Much can be found in a number of depots around Benghazi (like the one that flew to the Mars, two nights ago), but particularly so in the area between Syrte and al-Jufra, in central Libya, and then again around Tripoli.

Provided it can get enough fighters, the regime is likely to be able to go on like this for several years.

IMHO, only two things would make sense for the international community to do in this situation:
- saturated and permanent jamming of all means of communication in the hands of the regime (also cutting off all of its sat comms);
- total blockade of aerial traffic to and from Libya (impossible until last foreigners are out, and there are currently still more than 1 Million of them there).

Fuchs
03-06-2011, 04:46 PM
I doubt that hardware is of much relevance in this conflict.
Determination (loyalty to your side, combat morale) are going to be more important in the next weeks.

He's no going to stay in power if only the equivalent of an effective light brigade sides with him.

Steve the Planner
03-06-2011, 05:48 PM
Crow:

I think you are starting to draw the bead.

Of those fighters and stores, how many are in Tripoli and under control?

In that whole scenario, what are the critical points than can be targeted?

You hit one---communications. But even that can be highly targeted, with jamming at minimal key points, and knocking out specific towers, all by low-tech rebels with hand-held or SUV-deployed arsenals.

The one thing that is overwhelming from Small Wars is how, under so many scenarios short of Big Army to Big Army, the vulnerabilities can be simply exploited in an environment without strong popular support in areas immediately surrounding critical facilities.

M-A Lagrange
03-06-2011, 06:09 PM
I don't get it about all this no fly and military stuff.
Me neither, should not be that difficult to ground G air capacities once and for ever, with or without security council permission.


Do the math. Two million or so folks in Tripoli, a large metropolitan city which has no indigenous food/water supply.

Two million people need how much food, water, medical supplies, on a daily basis, to be happy and productive?

International assets are already frozen, and could, for example, be earmarked for humanitarian relief to the east (but not to the west), so trade, and especially new weapons, will be chaotic at best, begging the question of whether even a naval blockade is critical. If no access to global credit, what shipments need to be intercepted?

Apparently, G can leave decades without receiving external support. The questio is rather how long it will take for them to get weak enough to flip the coin of popular support. In fact it can take ages especially as you cannot have a official blocus on basic life saving items as food and water.

Bob's World
03-06-2011, 07:16 PM
Well, there is the small moral dilemma for the West.

Qaddafi the despot in Libya is applying military force to suppress the insurgent segment of his populace.

Karzai the despot in Afghanistan is applying military force to suppress the insurgent segment of his populace.

We started off clean with Karzai, but allowed him to drag us into the sewer with manner of government we allowed him to create and operate, dedicating ourselves to keeping him in power as the situation continues to worsen. Supporting the leader rather than the populace; supporting the government rather than the nation state. Such are the slippery slopes of such relationships.

Now we have a populace standing up to the despot Qadaffi, who we have only recently opened relations with in the name of counterterrorism (which in fact was Qadaffi suppressing this nationalist movement with our blessing under the auspices of our global war on terrorism). If we follow the path we've taken in Afghanistan we pile on and help Qaddafi suppress the movement.

But we've painted Qadaffi as a bad guy for decades, so that doesn't fly. But if we support this populace directly, how do we continue to suppress the Afghan populace?

Or, probably more pressing in our government leader's minds: What happens when Dubai, the UAE and Saudi Arabia follow Libya? Who do we help there? The despots or the people?

My vote is for the people, but even as I cast that vote, I appreciate why "moral courage" is a value we hold up high, as it will take tremendous moral courage for the US to get straight so that we are on the same side of this issue on every front. At some point we need to do that. To support the despots who guard our interests while at the same time attacking the despots who either refuse to work with us or where our interests are low creates a strategic communications of such hypocrisy that severely damages our national image and influence.

When a sinner sins, no one cares much (right Charlie Sheen?). But if you are going to hold yourself out as some holier than thou entity, when you sin everyone notices. So we need to either back off on our rhetoric, or ramp up on our consistency of action IAW our rhetoric. Pick one. We've been playing a shady game of influence in the Middle East since WWII, the wheels started coming off on 9/11, and we are definitely dragging a axle at this point. Time to clean up our act.

AdamG
03-06-2011, 08:58 PM
Chivers on Libyan MANPADs


Friday’s New York Times covered fears that looted Libyan arms could find their way into terrorists’ hands. The article’s emphasis is on heat-seeking, shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft missiles and the threats they pose to civilian aircraft.

But it is worth noting on this blog, which discusses military small arms from many different perspectives, that the looting of the stockpiles of traditional infantry arms raises serious long-term security concerns, too. Once machine guns, assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades slip from state arsenals, they invariably travel. Their migration to other users and other wars is all but certain. Their grim effects can last decades.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/the-perils-of-libyas-loose-arms/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bob's World
03-06-2011, 09:43 PM
In 1987, the year the first SU-17 was shot down by a stinger missile over Afghanistan, some 30 Soviet aircraft were shot down.

It would be a very different operation if a similar year were had by the Taliban against the current coalition.

Yet one more reason to side with the populace in Libya. Cut AQ out of the picture, or at least be in position to compete to buy up such missiles as they enter the marketplace. Also small states are easily deterred from employing such systems or selling such systems to our opponents. Individuals and non-state actors are largely immune to our current family of deterrence tools.

Many states that the US sells arms to could easily follow this same path that Libya is on in the near future. Makes one look at the $60 B arms deal with the Saudis announced a few months back in a new light. Hopefully there weren't any shoulder fired missiles in with the F-15s, Longbows and Blackhawks...

Fuchs
03-06-2011, 10:29 PM
The old shoulder-fired ManPADS systems should both be susceptible to standard countermeasures (flares, IR dazzlers) and have a weak punch (later Russian-made ManPADS have a substantially enlarged warhead).

They would pose a problem, but only an old one.


Btw, Pakistan is a ManPADS producer and the ISI could easily have slipped some of them into AFG if it had deemed it worthwhile.

Bob's World
03-06-2011, 11:19 PM
Btw, Pakistan is a ManPADS producer and the ISI could easily have slipped some of them into AFG if it had deemed it worthwhile.

As I said, weak states are easily deterred from such behavior. Pakistan has interests that it leverages the Taliban to service. But it has interests it leverages its relationship with the US to service as well. They will not lightly make the decision to bite that hand. They rationalize their support of the Taliban, I suspect, as being exempt from being a bite of the US hand. After all, we don't need to be in Afghanistan by their estimation, but they do.

Weapons captured by Libyan freedom fighters and sold to AQ are another story altogether. Such weapons are outside the state system, and thereby outside the system of state deterrence.

I don't figure that Libya would have highend systems, but I do not know what equally vulnerable states with much closer relationships to the US might have.

Pete
03-07-2011, 01:46 AM
From the Sunday Telegraph, London, March 6, 2011, story available here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8365007/Libya-inside-the-SAS-operation-that-went-wrong.html):

When the helicopter touched down outside Benghazi in the early hours of Friday morning, the SAS troops on board knew they were entering a volatile situation.

Tasked with escorting a diplomat to meet rebel Libyan forces and assessing the humanitarian situation on the ground, they did not, however, expect a hostile reception.

With the British Government openly rejecting Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and already in dialogue with opposition leaders, it should have been an uncontroversial visit.

TROUFION
03-07-2011, 06:56 AM
Ok I am not a democracy zealot but hear this out. The best option (in my opinion) in Libiya is to, with UN and NATO backing, support a local solution to bring about a rapid end to the violence. The rebels may not want overt Western outside assistance but could they say the same for overt Eygptian assitance? Fellow democrats coming to the aid of neighbors desiring freedom and democracy, what could be better. A brigade of armor, some SF, naval and air assets and Eygpt comes in as the cavalry to the rescue of beleaguered democracy craving patriots. With UN and NATO backing, old MQ would be crushed quickly. While some would say Eygpt's military has its hands full with protecting its own house I'd argue this would be the 'right' thing to do and would solidify the Eygptians as true democrats and the Eygptian Military as the protectors of the people. -T

M-A Lagrange
03-07-2011, 07:41 AM
Ok I am not a democracy zealot but hear this out. The best option (in my opinion) in Libiya is to, with UN and NATO backing, support a local solution to bring about a rapid end to the violence.

Not a bad idea but arranged peace, especially under UN supervision are seeds for later conflict (cf Ivory Coast, Sudan...).
I believe there is a need for a bigger stand up from the democracies. Also, what ever are the relations between insurgents and AQ, the more we leave them alone, the more they will turn to alternative solutions.
A back up would be certainly interpreted as a come back to ingerence and colonialism by G but who does really care?
We are messing around everytime we do nothing and sending the wrong signal. If we want to "promote peace and a world based on dialog" then we have to back up people who do stand up against their oppressor. Otherwise, we just say: freedom is just for those who obei to us.
In the actual climat in Africa (Cause Libya is an African country) there is strong need to draw a line.
The question is who to interviene not should I stay or should I go.


With UN and NATO backing, old MQ would be crushed quickly. While some would say Eygpt's military has its hands full with protecting its own house I'd argue this would be the 'right' thing to do and would solidify the Eygptians as true democrats and the Eygptian Military as the protectors of the people.
Looks like a starting point to me. :D

CrowBat
03-07-2011, 08:22 AM
Crow:

Of those fighters and stores, how many are in Tripoli and under control?In and around Tripoli, the regime should have an equivalent of three brigades (5th, 32nd and one called Kuwelidi al-Hamidi). Large parts of these are busy assaulting az-Zawiya since four or five days.

In Tripoli there is also Mitiga AB, where much of the LARAF is currently concentrated, including at least a squadron of MiG-23s, remnants of Mirage F.1ED squadron, and several transport and helicopter units (including a squadron each of Mi-8s, Mi-24s and CH-47Cs, plus one unit equipped with An-26s; then one "police" squadron flying A.109s and a unit equipped with UAVs). It appears they moved most of operational G-2/J-21s and SF.260s from Misurata to this place as well.

However, this is not only about "what's in Tripoli": as mentioned above, the regime still controls two huge air bases in central Libya (Syrte and Hun), with immense underground depots in between. They have one squadron each of Su-22s, Su-24s (between 3 and 5 aircraft), Mi-24s, and Mi-8s there at least, plus another brigade of ground forces.

Yet another Army brigade is active between Misurata and Beni Wallid (it attacked Misurata yesterday, but lost an equivalent of a company in the process).

The ballance of forces under regime's control (those on the eastern side of Tripoli, plus those along the border to Tunisia and Algeria) equal to another brigade.


In that whole scenario, what are the critical points than can be targeted?Provided you're talking about theoretical targets for air strikes by the West or neighbours or a coalition of the both....IMHO, in the current situation there would be four major targets:

- Bab Azizzia barracks in Tripoli
- Syrte AB (to keep the LARAF there grounded)
- concentration of regime troops besieging az-Zawiya (the latter is also of major humanitarian concern, IMHO)
- Mitiga AB (to keep the LARAF grounded in the West too).

I declare myself a "democracy zealot", and consider this a popular, mass uprising of internal and secular forces in Libya. Their protests were initially peaceful: they turned viollent due to a brutal and merciless reaction from the regime. Right now, only the regime could stop the fighting, which it clearly refuses to do, since that would mean it would give up: the choice the rebels are facing is to stop fighting and get slaughtered if they do, or die while attempting to bring the regime to fall.

My conclusion is that - regardless what the rebels say - the regime has to get hit in a most massive fashion possible, and be forced to give up.

TROUFION
03-07-2011, 12:24 PM
MA Lagrange-

I think you may have misunderstood me a little. I was not thinking 'arranged peace' I was thinking more along the lines of Libiyan Democracy and freedom garaunteed by Eygptian force of arms. In other words Eygpt with an UN mandate intervenes forcefully and takes out Mummaur. Then helps stabilize the country. If we want democracy to succeed this would be a good option. Far better than US forces going to help. -T

Fuchs
03-07-2011, 12:36 PM
In and around Tripoli, the regime should have an equivalent of three brigades (5th, 32nd and one called Kuwelidi al-Hamidi). Large parts of these are busy assaulting az-Zawiya since four or five days.


Judging by news reports, I'd rather suspect a small battalion equivalent is skirmishing near that city. A multi-brigade assault would produce other results.

Presley Cannady
03-07-2011, 04:12 PM
Judging by news reports, I'd rather suspect a small battalion equivalent is skirmishing near that city. A multi-brigade assault would produce other results.

Three brigade equivalents would be just north of a third of the whole army prior to the unrest. I doubt Qaddafi can manage the capital and holding onto the West and have enough strength left over to do much more than wave the bloody shirt in the East. Not yet, at least.

Presley Cannady
03-07-2011, 04:20 PM
I declare myself a "democracy zealot", and consider this a popular, mass uprising of internal and secular forces in Libya.

The secular assumption smacks of whistling in the dark due to the absence of polling data to the contrary--or whatosever, for that matter.

BushrangerCZ
03-07-2011, 04:44 PM
just read on news that SAS CPT got arrested in Lybia by insurgents, and released some hours later...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8365140/Libya-SAS-rescue-Transcript-of-behind-the-scenes-negotiations-to-free-the-detainees.html

Rex Brynen
03-07-2011, 05:23 PM
My conclusion is that - regardless what the rebels say - the regime has to get hit in a most massive fashion possible, and be forced to give up.

..which, given Chinese and Russian opposition in the UNSC, and a general Western reluctance to get involved in another military adventure in the Middle East, isn't going to occur--unless Qaddafi does something particularly heinous (and it is reported on TV).

Given that, the question becomes what are the array of policy instruments short of a bombing campaign (and short of a no-fly zone) that members of the international community have available to them--and will they make much difference?

carl
03-07-2011, 05:48 PM
The old shoulder-fired ManPADS systems should both be susceptible to standard countermeasures (flares, IR dazzlers) and have a weak punch (later Russian-made ManPADS have a substantially enlarged warhead).

The warhead size of a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile doesn't make much difference if your target is a small ISR airplane. The kinetic energy of the hit will almost certainly be enough to destroy the airplane. We use a lot of small manned ISR airplanes.

The SA-24 is a very good missile. Venezuela operates those and so far, as far as I know, jolly Ceasar has hung onto the ones he has. If a missile like that got out, we would have a very hard time keeping all those ISR assets flying.

Those missiles will eventually get out so we should probably start thinking about what we will do when they do.

Bob's World
03-07-2011, 06:05 PM
I argue the rebel's best bet is to avoid some grand decisive victory. George Washington damn near lost the revolution several time pitting rebel weakness against governmental strength. Mao, Giap, and many others have learned this lesson as well. It also gives the rebels less credibility in the international community and court of public opinion.

Better to strike where the government is absent or weak; to create an appearance of rebel gains in the media that may in fact be inconsequential on the ground. The average western observer doesn't know a Benghazi from a Tripoli anyways. "Spread the court" in basketball jargon and force the government to split its forces or hunker down in defense. Time is on the rebel's side. ID critical aspects of day to day life for the government and disrupt them, while avoiding to the degree possible bringing hardship onto the general populace

Meanwhile to merely wait and see who wins is the worst coa for the west. If Qaddafi wins, he will repay the lack of support in kind. If the rebels win without the west's help, they are all the more likely to lean toward AQ, MB and other Islamist UW groups who have been working this populace hard for years.

There is no need to launch an air campaign against Libyan government forces, but certainly we should be postured to make that a credible threat to lend support to messages encouraging the military to either remain neutral or switch sides. Mercenaries fight for pay, locking down as much of the government's money and messaging the same may have some effect there. Some degree of UW should also be on the table as an option, be it direct or indirect, physical or virtual, CIA or SF.

Maybe that super PSYOP guy from LTG Caldwell's staff can work some mindbender stuff up as well now that he is no longer employed brainwashing congressional delegates in Kabul...:)

Rex Brynen
03-07-2011, 08:36 PM
Better to strike where the government is absent or weak; to create an appearance of rebel gains in the media that may in fact be inconsequential on the ground. The average western observer doesn't know a Benghazi from a Tripoli anyways. "Spread the court" in basketball jargon and force the government to split its forces or hunker down in defense. Time is on the rebel's side. ID critical aspects of day to day life for the government and disrupt them, while avoiding to the degree possible bringing hardship onto the general populace

In many ways, Libya doesn't have much of a "hinterland" -- 95% of the population lives along the coastal strip (parts of which itself are barely inhabited), and most of the country is desert where it is both difficult to sustain a rebel force and where no one much cares if they do. Three quarters of the population live in urban areas.

Inevitably, 90% of the fighting in this civil war is likely to occur within 10km of the coast.

It is important that places like Misurata don't completely fall--at the moment they both block government LoC and force Qaddafi to divide his forces.

Bob's World
03-07-2011, 08:59 PM
Agreed. Darnah might be interesting to watch as well. Libya was the #2 source of foreign fighter to Iraq (behind Saudi Arabia) to support AQ; but by far had the highest % per capita, with most coming from Darnah.

Stan
03-07-2011, 09:07 PM
Cut AQ out of the picture, or at least be in position to compete to buy up such missiles as they enter the marketplace.

We've been actively doing that although we don't come right out and say we'll buy MANPADs (http://www.state.gov/t/pm/wra/c3670.htm).

I'll leave the price tag out for now.

Rex Brynen
03-07-2011, 09:08 PM
Agreed. Darnah might be interesting to watch as well. Libya was the #2 source of foreign fighter to Iraq (behind Saudi Arabia) to support AQ; but by far had the highest % per capita, with most coming from Darnah.

The Battle of Darnah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Derna) (1805) was also the first land battle fought on foreign soil by US forces after the Revolutionary War.

M-A Lagrange
03-07-2011, 10:50 PM
MA Lagrange-

I think you may have misunderstood me a little. I was not thinking 'arranged peace' I was thinking more along the lines of Libiyan Democracy and freedom garaunteed by Eygptian force of arms. In other words Eygpt with an UN mandate intervenes forcefully and takes out Mummaur. Then helps stabilize the country. If we want democracy to succeed this would be a good option. Far better than US forces going to help. -T

I well understood you from the beginning and I do agree with the idea that a ground US intervention is not needed and may be dangerous. Not needed because it will only serve the US to finaly fight a just war after several years of feeling missused. And that's not a good reason to interviene. Also because I believe that the populace in Libya is not willing. And that's a good reason to not intervening.
But unlike Bob, I do believe that and air strike that would destroy G air capacities and a logisticall support for the rebels is the right solution.

The problem with the UN is that they do not know how to do stabilization. Very few people know it and most of the time it is due to context. The UN have no idea of what context means and most of them even less of what stabilizing means.

What is important, and I will support Bob on this is to send a message, the right one this time. Not only to Libya but to the whole region: we support the people against crazy evil dictators. That would be the best PSYOP ever.

AdamG
03-07-2011, 10:59 PM
The 1st of September marks the anniversary of the opening of the major stage of Libya's Great Man-Made River Project. This incredibly huge and successful water scheme is virtually unknown in the West, yet it rivals and even surpasses all our greatest development projects. The leader of the so-called advanced countries, the United States of America cannot bring itself to acknowledge Libya's Great Man-Made River. The West refuses to recognize that a small country, with a population no more than four million, can construct anything so large without borrowing a single cent from the international banks.
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/virtually-unknown-in-west-libyas-water.html#comments

SWJ Blog
03-08-2011, 03:11 AM
Imposing a No-fly Zone in Libya (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/imposing-a-nofly-zone-in-libya/)

Entry Excerpt:

Imposing a No-fly Zone in Libya (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=774&sid=2298105) - WTOP radio interview with Robert Haddick, managing editor for Small Wars Journal, who wrote the "This Week at War (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/04/this_week_at_war_the_jawbreaker_option)" column at Foreign Policy concerning the 'Jawbreaker' option.



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/imposing-a-nofly-zone-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.

CrowBat
03-08-2011, 05:11 AM
Judging by news reports, I'd rather suspect a small battalion equivalent is skirmishing near that city. A multi-brigade assault would produce other results.I said "three brigades in and around Tripoli", of which "large parts" are attacking az-Zawiya.

These three brigades have around 6,000 troops: the population of az-Zawiya is differently reported at between 250,000-300,000 people, majority of whom sided with rebellion, and about 1,000 of whom might be armed (including up to nine T-72s they have captured so far; six of these when part of the locally based battalion of the Kuwelidi "Brigade" sided with them). A single attack on Sunday included 35 T-72s attacking them from the East (Tripoli side), and other 11-12 simultaneously from the West (foreign reporters confirmed the presence of similar numbers of MBTs in the area), plus BMP-1s and ZSU-23-4s. If only 30% of rebel claims can be trusted, they destroyed over 20 MBTs and a similar number of APCs so far, plus caused around 300 casualties to the regime.

I'm really not that good in ground forces, but isn't 35 the usual complement of an armoured battalion equipped with T-72s? Well, at least that sounds rather like slightly more than a "small battalion" in my ears.


The secular assumption smacks of whistling in the dark due to the absence of polling data to the contrary--or whatosever, for that matter. Yes, there is no polling data, but I trust myself to conclude the uprising in Libya is definitely no "al-Qaida-launched insurgency" aiming at establishing some "Qaliphate", as claimed by the regime and some of the media in the West. The essence is the same like that behind the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, as well as unrests in Algeria, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere - i.e. the economy, human rights and power-sharing, not religion.

*********

BTW, the regime troops captured by the rebels in az-Zawiya told their interrogators their superiors told them they "must" take that town "by Wednesday". Any ideas why should Wednesday be important?

TROUFION
03-08-2011, 10:08 AM
M-A L,

I look at the UN as a tool to provide legitimacy. The UN doesn't do much on its own. It does however in old west terms have the capacity to deputize a military force and provide it legitimacy. Any action taken against Mummaur should if possible be done with UN support in this manner. Again if a duly deputized African force, perhaps Eygptian and Tunisian (maybe Morrocan too), directly supported the rebels against Mummuar and provided forces to liberate Libya, under UN deputization it would work far batter than any US intervention. Nothing would prevent the US from shaping it, helping with SF and $. The more help the rebels can be given to end it fast before Mummuar can recover or other less reputable elements get involved the better.

-T

RTK
03-08-2011, 12:20 PM
I'm really not that good in ground forces, but isn't 35 the usual complement of an armoured battalion equipped with T-72s? Well, at least that sounds rather like slightly more than a "small battalion" in my ears.

You're right. IIRC 3x companies of 10, plus HQ tanks. 35 is right around the number of T-72s in a tank battalion under the old order of the battle.

Ken White, a better scout than I, will be sure to correct my math if I'm wrong. :D

Recall that Qadafi restructured the Libyan army in the 80s to Bde and Bn centric organization because he was paranoid of organized assassination attempts.

Rex Brynen
03-08-2011, 02:02 PM
These three brigades have around 6,000 troops: the population of az-Zawiya is differently reported at between 250,000-300,000 people, majority of whom sided with rebellion, and about 1,000 of whom might be armed (including up to nine T-72s they have captured so far; six of these when part of the locally based battalion of the Kuwelidi "Brigade" sided with them). A single attack on Sunday included 35 T-72s attacking them from the East (Tripoli side), and other 11-12 simultaneously from the West (foreign reporters confirmed the presence of similar numbers of MBTs in the area), plus BMP-1s and ZSU-23-4s. If only 30% of rebel claims can be trusted, they destroyed over 20 MBTs and a similar number of APCs so far, plus caused around 300 casualties to the regime.

Excellent details, CrowBat. What's your sourcing on the number of MBTs deployed? KOed?

I'm doubtful about claims of 20 MBT's destroyed, unless they're counting all AFVs.

CMSbelt
03-08-2011, 04:01 PM
The media has a lot of coverage lately regarding the possibility of NATO military action in Libya. A no-fly zone is the most commonly discussed option; however, providing arms to the “rebels” is also mentioned as being a more likely course of action.

Yesterday, however, “The Secretary General said NATO has no intention to intervene in Libya. However, he said, ‘as a defence Alliance and a security organisation, it is our job to conduct prudent planning for any eventuality.’ The Secretary General stressed that NATO is in close coordination and consultation with other international and regional organisations, including with the United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League and the African Union.” http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-07D1308C-D8BB080F/natolive/news_71277.htm

Something I find curious about all this is the dearth of information about the opposition forces/rebels in Libya. (I’m not sure which term is appropriate. “Rebels” seems to imply more coherence and cohesion than has been apparent thus far.) I’ve seen no profiles in the major media on the leaders or anything indicating their objectives beyond the overthrow of Qaddafi. Has anyone else?

Among the reasons US White House Press Secretary Jay Carney gave for not supporting arms transfers at this point: "it would be premature to send a bunch of weapons to a post office box in eastern Libya." Kori Schake reports: “As [US] Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell judiciously pointed out, we know little about the anti-Qaddafi rebels. We're still combating weapons we gave the mujaheddin to fight Soviets in Afghanistan, and dealing with the radicalization of that society from civil war. Libyan rebels do not appear lacking in weaponry, as military units have defected bringing their equipment, and Libyans are creatively using the means available to them (like bulldozers).” http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/07/how_to_get_rid_of_qaddafi.

Sadly lacking in all the public discourse is any strategic sensibility. This is normal in the major media but currently seems to be the case even among public policy/national security/foreign policy blogs that are normally more analytical. And, it also looks like many political leaders have yet to read General Rupert Smith’s The Utility of Force. I suppose one could stretch things and argue about 24-hour flights for surveillance of Libya, but I’d like someone to explain how enforcing a no-fly zone would not be military action.

So, what is the best strategic case for any US or NATO intervention in Libya?

As for ENDS, for the sake of argument let’s say that stopping the killing is a vital interest (whether or not we include this really doesn’t matter if we accept the next premise.) More tangibly, we all know about oil and it’s importance to the economies of NATO members. The following link has an illuminating chart regarding the effect of Middle East unrest upon the price of oil: http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/07/the_specter_of_flaming_oil_ports.

Also see the following charts on who imports oil from Libya: http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/25/the_weekly_wrap_feb_25_2011.

I would argue that getting rid of Qaddafi per se is not a vital interest. Whether such a result would benefit the people of Libya, and the populations of NATO member states, would depend upon what came in the wake of an overthrow. But: #1 The nature of the Libyan opposition forces/rebels is too uncertain to project any idea what life would be like under their rule should they defeat Qaddafi; and #2 At least within recent history, the ability of certain NATO members (if not NATO in toto) to build a stable, peaceful, and prosperous state after deposing a government is also highly uncertain. (See: Iraq, invasion of, 2003.)

At least superficially, outlining the ENDS is the easy part. But, what about WAYS and MEANS? (To save space, I’m consciously comingling WAYS and MEANS but argue this is not critical in this particular instance.) Simply put, I cannot find a balance between ENDS, WAYS, and MEANS that meets the criteria of suitability, feasibility, and acceptability.

Diplomatic pressure is being brought to bear on the Qaddafi regime by individual nations and the UN. As a political-military alliance, statements by the NAC can add to the total diplomatic effort, but it’s hard to see how this will have much effect on a government willing to kill so many of its own citizens in order to stay in power.

The Informational element of national and international power/influence is generating wide public outrage at the actions of the Qaddafi regime. (It appears that Al-Jazeera’s coverage is even getting favorable reviews among some American elites: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2011/02/president_obama_6/ & http://www.theworld.org/2011/02/al-jazeera-impact-on-libya/#)

Yet, any the impact on the current Libyan regime would be indirect at best. Unmentioned in the media thus far, a related effort would be to provide information/intelligence to the opposition forces/rebels. If the right leaders can be found, information on the disposition, capabilities, and vulnerabilities of Qaddafi’s armed forces could be very useful to them. Such action would very likely be on a national basis rather than by NATO as a whole. While presenting a lower risk than the employment of military force, the wisdom of supporting the opposition forces/rebels in this manner is questionable given the caveat previously mentioned: we have little idea regarding the long-term intentions of the people trying to overthrow Qaddafi. These efforts could easily turn out to be enabling the replacement of the Qaddafi regime by something as bad or even worse.

As for the Economic element of power, on February 26, the UN Security Council voted to impose and arms embargo and financial sanctions on Libya. Most nations are following suit, some unilaterally imposing stronger measures. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110307-715800.html. However, the history of sanctions indicates success is rare, and never quick.

This obviously brings us to the Military element of power, possibly wielded by NATO. The imposition of a no fly zone by NATO (or a coalition of the willing) may initially seem attractive as an alternative that is relatively low risk to friendly forces. However, enforcement of a no-fly zone still entails risk. There is little doubt that NATO air forces could easily overmatch those of Libya, but Libya’s surface-to-air missile systems are sufficient to give pause when considering ground attack: http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/world/2011/03/03/libyas-air-force-missiles-defences/#slide=1 (Additionally, the history of no-fly zone enforcement probably includes as many, if not more, incidents of fratricide as enemy aircraft successfully shot down.)

While the opposition forces/rebels would benefit somewhat from the elimination of the air threat, Qaddafi’s artillery and tanks are much more problematic. What happens next if Qaddafi parks his airplanes but increases his use of artillery, armor, and mechanized infantry against opposition forces/rebel and unarmed protestors? Would NATO throw its hands up and say “we’ve done all we can, you are on your own again” or would the temptation to go from air superiority to ground attack missions be too great? Qaddafi’s air defenses are reported to include SA-2, SA-3, SA-5 Gammon, and SA-8b Gecko, SA-7 Grail, and SA-9/SA-13. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Libya).

Suppressing most of these may require the use of pre-emptive missile attacks and would probably cause NATO aircraft to fly at altitudes that make ground attack less effective and greatly increase the odds of accidental civilian casualties and collateral damage. Furthermore, many of the opposition forces/rebels appear to be members of the Libyan armed forces who switch sides and took their military equipment with them. Telling “friend” from foe in ground attack missions will be extremely difficult for NATO air forces. We also don’t know what use opposition forces/rebels will make of their own military equipment if freed from an air (and possibly ground) threat. How would they treat unarmed pro-Qaddafi civilians? In terms of stopping the killing, it is not clear that a no-fly zone will have much of an impact.

If a no-fly zone evens out the odds between the Qaddafi and the forces fighting him, the result could easily be freezing or extending the conflict. This could have the unintended effect of taking Libyan oil off the market for an extended period.

Given these risks, the odds are low that the imposition of a no-fly zone would produce either a net reduction in civilian deaths or stabilization of the oil markets.

What about committing NATO ground forces? As they say, “Never Say Never,” but in no particular order: #1 if NATO can’t meet requirements in Afghanistan, where will it get troops for Libya? #2 Historically, this is unlikely to occur without trying something less drastic such as a no-fly zone first (which is a bad idea for the reasons above). #3 This would require a UN Security Council Resolution and some of the permanent members are unlikely to endorse the precedent of intervention against a sovereign government merely because it kills a lot of its own people.

Nonetheless, even if the predicted utility of actually employing military force is low there may be some value in threatening its use. I think Qaddafi is too cagey to fall for this but it might encourage him to exercise more restraint but this may be what we are seeing.

My prediction is that a no-fly zone will be proposed to show solidarity with the opponents of the Qaddafi regime, but in the full knowledge that such a resolution will be vetoed certainly by China and probably by Russia.

CrowBat
03-08-2011, 04:52 PM
Excellent details, CrowBat. What's your sourcing on the number of MBTs deployed?I'd say, "all possible". From local contacts and contacts in neighbouring countries (established in course of my research; see here (http://www.fliegerrevue.de/fr_extra.asp?PG=205&AID=23888) why, as example), to careful scanning through all sorts of media, particularly so in Arab states (there is a small Lebanese newspaper that has a team in Ras Lanoof: they are reporting fantastically detailled info about local rebels).

When all of that is carefully cross-examined, a very good picture comes together: after all I can't afford escort by seven SAS and a helicopter ticket to Benghazi... :D

Anyway, bellow are two from many photos taken in az-Zawiya at the start of the uprising there. One shows a big gathering of the Local Council during the Friday prayer, on 26 February. I guess all of these people went fighting the regime in the days ever since. Another photo shows one of six T-72s brought to them by the Libyan Army Col commanding the locally-based battalion, who defected to their side.

The good Col and his deputy are meanwhile dead (both KIA during the regime's attack on Saturday) and one of these T-72s (probably the one on this photo, since it's the only one that was ever photographed on the Martyr's Square in "downtown az-Zawiya") was meanwhile shown on an Euronews or RT video, with a 120mm hole in the turret... although the edges of the hole in question were still smoking, I doubt it was there in order to improve the ventilation.

BTW, in the same fashion, one can "confirm" at least seven ex-No.1070 Squadron MiG-23BNs out of 16 reportedly "captured" by the rebels at al-Abrak AB (none was flown since 2006 at least), on 20 February...

carl
03-08-2011, 05:06 PM
IMHO, only two things would make sense for the international community to do in this situation:
- saturated and permanent jamming of all means of communication in the hands of the regime (also cutting off all of its sat comms);
- total blockade of aerial traffic to and from Libya (impossible until last foreigners are out, and there are currently still more than 1 Million of them there).

What do you think about adding small groups of people equipped with SA-18s who would co-operate with the rebels? The people could come from any number of organizations from any number of countries. Probably enough Arabic speakers are available. The SA-18s could come from any number of friendly countries who have them. That way you could establish a "no fly zone" for tactical jets and helos over the only place it really mattered, whatever was passing for the front line, without a big spectacle.

CrowBat
03-08-2011, 05:14 PM
What do you think about adding small groups of people equipped with SA-18s who would co-operate with the rebels? The people could come from any number of organizations from any number of countries. Probably enough Arabic speakers are available. The SA-18s could come from any number of friendly countries who have them. That way you could establish a "no fly zone" for tactical jets and helos over the only place it really mattered, whatever was passing for the front line, without a big spectacle.Depends on the troops that would operate these SA-18s: if they can cope with plenty of people who have quite a few very personal "bills" to pay back, bunches of youngsters firing their AKs - or ZPU-4s - into the air any time they are bored because of all the waiting (and a few other, smaller bunches of youngsters that smoke hashish when there is nothing better to do)... I think they would do well.

Just, somehow... I doubt one might find such troops in the West. :cool:

Rex Brynen
03-08-2011, 06:15 PM
What do you think about adding small groups of people equipped with SA-18s who would co-operate with the rebels? The people could come from any number of organizations from any number of countries. Probably enough Arabic speakers are available. The SA-18s could come from any number of friendly countries who have them. That way you could establish a "no fly zone" for tactical jets and helos over the only place it really mattered, whatever was passing for the front line, without a big spectacle.

The would stick out like a sore thumb, so don't assume any sort of plausible deniability. And they would have to maintain very close custody of the SA-18s, given how much harm a modern MANPADS on the open market can do.

The recent SAS experience near Benghazi is a useful lesson in getting too clever by half on the special forces front.

On top of that, so far the LAF hasn't been a decisive factor.

Cliff
03-08-2011, 07:30 PM
In reference to some of the discussions above on a no-fly zone:

A NFZ over Libya would require some work, but is definitely do-able- see Danger Room's analysis (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/could-libyas-rusty-air-defenses-challenge-a-no-fly-zone/#).

It would require some airstrikes on SAM sites, if they are operational. Unless significant civilians have encamped on the SAM sites, it wouldn't involve too much risk of collateral damage.

As Secretary Gates has pointed out, you would have to be prepared to rescue downed pilots, and this does increase the risk of getting pulled into the conflict, however.

As for killing friendly aircraft, that risk has been over-hyped. The only incident of this that I am aware of is the 1994 Blackhawk shootdown (http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63125.000/hju63125_0f.htm). This incident wasn't due to the NFZ being ineffective, but due to negligence on both the E-3 and F-15C crews involved. We have operated extensive no-fly zones over the United States for the last 10 years with 0 friendly fire incidents; this would not be a big issue.

All my opinions of course, but having done a lot of NFZ work, it's not rocket science tactically. As to the strategic wisdom of doing it, that's a different can of worms.

