And Libya goes on...

[JMA]

Lets deal with this aspect first:

What struck me about McCain's comments was the complete lack of any consideration for what comes after. he seems to treat the removal of MG and victory for the rebels as an end point in itself, which anyone who actually has power in the US can't afford to do. The primary goal of any US involvement in Libya, IMO, has to be assuring that the US is not sucked into any involvement in post-MG stabilization and "nation-building". McCain doesn't seem to acknowledge that getting rid of MG will be only the first step in a process that's certain to be long and likely to be an enormous mess.

Here's my take on the McCain article in Time:

First of all this article seems to have been put together after two chance/random conversations between the author and McCain. So I for one did not expect the article to reflect McCain's definitive position on Libya.

MIRAS (McCain is reported as saying) "Gaddafi is a third-rate military power," - he is correct

MIRAS "...one thing we know about mercenaries is that if they think things are going in the wrong direction, they'll get out of Dodge." - correct, that's why they need to be on the receiving end of some ordinance so that get a strong feeling things are going in the wrong direction.

MIRAS - "the West still has tools at its disposal that can bring about Gaddafi's downfall, even without a major commitment of U.S. military force. "- indeed and if they had aggressively acted against Gaddafi's forces from the outset this would have happened in the first few weeks. The wimp in the WH vacillated and the opportunity passed and the people of Misrata died.

MIRAS - "By the time they arrived in Benghazi, a 20-hour journey by sea, wounded rebel fighters had little chance for survival. " - so what to do about it? Is assistance with medical supplies, treatment and evacuation either a breach of the UNSC resolution or not in the US's best interests?

MIRAS - "The rebels have "learned by doing" — they have neutralized Gaddafi's advantage in weaponry by improving their use of guerrilla tactics." - yes, as stated the local knowledge of all the lanes and alley ways is a massive advantage for the rebels. But is this a skill that should be fostered among Libyans? Who could they use these guerrilla tactics against next?

MIRAS - "We're talking about a fourth-rate power taking on a third-rate power," - yes and its in the interests of Libya, the region and the continent that Libyans do not learn to become first rate soldiers.

MIRAS - "the citizens of Benghazi cheered McCain, they also said they were baffled at the West's seeming unwillingness to take more aggressive steps to stop Gaddafi's shock troops. "There is some anger, but a lot of it is just, 'I thought the Americans would help us," - and with just reason the anger will rise. There was an opportunity to improve the goodwill towards the US by aggressively going after Gaddafi forces and thereby protecting the civilians. An opportunity lost.

MIRAS - "We should recognize" the rebel leadership as a provisional government, " - should have been done long ago... or withdrawing the recognition of the Gaddafi regime.

MIRAS - "get the rebel satellite phones and uniforms" - should have been done long ago.

MIRAS - "Most importantly, the Obama Administration needs to reclaim ownership of NATO's air campaign. "I love the British and I love the French, but they do not have the military capabilities of the United States of America ... We are fighting half a war. You can never win conflicts unless you do what is necessary to win." - Handing over to NATO was another supposedly "smart move" that proved to be a mistake. The soloution is to admit it, fix it and finish this business... quickly.

MIRAS - "I don't think it would be a lengthy campaign." - of course. You let those boys on the carrier loose on Gaddafi's forces and it will be over in an afternoon.

Quite simply Gaddafi must be forced out of power. The world should expect and should accept that him, his sons and inner circle will face the death penalty and let it happen. Thereafter let the Libyans sort their country out for themselves. Why, the US could even charge them a few billion for the military assistance and I'm sure the Libyans would cheerfully pay. An oil rich country, the one thing they have is the money.

[Dayuhan]

Sound oddly reminiscent of all the reasons given for invading Iraq and removing Saddam. I distinctly recall being told that the Iraqis would dance in the streets, welcome us with open arms, and be eternally grateful, and that Iraqi oil would pay the cost of the operation. Hasn't quite worked out that way.

[JMA]

Sound oddly reminiscent of all the reasons given for invading Iraq and removing Saddam. I distinctly recall being told that the Iraqis would dance in the streets, welcome us with open arms, and be eternally grateful, and that Iraqi oil would pay the cost of the operation. Hasn't quite worked out that way.

