Ivory Coast

[Dayuhan]

435 dead, 500,000 displaced.

Still nothing to worry about... until the price of chocolate goes up that is...

Whose national interests, exactly, do you see being affected here?

[JMA]

Whose national interests, exactly, do you see being affected here?

Sadly I just don't think you will understand but try to read this piece on humanitarian intervention and see if the penny drops.

Some of humanitarian intervention's essential characteristics:

1. Humanitarian intervention involves the threat and use of military forces as a central feature.

2. It is an intervention in the sense that it entails interfering in the internal affairs of a state by sending military forces into the territory or airspace of a sovereign state that has not committed an act of aggression against another state.

3. The intervention is in response to situations that do not necessarily pose direct threats to states’ strategic interests, but instead is motivated by humanitarian objectives.

[Stan]

Sadly I just don't think you will understand but try to read this piece on humanitarian intervention and see if the penny drops.

JMA,
What of our dumb-ass belief that we are somehow moral agents? Afghanistan was once (now twice) considered a disastrous mistake although most contend the invasions were to do good. In fact we could conclude our actions were based on misunderstanding and simply naiveté.

Sustaining noble intent has become impossible

[Dayuhan]

Sadly I just don't think you will understand but try to read this piece on humanitarian intervention and see if the penny drops.

I know what humanitarian intervention is. The question asked involved national interest, which is not the same thing.

Humanitarian interventions don't involve pennies dropping, they involve large numbers of dollars dropping. We haven't got that many dollars any more, especially given the number of messed up places in the world.

It is not the responsibility of the US to protect and defend everyone, everywhere, all the time, and its not in the interests of the US to try.

[JMA]

I know what humanitarian intervention is. The question asked involved national interest, which is not the same thing.

IMHO interventions on humanitarian grounds are as justifiable as those in the so-called "national interest".

Humanitarian interventions don't involve pennies dropping, they involve large numbers of dollars dropping. We haven't got that many dollars any more, especially given the number of messed up places in the world.

It is not the responsibility of the US to protect and defend everyone, everywhere, all the time, and its not in the interests of the US to try.

I have also voiced a personal opinion here that to exclude options of interventions based on humanitarian grounds is a dehumanising decision.

So by implication then I believe that humanitarian interventions are in fact in any country's national interest.

If you personally have a different view then that's fine.

[JMA]

JMA,
What of our dumb-ass belief that we are somehow moral agents? Afghanistan was once (now twice) considered a disastrous mistake although most contend the invasions were to do good. In fact we could conclude our actions were based on misunderstanding and simply naiveté.

Sustaining noble intent has become impossible

Stan, I don't have a problem with the US being moral agents or being guided by noble intent. It is laudable.

Lets take Afghanistan. The first phase of that exercise (starting October 7, 2001) was fine and it worked well.

Then instead of saying to the Afghans "We are off now but will be back with more of the same if you give us any more trouble" the US allowed itself to get sucked into Afghanistan long term through the UNSC ISAF resolution... and the rest is history.

So Stan the Afghanistan intervention was not the same in most respects IMO. I suggest that the danger in Libya is that the current US Administration will try to over-compensate for the errors of the past and damage the medium term prospects for a "liberated" Libya as a result.

I would suggest that there are always US citizens (in one form or tuther) that understand fully what the issues in any given country are. The big question is whether they are listened to or do the "smart guys" at State and in the WH just ignore the obvious value of their input. Then once the Pentagon gets the go ahead to deploy do they round up all the best sources or do they just go in blind?

Good intentions can be damaged through poor execution.

[M-A Lagrange]

Humanitarian interventions, at least the non military ones, are not that expensive compare to war.
If you take the time to look closely to the figures, what will cost Ivory Coast? May be 1 billion in total for 1 to 3 years. This includes bilateral direct aid to governement (military, governance...) and pure humanitarian aid from USAID and OFDA.
If you compare the figures with what has been spent on 1 day in Irak of Afghanistan... Then you realise that humanitarian interventions are cheap.

Anyways, Ivory Coast is creating a precedent in many ways. Currently working on election process in another african country, Ivory Coast as an exemple of how to size power or as a disaster or of what should never happen is in all mouthes. I personnaly think that there was no way to solve the problem with another solution than ending the civil war. War need a winner and a looser. And in that case it had to be a clear cut.
What is interresting is that because nobody took a strong stand in IC you still have crazy guys on that continent who believe they can do what ever they want, as G in Lybia, bob in Zim...

I can understand the will of the US military to not be dragged into what ever silly small war every time you have a crazy dictator but I am actually surprised by the strong back clash of isolationism fashion we, by we I mean the non US citizen, see at the moment.
Somehow, I would not be surprised that it back fire in a strong way on the african continent on US interrest (which do exist by the way).

