And Libya goes on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange

Obama Libyan Actions Attacked on Two Fronts: Political and Legal
http://www.suite101.com/content/obam...#ixzz1PQ4NLviV

Discussing the decision to go to war is always difficult and requires an in-depth knowledge of the legislation and its practice.
Also, the political debate pitfall is always there.
But still, I am very interested in how the SWJ community perceives that particular action against the decision of a president to engage forces (In the light of military action decision, not domestic politic).
Would Libya be a “jurice prudence” (in both way: wait for congress approval or not) and to which extend this might affect the use of force by USA to defend and protect civilian population under threat of mass murder and human rights abuses.

---

This discussion would be purely of an academic historical nature had a decisive and short sharp intervention been carried out in response to UNSC resolution 1973. The civilians needing protection were more than merely those living in Benghazi (the saving of which is being spun as being the victory arising from this shambles) but also Misrata, Zintan etc etc and not to forget Tripoli itself. We will no doubt learn about the mass graves in all those places (criminally) neglected by the actions of a waning super-power and a woefully dependent and under militarily resourced Europe.

Too many lawyers are getting involved in these matters and hence the success rate is as low as it is as they continue to hedge their bets (like the no boots on the ground crap - but it has a nice ring, yes?). It is simple in this case where it is a UN authorised humanitarian intervention. The problem is the implementation has been even less than pathetic. Neither Gates nor Mullen should be allowed to slip away into lucrative retirement but should be called to explain themselves (leaving Obama to the voters in a year or so).

Now with a safe pension, Admiral Lord West, a former First Sea Lord has gone on record stating that had there been "more dramatic action earlier on" more progress would have been made by now. That dear admiral is obvious.

I suggest that what we are seeing is the classic deterioration of the Libya matter into philosophical and pseudo-academic discussion of the rights and wrongs rather than asking the simple question "who is responsible for the cock-up"? This followed by "what should the consequences of their failure be"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

Neither Gates nor Mullen should be allowed to slip away into lucrative retirement but should be called to explain themselves (leaving Obama to the voters in a year or so).

---

Why would US voters care about Libya? Very few of them will even remember; they're paying attention to matters far closer to home. If Obama had sent ground troops in or declared regime change as a goal he'd likely be punished for that come election time, but neither he nor his political advisers were foolish enough to go down that road. As it is, Libya is unlikely to be an issue of any significance at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

Now with a safe pension, Admiral Lord West, a former First Sea Lord has gone on record stating that had there been "more dramatic action earlier on" more progress would have been made by now. That dear admiral is obvious.

---

Progress toward what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

I suggest that what we are seeing is the classic deterioration of the Libya matter into philosophical and pseudo-academic discussion of the rights and wrongs rather than asking the simple question "who is responsible for the cock-up"? This followed by "what should the consequences of their failure be"?

---

Where's the cock-up? The primary goals have been met, at least on the US side: action was taken, the sack of Benghazi was prevented, and the US avoided excessive commitment or responsibility for managing the aftermath.

If the goal had been US-driven regime change, then yes, we could see it as a cock-up... but was that ever the goal?

NATO After Libya

Entry Excerpt:

NATO After Libya: The Atlantic Alliance in Austere Times by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Foreign Affairs. BLUF: "The economic challenges that European nations face are immense, but that must not prevent them from seeing the wider strategic picture. Uncoordinated defense cuts could jeopardize the continent's future security. Libya can act as a wake-up call, but this mission needs to be followed by deeds."



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Where's the cock-up? The primary goals have been met, at least on the US side: action was taken, the sack of Benghazi was prevented, and the US avoided excessive commitment or responsibility for managing the aftermath.

If the goal had been US-driven regime change, then yes, we could see it as a cock-up... but was that ever the goal?

---

Generally agreed, although I think regime-change was indeed a goal, although not US-led. Rather, NATO sought to tip the military balance at a manageable political cost while leaving the Libyans to do most of their fighting for their own freedom.

The TNC is slowly making progress against Qaddafi, and the struggle is actually having a unifying effect on the otherwise fractious Libyan opposition (witness, for example, Benghazi's regular maritime arms-and-supply runs to Misrata, which was essential in pushing back the loyalist siege).

The approach is somewhat similar to French assistance to the American Revolution. From an American point of view, that turned out OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

This discussion would be purely of an academic historical nature had a decisive and short sharp intervention been carried out in response to UNSC resolution 1973.

---

Never possible in this day of humanist world guvmint...

Quote:

---

I suggest that what we are seeing is the classic deterioration of the Libya matter into philosophical and pseudo-academic discussion of the rights and wrongs rather than asking the simple question "who is responsible for the cock-up"? This followed by "what should the consequences of their failure be"?

---

The cock up -- in your eyes, though I'm inclined to agree with Dayuhan and Rex -- was eminently predictable and politically virtually inescapable. Did I earlier mention that? ;)

The West no longer does consequences for failure. Hard to punish the entire Committee, you see... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

The approach is somewhat similar to French assistance to the American Revolution. From an American point of view, that turned out OK.

