And Libya goes on...

[Ron Humphrey]

those with more experience but just curious why explicitly targeted attacks against both kad affi and others seen to be key partners inthe last two weeks crackdown coupled with assistance humanitarian and otherwise would not be a good strategy?
exactly who does anyone think he would actually become a martyr to.
and one last question if history is meant to be a guide to inform not rule why exactly would anyone "have" to do anything. it seems the choices are what to do when and by whom in what manner to what ends.
all of which will only be answered only once something is done?
i realize the past has many examples of how something like this can go wrong, does that have to mean thats what will happen here?

[JMA]

those with more experience but just curious why explicitly targeted attacks against both kad affi and others seen to be key partners inthe last two weeks crackdown coupled with assistance humanitarian and otherwise would not be a good strategy?
exactly who does anyone think he would actually become a martyr to.
and one last question if history is meant to be a guide to inform not rule why exactly would anyone "have" to do anything. it seems the choices are what to do when and by whom in what manner to what ends.
all of which will only be answered only once something is done?
i realize the past has many examples of how something like this can go wrong, does that have to mean thats what will happen here?

It is already going wrong.

The moment to have acted on a low risk - high return basis has passed.

It is clear the US Administration (I add this because it is the Keystone Cops like Administration who are the idiots and not the American people) got the strategy all wrong... pathetically wrong.

Read the following from the New York Times: Obama Takes Hard Line With Libya After Shift by Clinton

They got this wrong of course:

The shift in the administration’s position — from strong words against Libya to action — was forced largely by the events beyond its control: the crumbling of the uprising raised the prospect that Colonel Qaddafi would remain in power to kill “many thousands,” as Mr. Obama said at the White House on Friday.

This garbage is merely face saving from an Administration who failed to anticipate (or were not so briefed by the less than competent CIA) that Gaddafi could strike back. The world will have to wait to see how many Libyans were killed by Gaddafi in the last few weeks to see how much blood this dithering (and most likely ill-advised) president has on his hands.

This is a case of the US waking up late to the issues at stake and then wanting to push/muscle the French and the Brits out of the way.

Its going to get worse.

[JMA]

35 hours after the UNSC resolution there is still no action (other than from Gaddafi).

First Mistake: The Brits and French should not have threatened imminent action when they were in no position to do so. (such an elementary error)

Smart Move: Gaddafi announces a cease fire which will give the impression of compliance with the UNSC resolution and will lead the weak and fainthearted to question why armed action is needed if there is a cease fire. He then calls on potentially neutral countries to monitor the cease fire. There is no cease fire (does anyone think there ever was to be one?)

Second Mistake: Instead of a private ultimatum to be followed by non-telegraphed air strikes Obama chose to grandstand and make a public ultimatum on TV. This will now require US action to force compliance with that referendum. Not smart to conduct such negotiations in public.

So 35 hours on the US, Britain and France has a foot in its mouth while Gaddafi forces are attacking Benghazi. Round one to Gaddafi.

[Fuchs]

The world will have to wait to see how many Libyans were killed by Gaddafi in the last few weeks to see how much blood this dithering (and most likely ill-advised) president has on his hands.

This is more than just a little stretch. There's no obligation to intervene, the U.S. is on a different continent, it has no close relations to the people of Libya.

An intervention is an option, not an ethical obligation.

[davidbfpo]

The latest BBC report includes:

Our correspondent saw the government tanks on a bridge inside Benghazi at around 1030 (0830 GMT), and reports suggested hundreds of people were fleeing the city eastwards as the fighting continued.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12793919

Plus a reported, wide bombardment and civilians fleeing eastwards:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418

Note the footage of the shot down fighter is reported by the BBC as belonging t the rebels.

[jcustis]

Ghadaffi is certainly getting a powerful IO message out there that throws this action right back in everyone's face. I think it is fairly effective.

From the Yahoo News article:

"Libya is not yours. Libya is for the Libyans. The Security Council resolution is invalid," he said in the letter to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. To Obama, the Libyan leader was slightly more conciliatory: "If you had found them taking over American cities with armed force, tell me what you would do."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_af/af_libya

Either way, the fabric of Libya has been rent so badly that it will never be the same, and a simmering rebellion seems likely. Shadow government in exile? Does the coalition support it and pick a figure to toss our weight behind? Strange times indeed...

