For a ditherer he presents himself (and the American people) as a reluctant hero:
So far so good - even if he had to be shamed into taking this noble position. He then goes and spoils it all with this:To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
This is of course code to let the Tibetans and the Georgians (among others) know that they are on their own whatever happens (like the Hungarians in 1956).It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale.
I'm left wondering why most Americans can't understand how the actions of successive governments are not seen "liberating" but rather than of the school yard bully. Until the US can demonstrate its ability to stand up to the big boys the world view of the US will remain the same.
The American people deserve better... leadership that is.
Oh yes... and now we have heard it chapter and verse from the US President himself can we assume this is the "official" US position representing an action taken in the US interests... or are we going to have a number of posts with the use of "we" as posters claim to speak on behalf of the American people?
Last edited by JMA; 03-29-2011 at 08:01 AM.
I can't see how the need to balance ends with means and costs with benefits is a sign of bad leadership. Seems to me something we could use a good deal more of. Anyone with limited means - and that's everyone - needs to choose their battles wisely, and choosing battles unwisely has left American means more stretched than ever. Obviously the US is not going to square off with the Russians over Georgia or with the Chinese over Tibet, that would be idiocy of the highest order. We are neither global policeman not guarantor of the world's freedoms. We've no desire or capacity to serve those functions and the world has never asked us to serve those functions.
The opinions of a President have consequences, those of a backseat driver do not. That means that the opinions, let alone the actions, of a President need a great deal more consideration and restraint than those of a backseat driver. If some would see that as dithering, so be it. The current US President made it quite clear throughout his campaign that he would treat military intervention as a course of last resort and would pursue it through multilateral venues unless American interests absolutely required otherwise. Like that position or not, it's what the American people voted for.
Probably because balancing ends with means and costs has nothing to do with an arbitrarily instigated and calibrated reaction "in this particular country...in this particular moment."
This is a particularly pernicious tautology as far as truisms go, in that the realization of risk is ultimately caused by acting unwisely.Seems to me something we could use a good deal more of. Anyone with limited means - and that's everyone - needs to choose their battles wisely, and choosing battles unwisely has left American means more stretched than ever.
And yet the US did square off with the Russians over Afghanistan, to great material (and consequently measurable) benefit: the destruction of the Red Army as an expeditionary force for the cost of a shuttle launch per year. And yet where it concerns the same family of intangible qualitatives Obama reaches for when weighing the risks and gain of the Libya operation, America is widely perceived as rolling snake-eyes.Obviously the US is not going to square off with the Russians over Georgia or with the Chinese over Tibet, that would be idiocy of the highest order.
Then don't. And don't pretend that the world will view this operation as anything less than unreliably assuming the role of a cop--and only under the most expedient, transient conditions.We are neither global policeman not guarantor of the world's freedoms. We've no desire or capacity to serve those functions and the world has never asked us to serve those functions.
But if you do, then do not be surprised when--not if--events conspire against the "limited" universe of outcomes you aspire to realize and the world moves on from "hey, Obama saved Benghazi for one week in March" to "why is Gaddafi still in power?" or "where the hell where the Americans when Tripoli turned into rivers of blood?"
PH Cannady
Correlate Systems
Link to article on "The Crony Attack: Strategic Attacks Silver Bullet."
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf
Interesting read.
But why go after the cronies to the exclusion of Mister Big himself?
In the early stages of the invasion of Iraq - 2003 there was a plan to target 50 odd of Saddam's leading cronies. Cancelled because of intel that Saddam was at a certain place which was bombed instead, with no one home, one is not able to see how going for key people rather than stuff would have worked out in a larger war setting.
I say this because I believe targeting specific people, Mister Big and his cronies, early enough has a better chance of preventing all out war starting or shortening the war than bombing stuff and infrastructure. (We can already see that the bombing of stuff in Libya is not bringing Gaddafi any closer to throwing his hands in the air.)
It is important you show the people of that country who you see as the enemy and destroy the enemy's leadership and not inflict casualties on them or upset their quality of life by destroying the local infrastructure.
Interesting development. Obviously the Russia criticism of the strikes against Gaddafi forces scared the hell out of the US and the Brits and French and brought the bombing of Gaddafi forces (everywhere?) to a halt.
Gaddafi's forces use the lull in air strikes to renew attacks against the rebels and the urban areas of Misurata and Zintan.
What is clear now is that he people of Misurata and Zintan are not being protected by the forces involved in implementing Res: 1973. This is a significant failure.
Your right, but think of it more like a back up plan IF you can't get to Mr. Big.
And also you want to focus on their PRIVATE property as you point out you want to avoid attacking the public, and public infrastructure. And yes you should show it on TV. Let the people no your are attacking the thugs!! not the people as a whole.
Au contraire. The political cost of allowing the sack of Benghazi was calculated to exceed the political cost of limited intervention. That of course creates the subsequent problem of how to keep the intervention limited. Insisting that the British and French initiate intervention and turning over to NATO command are steps in that direction. Whether the limitation is sufficient remains, and whether disengagement can be accomplished effectively, remain to be seen. Whether the initial calculation was accurate remains to be seen.
SWe have the ability, with forces we are willing to commit, to prevent the rebels from being crushed, We do not have the ability, with forces we are willing to commit, to assure a rebel victory or to dictate an end state. The problem was how to accomplish the former without committing to the latter. The administration thinks they found a way. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're not. We'll see.
