And Libya goes on...

[Cliff]

The UNSC just approved the NFZ resolution...

could be too late for the Libyans...

V/R,

Cliff

[JMA]

The UNSC just approved the NFZ resolution...

could be too late for the Libyans...

V/R,

Cliff

Too late for the Libyans? Maybe not.

Too late for the US to save face and retain credibility? Most certainly.

From the Daily Mail: After weeks of hesitancy over imposing a no-fly zone in Libya, the United States made a dramatic about-face, calling for even more expanded action, including strikes on Gaddafi's ground forces besieging rebel-held cities.

[J Wolfsberger]

Apparently it will be primarily the British and French, could start within hours and could include action against ground forces.

[Ken White]

Too late for the Libyans? Maybe not.

Not sure pure air can swing it...

Though it's notable the UNSC Resolution doesn't limit itself to air power only.

Too late for the US to save face and retain credibility? Most certainly.

You're apparently a great deal more worried about that aspect than are we.

Whether by accident or by design, that dithering may have the extremely beneficial effect of forcing Europe -- and the region -- to take care of their own problems without insisting on the US being involved...

About time. Long overdue.

[Rex Brynen]

Not sure pure air can swing it...

I think it can certainly prevent a Qaddafi victory, given how small, overstretched, poorly motivated, and poorly-led his forces are--and how much latitude the UNSC resolution gives for selecting targets. Loyalist units have proven very poor at close combat, and have largely relied on tank, artillery, and naval fire to break rebel positions from a distance. Fortunately, Libya is one of those places where MBTs and MRLs stand out for miles.

It is also clear that Egyptians have already started military supply of the rebels, and I suspect that will morph to a quick-and-dirty train and equip soon. In the end, the Libyan opposition will have to win the all important ground part of this on their own.

[JMA]

Not sure pure air can swing it...

Under what appears to be the wide rules of engagement allowed one quick violent accurate strike will break the back of the Gaddafi regime. Whether its quick or slow will depend on what the generals are allowed to do.

I would go for quick because the politicians and the public have no staying power and may yet pull the plug before the job is done.

Though it's notable the UNSC Resolution doesn't limit itself to air power only.You're apparently a great deal more worried about that aspect than are we.

Not as worried as the the US should be. Stand by to have it repeatedly thrown into your faces that it was only the determination of France and Britain (in that order) that shamed the US into action. Another case of a US administration having disgraced the nation in the eyes of the world.

Whether by accident or by design, that dithering may have the extremely beneficial effect of forcing Europe -- and the region -- to take care of their own problems without insisting on the US being involved...

About time. Long overdue.

I like the spin ... you ever thought of a second career at State?

Yes, it must be embarrassing to Americans... I sympathize.

[jcustis]

The neocons are going wild with bloodlust over the simple dynamics of the classic Catch-22 situation that the US is in.

It should give everyone reason for pause, and to literally stop, drop, and roll to be sure that their hair is in fact on fire. They might be surprised that in the grand scheme of things, letting Libya plod along on its own may be the best medicine. Wait...what was I thinking? Everything is black and white with no room for subtlety, balance, or cause for measured and deliberate action.

Where's my hammer to take care of that fly?

[JMA]

The neocons are going wild with bloodlust over the simple dynamics of the classic Catch-22 situation that the US is in.

It should give everyone reason for pause, and to literally stop, drop, and roll to be sure that their hair is in fact on fire. They might be surprised that in the grand scheme of things, letting Libya plod along on its own may be the best medicine. Wait...what was I thinking? Everything is black and white with no room for subtlety, balance, or cause for measured and deliberate action.

Where's my hammer to take care of that fly?

Why is there an assumption that there needs to be a massive military intervention in Libya?

The intel available to the US and various EU countries should allow for a quick and simple precision strike to bring the regime to an end.

I would think that there has been an ultimatum issued to Gaddafi which has given him x hours to pack up and go... or face the consequences. Failing which a strike will go in (best on the forces in the East) taking out every vehicle, tank and artillery piece... but making sure concentrations of Gaddifi forces are given the appropriate attention.