Well yes, the weak constant with Libya and Iraq (and Afghanistan) is the State Department and the CIA. As long as the US has to rely on these clowns for briefings, guidance and intel the planning and execution will be like going blindfolded into the great unknown.

Further to that it should be asked what the US has learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan. Now older, wiser and more experienced heads will not make the same mistakes... but we have a brand new bunch of arrogant clowns in the Administration now who seem intent on reinventing the wheel. So the 4 to 8 year cycle continues.

[Dayuhan]

Well yes, the weak constant with Libya and Iraq (and Afghanistan) is the State Department and the CIA. As long as the US has to rely on these clowns for briefings, guidance and intel the planning and execution will be like going blindfolded into the great unknown.

You might find a few parallels between Iraq and Libya without straining to look too hard. Long-standing dictatorships, deeply divided "nations" held together only by force, etc.

I'd suggest that the problem in Iraq in particular was less with planning and execution than with the decision to go there in the first place... and still more with the "idea" (using the term very loosely indeed) that the US could "drain the swamp in the Middle East" by "installing" a democracy in Iraq. Start with that set of delusions and no amount of planning and execution is going to produce anything but disaster, even with the best briefings, guidance and intel on the planet. There are things you just shouldn't try to do, usually because they are dumb.

Further to that it should be asked what the US has learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan. Now older, wiser and more experienced heads will not make the same mistakes... but we have a brand new bunch of arrogant clowns in the Administration now who seem intent on reinventing the wheel. So the 4 to 8 year cycle continues.

They seem to have learned that charging into places you don't belong and trying to remove or replace governments is often not a good idea. That's a start. They seem less inclined to unilateral intervention and more inclined to place sharp limits on intervention, and that's not half bad either. Long way from perfect, but a step in the right direction.

I suppose you could argue that a nice permanent dictatorship would give greater continuity to US foreign policy and a better opportunity to learn from mistakes... in fact it sounds like you're arguing exactly that. Alas, we're quaintly attached to this notion of democracy. Incomprehensible, of course, but there it is.

The repetitive and tedious accusations of arrogance, incompetence, cowardice and what have you really don't do your arguments much service, and are easily perceived as a rather shallow sort of bluster in the Colonel Blimp vein. I doubt they are intended to be that, but they easily leave that impression.

[JMA]

You might find a few parallels between Iraq and Libya without straining to look too hard. Long-standing dictatorships, deeply divided "nations" held together only by force, etc.

Well yes, there will be parallels and there will be significant differences. Each case has to be handled on its merits. The current WH and State clearly is all at sea over how to handle the Arab Spring. An opportunity lost.

I'd suggest that the problem in Iraq in particular was less with planning and execution than with the decision to go there in the first place... and still more with the "idea" (using the term very loosely indeed) that the US could "drain the swamp in the Middle East" by "installing" a democracy in Iraq. Start with that set of delusions and no amount of planning and execution is going to produce anything but disaster, even with the best briefings, guidance and intel on the planet. There are things you just shouldn't try to do, usually because they are dumb.

Well maybe. But like with GWB Obama brought certain preconceived ideas to the presidency. That is why I refer to "a brand new bunch of arrogant clowns" replacing another. What I suggest to you is that the "cock-ups" have been as a result of all too smart politicians getting beyond themselves which reflects badly on the military in the end. But that said if the briefings, guidence and intel from State and the CIA were better the chances are that the WH would make better decisions. You want to cut costs? Do it at State and the CIA.

They seem to have learned that charging into places you don't belong and trying to remove or replace governments is often not a good idea. That's a start. They seem less inclined to unilateral intervention and more inclined to place sharp limits on intervention, and that's not half bad either. Long way from perfect, but a step in the right direction.

Well you see if the new Administration can't make an intelligent deduction from the facts before them there is the reason why the world sees one shambles follow the next every 4 or 8 years. Not good for world peace.

I suppose you could argue that a nice permanent dictatorship would give greater continuity to US foreign policy and a better opportunity to learn from mistakes... in fact it sounds like you're arguing exactly that. Alas, we're quaintly attached to this notion of democracy. Incomprehensible, of course, but there it is.

I am not arguing that... but if all you have left is to misrepresent what I say then that's a new low.