V/R,

Cliff

Rex Brynen
03-08-2011, 07:43 PM
In reference to some of the discussions above on a no-fly zone

What do we do if Libya continues internal civilian air flights? Shoot them down? Qaddafi is certainly capable of putting up civilian aircraft for the purpose of luring NATO into an embarrassing incident.

I support some sort of NFZ, but it's useful to work out some of the regime's possible response beforehand.

Frankly, given that Libya has perhaps thirty SAM, EW, and associated C3I and infrastructure facilities left to the regime—many of them colocated with each other or other military facilities, SEAD would provide a useful fig-leaf for what could actually be a rather more ambitious bombing campaign.

CrowBat
03-08-2011, 08:09 PM
Libyan SAMs are not really an issue. Their IADS was never completely constructed, never overhauled since Libya "opened" again and thus hopelessly obsolete (no pice of equipment there is "younger" than 30 years, except if they've got some more modern MANPADs, recently). There are currently only a few SAM-sites in Tripoli and Syrte areas that are active. The SA-5 sites in Syrte look on the ground exactly like that SA-2 site near Tobruq which can be seen on some of the photos that surfaced the last few days: rusty missiles, abandoned who-knows-how-many years ago, and goats in between...

So, that's not really that much of a problem.

But, something like NFZ over Libya makes next to no sense if not the entire country is covered, particularly its borders to (Libya-friendly) countries like Chad and Niger, but also these very long borders to Algeria, Egypt and Sudan.

The area that would have to be covered by such a NFZ would be huge, and require much more assets - and foremost bases. Sigonella, Suda Bay, Akrotiri would be a literal "drop of water on hot rock": even if Algeria and Egypt might cooperate, Sudan would definitely not work with the UN.

But...it's from Chad, Niger, Mali and Sudan that the regime in Tripoli is still hauling plenty of foreigners into the country, via its southern borders (there is at least one flight every day into every of these countries, launched from Mitiga AB, in Tripoli). Yet, it's also only from there that any coalition enforcing such a NFZ could reach crucially important places like the large Sebha AB, in SW Libya, which is another - and as of yet entirely untouched - Qaddaffi's stronghold.

Theoretically, the French could "take over" in Chad (they run the country any way), and use such places like Faya Largeau, which has a well-developed airfield. Perhaps even clean up the mess left after the Libyan defeat at (Libyan-constructed) Ouadi Doum in 1987, further north, and make use of that airfield. But that would still require Deby's agreement - and plenty of tanker assets. And, any base in northern Chad would be not only extremely isolated, but also vulnerable to long-range raids of Sudan-supported Chadian opposition, based in Darfur (read: potential for spread of the conflict in Libya).

Countries like Mali and Niger are that only by names: the government of Mali, for example, is entirely unable to exercise control over its entire territory, and thus the country became a safe heaven for this "al-Qaida of Magreb" in recent years. So, "going in" there, just in order to base a few AWACS and support assets for example, would be quite messy (as much as it would probably please Algerians). The situation in Niger might be slightly better, but only "slightly", then good airfields in the north of that country are as scarce as water...

Rex Brynen
03-08-2011, 08:39 PM
Libyan SAMs are not really an issue.

My argument, paradoxically, is that they're potentially a bit of a liability for Qaddafi, since SEAD can be used as an excuse to hit a much larger target list, especially when other military facilities are proximate to air defences.

For those interested, the approximate deployment of the Libyan SAM network can be found here (http://geimint.blogspot.com/2010/05/libyan-sam-network.html) (you can also download the KMZ file for Google Earth). It doesn't show the operational readiness or functional capabilities of systems, of course--but it does show what might be hit where.

Entropy
03-08-2011, 08:55 PM
I spent much of the 1990's supporting the Iraq NFZ's and did the same in the Balkans.

Regarding Libya, yes, tactically, it's pretty easy as far as the threat goes. Practically, it's very resource intensive. But what's the point? What's the objective? If we want the rebels to win, there are lots of ways to do that with a lot more surety than a NFZ. To me, cynical bastard that I am, it looks like something from the good intentions fairy - a low risk way to be seen as "doing something."

Rex Brynen
03-08-2011, 09:45 PM
I spent much of the 1990's supporting the Iraq NFZ's and did the same in the Balkans.

Regarding Libya, yes, tactically, it's pretty easy as far as the threat goes. Practically, it's very resource intensive. But what's the point? What's the objective? If we want the rebels to win, there are lots of ways to do that with a lot more surety than a NFZ. To me, cynical bastard that I am, it looks like something from the good intentions fairy - a low risk way to be seen as "doing something."

I think it is partly that, but it is also 1) some folks talking up the idea without any sense of the requirements or likely military impact on Qaddafi, and 2) other folks wanting to do more, but recognizing that given current political constraints a NFZ might currently be the most that is possible.

What I am suggesting (but not necessarily recommending) is that you could use a NFZ as political cover for a rather more ambitious set of airstrikes intended to degrade the regimes core capabilities, and not simply the LAF and Libyan SAM network.

This doesn't eliminate the risk, however, from the regime's possible unconventional responses (holding foreigners hostages, flying civilian human shields, etc).

Entropy
03-08-2011, 10:12 PM
Rex,

I understood your point and you're right, we could make the target list pretty wide if we wanted to and use a NFZ as a cover. But again, what's the objective? Is it our intention to militarily assist the rebels in overthrowing Qaddafi and forming a new government? Well, what if a NFZ and additional strikes aren't enough? What do we know about these rebels - are they worth our support? If they are what happens if/when the NFZ fails to dislodge Qaddafi? In that case we have to either escalate or we end up with Iraq circa 1993 - an endless NFZ that accomplishes nothing.

Cliff
03-09-2011, 04:44 AM
What do we do if Libya continues internal civilian air flights? Shoot them down? Qaddafi is certainly capable of putting up civilian aircraft for the purpose of luring NATO into an embarrassing incident.

Rex, this is not a showstopper tactically. Iraq had airliners flying fairly routinely, and as I pointed out we've been enforcing NFZs over the US for 10 years with lots of civilian traffic. Yes we could use the NFZ as cover for other bombing, but as Entropy points out, why - the strategy for the NFZ is the biggest issue.

Crowbat-

I agree, Libya is a pretty big country. Still, only slightly larger than Iraq, it's do-able. All the significant infrastructure and the entire IADS is on the coast as has been pointed out, so that helps. You don't really need to patrol to the southern border even if you're trying to interdict the flow of folks/supplies from the south - open desert most of the way so you could hit them downstream.

Entropy-

I agree, the why is the big question... what would our strategy be? The objective would mostly seem to be to try and help in some way or another... But what is our desired outcome?

Finally a point for all-

I disagree strongly that the NFZs in Iraq were a failure. The NFZs not only prevented Saddam's air force from gassing more civilians, but it also let us monitor his army and deterred ground action. The northern NFZ in particular basically kept Saddam from attacking the Kurds, and the result is that Kurdistan is the most stable and functional part of Iraq. The objective was to contain Saddam- and it worked. I may be partial due to having played a part, but I think the results were positive.

V/R,

Cliff

carl
03-09-2011, 06:34 AM
If it were decided that a no fly zone were a good thing, could we approximate it with some Aegis destroyers stationed just offshore? Those missiles are fairly long ranged, the radars are very good and the main road runs along the coast. How close though I don't know.

The idea would be to give the rebels some visible support, destroyers are easy to see. But at the same time not put any troops ashore and avoiding complications that would come with that. Politically we could be seen as actually doing something concrete to help, which might help us if the rebels win. But by not putting troops ashore, it would still be their victory if they can manage it.

Strategically, the goal would be to topple the dictator, but we would only be willing to put so much into achieving that goal. It would be a limited effort for a big goal. If the dictator won he wouldn't be any more mad at us than he is now.

I don't know much about naval operations but it might be easier logistically than a no fly zone enforced by aircraft flying over the country.

This is just an idea by a forever civilian so please eviscerate it if it has no merit.

M-A Lagrange
03-09-2011, 07:13 AM
Now that US and EU decided to stand by the rebels: it's time for action.
The only advantage, part from military experience, that G and his troops have is the control of the air.

Sure a NFZ is not that easy to set. But the rebels are running out of time! A Kosovo like operation (Air and only air op) to support the rebels would defenitively weight the balance in the right direction.

CrowBat
03-09-2011, 10:14 AM
What I am suggesting (but not necessarily recommending) is that you could use a NFZ as political cover for a rather more ambitious set of airstrikes intended to degrade the regimes core capabilities, and not simply the LAF and Libyan SAM network.Agreed. The probably most "cost & time effective" would be a mix like that from 1995, when NATO bombed the Serbs. Air attacks pinned the Serbs down and destroyed their C3 capability while the Croats launched their ground offensive. Eventually, this brought an end to the war.

For all practical purposes, any declaration of a NFZ over Libya is likely to end in a similar situation - which means there is a guaranteed "exit strategy" too: as soon as Qaddaffi is away, there is no purpose of a NFZ any more.


Crowbat-

I agree, Libya is a pretty big country. Still, only slightly larger than Iraq, it's do-able. All the significant infrastructure and the entire IADS is on the coast as has been pointed out, so that helps. You don't really need to patrol to the southern border even if you're trying to interdict the flow of folks/supplies from the south - open desert most of the way so you could hit them downstream.You mean, it would be sufficient to cut off the airborne "flow of supplies" by blocking the area of Tripoli alone?

OK. But, what are you going to do with all the Libyan troops holding places like Sebha ("the capital of the south"), Ghat and al-Wigh? Even if Qaddaffi falls, it's unlikely they're going to give up. Not only that they are separated from the rest of the country by 300+ km of desert, but they also have enough supplies to survive "for years" and are certainly not keen to give up if facing the ICC. Means: at best, you've got a situation where the country is split.


If it were decided that a no fly zone were a good thing, could we approximate it with some Aegis destroyers stationed just offshore?A good idea would be to post one off Benghazi and protect the town from the threat of regime's Scud brigades that are still operational in the Syrte area. It's quite obvious that the rebel oppinion changed meanwhile, so they would probably be quite pleased by some ABM protection.

But, moving one in direction of Tripoli is rather likely to end in another IranAir-Tragedy (from 1988): the problem with ships is that they have long-range radars and weapons, but are not as flexible as (manned) interceptors to "go there" and check what kind of aircraft is underway around.

Finally, regarding NFZs over Iraq and Bosnia, in general: these were effective, I've got little doubts about this. However, the problem was that both came too late. The one in Iraq was imposed only once the Kurds and Marsh Arabs (plus a division of the Iranian IRGC or so supporting them) were smashed by the Iraqi military, also with help of chemical weapons. Subsequently, it was maintained for ten years, leaving the regime to recover and continue with attrocities. The one in Bosnia was imposed only after the war on the ground largely ended in a stalemate, but hundreds of thousands were already ethnically cleansed.

Eventually, both were brought to an end only through direct military action.

Let's hope that a NFZ over Libya is not going to be imposed much too late, and perhaps also bring that decisive direct military action at a much earlier date.

Bob's World
03-09-2011, 11:30 AM
The US is sending out a dangerous Strategic Communications in our posture on Libya. That message is:

"The US will not back up despotic leaders when challenged peacefully by their populaces, but if the government responds with military violence to suppress the people we will not do anything about that either."

That heavy sigh of relief you hear is from a handful of despotic leaders over on the Arabian Peninsula who had been sweating it following Tunisia and Egypt. Now they are most likely just making sure their most loyal troops are properly postured to act.

This is like the Groundhog seeing his shadow. 6 more years of GWOT. We have given hope to Despots and bin Laden both.

(Oh, and how do our good allies the Saudis thank us?

"Libya produced 1.6 million oil barrels per day before fighting forced companies to evacuate workers. Most of that production is shut down.

Ali Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, said the kingdom has about 3.5 million barrels per day of spare capacity that could be brought online"

Oh, well, so long as it could, Meanwhile the US is quickly funding through higher oil prices the $36 B in reforms the King is offering his people in an attempt to fend of Friday's "day of rage."

SWJ Blog
03-09-2011, 12:32 PM
Considerations on Libya (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/we-must-prevent-qaddafi-from/)

Entry Excerpt:

Considerations on Libya
by Steven T. Brothers

We must prevent Qaddafi from more efficiently slaughtering his own people. This can be accomplished with intervention. Yet, we must carefully weigh the risks lest a hazy contingency plan creep into a muddling campaign.

As a military officer I know that no fly zones (NFZ) and air strikes are not easy to implement, nor are they necessarily effective. Libyan air defenses would need to be suppressed. We could lose aircraft. Combat search and rescue (C.S.A.R.) personnel deployed to save downed pilots could be killed or captured. Also, our laser-guided bombs would require soldiers – on the ground –to direct them to their targets.

Those who say an NFZ would be “easy” point to Operation Northern Watch over Iraq as proof. Yet, much of Iraq’s air defenses were destroyed in the Gulf war. Further, Iraqi air defenses were easier to find and destroy. Libya does not have such a capacity; what it has is more dangerous: scores of shoulder-fired missiles that are tougher to locate.

Complicating this is a dangerous absence of information about the opposition. Although Secretary of State Clinton said the U.S. is “reaching out” to the rebels we should be skeptical of any intelligence information provided to us. We do not need a Libyan version of the Iraqi informant “Curveball” feeding us false tips in order to further a narrow agenda.

Also, much of the opposition are former government employees which have not been paid in days. Should this drag on for weeks – and this is certainly possible – there is a risk of the opposition fracturing. Rival leaders might then capitalize on U.S. ignorance and seek support for personal power grabs.

Also, what happens after Qaddafi is toppled? Libya does not have the civil capacity and structures that Tunisia and Egypt have. Libya is – dangerously so- more like Yemen. It lacks the mechanisms to provide basic services, which themselves can check the kind of hopelessness and desperation that feeds violence.

We also must determine how far we are willing to go. When does a no fly zone turn into a no drive zone? Qaddafi’s aircraft should be grounded but he also possesses equally efficient means: tanks, artillery, and gun trucks. Also, according to Human Rights Watch, the Red Crescent, and other relief organizations, there is a humanitarian crisis developing. Qaddafi’s forces are sealing off supply routes. Qaddafi is using food as a weapon. If we plan on assisting here, this will require “boots on the ground.”

Reminiscent of Somalia, our soldiers would face the difficult task of discerning allies from enemies. A sizeable portion of the opposition is former military, many of whom still wear the same uniforms and use the same equipment as Qaddafi’s forces. This makes a corner stone of any military intervention - the rules of engagement - extremely problematic.

We have not adequately evaluated the political risks. Most Libyans would resent the presence of foreign troops. If we overreach, we risk alienating the next generation of Libya’s leaders and the young people that will chart its political future.

If the opposition’s supposed leadership asks for an intervention then they may lose legitimacy. Libyans see this as their revolution and want to emulate the Egyptian and Tunisian experiences with little outside help. The opposition has already appropriated dozens of tanks, attack helicopters, and the critically important anti-aircraft weapons. It may take a while but they might be able to accomplish this on their own.

Others have suggested inserting Special Forces teams to assist the rebels. An apparent rag-tag unprofessional gang, the rebels are led by a few professional soldiers. We could assist by sending teams to help train and lead them. Yet, this is also risky: A U.K. SAS team was captured by a faction of the opposition that considered them invaders. Also, the Libyan opposition is not the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan. There is no Ahmad Shah Masoud – nor the legacy of a martyred one – to rally around. We do not have a twenty-plus year history of assisting the Libyan rebels. There may be a leader in the making but they have yet to assert themselves.

There are more workable options. While the U.N. has taken measures to prevent more weapons from getting to Qaddafi what about personnel? The U.N., the Arab league and the African Union must pressure those countries that have supplied the mercenaries in order to prevent more from arriving. Also, the E.U. –although it has frozen Qaddafi’s assets – must also freeze those of the Libyan state. Until the opposition is in control of the treasury, this is an option worth considering.

Qaddafi’s ruthlessness rivals that of Idi Amin, Charles Taylor, and Nicolae Ceausescu. Under his leadership, rebel soldiers are bound, gagged, shot, and set on fire while merciless guns for hire execute civilians. He must be stopped. Yet, before we rush to rattling our sabers, our policy makers must build a multinational consensus, weigh the risks, and always respect the wishes of the Libyan people.

Major Steven T. Brothers is an Army Middle East Foreign Area Officer and Graduate Student at the Center for Middle East Studies at Harvard University. His comments do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army, the US Government, or Harvard University.

Editor's Note: While we will present all options for intervention, SWJ does not maintain an official position. Rather, we want to facilitate the discussion.



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/we-must-prevent-qaddafi-from/) 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
03-09-2011, 01:10 PM
Rex, this is not a showstopper tactically. Iraq had airliners flying fairly routinely, and as I pointed out we've been enforcing NFZs over the US for 10 years with lots of civilian traffic. Yes we could use the NFZ as cover for other bombing, but as Entropy points out, why - the strategy for the NFZ is the biggest issue.

in this case, however, I'm talking about military traffic in civilian aircraft (unlike Saddam, there is some value to Qaddafi in moving troops and supplies by air), or possibly civilian traffic in military aircraft (intended to provoke a shoot-down).

Entropy
03-09-2011, 01:35 PM
Now that US and EU decided to stand by the rebels: it's time for action.
The only advantage, part from military experience, that G and his troops have is the control of the air.

If we're going to do this, then we shouldn't be half-assed about it. A NFZ is not enough in my judgment - if we're going to help the rebels, we should embed small teams with combat controllers to provide fire support to rebel formations and make this civil war as short as possible.

Also, I think the Europeans need to take the lead on this.

carl
03-09-2011, 02:24 PM
Now that US and EU decided to stand by the rebels: it's time for action.
The only advantage, part from military experience, that G and his troops have is the control of the air.

Sure a NFZ is not that easy to set. But the rebels are running out of time! A Kosovo like operation (Air and only air op) to support the rebels would defenitively weight the balance in the right direction.


The US is sending out a dangerous Strategic Communications in our posture on Libya. That message is:

"The US will not back up despotic leaders when challenged peacefully by their populaces, but if the government responds with military violence to suppress the people we will not do anything about that either."

Those are both very good points.

Crowbat: I don't think you would need to post a destroyer off Tripoli to have a good effect. Protecting the front line and Benghazi from air strikes would have a good effect, if only psychological. I have read that air strikes have a very bad effect on the morale of inexperienced people so stopping them may do more good than we would think.

If we were to establish a no fly zone that would change circumstances to the point where I think small ground teams with SA-18s would be very useful.

CMSbelt
03-09-2011, 02:43 PM
NFZ is a tactic. Very doable, relatively low-risk although not risk-free, but still a tactic. To what purpose? What further expectations will this raise?

As far as the strategic message to the extremists, what happens if the NFZ doesn't change anything on the ground? Does this make the US look like a "weak horse" once again? Conversely, even if effective, might it support the Al Qaeda narrative of "Crusaders killing Muslims to steal their oil"?

As to using a NFZ as an excuse for wider ground attack missions, what would be the second and third order effects? Just because a lot of Libyans want to get rid of Qaddafi by force doesn't mean they want someone else bombing their country. The historical record is that such interventions are more likely to unify the population under the current regime than cause them to rise up against it.

Overthrowing Qaddafi might be a desirable objective, but then what? Why do we think the near-term outcome of deposing Qaddafi in Libya would be more favorable to US interests than at least the first 5 years after we got rid of Saddam turned out to be?

If Qaddafi is defeated, with or without external intervention, the odds of political chaos and a humanitarian disaster ensuing are pretty high. Further slaughter as the winners take revenge and/or continue the fighting to decide who amongst them will replace Qadaffi is also rather likely.

Merely deposing Qaddafi isn't going to make Libya suddenly look like Switzerland (or even Jordan, to use a less sarcastic metaphor).

The Colin Powell warning about "You break it, you buy it" is well worth keeping in mind here.

"Just do SOMETHING" rarely turns out to be good policy.

Entropy
03-09-2011, 03:16 PM
Yeah, what CMSBelt said. George will also has some good questions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/08/AR2011030803149.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)that need answering in today's WAPO:


* The world would be better without Gaddafi. But is that a vital U.S. national interest? If it is, when did it become so? A month ago, no one thought it was.

* How much of Gaddafi's violence is coming from the air? Even if his aircraft are swept from his skies, would that be decisive?

* What lesson should be learned from the fact that Europe's worst atrocity since the Second World War - the massacre by Serbs of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica - occurred beneath a no-fly zone?

* Sen. John Kerry says: "The last thing we want to think about is any kind of military intervention. And I don't consider the fly zone stepping over that line." But how is imposing a no-fly zone - the use of military force to further military and political objectives - not military intervention?

* U.S. forces might ground Gaddafi's fixed-wing aircraft by destroying runways at his 13 air bases, but to keep helicopter gunships grounded would require continuing air patrols, which would require the destruction of Libya's radar and anti-aircraft installations. If collateral damage from such destruction included civilian deaths - remember those nine Afghan boys recently killed by mistake when they were gathering firewood - are we prepared for the televised pictures?

* The Economist reports Gaddafi has "a huge arsenal of Russian surface-to-air missiles" and that some experts think Libya has SAMs that could threaten U.S. or allies' aircraft. If a pilot is downed and captured, are we ready for the hostage drama?

* If we decide to give war supplies to the anti-Gaddafi fighters, how do we get them there?

* Presumably we would coordinate aid with the leaders of the anti-Gaddafi forces. Who are they?

* Libya is a tribal society. What concerning our Iraq and Afghanistan experiences justifies confidence that we understand Libyan dynamics?

* Because of what seems to have been the controlling goal of avoiding U.S. and NATO casualties, the humanitarian intervention - 79 days of bombing - against Serbia in Kosovo was conducted from 15,000 feet. This marked the intervention as a project worth killing for but not worth dying for. Would intervention in Libya be similar? Are such interventions morally dubious?

* Could intervention avoid "mission creep"? If grounding Gaddafi's aircraft is a humanitarian imperative, why isn't protecting his enemies from ground attacks?

* In Tunisia and then in Egypt, regimes were toppled by protests. Libya is convulsed not by protests but by war. Not a war of aggression, not a war with armies violating national borders and thereby implicating the basic tenets of agreed-upon elements of international law, but a civil war. How often has intervention by nation A in nation B's civil war enlarged the welfare of nation A?

* Before we intervene in Libya, do we ask the United Nations for permission? If it is refused, do we proceed anyway? If so, why ask? If we are refused permission and recede from intervention, have we not made U.S. foreign policy hostage to a hostile institution?

* Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fears Libya becoming a failed state - "a giant Somalia." Speaking of which, have we not seen a cautionary movie - "Black Hawk Down" - about how humanitarian military interventions can take nasty turns?

* The Egyptian crowds watched and learned from the Tunisian crowds. But the Libyan government watched and learned from the fate of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments. It has decided to fight. Would not U.S. intervention in Libya encourage other restive peoples to expect U.S. military assistance?

* Would it be wise for U.S. military force to be engaged simultaneously in three Muslim nations?

Bob's World
03-09-2011, 03:23 PM
Actually Qaddafi staying and seriously opening talks and embracing reforms with his populace is superior to him running off into exile.

But the problem the US has is that we do a lot of lecturing on values and human rights; then when a populace dares to act out we look away.

The question for the US is if we have vital interests at stake in how this plays out. Not in if Qaddafi stays or goes, but in how it plays out in deciding that and how our role is perceived. The entire Arabian Peninsula is teetering as we type, and our actions could well affect whether that stabilizes, or which way it tips.

It is the pent up rage of these populaces that AQ has fed upon, this is the festering boil of oppression that has fed the war on terrorism for 15 odd years. Now it is rupturing, and that pressure will either finally be relieved, or it will be reasserted by either the current or new management. How ever it plays, the West will be judged by these populaces, and if we play this wrong, terrorism continues and may get worse. If we play it right things begin to heal.

This is far more important than Afghanistan is for getting to resolution in the war on terror. Afghanistan is just where AQ planted the flag, but North Africa and the AP are where the people who support their movement live in varying states of oppression.

For Libya, this is all about Libya. But for the US this is far, far larger.

Entropy
03-09-2011, 03:27 PM
Bob,

That's all well and good, but what, specifically, would you have the US do?

Bob's World
03-09-2011, 03:50 PM
That, my friend, is the Billion dollar a day question.

The first thing is to understand why these populaces have been supportive of AQ, why they are dissatisfied with their current governance, and why they tend to act out against the West in a effort to create change.

Next is to not fixate on Libya for Libya's sake, other than as one of many target audiences for whatever it is we do. It should by helpful for the Libyan people, but it must be shaped to the much larger strategic effect desired.

Next is to engage all of the dozen or so nations involved privately and diplomatically to lay out where we stand and what we are going to do in Libya, and what we are prepared to do with each of them depending on which way they self-determine to go. That is the thing about self-determination and free will, it opens the door to make some bad decisions with bad consequences. We should have learned by now that there is a communication gap between the west in general, the US in particular, and this region (like Saddam thinking he had a formal green light to take Kuwait). We must be clear.

As to Libya specifically, I lean toward making a deal with Qaddafi to allow him to stay in power for some set term to shape a way forward with heavy Arab/UN involvement in exchange for a truce with his people. If he refuses, up the ante a bit. Figure out what his pressure points are and apply pressure. To simply call for him to step down is probably the wrong thing. To just fly in and start blasting is also probably the wrong thing. (At least at first)

This is all so incredibly foreseeable that State should have a big play book that they are walking the President through with the Joint Chiefs right now. Not holding my breath, but we can catch up if they don't have that homework done.

Part of this play would absolutely to squeeze the Saudis to ramp up production for some surge time to keep the global economy stable.

Just some quick thoughts. But we need to open the aperture, step back, and get strategic if we want to maximize this opportunity.

Rex Brynen
03-09-2011, 04:43 PM
As to Libya specifically, I lean toward making a deal with Qaddafi to allow him to stay in power for some set term to shape a way forward with heavy Arab/UN involvement in exchange for a truce with his people. If he refuses, up the ante a bit. Figure out what his pressure points are and apply pressure. To simply call for him to step down is probably the wrong thing. To just fly in and start blasting is also probably the wrong thing. (At least at first)

Having Qaddafi remain in power as part of a political strategy is a non-option.

1) The man is deeply unpopular in Libya, and indeed across the Middle East. The international community would be seen as complicit in protecting him.

2) The man is crazy. This is not a term I use lightly, but it fully applies in this case. I think the chances he will ever voluntarily leave power or step down are close to zero.

3) Despite the changes in the Egypt and Tunisia, the Arab world is still a club of dictators, and has little credibility (or interest) in a democratic transition in Libya, even if they would like Qaddafi to go.

4) As we know from Cambodia, a heavy UN presence is no guarantee that a dictator will actually leave in the end. Some 17 years after losing the 1993 elections (guaranteed by 21,500 UNTAC peacekeepers, at a cost of $1.5 billion), he is still effectively in power.

Fuchs
03-09-2011, 05:57 PM
2) The man is crazy. This is not a term I use lightly, but it fully applies in this case. I think the chances he will ever voluntarily leave power or step down are close to zero.

He seems to have been very calculating in many regards and is probably no more crazy than Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Saddam's propganda minister, was.

Entropy
03-09-2011, 06:26 PM
Fuchs,

Crazy and calculating are not mutually exclusive attributes.

davidbfpo
03-09-2011, 06:35 PM
From two acknowledged experts and from different viewpoints. From a UK-based think tank, the Quilliam Foundation, written by a senior, ex-LIFG member:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/libya22feb.pdf

By a UK-based academic analyst:
The military-political deadlock in Libya between supporters and opponents of the Gaddafi regime leaves a pervasive uncertainty over the country’s future. But even greater challenges will follow this conflict.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/alison-pargeter/libya-hard-road-ahead

davidbfpo
03-09-2011, 06:42 PM
There is some historical irony in the discussion on imposing on Libya a No Fly Zone (NFZ) given the role of Italy, as the nearest NATO state and with its somewhat craven policy stance on Libya until recently (Yes, the UK has a few issues too).

During the unification of Italy, notably when Garibaldi with a volunteer army landed in Sicily the Royal Navy (RN) had a presence on the scene to dissuade the capable Neapolitan navy from intervening. A 'No Ship Zone' (NSZ).

Less certain now; was there not a similar role by the RN during the wars of independence in Spanish ruled Latin America? Plus an element of discretion over expertise and more.

CrowBat
03-09-2011, 07:04 PM
Bob,
you've got some excellent points.

For example:
The US is sending out a dangerous Strategic Communications in our posture on Libya. That message is:

"The US will not back up despotic leaders when challenged peacefully by their populaces, but if the government responds with military violence to suppress the people we will not do anything about that either."

- and also:
The first thing is to understand why these populaces have been supportive of AQ, why they are dissatisfied with their current governance, and why they tend to act out against the West in a effort to create change.

But the idea of keeping Qaddaffi in any kind of position - power or not - in Libya, sorry, that is a complete "no-no".

We need not going very much into details about internal situation in Libya. It's very simple: if the pro or contra decision for a foreign intervention in that country (sanctioned by the UN or not, "limited to NFZ" or not) depends upon the answer to the question "are they pro or contra AG", then we all should better pack our rucksacks right away, get our rifles and hurry up to Libya - in order to fight for the rebels there and against Qaddaffi.

Namely, it's precisely such creatures, such tyranns like Qaddaffi, it's their behaviour, their orders to crush not only this uprising but also so many others in the past "regardless the price", that have caused what you call "populace supportive of AQ". It's such monsters that have created a situation in which somebody came to the idea to create something as monstrous as AQ - and that's all anybody needs to know (or think about) in this case.

Entropy
03-09-2011, 07:35 PM
Why is it up to the USA to decide Qaddafi's fate, one way or another?

Bob's World
03-09-2011, 07:37 PM
Having Qaddafi remain in power as part of a political strategy is a non-option.

1) The man is deeply unpopular in Libya, and indeed across the Middle East. The international community would be seen as complicit in protecting him.

2) The man is crazy. This is not a term I use lightly, but it fully applies in this case. I think the chances he will ever voluntarily leave power or step down are close to zero.

3) Despite the changes in the Egypt and Tunisia, the Arab world is still a club of dictators, and has little credibility (or interest) in a democratic transition in Libya, even if they would like Qaddafi to go.

4) As we know from Cambodia, a heavy UN presence is no guarantee that a dictator will actually leave in the end. Some 17 years after losing the 1993 elections (guaranteed by 21,500 UNTAC peacekeepers, at a cost of $1.5 billion), he is still effectively in power.

But to simply create a gaping hole and see who falls into it is not the best way to go. Clearly it would have to be a closely structured deal, perhaps with a son instead of him, but also on a 12-18month term to have some stability as the transition works out. Plus this is, as I said, far bigger than one man and one state, what we do sends a message to the entire region. We don't do ourselves any favors if we make every other dictator in the region feel like their back is against a wall.

Bob's World
03-09-2011, 07:44 PM
Why is it up to the USA to decide Qaddafi's fate, one way or another?

It's not. Our actions must be tuned to support our interests first and foremost. If that means putting a hand in this boiling pot to do so, then we should if the interests are important enough, and not if they are not.

And again, this is a stage, and a lot of people are watching with interest, and that audience is more important than the stage is

Fuchs
03-09-2011, 08:02 PM
The North Atlantic Treaty
Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

[...]

My emphasis.

carl
03-09-2011, 08:28 PM
Why is it up to the USA to decide Qaddafi's fate, one way or another?

For better or for worse, because we are the only ones who might actually DO something and we have been for a long time. The world is probably better for it, though I expect a lot of disagreement on that one.

tequila
03-09-2011, 08:42 PM
For better or for worse, because we are the only ones who might actually DO something and we have been for a long time. The world is probably better for it, though I expect a lot of disagreement on that one.

I think the Libyans in Benghazi and Ras Lanuf and Zawiyah are actually doing something.

carl
03-09-2011, 08:51 PM
I think the Libyans in Benghazi and Ras Lanuf and Zawiyah are actually doing something.

Very much agreed. I should have been more precise. Of external actors who can, we are the only ones who will generally do anything.

Those Libyans may need some help.

Ken White
03-09-2011, 09:05 PM
For better or for worse, because we are the only ones who might actually DO something and we have been for a long time.Are we those who will do because we are compelled (using "compelled" in most senses of the word...) to do that -- interfere to 'help?' Are we "the only ones" because others know we will -- therefor they need not? If that is correct, do we like it that way? Do they? Should we?
The world is probably better for it, though I expect a lot of disagreement on that one.I think you're correct in both cases. There will be those who disagree but I think that's due to the fact that while we have overall provided betterment IMO, we've done a lot of inadvertent and / or stupid and unnecessary damage in the process also IMO. (See questions above...).

However, I posit all that rhetoric to ask a question:

Can anyone give me a pressing US interest that merits our getting involved in Libya?

(I realize one could and many have raised the same questions about Afghanistan and Iraq, as have I, though in their case I suggest what was done -- retribution for the WTC and removal of Saddam / sending a message that we're getting tired of being nickeled and dimed -- was a pressing interest and was necessary. Post facto 'involvement' was not. If we interfere in Libya, we will get involved...)

Bob's World
03-09-2011, 09:59 PM
Ken,

I think it is more in the line of logic as applied to the Korean conflict. Did we have a pressing interest there specifically? No, but the region was in turmoil so based on timing, location, and connection to the larger issues to be addressed we ended up in Korea. Where we get in trouble is that we always seem to lose sight of the strategic big picture that coaxes us into these situations, and become fixed to the tactical realities of the specific place.

This is one area where Powell's rules are helpful. Define it clearly up front and communicate that so that everyone understands the "whys" of the operation and with clear ends can hopefully ward off the ever-present vortex of mission creep that is always ready to suck one in...

I don't think we have a pressing, vital national interest in Libya per se; but we do have a pressing, vital national interest or two across the greater Middle East, and if we act, how we act, or if we sit on our hands, it will indeed affect those larger interests. There are risks and opportunities here if we can look past the noise and drama of the close fight (but everyone loves a gunfight, to watch, anyway, and our tendency is for generals to start becoming squad leaders, pilots, etc right about now)

davidbfpo
03-09-2011, 11:05 PM
Contrasting views on a NFZ from RUSI:Against
Imposing a No Fly Zone in Libya will be seen as a coercive step that may demand escalation. Western governments must therefore resist calls for a NFZ over Libya until it is clearly and convincingly the correct path to take.

Link:http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4D6FAFB3B61EA/

The author is ex-RAF officer, so has a practical aspect to his arguments and IIRC a SWC member too.

For NFZ:
As the Qadhafi regime unleashes slow-motion slaughter in Libya, a no-fly zone is the most compelling response, particularly in the face of growing demands for limited assistance from Libyans themselves. Critics of such an idea have yet to explain why the limited efficacy of NFZs means that they ought to be shunned altogether, or why a time-limited NFZ cannot be later withdrawn if proven impotent.

Link:http://www.rusi.org/go.php?structureID=commentary&ref=C4D6F85386C4DA

Personally I see no public appetite here for such a role, for may reasons. This could alter if Arab nations "bite the bullet" and say we can assist. Why not use facilities, even airfields, in Egypt and Tunisia? Even aircraft!

Meantime I do incline to NATO / a coalition of the willing staying out until far better arguments are made and what is the exit plan?

Fuchs
03-09-2011, 11:35 PM
I don't think we have a pressing, vital national interest in Libya per se; but we do have a pressing, vital national interest or two across the greater Middle East, ...

Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Iraq and Kuwait are amongst the top 15 crude oil suppliers of the U.S..
"...the top ten sources accounted for approximately 88 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports..."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html


Let's assume that none of them would be willing to sell oil to the U.S. if the U.S. stopped seeing vital interests in the Middle East (the opposite is a more likely reaction, but that's another story).
That would mean a loss of supply of about 800 million barrel/year.