Not sure there is any need to exaggerate the amount of force needed to scatter Gaddafi's rag tag army and mercenaries. A point on these African mercenaries. It is only an untrained rebel militia which has anything to fear from mercenaries from Chad, Niger, Zimbabwe or wherever. These thugs are at their best when dealing with untrained militias and unarmed villagers... they are nothing but fodder for the 30mm cannons.

Play this one correctly and it will be over by Monday.

[jcustis]

To be more precise, we don't have a need to be involved, militarily, in the affairs of Libya.

[Dayuhan]

Not as worried as the the US should be. Stand by to have it repeatedly thrown into your faces that it was only the determination of France and Britain (in that order) that shamed the US into action. Another case of a US administration having disgraced the nation in the eyes of the world.

Like Ken I am not worried, or embarrassed, or shamed. You could always see it as a cleverly implemented strategy to force the Europeans to take responsibility for matters in their own backyard.

If you look at reactions to US policies, what most of the world saw as real shame and disgrace was the unilateral interventions of the Bush era, which were widely opposed, widely criticized, and which are still widely trumpeted, especially in the Muslim world, as evidence of American disregard and contempt for practically everybody else. Largely as a result of that reaction, the current administration established from the start an intent to work primarily through and in concert with multilateral organizations. I see no particular shame in doing what we said we will do, or in expecting our allies to step up and take the lead on matters that primarily affect them and which have no immediate impact on our interests.

Doing everything yourself isn't leadership.

[Ken White]

Not as worried as the the US should be. Stand by to have it repeatedly thrown into your faces that it was only the determination of France and Britain (in that order) that shamed the US into action. Another case of a US administration having disgraced the nation in the eyes of the world.

Who may have once done something but now do little but carp will carp. They have been throwing things in our faces for years -- hasn't hurt much, hasn't changed much but as long as you're entertained, we're all for it...

I like the spin ... you ever thought of a second career at State?

Nope, long fully retired after two 'careers,' don't need another and if by spin you mean having to point out the glaringly obvious to people who are supposed to be old enough and smart enough to know better than a lot of the dribble they espouse, why, that sounds sort of bo-ring. It's okay to while away idle hours doing that just for grins but I sure wouldn't want to do it for a career.

Yes, it must be embarrassing to Americans... I sympathize.

Uh, actually, what's embarrassing to many American is having to pick up the slack for a lot of people who don't want to pull their weight and who purport to want said 'Merkuns to fix their messes or the messes they left around the world. BTW, how are things going in your neighborhood? Anyway, we're embarrassed for them plus it's really getting tedious...

[Fuchs]

The UNSC just approved the NFZ resolution...

This basically reinforces my suspicion that both public and governments in the West are infected with serious air power hype and that Western governments are terribly incompetent in military strategy and the art of war.


The few old Mirages, MiGs and Suchois are hardly the key problem.
A smart approach would have attempted to break the loyalty and confidence of the indigenous pro-Gaddaffi troops.

[Ken White]

This basically reinforces my suspicion that both public and governments in the West are infected with serious air power hype and that Western governments are terribly incompetent in military strategy and the art of war.


The few old Mirages, MiGs and Suchois are hardly the key problem.
A smart approach would have attempted to break the loyalty and confidence of the indigenous pro-Gaddaffi troops.

On both counts. You have any idea why Germany abstained?

Not a problem to me but I'm sure there's a good reason...

[Pete]

President Wilson was the first to state a comprehensive list of principles that guided U.S. foreign policy. I'm also aware of his previous interventions in Mexico, but it should be emphasized that the second one there by Wilson was provoked by an incident on American soil. Wilson has nothing to do with Libya and I've had no involvement in previous debates about this topic of Wilson, so I'd prefer to leave the subject alone.

[Rex Brynen]

On both counts. You have any idea why Germany abstained?

We couldn't possibly have the French, British, and Germans all agreeing on a common European security and defence policy issue. It would be un-European.

[Fuchs]

On both counts. You have any idea why Germany abstained?

Not a problem to me but I'm sure there's a good reason...