The repetitive and tedious accusations of arrogance, incompetence, cowardice and what have you really don't do your arguments much service, and are easily perceived as a rather shallow sort of bluster in the Colonel Blimp vein. I doubt they are intended to be that, but they easily leave that impression.

Yes, the truth is often unpalatable... but to turn that into personal innuendo is a little cheap don't you think?

[Dayuhan]

Well yes, there will be parallels and there will be significant differences. Each case has to be handled on its merits. The current WH and State clearly is all at sea over how to handle the Arab Spring. An opportunity lost.

I don't see that they are "lost and at sea", they simply have a policy that's not what you approve of. The general idea appears to be to support change of government, but with minimal actual involvement, which worked fine in Egypt and Tunisia. Libya's a little more complicated and has to be handled as it emerges: nobody here has a crystal ball, and nobody in the US government does either. While you are personally convinced that you have a better way of doing things that would yield better results, that's only an opinion, and a lot of competent and well informed people don't share your opinion. That doesn't make them incompetent or cowards or fools or anything else of that sort; it means there's a variance of opinion.

Well maybe. But like with GWB Obama brought certain preconceived ideas to the presidency. That is why I refer to "a brand new bunch of arrogant clowns" replacing another. What I suggest to you is that the "cock-ups" have been as a result of all too smart politicians getting beyond themselves which reflects badly on the military in the end. But that said if the briefings, guidence and intel from State and the CIA were better the chances are that the WH would make better decisions. You want to cut costs? Do it at State and the CIA.

Anyone running for office has to bring preconceived ideas and general policy outlines: nobody will vote for a tabula rasa. The Obama administration is staying as close as it can to the policy framework that it campaigned on, and that the people voted for, which does not seem unreasonable to me.

Smart politicians have often gotten ahead of themselves and messed things up. Dumb ones have often done the same. More often than not they've cocked things up by pushing the US into places it doesn't belong, which is one good reason why intervention in other nations hasn't got a great deal of support in the US.

Guidance from State and Intel is only one of many influences on political decision-making in the US, and often not the most important one... and for better or worse, the State and CIA budgets are too small to make much difference in budget reductions.

Well you see if the new Administration can't make an intelligent deduction from the facts before them there is the reason why the world sees one shambles follow the next every 4 or 8 years. Not good for world peace.

Their deductions are different from yours. That doesn't necessarily make them unintelligent... and world peace is not going to be achieved by anything the US does or doesn't do. The US does not run the world. I have my own criticisms of US policy, and have for many years... but I can't guarantee that my own preferred policies would have generated better results, and neither can you.

I am not arguing that... but if all you have left is to misrepresent what I say then that's a new low.

Then what are you arguing? The electoral cycle is implicit in democracy; you can't have a democracy without it. The right of the populace to choose leaders with different policies is implicit in democracy. If you're complaining about the impact of the electoral cycle on democracy, you're complaining about democracy, because you can't have one without the other.

Yes, the truth is often unpalatable... but to turn that into personal innuendo is a little cheap don't you think?

It's not the truth, it's your opinion. Your occasional failure to distinguish between these two very different things is what creates the impression I described earlier.

[Dayuhan]

Noted the comments below...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110430/...izing_predator

Stephen Biddle, a military analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the reasons are as much diplomatic as military.

"A big part of what's going on is our British and French allies want to get out of what looks to be a stalemate that they now own, so they are busy pressuring us to escalate, and we don't want to escalate," he said. "One of the things the Predators do is they give you something that allows you to say to the British and the French, `We're doing more,' but doesn't get us a lot more committed."

Biddle called the addition of two Predators a "marginal" gain for NATO that won't give the alliance the upper hand or stop Gadhafi's attacks on civilians.

"But it helps solve the immediate issue of responding to pressure from allies," Biddle said.

That's consistent with what I've thought from the start: the US effort is less about achieving any specific end state or result on the ground in Libya than about establishing a US position. The administration does not want to be seen in a fully isolationist "doesn't give a $#!t" role, does want to be seen working through multilateral organizations, but does not under any circumstances want to take "ownership" or take over any kind of a lead role that could lead to "ownership". Given recent history it's easy enough to understand why: getting rid of an undesirable government can easily be the start, not the end, of the problems if one accepts that "ownership" role.