Now assume that the U.S. would need to buy these 800 million barrels/year at outrageous doubled price then for a few years, until the world market is re-arranged (the four countries keep selling, just not to the U.S.).

The average market price for WTI crude oil in 2010 was somewhere near USD 80/barrel.

So we're discussing national interests in a trade volume of only 800 million * USD 80; USD 64 bn.
64 billion $$$. That's how much? 6-10% of U.S. military spending?
How much U.S. military spending is being 'justified' with Middle East meddling?


I don't see any major U.S. interests in the MidEast region that justify the great expenses people have become accustomed to. There are primarily special interests, the tails that wag the dog.


Germany is importing a 7% of its crude oil supply from Libya and we're mcuh more close to Libya than the U.S..
I still consider German national interests in Libya to be smallish. Our primary interest is the security of the EU's southern frontier, and Libya is no troublemaker in this regard. The oil import issue can be resolved with a slight deviation from business as usual.

Pete
03-10-2011, 12:28 AM
... mission creep that is always ready to suck one in ...
The noble intention to "do something" to topple a dictator would probably be followed by the desire to see a measure of stability restored to the country before we leave. The result might be that 12, 18, 24 or more months down the road we might be wondering how we ever let ourselves become embroiled in such a mess. It brings to mind the old expression about having to fend off alligators when the initial mission was to drain the swamp. Mission creep is a useful concept but situations don't remain static between the time an operation is first planned and when it is put into effect; the plan has to be adjusted to adapt to changing circumstances, hence the danger of becoming involved in the first place.

Surferbeetle
03-10-2011, 12:38 AM
...do we really need to rush in and insist upon picking up the tab yet again? I for one would rather have our democratic partners pick up the check for once; or at least split the cost. :wry:

Eni's 41-Year Qaddafi Link Means Lowest Oil Industry Valuation as CDS Jump (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-09/eni-s-41-year-qaddafi-link-means-lowest-oil-industry-valuation-as-cds-jump.html)
By Alessandra Migliaccio and Brian Swint - Mar 9, 2011 5:43 AM MT at Bloomberg


Eni, whose success negotiating oil deals in Africa helped make it Libya’s largest producer, has shut about 9 percent of its total global output because of the conflict. As the biggest foreign investor in Libya, Eni is at the center of Italy’s relationship with its former colony. In turn, Libya owns stakes in Italian companies, ranging from Milan-based bank Unicredit SpA (UCG) to defense contractor Finmeccanica SpA (FNC) in Rome.


Chief Executive Officer Paolo Scaroni, 64, will make his annual strategy presentation to investors in London tomorrow. He will need to draw on the company’s diplomatic heritage to navigate Libya’s slide into civil war and protect its investments, said Ettore Greco, head of the IAI Institute for International Affairs in Rome.


Eni’s Greenstream natural gas pipeline linking Libya and Sicily is shut and production in the North African country is reduced about two-thirds, Scaroni said in an interview with the Financial Times published today. The company is now producing about 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day, compared with 270,000 barrels before the uprising, the newspaper said.


An Eni spokesman declined to comment on current production in Libya and whether contact had been made with rebel groups.

“The risk is they have to renegotiate with a new regime and may lose their contracts and the acreage,” said Andrea Williams, a fund manager at Royal London Asset Management in London, who hasn’t sold her Eni shares because she expects the company to weather the conflict.

The cost of insuring Eni’s debt is the highest among the 10 largest oil companies in Europe and the U.S. The price of a five-year credit default swap for Eni exceeded 100 basis points this week, compared with 58 for Shell, Europe’s largest oil company. A basis point on a credit-default swap protecting 10 million euros ($14 million) of debt from default for five years is equivalent to 1,000 euros a year.

Libyan central bank chief surfaces (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3991d8de-49b6-11e0-acf0-00144feab49a.html#axzz1G3yyMX5y), by Roula Khalaf in London, Published: March 8 2011 19:15 | Last updated: March 8 2011 23:00, Financial Times


Late on Tuesday night the governor finally surfaced: in an e-mail sent to the Financial Times, he said he had been informed that the secretary of planning and finance had been appointed as acting governor and confirmed that he had been in Istanbul. But he insisted that he was doing his job, and that it was easier to conduct business abroad than in Tripoli.

The statement, however, did not shed much light on the governor’s loyalties. He said he would resign after the crisis but also that he had been working hard over the past two weeks to explain the central bank’s position and clarify the effect of the international effort to freeze Libyan assets. Blocking central bank funds could lead to a humanitarian disaster, he said, including a reminder that he had always operated in line with regulations and had modernised the Libyan banking system.


The fate of Mr Bengdara has attracted much attention but bankers say he was already on his way out before the crisis. Since taking over at the central bank in 2006 (he was deputy governor before that), he was considered something of a reformer, opening up the banking sector to foreign capital, tightening supervision and setting up a clearing system. But he was seen to have won his job thanks to Seif-al-Islam, the Gaddafi son and apparent heir who had championed a more liberal economic system.

EU will Milliarden für die Entwicklung Nordafrikas sprechen (http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/politik/international/eu_will_milliarden_fuer_die_entwicklung_nordafrika s_sprechen_1.9813880.html), 8. März 2011, 18:45, NZZ Online


EU-Kommissionspräsident José Manuel Barroso will Milliarden für die Demokratisierung Nordafrikas zur Verfügung stellen. Er stellte eine «Partnerschaft für Demokratie und gemeinsamen Wohlstand» mit den südlichen Mittelmeerländern vor. Sie wird am Freitag von den Staats- und Regierungschefs der EU offiziell beschlossen.


Der frühere deutsche Aussenminister Joschka Fischer (Grüne) warf der EU unterdessen schwere Versäumnisse vor. «In der Stunde grösster Herausforderung versagt dieses Europa», sagte er der «Stuttgarter Zeitung». «Es ist trostlos: keine Idee, kein Plan, keine Initiative.»

Insbesondere verlangte Fischer ein umfassendes Hilfs- und Aufbauprogramm. Er forderte auch konkrete Massnahmen zum Sturz des libyschen Machthabers Muammar al-Ghadhafi. Auf ein militärisches Eingreifen legte er sich jedoch nicht fest. Daneben gebe es «noch andere Möglichkeiten - auch der diskreten Hilfe und Unterstützung» für die libysche Opposition.

Fuchs
03-10-2011, 12:48 AM
Surferbeetle, the last headline is crap German, but it's not your fault. The headline is actually crap German in the original. :D

They're merely dusting off their standard repertoire: throw money at a problem, pretend that standard tools are good tools.
The most important thing in the short term is to supply as many qualified free election observers through OECD as the countries ask for. Tunisians have already signalled that this is going to be important.

The EU and Barroso are not really relevant in regard to what happens in North Africa, but bureaucracies and politicians always want to expand...

TROUFION
03-10-2011, 01:02 AM
The necessary questions:

Qadafi reasserts power?

The rebels win?

Libya splits into two factions and the rebellion becomes a prolonged civil war?

Then does this matter to the West? Europe? US?

If it does matter then how much...what is it worth?

Then if it is worth so much why is it not worth the same to the neighbors of Libya? If Libyan democracy is so important why are not Eygpt and Tunisia providing assistance to the rebellion?

There are dozens of other questions but these seem the most salient. the bottom line in my opinion is we need to ask WHY we (US and the West) should intevene when the local actors Egypt and Tunisia won't?

-T

Ken White
03-10-2011, 04:11 AM
Well, there was -- but not much true strategic thought and the US armed forces didn't do it very well. Same applies to Viet Nam -- and Iraq; the strategies weren't great but had some merit -- the flawed execution turned potential pluses into draws or worse. Plenty of blame for all, political and military.
I think it is more in the line of logic as applied to the Korean conflict. Did we have a pressing interest there specifically?I believe Korea was akin to Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq in that there was no significant US interest involved but rather US politicians reacting in Pavlovian response to a crisis (LINK) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow) with a sharper eye on US domestic politics than on the international scene. So, in that sense, I agree with you...
Where we get in trouble is that we always seem to lose sight of the strategic big picture that coaxes us into these situations, and become fixed to the tactical realities of the specific place.However, I differ a bit on this aspect -- I do not think we hardly ever have a "strategic big picture." I do think Bush had one with Iraq but it was poorly executed. Generally, we go into the react mode...
This is one area where Powell's rules are helpful.I agree that the Powell -- or the original Weinberger from whence Colin Powell modified his -- rules were and are good but I also believe the US cannot afford to (and will not) operate under that doctrine UNLESS and until DoD lose its risk averse attitude and develops tools to give the NCA more response options than the current all or nothing (and that flows to a great extent from misapplication of those doctrines).

Such a revamp of the forces is long overdue; a 1904 Army that uses 1917 personnel processes and 1942 training methodologies isn't on the cutting edge of anything. We owe our successes to good people and poor opponents, not to most of the systems and processes we use.
...but we do have a pressing, vital national interest or two across the greater Middle East...I do not agree, interests, yes but pressing, vital? No, I think not. Fuchs has that about right, I believe.
... (but everyone loves a gunfight, to watch, anyway, and our tendency is for generals to start becoming squad leaders, pilots, etc right about now)Sadly true. :mad:

I also always love this "WE have to do something..." attitude from a lot of folks who would not even deign to be a part of that 'we,' much less who will be part of it... :wry:

Ken White
03-10-2011, 04:14 AM
They're merely dusting off their standard repertoire: throw money at a problem, pretend that standard tools are good tools...We do that for everything... :rolleyes:

Troufion:
...the bottom line in my opinion is we need to ask WHY we (US and the West) should intevene when the local actors Egypt and Tunisia won't?Yes. Great question -- and both are capable of doing that...

carl
03-10-2011, 04:44 AM
This is what I figure. The dictator has been around a long time, preserving his power through brute force. During that time he has intentionally killed Americans and we tried to get him once. The brute force has made what seems to be most of his people very unhappy, unhappy enough to protest in the streets. That is a very dangerous thing to do in the dictator's land but the people let their excitement get the better of them and did it anyway.

The arguably psychopathic dictator shot them down in the streets for their trouble and brought in hired killers from foreign lands to shoot more of them. The people reacted in a noble but maybe foolish way and defended themselves and many of them decided they'd had enough of the dictator and are trying to get rid of him, the only way that it is possible to get rid of him, through violence. Since this is pretty much a spontaneous uprising, the people are completely disorganized and are now learning, first hand, a lesson of history-that organized groups are much better at violent endeavours (sic) than unorganized groups, even it the unorganized groups are much larger. The people are having a lot of trouble now but have no choice but continue with the desperate attempt because the dictator is not likely to be merciful if he wins. The people have to win, die or flee. Win or die mostly because a lot can't flee.

Given the above, it seems to me we should help the people to the extent we can, especially if they request it, which, from David's references above, a number of them have. To the extent we can; and we can now. It isn't 1956 and circumstances force us to stand aside. We don't need to round up all the L ships and land the troops. The people don't seem to want that anyway. But we can keep the airplanes off their heads. We can help and if that assistance allows them to win, then good for them and good for us. It will be their victory and maybe we will have a little influence in the aftermath. If they lose even with us helping some, then that is what happens sometimes, but, but at least we will have tried. That is important I think.

Like I said I don't see us getting up steam in the L-ships but I can see us putting some Aegis cruisers and destroyers offshore and some shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile teams on the ground to keep the dictators jets and helos off their heads, especially since some have asked for that kind of help. I can even see some A-teams going to help coordinate things, since that is what A-teams do. Not much more than that, but that will have been something. Maybe a lot too since the morale effect of jets and helos is perhaps more than the physical effect. If that doesn't work we will have tried.

There may be no immediate benefit to American interests in that. Most of the time you can get along with the devil himself if you make acommadations (sic). We could have left the Brits to rot but for the dopey Japanese and we did leave the Rwandans to die. But the world is watching and they judge so I think it is in our long term interest to try just a little.

I know that is coming off as Pollyanna (you are hear by cleared to use that in any way you see fit) and not many think the same, but I think this is important and we should help. This won't be a sure thing in any respect but we should try.

Life ain't fair in that it is us who do these things, if we do them. But that is the way it is because we are the only ones who will. We should be proud of that.

Pete
03-10-2011, 05:00 AM
I also always love this "WE have to do something..." attitude from a lot of folks ...
Well, it could be they have an exaggerated sense of what is possible to accomplish with military force because they grew up when you were in the 82nd! ;)

Ken White
03-10-2011, 05:57 AM
And all I got was a lousy T-shirt (literally)...:D
...If they lose even with us helping some, then that is what happens sometimes, but, but at least we will have tried. That is important I think.Having done that a few times, I'm very aware of what happened AFTER we 'helped.' That is not always pretty and our reactions to what occurred are, frankly, often pretty poor -- because the idealistic 'help' eventually runs afoul of hard national interests, time or money crunches and those we helped are abandoned to a fate worse than had we not helped at all. That's one of those 'be careful what you wish for, you may get it' things...
Like I said I don't see us getting up steam in the L-ships but I can see us putting some Aegis cruisers and destroyers offshore and some shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile teams on the ground to keep the dictators jets and helos off their heads, especially since some have asked for that kind of help.Some. More have not. Most would take it if it appeared and would later be about as thankful as are most of the others we have 'helped' over the years -- which is not much.:wry:

Any way you cut it, you're suggesting military involvement and that is sort of like pregnancy, just a little isn't an option. You get just a lowly A Team clobbered or lose a C-130 and crew and your fellow Americans will start screaming for blood and we're off to the races... :eek:

Don't cuss at anyone unless you're prepared to be cussed in return. Do not ever pull a gun on anyone unless you're prepared to use it. Do not employ military force unless you're prepared for the escalation that will almost certainly occur.
There may be no immediate benefit to American interests in that. Most of the time you can get along with the devil himself if you make acommadations (sic). We could have left the Brits to rot but for the dopey Japanese and we did leave the Rwandans to die. But the world is watching and they judge so I think it is in our long term interest to try just a little.A valid and decent opinion, others share it. However, many do not agree. Who's right? Hard to say. The US Guvmint will work its ponderous way and do -- or not -- something and, either way, the world will pretty much go on. That, BTW is not accommodation, simply reality. As was the fact that the "dopey Japanese" were provoked into war by FDR who used that same war to start denuding the British and the French of their Colonies. That, too, is reality.
I know that is coming off as Pollyanna (you are hear by cleared to use that in any way you see fit) and not many think the same, but I think this is important and we should help. This won't be a sure thing in any respect but we should try.Not a Pollyanna, just very idealistic -- and that's not bad. Unfortunately, it is of little help in a world where many will use idealists and then try to damage them -- as many do to us today in subtle and not so subtle ways. Gratitude and altruism are desirable human traits in individuals. Nations are not individuals and they do not really deal in either of those attributes...:(
Life ain't fair in that it is us who do these things, if we do them. But that is the way it is because we are the only ones who will. We should be proud of that.We can be proud of a lot of things and I am -- we can (or should) also bemoan a lot of things we've done to 'help' that did more harm than good.

Fairness isn't an issue, as you say life is not fair. The issue is one of the cost-benefit ratio. The result achieved should at least approach the costs incurred -- there are NO zero sum equations internationally -- and the idea of military 'aid' or low key involvement ALWAYS starts off that way. Unfortunately, as Petreaus famously asked early on in Iraq, "Tell me how this ends?" is usually not asked until it's too late...

Surferbeetle
03-10-2011, 06:54 AM
Surferbeetle, the last headline is crap German, but it's not your fault. The headline is actually crap German in the original. :D

Oftmals wenn ich Deutsch-Englisch lese, bin ich zufrieden mit meiner Englisch-Deutsch. :D In this case the headline comes from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Z%C3%BCrcher_Zeitung) which is headquartered in a country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland) with four official languages (German, Italian, French, and Romanisch) unlike our countries which each have only one. Nonetheless, the headline could use some work:


EU will Milliarden für die Entwicklung Nordafrikas sprechen

My 'diplomatic' translation which takes into account intent is:


EU will discuss committing billions (one would imagine Euro's) for development in North Africa

My literal translation is:


EU wants to speak for billions for development in North Africa

The article goes on to discuss Mr Barroso's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Barroso) pitch to the EU Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament) on this topic on Tuesday 8 March 2011, as well as Joschka Fischer's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joschka_Fischer) negative take on the idea. Herr Fischer is in an interesting position given that CDU/CSU could potentially lose their political grip on things in Germany this year...one state election down (Hamburg) and six to go.


The EU and Barroso are not really relevant in regard to what happens in North Africa, but bureaucracies and politicians always want to expand...

This is an interesting statement. Portugal, a member of the EU periphery, is once again inching closer to default while Frau Dr. Merkel, even though she has unexpectedly lost Herr Axel Weber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_A._Weber), continues her inexorable moves to control the heart and soul of EU fiscal policy (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article7036311.ece).

Carl,

Let's not 'rush to failure'

Italy has the Carabinieri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carabinieri), the Folgore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folgore_Parachute_Brigade), and the Alpini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpini), Silvio and Vladimir are continually working some energy deals (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Italian-and-Russian-Leaders-Discuss-Energy-Deals-92126614.html) while the EU and NATO are looking at options as well (Libya: European navies update, and links (http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/europe-and-the-world/libya-european-navies-update-and-links/), by Alex Harrowell, 6 March 2011, at A Fist Full of Euro's)

IMHO, we need to keep our powder dry; let's keep eye on the cultural heart of the Arab World - Egypt, keep an eye on the energy heart of the Arab World - Saudi Arabia ( Saudi Arabia's `Day of Rage' Lures Record Bets on $200 Oil: Chart of Day (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-07/saudi-arabia-s-day-of-rage-lures-record-bets-on-200-oil-chart-of-day.html) By Ann Koh and Kim Kyoungwha - Mar 7, 2011 1:09 AM MT at Bloomberg ), and of course keep an eye on Israel and Iran. :eek:

Fuchs
03-10-2011, 09:26 AM
The headline should have been "...versprechen.", not "...sprechen" - entirely different verb.


The EU has neither the experience nor the budget nor the mission to do what Barroso wants. The European powers are very surprised by the developments, here's a summary:

Germany
7% of our oil imports come from Libya and North Africa is popular among German tourists. There aren't much more links.

UK
Had close ties to Ghadaffi's regime (dunno why), is embarrassed - Cameron wants to play over this by feigning the resolute contra-Ghadaffi man.

France
Had close ties to Tunisian regime and has close ties to Algerian regime. Got caught in the turmoil and embarassed. Sarkozy is unable of strategy and still doesn't seem to have selected a new path.

Italy
Had a strange love-hate relationship with former colony Libya, and its almost autocratic Berlusconi is way too close to Ghadaffi. Italy has the advantage of not being embarrassed by such minor issues any more; Berlusconi and the Mafia provide much greater embarrassments all the time.

Spain
Really, really busy with economic and fiscal woes.

Greece
Same as Spain.

Eastern EU members and Benelux
Afaik not really involved.

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

Barroso would need a broad support from these governments for major actions in this affair, and he's not going to get it. The EU cannot simply go to a bank and get the money for an adventure; it must not have any deficit. It cannot raise taxes either; all its money comes from the member states.

Bob's World
03-10-2011, 11:58 AM
Fuchs, I suspect your "oil math" is the direct costs and only the tip of the iceberg; with the majority of the true costs to the US, and in turn, the global economy looming beneath the surface in the indirect effects.

A better point to support your argument is that it is a global market and all of these countries must sell oil to survive. For the even the Saudis to threaten to not sell us oil is like a small child threatening to hold its breath until it gets its way. Either it must soon gasp for air or collapse; or you just turn the impetuous brat over your knee and remind him of his true place in the big scheme of things. Bottom line, is that such disruptions are minor.

For Germany, the better example is probably your relationship with Russia than your relationship with Libya when we discuss the US and the Middle East as a whole.

All of this could be solved in short order if the US were a good colonial empire like our similarly situated predecessors. We would have simply colonized all of these places, or carved off the parts that we wanted (ala the Brits all along the gulf coast, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc) and exerted our dominion over the same, taken the resources at cost, and emplaced puppet regimes to guard our interests under the Stars and Stripes.

But we are in this moral middle-ground. An "Empire without Colonies" is how I see it. We get into all the same messes, but with half the benefit and far less ability to easily smack unruly leaders and populaces back into line when they try to exert some independence as well. We'll just chalk that up as a phase we had to go through.

Now it is time to move on to the next phase, perhaps a "World Power without Empire"? Who knows, but events such as are unfolding now across the middle east are shaping that transition right now. We miss all of that if all we do is stare into the flames.

We live in dynamic times, and an new era is emerging. I personally think it will be an era marked my much more conventional warfare, though with new non-state players in the mix in new ways, than this transitionary period has been. We would be foolish indeed if we confuse transition for the new reality and prepare for it rather than what comes next.

Entropy
03-10-2011, 03:08 PM
Don't cuss at anyone unless you're prepared to be cussed in return. Do not ever pull a gun on anyone unless you're prepared to use it. Do not employ military force unless you're prepared for the escalation that will almost certainly occur.

I doubt that truer words have been written.

CrowBat
03-10-2011, 03:22 PM
...So we're discussing national interests in a trade volume of only 800 million *
...
How much U.S. military spending is being 'justified' with Middle East meddling?
...
I don't see any major U.S. interests in the MidEast region that justify the great expenses people have become accustomed to.To me, this appears entirely irrelevant.

Before the USA invaded Iraq, in 2003, the US "national interests" in that country were even lower than nowadays in Libya. So, that with "present worth of oil bucks" was certainly no issue. But, that with "potential future oil bucks" - definitely was.

If the US gets involved, and after the regime in Libya is removed, many of commercial cards will be re-distributed. And that offers plenty of entirely new opportunities - so also for the USA.

Ken White
03-10-2011, 04:04 PM
We live in dynamic times, and an new era is emerging. I personally think it will be an era marked my much more conventional warfare, though with new non-state players in the mix in new ways, than this transitionary period has been. We would be foolish indeed if we confuse transition for the new reality and prepare for it rather than what comes next.And thus far I see little evidence that we are doing so...:rolleyes:

JMA
03-10-2011, 04:52 PM
I personally think it will be an era marked my much more conventional warfare, though with new non-state players in the mix in new ways, than this transitionary period has been. We would be foolish indeed if we confuse transition for the new reality and prepare for it rather than what comes next.

Between who and who?

The problem the US is experiencing in Afghanistan is their inability to fix the enemy. If the US are able to fix the enemy they will kill it with the overwhelming force available to them.

The Boer Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_Wars) are a reminder of how a relatively small force with solid local support were able to run circles around a large conventional army which was too slow to adapt to the conditions on the ground and the tactics of the enemy. It took a policy of scorched earth to finally break the back of the rebellion (a policy which the Brits would rather not talk about even today).

So maybe your forecast expresses the hope that some bunch of idiots will try to take on a major power in a conventional war rather than any real likelihood.

Bob's World
03-10-2011, 05:42 PM
Between who and who?

The problem the US is experiencing in Afghanistan is their inability to fix the enemy. If the US are able to fix the enemy they will kill it with the overwhelming force available to them.

The Boer Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_Wars) are a reminder of how a relatively small force with solid local support were able to run circles around a large conventional army which was too slow to adapt to the conditions on the ground and the tactics of the enemy. It took a policy of scorched earth to finally break the back of the rebellion (a policy which the Brits would rather not talk about even today).

So maybe your forecast expresses the hope that some bunch of idiots will try to take on a major power in a conventional war rather than any real likelihood.

JMA,

I think you are getting your apples mixed in with my oranges a bit here. Rather than agonizing over the tactual inability to "fix" the enemy, it may be more instructive to step back and ask what exactly the Brits were doing in South Africa and what exactly the US is doing in Afghanistan and what they hoped to gain from their respective operations.

Neither were on their home turf, but my understanding is that the British intent was to stay, setup shop, and establish dominion and governance over the region and all who lived there. Killing off all who opposed such an arrangement works, as was well demonstrated in North and South America.

The US goals in Afghanistan are quite different. "All" (in quotes, because even this is infeasible) the President has asked us to do is “to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda and to prevent their return to either Afghanistan or Pakistan.” I believe that would make the "enemy" AQ rather than the Taliban, and any earth that gets "scorched" in the process is not going to belong to either the US or AQ, now is it?

If asked, I would advise the President to back his guidance back a notch or two to something more along the lines of “to disrupt al Qaeda in South Asia without destabilizing either Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

After all, I believe we can achieve disruption of AQ in concert with Pakistan and Afghanistan in a manner that is acceptable to the Pashtun populace they take their sanctuary among; but that we certainly will not be able contain AQ in the FATA, nor "dismantle/defeat" them by operations that only take place in that one little corner of their global playground.

No, our problem is not a tactical one, our problem is that we have mischaracterized the nature of AQ in general, and then allowed ourselves to get into a supporting operation of helping the Northern Alliance gain power in Afghanistan and then defending them against the other half of the society that was represented by the Taliban.

Kind of like cops in hot pursuit chasing a murderer into someone's home, and then getting caught up in a domestic dispute there while the murderer hides out in the house next door, where he ran to with the abusive head of the first household to hide out with his relatives. Here we are attempting to force a resolution of our own making onto someone else's domestic drama, and totally losing sight of why we even ran into this madhouse in the first place. Meanwhile the murderer is still at work, running his global operation, enjoying the support of the abusive husband we threw out into the street, while we are stuck with the crazy wife and her kids back in the house. Probably time to just say our good byes, and get back to the business that brought us here.

Bob's World
03-10-2011, 06:01 PM
And thus far I see little evidence that we are doing so...:rolleyes:

We'll see when we attempt to use mortars, MRAPs and Strykers to fight a conventional foe that is more force or terrain oriented than the current internal conflicts we have gotten into the middle of.

There are still plenty of unresolved and evolving issues in that huge fault line of Eastern European States; coupled with a mix of geo-political realities that could boil up into conventional state on state conflicts in the near future. The US has a habit of getting sucked into these things. Alliances will shift, muscles will flex. It is inevitable.

In the east the Japan/China dynamic will continue to grind along as well. Hard to say how that could play out, but undoubtedly it will affect the US. We fixate on North Korea and Taiwan, but those are probably low on our list of real worries in that region.

Don't have a crystal ball, but do think it is best to remain postured for maximum flexibility, and being capable of deterring or dealing with threats that can actually hurt us; rather than getting over fixated and fixed to problems that in the big scheme of things are fairly minor irritants.

Ken White
03-10-2011, 06:17 PM
Between who and who?Lots of little guys -- think the 1930s, once removed...:D
The problem the US is experiencing in Afghanistan is their inability to fix the enemy.That's the "Not really" -- it's not an inability, it is unwillingness, two very different things. :cool:

Unfortunately, the problems thus generated are that unwillingness creates excessive own casualties and sends a bad message on ability and / or capability that can lead some to misjudge.

Alas, we've had that problem for many years and that's why the US should not play an active or overt part in these sorts of wars.
The Boer Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_Wars) are a reminder of how a relatively small force with solid local support were able to run circles around a large conventional army which was too slow to adapt to the conditions on the ground and the tactics of the enemy.As Bob's World pointed out the British had reason to stay and do that -- or believed they did. We have no such impetus and we do not need to do these things. There is absolutely no reason for us to play to the strengths of others and hopefully, that will finally dawn on the power structure. My sensing is that it's finally starting to penetrate though there are of course the few odd, old Cold War fighters Bob properly denigrates...

The point being the British were forced to play to their adversary's strengths. We do not have to do that, yet we continue to try to do so and it's stupid. You'd think the Politicians would learn but they don't seem to do so...:rolleyes:
So maybe your forecast expresses the hope that some bunch of idiots will try to take on a major power in a conventional war rather than any real likelihood.Or expresses just the thought that some bunch of idiots may try to take on another bunch and we can either join them or, far better, just watch and be prepared to reject idiocy if it approaches.

Ken White
03-10-2011, 06:23 PM
We'll see when we attempt to use mortars, MRAPs and Strykers to fight a conventional foe that is more force or terrain oriented than the current internal conflicts we have gotten into the middle of.Yep. Trying to be something one is not always causes one to buy things that are not only not needed but a drain on other things...:(
The US has a habit of getting sucked into these things. Alliances will shift, muscles will flex. It is inevitable.The US does have a terrible penchant for trying to 'fix' things that aren't ours to fix...:wry:
Don't have a crystal ball, but do think it is best to remain postured for maximum flexibility, and being capable of deterring or dealing with threats that can actually hurt us; rather than getting over fixated and fixed to problems that in the big scheme of things are fairly minor irritants.Heh. True -- and some don't even really rise to the minor irritant level... :D

carl
03-11-2011, 03:40 PM
The objections to helping the rebels in a small way are mostly to the effect of "all or nothing"; we land the Marines or we do nothing at all. The logic motivating this is that if there is an immediate critical national interest at stake, we do all and if there is not, we do nothing. A corollary of that position is that if we do anything, we will inevitably do all; all or nothing again.

This puts us at a huge disadvantage when dealing with a situation that is a national interest, as I believe the Libyan rebels prevailing is, but is not an immediate vital national interest. In those cases we have to stand by and watch. However it may be a national interest that we be able to do something (there's that phrase, go ahead and run with it) in these kinds of situations rather than nothing. There is no reason we can't limit our efforts. We did it in the early part of the 20th century and we are doing it now in the Philippines.

The nature of the things I suggested might help limit involvement. Ships offshore (probably 25 miles) manned by professional sailors, shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile teams composed people employed by an OGA, A-teams composed of professional warriors. It seems to me that a situation like this is exactly why we have those types of forces, so they can be used in unconventional ways in order to limit the depth of our involvement. The ships are on the ocean, the OGA isn't readily visible and the A-teams would stay back in order to help coordinate a disorganized effort, not be up front leading. All are of great value but none are "all" nor are they "nothing".

An effort like that may not work out. But that is not a reason to try. If we have the self-discipline required to limit the effort we may gain much while risking little. The ability to do that is a valuable thing. If it doesn't work, we will have lost little. Ken made the point that they may be worse off for us having helped if they fail. That may be true, it is never wise to provoke the god of "it can't be any worse"; but I suspect, suspect mind you, that given the nature of the dictator, the rebels only options are to win or....

Surferbeetle: It is true the Euros have lots of advanced, well maintained ships, aircraft and well trained soldiers. But it is also true they don't do anything but maintain and train. If anything is to be done, we will be the ones to do it. Because we do. They don't.

Entropy
03-11-2011, 04:10 PM
The objections to helping the rebels in a small way are mostly to the effect of "all or nothing"; we land the Marines or we do nothing at all. The logic motivating this is that if there is an immediate critical national interest at stake, we do all and if there is not, we do nothing. A corollary of that position is that if we do anything, we will inevitably do all; all or nothing again.

I wouldn't characterize it that way at all. First, what is the objective? Do you know? I sure don't. The use of military force must have a purpose - what is that purpose? "Doing something" without a goal is worse than stupid. The level of force required completely depends on what we're trying to do.

Bob's World
03-11-2011, 05:03 PM
It is probably worth noting that the best Qaddafi can likely hope for with his current tact is to restore a state of forced suppression over the insurgency. To reset the conditions of failure. The conditions of insurgency will remain quite high, and having had a whiff of liberty this is not a populace that will quit their pursuit of liberty after a "whiff of grape."

The people may re-engage violently, or as is often the case, become more organized and pursue more effective non-violent means to better leverage popular support with international legal organizations.

Qaddafi will likely offer up some lame, inadequate concessions, much as the Saudis are currently doing. My advice to all of these nervous despots is that now is not the time to be tight-fisted. Either have the balls to totally and ruthlessly crush your own populace so that they dare not complain; or in the alternative concede that the royal party is over and that it is finally time to give the people some means to legally affect government, listen to their concerns, and make reasonable concessions on important issues. There is little tolerance in today's information age for option one, so best to go with option two. Most will be able to retain power if this is how they go.

For American leaders, stop staring at Libya and wringing your hands. Step back, look at the big picture, and act. This is far bigger than Libya, and in that context the US absolutely has interests at stake. But remember that what we do here sets a precedent for when similar events unfold in Yemen or Saudi, etc. As Jim Rome says on his sports radio show "Have a take, and don't suck!"

Ken White
03-11-2011, 05:16 PM
Consider also:
A corollary of that position is that if we do anything, we will inevitably do all; all or nothing again.Two issues there. First, the "inevitably do all" isn't exactly right, it is not inevitable -- however, it it is historically what seems to occur. IOW, the precedents are that a commitment of military force, no matter how small tends to escalate, not necessarily to an "all" situation but certainly to be bigger and messier than anticipated (LINK) (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/Somnia/article1935668/). Often far messier...

Secondly, one is constrained by the capabilities one actually has -- not that one would like or is working on but that exist at the time of commitment. What you propose is viable -- what we have to actually do that with in the way of trained, competent and sustainable forces (and supporting elements) is not much. That is sad, given the amount of money we spend and the talent that is available but it is a fact and must be considered. We should be able to do things along the lines you suggest, we have not provided ourselves with the capabilities, civilian and military, to do that without committing standard military units and elements that are not really competent to do what's needed; IOW we need a scalpel with a 15c blade and all we have is a Panga. Thus your statement:
This puts us at a huge disadvantage when dealing with a situation that is a national interest.is absolutely correct, need not and should not be -- but it is.
If we have the self-discipline required to limit the effort we may gain much while risking little.That's true -- and we do not seem to have that self discipline. Part of that is engendered by our political system which is clumsy and constantly interferes with itself by design. That gets to be annoying at times -- like on this issue -- but on balance, I wouldn't change it. What it has produced is worth the annoyances.
... but I suspect, suspect mind you, that given the nature of the dictator, the rebels only options are to win or....Regrettably true. Been that way for thousands of years. It gets a little better each year, there are fewer and fewer of those problems about but I doubt it'll ever go away totally. People...

CloseDanger
03-11-2011, 06:20 PM
For American leaders, stop staring at Libya and wringing your hands. Step back, look at the big picture, and act. This is far bigger than Libya, and in that context the US absolutely has interests at stake. But remember that what we do here sets a precedent for when similar events unfold in Yemen or Saudi, etc.

Big picture is these nation states are all different in the nature of the uprising. Mubarak was going to have to go anyway, they are a mixed bag of countries and all have different dynamics. Republic VS Monarchy, Shia VS Sunni, inflation, and the opportunity to challenge current order. Some of these countries must restore order, some may need to fall.

Libya needs to fall, yet the rebels really are not our friends. We should not put skin in this game. If Europe wants to, whatever. It's their call.
Few more countries in the middle east, if any, will fall. Tho some other countries are facing this. Azerbaijan, Albania, who knows.

The US involvement should be conditional with US interests. In the magik kingdom, we have great interest. Tunisia, not so much.

carl
03-11-2011, 06:39 PM
I wouldn't characterize it that way at all. First, what is the objective? Do you know? I sure don't. The use of military force must have a purpose - what is that purpose? "Doing something" without a goal is worse than stupid. The level of force required completely depends on what we're trying to do.

I stated the purpose in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the post you quoted from, the rebels prevail. The level of force that I outlined, all just ideas from an interested civilian, is I believe comensurate (sic) with that limited goal.

I think the removal of the dictator will benefit the Libyan people in the short run, us in the short run, stabilizing the oil market, and us and the world in the long run, one less dictator.

There will be no certainty of course. In a situation this dynamic there never will be a certainty. If a certainty is a pre-requisite for limited action, then that is, I think, just another way of saying "all or nothing."

RJ
03-11-2011, 07:26 PM
Well, Sen. John Kerry wrote an opinion in todays Washington Post that begins with a gratituitous swipe and Bush 41 for the lack of support for marsh arabs and Kurds at the end of GW 1 and ends with no US troops on the ground, but a "No Fly Zone" should be threatened.