Risk can be anticipated, within reason. You don't have to step in front of an oncoming train to realize that risk.
Common sense, please. Georgia is not Afghanistan, and Russia is not the Soviet Union. We're not in a cold war with Russia and we had nothing to gain from letting the Georgian government bait us into a confrontation with the Russians to advance their own objectives.
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.
So what? The last thing we want is to have anyone seeing us as a reliable (read predictable) cop: that just gives others an incentive to others to bait us into intervention on their behalf. Why should we pretend that we would want to be involved in any activity that is not in our interests (not expedient) or that would drag us into a quagmire (not transient).
here were the Americans? Hopefully not in the middle of it, trying to clean up somebody else's mess. Certainly there's a risk that we'll be stuck in the middle of it, but those who lead judged it worth the taking. I remain unconvinced, though I think if they're clever they may pull it off. My opinion, of course, means exactly nothing.
Let's skip the dubious redefinition of the word "calculate" for now. People generally weigh the risk of a train derailing against some other bad outcome; said train hurtling over the edge of an unfinished bridge, for example. You don't usually care about the cost of throwing the railroad switch. As it concerns the Arab revolts, and Libya's in particular, there is damned little reason to believe beyond whistling in the dark that the current course of operations will result in any tolerable outcome--Benghazi free or not. That's setting aside the none to trivial universe of outcomes where Benghazi still burns, sooner rather than later.
The first point is debatable, and the second observes that the Administration either doesn't fathom or doesn't care about the war's impact on American interests.We have the ability, with forces we are willing to commit, to prevent the rebels from being crushed, We do not have the ability, with forces we are willing to commit, to assure a rebel victory or to dictate an end state. problem was how to accomplish the former without committing to the latter. The administration thinks they found a way. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're not. We'll see.
And yet you've put forward a maxim reduces evaluation of risk to the choice of stepping or not stepping in front of a train. If it turns out badly, must've been one of those guys who thought he could stop a 100-ton engine with his mind.Risk can be anticipated, within reason. You don't have to step in front of an oncoming train to realize that risk.
You missed the point again, which is there's nothing particularly novel about your observation that countries, soldiers and girl scouts try and reserve what have to do what they can, when they can, where they can. Once you get past this huge non-sequitur, we can move on to the real debate: whether or not the intervention realizes any opportunity or staves off any disaster of any interest to Americans.Common sense, please. Georgia is not Afghanistan, and Russia is not the Soviet Union. We're not in a cold war with Russia and we had nothing to gain from letting the Georgian government bait us into a confrontation with the Russians to advance their own objectives.
It means Obama can't even convince even a majority of Americans that his ill-conceived adventure achieves anything of value. Half of that 47 percent back him because they're his biggest fans. The other half back him because there is still a segment of the population that understands that there are very real first and second order costs to American defeat on the battlefield.I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.
Who said anything about "on their behalf?" The US has two centuries worth of experience playing the fifth wheel in foreigners' civil strifeSo what? The last thing we want is to have anyone seeing us as a reliable (read predictable) cop: that just gives others an incentive to others to bait us into intervention on their behalf.
Then what's your reason for backing the Administration's play?Why should we pretend that we would want to be involved in any activity that is not in our interests (not expedient) or that would drag us into a quagmire (not transient).
For all this talk about "cleverness" and "pulling thing off," I'm still waiting to read exactly what you makes you think there's anything cute about the course of operations thus far or exactly what the Administration aims to pull off.Where were the Americans? Hopefully not in the middle of it, trying to clean up somebody else's mess. Certainly there's a risk that we'll be stuck in the middle of it, but those who lead judged it worth the taking. I remain unconvinced, though I think if they're clever they may pull it off. My opinion, of course, means exactly nothing.
PH Cannady
Correlate Systems
As in "to make a judgment about what is likely to happen or likely to be true using the available information". Generally accepted.
We're not in a position to say what outcomes we will or will not tolerate. The revolts are happening, whether we like it or not. Our capacity to influence the outcomes is highly constrained, and we'd be fools to talk about what we will "tolerate" if we aren't willing to act. In any given case the US position is less about the outcome of that revolt than about percveption management: where do we want to be seen standing on the incident, not what we want the outcome to be.
That possibility exists. It's no longer a certainty.
For what little it's worth, I thought the recent speech went well over the top with all the "could not allow this to happen stuff", words that can come back and bite later on and elsewhere. Should have been more along the lines of "will help to the extent that we can within the limits of numerous restrictions" stuff.
The impact on American interests has yet to be determined. The impact of any alternative action or inaction could easily have been as bad, or worse. Always easy for backseat drivers to rant about how it al would have come out right if y'all had just dunnit my way; we see plenty of that here.
I never said it foes, nor do I think it does. As above, I think it's less about influencing Libya's future than about influencing perceptions of the US approach to intervention.
Who said anything about "American defeat on the battlefield"? If the rebels lose that's not an American defeat on the battlefield.
I didn't say I back it. I have major reservations about it. It's probably one very small step better than doing absolutely nothing, and it's certainly better than charging in with a full bore effort to defeat and remove MG, but it's by no means a good place to be.
Never said it was cute. What they may pull off if they're clever is backing off and getting out before it goes all to $#!t and blows up in our faces.
Bookmarks