And Libya goes on...

[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.

[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..

[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]

Yes.

Note the photo below. Aakrotitiri on 16 March. That aircraft flying above those AWACS didn't just get there... I doubt that the hearted -- faint or stout -- on a discussion board have much effect on anything. That shows appalling ignorance or malice. individuals are not that easy to target.Why be angry? To prove one can be? How righteous. Pity the world doesn't operate the way some wish. Others are thankful it does not...

Ken, with respect, you are attempting to defend the indefensible.

The actions in Libya prove incompetence on the part of the US President and State.

As to the targeting of individuals is concerned I am on record here as saying that while first prize is to get the person himself it is more important to send the message to the individual - through a demonstration of sincerity - that he is not safe anywhere.

The report is that 110 cruise missiles have been fired on 20 targets leading to claims that the crusaders are bombing Libya. While the targeting report will not make the public domain one must ask whether these targets were vital to the immediate needs and did someone anyone consider the propaganda opportunity such strikes against Gaddafi assets would provide especially with the potential use of human shields that has been heard recently.

I make allowance for the limitations placed on the military by the politicians but who will forget the "shock and awe" demonstration over Baghdad where infrastructure (electricity for example) was taken out only to have to be rebuilt and in the meantime providing massive inconvenience and ill will amongst the population? Did Bush say that the Iraqi people must be hurt in the process or was it a case of brute force and ignorance by the military?

Malice? To state that the dithering of the US politicians has cost hundreds or possibly thousands of Libyan lives is not a statement of malice but of fact. If these actions affected only the US and people in the US then it may be less of anyones business outside the US but when the US tries to "fix" such situations (your term) quite often for a variety of reasons they make matters worse through poor timing and poor planning and poor execution. Sad but true.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[Rex Brynen]

The report is that 110 cruise missiles have been fired on 20 targets leading to claims that the crusaders are bombing Libya. While the targeting report will not make the public domain one must ask whether these targets were vital to the immediate needs and did someone anyone consider the propaganda opportunity such strikes against Gaddafi assets would provide especially with the potential use of human shields that has been heard recently.

Simple answer to that one: yes they did. The target mix was certainly chosen with those considerations in mind. The US could have fired a popgun at a sand dune and Qaddafi would have complained about Crusaders.

Fortunately, in this case, most Libyans and most of the Arab world is disinclined to believe him. It was, after all, an Arab country that introduced the UNSCR in the first place.

[JMA]

"Impossible" is certainly too strong a word.

Exactly. But it appears the word was chosen to he impression the US politicians had done all they could. Which is of course nonsense.

[Dayuhan]

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.

That's perception, not fact. You don't know the facts, because you don't know what was going on behind the scenes. You don't know that the US wasn't "sitting on its hands" precisely for the purpose of forcing the Europeans and the Arab League to get off theirs.

Any conclusion based on that perception is simply seeing what you want to see. Common enough, especially for armchair generals who invariably express disgust at the actions of those who are actually accountable for the consequences of their actions, but not to be confused with fact.

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

Nor do I, but nobody committed themselves to remove Gadhafi. One step at a time. There's no clear end game in sight; the rebels probably don't have the capacity to rule, it's not entirely out of line to try and force loyalist forces to withdraw, stabilize, and then try to figure out what comes next.

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?

Nominal aid, but basically leave them alone to sink or swim of their own accord.

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?

A very remote prospect, too remote to be seriously feared. Of course it would make some westerners (certainly some Americans) crazy, but that's hardly an abnormal condition.

[JMA]

Simple answer to that one: yes they did. The target mix was certainly chosen with those considerations in mind.

And you can state this with such certainty because...

[Rex Brynen]

Someone in the Air Force seems to have a sense of humour--monitoring of Maltese ATC shows that one EC-130H (Compass Call) off Libya at the moment is using the call-sign SHEEN 53.

[Fuchs]

Nor do I, but nobody committed themselves to remove Gadhafi. One step at a time. There's no clear end game in sight; the rebels probably don't have the capacity to rule, it's not entirely out of line to try and force loyalist forces to withdraw, stabilize, and then try to figure out what comes next.

Sounds like strategical incompetence and pre-programmed mission creep to me.

I mentioned the Afrikakorps. That one began as a local barrier division ("Sperrverband" ~ "barrier formation") for the protection of Tripolis in order to help the Italians to rally after they were routed by British Empire forces.
Maybe this explanation makes it more obvious why I am so irritated.

A very remote prospect, too remote to be seriously feared. Of course it would make some westerners (certainly some Americans) crazy, but that's hardly an abnormal condition.

Feared - no, but to be considered. It's called "to think ahead".
I wrote in 2009 about how we shouldn't create popular aversion in case the Arabs got their act together because that would be a grand strategy fauxpax.
To muddle through should be no option for politicians who get paid for doing policy. They should be good enough to think ahead, develop good strategies - and avoid unnecessary troubles. They should be far better than we are in such things.

[JMA]

African Union demands 'immediate' halt to Libya attacks

The African Union's panel on Libya Sunday called for an "immediate stop" to all attacks after the United States, France and Britain launched military action against Moamer Kadhafi's forces.

[Dayuhan]

Sounds like strategical incompetence and pre-programmed mission creep to me.

Or recognition that the situation is dynamic, unpredictable, and not under our control.

Or a little of both.

[JMA]

Sounds like strategical incompetence and pre-programmed mission creep to me.

I would love to see the faces of Obama and Clinton if asked the question (after Gaddafi's gone) OK so what's next?

[Dayuhan]

I would love to see the faces of Obama and Clinton if asked the question (after Gaddafi's gone) OK so what's next?

Why should they know what comes next? They don't. They can't. Far better to accept that than to proclaim a vast plan that you have no capacity to implement.... like "install democracy".

[Pete]

I hope that when I grow up I'll know everything there is to know about military affairs the way JMA does. I was never in a war and my service in the post-Vietnam "Hollow Army" apparently don't count for much, except for how to f*ck things up.

[Dayuhan]

A couple of worthwhile discussions of why the US is acting as it is:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...438332144.html

From the start of White House deliberations about how to respond to the crisis in Libya, President Barack Obama set two clear parameters for his top advisers: he didn't want to use military force if the U.S. had to be in the lead and he had no intention of sending American ground troops.

With Saturday's start of airstrikes against Libyan leader Col. Moammar Ghadafi, Mr. Obama appears to be putting into practice a foreign-policy doctrine he first sketched during the 2008 presidential campaign....

In contrast to his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who invaded Iraq in 2003 despite opposition from many allies and Democrats, Mr. Obama is taking pains to receive unambiguous legal authority through the United Nations, getting clear support from Arab states and then letting others—France and Britain —lead the military charge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...sZx_story.html

Obama has spent much of his first term seeking to repair U.S. relations with the Islamic world, and his emphasis on the international support for military strikes in Libya is an attempt to allay suspicions over U.S. intentions. And as budget deficits mount at home, the American public is looking for other nations to carry the fiscal burden of the fighting after a nearly a decade of war...

The muted diplomacy and message is a way to play down the conflict to the American public as well. A Pew Research Center survey released last week found that more than six in 10 Americans do not believe the United States has a responsibility to do something to stop the conflict in Libya.

This doesn't sound like dithering incompetence to me, but then again I lack the omniscience displayed by some here.