Agree on your assessment of the man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
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.
Good question and it raises some others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
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?
Quote:
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...)
It's a multiplayer field...
...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
By Alessandra Migliaccio and Brian Swint - Mar 9, 2011 5:43 AM MT at Bloomberg
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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, by Roula Khalaf in London, Published: March 8 2011 19:15 | Last updated: March 8 2011 23:00, Financial Times
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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, 8. März 2011, 18:45, NZZ Online
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
You're assuming there was logic applied to Korea...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
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) with a sharper eye on US domestic politics than on the international scene. So, in that sense, I agree with you...
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
...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.
Quote:
... (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:
I thought only the US was that silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
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:
Quote:
...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...
Well, I've 'helped' here and there.
And all I got was a lousy T-shirt (literally)...:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
...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...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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...:(
Quote:
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...