And Libya goes on...

[Bob's World]

I suspect France appreciates more fully than the US does that this is a pure GWOT operation; far more so than Iraq ever was, and more so than Afghanistan has been since 2002.

France's problems, as I perceive them, come from the North African ties within their own populace. By coming out clearly on the side of the Libyan people in their efforts to liberate themselves from Qaddafi I believe that France can buy some good will and reduce the risk of terrorism at home.

For the US it is a bigger issue. The US also needs to support the people, but for the US this is much more indirect than for France. For the US the main effort is on the Arabian Peninsula. So all of our operations in Libya must support the Libyan populace, but also be applied to the Libyan government in a manner that does not completely freak out the governments still clinging to power elsewhere.

It sounds like we have little control over what the French do, they are seeking what they believe is best for their interests. We should expect that. Therefore we need to be sure to separate ourselves to some degree. This is the problem with Coalitions. We think it spreads responsibility; but it also creates conflicts of national interests. Arab nations have very different interests they seek to manage than either France, UK or the US.

I would recommend that we carefully differentiate those interests and intentions within the coalition effort. If we mash them all together, then no one will communicate what the really mean, and it will be a lost opportunity to leverage Libyan events to help shape a greater stability through evolution of governance across the region.

If we just make other governments fearful and defensive, they will shut down to outside and internal influence and most likely just act instinctively to survive by crushing threats.

[slapout9]

So there may not be US National Economic Interests involved in most parts of Africa but there are legacy responsibilities and the simple matter humanity. The US seems to be desperately trying to renege on its obligations and responsibilities.

IMO it has more to do with Economic(Oil) interest than anything else. Libya is key Oil producer/exporter. That makes it a New World System Control Point. Humanitarian concerns make for good public relations and pretext for military action but I just don't have much faith in it anymore. But I am becoming more cynical as I get older.

[carl]

France's problems, as I perceive them, come from the North African ties within their own populace. By coming out clearly on the side of the Libyan people in their efforts to liberate themselves from Qaddafi I believe that France can buy some good will and reduce the risk of terrorism at home.

I wish I had thought of that.

Maybe too they want to take the dictator down quick as possible in order to avoid a clandestine insurgency. If one of those started the influence of the regional Jihadis would grow which would redound to France's regret because those guys don't much like France either...which is what I guess you already said.

[Fuchs]

I doubt that they have domestic motives. Their pro-intervention driver was their minister of foreign affairs. He pushed Sarkozy into war.
Muslims in Europe is as a topic vastly misunderstood by many people (especially North Americans) anyway. For example, they have very real social issues at home - investing the air campaign funds into cheaper flats in the region of Paris would help much more domestically than the air campaign.


The French were embarrassed in Tunisia, the old minister of foreign affairs even resigned. The French government proved to have been too much in bed with North African dictators.

My best guess is that they want to correct that image now, preferably in a country that was not a former colony of theirs, so they don't need to cut remaining relations with the governments of Algeria and Morocco.

They're also eager to lead the whole campaign, which fits into their more general attitude and grand strategy - France as a leading nation in Europe.
They had this attitude since Louis XIV, were just upset a couple times in the meantime. You can be smart in passivity, but you can't lead in passivity.

[Rex Brynen]

Rex threw in the word "impossible" without due thought and instead of just admitting the error is making it worse with such convoluted sentences.

If you scroll back, you'll see I was commenting on Dayuhan's point that the US was seeking to project "the narrative that it sees intervention as a last resort, not a default response (a last resort is what it reasonably should be), that it is reluctant to intervene, and that it does not seek a leadership position that would promote post-intervention control." While I might have been clearer in my language, yes I think it would have been impossible to have done that before the Arab League NFZ resolution.

The marked lack of criticism coming from the Arab world so far--even AL SG Amr Moussa has now walked back his earlier complaints--suggests that the careful laying of diplomatic foundations is paying dividends. Had the US gone ahead with this unilaterally, without Arab and UNSC support, the mission would be far more precarious, and Qaddafi in a much better political position.

[Rex Brynen]

IMO it has more to do with Economic(Oil) interest than anything else. Libya is key Oil producer/exporter. That makes it a New World System Control Point. Humanitarian concerns make for good public relations and pretext for military action but I just don't have much faith in it anymore. But I am becoming more cynical as I get older.

If anything, I think oil considerations retarded intervention. Certainly the Italians seemed worried that it would hamper rather than facilitate supplies.

[Ken White]

Hope this is not degenerating into a p____ing contest about whose air took out what we see on TV?

So do I -- certainly not my intent.

Is that what the truth is called nowadays?

Your counterspin? Probably not, eye of the beholder, I expect...

Save the world from what? ... think about it.

That's the question, isn't it?

Unfortunately Ken when the US (politicians) screw up criticism will come from all quarters. Nuthin you can do about it. Whining about it is unbecoming.

I've known that since before you were born, haven't whined about then or now. US Politicians have been doing that even before I was born and deserve criticism, I have no problem with honest criticism, indulge in it myself and encourage it from others -- I do have a dislike of flagrant bias; don't whine about it but have no problem pointing it out...