He is still trying to stand on both sided of the arguement. Just a modern version of "I voted for it, before I voted against it!" Kerryesque logic at its most undramatic.

He wants Hillary's job and is stumbling and bumping into position if she decides to take on President Obama in the 2012 Primary.

If the Euros want to protect their oil source from Lybia, it is time for them to step up. We remain the biggest dog on the street, but it is time for the bulldogs, shepards and poodles to show their teeth.

The Dutch have a helo lost and its crew captured by Gadifi and there is a SAS diplomatic protection team under guard in the hands of the rebels.
There are several different factions in the rebel units engages and they are jockying for position. The ones who hold the SAS troops do not want any outside forces in their AO.

SWJ Blog
03-11-2011, 08:20 PM
Once-Secret Iraqi Documents Offer Lesson for Libya (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/oncesecret-iraqi-documents-off/)

Entry Excerpt:

Once-Secret Iraqi Documents Offer Lesson for Libya (http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/once-secret-iraqi-documents-offer-lesson-for-libya-20110311) by Yochi J. Dreazen, National Journal. BLUF: "An analysis of the documents by the U.S. Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center found that Libya sent more fighters to Iraq on a per-capita basis than any other Muslim country, including Saudi Arabia. Perhaps more alarmingly for Western policymakers, most of the fighters came from eastern Libya, the center of the current uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi."



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/oncesecret-iraqi-documents-off/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

tequila
03-11-2011, 08:35 PM
The Dutch have a helo lost and its crew captured by Gadifi and there is a SAS diplomatic protection team under guard in the hands of the rebels.
There are several different factions in the rebel units engages and they are jockying for position. The ones who hold the SAS troops do not want any outside forces in their AO.

FYI the British team has already been released (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12660163). The Dutch have also been let go (http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-helicopter-crew-released-libya), but the Gaddafi regime decided to keep the helicopter.

IMO, there was some decided pros and cons to any intervention in Libya.

PROS:
1) Brutal dictator overthrown and U.S. demonstrates commitment to Arab democracy and reform. Avoidance of large-scale atrocities that could follow a Gaddafi reconquest of eastern Libya.

2) Possible pro-U.S. successor regime in Libya. If stability follows, long-term disruption in the oil markets is avoided as well as any large-scale refugee crisis.

3) Possible avoidance of further mass bloodshed by Arab regimes against their own opposition movements.

4) Gaddafi opposition likely incompetent and vulnerable to U.S. airpower. Conquest of Zawiya, a small oil town held by civilians with light weapons, required over a week and a large number of armored vehicles. This means that destroying Gaddafi's military forces will likely not require a large commitment of ground forces.

5) Wide-scale condemnation of Gaddafi regime across both the European and Arab political scene ensures no diplomatic backlash, at least initially.

CONS:
1) Rebel forces are completely undisciplined, lack any heavy weaponry, and mostly amateur. No guarantee the opposition can secure western Libya even if Gaddafi's forces are rendered incapable on the battlefield. A prolonged anti-opposition insurgency could occur in western Libya on tribal lines. The opposition could splinter and begin fighting amongst themselves.

2) Prolonged instability could occur even in the face of western intervention, likely causing additional pressure for more involvement and mission creep.

3) No U.N. Security Council sanction severely weakens multilateral commitment to any intervention force. No Arab buy-in to intervention force as yet.

4) Gaddafi could pull back to urban areas in light of Western intervention and use civilians as human shields against airstrikes. Diplomatic support could turn with one bad airstrike that kills civilians.

5) Opposition cause could be tarnished as Western puppets to a colonization/breakup of Libya. Arab and Iranian dictatorships have without fail attempted to characterize their opposition as foreign-driven plots - Western intervention in Libya would make this charge easier to believe, thus perhaps actually hurting reform and democratization movements.

Surferbeetle
03-11-2011, 08:40 PM
Libya can be seen as a case study regarding the Rule of Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law). When nations depend upon an individual ruler the inhabitants of the nation are hostage to the intentions of the ruler – good or bad. Strong institutions and societies (i.e. divided branches of government, property rights, private enterprise, free markets, media, churches/mosques, universities, guilds, associations, etc) provide for the mitigation of stupid and unconscionable acts committed by centralized and dogmatic leadership. When we think about providing aid to others, we need to carefully consider who (individual or institution) is to receive the aid we offer.

There are currently four different legal systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_system) providing a framework for actions regarding Libya. All four systems share a common foundation grounded upon the system of economics. COL? Gaddafi is presently favoring the ‘Law of the Gun’, the Arab League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_league)-African Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_union)-Gulf Cooperation Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation_Council_for_the_Arab_States_of_the_Gul f) are favoring both Civil and Religious Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_law), the EU is favoring Civil Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_%28law%29), and the US is favoring Common Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law). Stating the obvious, in terms of immediately shaping facts upon the ground, the Law of the Gun is often the quickest of the four systems. It would seem that we here at SWJ are continually interested spectators to Hobbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes) and Locke’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_locke) ongoing discussion regarding the makeup of human nature.

Here is a quick (and incomplete) SITREP regarding the actions of Libya, the Arab League, African Union, Gulf Cooperation Council, and the EU on the crisis.

Libya

Here are select chronologies of Libyan actions:

The Arms Control Association regarding arms control efforts by Libya (http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/LibyaChronology)

BBC on Libyan history (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/1398437.stm)

Arab League (http://www.arableagueonline.org/las/index_en.jsp)

Here are selected chronologies regarding the actions of the Arab League with respect to Libya from:

BBC Chronology regarding the Arab League (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/1550977.stm)

LA Times report on the 23 March 2011 Arab League summit (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/01/iraq-baghdad-preparing-to-host-arab-league-summit-in-march.html) to be held in Baghdad

Al Jazeera report on the Arab League’s take on imposing a no fly zone (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/20113218130353466.html) upon Libya resulting from a 2 March 2011 meeting


The Arab League has said it may impose a "no fly" zone on Libya in co-ordination with the African Union if fighting continues in Libya.
Wednesday’s Arab League ministers' meeting in Cairo rejected any direct outside military intervention in Libya, where Muammar Gaddafi is trying to put down a revolt threatening his four decades in power. They reiterated their condemnation of his use of force.

African Union (http://www.au.int/en/)

The statement (http://www.au.int/en/content/peace-and-security-council-african-union-au-its-265th-meeting-held-level-heads-state-and-gov)resulting from the AU’s 10 March 11, 2011 meeting on Libya

…and the action items of interest include an expression of concern and support for the Libyan people, formation of more AU committees to study the matter, and a request made to AU members to assist migrant workers wishing to leave Libya.

Gulf Cooperation Council (http://www.gcc-sg.org/eng/)


Gulf states back Libya no-fly zone (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jRu1VXz2KQyUHoqOAAUYFhCgRCkg?docId=CNG.49104 d077a72cbffeafe9d3689e92793.ba1), By Wissam Keyrouz (AFP), 8 March 2011


ABU DHABI — The six Gulf Arab states expressed support for a no-fly zone over Libya on Monday, amid divisions among the major powers over military intervention in the North African nation.

"The Gulf Cooperation Council demands that the UN Security Council take all necessary measures to protect civilians, including enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya," the six-nation bloc said in a statement.

EU (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/)

The statement (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/119780.pdf) resulting from the EU’s 11 March 2011 ‘extraordinary’ meeting, regarding Libya and the ‘Southern neighborhood region’


We welcome UN Security Council Resolution 1970 and the referral of the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court.


We call for the rapid holding of a summit between the Arab League, the African Union and the European Union.


The European Union and the Member States have mobilised humanitarian aid and are committed to further assist people in Libya and people crossing its borders, in close cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the International Organisation for Migration, the International Committee of the Red Cross / International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and non governmental organisations.

From the BBC, 11 March 2011 Last updated at 12:43 ET, Libya: EU leaders say Muammar Gaddafi must go (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12711162)

JMA
03-12-2011, 05:12 AM
JMA,

I think you are getting your apples mixed in with my oranges a bit here. Rather than agonizing over the tactual inability to "fix" the enemy, it may be more instructive to step back and ask what exactly the Brits were doing in South Africa and what exactly the US is doing in Afghanistan and what they hoped to gain from their respective operations.

Not sure I am Bob. Who would be crazy enough to want to take any of the larger/major powers with "much more conventional warfare"? Take look back at the South Ossetia war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war) where Georgia made a miscalculation over Russian willingness to resort to military action (and the unwillingness of the US to support them in the face of and at the risk of some real war).

So in this and the previous response I am addressing the likelihood of "much more conventional warfare" in the future.

Yes, I guess one could step back and find a few small points about any different action/war which will render the lessons learned tenuous (in some peoples minds). I say that one (certainly the US) should learn (or better should have studied and learned from) from the British experience of fighting wars all over their empire and the world against disparate enemies. Most often arriving in a new land to face a new enemy with an arrogance in the officer corps (who knew it all from past campaigns) to ensure early reverses against any but the most inept enemy.

To excuse their history of more losses than victories the Brits will tell you that in a war all you need to do is win the last battle.

Like the Brits in the Boer wars who threw "numbers" rather than brain power at the problem so have the US begun to use "surges" as their means of overwhelming their enemies (as a variation on that theme). May have worked in South Africa circa 1900 and in Iraq but maybe not so good in Afghanistan (time will tell).


Neither were on their home turf, but my understanding is that the British intent was to stay, setup shop, and establish dominion and governance over the region and all who lived there. Killing off all who opposed such an arrangement works, as was well demonstrated in North and South America.

May I suggest you need to improve upon your understanding of the events around the two Boer wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_Wars)


The US goals in Afghanistan are quite different. "All" (in quotes, because even this is infeasible) the President has asked us to do is “to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda and to prevent their return to either Afghanistan or Pakistan.” I believe that would make the "enemy" AQ rather than the Taliban, and any earth that gets "scorched" in the process is not going to belong to either the US or AQ, now is it?

Is that what is happening on the ground?

But that does not matter. The fact remains that the US and Brit forces in Afghanistan has no chance of winning any war there against the Taliban, the heroin producers and dealers, or anyone else. Bad strategy, tactical restrictions and in too many cases just plain poor soldiering give a prognosis of no hope in hell.

[snip]


No, our problem is not a tactical one, our problem is that we have mischaracterized the nature of AQ in general, and then allowed ourselves to get into a supporting operation of helping the Northern Alliance gain power in Afghanistan and then defending them against the other half of the society that was represented by the Taliban.

The problem is a tactical one in that without tactical competence the goals (of the US president, what ever they may be at any given moment) cannot be realised.

[snip]

JMA
03-12-2011, 05:48 AM
Now it is time to move on to the next phase, perhaps a "World Power without Empire"? Who knows, but events such as are unfolding now across the middle east are shaping that transition right now. We miss all of that if all we do is stare into the flames.

As much as some would prefer to ignore the fact the US needs oil and access to natural resources and world trade it is clearly obvious that intervention will be needed from time to time to ensure the above.

Looking at the US as an outsider it is obvious and understandable that the US needs to secure its access to oil, resources and trade and will do what it needs to do to ensure that. Sometimes not pretty but necessary.

(As an aside probably the only thing of value that the worst world leader in the last 50-60 years (Carter) attempted was to promote alternative sources of energy. Had this and drilling in the Arctic been actively promoted and pursued then maybe, just maybe, that together with tying up oil supplies from South America and West coast Africa then the issues in the middle east would be somewhat less of a problem today. What were the idiots in State doing all this time?)

It doesn't help (as I have stated before) that US policy radically changes every eight years.

That Gbagbo (in the Mickey Mouse country - Ivory Coast) can refuse to take a call from the US president means that he has seen around a million killed in the Rwandan genocide while the US saw no need to "get involved". It has seen brutal dictators like Mugabe all across Africa thumb their noses at the US and other western powers and get away with it. So what has he (and others like him) got to fear?

Then just like the Hungarians, still waiting (from 1956) for the US to come to their aid... as are the Iraqi Shias from 1991 and now the Libyans in 2011. The Shias can be forgiven (as they took the example of Kuwait) but the Libyans are obviously slow learners. The message is simple... you can't rely on the US.

The problem for the US is that it cannot go home and sit in the corner and suck its thumb unless it finds oil and a bunch of natural resources at home and can trade to a satisfactory internally or at most locally.

A great nation badly governed the US needs to start to take foreign affairs a little more seriously, I humbly suggest.

Ken White
03-12-2011, 06:31 AM
(As an aside probably the only thing of value that the worst world leader in the last 50-60 years (Carter) attempted was to promote alternative sources of energy. Had this and drilling in the Arctic been actively promoted and pursued then maybe, just maybe, that together with tying up oil supplies from South America and West coast Africa then the issues in the middle east would be somewhat less of a problem today. What were the idiots in State doing all this time?)We agree on all that, as for the State Department, not totally their fault -- they knew all that and pushed it but a series of Presidents who were far more concerned with their party's fate and domestic politics paid no attention to them.
It doesn't help (as I have stated before) that US policy radically changes every eight years.As many of us have stated. It's also been stated that's not going to change. We're stuck with it. S'okay, it has merit in other ways.
Then just like the Hungarians...The message is simple... you can't rely on the US.Regettably -- to many of us here -- that's partly true but there is one big caveat -- you can rely on us if DC believes a strong domestic interest is involved.
A great nation badly governed the US needs to start to take foreign affairs a little more seriously, I humbly suggest.Humble? Surely not. :D

No need to be in any event, you have two valid points there -- regrettably, that's unlikely to change a great deal, domestic priorities will always trump barring a really major trauma or until we are no more and the electoral process won't change so -- do you have any other ideas? :wry:

Dayuhan
03-12-2011, 09:52 AM
As much as some would prefer to ignore the fact the US needs oil and access to natural resources and world trade it is clearly obvious that intervention will be needed from time to time to ensure the above.

It might be possible to hypothesize a situation where intervention in other countries is necessary to secure access to resources or trade, but it's far from inevitable, and no such circumstances exist today, either where the US is intervening or where it is not. The Europeans, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Australians, Canadians, Indians, Brazilians and a fair number of others enjoy unfettered access to trade and resources without any need for military intervention, why should matters be any different for the US?


(As an aside probably the only thing of value that the worst world leader in the last 50-60 years (Carter) attempted was to promote alternative sources of energy. Had this and drilling in the Arctic been actively promoted and pursued then maybe, just maybe, that together with tying up oil supplies from South America and West coast Africa then the issues in the middle east would be somewhat less of a problem today. What were the idiots in State doing all this time?)

Possibly the idiots at State deviated from idiocy long enough to realize that there is no way the US can "tie up" oil supplies in South America, West Africa, or anywhere else.

The failure to develop alternative energy supplies is not a failure of policy, but a consequence of the oil glut: no amount of "promotion" was going to stimulate meaningful investment in alternative energy with oil below $30/bbl. Not drilling in the Arctic and in US offshore areas was, in retrospect, rather smart: it held those (largely hypothetical) reserves in place against future depletion. Better to leave your oil in the ground when oil is cheap (as it has been for most of the last 35 years) and pump it when it's expensive.


That Gbagbo (in the Mickey Mouse country - Ivory Coast) can refuse to take a call from the US president means that he has seen around a million killed in the Rwandan genocide while the US saw no need to "get involved". It has seen brutal dictators like Mugabe all across Africa thumb their noses at the US and other western powers and get away with it. So what has he (and others like him) got to fear?

Then just like the Hungarians, still waiting (from 1956) for the US to come to their aid... as are the Iraqi Shias from 1991 and now the Libyans in 2011. The Shias can be forgiven (as they took the example of Kuwait) but the Libyans are obviously slow learners. The message is simple... you can't rely on the US.

Why would they "rely on the US" in the first place? How is it the business of the US to come to the rescue of the Libyans, Ivorians, Zimbabweans, Rwandans etc? The Iraqi Shi'a have a legitimate complaint, to the extent that the US actively encouraged them to rebel, but I can't see how any of the others ever had any reason to expect to be rescued by Americans. As far as I know the US has never been appointed saviour of the world.


The problem for the US is that it cannot go home and sit in the corner and suck its thumb unless it finds oil and a bunch of natural resources at home and can trade to a satisfactory internally or at most locally.

Or one might say that if the US faces a realistic prospect of a need to intervene in a situation that actually has an impact on US access to trade or resources, it would be very unwise for the US to commit limited military resources to situations that have no such impact. We might very well need those resources for a situation that does pose a problem for us, why should we apply them in situations that do not pose such a problem? Resisting the temptation to further overextend a capacity that is already overextended and might in the future be badly needed is hardly thumb-sucking.

Fuchs
03-12-2011, 10:58 AM
As much as some would prefer to ignore the fact the US needs oil and access to natural resources and world trade it is clearly obvious that intervention will be needed from time to time to ensure the above.

That's how Japan entered WW2.

They fared much better once they accepted that being peaceful and willing to pay global market price yields much greater success.

This should be a warning.

Bob's World
03-12-2011, 11:28 AM
Oil is a global market. Yes, the US needs oil. Lots of Oil. The only thing more desperate than the requirement of the US to buy oil is the requirement of oil producing nations (that are typically one-trick ponies in terms of their economies) to sell oil.

And, if push came to shove, no one can push or shove harder than we can. Cut a frago at CENTCOM, and 12 days later 50% of the world's known oil reserves not in US hands currently would be. So access to oil had never been the issue.

The issue has always been one of price and distribution of oil profits.

If there were a major rebellion in Saudi Arabia tomorrow and bin Laden came to power there, a few things would happen the day after tomorrow:

1. Saudi Arabia would still sell as much or not more oil than they have been;

2. New contracts far less favorable to Western oil companies would be cut, stripping them of their current profit margins and forcing a less favorable deal upon them;

3. Oil companies and the exiled royals would all scream bloody murder, painted in terms of "Islamism" "Injustice" etc.

4. Robbed of the sanctuary of his current non-state legal status, bin Laden would be rolled up; and we would probably foolishly conduct another 12-day operation to put the Saudi family back in power in exchange for even better profit margins for the oil companies, but with US citizens still paying the same price at the pump.


So, I stand by my points. The US does not need to get better at the tactics of colonial powers of days gone by, but we can learn a great deal from the strategies of such powers that could be helpful. Things to do, things not to do. The primary thing we need to put at the top of the "not to do" list, is the establishment and protection of illegitimate governments placed and sustained in power specifically to support our interests. Better to become less controlling and more flexible in working with whatever form of government the locals come up with.

The next major global upheaval will not come from other countries not selling oil to the US; what would be far more likely to drive that would be if the US stopped buying oil from other countries. We didn't switch from the stone age to the bronze age because we ran out of stones; and we won't switch from the oil age to the "whatever comes next" age because we ran out of oil either. The real race should be for cornering the market on "whatever comes next." That will be the country that dominates the globe at the end of this century.

Dayuhan
03-12-2011, 11:59 AM
If there were a major rebellion in Saudi Arabia tomorrow and bin Laden came to power there, a few things would happen the day after tomorrow:

Not really what anyone's afraid of. There might be a rebellion, but bin Laden wouldn't come to power tomorrow. Bin Laden probably wouldn't come to power at all, he has no real support base that wants him to take power in the Kingdom.

Nobody would come to power tomorrow, and that's the problem. The risk is that there would be a prolonged period of instability and disorder, possible damage to oil facilities or a flight of key personnel due to security risks, and consequently an inability to produce and sell oil. Certainly any government that came to power would want and need to sell oil, but if the facilities were badly damaged or the technical staff had all run away, they couldn't. If there were an extended period with no government clearly in power, there wouldn't be anyone buyers could reliably deal with or who could manage the facilities. That situation wouldn't last forever, of course, but it could last long enough to push oil prices very high and cause serious economic dislocation all over the oil importing world.

Libya today is a good example. Gadhafi needs and wants to sell oil, and the rebels would love to sell oil if they could. They just can't do it while they're fighting a war.


The next major global upheaval will not come from other countries not selling oil to the US; what would be far more likely to drive that would be if the US stopped buying oil from other countries. We didn't switch from the stone age to the bronze age because we ran out of stones; and we won't switch from the oil age to the "whatever comes next" age because we ran out of oil either. The real race should be for cornering the market on "whatever comes next." That will be the country that dominates the globe at the end of this century.

There's no real prospect of "countries not selling oil to the US". Again, that's not what we need to be concerned about. The immediate concern is that one or more major producers could suffer major production impairments at the same time due to sustained domestic conflict, and not be able to sell oil to anyone. That would result in a major price spike that would negatively impact us, and the Chinese, and the Europeans, and the Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese, Indians, etc. It wouldn't be US-specific and it wouldn't be caused by hostile governments refusing to sell to us, it would be a matter of conflict reducing available supply and forcing prices up.

Farther down the road there's concern that oil will begin to run out before "whatever comes next" comes along.

Whatever might happen if the US stopped buying oil is not likely to happen any time soon, and probably wouldn't be anything we needed to care much about.

Dayuhan
03-12-2011, 12:03 PM
That's how Japan entered WW2.

They fared much better once they accepted that being peaceful and willing to pay global market price yields much greater success.

This should be a warning.

They fared much better because the post-WW2 world was a very different place from the pre-WW2 world. Before WW2 they didn't have the option of paying global market price, because there wasn't one. Colonies sold raw materials to their owners, and bought finished goods from them. Tariff walls kept others out. If you had no colonies you had to conquer raw materials and markets to gain access.

It's been a pretty positive change overall.

Fuchs
03-12-2011, 12:36 PM
That's not correct.

Having a rubber plantation in a colony wasn't much more than having a rubber plantation in a foreign country is nowadays.

The Dutch didn't need all the crude oil from Indonesia, the Brits didn't need all that natural rubber from Malaya ... etc.


Yet, maybe you can explain why national excess production of today ends up on the world market while national (including colonies) excess production of 1940 didn't?

Fact is that no country had serious problems with supply of raw materials before either world war unless it hadn't the money for it or was embargoed for its aggressive foreign policy.


The whole "colonies / global power projection for secure access to raw materials" idea is a racket.

Bob's World
03-12-2011, 12:58 PM
probably should have put quotes around "sold" in the "colonies sold oil to their owners", but yeah, agree that the current model is better.

The one big flaw in it is the retention of the powerful urge to sustain particular governments in power for the very stability issues you mention. Good for business, and also good for national interest management.

As to Mr. bin Laden, I agree he is never going to be the King of Saudi Arabia, or the head of any kind of Caliphate. Pure AQ propaganda, latched onto and inflated by the thousands of extra intel people we have brought on in recent years at high level force provider HQs as well as operational HQs, that frankly really don't have anything better to do, and don't have much if any training in insurgency to begin with.

We do, however need to be very focused on "whatever comes next" because it won't just come bubbling up out of the ground "when shooting at some food" like oil does. We're actually going to have to develop some complex science and technologies; and that means expanding both the quantity and the quality of our hard science education base in the US and programming big money like we did with NASA. NASA was a smart move, as it paralleled Defense without adding money to Defense spending and focused thinking and funding in critical areas that elevated our entire society. Similarly with the Manhattan project prior to that. Perhaps the future of energy is in space and NASA is still the right vehicle, and dominating space will be as critical as dominating the Sea has been, so we should put a focused effort to that end.

Meanwhile, it will be fossil fuels that keep things running for the next foreseeable future. Coal and gas, as well as oil. Bigger reserves reduce the risk of turmoil from point disruptions such as today's Libya drama, or tomorrow's Saudi drama (or the day after tomorrow, but it is coming); as will the development of coal and nuclear energy plants (though Japan's dramas will probably cause us to remain in the dark ages on nuclear energy). A more effective system of pricing and production will smooth those rough spots as well. Saudi Arabia could surge capacity far in excess of what is disputed in Libya but has no interest to do so, so doesn't. There should be some price for their protection from external threats, we should start making them pay it.

But all of this hints at the Cold War, post-WWII structures of governance, security and commerce straining under old age and growing irrelevance. The US committed to holding onto a golden age status quo does not help matters. Time for world leaders to come together and get serious about how to best manage such matters in the emerging world. History tells us that won't happen though. We'll let it break as the benefactors of the current system cling to holding it in place, then fight a major war, and then the victors will establish the next new system.

JMA
03-12-2011, 01:35 PM
That's how Japan entered WW2.

Insecurity over the vital supply of oil can lead to desperate actions.


They fared much better once they accepted that being peaceful and willing to pay global market price yields much greater success.

Did they have a choice? And remember too that they were being "looked after" by Uncle Sam at that time (and still are to some extent).

Who may I ask underwrites this free trade? If there were not some guarantor to keep the system "free" and the prices market related and not manipulated by the likes of an OPEC how long would it all remain free?

And who would prevent another similar incident like the 1973 oil crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis)


This should be a warning.

And what warning would that be? That unless "someone" guarantees the free flow of oil and trade nations will from time to time be forced to resort to war in an attempt to secured these?

JMA
03-12-2011, 02:21 PM
Oil is a global market. Yes, the US needs oil. Lots of Oil. The only thing more desperate than the requirement of the US to buy oil is the requirement of oil producing nations (that are typically one-trick ponies in terms of their economies) to sell oil.

Buy and sell at what price? And with a reliable supply? These are the key.

Stability in the oil market is not only in the US national interest but an international necessity. There are probably 100 Mickey Mouse countries which face massive economic hardship if the oil price continues to rise. Of course the US and the EU will not be immune to the effects of a continued oil price rise.

OPEC has demonstrated in the past that they can manipulate oil supplies with little effect upon the oil producing nations themselves (because in many cases the proceeds of oil do not go into their economies) but the industrialised nations can't manage a disruption to the supply of oil. Who holds the cards?


And, if push came to shove, no one can push or shove harder than we can. Cut a frago at CENTCOM, and 12 days later 50% of the world's known oil reserves not in US hands currently would be. So access to oil had never been the issue.

Quite frankly Bob the trick is to never let it get to that. Of course that 12 days will depend on whether the Chinese and the Russians agree with the US action. If they don't then what?

Good old fashioned Gunboat Diplomacy still has its place in the world... if the powers that want to exercise it are believed to be serious.

At points in the past the State department through the CIA probably did pre-empt situations early and before they were allowed to escalate into a real crisis. But as successive US presidents have become more and more indecisive such actions through State and the CIA have declined. To the point where State and the CIA are now filled with equally weak kneed people (at the top) incapable of any such actions.

A study of the "unrest" in Arab states gives a good view of just how ineffectual the US ability to influence foreign matters of nation interest has become. (Note: a wildly fluctuating oil price is not in the US national interest).

BTW... just help me here. Apart from GWB which was the last US president who had the balls to make the big decisions (whether right or wrong)?

Fuchs
03-12-2011, 02:40 PM
And who would prevent another similar incident like the 1973 oil crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis)

I don't care who or what does.
The out-of-proportion military budget of the U.S. has for one 100% proved its utter uselessness against oil price hikes. Evidence: Just about every oil crisis! Including the last one, how can this already be forgotten/ignored???
How obvious does it need to be? Do oil prices need to hike by 25% every time the U.S. military budget is being raised in order to make the point obvious enough?

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

This is part of my frustration with military policy discussions; people ascribe utility to military expenditures that are mere fantasies, disproved by centuries of history beyond doubt. Yet still, people cling to these fantasies about what military power can do, about how useful influence is and so on.
You can smash the facts on them and they simply ignore them, sticking to their beliefs instead - and promoting the ongoing epic waste of resources.


Same with military might / influence / force projection / whatever other waste of money in regard to oil prices.
There is simply no relationship, not even a superficial correlation.

The only proved, cost-efficient strategies for secure access to resources are
#1 don't piss others off (by being aggressive)
#2 trade fair
#3 emphasise redundancy, don't allow a single supplier to dominate your imports (unless we're talking about unimportant things like nutmeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutmeg#World_production))
in combination.

Military budgets are incredibly cost-inefficient in regard to securing resources - and the use of military power for such purposes is considered to be rather offensive and illegitimate in most of the world. In the end, violation of strategy #1 creates about as many disadvantages as influence gained with military power might ever create advantages.

JMA
03-12-2011, 03:00 PM
Lots of little guys -- think the 1930s, once removed...:DThat's the "Not really" -- it's not an inability, it is unwillingness, two very different things. :cool:

A political unwillingness translates into a military inability IMHO. How are soldiers supposed to do they job if they are not given the tools or not allowed to use them to maximum effect?


Unfortunately, the problems thus generated are that unwillingness creates excessive own casualties and sends a bad message on ability and / or capability that can lead some to misjudge.

Yes, if you mean that a politically induced military failure leads an observer to question the military rather than the politicians.


Alas, we've had that problem for many years and that's why the US should not play an active or overt part in these sorts of wars.As Bob's World pointed out the British had reason to stay and do that -- or believed they did. We have no such impetus and we do not need to do these things. There is absolutely no reason for us to play to the strengths of others and hopefully, that will finally dawn on the power structure. My sensing is that it's finally starting to penetrate though there are of course the few odd, old Cold War fighters Bob properly denigrates...

Sorry, but I believe my analogy (using the Boer wars and Afghanistan) holds good. In both cases it took too long to figure out how to conduct those wars. The bad news in Afghanistan is that there will be no final battle or peace treaty to decide the end of the war, only another ignoble withdrawal which will go down in history as another war loss for the US.


The point being the British were forced to play to their adversary's strengths. We do not have to do that, yet we continue to try to do so and it's stupid.

Tell me more... what did the Brits do?


You'd think the Politicians would learn but they don't seem to do so...:rolleyes:Or expresses just the thought that some bunch of idiots may try to take on another bunch and we can either join them or, far better, just watch and be prepared to reject idiocy if it approaches.

Not enough soldiers reject the politicians strategy while still serving (which is sad but pensions are important and al that).

Yes as long as some precocious kid from some Ivy League university believes that when he is appointed to some position in government as a thank you for helping with a campaign he immediately is an expert in that field then the slope is still steep and the way down is still potentially far. Add to that the "smart guy" presidents and veeps (yes Obama and Biden) who don't don't know it from Shinola yet are framing military policy. The mind boggles. Its all very sad.

Ken White
03-12-2011, 04:18 PM
A political unwillingness translates into a military inability IMHO. How are soldiers supposed to do they job if they are not given the tools or not allowed to use them to maximum effect?It's a bit more complex than that. The political problems are quite significant but there's also a purely military reluctance to do some things on two counts; marginal training has reduced trust and confidence making commanders, in some cases, reluctant to push out; there is a sensing that the political constraint will bring this to no good end therefor commanders are reluctant to risk people on adequately aggressive patrolling and missions. Add in the societally induced risk aversion inherent most everywhere in today's world and you have a recipe for unwillingness.

That unwillingness, BTW is not so much a decision, unconscious or otherwise, to avoid casualties as it is a desire to avoid waste -- not precisely the same thing.
Yes, if you mean that a politically induced military failure leads an observer to question the military rather than the politicians.Yes.
Sorry, but I believe my analogy (using the Boer wars and Afghanistan) holds good. In both cases it took too long to figure out how to conduct those wars.That's true as we both have said with respect to Afghanistan, I assume based on what I've read that it is also true for the British - Boer wars.
The bad news in Afghanistan is that there will be no final battle or peace treaty to decide the end of the war, only another ignoble withdrawal which will go down in history as another war loss for the US.Possibly true. We'll see.
Tell me more... what did the Brits do?This is an excellent summary:

""The Boer Wars are a reminder of how a relatively small force with solid local support were able to run circles around a large conventional army which was too slow to adapt to the conditions on the ground and the tactics of the enemy. It took a policy of scorched earth to finally break the back of the rebellion (a policy which the Brits would rather not talk about even today).""

Insurgents and the like will always be more flexible and innovative while displaying more decentralized initiative than any big Army -- size is an impediment all its own... :(

My point was that by attempting these incursions, we are playing to the opponents strengths and while some such interventions may be inevitable, most can be avoided by producing far better trained forces that do not have to undergo a learning curve in each new endeavor; by having better (just halfway decent... :rolleyes:) intel and more competent diplomacy. Militarily, we need to be more competent in the basics and to add the capability to conduct strategic raids with flexible forces as opposed to relying on mass and opponent attrition. The Pentagon has constrained the Politicians by having a too limited menu of capabilities. It also needs to get out of the diplomatic business and force State to do their job. We can't cure the domestic focus or electoral cycle problem but can fix those Pentagon related things...
Not enough soldiers reject the politicians strategy while still serving (which is sad but pensions are important and al that).Regrettably true -- also true is the fact that some stick around in spite of political tribulations to attempt to alleviate some of the damage as they know the Pols will always be able to keep digging down until they reach someone who will do even more harm...

Life, as they say, is just not fair...:wry:
Yes as long as some precocious kid from some Ivy League university believes that when he is appointed to some position in government as a thank you for helping with a campaign he immediately is an expert in that field then the slope is still steep and the way down is still potentially far. Add to that the "smart guy" presidents and veeps (yes Obama and Biden) who don't don't know it from Shinola yet are framing military policy. The mind boggles. Its all very sad.Cheer up, things could be worse.

So I cheered up and sure enough things got worse... :D

Pete
03-12-2011, 05:59 PM
About 20 years ago I read a news story that said the State Department Foreign Service revamped its personnel system using the U.S. Army's officer personnel policy as a model. :eek: The idea was that alternate specialties be introduced so people would be "well rounded" as opposed to specializing in only one specific area. Hence a jack-of-all-trades element may have been introduced. The news story said the big losers in the reform were those who built careers upon being experts on specific nations and regions -- I suspect they had come to be regarded by many in Washington as nay-sayers prone to stating all the reasons why a proposed policy that sounded good in Washington wouldn't work when applied to a particular nation overseas.

Ken White
03-12-2011, 10:51 PM
About 20 years ago I read a news story that said the State Department Foreign Service revamped its personnel system using the U.S. Army's officer personnel policy as a model. :eek: The idea was that alternate specialties be introduced so people would be "well rounded" as opposed to specializing in only one specific area. Hence a jack-of-all-trades element may have been introduced...That 'generalist' idea screwed up the Army so State -- and others in the USG copied it. Not because it's better for the agency, organization or mission -- it is not and most understood that at the time. However, it really makes the job of the Personnel weenies a whole lot easier... :rolleyes:

Now that they're pretty much through screwing up the Oficer Corps, to compound the felony, the Army is revamping the WO program and is trying to 'generalize' them. :confused:

And the NCOs and many civilians. Soon all the folks in and with the Army will know nothing about everything...:mad:

We're nuts...

Pete
03-12-2011, 11:57 PM
The newspaper article on personnel management in the Foreign Service mentioned facilities management as one of the alternate specialties, the idea being that basic housekeeping tasks at embassies and consulates be carried out on a more standardized basis. That part sounded reasonable to me.

I recall reading in either Matthew Ridgeway's or Max Taylor's memoirs a plea that the State Department be made into a stronger institution. It was a several-paragraph essay near the end of the book.

Dayuhan
03-13-2011, 12:35 AM
Buy and sell at what price? And with a reliable supply? These are the key.

Stability in the oil market is not only in the US national interest but an international necessity.

Possibly so, but the US does not have the capacity to impose oil price stability. Neither has anyone else.


OPEC has demonstrated in the past that they can manipulate oil supplies with little effect upon the oil producing nations themselves (because in many cases the proceeds of oil do not go into their economies) but the industrialised nations can't manage a disruption to the supply of oil. Who holds the cards?

There's no real concern over OPEC deliberately manipulating the price of oil to an unsustainable point. OPEC members are way too heavily invested in the global economy to have any interest in provoking global economic upheaval: they have more to lose than to gain. At this point, somewhat ironically, OPEC and the west have a similar vested interest in sustaining oil prices at a consistently high level: OPEC because high prices make them money, the West because high prices discourage consumption and promote alternative energy development.

The worry is that major producers will be knocked off line by domestic conflict. It's a real concern, and given the way many oil-producing nations are governed it is likely to happen (Nigeria stands out as a top candidate). It's not something that either OPEC or the US has the power to prevent or cause. It happens when it happens.