---

I have to respectfully disagree with the comparison (again). The Treaty of Alliance was a bet on a longshot. The whatever-the-US-is-doing-in-Libya is taking on a charity case.

Thanks to Enduring America for the signpost to an update on the rebel activity in the western mountains of Libya - in the NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/wo...ibya.html?_r=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ganulv

The whatever-the-US-is-doing-in-Libya is taking on a charity case.

---

What the US--and others--are doing in Libya is perfectly clear. They are:

1) Preventing Qaddafi from overrunning Benghazi. Any mass killings that might have involved would inevitably have been blamed on the US.

2) Tilting the military balance in favour of the rebels, in the hope that a post-Q regime will be gratefully oriented towards the West.

3) Underlining the shift in US/Western policy towards one more supportive of Arab democratization. In doing so, they are also undermining the jihadist narrative that the West is an ally of repression.

4) Sending signals that might limit the level of repression used by other authoritarian regimes.

I've yet to meet a Canadian decision-maker involved in the mission that was unclear on this, and I doubt the US, UK, or France are either.

As to the objectives, #1 has been achieved, and #2 is being achieved (although the long-term nature of a post-Q regime remains to be seen). There is clear evidence that #3 is being achieved too: while AQ struggles to frame the Arab Spring and jihadists have largely been marginalized within it, there has been widespread Arab tolerance and even support for coalition action in Libya. In April's Doha debate on the topic, there was majority support for NATO involvement, something that would have been unthinkable at almost any earlier point between 1948 and 2010.

Whether #4 is being achieved at all depends on whether one believes Syria's response has been at all constrained by the Libyan example. Discussing that in any informed way would require information on the Syrian regime's internal deliberations, so we can't really resolve it here. It clearly didn't stop the clampdown in Bahrain.

Support for Libya is indeed a "bet on a longshot" (although perhaps not such a "longshot"). It is precisely the sort of calculated risk that policy-makers are supposed to weigh. While very cogent arguments can be made that the probability and magnitude of the payoff is not worth the financial cost, it is a little naive to believe that the operation was undertaken solely as a "charity case."

Incidentally, it is my understanding that France clandestinely provided arms and other supplies to the American revolutionaries prior to Saratoga, and allowed American privateers to shelter in French-controlled ports. Had NATO had the luxury of a clandestine-first strategy in Libya it might have adopted that approach too, but given the speed of Q's advances and the military situation of the rebels it simply wasn't an available policy choice in March 2011.

that is a bit uncomfortable, but I think needs to be asked. What exactly has the conflict in Libya shown us about the state of the armed forces of Western Europe, Britain and France in particular? Going off purely anecdotal evidence about munitions and spare parts shortages I get the feeling that chronic underinvestment is taking its toll on the US's European partners, and reading Secretary Gate's comments from a few weeks ago, that the DoD is getting increasingly impatient with it's European counterparts.

Then again, I'm back in the nosebleeds, thoughts from those sitting closer to the action?

but not so much so a few years out. How might you reconcile nos. 1 & 2 in your list, Rex, with the so-called fact that U.S. forces are not engaged in hostilities in Libya? (As if the answer to such a question matters in the post-fact society that the United States has become.) There does seem to be a general problem with thinking beyond the next election…

Quote:

---

Had NATO had the luxury of a clandestine-first strategy in Libya it might have adopted that approach too, but given the speed of Q's advances and the military situation of the rebels it simply wasn't an available policy choice in March 2011.

---

as NATO members had the luxury of taking Gaddafi back into the diplomatic fold and availed themselves of it. Hell, I only know what I hear on NPR but 17:00–19:20 of the 07 March 2011 Fresh Air seems relevant here.

Some thoughts on Libya and the US role there:

http://www.c4ads.org/global-security...rophic-success

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ganulv

but not so much so a few years out.

---

Actually, I would have argued that what the US was doing in Iraq was never all that clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ganulv

How might you reconcile nos. 1 & 2 in your list, Rex, with the so-called fact that U.S. forces are not engaged in hostilities in Libya?

---

The hostilities/war powers issue is US domestic politics--it has nothing to do with strategic purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ganulv

as NATO members had the luxury of taking Gaddafi back into the diplomatic fold and availed themselves of it.

---

Of course they did. Smart move, as it turned out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Some thoughts on Libya and the US role there

---

From the cited article....

Quote:

---

Implicit long term goals of NATO military action are to enable a stable, prosperous Libya that provides energy resources at market-driven prices; eliminates sanctuary for state-sponsored terrorism and transnational crime; reduces de-stabilizing migration from North Africa. This is extremely unlikely to occur in the next decade, even with expert policy and execution.

---

I agree completely with the last sentence, and if the goals delineated there are in fact our goals, implicit or explicit, we're setting ourselves up for failure. Best to accept that post-MG Libya is going to be a mess, and do what we can to assure that it's not our mess.