Officially they liked the idea of doing something about the crisis,but saw too many dangers and risks in military intervention - whatever that means.

I know several probable unofficial reasons that would not be fit for a public statement as long as the minister of foreign affairs still wants to appear to be polite and diplomatic.



The UN webmaster is slow, as always. The resolution will appear here.
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions11.htm
I'm interested to see whether this is limited in time or open-ended (which would be a folly)

[JMA]

Officially they liked the idea of doing something about the crisis,but saw too many dangers and risks in military intervention - whatever that means.

I know several probable unofficial reasons that would not be fit for a public statement as long as the minister of foreign affairs still wants to appear to be polite and diplomatic.

Whatever the reasons are it is once again sad that the humanitarian aspect seemed to play no role in the decision making process. An unfortunate continuing national characteristic.

[Fuchs]

The problem is in part that it's not sure an intervention will improve the situation - it could also worsen it. UN intervention has extended the Bosnian civil war, for example.

There's reason for mistrusting the usual suspects of military interventions and their ability to aim at military targets only.

There's also a considerable potential for misuse in UNSC resolutions, as evidenced by the U.S. lie that a UNSC resolution somehow legalised OIF although that was an entirely new and counter-factual view for all but two UNSC seat owners.

Finally, keep in mind how the U.S. misused its Iraq NFZ (originating in a cease-fire agreement for a war that had lost its legitimacy when Kuwait was liberated) to bully Iraq for a decade and for no good reason (the Southern NFZ made no sense any more, the Northern one could have been patrolled from the safety of Kurd-controlled territory) without any potential for trouble.

And then there's the strange idea of "self defense" of certain air force's pilots, who fly at 20,000 ft in a Mach 2 jet and claim to have bombed a wedding in "self defense" because they saw muzzle fire.


Obviously, there are many concerns that are not fit for a press release.

I need the exact text on the UN website quick, the news are -as usual- totally useless because they don't offer any of the important details of the resolution.

[Rex Brynen]

I need the exact text on the UN website quick, the news are -as usual- totally useless because they don't offer any of the important details of the resolution.

Full text here.

[Tukhachevskii]

The problem is in part that it's not sure an intervention will improve the situation - it could also worsen it. UN intervention has extended the Bosnian civil war, for example.

There's reason for mistrusting the usual suspects of military interventions and their ability to aim at military targets only.

There's also a considerable potential for misuse in UNSC resolutions, as evidenced by the U.S. lie that a UNSC resolution somehow legalised OIF although that was an entirely new and counter-factual view for all but two UNSC seat owners.

Finally, keep in mind how the U.S. misused its Iraq NFZ (originating in a cease-fire agreement for a war that had lost its legitimacy when Kuwait was liberated) to bully Iraq for a decade and for no good reason (the Southern NFZ made no sense any more, the Northern one could have been patrolled from the safety of Kurd-controlled territory) without any potential for trouble.

And then there's the strange idea of "self defense" of certain air force's pilots, who fly at 20,000 ft in a Mach 2 jet and claim to have bombed a wedding in "self defense" because they saw muzzle fire.


Obviously, there are many concerns that are not fit for a press release.

I need the exact text on the UN website quick, the news are -as usual- totally useless because they don't offer any of the important details of the resolution.

...but I'll post them anyway...

With all this talk of no-fly zones and what not I am reminded of an Armenian legend I once heard (somewhere, but I forget). In it a young man on a typical hero-quest confronts the giant Azrail. After a brief but reassuringly fantastical fight he slays the giant, chops of his head and then cleaves the head in twain. The two halves of Azrail’s head then plead to be chopped into quarters. Our young hero declines the request knowing that the third blow would restore Azrail. The motto? One must be sure that in attacking one’s enemy we don’t strengthen him.

Ghaddafi has made a number of pronouncements, many of which seem deranged to our all too rationalist mindsets. “He’s mad!”, we say. “Absolutely loopy”, we proclaim. But is he? One of the claims that his has put forward is that internal events in Libya are being manipulated by outside forces. Fair enough. Arab’s love a good conspiracy theory. But there’s no proof because the revolt has, thus far, been indigenous. But what happens if we (UK & US) do, in fact, establish a no-fly zone (say)? And what happens if even one loyalist aircraft makes it into the air and is then shot down? Or even, G-d forbid, he manages to shoot down one of ours? Well, now, that’s a different kettle of fish ain’t it?