Good old fashioned Gunboat Diplomacy still has its place in the world... if the powers that want to exercise it are believed to be serious.

Possibly so, but I can't see how that point has been reached today, at least not for the US. There's no US interest in Libya strong enough to warrant unilateral intervention, still less in any of the other current conflict zones. Certainly not in Zimbabwe or the Ivory Coast.


At points in the past the State department through the CIA probably did pre-empt situations early and before they were allowed to escalate into a real crisis. But as successive US presidents have become more and more indecisive such actions through State and the CIA have declined. To the point where State and the CIA are now filled with equally weak kneed people (at the top) incapable of any such actions.

The world has also changed a bit. The US is not a sole superpower and no longer has the capacity (if it ever did) to preempt and direct at will. It's not a question of balls and bluster; whether we have them or not, the US is not in a position to dictate outcomes. That fact needs to be recognized, especially by those whose decisions actually get implemented. Backseat bluster is easy; it has no consequences.


A study of the "unrest" in Arab states gives a good view of just how ineffectual the US ability to influence foreign matters of nation interest has become. (Note: a wildly fluctuating oil price is not in the US national interest).

Absolutely true... and you'd best learn to live with it, because it isn't going to change. For better or worse, the US has no power to direct and dictate to the rest of the world, regardless of interest. The US cannot impose oil price stability, at the point of a gun or in any other way.

If Gadhafi falls, there might be a quite positive impact on oil supply: Libya is believed to have quite extensive undiscovered reserves, and many promising areas have seen no meaningful exploration for 40 years. Political and security-related obstacles to development in Iraq, Iran, Libya and others may have created a substantial untapped reserve, potentially a real advantage down the line.

Of course if Gadhafi holds on and suppresses the rebellion, we have an interesting situation. Even the Arab League has now come out against him, and it remains to be seen how all those who wanted him out will react if (likely when) he doesn't fall. Will there be sanctions, and will the sanctions be observed, given the scarcity of oil? Likely to be an interesting situation. Not cataclysmic, but interesting...

Dayuhan
03-13-2011, 12:54 AM
The one big flaw in it is the retention of the powerful urge to sustain particular governments in power for the very stability issues you mention. Good for business, and also good for national interest management.

What oil-producing states have governments that are being sustained by outside influence, at least where domestic threats are concerned? I can't think of any offhand.

The problem with assuming that we sustain these governments is that the assumption leads us to believe that we can influence these governments by threatening to withdraw our sustenance. Assuming influence that we cannot actually wield is an unsound basis for policy decisions.


Saudi Arabia could surge capacity far in excess of what is disputed in Libya but has no interest to do so, so doesn't. There should be some price for their protection from external threats, we should start making them pay it.

What we're seeing now is less a scarcity premium than an uncertainty premium; it's not actually driven by supply shortfall and a short-term supply increase would probably not alter the price equation dramatically. It's not likely to last in any case: event-driven price spikes generally resolve pretty quickly.

I personally think it's not at all a bad thing to have oil prices volatile, and high enough to hurt. It reminds us of things we need to keep in mind, and a bit of pain now can save us a lot more down the line if it keeps us focused on long-term plans to diversify energy sources.

I don't think we protect the Saudis; we protect our own interests. In any event it's not likely that we can demand that they let us dictate oil production levels in return for actions that we undertake for our own purposes and in our own perceived interests.

Pete
03-13-2011, 01:53 AM
Up to a point the alternate specialty concept makes sense for Army officers who aren't selected for battalion command. Non-selection pretty much means the end of being considered for positions in the command and operations tracks. Those left behind can do useful things that need to be done for the institution and still be on hand if there's ever a need to vastly increase the size of the Army. However, this issue is way off-topic to Libya and is probably best left for another thread.

Surferbeetle
03-13-2011, 03:25 AM
The newspaper article on personnel management in the Foreign Service mentioned facilities management as one of the alternate specialties, the idea being that basic housekeeping tasks at embassies and consulates be carried out on a more standardized basis. That part sounded reasonable to me.

Pete,

The website (http://libya.usembassy.gov/offices_department.html) for the US Embassy in Tripoli has listings for the Consular Section, Commercial Section, Educational Advising Office, Political and Economic Section, and Public Affairs Section.

DoS has Foreign Service Officers (http://careers.state.gov/officer/which-career-track) (5 specialties), Foreign Service Specialists (http://careers.state.gov/specialist/career-tracks) (7 specialties), Diplomatic Security (http://www.state.gov/m/ds/career/index.htm) (6 specialties), and Civil Servants (http://careers.state.gov/civil-service/job-categories). Depending upon the size of the location and who is on vacation folks are expected to cover down/help out depending upon classification i.e. FSO's all have consular experience in addition to their specialty/'cone'.

Ken,

I am aware that I am very much preaching to the choir on this topic but indulge me if you would...

On the reserve-side of things; In Civil Affairs-land officers have the basic 38 training/classification plus Additional Skills Indicators can be assigned based upon civilian education and experience in order to capture and help manage folks who are specialists (i.e. 6G - public works/utilities - engineering degree + real world work experience). In Foreign Area Officer-land officers have the basic 48 training/classification plus a designator (C -Western Europe for example) which reflect a graduate degree, capabilities in at least one foreign language (tested annually and exceeding a minimum ability level), plus time spent living/working in the designated area of the world. The Army is recently starting to think about ASI's again...but it's still very much a work in progress. :wry:

Pete
03-13-2011, 03:59 AM
Oh well, I never claimed that spending five minutes reading a newspaper story 20 years ago about the subject made me an expert on it. There are a lot of smart people on this forum so I hesitate to express strong opinions about things I don't know much about.

Surferbeetle
03-13-2011, 04:13 AM
...even with all of those qualifications a twenty something year old Captain/Company Commander is running more people, responsible for more CERP money, and actually holding ground...

...life goes on....:wry:

Ken White
03-13-2011, 05:18 AM
DoS has Foreign Service Officers (http://careers.state.gov/officer/which-career-track) (5 specialties), Foreign Service Specialists (http://careers.state.gov/specialist/career-tracks) (7 specialties), Diplomatic Security (http://www.state.gov/m/ds/career/index.htm) (6 specialties), and Civil Servants (http://careers.state.gov/civil-service/job-categories). Depending upon the size of the location and who is on vacation folks are expected to cover down/help out depending upon classification i.e. FSO's all have consular experience in addition to their specialty/'cone'. Then in the late 40s they adopted many USN personnel rules -- including up or out -- and reduced the number of specialties and created the Specialist and Security subsets but Pete was referring to the 1980 Act that tried to produce 'generalists.' FSOs used to have more specialties IIRC but that changed with the 80 act -- which, if you'll recall is about the time the Army started playing with MOSC, ASIs and specialties in general.
On the reserve-side of things; In Civil Affairs-land officers have the basic 38 training/classification plus Additional Skills Indicators...The Army is recently starting to think about ASI's again...but it's still very much a work in progress. :wry:Agreed. I have noticed the recent addition of a slew of ASIs...

The effort to reduce the number MOSs and such, the number of specialties and specialists starts anew after every war and the resultant post war drawdown in end strength. It happened after WWII, after Korea, After Viet Nam, after DS/DS. As I see no attempt to improve our 1917 system, I suspect such a reduction will again occur in the not too distant future...

Anyway, postwar the number of variations is reduced and what then happens is another war with concomitant expansion occurs and the specialties naturally proliferate (but slightly different -- new watch in charge...). So the cycle -- and it is a cyclical thing -- repeats...

The CA field MOS / ASI aren't messed with by the Hoffman Building because the (quite necessary ) number of specialties doesn't impact their workload -- the USARC worries about them and doesn't trifle with 'em. :cool:

The brilliant 41s (or whatever they are today...) in that building do smart things to lessen their AC oriented daily workload. Like eliminate the 11M MOSC for enlisted people because in their view, all Infantrymen are illiterate, grubby and marginally useful -- so as it's easier to 'manage' just 11Bs instead of all those 11Fs, 11Hs and 11Ms. I'm sure the same thing occurred with Officer specialties but I haven't tracked 'em.

They produce a system that allows them to place small square pegs in large round and triangular holes. Then we wonder why some marginally competent people get some jobs -- people who'd be ideal in other jobs but are, regrettably, 'here.' :mad:

In the case of some issues, I'll tepidly defend the Per folks because many of their inane and non-supportive of the force rules are foisted on them by a Congress who values apparent 'fairness' above pure merit and competence. In the case of the skill numbers drawdowns, that barely applies -- that's pretty much a workload reducer. Well rationalized by claiming 'good personnel management practices, of course...' :rolleyes:

Surferbeetle
03-13-2011, 05:21 AM
The immediate concern is that one or more major producers could suffer major production impairments at the same time due to sustained domestic conflict, and not be able to sell oil to anyone. That would result in a major price spike that would negatively impact us, and the Chinese, and the Europeans, and the Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese, Indians, etc. It wouldn't be US-specific and it wouldn't be caused by hostile governments refusing to sell to us, it would be a matter of conflict reducing available supply and forcing prices up.

OIL FUTURES:Nymex Crude Tumbles As Massive Quake Hits Japan (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110311-709027.html), By Jerry A. DiColo and Sarah Kent Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES, MARCH 11, 2011, 9:24 A.M. ET, at WSJ


Crude futures fell sharply Friday after a massive earthquake in Japan, the world's third-largest oil consumer, though traders kept watch for any news of spreading unrest in the Middle East and North Africa.

Light, sweet crude for April delivery recently traded $2.92, or 2.8%, lower at $99.78 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Brent crude on the ICE futures exchange traded $2.40 lower at $113.03 a barrel.

Oil prices weakened as markets assessed the damage to Japan's refinery capacity and the impact on overall crude demand, as aftershocks from an 8.9-magnitude earthquake that hit earlier this morning continued to rock the country.

Japan does the most with least oil (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/business/worldbusiness/05iht-fuels.html), By James Brooke, Published: Monday, June 6, 2005, NY Times


But Japan is where energy consciousness probably reaches the highest levels. The second-largest economy produces virtually no fossil fuels, importing 96 percent of its energy needs - a dependence that has led to tremendous achievements in improved efficiency. France and Germany, where governments crusade against global warming, expend almost 50 percent more energy to produce the equivalent of $1 in economic activity. Britain's energy use, by the same measure, is nearly double; that of the United States, nearly triple; and China's almost eight times as high.

Tokyo Electric Tries to Cool Unstable Reactors, Avert `Three Mile Island' (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-12/tokyo-electric-tries-to-cool-unstable-reactors-avert-three-mile-island-.html), By Yuji Okada, Tsuyoshi Inajima and Yuriy Humber - Mar 12, 2011 6:51 PM MT, Bloomberg


The utility began injecting sea water and boric acid to cool its Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 1 reactor, according to a statement today. The plant’s No. 3 reactor has been vented to release pressurized gas after its cooling system failed, said spokesman Akitsuka Kobayashi. The station lost power needed to keep the reactor core cool after an earthquake two days ago, the largest ever recorded in Japan.


Radioactive cesium, a product of atomic fission, was detected near the site yesterday, indicating a meltdown may have begun, Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency spokesman Yuji Kakizaki said yesterday.


There are six reactors at the Dai-Ichi site. The unit being flooded, No. 1, is a General Electric Co. boiling-water reactor model that is capable of generating 439 megawatts of power and began commercial operation in 1971, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

anonamatic
03-13-2011, 05:46 AM
The `you break it, you bought it' observation also applies to anyone rushing in with a tube of glue... I'm somewhat wary of NFZs after watching Saddam play escalation games with the one in Iraq. The people may not have liked him any, but during the time it was in place he got to control the local narrative to build resentment towards his enemies. The defecting Libyans are not completely rag-tag either, many of them were in the Libyan military before this began.

Presuming for a minute that there was some sort of military intervention, unless it's designed to be limited in such a way as to not require an exit strategy, it seems to me that more than a single exit strategy would be required. Having a primary best case plan is fine, but not having a number of good alternate strategies seems like an unwise move. One of the things I've thought was a mistake in Iraq was not having credible strategies to address the situation if things didn't go the way everyone wanted. Worse, without being able to articulate those openly to both allies & opponents, they were able to form their own mangled narratives. Would it have helped if the people of Iraq knew at the outset that the price for supporting Al-Qaeda in Iraq was going to be awful, and that this would prolong the war unnecessarily? Perhaps... It's one thing to say 'this is our preferred outcome' quite another not to be able to articulate how we would act if things don't go according to script. Not doing that seems to me to be a mistake that's easily made.

I think providing the rebels with humanitarian support would be a good idea. I do think that we're on something of a death watch for Quaddafi, about all anyone is going to miss is his sartorial entertainment.

We don't know the calculus the forces under his control are making either, and that's difficult. They obviously think that rolling with Q is their best choice as long as they're not forced into some other option. A lot of history says as much too. Are they waiting on events with a leaden sense of duty until a reason they've been waiting for to flip sides comes along? We don't know, but I'm sure they're thinking about it.

I think there are a lot of potential things that could be done, but as long as there are huge piles of foreign nationals there & they're able to leave at varying rates, well everyone is going to be somewhat stuck. In essence that safe passage is already buying him a lot of time he might not otherwise enjoy. That only works until he starts to play nasty, but what then? It's not something that anyone wants to provoke him into doing.

It might be possible to make strategic strikes of various types, the idea of taking out his communications capacity is a good one. So is taking out his offensive air capacity. A NFZ wouldn't be so much needed if he's got nothing to fly that's weaponized. The idea of using some combination of sea / air power to degrade his capacity to inflict harm seems good, and it might well be one of the pushes some of his ostensibly loyal forces are looking for. We don't know that for sure though.

We aren't seeing the rebels plead for arms & ammunition yet, and from reading what people have written here about their internal supply situation it's easy to see why.

It may well be that the best strategy will be to help with humanitarian aid, and go all-in to make sure democracy succeeds in Tunisia and Egypt. Success for the people of those countries that outstrips the story of Iraq could go a very long way towards changing peoples ideas in the region. I find it interesting that in some of the countries where there's some discontent, but not complete discontent, the people have been agitating for solutions that disempower their various leaders in ways that don't create a lot of strife for everyone.

While there are varying amounts of pseudo-imperialist views driving some of the calls for the US to intervene, there's an awful lot to be said for not doing it too. The thing that comes to my mind the most is that it's empowering for people to understand better that their fate really is in their own hands. That was never not true, but far too much of the time people have grown used to the mistaken notion that somehow the US is the worlds police force. To go with that in circumstances that are less than ideal, like people everywhere, they get pissy when the police don't show up and do what they want them to do. The calls we hear for the US to "do something" are not calls to "do this", instead they're very similar to what people say when the cops show up in a conflict. They aren't sure what is to be done, but they want the conflict to end, and don't feel like they can end it themselves.

Also, at least personally, I'd like to see the US stay focused on Afghanistan. It's still a bigger mess with bigger stakes.

Surferbeetle
03-13-2011, 06:07 AM
...not that it matters, the job is still the same, and we still have our issues.


Then in the late 40s they adopted many USN personnel rules -- including up or out -- and reduced the number of specialties and created the Specialist and Security subsets

This was well before my time :wry: and I have no reason to doubt you.


...but Pete was referring to the 1980 Act that tried to produce 'generalists.' FSOs used to have more specialties IIRC but that changed with the 80 act -- which, if you'll recall is about the time the Army started playing with MOSC...

My observations from on the ground are that FSO cones are for the most part staffed by folks highly skilled in their particular specialty. 'Observe and report', analysis, negotiation, and communication skills as well as a certain gravitas appear to be highly valued across the board.


The effort to reduce the number MOSs and such, the number of specialties and specialists starts anew after every war and the resultant post war drawdown in end strength. It happened after WWII, after Korea, After Viet Nam, after DS/DS. As I see no attempt to improve our 1917 system, I suspect such a reduction will again occur in the not too distant future...

Agreed. Saw it after DS/DS-Fall of the Berlin Wall and am also seeing it now.


.... all Infantrymen are illiterate, grubby and marginally useful -- so as it's easier to 'manage' just 11Bs instead of all those 11Fs, 11Hs and 11Ms. I'm sure the same thing occurred with Officer specialties but I haven't tracked 'em.

Agree with your implied point that out in most parts of the world brains, common sense, and capabilities are not limited to rank or 'specialties' and Commanders have say for a multitude of good reasons....:wry:


They produce a system that allows them to place small square pegs in large round and triangular holes. Then we wonder why some marginally competent people get some jobs -- people who'd be ideal in other jobs but are, regrettably, 'here.' :mad:

So Ken,...how do we fix this given that soldiering is a young man's job and DoD has a very bad case of mission creep when it comes to DoS and USAID personnel functions?

Should the specialties formerly known as CS and CSS be completely contracted out?

On the DoS and USAID side of things the exclusive pale, male, and Yale (DoS) and earth muffin (USAID) staffing pattern stereotypes who are afforded limited management/leadership training opportunities are not the answer that America needs either.


In the case of some issues, I'll tepidly defend the Per folks because many of their inane and non-supportive of the force rules are foisted on them by a Congress who values apparent 'fairness' above pure merit and competence....

...out in the field we are always open to ideas.

Formal study, self study, coaching, and the encouragement of other career paths are the TTP's that I am familiar with and use...:wry:

All things that apply to Libya (potentially) and any other place we may have to operate...

Pete
03-13-2011, 06:09 AM
There are a lot of smart people on this forum ...
In addition to them are the old NCOs, and they'll cut you no slack if they think you're up to something ...

JMA
03-13-2011, 06:27 AM
It might be possible to make strategic strikes of various types, the idea of taking out his communications capacity is a good one. So is taking out his offensive air capacity. A NFZ wouldn't be so much needed if he's got nothing to fly that's weaponized. The idea of using some combination of sea / air power to degrade his capacity to inflict harm seems good, and it might well be one of the pushes some of his ostensibly loyal forces are looking for. We don't know that for sure though.

This should have been done... unilaterally some time ago... crater the runways or if the intel is good enough take out the jets on the ground. The helicopters are slightly more complex but could be sorted very quickly by the demonstration (note not a mere threat) of taking out a military target with the promise (again not a mere threat) that if just the sound of a helo flying somewhere is reported then another military base gets it. And so on.

As to the tanks. Put the word out that tanks are a no-no. The rebels must be told that any tank anywhere is a target. The RoE would be "You see a tank, you kill it." Let the pilots have some fun.

It is quite possibly too late already as the opportunity to put in a personal strike on Gaddafi may have passed. Then the question must be asked why is his TV and radio stations still working? I could go on.

The US and the EU have blown it... now it is just a matter of counting the bodies of the Libyans killed by Gaddafi to see just how incompetent the UN Security Council in particular is. There has to be a better way.

carl
03-13-2011, 07:11 AM
Why would they "rely on the US" in the first place? How is it the business of the US to come to the rescue of the Libyans, Ivorians, Zimbabweans, Rwandans etc? The Iraqi Shi'a have a legitimate complaint, to the extent that the US actively encouraged them to rebel, but I can't see how any of the others ever had any reason to expect to be rescued by Americans. As far as I know the US has never been appointed saviour of the world.

I don't know if we have any duty to act, or if we can be legitimately criticized for not acting, but it the case of Rwanda at least, we could have, and it would not have taken much. If we had at least those 800,000 people would be alive. We were the only ones who could have, and we should have.

Dayuhan
03-13-2011, 07:16 AM
This should have been done... unilaterally some time ago...

Unilaterally by who?

Dayuhan
03-13-2011, 07:28 AM
I don't know if we have any duty to act, or if we can be legitimately criticized for not acting, but it the case of Rwanda at least, we could have, and it would not have taken much. If we had at least those 800,000 people would be alive. We were the only ones who could have, and we should have.

If it would not have taken much, why are we the only ones who could have? Are we the only ones on the planet who have deployable military forces?


It's easy to look at any given case and wish the US would do something, or had done something. Add all those cases together and you quickly see how impossible it is. The attitude that the US is the only one who can and therefore the one who must un-f&ck every f&cked-up situation on the planet has got to stop, unless of course the planet wants to tax itself to underwrite the expense involved.

Maybe the UN needs to hire a bunch of Gurkhas and set up its own capacity to intervene in places where it doesn't take much to make a difference. Maybe Europe and a bunch of others need to step up and seriously work on developing a rapid response intervention capacity. I don't know what the answer is, but I know the answer is not "let's all point to America and bleat".

A lot of people didn't want the US as sole superpower. Well, fine, they got their way: we aren't. We haven't the economic capacity, our forces are far too expensive to deploy, there are far too many places that need help, and we've overcommitted in places we never should have stayed in (or in some cases been in) in the first place.

Time to start working on a better way, certainly. The US can and should be involved in that better way, but it cannot and should not be America's responsibility to go about the world playing caped crusader.

JMA
03-13-2011, 08:31 AM
It's a bit more complex than that. The political problems are quite significant but there's also a purely military reluctance to do some things on two counts; marginal training has reduced trust and confidence making commanders, in some cases, reluctant to push out; there is a sensing that the political constraint will bring this to no good end therefor commanders are reluctant to risk people on adequately aggressive patrolling and missions. Add in the societally induced risk aversion inherent most everywhere in today's world and you have a recipe for unwillingness. That unwillingness, BTW is not so much a decision, unconscious or otherwise, to avoid casualties as it is a desire to avoid waste -- not precisely the same thing.

Yes, I guess that over time the "disease" has spread to the military as well.

How has it been lost (as soldiers learned long, long ago) that fortune favours the bold? That skilfully planned bold military actions/strikes yield the best results in terms of results and low (own force) casualties. If this has been lost then the officer corps may well have become a liability.

I am still confused about the supposed concern over casualties in Afghanistan. If that concern was genuine then why are patrols being forced to walk through "medium minefields" on a daily basis? So what exactly is going on?


This is an excellent summary:

""The Boer Wars are a reminder of how a relatively small force with solid local support were able to run circles around a large conventional army which was too slow to adapt to the conditions on the ground and the tactics of the enemy. It took a policy of scorched earth to finally break the back of the rebellion (a policy which the Brits would rather not talk about even today).""

Insurgents and the like will always be more flexible and innovative while displaying more decentralized initiative than any big Army -- size is an impediment all its own...

My point was that by attempting these incursions, we are playing to the opponents strengths and while some such interventions may be inevitable, most can be avoided by producing far better trained forces that do not have to undergo a learning curve in each new endeavor; by having better (just halfway decent... intel and more competent diplomacy. Militarily, we need to be more competent in the basics and to add the capability to conduct strategic raids with flexible forces as opposed to relying on mass and opponent attrition. The Pentagon has constrained the Politicians by having a too limited menu of capabilities. It also needs to get out of the diplomatic business and force State to do their job. We can't cure the domestic focus or electoral cycle problem but can fix those Pentagon related things...

The "incursions" only play into the hands of the enemy - IMHO ;) - if we go in there swinging like a drunken bar brawler and taking out more civvies than gooks. How to avoid this?

Well I have commented a few times on how ridiculous it is to drop kids from London, New York and Vancouver into Afghanistan and expect them to acclimatise and fight an established enemy on his home ground... just like that. To make matters worse we rotate the troops out just when they are possibly beginning to get an inkling of what it is all about in Afghanistan. After ten years there no excuse exists for the manner in which the war in Afghanistan is being prosecuted. Whether Petraeus is part of that problem only time will tell.

The key to good intel is continuity (... and can you trust the local Afghan police and military intel?). Again there is virtually none of quality in ISAF down where it matters (as I understand it).

Yes the basics are critical in the Commander's Plan is to work. But these basics must be the basis on which to build. Adapt or die is a pretty apt description of what needs to happen on the ground. But with inflexible RoE how do you release the skill of your troops on the enemy to maximum effect? What is the point of training up troops to a high level if they are restricted to the point of being ineffective on operations? You go figure.

Yes, you have to hit their bases. With air strikes or raids or both. But they will always mix in with civilians for sex, food and shelter so will be ready to claim all kills are civilian and it was another US war crime. This is why you need smart ops planners and first rate recce. It is not as difficult as it seems.

Just imagine what could have been achieved by now if the whole Afghanistan exercise had been taken seriously from the beginning. We would see one time Lts now as Maj/LtCols and troopies as sergeants - with that time in theatre and experience ISAF would be unstoppable.

Soldiers must be soldiers. If you look at the French example from Algeria there is a cross-over with Civic Action teams where some military input will be required ... but that input would (I would say never but will settle for) rarely if ever involve infantry officers (who were involved in the clear phase of the operation). - read more from McCuen page 152-166. I remember when the special forces were trained to do this sort of work... that was before they threw that all away and settled on forming assassination squads. Are there any Green Berets left who will move in and live in the villages with the people?


Regrettably true -- also true is the fact that some stick around in spite of political tribulations to attempt to alleviate some of the damage as they know the Pols will always be able to keep digging down until they reach someone who will do even more harm...

This is why I am hopeful that what Woodward wrote in his book - Obama's Wars - about the military not rolling over as they have done before is true. It is the only thing what will save the military.

JMA
03-13-2011, 09:35 AM
I don't know if we have any duty to act, or if we can be legitimately criticized for not acting, but it the case of Rwanda at least, we could have, and it would not have taken much. If we had at least those 800,000 people would be alive. We were the only ones who could have, and we should have.

Yes the US should have... but in fact contributed towards it all happening - through:


In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective.

It was rank incompetence from a man unfit to be the most powerful man in the world who had surrounded himself (as they mostly do) with idiots (the main one being in this case the wimp Warren Christopher).


The story of U.S. policy during the genocide in Rwanda is not a story of willful complicity with evil. U.S. officials did not sit around and conspire to allow genocide to happen. But whatever their convictions about "never again," many of them did sit around, and they most certainly did allow genocide to happen. In examining how and why the United States failed Rwanda, we see that without strong leadership the system will incline toward risk-averse policy choices. We also see that with the possibility of deploying U.S. troops to Rwanda taken off the table early on—and with crises elsewhere in the world unfolding—the slaughter never received the top-level attention it deserved. Domestic political forces that might have pressed for action were absent. And most U.S. officials opposed to American involvement in Rwanda were firmly convinced that they were doing all they could—and, most important, all they should—in light of competing American interests and a highly circumscribed understanding of what was "possible" for the United States to do. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystanders-to-genocide/4571/


In 1998, President Bill Clinton traveled to Rwanda and apologized for Washington's failure to act. Analysts say that after the U.S. military humiliation in Somalia in 1992, the Clinton administration was hesitant to intervene again in an African conflict.

In Rwanda on Tuesday, Rwandan President Paul Kagame accused the international communityfor failing to stop the killings of being "cowards" who "abandoned" the Rwandan people. U.S. says it failed to stop Rwanda Genocide (http://www.rnanews.com/politics/1136-us-says-it-failed-to-stop-rwanda-genocide)


In her memoirs, Living History, Hillary Clinton, the current secretary of state, does not write about what went on in the White House during those god-awful weeks in the spring of 1994, when human rights activists were begging the Clinton administration to do something--anything--to stop or slow the mass-murder frenzy underway, and the Clintonites steadfastly refused their entreaties. Clinton does note that later on she came to "regret deeply the failure of the world, including my husband's Administration, to act to end the genocide." Remembering Rwanda--and the Clinton Failure (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/remembering-rwanda-and-clinton-failure)

All the above and what about Bosnia?

For outsiders looking in at the US it is a constant source of amazement that such a great nation can continually elect such gross incompetents to the highest office in the land and allow a system where this person surrounds himself with even greater idiots. There is a massive gap between the good the US could have achieved in the world and what it in fact has. Such a great pity.

jmm99
03-13-2011, 09:56 AM
from Dayuhan
Maybe the UN needs to hire a bunch of Gurkhas and set up its own capacity to intervene in places where it doesn't take much to make a difference.

was the idea of UN Charter, Chapter VII - more specifically:


Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible [JMM: Never done] on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
.....
Article 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43 [JMM: Never done], by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Now, John Bolton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton) and I are not great lovers of these provisions :); but they do exist. In truth, I don't expect to see a permanent UN Security Force in my lifetime (I don't know about brother Bolton).

Each of us here at SWC has different ideas (constraints and restraints) of where and when our own countries (recognizing that about 15-20% of SWC is non-USAian) should or should not engage. I know that "pure interventionists" and "pure non-interventionists" may exist (if any are here, let him or her come forward).

My own views are fairly basic (not unlike those of GWB is his 2000 Presidential Campaign) - subject to the "... but" proviso ( ;) ):

1423

and, in a sense (because they've existed in my head for so long), they are carved in stone (though "only somewhat"; remember the "but" in "Never Again, but ..." - and re: current armed conflicts, e.g., the executive agreements, both GWB & BHO, re: our "continuing partnership" with Astan).

That being said, a different or even opposing view (while I am not likely to accept it) is not perceived by me to be "vile", etc. So, we here at SWC will have different views on what are really very basic policy questions ("Politik" in CvC terms). Like Ken, I have great doubts as to whether most of our politicians have the slightest idea about what we speak.

They ain't read the manuals, much less had the experience.

We can ask, however, that they and we be realistic in these matters - and that those inspired by idealism realize that others may not not share in it. I happened to run into this comment while reading a real (hardcover) book tonite - which inspired this post to some extent:


There is a difference between us French [Colonial Troops] and Don Quixote. Don Quixote rode against windmills believing they were giants, but we ride against windmills knowing that they are windmills - but doing it all the same because we think that there ought to be someone in this materialistic world who rides against windmills.

HT to COL Wainwright (yup; he was French - commandant de Groupement Blindé ) - Marc Lagrange might appreciate the TdM sentiment.

The point is that each of us has his or her own ideals, perceptions, etc., etc. re: his or her country's role in the World (each of us has an individual Worldview). That individual Worldview very much influences each of us.

Regards to all

Mike

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

The TdM also had an LTC MacCarthy in Indochina ca. 1952-1954 (commandant de 10e Moroccan Tabor), who was probably a very distant relative - most of these "Wild Geese" MacCarthys went and stayed in France or its colonies before 1700.

There also was a Vigny (de Vigny) who was (supposedly) a general in the "French Indochina War" (per Jack McCuen, but with no refs in his book beyond the name; and that Michigander - RIP - is no longer available to ask). The "general de Vigny" was probably a cousin. If someone has more info on him, I'd appreciate it.

Dayuhan
03-13-2011, 10:27 AM
The point is that each of us has his or her own ideals, perceptions, etc., etc. re: his or her country's role in the World (each of us has an individual Worldview). That individual Worldview very much influences each of us.


Ideals and perceptions of roles in the world must compete with the harsh realities of interests and capacities. The US in particular needs to make it absolutely clear that we are not going to be policeman to the world: if it's true that "something must be done", others are going to have to pitch in and do their share.

I'd have no objection to US forces intervening in Libya as part of a coalition, provided that it was a real coalition with meaningful participation from everyone involved, not 90% US, 5% Britain, 5% token forces from 20 different countries. Unilateral action is just not appropriate: for one thing, it encourages others, particularly in Europe, to continue the habit of moaning, rending their garments, waiting for the Americans to do something, and then whining about American bellicosity. People who think something needs to be done have to be ready to stand up and do it, not wait for someone else.

davidbfpo
03-13-2011, 11:57 AM
So the Arab League have called for a NFZ, IIRC described by the BBC yesterday a 'notoriously reluctant organisation'. Having checked the IISS Military Balance, Egypt alone has a reasonable air force (F16s mainly, some F4 & Mirages) and a small AEW capability. So why is the focus on the USA?

If Egypt and smaller contributions from other Arab League members can be assembled, surely the USA & NATO could provide non-lethal support only? Lethal action by Arabs only would be IMHO a massive gain.

Turning to the ground fighting. It struck me that the loyal to Gaddafi forces are a mixture of militia, volunteers, army and the "corset" of mercenaries. Might there be a danger in over-extending themselves in pushing eastwards?

davidbfpo
03-13-2011, 12:12 PM
The military balance of Libya’s domestic conflict is raising debate about external intervention. But the strategy of the Gaddafi regime is also crucial to what happens next.

The article has some good background on the strategic geography.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/libya-prospect-of-war

Bob's World
03-13-2011, 12:31 PM
So the Arab League have called for a NFZ, IIRC described by the BBC yesterday a 'notoriously reluctant organisation'. Having checked the IISS Military Balance, Egypt alone has a reasonable air force (F16s mainly, some F4 & Mirages) and a small AEW capability. So why is the focus on the USA?

If Egypt and smaller contributions from other Arab League members can be assembled, surely the USA & NATO could provide non-lethal support only? Lethal action by Arabs only would be IMHO a massive gain.

Turning to the ground fighting. It struck me that the loyal to Gaddafi forces are a mixture of militia, volunteers, army and the "corset" of mercenaries. Might there be a danger in over-extending themselves in pushing eastwards?

It is not in the interest of any Arab leader to contribute to a no fly zone; after all, there but for the grace of Allah (and a robust internal security network) goes their own country. They will likely let this play out as a lesson to their own respective populaces what they will have to face if they decide to act out in pursuit of liberty as the Libyans have.

It is really up to the West to decide where we stand on this issue of populaces faced with unendurable despotism. I know the U.S. is on record on this matter, and that position is a bold one that may make many in and out of government uncomfortable today:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."


The tyranny in the Middle East is far greater than that suffered by American colonists, but a populace feels the way they feel, and those outside that populace are in no position to judge the veracity and extent of those feelings.

What happened in America was quite natural. What is happening in the Middle East is quite natural as well. A right is a powerful thing in the law, it is something that cannot be denied. A duty also is a powerful thing in the law, as it imposes a necessity to act. These few words in this single paragraph are all very intentional.

In short, the US recognizes the duty and the right of the Libyan people to act out in insurgency. We recognize this right in all people. Just as we recognize the duty of all governments to "... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

That is some powerful stuff, it is the cornerstone of my heritage as an American citizen, and I embrace it.

carl
03-13-2011, 04:25 PM
If it would not have taken much, why are we the only ones who could have? Are we the only ones on the planet who have deployable military forces?

In a practical sense as it applied to Rwanda in 1994, yes. We were the only ones with enough airlift that, for us, it would not have taken much. For others it would have been impossible. We were the only ones with AC-130s and tools like that. We were the only ones. And we stood by and watched.

JMA: Of all the politicians, humans even, in the world, only Mr. Clinton would have watched the slaughter, done nothing, then showed up 4 years later in the very country where the slaughter occurred in order to score points.

Fuchs
03-13-2011, 05:32 PM
Germany could have airlifted a whole brigade of paratroopers into Kigali in 48 hrs if there had been overflight permissions, a possibility to refuel on some airport and the political will to do it.

The Russians could easily have done the same with at least one division of paratroops - with armour!

The French were able to deploy a brigade plus they had a battalion almost "close" in Djibouti.

The British would have been able to air-lift a brigade paras or the RMs.

Several African countries would have been able to intervene as well.

Ken White
03-13-2011, 06:21 PM
We were the only ones.'We' are almost never the only ones...
And we stood by and watched.'We' also stood by and watched WW II unfold from 1939 until nearly 1942. 'We' stood by and watched Mao take over China and watched their subsequent Cultural Revolution. 'We' watched Chechnya, too. I hear almost no one bemoaning the fact that we did not interfere -- because that's what we're talking about, interfering -- in China or Russia...

Some times not interfering is not really just standing by and watching and it frequently is the most sensible thing to do -- it may not always be the 'nicest' thing to but then the World isn't nice. It may not be the altruistic approach but then altruism is a personal characteristic; nations are not persons...

carl
03-13-2011, 06:22 PM
Fuchs:

Germany: Three big ifs there. And if all the "ifs" had been "had beens" what percentage of Germany's airlift capacity would it have taken?

Russia: You're kidding right?