Ode to NATO’s Fiscal Farce in Libya

Entry Excerpt:

Ode to NATO’s Fiscal Farce in Libya
by Jim Egan

Is it not unconscionable that the US, UK & French military
have failed in 100 days and £400m to route Col. Gaddafi?

There are ways to prompt him to flee,
And end his strange reign of tyranny.

In a previous life Jim Egan served on staffs on Capitol Hill, at a Pentagon software contractor, and in the White House. Today he is a technologist active in digital futures initiatives that can influence the emotions, brand loyalties and discretionary spending patterns of 100m-sized online audiences.



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

I was in Benghazi earlier this week, and the degree of pro-NATO feeling there is striking, from the giant "thank you France" billboard outside the airport, to French and British flags for sale on roadside stalls (fewer US ones--apparently French ones are easy to make, British ones were already being made for export in the city, but US ones are fiddly to manufacture!), to US flags at revolutionary rallies, to random strangers thanking you if they realize you're from a NATO country.

Such overt popular pro-Americanism (and pro-French/UKism) is really something I'm not used to in the Middle East ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I was in Benghazi earlier this week, and the degree of pro-NATO feeling there is striking, from the giant "thank you France" billboard outside the airport, to French and British flags for sale on roadside stalls (fewer US ones--apparently French ones are easy to make, British ones were already being made for export in the city, but US ones are fiddly to manufacture!), to US flags at revolutionary rallies, to random strangers thanking you if they realize you're from a NATO country.

Such overt popular pro-Americanism (and pro-French/UKism) is really something I'm not used to in the Middle East ;)

---

This is what happens when we decide to out-compete AQ and similar non-state actors as the "De Oppresso Liber" force. For some reason we find that role easier to step into when the government is one such as that of Gaddafi's or even Mubarak's. We find it more difficult to do so when faced with a problem such as Saudi Arabia presents. Too often we end up just building government security force capacity and helping them directly and indirectly to keep the populace suppressed. The sooner we get out of the business of maintaining "friendly dictators" in such fashion the better.

It sounds like we have made progress in venting some of the energy that AQ has drawn upon in Libya to run their own agenda in the region. That is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

This is what happens when we decide to out-compete AQ and similar non-state actors as the "De Oppresso Liber" force.

---

I thought the Libyan rebels were the "De Opresso Liber" force, and we're just helping them out. That works and is a reasonable idea, IMO, as long as we don't decide to take over as the "De Opresso Liber" force.

Assisting people striving for liberty is a good thing, within the bounds of national interest and reasonable caution. Trying to initiate that struggle in another country... not such a good thing, and likely to make a huge mess.

Agree that "maintaining friendly dictators" is bad business, but a lot of today's friendly dictators - notably the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Qataris et al - do not depend on us and are not subject to our influence in any significant degree. Imagining influence we haven't got is risky, acting on that fantasy is downright dangerous.

While Younis was one of the dodgier members of the rebel NTC—he had been deeply involved in Qaddafi's repression—it is never a good sign when 1) you can't trust your senior military commanders, and 2) armed groups take revolutionary security into their own hands:

Quote:

---

Libyan rebels say military commander shot dead
RAMI AL-SHAHEIBI
Benghazi, Libya— The Associated Press

The head of the Libyan rebel's armed forces and two of his aides were killed by gunmen Thursday, the head of the rebel leadership said.

The death of Abdel-Fattah Younis was announced at a press conference in the de facto rebel capital, Benghazi, by the head of the rebels' National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil. He told reporters that rebel security had arrested the head of the group behind the killing.

Rebel security had arrested Mr. Younis and two of his aides early Thursday from their operations room near the rebels' eastern front. Security officials said at the time that Mr. Younis was to be questioned about suspicions his family still had ties to Moammar Gadhafi's regime.

Mr. Younis was Mr. Gadhafi's interior minister before defecting to the rebels early in the uprising, which began in February.

Mr. Abdel-Jalil said that Mr. Younis had been summoned for questioning regarding “a military matter.” He said Mr. Younis and his two aides were shot before they arrived for questioning.

---

The mutual suspicions/rivalries among some NTC commanders in the East has severely undermined efforts to capture Brega, let alone advance beyond that.

C.J. Chivers was interviewed on today’s Fresh Air in regards to his work in Libya. Worth a listen.

I'm constantly amazed by westerners and their inability to understand what is a very simple concept: keep out of the affairs of other nations.

Libya is neither an enemy of the United States nor is it a threat to Europe and North America.

As a Muslim, I deeply admire the ability of Americans to taking care of their children, having stable careers and zero civil disorder within your state. I wish all Muslim and Arab states have healthy trading relations and relative peace with one another. I am, however, disgusted by the constant need to interfere either in the name of "peacekeeping" or "regime-change". Call it what you will. It's breaching the sovereignty of our nations.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia... when the hell does this end? al-Qaeda attacked you on 9/11, not the entire Muslim community.

It's about time these conflicts end and peace prevails.

P.S. In case someone accuses me of being a "closet Jihadi", I equally hate it when countries tell Israel to freeze building settlements or how it should defend itself. It's their domestic policy, none of anyone's business.