I love a good punch up as much as the next fella. But only if I can comfortable predict the outcome (and can live with it). I’m much more averse to getting into a fight that could rapidly escalate beyond whatever my limited goals may have been (usually at any rate though the older I get the more I find myself hankering after a good fight). That simple legalistic act of reinforcing a (hopefully) internationally sanctioned regime could snowball and prolong Ghaddafi if not undercut the revolt. But therein lies my problem. US and American journalists and the media in general (along with the chattering classes) have taken to describing the “revolt” in Libya as a “national” one (let’s call that the underlying tacit premise). In fact, it’s nothing of the sort. It’s inchoate, unstructured and largely leaderless. The revolt snowballed from its original local insurrection to a national conflagration but that doesn’t mean that all Libyans are of one mind about why they’re doing what they’re doing. In 1917 the Russian Revolution didn’t necessarily have to end in a Bolshevik seizure of power, but it did (indeed, they subsequently re-narrated history to record the revolution as Bolshevik through and through). Indeed, Allied intervention during the Russian Civil war helped to strengthen the Reds especially after the Whites’ legitimacy was undercut by association with the Allies and vice verse. Alternative outcomes were always possible. And they are in Libya too.

Many of the people now revolting against Ghaddafi have no real agenda (grievances are, analytically speaking, a different thing entirely). I am concerned that should we get involved in the mix then we merely begin to sow doubts in the minds of many Libyans currently buoyed along and drunk with their own success that, in fact, maybe they are being manipulated by “foreign” powers (Ghaddafi maybe a bastard but he’s their bastard). That may result in Thermidor and the defection of the many back over to Ghaddafi (impossible perhaps, but not beyond the pale; stranger stuff has happened in the Middle East). That doubt is what keeps Ghaddafi’s chances even (in his own mind that is). Intervening, then, even if only in the form of a no-fly zone, may help prolong (though probably not restore) Azrail/Ghaddafi and may have knock on effects elsewhere. Of course if he gets some loot and a plane ticket to a safe haven...well, who knows? (I’ve heard Libyan planes have been flying to Greece, don’t know what to make of it but I doubt Gaddafi would flee to a NATO country. OTOH, I ‘ve herd that Bylo/Russian/Ukrainian arms smugglers operate in Greece with ties to North Africa though they usually ship via Cyprus and Malta, then again Malta’s crawling with NATO naval units...ahhhh speculation, speculation).


My problem with no-fly zones and other interventions against sovereign states (whatever their internal situation) is that domestic forces inevitably want to mould international affairs to suit domestic purposes. I hope Obama doesn’t try and end his presidency with a foreign policy “flourish” that only gets the rest of us into another quagmire (Europe is, after all, closer to Libya than the US is). Cameron may be just as, if not more, foolhardy in wanting to appear “hard” to an electorate that, frankly, reviles him. Military action serves policy and we’ve not done too good a job at formulating policy appropriate for the Middle East. Besides, who ever heard of a limited intervention that remained limited? The risk of blowback or unintentional consequences (sod’s law) are too great. Better, IMO, to let the situation proceed according to its own logic. This may even be to our advantage in that it may stand as a warning to other restive populaces in the region that change (though a wonderful slogan for American politicians and their British acolytes) isn’t always the panacea it appears to be (remember Kant? Order of whatever kind is preferable to chaos. There’s even an Islamic version somewhere.). And although the circumstances and context is different for all countries it may act as a breaking mechanism for a “domino effect” that threatens to snowball out of control (how’s that for mixed metaphors). Of course, if we can pull off any military actions with some finesse (a tall order I know), then we may even be able to send a signal to states we do want to see change in (i.e., Saudi Arabia & Iran, but then again, in the last case the dangers are similar). Just thought I’d put those thoughts out there, off the cuff though they may be.