The simple point is that the dithering of the US politicians has a cost in hundreds, maybe thousands, of Libyan lives. You and others may wish to laugh that off and mock those who won't as being those "who want to save the world" but at the end of the day its going to be yet another example of US foreign affairs failure.

Probably so -- and that will change exactly what?

The saving grace of course is that the military will step in, wrap it up in a few days, then hand the lot over to some politically correct structure who is likely to screw it up...

I'm dubious but we'll see...

Strange? Personally I find people entirely predictable.

So do I and yes you are ...

[M-A Lagrange]

I doubt that they have domestic motives. Their pro-intervention driver was their minister of foreign affairs. He pushed Sarkozy into war.
Muslims in Europe is as a topic vastly misunderstood by many people (especially North Americans) anyway. For example, they have very real social issues at home - investing the air campaign funds into cheaper flats in the region of Paris would help much more domestically than the air campaign.


The French were embarrassed in Tunisia, the old minister of foreign affairs even resigned. The French government proved to have been too much in bed with North African dictators.

My best guess is that they want to correct that image now, preferably in a country that was not a former colony of theirs, so they don't need to cut remaining relations with the governments of Algeria and Morocco.

They're also eager to lead the whole campaign, which fits into their more general attitude and grand strategy - France as a leading nation in Europe.
They had this attitude since Louis XIV, were just upset a couple times in the meantime. You can be smart in passivity, but you can't lead in passivity.

My friend, you're quite right on the social and domestic issue. On the smartness in passivity... I have some comments. But that's not the subject.

And yes Bob, You're right also. It does have to see with GWOT as France does have troubles with AQMI and need to reaffirm its power in the sub region. Concerning internal insurgency, I would be less paranoid. As Fuch said, the muslims in Europ are very badly understood by northern american (that's the way it is... ).

Has I said in a previous post, G managed to pissed off Sarkosy by threatening France. He had to expect a reaction, especially as the French have spend long years training to kick his ass. Also, it is a way for Sarkosy to show that France has change and is supporting the people now and not crazy dictators at all cost. But we are back into the immigration debat, especially as this week end the extrem right did win minor local elections.

[Graycap]

I'm Italian and I'm happy to see my fellow european small warriors in this Thread

One of the major problem that President Sarkozy has to eveluate is that of euorpean coesion. Italy is rapidly losing patience. We are threatening to call off our bases if NATO will not be in charge.

This operation, if mismanaged, could cause a real problem for for a future european strategy.

The problem in leading is to know your allies and where you have to halt.

To lose Arab League and Italy after two single days of operation is some kind of a record. For what? What can France by itself hope to achieve without a broad alliance (with arab partners)? I really don't understand the rationale. Libya could easily become a new Somalia, only with oil.
Is France able to sustain by itself the consequences of her action or there is the risko of a new Suez?

[J Wolfsberger]

From Der Spiegel:

The US wants to hand over command of Operation Odyssey Dawn to another country within a matter of days, but so far NATO has been unable to reach an agreement on taking control of the implementation of the no-fly zone in Libya. Turkey is leading the objections.

[davidbfpo]

An IISS Strategic Comment, which ends with:

Political commitments to international interventions have often been undermined by the realities of war and by inevitable civilian casualties. Just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will be important to define the precise objectives and the criteria for success. So too will be the commitment of sufficient military force to achieve whatever goals are set. These tasks remain to be addressed.

Link:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...after-un-vote/

[Dayuhan]

What I am tiring of is the manner in which unelected US citizens use the word we with arrogant presumption that they speak for the American people.

If you don't think the American people are getting tired of it, you're not paying attention. I assume you're aware of the poll figures on Libyan intervention.

But in the case of the first two your Generals at the time (Patton and McArthur) made the necessary recommendations to deal with them but the political will was not there. Today you live with the consequences and good luck to you. I don't see any value in using past failures to justify today's weaknesses and failures.

If declining to invade Russia and China simultaneously is failure, let's all be glad we failed. Invading Russia hasn't generally proven a good idea over the last few centuries, and China is a rather large place. It seemed a little early for WW3, and in any event, as you say, the political will wasn't there: no American politician could possibly have persuaded the populace to accept continued war on such a scale. Such actions would in any event have had consequences of their own, and it would be very bold (and very speculative) to assume they'd have been any better than the way things worked out.

As far as Libya goes, if you start with the assumption that the US is directly and automatically responsible for protecting and defending everyone, everywhere, all the time, and if you assume that intervention in the internal affairs of other nations is a default option to be pursued at the earliest possible opportunity in all cases, everywhere, all the time, then absolutely, the US response in Libya would look like dithering incompetence. Since those assumptions are invalid - and absurd - the conclusions deriving from those assumptions are... suspect, to say the least.

The US administration acted in accordance with its repeatedly stated policies and principles. You may not like those policies and principles, but the American people voted for them.

[jcustis]

Man, we need to develop an "Amen!" emoticon.

[carl]

For better or for worse, the west is in it now. It seems to me that the longer this goes on, the worse things will be and the more unpredictable the outcome. It also seems to me, as several others have suggested, that the best way to end the first stage soon is if the dictator and his family are removed from the stage, upright walking and talking or otherwise.