France: I believe they had forces in Rwanda at the time, but, according to the Mucyo report anyway, they were, shall we say, not inclined to do anything.

Great Britain: The same question about percentage of airlift capacity as applies to Germany.

African countries: How would those African countries have gotten there and how would they have been able to maintain forces if they had gotten them there? You could probably make the argument that Uganda did intervene and that stopped the killing, in Rwanda, for that moment.

We were the only country that had C-130s, C-5s, C-141s, KC-135s and KC-10s by the hundreds and hundreds therefore we were the only country for whom the effort would have been a relatively minor one, relatively.

carl
03-13-2011, 06:37 PM
'We' are almost never the only ones...

In this case, I think we were.


'We' also stood by and watched WW II unfold from 1939 until nearly 1942. 'We' stood by and watched Mao take over China and watched their subsequent Cultural Revolution. 'We' watched Chechnya, too. I hear almost no one bemoaning the fact that we did not interfere -- because that's what we're talking about, interfering -- in China or Russia...

A difference in degree can add up to a difference in kind (I heard George Will say that once and I'm thrilled to use it). Refusing to stop the slaughter in Rwanda when we were well able to do so with relatively small effort, cannot be compared to us not stopping the famines and murders caused by Red Chinese government malevalence (sic). That is a fallacy in that you are not discrediting refusing to stop evil when you can, by equating it with the inability to stop evil when you physically cannot do so.


Some times not interfering is not really just standing by and watching and it frequently is the most sensible thing to do...

Sometimes too, it is just something to be ashamed of.

Fuchs
03-13-2011, 07:21 PM
Russia: You're kidding right?

Not at all. Remember the year; 1994. Russia could easily have mobilised the military and aeroflot Il-76s for a massive airlift.


African countries: How would those African countries have gotten there and how would they have been able to maintain forces if they had gotten them there?

How an African army would have been maintained in the field? Guess how.
Tip: They need no sandbag fortress with air-conditioned containers and McDonalds franchise.


We were the only country that had C-130s, C-5s, C-141s, KC-135s and KC-10s by the hundreds and hundreds therefore we were the only country for whom the effort would have been a relatively minor one, relatively.

So what? A genocide like that does not happen every decade or even year. It doesn't matter whether you give a marching order to all your paras and all your air transport wings or just to a fraction of them.

The killing was done in large part with machetes, clubs or at most by ill-equipped, ill-organised, ill-led and ill-trained troops.
All you needed for an effective intervention was to send paras in.

Even Luxembourg could have made a difference; mobilise their infantry battalion, charter seven airliners, send them in and let them loose in platoon-sized teams to hunt down and disarm mobs and gangs.

Ken White
03-13-2011, 07:21 PM
My observations from on the ground are that FSO cones are for the most part staffed by folks highly skilled in their particular specialty. 'Observe and report', analysis, negotiation, and communication skills as well as a certain gravitas appear to be highly valued across the board.I agree. Thus the to me adverse effects of a personnel system seeking to lighten its work load are not too pernicious, mostly because Plan B, below, can mitigate the damage to quite an extent.

The question in my mind is should the executors of Plan B have to go to that extra trouble -- and it is trouble and it is extra in that they should not be the ones having to repair errors caused by theoretically supporting elements losing sight of their role. There are times when I believe the Per system has an Army to support it instead of the converse.
...Commanders have say for a multitude of good reasons....:wry:State or DoD, that's Plan B...
So Ken,...how do we fix this given that soldiering is a young man's jobI have numerous fixes. Most cannot be applied in a nominal democracy...

What can be fixed is eliminate up or out and replace it with competence testing, determine age brackets for optimum -- that's optimum, not acceptable -- performance and enforce them (if we can enforce weight standards, we can enforce competence and age standards). Make the services smaller so you can pay more, recruit for quality, not to fill spaces (I'd rather go to war 20% short with good people than one man over with schlunks...). Improve training, embed the basics in IET, Officer and Enlisted. All doable even in an uber-democracy.
DoD has a very bad case of mission creep when it comes to DoS and USAID personnel functions?That's a bug not a feature and its due to the default setting on the budget process in DC which creates the unbalanced system. It's really easily fixed but would require DoD giving up spaces, faces and dollars. It should be done BUT the prognosis is not good -- unless Congress gets a whole lot smarter They are a part of the problem because defense is American and Apple Pie, Foreign affairs and aid are a distraction from US domestic politics which add little or no revenue to Congressional reelection campaign funds. Defense spending buys jobs, foreign affairs take them away. So you have to fix Congress for full system repair.

Fortunately, I have a plan to get that done. Vote out all incumbents. every election -- then the political class will get the message and smarten up, read their oaths and fix things instead of trying to squat jumps on the phalli of the opposition party.
Should the specialties formerly known as CS and CSS be completely contracted out?I'd say yes; many would say no -- the truth is probably somewhere in between. There are a LOT of unnecessary jobs being performed by persons in Uniform...

We also need to significantly address our logistic problem -- the tooth tail ratio is terribly out of balance, penalty of a 1917 personnel system, parochial branches and failure to adapt.
On the DoS and USAID side of things the exclusive pale, male, and Yale (DoS) and earth muffin (USAID) staffing pattern stereotypes who are afforded limited management/leadership training opportunities are not the answer that America needs either.That may be true today, can't say, not out there -- but when I was, State was robust enough and the sharpest Commercial Counsellor I met was an SMU grad, the best First Sec was from FSU and a slew of Land Grant college guys and gals were there and doing good work. OTOH, the Yalies were indeed a problem. Douglas MacArthur II comes to mind... :mad:

As for US Aid, may be full of Earth Muffies now but back in the day they had some hard core tough guys and did super work. So did the USIA -- and the idiot trio of Clinton, Christopher and Albright dismantled 'em. That's about as dumb as Ford doing away with the Taurus....

The current promotion system sets the Army up to reward mediocrity by extensive emphasis on time sensitive gates. That is in effect a reward or compensation system but it is wrong headed. It keeps people it does not need now but may need at some unforeseen future effort and places these people in make work jobs to justify them. Wrong answers all round...

Bottom line on all the personnel questions is: Hire people who are capable of doing a job, train them well, leave them alone, overlook petty mistakes but fire or jail them summarily for three or more major screwups and do not reward time in service or grade -- reward competence.

To do less than any of that is to sculpt your personnel system to make it and the people hired easier to 'manage.' :rolleyes:
...out in the field we are always open to ideas.Been there. Used to be true. May still be but if so that openness is much less apparent than it used to be. I talk frequently to others also in the field and their assessment is not nearly as positive on that aspect as is yours...
Formal study, self study, coaching, and the encouragement of other career paths are the TTP's that I am familiar with and use...:wry:Good for you. Seriously. Shame more people don't do that. Also seriously.
All things that apply to Libya (potentially) and any other place we may have to operate...and there will be others...

Ken White
03-13-2011, 08:00 PM
In this case, I think we were.Fuchs is correct, others had the capability. Even had they not we could have done what I got to do in '64 -- hop on a US C-130 and ferry and jump Belgique paratroopers in the Congo. We've provided airlift for many people going many places we did not send ground troops. LINK (http://www.google.com/search?q=US+airlift+of+peacekeepers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), LINK (http://amcmuseum.org/history/airlifts/congo_airlift.php), LINK (http://www.historynet.com/congo-crisis-operation-dragon-rouge.htm), LINK (http://pdg.af.edu/Web%20Site/CHAPTERS/Chapter%2002/TEXT/2.14.4.html).

The US avoided operating under the UN for many years and avoids a lot of interventions for one whopping big and very good reason -- US Troops become targets. We're the big kid on the block and everyone wants a piece. Bush 41 ignored that rule to go to Somalia (against DoD advice predicated on the target syndrome). That was bad enough then Clinton blew it up further with his diktat to "Get Aideed" -- all that ended up leaving the Somalis in arguably worse shape and us embarrassed and feeling a sense of futility. All because the media said we ought to do it so they 'd feel good.

The mood in the US after the Mogadishu screw up by Delta and the Rangers -- and make no mistake, they're the ones that screwed the pooch -- was totally opposed to any intervention anywhere. Rwanda was the victim of two pieces of bad luck: Timing and not one single US interest. You may think stopping genocide is in the interest of the US. The folks who'd have gotten killed and their parents, wives and kids might disagree.
A difference in degree can add up to a difference in kind (I heard George Will say that once and I'm thrilled to use it). Refusing to stop the slaughter in Rwanda when we were well able to do so with relatively small effort, cannot be compared to us not stopping the famines and murders caused by Red Chinese government malevalence (sic). That is a fallacy in that you are not discrediting refusing to stop evil when you can, by equating it with the inability to stop evil when you physically cannot do so.No it's not a fallacy. A thing is either right or wrong. The issue with both China and Russia is not that we could not have stopped it because we could have -- the issue is the cost. What you're saying is if it appears * the cost won't be too high, we should go in, OTOH, if it might be too great, we just cannot. :confused:

So you're willing to interfere because the target is weak but not to do so if it is strong. I didn't present a fallacy because a wrong is a wrong -- you are engaging in moral equivalency -- do 'what's right' only if it might not hurt too much... ;)

* I say "appears" because there's no way short of commitment to know what the cost will be. Both Afghanistan and Iraq looked easy. How can you say with any degree of assurance that stopping the killing in Rwanda would be a "relatively small effort?"
Sometimes too, it is just something to be ashamed of.Oh? How so? Please tell me of what the US -- or I -- should be ashamed.

davidbfpo
03-13-2011, 08:28 PM
From Bob's World (Post 159):
It is not in the interest of any Arab leader to contribute to a no fly zone..

If that is true, then I would not support a non-Arab NFZ. If the Gaddafi regime has failed the Arab League criteria for acceptability, with a referral to the UNSC, they can provide the lethal parts of a NFZ.

I fully accept Arab leaders have a strange stance today on Libya.

Fuchs
03-13-2011, 08:42 PM
Strange, yes. Maybe they're smart. They somehow position themselves on the other side of the aisle than the evil, evil dictator.
It makes them almost look moderate.


Btw, I suspect that Al Jazeera did lay the basis for the recent uprisings. It would be interesting to get a short report about AJ's relations to Qatar's government in the past few weeks and about how much (and what kind of) pressure Qatar is getting because of AJ.

carl
03-13-2011, 09:22 PM
Not at all. Remember the year; 1994. Russia could easily have mobilised the military and aeroflot Il-76s for a massive airlift.

Yes, I remember that 1994 was also the year that the Russians entered Grozny for the first time and had a bit of trouble. I also wonder how many of those IL-76s could actually fly at the time, or any Russian AF plane. Russia was strong on paper but in practice maybe not so much.

Besides, if I were going to pick a nation to mount a military intervention for a humanitarian purpose almost anybody except maybe North Korea would come before the Russkis.


How an African army would have been maintained in the field? Guess how.
Tip: They need no sandbag fortress with air-conditioned containers and McDonalds franchise.

That's true they don't need Mickey Ds. But they do need food, ammunition, fuel etc and they may have had trouble getting it there. Of course, that may not have been so much trouble for them as being African forces they may have just taken what they needed from the locals. You have more confidence in African forces than I do.


Even Luxembourg could have made a difference; mobilise their infantry battalion, charter seven airliners, send them in and let them loose in platoon-sized teams to hunt down and disarm mobs and gangs.

And Mexico and Fiji and Finland and Sarawak etc etc etc. But for all of them it would have been a major effort, for us, no.

Dayuhan
03-14-2011, 01:48 AM
In a practical sense as it applied to Rwanda in 1994, yes. We were the only ones with enough airlift that, for us, it would not have taken much. For others it would have been impossible. We were the only ones with AC-130s and tools like that. We were the only ones. And we stood by and watched.

I'd have to agree with Ken and Fuchs. Others could have, and they also stood and watched. I'd also have to point out that every time the US steps up and carries the weight, we encourage others who could develop the capacity to make it easier for them to make a difference to sit back, decline to spend the money, and assume that the Americans will do it.

Of course timing matters. If the US expedition in Somalia had gone smoothly and that incident in Mogadishu had never happened, the US would have been a lot more inclined to act in Rwanda. If we hadn't overextended and gotten mired down in Afghanistan and Iraq, and if we hadn't run into an economic crisis, we'd be a lot more inclined to intervene in Libya today. That's not meant to criticize the US or suggest that we are unusually capricious. Every nation faces these patterns and these constraints. That's why it's fundamentally ineffective for the world to rely on one power to clean up everybody else's mess: realistically, there's a lot of mess out there and no power can be relied upon to have the resources, will, and domestic political support at any (or every) given time.

If this sort of thing is going to be done, there has to be a multilateral capacity for doing it, and everybody who thinks it needs to be done has to be prepared to contribute either force or money. There has to be provision for rapid decision making, even if that means that there won't always be consensus. That's not easy, but neither is it easy to expect one country to carry all the weight, unless of course you're the one sitting in the armchair or the back seat and pointing the finger. The US may need to exercise some leadership to promote the development of such capacity, and counterintuitive though it may be, part of that leadership may lie in refusal to do everything that people say needs to be done. If we step up and carry the weight every time, why should anyone else bother to try, or bother to develop the needed capacity?

If we're looking at Libya today, why would we assume the US must take the lead in any action against Gadhafi's forces? The vast majority of Libya's oil flows to Europe, the Europeans are in the neighborhood, and we've long heard how committed they are to democracy, human rights, and the proper behaviour of nations. They have air forces too, or so we are led to believe. If you look purely at what's available in the area, close enough to deploy, they probably have more than we do. Certainly the US could play a role, but how is it our responsibility to play the primary role?


That is some powerful stuff, it is the cornerstone of my heritage as an American citizen, and I embrace it.

I embrace it too, but I'm not prepared to assume that we should export it. Telling other people how to organize their governments is not, so far as I know, part of our heritage as American citizens. Not that we haven't tried it enough times, but we've had anything but universal success at it, and the effort is in no way implicit in what we are.

Pete
03-14-2011, 02:58 AM
These calls for intervention in Libya bring to mind Colin Powell's comment to President Bush about the Pottery Barn before we went into Iraq -- "If you break it you own it."

Dayuhan
03-14-2011, 03:12 AM
These calls for intervention in Libya bring to mind Colin Powell's comment to President Bush about the Pottery Barn before we went into Iraq -- "If you break it you own it."

Aside from that, every time the US intervenes in a place with oil it is widely assumed that there's a nefarious plan to gain ownership. That perception has been used effectively against us in the past, and will be again if we create the circumstances that encourage it.

RJ
03-14-2011, 03:14 AM
As Dayahun posted
If we're looking at Libya today, why would we assume the US must take the lead in any action against Gadhafi's forces? The vast majority of Libya's oil flows to Europe, the Europeans are in the neighborhood, and we've long heard how committed they are to democracy, human rights, and the proper behaviour of nations. They have air forces too, or so we are led to believe. If you look purely at what's available in the area, close enough to deploy, they probably have more than we do. Certainly the US could play a role, but how is it our responsibility to play the primary role?

Fuchs - Where does Germany and France get most of thier petrol products?

France recognized the Rebels in Lybia. If Gadaffi routs them France is up to river with out a paddle as far as exports from Lybia goes. What is Germanys' position on the Gadaffi vs the People of Lybia's Rebel Forces?

I'm sure some one in Europe can look up and post the percentages each European Nation recieves in oil from each muslim hotspot in Africa and the Middle East.

I'd like to see those numbers. All of us in the west are in economies that are driven by oil. No power source has yet been developed that will replaced oil in any signifigant way for decades to come.

Dayuhan
03-14-2011, 03:32 AM
It is true that Europe can replace Libyan crude with oil from other sources, but there would be some complications... especially for Italy, which takes the largest slice of Libya's exports, but for France and Germany as well. Libyan oil is light, sweet, and close; replacing it with lower grades would require retooling of refineries and sourcing equivalent grades might need a price premium. Increased dependence on Russia or on oil transiting through Russia also has some potential complications.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the Europeans will do. Probably just talk, but we will see. Presumably the Continent could grow a testicle (two would seem optimistic) if its interests are sufficiently impacted, but what level of impact would be sufficient remains unknown.

Ken White
03-14-2011, 04:20 AM
These calls for intervention in Libya bring to mind Colin Powell's comment to President Bush about the Pottery Barn before we went into Iraq -- "If you break it you own it."However, that's not what he said:


It is said that I used the “Pottery Barn rule.” I never did it; [Thomas] Friedman did it … But what I did say … [is that] once you break it, you are going to own it, and we’re going to be responsible for 26 million people standing there looking at us. And it’s going to suck up a good 40 to 50 percent of the Army for years. And it’s going to take all the oxygen out of the political environment. . . (LINK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule).

I suspect he said what he did say it in an attempt to deter Bush from going to Iraq (he's one of those who absorbed the old US Army dictum to avoid a land war in Asia, the rule Gates thinks we should rediscover...). I know Powell knows better from a little talk he gave during his brief stint as the FORSCOM Cdr. It's really okay to go in and just break things and leave quickly in some circumstances. In many, it's advisable...

All it takes is a little finesse -- and some skill...:wry:

Dayuhan
03-14-2011, 04:51 AM
All it takes is a little finesse -- and some skill...:wry:

I'm not even sure finesse is always required.

Breaking stuff, with our without finesse, communicates an immediate, tangible, and eminently comprehensible message: provoking us has consequences and they aren't desirable.

Not sticking around to fix stuff is often a very good idea. We usually can't fix things, and we can easily end up making them worse. When we try to fix things we communicate the message that we somehow are responsible for fixing things, and that we are accountable when the fix goes awry. We provide a static target for anyone who wants to have a go at an American and an ideal propaganda vehicle for those who want to portray us as a colonial occupier.

Go in, impose consequences on whoever did us dirty (if nobody did, we don't need to be there) and go away while we're still on top of the heap and people still fear us. Leaving while we're on top communicates that we don't really want to run the place, and that we can come back and do some stomping any time it suits us. Leaving when we're mired down and the other side is ascendant communicates defeat.

Ken White
03-14-2011, 06:01 AM
I'm not even sure finesse is always required.and even to that -- however, a little adroitness does tend to keep down own casualties... :D
Not sticking around to fix stuff is often a very good idea. We usually can't fix things, and we can easily end up making them worse.True.
We provide a static target for anyone who wants to have a go at an American and an ideal propaganda vehicle for those who want to portray us as a colonial occupier.Yes. plus been my observation that if someone is in dire need, they'll take help from anyone, even someone they normally dislike. Also noted that five minutes after the crisis is over and straits are no longer dire, guilt and distaste at self for needing helps start to bubble up. Twenty minuted late, that translates into resentment at the one who helped...

Amazing number of hands that fed get bitten.
Go in, impose consequences on whoever did us dirty (if nobody did, we don't need to be there)True, particularly that latter.
Leaving when we're mired down and the other side is ascendant communicates defeat.Yes -- that syndrome and misperception has helped put us where we are today. :rolleyes:

JMA
03-14-2011, 08:33 AM
I'd have to agree with Ken and Fuchs. Others could have, and they also stood and watched. I'd also have to point out that every time the US steps up and carries the weight, we encourage others who could develop the capacity to make it easier for them to make a difference to sit back, decline to spend the money, and assume that the Americans will do it.

Carl, I'm with you on this one. FWIW ;)

You are absolutely correct that it would not have taken much to knock that genocide on the head. The UN was already there and they saw what was coming yet despite this their numbers were reduced. This IMHO is close to criminal negligence. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#UNAMIR_and_the_international_comm unity):


Despite emphatic demands from UNAMIR's commanders in Rwanda before and throughout the genocide, its requests for authorization to end it were refused, and its intervention capacity was reduced.

So one more time then from the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystanders-to-genocide/4571/):


In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective.

Then finally I believe that indifference degrades us as humans. I say OK turn your back and walk away but in so doing realise what that makes you as a person...


Indifference is not so much a gesture of looking away--of choosing to be passive--as it is an active disinclination to feel. Indifference shuts down the humane, and does it deliberately, with all the strength deliberateness demands. Indifference is as determined--and as forcefully muscular--as any blow.

From Holocaust Bystanders (http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/people/bystand.htm)

Fuchs
03-14-2011, 09:15 AM
As Dayahun posted

Fuchs - Where does Germany and France get most of thier petrol products

Russia leads by far, followed by Norway and UK - then Libya.


Btw, the U.S. refineries are known for being obsolete due to marginal investments for decades - the European refineries are on the average not in such bad shape, at least not the Central European ones. I doubt that they would need to retool mush - and even if they did, we've got a huge industry sector for machine & tool production.

Overall I think a loss of the Libyan 7% oil imports would push us out of business as usual, but it wouldn't be a really major national problem.
In worst case we simply offer more money for gasoline than the East European can afford. ;)

Dayuhan
03-14-2011, 09:18 AM
We were the only ones who could have, and we should have.


You are absolutely correct that it would not have taken much to knock that genocide on the head.

One of these statements can be true, or the other can be, but not both. If it would not have taken much, the US were not the only ones who could have done it.


Then finally I believe that indifference degrades us as humans. I say OK turn your back and walk away but in so doing realise what that makes you as a person...

There's a difference between indifference and the knowledge that one nation cannot be handed the responsibility for assuring that the rest of the human race behaves. That's not a reasonable expectation and anyone that holds that expectation is going to be disappointed.

carl
03-14-2011, 12:25 PM
Fuchs is correct, others had the capability. Even had they not we could have done what I got to do in '64 -- hop on a US C-130 and ferry and jump Belgique paratroopers in the Congo. We've provided airlift for many people going many places we did not send ground troops. LINK (http://www.google.com/search?q=US+airlift+of+peacekeepers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), LINK (http://amcmuseum.org/history/airlifts/congo_airlift.php), LINK (http://www.historynet.com/congo-crisis-operation-dragon-rouge.htm), LINK (http://pdg.af.edu/Web%20Site/CHAPTERS/Chapter%2002/TEXT/2.14.4.html).

We didn't even offer airlift to others, and airlift is the one thing that we do better than anybody.


The mood in the US after the Mogadishu screw up by Delta and the Rangers -- and make no mistake, they're the ones that screwed the pooch -- was totally opposed to any intervention anywhere. Rwanda was the victim of two pieces of bad luck: Timing and not one single US interest. You may think stopping genocide is in the interest of the US. The folks who'd have gotten killed and their parents, wives and kids might disagree.No it's not a fallacy. A thing is either right or wrong. The issue with both China and Russia is not that we could not have stopped it because we could have -- the issue is the cost. What you're saying is if it appears * the cost won't be too high, we should go in, OTOH, if it might be too great, we just cannot. :confused:

A lot of ideas in the above paragraph. I would say the inside the beltway crowd was in no mood to do anything after Mogadishu. The Americans, if told that we were going to make a small effort but decisive effort to stop a genocide by the knife, would have been up for the effort. We are a great people handicapped by poor leaders, especially in that case.

It is true that 800,000 sliced and brain shattered to death Rwandans not dying was not in the vital interest of the US. The internet still worked, gas prices were low, beer was cheap and the Indians didn't win the world series. Life went on as pleasantly as before. But we could have kept most of those people from dying a wide eyed terror stricken death and that would have benefited them, humanity and thereby us.

The question of the human cost when viewed on an individual basis is unanswerable. What is worth a child? Has any war we've fought since the days of Indian attacks really been needed? We have oceans between us and them. It is my opinion that the men who would have gone, volunteer combat soldiers, if told that they were going to risk in order to save hundreds of thousands of innocents from having their heads bashed in; they would have been willing to chance it.

It is obviously a matter of cost. If a great good can be done with very little cost, you are rather less than justified in not doing it. Cost of course is a relative term. What is small cost for us is great cost to another and they cannot be blamed for not trying. If the 5 year old sees the 14 year old snatch the purse of the old lady, he isn't blamed for not helping. If the 27 year old olympic track star sees the same thing, he is blamed. It is not wrong that the track star is blamed because he didn't help and the 5 year is not blamed. We were the track star.

Do you really think we could have stopped Mao's China from causing the famines and the other evils? That track star can't be blamed for not going up to a pair of grizzly bears that are eating the mailman and punching them on the nose


So you're willing to interfere because the target is weak but not to do so if it is strong. I didn't present a fallacy because a wrong is a wrong -- you are engaging in moral equivalency -- do 'what's right' only if it might not hurt too much... ;)

No that is not moral equivalency. That is a recognition of the practical realities of life. We do what we can when we can and mourn when we can't, if we genuinely can't. In the case of Rwanda, we could have but we didn't and we rationalize our failure.


How can you say with any degree of assurance that stopping the killing in Rwanda would be a "relatively small effort?"Oh? How so? Please tell me of what the US -- or I -- should be ashamed.

Are you looking for certainty? It won't be found anywhere. As for a guess as to the magnitude of the effort required to stop the slaughter, I say that from the history of the continent in the last 70 years, that chances were good that effort would have been relatively small. Also the slaughter stopped because the RPA stopped it, light armed, foot mobile troops who were outnumbered by the killers. That may be another indicator.

You don't have to be ashamed. The Americans don't have to be ashamed, they would have responded if asked. America should be ashamed because the leaders we elect didn't act. I am ashamed because of that.

Many here say others were capable of helping the Rwandans live. In an absolute physical sense they were. But that overlooks the relative likelyhood of somebody helping if the cost is small vs. large. For us the cost would have been relatively small. But even that overlooks something much more important; the heart for it. When I say we were the only ones, it is as much a matter of us occasionally having the heart for it vs. the others not having the heart for it. We would have had the heart for it if our leaders had not been feckless and had asked. The other countries would probably have followed. That is the reason we, the US, were the only chance those dead Rwandans had, and we let them down.

It is well to say if we don't act then the others will have to. Maybe that is true. But even if it is it will be a long time before they develop the heart for it. In the meantime, innocents pay.

The way it is is we are the leaders, if we act the others will follow. If we act in a small way in Libya now, the others will follow, slowly maybe but they will. If we don't they won't act. Besides now, we even have an interest or two and the Libyan rebels will take great heart from it.

JMA
03-14-2011, 01:29 PM
That is the reason we, the US, were the only chance those dead Rwandans had, and we let them down.

Correct. And with that down the toilet goes the US reputation as the leader of the free world. Little wonder tin pot dictators can just sit back and thumb their noses at the US and the EU. They know the US is mainly hot air and hollow threats.


It is well to say if we don't act then the others will have to. Maybe that is true. But even if it is it will be a long time before they develop the heart for it. In the meantime, innocents pay.

Its called leadership. You watch toddlers develop it in the playground and see the others happily follow their lead. You hope your kid is one of the natural leaders but that can't be guaranteed.

What we see from the US over the North Africa matters of the recent past is not leadership. The President, the Clinton woman and others have a lot to say on what's going on but offer no concrete action. Why are they doing all this talking and issuing of statements if they are not going to do anything? Maybe the Russians are getting it nearer correct with what seems to be the approach of "don't open your mouth unless you are prepared to back it up with action" - or the old "don't draw your weapon unless you are prepared to use it" .

Obviously the Obama administration does not understand the first thing about leadership. I ask myself after hearing one of these "talking head" speeches what the speaker wants the reaction to be? Is he/she just trying to seem knowledgeable or informed or are they wanting to stimulate some sort of reaction?

Take Obama and Libya. What does he say? That he wants Gaddafi to stop killing the people or he is going to sic the security council on him (while knowing full well that the two regimes with equally low human rights records stand ready to veto any aggressive action). What does the world see? A weak and vacillating excuse for a leader. Does he come across that he really cares for the people of Libya or is it that he is just going through the motions? The bottom line is that there is no US leadership on the matter... so the best advice is for someone to tell him and the Clinton woman to rather just shut up.


The way it is is we are the leaders, if we act the others will follow. If we act in a small way in Libya now, the others will follow, slowly maybe but they will. If we don't they won't act. Besides now, we even have an interest or two and the Libyan rebels will take great heart from it.

You know we watched the British empire run out of steam where the Brits were no longer up to the challenges that the leadership of a vast empire demanded anymore. They just wimped away into the sunset suffering one diplomatic humiliation after the other. Still believe it or not there are Brits who want a world class navy with reach and a military capable of responding all over the globe at a moments notice. Its over, gone, finished.

Quo vadis the US?

Bob's World
03-14-2011, 01:35 PM
There is a simple map that David Galula put in the back of his "Counterinsurgency Warfare" that is very telling. It essentially divides the world of the early 1960s into three parts. There is the "Capitalist Countries" block on the upper left; the "Communist Countries" block on the upper right; and holding up both of those at the base is the "Colonial and Semicolonial countries" block.

During the Cold War the countries of Capitalist and Communist blocks competed for influence among the countries of the Colonial and Semicolonial block in a persistent engagement of UW and FID, depending on where one had a relationship with the government, or where one was working to leverage some populace group into power as a new government.

In 1989 the Communist block stopped playing. They had turned internal, and were focused on core survival and reorganization within the block. This in turn negated the national interest that had driven much of the US engagement in the Colonial and Semi Colonial block for the previous 40+ years. So we remained engaged where we had interests tied to our economy (markets, sea lanes, energy) and also turned our back on much of the rest.

This logical decision by the U.S. had two painful secondary effects: First, it meant that unstable countries that had been held to some degree of balance by the engagement efforts of the two northern groups quickly fell out of balance, and events devolved to genocide in places like Somalia, Rwanda and the Balkans before there was sufficient media uproar to cause the US to reluctantly act on humanitarian grounds.

The second negative effect was that populaces in those countries where we sustained our system of Cold War controls/relationships began to increasingly grow less tolerant of a presence that they could no longer rationalize. This in turn was inflamed by governments in those countries which had largely been freed from any duty to draw legitimacy from their own populace to act with an ever growing sense of impunity and entitlement.

It was onto this scene that AQ emerged, empowered by the information and transportation tools of an emerging age to begin, as a non-state Actor, to play the same game that the big boys had played throughout the Cold War. Conducting FID where they had relations with a government, and UW where they sought to leverage some dissatisfied populace to create new governments favorable to them.

Now the US has a choice, we can continue to play the old game against this frustratingly slippery non-state actor that has functional sanctuary from most of the tools of statecraft; or we can design and play a new game. One that is less controlling and more sensitive to the will of the people.

I vote, as most here appreciate, for the latter. The "Good Cold Warriors" had a good run, but what they know and understand is far less relevant today than they are willing to appreciate or acknowledge. They default to "harder and faster" at the old techniques. What we need is less of that, and a little more "smarter."

omarali50
03-14-2011, 02:28 PM
I dont think the US should have jumped in with guns blazing into Libya. But I agree that Obama and Hillary are trying to have it both ways, saying things like "this will not be tolerated" while knowing fully well that they have no serious plan to do anything about it.
It would have been at least a little bit better to be more upfront. Let the rebels AND the Arab league ASK for US help. Emphasize that they are the ones saying they dont want American intervention. And maybe ask if liberals and leftists want the US to invade countries to establish democracy? At least it would have been interesting to see how that was handled...
saying less would probably have been better for Obama and Hillary. Doing more may have been even better if there were clever and workable plans out there, but there probably were not. We are at a different point in history and this is not the Punjab and the Frontier in the 1850s with Nicholseyn and Abbot running around...So it would have been better to aim low...
But then again, I may be wrong.. Maybe realpolitik demands a different combination of aggression and lies.... in which case, the indictment against the Obama administration is more serious...they have proved to be bad at both the aggression and the lying.
Still, its not like the Chinese are going to run the world now. Nobody is running the world. Which may be all for the best. Its not like we didnt have two world wars and a lot of smaller messes while the Western powers were in charge. Maybe most people in the US will actually do fine if the US doesnt have an overseas empire and is not playing world cop at great expense.
My apologies for the incoherent post. I have to run, but had some random thoughts.

J Wolfsberger
03-14-2011, 03:38 PM
Now the US has a choice, we can continue to play the old game against this frustratingly slippery non-state actor that has functional sanctuary from most of the tools of statecraft; or we can design and play a new game. One that is less controlling and more sensitive to the will of the people.

I vote, as most here appreciate, for the latter. The "Good Cold Warriors" had a good run, but what they know and understand is far less relevant today than they are willing to appreciate or acknowledge. They default to "harder and faster" at the old techniques. What we need is less of that, and a little more "smarter."

I agree that the old techniques may not work in today's world. So far, though, all we've seen are the old approaches favored by the domestic Left side of the Cold War. We, as in the "Capitalist Countries" block, seem to be spending all our time debating whether we should escalate our response from a "strongly deplore" to a full blown "harshly condemn" with a few voices recommending a deescalation to a simple "view with alarm." And while they're doing that, the rebels in Libya are getting hammered by Gaddafi's Tuareg mercenaries. The best response our Secretary of State can come up with is an absurd statement that we won't tolerate actions we are clearly tolerating.

So, I'm in agreement that we need a new game. But what does it look like?

Bob's World
03-14-2011, 04:19 PM
It looks a lot like Star Trek. Do not harm, remain neutral. Have the full power of the Enterprise on station to employ as necessary, and never be the guy sent on deployment with a listing such as "crew member" in the credits...

carl
03-14-2011, 04:27 PM
...never be the guy sent on deployment with a listing such as "crew member" in the credits...

Or girl either. I used to hate that. They always would kill off the prettiest girl crewmember.

AdamG
03-14-2011, 05:18 PM
Narrator's voice (sotto voce) : Meanwhile, back at the Topic...


“The UAE Air Force can deploy couple of squadrons – one F-16 Block 60 and another Mirage 2000-9 – the Saudi Air Force can deploy a couple of F-15S squadrons and Egypt a couple of F-16 squadrons out of Mersi Matrouh Air Base in western Egypt,” Al-Bu Ainnain said. “This would provide 120 fighters and attack aircrafts that would be backed with airborne early warning planes like Egyptian E-2C Hawkeye or Saudi AWACS, some unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for reconnaissance, and air-refueling tankers from Saudi Arabia and couple of Egyptian or UAE helicopter squadrons comp osed of Apache Longbow gunships, Blackhawks and Chinook helicopters, for search and rescue missions.” Crews and troops needed for the operation could be quickly airlifted to western Egypt, and even Algeria, within hours using a large fleet of UAE and Egyptian C-130 and Qatari C-17 transporters.

*

According to reports out of Libya, only few Su-22 and MiG-23 aircrafts were seen involved in the air raids in addition to MiMi-24 gunships. As for Air Defense, Gadhafi’s forces are believed to be in possession of a few batteries of Soviet-era SAM-2, SAM-3 and SAM-6 surface to air missiles. “All of the Libyan Air Defense SAM’s and radars can be taken out swiftly by the arsenal of smart weapons and cruise missiles in possession today by GCC and Egyptian Air Forces,” Al-Bu Ainnain said. “Runways can be destr oyed with bunker-busters to ground all the jets, and the gunships can be easily destroyed on the ground.” He pointed out that GCC and Egyptian Air Forces have considerably enhanced their joint-operations capabilities as a result of almost annual exercises they have done together along with the U.S. and some EU countries. “Issues related to command and control and interoperability would be resolved quickly which would ensure a smooth running of NFZ operations.”


http://www.eurasiareview.com/analysis/a-joint-arab-force-could-better-enforce-a-libya-no-fly-zone-11032011/

Surferbeetle
03-14-2011, 06:05 PM
If you can dream-and not make dreams your master;
If you can think-and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:

Gulf states send force to Bahrain following protests (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12729786), 14 March 2011 Last updated at 11:58 ET, at BBC


Troops from a number of Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, have arrived in Bahrain in response to a request from the small Gulf kingdom, officials say.


The troops are part of a deployment by the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC), a six-nation regional grouping which includes Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

It is believed they are intended to guard key facilities such as oil and gas installations and financial institutions.


The intervention from Bahrain's predominantly Sunni neighbours may deepen the rift between Shia and Sunni Muslims in Bahrain and beyond, says the BBC's Middle East analyst Magdi Abdelhadi.