[carl]

I wonder if we will end up in the very odd position of having to help the dictator in some way. An Egyptian commenter at Tom Ricks' blog raised that point.

If the dictator wins and drives out all the open opposition but does not crush the spirit of the opposition, then an insurgency of some kind might begin. That would require a clandestine organization or assistance to establish one. The people in the region who have the most experience with clandestine organizations are not people we like much but because of their experience, organization and money they might gain a lot power within any continuing anti-dictator resistance. If that happened, then what do we do? (I know there are a lot of ifs there.)

Like jcustis says, this will be very messy. But, by doing nothing but talk for so long, this is what we signed up for.

[jcustis]

The people in the region who have the most experience with clandestine organizations are not people we like much but because of their experience, organization and money they might gain a lot power within any continuing anti-dictator resistance.

Are you referring to the Iranians?

[JMA]

I wonder if we will end up in the very odd position of having to help the dictator in some way. An Egyptian commenter at Tom Ricks' blog raised that point.

What admitting defeat before the first shot is fired?

If the dictator wins and drives out all the open opposition but does not crush the spirit of the opposition, then an insurgency of some kind might begin. That would require a clandestine organization or assistance to establish one. The people in the region who have the most experience with clandestine organizations are not people we like much but because of their experience, organization and money they might gain a lot power within any continuing anti-dictator resistance. If that happened, then what do we do? (I know there are a lot of ifs there.)

Steady Carl. Defeating Gaddafi's forces will be a lot easier than people are beginning to think. That they are rolling up a rag-tag militia does not mean they will stand up to an intelligent and skillfully planned and executed air campaign.

Gaddafi will position himself and his assets and forces close to the civilian population in the hope of deterring air strikes or banking on the propaganda coup of civilians killed by US/French/British/other planes.

I am absolutely staggered at the gross incompetence of this process so far.

Like jcustis says, this will be very messy. But, by doing nothing but talk for so long, this is what we signed up for.

Yes that sounds familiar. Another case of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Quite frankly I'm surprised the American people are not taking to the streets...

[JMA]

This is more than just a little stretch. There's no obligation to intervene, the U.S. is on a different continent, it has no close relations to the people of Libya.

An intervention is an option, not an ethical obligation.

Yet at the last minute the US chose to extend and expand the UNSC resolution and hijack the efforts of France and Britain?

Of course there was/is no obligation for the US to get involved in Libya just as there was no obligation to get involved in Rwanda.

Not being obligated to get involved does not excuse half-baked or incompetent action if/when they do.

It is the stop-start, wait-go limitation dominated courses of action finally inflicted upon the military by the smart guys in the WH and at State which lead to a less than optimum resolution of the particular problem of the moment (I am trying to be nice here).

To respond to a SNAFU by saying we didn't need to get involved in the first place is plain ridiculous.

[Dayuhan]

The moment to have acted on a low risk - high return basis has passed.

That's only true if you calculate risk and return purely with respect to Libya, which the US is not in a position to do.

The last thing the US wants at the moment is to be seen as eager to intervene in the affairs of another oil-producing Muslim country. Intervention while the rebels were ascendant would have been efficient in terms of impact on the Libyan rebellion, but it would have created the overwhelming impression that the US was trying to take control of the rebellion and the aftermath for its own oil-addicted purposes, which are universally presumed to be nefarious. Whether its true or not is irrelevant, all of the ME and much of the US and Europe would have bought the narrative.

By delaying the US supports 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. If we can back out after the early stages and leave it to the Europeans, so much the better.

All that is rough on the Libyans, but we didn't tell them to rebel or encourage them, and they didn't ask our permission or approval. As oft stated here, there's no obligation on our part... and the reality, harsh though it may be, is that dismantling the Bush-era image of the US as aggressive, eager, arrogant intervenor in the affairs of Muslims is more important to US interests than removing Gadhafi.

[tequila]

Of note:

Gaddafi Regime Tried to Recruit Me - IWPR

Interesting story by IWPR on how Gaddafi's regime in Tripoli is passing out weapons to anyone in the capital willing to defend the regime, including criminals and teenagers. These are for his internal security forces rather than his frontline forces facing the rebels, but I can't imagine this regime having much staying power if the momentum swings against it.