So the question is, what is the best way to do that, quickly? If the otherwise route were to be chosen, is it doable, and is it within the purview of the various stated missions? Or, can the various stated missions be stretched to cover it?

[slapout9]

For better or for worse, the west is in it now. It seems to me that the longer this goes on, the worse things will be and the more unpredictable the outcome. It also seems to me, as several others have suggested, that the best way to end the first stage soon is if the dictator and his family are removed from the stage, upright walking and talking or otherwise.

So the question is, what is the best way to do that, quickly? If the otherwise route were to be chosen, is it doable, and is it within the purview of the various stated missions? Or, can the various stated missions be stretched to cover it?

It was doable, I don't know now, he may have already left town.

[slapout9]

If anything, I think oil considerations retarded intervention. Certainly the Italians seemed worried that it would hamper rather than facilitate supplies.

Of course, that is why there is no political objective, everyone is haggling behind the scenes about their share of the oil. The way I see it Daffy and Tony Blair start hanging out together after Tony becomes an Oil consultant. All the sudden stuff starts happening, terror bombers get released Blair makes millions and the UK has a bunch of new Oil rights in Libya, Daffy comes to the US and he makes the top of the list as worst dressed person in the world but he gave up his WMD program so everything is cool. Then....people start reading the fine print of the Oil contracts and somebody is going to end up getting the Green Weiner.

Next thing you no.....a humanitarian crisis and we have to do something.

[bourbon]

If anything, I think oil considerations retarded intervention. Certainly the Italians seemed worried that it would hamper rather than facilitate supplies.

I believe for the U.S., the long-term oil considerations are twofold:

- Maintain Libya and North Africa as sources of energy to Europe, in order to lessen European dependence on Russia;

- Deny the Chinese greater access to Libyan and North African resources.

[jmm99]

and with the US calling the shots, the better choice requires boots on the ground. Through 2000, see Stephen T. Hosmer, Operations Against Enemy Leaders (RAND 2001)(free pdf chaps):

Operations targeted against senior enemy leaders have long been viewed as a potential means of shaping the policy and behavior of enemy states. As a result, the United States has launched a variety of overt and covert operations in efforts to attack enemy leaders directly, facilitate their overthrow by coup or rebellion, or secure their ouster through external invasion.

This book examines a number of leadership attacks from World War II to the present to offer insights into the comparative efficacy of various forms of leadership attacks, their potential coercive and deterrent value, and the possible unintended consequences of their ill-considered use.

The book concludes that direct attacks, coups, and rebellions have met with only limited success and, even when successful, have sometimes yielded counterproductive results. Moreover, neither direct attacks nor coups have been of significant coercive or deterrent value, although rebellions have at times provided useful negotiating leverage.

By contrast, external invasions have proved to be more efficacious both in shaping the targeted countries’ policy and behavior and in exerting coercive effects. The book concludes by outlining the likely conditions under which future leadership attacks are likely to be sanctioned and by delineating the prerequisites of effective use of air power in such contexts.

The events since 2000 are more consistent with Hosmer's thesis than any other. But, maybe the attacks will luck out and beat the odds.

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

I believe for the U.S., the long-term oil considerations are twofold:

- Maintain Libya and North Africa as sources of energy to Europe, in order to lessen European dependence on Russia;

- Deny the Chinese greater access to Libyan and North African resources.

Libya will always sell oil to Europe. Geography demands it. Supply may be interrupted in a period of political flux, but whoever takes power will sell oil and Europe is the logical destination.

Whether the Chinese buy or not doesn't mean squat. The Chinese will buy as much oil as they need; they can afford it. Where they buy doesn't matter. If they shift supply from point A to point B, oil from point A becomes available to other buyers. There is absolutely zero need to deny China access to oil anywhere, even if we could, which we can't.

The long-term oil payoff would come if Libya had a stable government that was willing to do business. There has been almost no significant exploration and little meaningful development of Libya's oil industry in decades: Libya's national oil company hasn't the expertise and foreign investors didn't want to deal with MG. With investment and capable management Libya could certainly expand production substantially and is very likely to have substantial undiscovered reserves.

Of course that's not a unique benefit to the US, to the chagrin of conspiracy theorists, but it would be a good thing for all who buy oil. That benefit would be shared by all consumers even if 100% of the investment was Chinese and every drop went to China (which is really not likely; geography has influence). Increased global supply = less global price pressure.

If Sinopec aand CNPC did come to dominate Libyan oil investment it would actually be more efficient for them to sell that oil to Europe and buy closer oil to send home. Long-haul shipment of oil is most efficient in VLCCs and ULCCs, and they won't fit through canals. That's why despite all the yak about China buying from Venezuela, there's very little actually making the trip: aside from the fact that the Chinese have to retool refining capacity to manage heavy sour Venezuelan crude, nobody wants to ship oil those distances in Panamax tankers. It's good propaganda but lousy business.

[JMA]

How is it possible that there is doubt whether Gaddafi is a legitimate target or not? Ends up with General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff getting slapped down for stating on TV that:

“Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further.”

The yanks also seem to be a bit vague on the matter.