[JMA]

Humanitarian interventions, at least the non military ones, are not that expensive compare to war.
If you take the time to look closely to the figures, what will cost Ivory Coast? May be 1 billion in total for 1 to 3 years. This includes bilateral direct aid to governement (military, governance...) and pure humanitarian aid from USAID and OFDA.
If you compare the figures with what has been spent on 1 day in Irak of Afghanistan... Then you realise that humanitarian interventions are cheap.

Again my point is that the earlier you act and the earlier you get people on the ground the easier it is to contain the problem. There is no excuse on this one the world saw it coming.

Anyways, Ivory Coast is creating a precedent in many ways. Currently working on election process in another african country, Ivory Coast as an exemple of how to size power or as a disaster or of what should never happen is in all mouthes. I personnaly think that there was no way to solve the problem with another solution than ending the civil war. War need a winner and a looser. And in that case it had to be a clear cut.
What is interresting is that because nobody took a strong stand in IC you still have crazy guys on that continent who believe they can do what ever they want, as G in Lybia, bob in Zim...

And there are still African leaders who believe that they are above the law and can do as they like (as there are in other parts of the world). I ask what is the deterrent against anyone considering attempting a Kenya/Zimbabwe/Ivory Coast move? None really significant so we must accept the possibility of it happening again and again.

I can understand the will of the US military to not be dragged into what ever silly small war every time you have a crazy dictator but I am actually surprised by the strong back clash of isolationism fashion we, by we I mean the non US citizen, see at the moment.
Somehow, I would not be surprised that it back fire in a strong way on the african continent on US interrest (which do exist by the way).

Well there seems to be more panic around SWC than I hear from where it matters but yes it appears that the US is close to getting max'd out on any intervention be it humanitarian or other. Pity they don't think it necessary to give the world notice that the want out.

With this fatigue from effort (with sadly a lot of failures mixed in) I read a growing feeling of indifference to human suffering which is a slippery slope down a path to a dehumanised condition. I don't believe the majority of US citizens want to turn their backs on human suffering wherever it might be but through the incompetence of successive politicians and sadly also some pretty basic military errors they have not been rewarded with that feel-good result after a job well done.

There is of course a better way out of all this but it may be too late as the US may well have already turned away...

This quote stays with me forever:

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.

[M-A Lagrange]

Once again, the UN SC is meeting on Ivory Coast.
From what I heard the position of western powers has not changed: Bagbo is not legitimately and even less legaly president.
ICG issued another letter to the UNSC:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/public...e-divoire.aspx

Let see what will happen

[jmm99]

The Libyan intervention is approved by a plurality of US likely voters, 45% Support U.S. Military Action in Libya, 34% Oppose, 21% Undecided, with a huge majority of the Political Class supporting it:

Eighty-two percent (82%) of the Political Class support Obama's Libya decision, compared to 39% of Mainstream voters. Sixty-five percent (65%) of those in the Political Class feel Congress' approval was not necessary, but 56% of Mainstream voters disagree.

Explanation of the Poltical Class and Mainstream below.

The result among likely voters comes despite this result, 28% Say Libya Important To U.S. National Security, 42% Disagree; but again, the Political Class diverges big time:

However, there’s a much wider gap between the Political Class and Mainstream voters on these questions. Sixty percent (60%) of those in the Political Class say there is a vital U.S. national security interest in Libya. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Mainstream voters disagree.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Political Class voters support U.S. involvement in conflicts like Libya for humanitarian reasons even when there is no direct threat to U.S. national security. Fifty-four percent (54%) of those in the Mainstream oppose involvement in situations like that.

We see similar divergence in the Right Direction or Wrong Track - 23% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, where the most likely voter numbers (23%-71%-6%) reflect more Mainstream than Political Class:

Sixty-one percent (61%) of Political Class voters believe the United States is heading in the right direction. Eighty-five percent (85%) of Mainstream voters think the country is going down the wrong track.

This result is close to the results from August 2010, 67% of Political Class Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, 84% of Mainstream Disagrees, where the questions re: Mainstream and Poltical Class are explained:

The Political Class Index is based on three questions. All three clearly address populist tendencies and perspectives, all three have strong public support, and, for all three questions, the populist perspective is shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans and those not affiliated with either of the major parties. We have asked the questions before, and the results change little whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge of the government.

In many cases, the gap between the Mainstream view and the Political Class is larger than the gap between Mainstream Republicans and Mainstream Democrats.

The questions used to calculate the Index are:

-- Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more - the American people or America’s political leaders?

-- Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Has the federal government become a special interest group?

-- Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors?

To create a scale, each response earns a plus 1 for the populist answer, a minus 1 for the political class answer, and a 0 for not sure.

Those who score 2 or higher are considered a populist or part of the Mainstream. Those who score -2 or lower are considered to be aligned with the Political Class. Those who score +1 or -1 are considered leaners in one direction or the other.