France and Libya, Sarkozy's Libyan surprise (http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/03/france_and_libya), Mar 14th 2011, 13:12 by S.P. | PARIS at the Economist


AS HILLARY CLINTON prepares to discuss Libya with President Nicolas Sarkozy this afternoon, she could be forgiven for a touch of confusion about what exactly the French are up to. In an attempt to make up for complicity and dithering in Tunisia and Egypt, France has stuck its neck out over Libya. After initial hesitations, it has become the most vigorous advocate of a no-fly zone over the country, and is working with Britain on a UN Security Council resolution to this end. So far, so commendable. But its apparent decision last week to recognise the Libyan opposition—the first big western power to do so—surprised not only France’s allies but members of Mr Sarkozy’s own government.

Energy markets braced for shock, By Javier Blas, commodities editor, Published: March 13 2011 16:56 | Last updated: March 13 2011 16:56, at the Financial Times


Japan has shut down 9,700 megawatts of nuclear capacity, which equals about a fifth of the total. The country no longer influences energy markets as it once did because of its shift away from oil but the loss of nuclear power will force Tokyo’s utilities to scramble for crude, thermal coal and LNG as replacements.


If the country were to replace all its shutdown nuclear capacity with oil, it would have to import 375,000 barrels a day more on top of Japan’s expected purchases this year of about 4.25m b/d.

Ken White
03-14-2011, 07:13 PM
We didn't even offer airlift to others, and airlift is the one thing that we do better than anybody.Not least because no one wanted it. You might consider that and wonder why...
A lot of ideas in the above paragraph...We are a great people handicapped by poor leaders, especially in that case.Perhaps. I'm not all that sure we're such a great people. If we were, then as JMA likes to point out, we wouldn't elect such feckless leaders... :D
It is true that 800,000 sliced and brain shattered to death Rwandans not dying was not in the vital interest of the US...But we could have kept most of those people from dying a wide eyed terror stricken death and that would have benefited them, humanity and thereby us.Another perhaps. The likelihood is that we would have stopped some deaths but not all that many -- takes time to deploy nationwide, even in a small nation. Then we would have been castigated for not doing it right or doing enough -- and would have had an indeterminate number of US casualties in the process. You and JMA can dismiss those casualties, politicians in a democratic state cannot. Commanders of Armies in such nations should not.
The question of the human cost when viewed on an individual basis is unanswerable... they would have been willing to chance it.Had they been ordered to go they would have -- not quite the same thing as your comment. That, however misses the point that to get them to Rwanda under any circumstances requires an order. The reluctance to issue that order was very sensible IMO. You and JMA do not agree -- your prerogative. It was not in our national interest to do that and, once more, one cannot ascribe human traits to a nation. Nations are not and should not be altruistic.
It is obviously a matter of cost. If a great good can be done with very little cost, you are rather less than justified in not doing it. That's one way to look at it and as you say, cost is relative -- and a judgement call. :wry:
We were the track star.That statement may be the crux of our disagreement. I disagree that we are that. We do have some capabilities -- we also have some very significant shortfalls. It is my sensing that you and JMA do not care about those or are not fully conversant with them. Those shortfall also had an effect on the decision to not go. Without going into excruciating detail on those problems, they were highlighted by the experience in Mogadishu -- at that time fresh in everyone's mind. Particularly in the minds of those with the responsibility to make the decision. Many with no responsilbity in that regard disagreed at the time as you now do.

Do you really think we could have stopped Mao's China from causing the famines and the other evils?Yes.
That track star can't be blamed for not going up to a pair of grizzly bears that are eating the mailman and punching them on the nose.Moral equivalency -- either one has a perceived duty to intervene if evil is being done or one does not. It is not a conditional thing.

The fact is that we could have stopped either Russia or China but the cost would have been ferocious, perhaps unsustainable -- certainly true if we had tried to interfere in both. The cost of interfering in Rwanda would probably have been less but there would still have been a cost. You are willing, you say, to have asked Americans to underwrite that cost. Whether you -- or JMA -- would have done so with the actual responsibility is not known. :wry:

What we both are saying there, regardless of morality, is that intervening in China or Russia does not pass the cost:benefit test. You believe Rwanda does pass that test, I do not. JMA may also believe it does or he may be frying other fish, either way it is -- was -- a judgement call as was that on China and Russia and it was made as it was, ergo, you two are in a minority position. That doesn't mean either of you is wrong or that I an others are correct -- just that a judgement was applied and a decision made. For good or bad, it's now history and isn't gong to be changed.
No that is not moral equivalency. That is a recognition of the practical realities of life.Actually it's both...
We do what we can when we can and mourn when we can't, if we genuinely can't.And that is rationalizing the unfairness of having to adjust to practicalities... ;)
In the case of Rwanda, we could have but we didn't and we rationalize our failure.Who is this "we." You aren't rationalizing it, you just believe it was a bad decision. I'm not rationalizing it, I believe it was the correct decision, therefor I do not see it as a failure. Some may, they certainly can do so if they wish.
Are you looking for certainty? It won't be found anywhere.Heh. After 45 years in a trade that knows no certainty, I'm certainly neither looking for it nor do I expect it. What I can do is assess probabilities and look at that same 70 years and determine that interventions there have not ended well -- for anyone.

You don't have to be ashamed.That's nice.
The Americans don't have to be ashamed, they would have responded if asked.That's one thing we can agree on. The issue is whether they should have been 'asked.'
America should be ashamed because the leaders we elect didn't act.Hmm. That's one opinion. Mine differs.
I am ashamed because of that.Also your prerogative.

I'm not one bit ashamed about Rwanda -- I am however ashamed of the way this Nation, America, your paragon of virtue, has treated those from other nations where it has intervened. The plight of the South Korean agents and operators we shipped north, of the Hmong and the numerous south Viet Namese we employed for various things, of the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs and Southern Iraqi Shia among others we have abandoned. Those things are something to be bothered about...

As JMA has said, correctly, America has proven it cannot be relied upon ( * )...
Many here say others were capable of helping the Rwandans live...That is the reason we, the US, were the only chance those dead Rwandans had, and we let them down.I believe that statement to problematic on many levels but this is no place for an ideological discussion. Suffice to say IMO we were not the only chance by a long shot but other nations did not intervene as they did not believe it was in their interest to do so. So also did we decide that was the case. You disagree. That's okay.
It is well to say if we don't act then the others will have to. Maybe that is true. But even if it is it will be a long time before they develop the heart for it. In the meantime, innocents pay.As they always have and likely always will. Unfair world.
The way it is is we are the leaders, if we act the others will follow. If we act in a small way in Libya now, the others will follow, slowly maybe but they will. If we don't they won't act. Besides now, we even have an interest or two and the Libyan rebels will take great heart from it.I do not agree with that assessment. The JMA position stated above ( * ) applies.

I think it has never been fully correct, is excessively idealistic and is even a bit romantic. I realize that many in the US and around the world believe -- or want to believe -- in that to one extent or another but I see it a flawed wish with little basis in fact or history. People will not follow our lead, they will do what we pay for (to include provision of airlift, equipment and personnel costs as we did for the Koreans and Thais in Viet Nam and have done elsewhere to include Iraq and Afghanistan) or accompany us for no pay if they see it as in their interest to do so. I also suggest that attitude, that misperception, has led us into numerous foreign adventures since WW II and NONE of them have been unqualified successes while all of them have lessened our status in the eyes of many to one degree or another.

People can be led and will give of them selves. Nations cannot be led and they don't give anything without a reason that provides at least some benefits to themselves. It is IMO very unrealistic to wish that were not so nor am I at all certain the world would be better off for such an attitude. Depends on one's attitude toward what government ought to be doing -- and bicycle helmets -- I suppose.

As I said, unfair world.

To return to our regularly scheduled programming, Libya is also not in our interest. IMO, of course.

ganulv
03-14-2011, 07:35 PM
Lafayette was only dispatched to the Continental Army after the Battles of Saratoga because the French were awaiting indication that they were putting money down on a winner. What indication have the anti-Qaddafi forces given that U.S. involvement at this juncture would amount to military aid rather than service as a proxy army?

carl
03-14-2011, 08:08 PM
Lafayette was only dispatched to the Continental Army after the Battles of Saratoga because the French were awaiting indication that they were putting money down on a winner.

Lafayette arranged to enter American service in Dec of 1776. He arrived in April of 1777, some months before the Battles of Saratoga were fought. I always thought he came here because of personal enthusiasm for the cause. When he he arrived he was only 20 years old and at least according to Wikipedia, the king ordered him not to come.


What indication have the anti-Qaddafi forces given that U.S. involvement at this juncture would amount to military aid rather than service as a proxy army?

Military aid can range from sending surplus socks to landing the entire Marine Corps and putting all the B-52s at the disposal of the Benghazi Chamber of Commerce. What we send, if we provide anything beyond encouraging words, is in our hands.

ganulv
03-14-2011, 08:18 PM
He arrived in April of 1777, some months before the Battles of Saratoga were fought.
Against Louis’ orders (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gilbert_du_Motier,_marquis_de_Lafayette#Return_to_ France). He returned in 1780 with his blessing and news of aid.

Ken White
03-14-2011, 08:39 PM
What we send, if we provide anything beyond encouraging words, is in our hands.That's only true so far it is conditioned by other commitments, by other potential contingencies and other Theater requirements as well as, for such an operation, the tangible costs and amount of risk (human [us and them], political, military and economic) we see commensurate with or measured against the potential for any benefits.

I sadly note that feeling good or morally superior is not a reward or benefit for a nation as opposed to generally being so for individuals or some groups of them.

Surferbeetle
03-14-2011, 09:10 PM
The Economist has a very interesting interactive tool on their website, entitled Arab unrest, Build your own revolutionary index (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/03/arab_unrest_0), Mar 14th 2011, 14:06 which takes a look at 17 separate countries in the ME (to include Libya), and aids you in developing an estimate for a revolutionary index by allowing you to varying values for:


Years in power
% of population under 25
Total population under 25
GDP per person
Democracy Ranking
Corruption Ranking
Press Freedom Ranking
Adult literacy
Internet users


Setting for Years in power (37%), Total population under 25 (12%), Corruption Ranking (16%), Adult literacy (15%), Internet users (16%) with minor % for the remainder lead to an interesting ranking...

Japan earthquake disrupts technology companies (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12731320), 14 March 2011 Last updated at 14:56 ET, at BBC


Technology firms are facing major disruption to supplies in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami which have devastated parts of Japan.


Toshiba, which makes around a third of the world's NAND memory chips - found in devices such as Apple's iPad - said on Monday that it was restarting a chip factory in Iwate, northern Japan.

Even so, spot prices for 16-gigabit NAND flash memory chips rose sharply - up 12.5% from the close on 11 March, according to DRAMeXchange, Asia's largest spot market for chips.


The seas around Japan are a major hub for undersea telecoms cables, forming a critical part of the global internet.

According to Stephan Beckert, an analyst with telecoms research group TeleGeography, several sub sea cables have been damaged as a result of the earthquake.

Ken White
03-14-2011, 10:48 PM
Hard to disagree with that. He contends, accurately I believe, that we do not need to be overly concerned about what type of government others have. However, he also proposes a variation on part of that old cold war mentality, to wit, assisting in the provision of good governance. I've tweaked him often about the dichotomy of not interfering but assisting...

Which brings me to what constitutes interference (good) and interference (bad). Quite simply, I think the difference is a matter of individual opinion. However, I am convinced that ANY intereference of one nation into the affairs, bloody or not, of another which is based on nominal moral and / or humanitarian grounds is fraught with applying ones (or one group) judgement to a situation that one might not fully comprehend. That is not to say one cannot or should not so intervene.

It is to say one should be very well informed of all the potential pitfalls as well as all the apparent benefits. It is not enough that the intervention be seen as in the best interest of mankind (or subsets thereof).

I have no hesitation to advocate the use of force, all for it in fact -- however, I do think force carries with a responsibility to be used wisely and inappropriate amounts and I do think it should be used only after it is obvious other methods have failed. It is, in our case, a national asset and should be used only for those activities where it is appropriate, in the proper amount and in the national interest.

I first heard the phrase "We must do what we can..." in relation to fixing other nations in the early 1960s from a WH staffer who came to Fort Bragg to tell us why were were going to Laos. Unfortunately, that one didn't work out too well for us. I've heard it in variations many times since -- and none of those worked out very well either. Viet Nam in particular was a major drag. Iraq was not a 'cake walk.' We're still in Afghanistan -- and Kosovo -- remember that one "It'll only take a year..." Kosovo is an absolutely brilliant example of moral triumphalism overcoming common sense for no coherent reason.

In these 'failed state' and humanitarian imperatives' interventions, what a lot of well intentioned people are really try to do is shoot for the low hanging fruit and fix a few ills. Some are doing that solely for the potential publicity and pats on the back, most are truly sincere and well meaning.

A problem arises when we go after those 'we can' and reluctantly do not pursue or even mention where possible those in the too hard box. That's hypocritical in the eyes of many. That "many" are both in the US and in the wider world and if you think that little trick escapes notice from those in other nations, you need to get out on the street and talk, really talk, to the locals.

That unintended consequence is not in the national interest. Ever.

Well intentioned people who advocate 'fixing' wrongs, particularly when they have no intention of getting involved in the actual doing of that and will likely not be personally affected are, frankly, not helpful. While most truly mean well and are sincere, they often do not fully comprehend the forces they are likely to set in motion. In fact, I'm convinced such well intentioned types have done more harm to the US over the last 70 or so years than all the evil people, crooked politicians, chicanery and natural disasters combined.

Carter got snookered into going into Afghanistan while Clinton got snookered into going into Kosovo and Bush into Iraq. Will Obama get snookered into Libya? Stay tuned...

Though Moammar seems to be doing well enough that the issue may be moot. Some can then decry the failure of the West to react forcefully. I'm sure most are advocating that we do something forceful about Iran. At least, I guess they are...

Fuchs
03-14-2011, 11:20 PM
Libya is a test of the self-discipline of principled doves.

I am against a military intervention (NFZ IS a military intervention!) by NATO in this case and similar cases.

I'm not opposed to more countries recognising the opposition 'government', to the UNSC legalising military intervention and some non-allied (to Germany) power intervening there.


We should prove that we can learn lessons without forgetting them in record tempo.

Bob's World
03-14-2011, 11:27 PM
We should be able to influence Qadaffi short of employing direct military power. Why hit him over the head, when we can kick him in the crotch...or wallet, or whatever else it is that he values and that is vulnerable to "targeting."

We too often employ military strikes that punish the poor guys in the military or hurt the populace by destroying infrastructure; or employ sanctions like we did in Iraq for years that punish a populace that has no say in the governance.

When these guys vest all power in themselves, we need to make it equally personal when we seek to influence them. We need to understand what they value most, and engage that (ala the horses head in the bed of the movie mogul in Godfather part 1) We need to know where the pressure points are, and apply appropriate pressure. So smarter targeting is one aspect.


As to Ken's question regarding how to we influence without overly intervening that is a good question and one I think about a great deal. One concept that I think helps is the area of law known as "Master and Servant". From Black's law dictionary:

“The relation of master and servant exists where one person, for pay or other valuable consideration, enters into the service of another and devote to him his personal labor for an agreed period. The relation exists where the employer has the right to select the employee, the power to remove and discharge him and the right to direct both what work shall be done and the manner in which it shall be done.”

Within the borders of the US our government stays fairly on track in remembering that the government is the servant and the populace is the master in this relationship. As we go overseas to 1st world countries that slips a little; It slips more in 2nd world; and by the time we get to 3rd world countries it has completely inverted. In other words, we're not a very good house guest. This is one reason why the best COIN the US has ever done has been at home, because at home we remember that the government is the servant so we are quicker to make fixes in the government rather than impose them on the populace.

In places like Afghanistan we come to see ourselves as the Master and therefore are far more apt to force the local government and populace to adjust to us. Stepping out of that "master" mentality is one aspect of these new approaches that we need to adopt.

A work in progress...

Fuchs
03-14-2011, 11:42 PM
I think it's too ate to influence Gadaffi directly. He faces treatment as a war criminal if he loses power.

I'd rather advise to undermine the loyalty of his supporters.

carl
03-15-2011, 12:41 AM
Ken:

Our disagreement over Rwanda is this, I believe it would have been wise to have saved the lives of 800,000 people and it was borderline immoral not to have done so, or at least done more. You believe not.


Moral equivalency -- either one has a perceived duty to intervene if evil is being done or one does not. It is not a conditional thing.

This is a definition of moral equivalency I pulled off the net, class notes from a KSU English class.

"An author who suggests that one act of serious wrongdoing does not differ from a minor offence commits the fallacy of moral equivalence. Many people say that “all sins are equal in God’s eyes,” which effectively equates ethnic cleansing with stealing a pencil. Our laws make many precise distinctions amongst the various types of violent crimes. Motives are different, and so these criminals are held accountable accordingly."

That is how I understand the phrase. You may have to adjust your definition. Or you don't have to.


I'm not one bit ashamed about Rwanda -- I am however ashamed of the way this Nation, America, your paragon of virtue, has treated those from other nations where it has intervened. The plight of the South Korean agents and operators we shipped north, of the Hmong and the numerous south Viet Namese we employed for various things, of the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs and Southern Iraqi Shia among others we have abandoned. Those things are something to be bothered about...

The "paragon of virtue" line isn't fair. I have decried all those things numerous times in the past, except the South Korean agents thing. I didn't know about that one. You don't have to play like that.

We have a chance to do a good and benefit ourselves at the same time, now, in Libya. The cost can be minimal. It might not work but that risked would be low also. I've already fully explained why I think so.

Ken White
03-15-2011, 12:46 AM
We did nothing. Both approaches above have a great deal of merit, both would have worked well some years ago. They may still work today but they would have been so much better and more effective a decade or more ago. :cool:

One of the problems with far too many of the well intentioned approachists is that they will pay lip service to removing Qaddafi like rulers in private conversations or even in public but when actually in policy positions will not allow anyone to actually do anything along that line as being unseemly and / or illegal in the eyes of the international community. That is until it's too late, a crisis erupts and then they want to send troops to just fix the problem. Troops do not fix problems, they create them, they break things. The time for fixing is before the bubble bursts. :mad:

Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq I, Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq II, Rwanda and Libya. All those sent out plenty of harbingers, people were urging action -- and the interventionists did nothing until they had a mess. Then they sent in pot-stirrers...:rolleyes:

If one is really concerned about fixing things, one should emphasize early action on intelligence, diplomatic and politico-military (small 'm') efforts early on and discourage the sending of Military forces into a volatile and mostly erupting and not fully understood situations where such commitment is highly likely to do as much harm as good.

Pete
03-15-2011, 01:33 AM
... the well intentioned approachists ...
Regrettably the budget for the U.S. Grammar and Spelling Police has been cut by the recent squabbles on Capitol Hill, so for now we have to lay low and keep a low profile. However, we haven't gone away and we know who you are. :cool:

Ken White
03-15-2011, 01:56 AM
Our disagreement over Rwanda is this, I believe it would have been wise to have saved the lives of 800,000 people and it was borderline immoral not to have done so, or at least done more. You believe not.That appears to be correct. Quibble on the moral bit, though...
This is a definition of moral equivalency I pulled off the net, class notes from a KSU English class...That is how I understand the phrase. You may have to adjust your definition. Or you don't have to.We both understand the same definition, we addressed only the act and we addressed remedies taken or not taken on the basis a cost:benefit ratio, not a punishment thereunto but that's getting into the weeds and I'll acknowledge partial misuse of the phrase. My point was and is that if you're going to use the moral argument for the actions -- or lack of them -- on the part of a nation, some consistency is advisable lest you be accused of hypocrisy -- of which we are, too often and quite regularly unfairly but, again, the world isn't a fair place.

I will again note that 'moral' is an individual construct and that nations are not individuals nor do they, can they, have individual attributes. Nations simply do not have morals. They can act in a manner not consistent with the moral beliefs of an individuals or group of them but they can't do immoral things. Thus it's okay for you to say that in your opinion, the moral thing to do would have been to do something about Rwanda. However, you cannot say that I thought that such an action was moral or immoral because that didn't enter into my thinking. To me, there is no morality to it, either way.
The "paragon of virtue" line isn't fair.There is no fair or unfair to it. That comment addressed a specific statement, your earlier:
Sometimes too, it is just something to be ashamed of.and this follow on:
America should be ashamed because the leaders we elect didn't act...I am ashamed because of that.The implication in those comments is that America did not live up to some higher standard, I was merely reminding you that such has often been the case and that IMO, those abandonments of people we had enticed or used for our -- not their -- ends in nations where we had or had developed some interests was far worse than not going to the possible aid of persons in a nation where we had not one interest at stake. None. IOW, I hold sins of commission to be worse than sins of omission. :wry:
You don't have to play like that.I am not playing. We're having a discussion about a subject of great national import. You believe in humanitarian intervention. Many Americans would agree with you -- many in positions of authority have exercised that authority to order such interventions.

I strongly disagree. Not because I am a heartless neanderthal but because I've been on a few of those, have seen the damage they do to the very people they were supposed to be helping. The old saw about the Hippocratic Oath should be required of all policy makers, "First, do no harm..."

So, no play involved. This is important. When anyone posits a thought here that is IMO inimical to the nation, the armed forces or to the survival of troops in the field, I tend to respond. You're a good guy Carl, and I have a lot of respect for you but I disagree quite strongly with your notion of national morality and responsibility and I've discussed this in person with a bunch of folks who believe as you do. What you and they advocate is nice, it is also potentially harmful to some people you would help, can lead to a belief -- hubris, if you will -- that America can fix it. We cannot fix a good many things (and I believe that both Rwanda and Libya fall in that category) -- and encouraging the belief that we can or should has, as I said elsewhere, done us and others far more harm than good

Further, as I said in that other comment, the history on these things is not good...
We have a chance to do a good and benefit ourselves at the same time, now, in Libya. The cost can be minimal. It might not work but that risked would be low also. I've already fully explained why I think so.And I why I disagree. We can continue to do that and so so without being disagreeable, I hope.

We'll never know what might have happened in Rwanda. Nor what might have had we intervened before today in Libya but in that other comment, I named most of those in which we engaged over the last 50 years. None achieved what their originators hoped, though the jury's still out on a few.

Intervening for 'moral' reasons has done us no favors, opting for it is usually dangerous and ill advised. It always costs more than its supporters hope and claim -- in every aspect.

The subject line is from Kennedy's 1961 Inaugural speech. Brave words. Brave words cause a lot of problems. Kennedy's long gone, we're left with a few myths. Myths also cause a lot of problems...

Surferbeetle
03-15-2011, 01:58 AM
G8 ministers meet on Libya no-fly zone (http://www.france24.com/en/20110314-g8-ministers-meet-libya-no-fly-zone), 14 MARCH 2011 - 22H10, at France 24


AFP - The Group of Eight powers gathered in Paris on Monday to thrash out a common line on possible intervention to ground the warplanes pounding Libya's rebels.


French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe vowed to step up efforts to get approval for the measure, which is backed by the 22-nation Arab League, considered crucial for dealing with the region.

But Britain and France, which are drafting a resolution for the UN Security Council, failed last week to convince their European Union partners to back the move, and the United States and Russia are also lukewarm.


However, Russia said "fundemental questions" needed to be resolved before a resolution was passed, while Germany said some questions "had not yet been answered," notably on upping political and econonmic measures against Kadhafi.


China, the only veto-wielding member of the Security Council not represented at the Paris G8 talks, is opposed to a no-fly zone.


The leader of the council, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, was quoted by the Financial Times on Monday as saying that countries not supporting the uprising would miss out on Libya's oil if Kadhafi's regime is deposed.


A further meeting and news conferences are scheduled for Tuesday.

Ken White
03-15-2011, 01:59 AM
Regrettably the budget for the U.S. Grammar and Spelling Police has been cut by the recent squabbles on Capitol Hill, so for now we have to lay low and keep a low profile. However, we haven't gone away and we know who you are. :cool:somethin I rit... :D

carl
03-15-2011, 02:17 AM
I will again note that 'moral' is an individual construct and that nations are not individuals nor do they, can they, have individual attributes. Nations simply do not have morals. They can act in a manner not consistent with the moral beliefs of an individuals or group of them but they can't do immoral things.

Were the actions of Germany, a nation state, when it occupied Poland immoral? Were the actions of Japan, a nation state, when it occupied China immoral? I am intentionally picking extreme examples to illustrate the point that I think nations can act in an immoral way.

Surferbeetle
03-15-2011, 02:22 AM
...and worth the read

A Libyan no-fly zone is only half an answer (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ae2db4a-4e70-11e0-98eb-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Gb6xFGBK), By Philip Stephens, Published: March 14 2011 20:44 | Last updated: March 14 2011 20:44, at Financial Times


The case for imposing a no-fly zone can be properly made only if its advocates are willing to follow the logic of armed intervention. There is nothing to be gained from clearing the skies if Col Gaddafi’s tanks and rocket-launchers can continue to race across the desert.

To borrow a phrase from Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, it is time to call a spade a spade. Is the west prepared to wage war on the Libyan regime – to blockade ports under Col Gaddafi’s control, to arm the opposition militias and, if need be, to bomb the armoured columns that now threaten to crush the uprising? If the answer is no, the only purpose of a no-fly zone is to salve a few political consciences.


The new enthusiasm for intervention in London and Paris, however, has drawn some caustic responses in Washington. When Messrs Cameron and Sarkozy say the international community must act, what they mean is that the US should put its military in harm’s way. The Europeans will make a small contribution. Sabre-rattling is more convincing when you are rattling your own sabre.

AdamG
03-15-2011, 02:38 AM
“...his best weapons, especially the anti-aircraft weapons and aircraft, have always been run and maintained by foreign troops,” Jean-François Daguzan told FRANCE 24.

“These include Syrians, Koreans and East Europeans, among others. The Libyan soldiers have always been seen as incompetent with this superior technology.”

*
“As for the rest of his forces, it seems that half of his mercenaries have decamped, the conscript Libyan army has joined the insurgents and many senior figures have defected.”

http://www.france24.com/en/20110309-gaddafi-military-libya-civil-war-mercenaries-army-rebels

Pete
03-15-2011, 02:47 AM
I am intentionally picking extreme examples to illustrate the point that I think nations can act in an immoral way.
True, but it doesn't prevent "moral" nations from suffering consequences when they do ill-advised or stupid things. The world isn't moral or immoral, it just is what it is.

carl
03-15-2011, 03:00 AM
Pete: The physical world is neither moral or immoral, it is just what it is. But men and the affairs of men are moral or not.

Surferbeetle
03-15-2011, 03:38 AM
Carl,

I appreciate your breathtaking trust and faith in the ability, capacity, and desire of the world's elected leaders and the existing political, economic, diplomatic, intelligence, and security systems in place to handle crisis's.

IMHO the Middle East is in the process of coming apart, similar to the fall of the Berlin Wall but with more bloodshed this time around. 'History does not repeat it itself but it rhymes' (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain) is attributed to Mark Twain and it is an apt description of what is occuring.

Last time around we were concerned about things going very badly as the old order of things were rearranged. Fortunately, the international community worked very hard, and we were all very lucky. Hopefully we all can do it again, however: today we also have the reconstruction of Japan (and it's potential default), the potential default and breakup of the EU, America's potential default, and the recovery of the international financial system to contend with in addition to the realignment of the Middle East.

I advise extreme caution, and further recommend that the GCC, the AU, the Arab League, and the EU take the lead on resolving Libyan issues. IMHO the US needs to keep it's powder dry, as there is more to come....:eek:

On a personal note, you and your family members are able to enlist in the military, join the DoS, USAID, sign on with an NGO, or corporation which operates in the middle east. It would be an educational and eye-opening experience regarding that part of the world and it would be an opportunity for you and yours to pitch in and help resolve the current and upcoming troubles. We can always use the help....

Steve

Ken White
03-15-2011, 04:39 AM
Were the actions of Germany, a nation state, when it occupied Poland immoral? Were the actions of Japan, a nation state, when it occupied China immoral? I am intentionally picking extreme examples to illustrate the point that I think nations can act in an immoral way.They were stupid, they were not in accord with international norms and they hacked off a lot of people but they were neither moral or immoral -- though I'm sure they were viewed as 'immoral' by many.

Possibly by about as many as thought they were 'moral' -- or the right thing to do. I suspect most folks in that latter category were German or Japanese or their hangers-on. Equally probably, many of those thinking them immoral were most likely Chinese and Poles.

With respect to Nations, morality is in the mind of the observer. As you told Pete:
men and the affairs of men are moral or notI certainly agree and most of us have our own moral code which may differ from that of others even acknowledging remarkable group consensus generally.

But nations do not have morals and cannot act in a moral or immoral manner, they do what they do. One can talk about the leadership of a nation acting in one manner or the other but even that is a judgement call by each individual observing.

Consider that to many, war, all war, is immoral by almost any definition. It is in their view one of the most immoral things humans do (in my view it's just the dumbest thing we do...). So any nation voluntarily partaking of a war is arguably engaging in an act of morally dubious behavior. If that is true, then anyone who wishes to engage in warlike acts, no matter for what cause, no matter how good or important that cause could be construed as voluntarily and willfully entering into an immoral activity...

BTW, I owe you an apology for the "paragon of virtue" comment -- it was emphatically not intended as a personal attack, it was to illustrate that we, the US, do a lot of things we shouldn't do and don't do a lot of things we should. As is true of morality, what those things are those are is very much an individual judgement.

Please accept my apology for poorly stating a point.

Dayuhan
03-15-2011, 05:01 AM
We should be able to influence Qadaffi short of employing direct military power. Why hit him over the head, when we can kick him in the crotch...or wallet, or whatever else it is that he values and that is vulnerable to "targeting."

Not sure how much leverage we really have, short of eliminating him. I doubt that he's afraid of being a pariah, he's been there before and survived. He doesn't seem all that attached to his material assets, it's the power that drives him. And at the end of the day, he knows the Europeans. He knows they will issue statements deploring his actions and condemning him, they will clutch their collective pearls and gasp in horror at his inhumane actions, and when they're done with all that they will line up in a nice organized queue and bid for the privilege of paying him for Libya's oil.


In 1989 the Communist block stopped playing. They had turned internal, and were focused on core survival and reorganization within the block. This in turn negated the national interest that had driven much of the US engagement in the Colonial and Semi Colonial block for the previous 40+ years. So we remained engaged where we had interests tied to our economy (markets, sea lanes, energy) and also turned our back on much of the rest.

This logical decision by the U.S. had two painful secondary effects: First, it meant that unstable countries that had been held to some degree of balance by the engagement efforts of the two northern groups quickly fell out of balance

I've raised this point before, don't recall an answer... do you really think the Cold War produced "balance" anywhere in the developing world? I'm really not sure this position stands up to even casual scrutiny. Many regions where the Cold War drove enormous violence and instability have actually achieved much more balance since it ended, notably East Asia and Latin America.


It looks a lot like Star Trek. Do not harm, remain neutral. Have the full power of the Enterprise on station to employ as necessary, and never be the guy sent on deployment with a listing such as "crew member" in the credits...

That's pretty much our position in Libya now, is it not? Not a bad position, though not always attractive: staying neutral in a position where one has a strong visceral preference (or vested interest) in one side prevailing is not always popular... of course neither are the consequences of intervention, even when we are assured that it will be brief and easy!


Correct. And with that down the toilet goes the US reputation as the leader of the free world. Little wonder tin pot dictators can just sit back and thumb their noses at the US and the EU. They know the US is mainly hot air and hollow threats.

Were tin pot dictators ever accountable to us? Should they be? Not like their actions are necessarily any of our business, and we certainly don't want the job of keeping the dictators of the world in line.

I'm curious about this "leadership of the free world" notion that we apparently flushed down the toilet in Rwanda. How did it survive our inaction in the face of the Indonesian massacres in '65-'66, or Pol Pot's little escapades, or the Latin American death squads, or the various DRC slaughters, et cetera, ad infinitum? And if leadership of the free world means being responsible for stepping in and cleaning up the poop every time someone dumps one in their backyard, why would any sane person or nation want to lead the free world? Are there any benefits or advantages that go along with that rather unpleasant responsibility, other than near-universal resentment and criticism, and a whole lot of expense?


What we see from the US over the North Africa matters of the recent past is not leadership. The President, the Clinton woman and others have a lot to say on what's going on but offer no concrete action. Why are they doing all this talking and issuing of statements if they are not going to do anything? Maybe the Russians are getting it nearer correct with what seems to be the approach of "don't open your mouth unless you are prepared to back it up with action" - or the old "don't draw your weapon unless you are prepared to use it" .

Obviously the Obama administration does not understand the first thing about leadership. I ask myself after hearing one of these "talking head" speeches what the speaker wants the reaction to be? Is he/she just trying to seem knowledgeable or informed or are they wanting to stimulate some sort of reaction?

I have no idea what you think "leadership" is, but if it means that the US has to meet every unpleasant responsibility itself - because let's face it, there ain't a whole lot of followership in any of this - I say stick it where the sun don't shine, because we don't have the right, the duty, or the capacity to run around the world cleaning up after everyone who makes a mess.


You know we watched the British empire run out of steam where the Brits were no longer up to the challenges that the leadership of a vast empire demanded anymore. They just wimped away into the sunset suffering one diplomatic humiliation after the other. Still believe it or not there are Brits who want a world class navy with reach and a military capable of responding all over the globe at a moments notice. Its over, gone, finished.

Quo vadis the US?

The Brit empire was never a charitable enterprise or a mission civilatrice. It was intended to make money, and it fell apart when the colonized got so fractious that the cost of sustaining the empire exceeded any possible profit that could be earned by maintaining it.

Of course it's over, gone, finished. Why should the British, the Americans, or anyone else drive themselves into bankruptcy and exhaustion trying to fix other people's messes?

JMA
03-15-2011, 05:08 AM
I dont think the US should have jumped in with guns blazing into Libya.

Guns blazing? Just a little bit of military finesse. The earlier one acts the less you have to do... therefore being more likely to get away with it ;)

Take out a few jets on the ground (rather than crater airfield runways you will want to use later). Take out a few helicopter gunships (only difficult if they know you are coming and have a chance to disperse them). Then declare Libya a no tank zone and let the armed UAVs and whatever do some live firing training.

Then obviously you take his TV and radio off the air... by jamming rather than bombing.

But before all this a little demonstration of sincerity is required. Pick a Gaddafi compound or beach-house or other suitable structure and convert it to rubble - with the message "just in case you think we are joking"

That's not guns blazing that is the intelligent application of military action under the circumstances IMHO.

Had this been carried out early, Gaddafi would now be taking up residence in Zimbabwe and thousands of Libyan lives would have been saved... without one foreign soldiers boot having touched Libyan soil.

PS: I sincerely hope that behind the now typical gutless response from not only US politicians (but the equally gutless rest with the exception of an increasingly frustrated Cameron) are a few generals who are putting simple, effective, quick strike options on the table, because if the generals are also dithering then the US and the West is in bigger trouble than imaginable.

Bob's World
03-15-2011, 09:10 AM
For the US, and for every great power, the challenge in such situations always comes down to one of this: How does one justify harsh action on the dictators locked out in the cold, while enjoying an after dinner cocktail with the dictators sitting around one's dinner table?

Currently the guys who are sitting at our table our getting a little nervous, as a couple of them just got dragged out of the room while we turned to the rest and said " you know, I never really did like that guy and I thought he would never leave. More wine?"

Backwards Observer
03-15-2011, 09:11 AM
A humanitarian intervention in Rwanda was already underway before the genocide. The intentions were undoubtedly of the highest moral purpose. The results much less so. Yet there still seems to be little appetite for public debate about the wisdom, manner or morality of such interventions beforehand. This is perhaps understandable. Far off topic, sorry.