[Rex Brynen]

By delaying the US supports 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. If we can back out after the early stages and leave it to the Europeans, so much the better.

Exactly right. The diplomatic situation made earlier action impossible (and it must be said that the French and British showed considerable political determination in changing that).

Complaining that something should have been done sooner when it wasn't politically possible to do anything sooner is rather pointless.

[JMA]

Exactly right. The diplomatic situation made earlier action impossible (and it must be said that the French and British showed considerable political determination in changing that).

Complaining that something should have been done sooner when it wasn't politically possible to do anything sooner is rather pointless.

Define anything in this context please.

The fact is that the actions of the French and the Brits and the increasingly precarious situation of the rebels spurred the US into a frenzy of belated diplomatic action. Thus saying that no action was possible - diplomatic and leading to otherwise - is simply nonsense. The US politicians sat on their hands.

[Rex Brynen]

The US had good geostrategic reasons not to move on a UNSCR before the Arab League requested a NFZ on 12 March. Even then, it took considerable time to both overcome the initial Russian and Chinese veto threat, and to secure a necessary majority. Sadly, it took the increasing threat to Benghazi for that to happen.

Of course, this could have been done without a Chapter VII "all necessary means" UNSCR. I think that would have involved a series of other long-term costs, however.

Yes, the US could have come onboard earlier. I'm not sure it would have shaved much time off that timeline.

[Fuchs]

As a German I am irritated by the similarities between the current Libyan case and the Spanish Civil War and Afrika Korps episodes.

Short of a loyalist morale breakdown I don't see the rebels advancing on Tripolis successfully any time soon (without foreign ground troops assistance).

The defeat of the loyalists wouldn't take more than a single brigade, of course. But who's intent on sending such a brigade? the French with their Légion étrangère maybe? Sarkozy surely is impulsive enough for such a move.
It would come close to a declaration of war on the Algerian regime, though.


And what are we supposed to do if the whole anti-dictator (wouldn't call it democracy yet) movement in the Arab world succeeds?
Help the to succeed economically with favourable trade conditions at the expense of the already troubled PIIGS countries?

Who's willing to bet that a possible Arab unification movement along the lines of the EU (or better, with the advantage of hindsight) or even US would not drive too many Westerners crazy and lead to serious troubles?
There are Western mass media outlets that pay good money to hosts who already went nuts on caliphate and sharia fearmongering while the Arab countries were badly dysfunctional!

[JMA]

The US had good geostrategic reasons not to move on a UNSCR before the Arab League requested a NFZ on 12 March. Even then, it took considerable time to both overcome the initial Russian and Chinese veto threat, and to secure a necessary majority. Sadly, it took the increasing threat to Benghazi for that to happen.

Of course, this could have been done without a Chapter VII "all necessary means" UNSCR. I think that would have involved a series of other long-term costs, however.

Yes, the US could have come onboard earlier. I'm not sure it would have shaved much time off that timeline.

I challenged your earlier statement:

Complaining that something should have been done sooner when it wasn't politically possible to do anything sooner is rather pointless.

Quite clearly "something" could have been done sooner (and I my opinion should have) so would you like to amend this statement of yours?

[jcustis]

Exactly right. The diplomatic situation made earlier action impossible (and it must be said that the French and British showed considerable political determination in changing that).

Complaining that something should have been done sooner when it wasn't politically possible to do anything sooner is rather pointless.

It also may work some way towards restoring the credibility lost by the UNSC in the wake of the previous decision by the Bush Administration to sidestep it in September 2002..

[Presley Cannady]

Exactly right. The diplomatic situation made earlier action impossible (and it must be said that the French and British showed considerable political determination in changing that).

"Impossible" is certainly too strong a word. Precisely what diplomatic groundwork did Reagan require before committing the Navy to duke it out with Libya over navigation in the Gulf of Sidra. Or for that matter, launching El Dorado Canyon a week and a half after the La Belle bombing?

[Rex Brynen]

"Impossible" is certainly too strong a word. Precisely what diplomatic groundwork did Reagan require before committing the Navy to duke it out with Libya over navigation in the Gulf of Sidra. Or for that matter, launching El Dorado Canyon a week and a half after the La Belle bombing?

A very different era, and missions launched for entirely different purposes.