In practical terms, if someone is classified with the Mainstream, they agree with the Mainstream view on at least two of the three questions and don’t agree with the Political Class on any.

Initially, Rasmussen Reports labeled the groups Populist and Political Class. However, despite the many news stories referring to populist anger over bailouts and other government actions, the labels created confusion for some. In particular, some equated populist attitudes with the views of the late-19th century Populist Party. To avoid that confusion and since a majority clearly hold skeptical views about the ruling elites, we now label the groups Mainstream and Political Class.

So, worry not, those of interventionist bent - the US Political Class is still very much with you.

Regards

Mike

[Ken White]

That being the opinions of the political class...

The "vital national political interest" aspect in particular.

On the Libya thread, I commented to JMA that I had difficulty understanding why our 'decision makers' ignored the advice of many other politicians and of the armed forces. These figures show me a 'what' of sorts but I still cannot fathom the 'why'...

Thanks for posting that.

P.S.

I trust your ambient norms are now above 40°.

[Stan]

P.S.

I trust your ambient norms are now above 40°.

Better not be---, it's friggin freezing over here STILL. Mike is a Finn and relatively acclimatized

[Ken White]

Better not be---, it's friggin freezing over here STILL. Mike is a Finn and relatively acclimatized

I got a fraudulent charge on a credit card made from Estonia -- seriously -- someone buying blankets -- also seriously...

So now I gotta memorize a new number. Between weapons serial nrs, Socials, Army and Marine serial numbers, credit cards, insurance policies, etc. it is really getting crowded in my bourbon befuddled sawdust pile...

Keep on keepin' on...

[jmm99]

we've had a mild winter - not too Finnish. Although I did eat late lunch - early supper at the Kaleva Cafe (which is next door to my office).

Terveiset

Mikko

[JMA]

I trust your ambient norms are now above 40°.

Question not aimed at me I know but...

Best decision my family made was in 1793 to leave that frozen mud island in the North.

Today in Durban we have:

Max: 26 C - 78.8 F
Min: 23 C - 73.4 F (night)
Wind: 6 mph
Humidity: 79%

Never need a heater any time of the year.
Need (only because I'm getting old) a fan about 10 times a year.

[JMA]

Once again, the UN SC is meeting on Ivory Coast.
From what I heard the position of western powers has not changed: Bagbo is not legitimately and even less legaly president.
ICG issued another letter to the UNSC:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/public...e-divoire.aspx

Let see what will happen

As I understand it they are merely seeking sanctions on Gbagbo. How on earth will this stop the slide towards civil war?

Wait a minute... only one million internally displaced and 450 killed in the capital and 200 odd reported from the rural West... nothing to worry about - sorry for being alarmist. (sarcasm)

If the US is not interested they should at least support 1973 type resolution authorising France (and Nigeria and oither West Africans) to do what it takes to prevent a slide into civil war... without the no boots on the ground restriction.

Will it happen? No. The one thing the US needs less than another small war is to wake up one morning and find the world no loner needs the US (and the money it borrows from China).

[Stan]

I suggest that the danger in Libya is that the current US Administration will try to over-compensate for the errors of the past and damage the medium term prospects for a "liberated" Libya as a result.

JMA,
I certainly agree with you there. A few more Tomahawks than you or I bargained for, when all we wanted was three for the Ivory Coast.

I would suggest that there are always US citizens (in one form or tuther) that understand fully what the issues in any given country are. The big question is whether they are listened to or do the "smart guys" at State and in the WH just ignore the obvious value of their input. Then once the Pentagon gets the go ahead to deploy do they round up all the best sources or do they just go in blind? .

Other than some satellite imagery and 20 year-old intel, we flew in blind !
Indeed we have people all over the world with a wealth of country-specific knowledge and good old knowhow (which, often includes knowing-what and know-why). What really puzzles me is we somehow think we are smarter than the COL Gs and Gbagbos of the world and apply our our pathetic reliance on playing fair while others don’t. Don’t get me started on my State Dept. experiences.

Good intentions can be damaged through poor execution.

Now what I’m going to say will really get me hammered as evil (again) !
The US Military is not a humanitarian organization. We can certainly gear our troops and use of equipment to perform a limited role, but it is not something most of us are professionally trained to do.

Even humanitarian demining has some unattainable expectations flawed from the very beginning with generalized text books in 26 languages and no real-world training.

To expect some profound outcome without a single casualty is naïve and plain old stupid.

[JMA]

JMA,
I certainly agree with you there. A few more Tomahawks than you or I bargained for, when all we wanted was three for the Ivory Coast.

There was a window of opportunity for action and it passed.

The best way to protect the Libyan civilians would have been and still is to hit the snake on the head (Gaddafi). More difficult to locate and target now. So who carries the responsibility for the deaths of Libyans at the hands of Gaddafi in the last month or so?