In the aftermath of this horrific bloodbath, Rwanda's Christian churches have faced extensive criticism. Many journalists, scholars, human rights activists, politicians, and even some church personnel have accused the churches not simply of failing effectively to oppose the genocide but of active complicity in the violence. According to a report by a World Council of Churches team that visited Rwanda in August 1994, "In every conversation we had with the government and church people alike, the point was brought home to us that the church itself stands tainted, not by passive indifference, but by errors of commission as well." My own research in Rwanda in 1992-93 and 1995-96 confirms these conclusions. According to my findings, church personnel and institutions were actively involved in the program of resistance to popular pressures for political reform that culminated in the 1994 genocide, and numerous priests, pastors, nuns, brothers, catechists, and Catholic and Protestant lay leaders supported, participated in, or helped to organize the killings.

Christian Churches and Genocide in Rwanda - Timothy Longman - May, 11-13, 1997 (http://faculty.vassar.edu/tilongma/Church&Genocide.html)


Dr. Longman is the author of numerous journal articles and book chapters and of the book Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda (Cambridge University Press.) His work focuses primarily on religion and politics, human rights, ethnic identity and politics, and gender and politics. He studies primarily Rwanda, Burundi, and Congo.


Timothy Longman - Boston U African Studies Center, Faculty Bio (http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/africa/profiles/app/details.php?id=111)

+++


Careful examination of the role of the churches in Rwanda as well as in Nazi Germany reveals some heartbreaking truths.

First, it cannot be assumed that the Christian faith is taught in such a way as to emphasize love of neighbor (all neighbors) and respect for human life. No agency on earth has ever been able to control what is actually taught in a local church on a given Sunday morning. A variety of bastardized versions of the Christian message, including hateful ones, have been and continue to be communicated in congregations all over the world. This is true both in churches where authoritative (and sometimes authoritarian) church hierarchies supposedly have great power to control what happens in the local church, and in decentralized communions in which the local minister has the final say. Either way, the teaching of the Christian churches lands all over the map, from richly faithful to blandly mediocre to dreadfully immoral.

+++

We must move beyond the general to the particular. Certainly there were specific historical factors in Rwanda that contributed to the disastrous involvement and complicity of the churches in the 1994 genocide. The most significant appear to be the following:

The historic participation of the Rwandan churches, especially the Roman Catholic Church, in reinforcing ethnocentric thought and behavior both in public life and in the church itself. This weakened the church’s ability to resist the quasi-fascist genocidal racism that emerged in a sector of Hutu society in the late 1980s and early 1990s and eventually led to genocide against their Tutsi compatriots.

The cozy relationship enjoyed by the leaders of the Rwandan Catholic Church and of several Protestant denominations with the Hutu government. This led church leaders to identify their interests with the interests of the then-current government and its leaders. In the end, the outcome was a hesitation on the part of church leaders to stand up for innocent Tutsis (and moderate or resistant Hutus) and say a clear no to genocide.

The traditional teaching of the churches that the Bible mandates unquestioning submission to both churchly and governmental authority. This teaching left Christians very poorly prepared to resist the genocidal commands of local and national leaders.

The historic social power of the missionaries and churches that brought about the nearly universal "conversion" of Rwandans to Christianity. This nearly universal assent to Christianity, we can now see, was clearly more of a veneer than a living reality in people’s hearts, as observers of Rwanda have noted.

+++

The churches would do well to give up, once and for all, any hope of great social and political power, including a comfortable embrace by government leaders. The dream of Christian political dominance is alluring, but must be recognized as a demonic snare. And a cozy relationship with government almost always comes at far too high a price either for Christian integrity or for the victims of government injustice. Christians do nothing to protect the victims because we are too busy protecting our privileged position.

Remembering Rwanda - David P. Gushee - Religion Online - April 20, 2004 (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3048)


Dr. David P. Gushee is an historian, ethicist, public intellectual, and professor dealing primarily with ethical issues and Christian thought. Gushee is the Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, and was formerly the Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy and the Senior Fellow of the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Christian Leadership at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee. Gushee also serves as the president of Evangelicals for Human Rights, an organization advocating for an end to torture, especially that sponsored by the United States government.

David P. Gushee - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_P._Gushee)

Dayuhan
03-15-2011, 10:04 AM
For the US, and for every great power, the challenge in such situations always comes down to one of this: How does one justify harsh action on the dictators locked out in the cold, while enjoying an after dinner cocktail with the dictators sitting around one's dinner table?

Currently the guys who are sitting at our table our getting a little nervous, as a couple of them just got dragged out of the room while we turned to the rest and said " you know, I never really did like that guy and I thought he would never leave. More wine?"

Not really that difficult. The unspoken rule is that if you keep your ship under control we'll deal with you, but if you lose it you go to the sharks. The other dictators will drop the guy who loses control as fast as we do, maybe faster.

Nobody has any illusions about us liking these guys, or about them liking us, or each other. Liking has not a thing to do with any of it.

Of course as long as the rebels are winning all we have to do is sit back and let nature take its course. When it's not going that way there's the question of whether or not to actually intervene, and there are a whole lot of considerations there. How it will look to the dictators still on our side is not prominent among them.

I don't think any of the other guys in the club will miss Gadhafi at all, or would object if somebody stepped in and helped him to the door. They never liked him either.

carl
03-15-2011, 12:20 PM
Surferbeetle:

Your good natured sarcasm is noted but I have no trust and faith in the ability of the world's leaders to handle crisis' at all. I have a little faith in our ability and good intentions sometimes. My mind has been irrevocably altered by looking at too many Norman Rockwell paintings I guess.

Your point that we must not get too entangled so we can do something else more important when it comes up it well taken. That is exactly the reason, I advocate "doing something" but only if a. it will have some actual effect and b. if it doesn't draw us in so deeply that we can't get out easily. The things I suggested seem to, to this forever a civilian, fulfill that criteria (as do some of the things suggested by JMA). There seems to be some disagreement with that position regarding effectiveness and our being able to limit involvement. So be it.

One thing I would like to clarify though is I am strongly against any kind of no fly zone or action that would be effectuated with Manned Aircraft Flying Over Libya. That would get us into the whole very weird American cultural dynamic of airplanes, pilots, SEAD and all the other things that go with it. When manned airplanes get involved our eyes sort of glaze over and then the whole thing does go on autopilot to points unknown.

As you say, we were very lucky the last time things fell apart. But we actually took a side the last time and I think that had an effect in things coming out like they did. We may have to consider taking a side this time, at least to a small extent. Right now I don't know exactly what we are doing. Whatever it is may be the right thing, but I am starting to think we are not going to be able to turn the stampede.

The GCC (what does that stand for?), the AU, the EU et al taking the lead would be the best thing of course. Of course, they being completely ineffectual organizations, they won't take the lead on anything. The wait for them may be a long one.


On a personal note, you and your family members are able to enlist in the military, join the DoS, USAID, sign on with an NGO, or corporation which operates in the middle east. It would be an educational and eye-opening experience regarding that part of the world and it would be an opportunity for you and yours to pitch in and help resolve the current and upcoming troubles. We can always use the help....

Turn about is fair play I guess. I used exactly the same line on Motorfirebox. I don't have much influence on my family. They look at me very strangely when I encourage them along these lines. As for myself, I've tried to do my bit and will again if able; though I don't know how useful my efforts have been.

tequila
03-15-2011, 04:10 PM
The GCC (what does that stand for?), the AU, the EU et al taking the lead would be the best thing of course. Of course, they being completely ineffectual organizations, they won't take the lead on anything. The wait for them may be a long one.


The GCC stands for Gulf Cooperation Council, and they're already deploying troops to Bahrain to help contain/crush/defend against a much less violent protest movement. Not so ineffectual when they really want to move - they're just not moving in the direction of liberalism.

carl
03-15-2011, 04:14 PM
Ken:

I figure if you ask the question: Can a man's actions be moral or immoral? The answer will be yes. To the question: Can a group of men's actions be moral of immoral? I would say yes. By extension then a large group of humans action's can be moral or immoral ergo a nation's actions can be moral or immoral. In theory anyway. Things can get complicated when judging the actions of individuals comprising that nation state because of coercion, social dynamics etc.

You disagree that nations can be judged moral or not. We have a pretty fundamental disagreement then and it will probably not be resolved easily or here.

Back to Libya though. There was a twitter a few minutes ago by Galrahn to the effect that the Libyan rebels have been joined by jets of the Free Libyan Air Force. If that is true the whole question about a no fly zone may be moot. I wonder if we are doing something completely unseen to get those jets into action.

P.S. Thank you sir. It is well appreciated.

tequila
03-15-2011, 04:50 PM
Qaddafi Forces Seize Another Rebel Stronghold (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/africa/16libya.html?hp)



AJDABIYA, Libya — Behind tanks, heavy artillery and airstrikes, forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/q/muammar_el_qaddafi/index.html?inline=nyt-per) routed on Tuesday a ragtag army of insurgents and would-be revolutionaries who were holding the last defensive line before the rebel capital of Benghazi.

Blasts of incoming fire came every few seconds at the edge of this city straddling a strategic highway intersection where rebels have bulldozed berms and filled hundreds of sandbags around two metal green arches marking the western approaches to the city. As the shelling intensified on Tuesday, hundreds of cars packed with children, mattresses, suitcases — anything that could be grabbed and packed in — careened through the streets as residents fled. Long lines of cars could be seen on the highway heading north to the Benghazi, about 100 miles away.

In Benghazi itself, though, there were no signs of preparations for a vigorous defense.

The barrage offered a loud and ferocious counterpoint to stalled efforts by Western diplomats to agree on help for the retreating rebels, like a no-flight zone, even as Colonel Qaddafi warned the insurgents on Tuesday that they had only one choice: surrender or flee. By Tuesday afternoon, the pro-Qaddafi forces had taken control of the road to Benghazi to the east, cutting off the rebels’ main line of retreat, The Associated Press reported, citing rebel sources ..


Looks like the curtain may be coming down on this one. Pity the people of Libya.

JMA
03-15-2011, 07:12 PM
Ken:

I figure if you ask the question: Can a man's actions be moral or immoral? The answer will be yes. To the question: Can a group of men's actions be moral of immoral? I would say yes. By extension then a large group of humans action's can be moral or immoral ergo a nation's actions can be moral or immoral. In theory anyway. Things can get complicated when judging the actions of individuals comprising that nation state because of coercion, social dynamics etc.

I agree with you on this Carl.


Back to Libya though. There was a twitter a few minutes ago by Galrahn to the effect that the Libyan rebels have been joined by jets of the Free Libyan Air Force. If that is true the whole question about a no fly zone may be moot. I wonder if we are doing something completely unseen to get those jets into action.

It appears the Germans were running intereference for Russia to stall agreement on a no fly zone. So what leverage have the Russians used on Germany or what is the hitherto unknown German/Libyan connection?

The French are sounding a little more belicose which is nice to see (for a change) and Cameron seems game for a little coordinated Anglo-French air action.

(With a bit of luck Europe (at least Britain and France) will be able to act on a situation on their doorstep and be able to flip to the finger to the US as well. A good excuse to pull pull their troops out of Afghanistan?)

Yes, fascinating reports of jets and helicopter gunships. We know that two jets flew to Malta.

Ken White
03-15-2011, 07:30 PM
...By extension then a large group of humans action's can be moral or immoral ergo a nation's actions can be moral or immoral. In theory anyway. Things can get complicated when judging the actions of individuals comprising that nation state because of coercion, social dynamics etc.(emphasis added / kw)Yes.
We have a pretty fundamental disagreement then and it will probably not be resolved easily or here.Yep, nor does it have to be. It's said that if two people are in total agreement, one of them is probably unnecessary. So we can agree to disagree and move on. ;)

Keep on pushin' :wry:

Stan
03-15-2011, 07:30 PM
It appears the Germans were running intereference for Russia to stall agreement on a no fly zone. So what leverage have the Russians used on Germany or what is the hitherto unknown German/Libyan connection?


Hmmm, how about a private gas pipeline (http://www.nord-stream.com/en/) into your back yard for starters :rolleyes:


The French are sounding a little more belicose which is nice to see (for a change) and Cameron seems game for a little coordinated Anglo-French air action.


With all this talk of moral courage and Rwanda (the church did it :D ), nice to see the French stepping up to the plate. Maybe this time they'll actually work with us vs hiding the guilty :wry:

carl
03-15-2011, 09:51 PM
Looks like the curtain may be coming down on this one. Pity the people of Libya.

You're probably right. The guy over at Nightwatch says the end of the week.

I've been reading a lot of things though and I wonder if we can judge the true strength of the opposing forces accurately. Gaddafi is deeply unpopular to begin with. The use of mercenaries probably made him more so. Somebody commented that in WWII things swung vast distances and back again repeatedly in that area. In Chad a pickup truck borne invasion force crossed the country and attacked the capital before anybody knew they were there. The rebels seem to have a lot of pickups mounted with heavy machine guns and all those pickups are better than anything the Long Range Desert Group had. It is probably very difficult to protect the whole length of that coastal road from people going around to the south and coming in from the desert. Those things might be important, maybe not.

Also Crowbat suggested that the early stout resistance may have sapped a lot of the regimes strength.

Say, where is Crowbat anyway?

JMA
03-16-2011, 05:18 AM
Hmmm, how about a private gas pipeline (http://www.nord-stream.com/en/) into your back yard for starters :rolleyes:

Well the Germans aren't what they used to be. Financially strong but sadly sell-outs now as well...


With all this talk of moral courage and Rwanda (the church did it :D ), nice to see the French stepping up to the plate. Maybe this time they'll actually work with us vs hiding the guilty :wry:

Wouldn't the French just love to have acted with a positive outcome and be able to strut their stuff before the world as a result.

...not holding my breath though.

JMA
03-16-2011, 06:28 AM
I suggest now that it is necessary to merely defend Benghazi against Gaddafi - forget a general no fly zone draw a circle around Benghazi.

It seems the "rebels" captured some aircraft when they took Benghazi and perhaps these are the ones which reportedly made an appearance recently.

They need help with the securing of Benghazi.

The people who rose against Gaddafi in the West of the country have been betrayed. What will the fate of the people in Benghazi be?

Dayuhan
03-16-2011, 08:08 AM
Well the Germans aren't what they used to be. Financially strong but sadly sell-outs now as well...

Yes, a terrible sad thing it is. Maybe we can convince Fuchs to go out and invade Poland, bring back the happy days of old.

Of course all sorts of things can happen, as Tom Lehrer reminds us:

Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
but that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918
and they've hardly bothered us since then....


Wouldn't the French just love to have acted with a positive outcome and be able to strut their stuff before the world as a result.

If the French had a way of getting victorious war into the past tense without having to pass it through the present, they'd have conquered the world by now.

And to get back on topic...


The people who rose against Gaddafi in the West of the country have been betrayed. What will the fate of the people in Benghazi be?

How were they betrayed? Were any promises broken or commitments reneged on? If some external party encouraged them to rebel with promises of assistance, and then failed to bring the assistance, that would be betrayal. Was any such promise made?

carl
03-16-2011, 10:07 AM
Nightwatch reported that the French Foreign Minister stated that '"Qadhafi has fewer than "20 operational fighter planes and not many more helicopters,"'.

If words were deeds they would all be powdered aluminum by now.

(The above is just frustrated venting, and it is not a shot at the French.)

M-A Lagrange
03-16-2011, 01:11 PM
Must say that I feel a little like JMA!:mad:

Our governments talk and talk about democracy, right of the people, legitimacy... And when it comes to actually act against one f#@$&%$# dictator as G: nothing! not even a no fly zone that would have equilibrate the forces between government and insurgents.
For once that insurgents were on the good guys side!

Don't wonder why most of the populations in arab world will now hate us!

As JMA said in a different threat: I wished our governments had balls sometimes.

Flying Carpet
03-16-2011, 01:23 PM
The reporting about Gaddafi sounds familiar. Like international outcasts before him (Saddam, Milosevic) he is supposed to be without supporters. But as we were wrong with those people it looks like we may be wrong with Gaddafi.

For a long time it looked like the fall of Gaddafi was imminent. Even his tribesmen seemed reluctant to defend him. But when the rebels were about to conquer Gaddafi's hometown Sirte that reluctance suddenly disappeared and Gaddafi launched a successful offensive.

So far I can only guess what happened but I suppose that somehow it became clear that a victory for the opposition tribes would mean revenge on those tribes who had supported Gaddafi through all those years.

Just days before Gaddafi and Chavez had called for negotiations. In this climate of tribal conflict that certainly would have been the best solution. It is a pity that the international community didn't support that initiative.

Instead we seem to make the classical error of taking sides in an ethnic conflict. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the Eastern Libyans will be more liberal when we offer them power. The presence in their leadership of Libya's former ministers of justice and interior doesn't bode well. By supporting them we may simply be replacing one dictatorship with another.

The core of American democracy is not the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. It is somewhere in the tension between them. Similarly a multi-ethnic democracy is not about one group having all the power and the other being powerless but in a permanent give-and-take tension between them.

JMA
03-16-2011, 02:05 PM
Must say that I feel a little like JMA!:mad:

Our governments talk and talk about democracy, right of the people, legitimacy... And when it comes to actually act against one f#@$&%$# dictator as G: nothing! not even a no fly zone that would have equilibrate the forces between government and insurgents.
For once that insurgents were on the good guys side!

Don't wonder why most of the populations in arab world will now hate us!

As JMA said in a different threat: I wished our governments had balls sometimes.

Its all about consistency isn't it.

In the good old third world (Africa in this case) if a big man (in this case Obama) talks a lot about an issue he is expected to stand by his words. Failure to do so will be seen as weakness (as in this case). So the moral of the story is that the Obama/Clinton tag-team should have kept their big mouths shut unless they were prepared to backup their promises with action.

It all a joke really when Obama and that Clinton woman promises that "Libyan Officials Could Be Held for War Crimes" (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/08/obama-says-libyan-officials-could-be-held-for-war-crimes)

When that will be, who knows. Maybe like Osama or Ratko Mladić it will be at some distant point in the future if anyone cares to get around to it. So if Gaddafi kills 1,000 or 1 million in the meantime, who cares right? Do we see another Clinton-esque speech of regret over Libya like we saw over Rwanda some time in the future?

If acted at the right moment all it would have taken is 3 cruise missiles. Instead we see dithering indecision which if demonstrated on an OSB (officer selection board) would lead to an instant fail grading and a train ticket home.

Can you believe that the "talking head" Jay Carney says (http://allafrica.com/stories/201103160687.html) that weeks into this saga his boss is still at this level of dithering indecision:


He said Obama was asking "is this an option that can be effective? Is it the right option? What are the costs associated with it? What are the risks associated with it? And will it – when I say the right option… what confidence do we have that it will achieve the goals that we set if we were to implement it, because it is not a minor undertaking."

...absolutely useless!

AdamG
03-16-2011, 02:10 PM
Just days before Gaddafi and Chavez had called for negotiations. In this climate of tribal conflict that certainly would have been the best solution. It is a pity that the international community didn't support that initiative.

Why is this surprising? With enough cash, you can go anywhere on the planet and raise a mini-army of thugs, Igors and Quislings that'll do your bidding.

Gaddafi has cash, lots of it, and he has a long history of using 'foreign' mercenaries. Again, shouldn't be a surprise when the payroll extends to the locals.

The Libyans are fighting for their freedom from a Tyrant, which doesn't necessarily translate to 'Democracy', as it's defined in Europe or the US.

JMA
03-16-2011, 02:13 PM
The reporting about Gaddafi sounds familiar. Like international outcasts before him (Saddam, Milosevic) he is supposed to be without supporters. But as we were wrong with those people it looks like we may be wrong with Gaddafi.

For a long time it looked like the fall of Gaddafi was imminent. Even his tribesmen seemed reluctant to defend him. But when the rebels were about to conquer Gaddafi's hometown Sirte that reluctance suddenly disappeared and Gaddafi launched a successful offensive.

So far I can only guess what happened but I suppose that somehow it became clear that a victory for the opposition tribes would mean revenge on those tribes who had supported Gaddafi through all those years.

Just days before Gaddafi and Chavez had called for negotiations. In this climate of tribal conflict that certainly would have been the best solution. It is a pity that the international community didn't support that initiative.

Instead we seem to make the classical error of taking sides in an ethnic conflict. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the Eastern Libyans will be more liberal when we offer them power. The presence in their leadership of Libya's former ministers of justice and interior doesn't bode well. By supporting them we may simply be replacing one dictatorship with another.

The core of American democracy is not the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. It is somewhere in the tension between them. Similarly a multi-ethnic democracy is not about one group having all the power and the other being powerless but in a permanent give-and-take tension between them.

Who was it that first introduced the issue of the civil war?

If a certain group had benefited disproportionately due to their ethnic or other links with the regime they would be concerned of the pendulum effect after a regime change. Gaddafi would have known that his only chance of survival would be to create a tribal based civil war and be prepared to throw literally billions at it... and thereby save his ass.

I would have thought this was obvious...

If Gaddafi and Chavez wanted talks do you really (and I mean this) think that they would have sought an honest settlement with the rebels? But as you seem to imply... better the devil you know...

AdamG
03-16-2011, 02:16 PM
Libyan militia get nutrolled.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/03/libya-day-ras-lanuf-fell.html

Fuchs
03-16-2011, 06:06 PM
From an interview with a journalist who has been in Arab countries for 20 years:

El-Gawhary: Zuletzt hat mich eine Geschichte aus Libyen beeindruckt. Sie handelte von einem Mann, der 48 Jahre alt war – so alt wie ich. Er hatte ein gutes Leben, war bei einer Ölfirma angestellt, hatte zwei Töchter, die eine gute Ausbildung genossen. Allerdings lebte er in der Nähe einer Kaserne in Bengasi: Tagelang versuchten Jugendliche die Kaserne zu stürmen und wurden von den Gaddafi-Leuten abgeschossen. Eines Tages hat er die Verletzten abtransportiert und kam mit blutigen Händen heim. Seine Familie hatte keine Ahnung, welche Konsequenz er daraus zog. Er packte sein Auto voll mit Kochgasflaschen, kaufte Dynamit und fuhr mit dem Auto in das Tor der Kaserne. Er hat sich in die Luft gesprengt, damit das Ganze aufhört. Damit die Jugendlichen die Kaserne stürmen können. Dieser Mann war eben kein Fanatiker, er war ein ganz normaler Familienvater, ein Mensch wie du und ich. Nur irgendwann hat er diese Situation nicht mehr ausgehalten und die Konsequenz gezogen. Wenn man das rüberbringt, wenn die Leute verstehen, warum jemand so etwas macht, dann ist es eine gute Geschichte.
http://www.falter.at/web/print/detail.php?id=1354

In short: There was a 48 y.o. middle class man with family and good job living near Benghazi who observed how the youth attempted to overrun pro-Gaddaffi barracks for days. He was not fanatic. On one day he came back with bloody hands after helping to rescue some wounded.
Nobody expected what he did next; loaded his car with propane gas bottles, bought dynamite and drove it into the gate of the barracks to put an end to it.



I think this story was worth being repeated because it shows a lot; about the conflict in Libya and possibly also about suicide attacks.

Flying Carpet
03-16-2011, 06:25 PM
Who was it that first introduced the issue of the civil war?

If a certain group had benefited disproportionately due to their ethnic or other links with the regime they would be concerned of the pendulum effect after a regime change. Gaddafi would have known that his only chance of survival would be to create a tribal based civil war and be prepared to throw literally billions at it... and thereby save his ass.

I would have thought this was obvious...

If Gaddafi and Chavez wanted talks do you really (and I mean this) think that they would have sought an honest settlement with the rebels? But as you seem to imply... better the devil you know...

This is not just about benefitting. Google on "Libya tribe" and you will find quite a few stories about killings during Gaddafi's reign that might be revenged.

You seem to find it reasonable that being disadvantaged Gaddafi's opponents take revenge. I disagree. I can understand it but experience learns that that kind of revenge always leads to serious fighting and in the end harms everyone. And I don't think that in the West should support such a revenge.

Gaddafi is a realist. He has made u-turns in the past. Just a week ago many thought he might loose. It is very well possible that he wanted to save his ass. So what? Giving Gaddafi amnesty in exchange for his departure might hurt the sense of justice of some people but it would have been a small price to pay for peace.

Surferbeetle
03-16-2011, 09:30 PM
Running, now walk-jogging for some :wry:, is interesting. Interval training is a good way to build up ones physical and mental strength. The mind and body can only take so much and as a result sprints only last for so long...the majority of one's time is not spent sprinting but running or jogging as the case may be. My Iraqi friends would good-naturedly tease me when they observed me engaging in this behavior and ask 'Who is chasing you?'

Part of the job as I see it is to give hope and help out where one can. This doesn't mean promising, delivering, or arranging for loans for Cadillacs and BMW's nor does it mean instantaneously slaughtering enemies for others via JDAM's or IED's (as the oil company worker did) or otherwise. Knowledge is more important than things (a book tightly shut is but a block of paper, dig the well before you are thirsty, give a man a fish and you feed him for a day - teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, yadda, yadda, yadda....)

The International Visitor Leadership Program (http://www.pciv.org/ilvp.html) is one way the US helps, to coach through experience, others to see another way to do things. Participants are not forced to participate or believe in the experience. But it is a datapoint which can be used (as a positive or negative example) when contemplating about what is the right way to do things.


The International Visitors Leadership Program (IVLP) is a U.S. Department of State initiative. Authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act), funded by an annual Congressional appropriation to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, and administered by the Office of International Visitors, this program aims to enhance cross-cultural understanding by providing future foreign leaders in government, politics, media, education, science, labor relations, and other key fields with firsthand knowledge of American society.

Selected by American embassies, participants are up and coming leaders in their fields. Since 1941, hundreds of former participants under the International Visitor Leadership Program have risen to important positions in their countries. Among the alumni are over 200 current and former chiefs of state or heads of government and more than 1500 cabinet-level ministers.

The phrase 'lets do things in the right way' is something I heard often in Iraq while out and about. Perhaps this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun) is part of what was meant.

We also worked on coaching a few teachers about how to develop small businesses for the many who stayed home. Skilled locals's would help to teach fellow citizens business principles such as basic accounting, supply chain management, business plans/feasibility studies, business clusters, etc. We were not alone in this type of work (http://www.bmz.de/en/what_we_do/approaches/bilateral_development_cooperation/players/ngos/index.html).

None of these things are as fast as pulling the trigger of a gun or thumbing a detonator, but the majority of life is not spent sprinting around now is it?

JMA
03-17-2011, 01:04 AM
You seem to find it reasonable that being disadvantaged Gaddafi's opponents take revenge. I disagree. I can understand it but experience learns that that kind of revenge always leads to serious fighting and in the end harms everyone. And I don't think that in the West should support such a revenge.

I said I find this reasonable?

The West would find this reasonable?

What are you saying? That Gaddafi should be allowed to stay in power to avoid any revenge based incidents happening after he is toppled?

Who are you BTW?

JMA
03-17-2011, 01:19 AM
David Cameron criticises Barack Obama's lack of leadership on Libya (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/03/17/david-cameron-criticises-barack-obama-s-lack-of-leadership-on-libya-115875-22994568/)


DAVID Cameron risked opening a deep rift with the United States yesterday by criticising President Barack Obama’s lack of leadership on Libya.


That's fine... let it develop to the point where he can justify pulling the Brit troops out of Afghanistan.

carl
03-17-2011, 01:27 AM
As JMA said in a different threat: I wished our governments had balls sometimes.

A policy on testicular regeneration is currently in the planning stage. It can be expected to proceed further after in depth consultations with all the stakeholders. A cutting edge process is expected to be implemented that will insure diversity and inclusion. Only the best alternatives will be considered for further consideration.

JMA
03-17-2011, 07:54 AM
A policy on testicular regeneration is currently in the planning stage. It can be expected to proceed further after in depth consultations with all the stakeholders. A cutting edge process is expected to be implemented that will insure diversity and inclusion. Only the best alternatives will be considered for further consideration.

The need to proceed with the utmost caution must be stressed under such circumstances. Even if that means the "ambulance" arrives after the patient has died.

Flying Carpet
03-17-2011, 08:59 AM
What are you saying? That Gaddafi should be allowed to stay in power to avoid any revenge based incidents happening after he is toppled?


No, I am advocating a regular handover just like we have seen in Egypt and Tunisia where the presidential family and some close associates are fired and/or prosecuted but the great majority of the party members just stay in their job. I think this is preferable above the massive cleansing in the style of the de-Baathisation policy we followed in Iraq or the firing of all Serbs in Kosovo. In both countries they don't even have regular electricity now.

We should not replace suppression by one group with suppression by another. Instead we should look for a formula in which everyone is represented - including the former oppressors.

Fuchs
03-17-2011, 09:46 AM
Well, "we" is the wrong choice of a word unless you think of "we" as "mankind".

M-A Lagrange
03-17-2011, 10:42 AM
Open Letter to the UN Security Council on the Situation in Libya
Brussels, 16 March 2011:

Excellency,

In light of the grave situation in Libya, we urge Security Council Members to take immediate effective action aimed at achieving a ceasefire in place and initiating negotiations to secure a transition to a legitimate and representative government. This action should be backed by the credible threat of appropriate military intervention, as a last resort, to prevent mass atrocities.

We welcome the steps taken thus far by the Security Council, including an asset freeze, arms embargo and the threat of prosecution for war crimes. These were adopted in response to widespread abuses against civilians and were meant to prevent a humanitarian disaster. But the situation has now evolved into a full-scale civil war. The most urgent goal now must be to end the violence and halt further loss of life, while paving the way toward a political transition, objectives that require a different response.

Imposing a no-flight zone, which many have been advocating, would, in and of itself, achieve neither of these. It would not stop the violence or accelerate a peaceful resolution. Nor would it materially impede the regime from crushing resistance. Government forces appear to be gaining the advantage mainly on account of their superiority on the ground, not air power. In short, a no-flight zone under existing circumstances would not address the threat of mass atrocities it purports to tackle. The debate over this issue is inhibiting the necessary reflection on the best course of action.

If the objective is, as it should be, first and foremost to end the killing, there are only two genuine options. One is an international military intervention explicitly on the side of the revolt with the avowed goal of ensuring its victory or, at a minimum, preventing its defeat. Given widespread lack of knowledge of the situation on the ground, it is unclear what it will take to achieve this. At a minimum, however, this would involve providing the rebel forces with substantial military assistance and taking action against Qaddafi's forces. Should those measures not suffice, it could well require direct military involvement on the ground. It is incumbent on those pressing this view to think through its logical imp lications;=2 0it would be reckless to enter a military confrontation on the optimistic assumption that it will be ended quickly, only to see it turn into a bloody, protracted war.

Although there are legitimate arguments for a swift and massive military intervention on the opposition's behalf, it presents considerable risks. Besides the obvious downsides entailed in what could well come to be viewed as another Western military engagement in a Muslim country and the Middle East and North Africa region, it could also lead to large-scale loss of life as well as precipitate a political vacuum in Libya in which various forces engage in a potentially prolonged and violent struggle for supremacy before anything resembling a state and stable government are reestablished. Such a situation could lead to wider regional instability and could be exploited by terrorist movements, notably Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

The alternative option, which Crisis Group has advocated, is to engage in a vigorous political effort to achieve an immediate ceasefire in place to be followed by the prompt opening of a dialogue on the modalities of a transition to a new government that the Libyan people will accept as legitimate. To that end, we urge the Council to delegate a regional contact group composed of officials or respected personalities drawn from Arab and African countries, including Libya's neighbours, to initiate discussions with the regime and the opposition without delay. Their mandate would be to secure agreement on:

•An immediate ceasefire in place, which respects international humanitarian law;
•Dispatch of a peacekeeping force drawn primarily from the armed forces of regional states to act as a buffer, operating under a Security Council mandate and with the support of the Arab League and African Union;
•Initiation of a dialogue between the regime and opposition aimed at definitively ending the bloodshed and beginning the necessary transition to representative, accountable and legitimate government
To enhance the credibility of the threat to use all necessary means -- including military steps beyond the imposition of a no-flight zone – to protect against mass atrocities, member states should begin planning for such an eventuality. The Security Council has a responsibility to live up to its commitments, even and especially if a member state does not.

Crisis Group’s proposal addresses head-on the overwhelming priorities of stopping the bloodshed and initiating the necessary political transition in a way that avoids the dangerous prospect of a political vacuum and is in line with both the African Union’s proposal for African mediation and the Arab League’s recognition that Arab countries have a role to play. It further backs up the vital and long overdue political effort we have called for with the only kind of military deployment that can help end the violence rather than aggravate it. We urge the Security Council to adopt this proposal and to take immediate steps to put it into effect.

Sincere regards,

Louise Arbour
President and CEO
International Crisis Group

Somehow, an in between solution proposal... :o

Fuchs
03-17-2011, 11:06 AM
Part of the problem is the legitimacy of Gaddaffi's 'government', and this open letter needlessly recognises him as leading the state (something that's very important to the UN, which is more a united states than a united nations).

France recognised the rebel government one or two days ago, and this (as problematic as it is - see Yugoslavia, Georgia) could be a way around the legal issues in this case.

Russia and others fear that a UNSC-legitimised intervention in favour of rebels would create a precedent and cause them trouble (see Chechens, Uigurs). They do not fear that anybody would ever recognise a tiny minority's government as representing their whole country, though.

Another obstacle to intervention on behalf of rebels right now is the Charter of the UN, but again, this doesn't apply if the rebel government is recognised as the country government.


Maybe the author(s) recognised Gadaffi's rule intentionally - in this case my remarks should have added a facet for the interpretation of the letter.

jcustis
03-17-2011, 11:53 AM
For no other reason than the fact that the US has IMO recently tread very heavily in the path of world affairs (and typically to our detriment) and is experiencing larger issues as a result, it would be nice to see us stay out of what is a Libyan affair.

J Wolfsberger
03-17-2011, 12:22 PM
Somehow, an in between solution proposal...

I don't think ICG is inhabiting the same reality as the people in Libya:

"The alternative option, which Crisis Group has advocated, is to engage in a vigorous political effort to achieve an immediate ceasefire in place to be followed by the prompt opening of a dialogue on the modalities of a transition to a new government that the Libyan people will accept as legitimate."

As I read it, she takes the traditional pacifist approach based on "jaw-jaw" is better then "war-war." Somehow the people who advocate this always overlook the fact that their approach also says "go-go" to dictators whose preferred solution to any opposition is "kill-kill." In this particular case, Qaddafi knows quite well that once he's killed the rebels the rest of the world will express outrage, maybe to the level of a "strongly condemn," but will also quietly return to business as usual. (Those seized assets? The crisis started with Qaddafi as the recognized ruler, it will end with Qaddafi as the recognized ruler, and the assets will be returned.)

The West won't intervene, and the Arab street will (already has begun to) claim that the non-response is all about oil. Of course, if the West had intervened, the Arab street (and the Western babbling class) would have claimed it was all about oil. Only a fool sits down to a game where the first rule is: you aren't allowed to win. Which is why, reading the debate between Ken and Carl (isolationism vs. interventionism), to my surprise I found myself agreeing with Ken.

In a world where the U.S. leads, we might have gotten some effective intervention in time for it to matter. But leadership involves risks and costs, so that world involves the risk of a war, and as sure as God made little green apples, the U.S. would be pilloried for it. In a world where the U.S. doesn't lead, we get Rwanda, Darfur, and now Libya, because deploring a crisis is cheap, safe and free moral posturing that allows people to pretend they've done something because they care so deeply and use harsh language.

As far as Libya goes, it's all over but the rape and murder of the reprisals. As for others suffering under a third world dictatorship, they would do well to look hard at this and remember that the Western babbling classes support them only insofar as they can use them to advance their domestic political agenda. Take them at their word, and you wind up in the same position as Qaddafi's soon to be dead enemies.