Then there is the fundamental difference in approach. A big military can pound an enemy into submission while a small military (or a large one which wants to leave a small footprint) will target the pressure points and go for the jugular.

The decision was made to take out all the air defences and whatever (which to be fair was what the world was told right up front before UNSC 1973 was passed). To the credit of those involved in these strikes (vast majority the US) the precision has been unprecedented. Truly magnificent to the extent that Gaddafi has been unable to produce the bodies of the civilians he claims were killed in these strikes.

So because the head-of-the-snake remains intact the killing of civilians continues. And the cost of the initial strikes were probably around $1billion which I presume the US will absorb.

There seems to be some confusion whether UNSC Res 1973 authorised the targeting of Gaddafi or not. I can understand civilian political confusion on the matter but in the military? Perhaps the Trojan House the politicians inserted into the US military (a brigade strength of lawyers) is again proving their worth.

Compared to a mountain of dead bodies and $1billion spent I suggest that a quick strike to the head of the snake was then and remains the best option.

Other than some satellite imagery and 20 year-old intel, we flew in blind !
Indeed we have people all over the world with a wealth of country-specific knowledge and good old knowhow (which, often includes knowing-what and know-why). What really puzzles me is we somehow think we are smarter than the COL Gs and Gbagbos of the world and apply our our pathetic reliance on playing fair while others don’t. Don’t get me started on my State Dept. experiences.

Am I to assume then that neither State not the Pentagon draw on this local knowledge of US citizens? If this is the case then why deploy these people to all these exotic places in the first place? It certainly doesn't make a lot of sense.

Now what I’m going to say will really get me hammered as evil (again) !

Surely not possible in a country that champions free speech?

The US Military is not a humanitarian organization. We can certainly gear our troops and use of equipment to perform a limited role, but it is not something most of us are professionally trained to do.

Even humanitarian demining has some unattainable expectations flawed from the very beginning with generalized text books in 26 languages and no real-world training.

To expect some profound outcome without a single casualty is naïve and plain old stupid.

That is true and that is why humanitarian demining is carried out by contractors.

In the case of the military component of a humanitarian intervention there are probably two or more phases. The first will be the need to stop the violence and in the places you and I know that means by using maximum violence. Once the perpetrators have been crushed you can swing over to the second phase and introduce different troops trained in civic action and all that stuff to take over and keep the peace and protect the civilian authority while they rebuild the place. The peacemakers go home after phase one. Not too many twenty-something year olds who can switch from killer-mode to kissing babies in an instant.

While I have little good to say about politicians in any county it must be said that the respective militaries should have wised up to this requirement and taken the necessary steps to cater for it by now.

[M-A Lagrange]

JMA:

The problematic in Ivory Coast is biased by the colonial past and use the US did of it to support Bagbo in the early stages. The French president did not ease the things when he made his allocution in Dakar saying African man have not yet entered history. (What an &*&^%$# !!!).

Now you have a situation where use of force by people who have a good knowhow will be problematic as stigmatized as colonial enterprise in Africa. And African nation who have a decent knowhow are not willing because it will beak the AU unity (I am so sad if it happens ).

South Africa tried to come in but that did not work because one party did not want to.
Comes a point where you have to let the things go and limit your engagement in patching the wounds. It's sad for the people but it's also the awful reality.

Also, I have concerns about the African solution to African problem policy. Liberia was and remain a good example of how things started with good will at the highest level turn into the worst nightmare ever.

Concerning humanitarian action, I would be even quicker to get upset than Stan. The only level things can be (and are) blurred is the financial one. On the ground soldiers do their job and humanitarian theirs. It's good to keep it like this. Actually makes it safer for everybody.

In the mean time, Ivorians have to solve the problem. And in Ivory Coast, Bagbo does not have any air power anymore since he bombed a french camp.
If he uses tanks for crowd control: then it will be another issue.
Otherwise, the alliance has enough military equipment and training to react and place their man at the top. May be pushing some in the regular army to turn their jacket as we say in french could be a good initiative.

[M-A Lagrange]

In the case of the military component of a humanitarian intervention there are probably two or more phases. The first will be the need to stop the violence and in the places you and I know that means by using maximum violence. Once the perpetrators have been crushed you can swing over to the second phase and introduce different troops trained in civic action and all that stuff to take over and keep the peace and protect the civilian authority while they rebuild the place. The peacemakers go home after phase one. Not too many twenty-something year olds who can switch from killer-mode to kissing babies in an instant.

In my personnal experience, did try this in DRC through UN.
Full spectrum failure!
The pb is that no one is really keen in investing in phase 2 and even less in phase 1 on African soil, including African powers.
The main pb is to find an African army that is not committed to take advantage of the situation to do business first.