And Libya goes on...

[JMA]

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.

Pete, a late night posting?

In this case - I need to repeat this as you obviously missed it - it is the sheer incompetence of the US Administration that is the problem.

There is no doubt the US military can do the job but one must be constantly aware of the politically imposed limitations placed upon military actions which may lead to less than effective outcomes. You get it now?

[jmm99]

1. Nailing a specific individual on the ground from the air (note, I didn't say a specific individual in the air from the air):

[Three carrier-based naval air officers contemplate an unauthorized bombing raid on Hanoi.]

"Hell, maybe if you don't get the leaders, you might get Jane Fonda or Ramsey Clark."
....
"If I had that kind of luck, I'd have won the Irish Sweepstakes by now and be married to the Playmate of the Year."

Stephen Coonts, Flight of the Intruder, 1986

and 2. "end result" vs. "correctness" (whether in timing or otherwise):

"War is a conflict which does not determine who is right but who is left."

William G. Anderson, Bat-21, 1980

HT (for both quotes) to Steve Young - from his interview of COL (PAVN) Bui Tin, How North Vietnam Won The War.

And, "No, Virginia", just because we (US) have fired off 100+ cruise missiles, does not mean that I'm suddenly "on board" this African adventure. Nor will I be "on board" this African adventure when our military personnel become personally engaged (whether sea, air or land) within Libya's borders. Yeh, I heard Pres. Obama re: no ground forces - I also heard Pres. Johnson in 1964.

By "on board", I mean that I am not buying into the Politik (policy) that drives this armed conflict. That "it" is "an armed conflict" is already established by Res 1973 and the consequent military actions already taken.

As to our military personnel, they will do what they have done for most all of our history - they will do their best; probably prevail tactically; and perhaps even strategically. In that aspect (and only in that aspect), I am "on board" - with those personnel, whom I distinguish from the political leaders who establish Politik.

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

It is the sheer incompetence of the US Administration that is the problem.

There is no doubt the US military can do the job but one must be constantly aware of the politically imposed limitations placed upon military actions which may lead to less than effective outcomes. You get it now?

I suppose that in some alternate universe actions consistent with stated policy and civilian control of military action could be called "sheer incompetence".

I'm kind of glad I don't live there.

[JMA]

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.

Like in Iraq the problems come after the President announces "mission accomplished".

When the regime collapses there is no doubt that there will be excesses by the rebels and victims of the regime unless there is a mechanism to establish effective policing in the country. What is the plan here? Is there a plan? Who will be involved in such a plan? Who should be involved in such a plan?

It becomes more clear with every passing moment just how poorly the politicians serve their respective nations due to lethal cocktail of arrogance mixed with a superficial knowledge of anything beyond which they can get from Google in 20 minutes. The prognosis is not good.

Oh yes... and why do you think pro-Gaddafi TV and radio are still on the air?

[Dayuhan]

When the regime collapses there is no doubt that the be will be excesses by the rebels and victims of the regime unless there is a mechanism to establish effective policing in the country. What is the plan here? Is there a plan? Who will be involved in such a plan?

Why must we have a plan for something that is so manifestly Not Our Problem? We're not proposing to occupy, police, govern, colonize, or civilize the place. Quite the explicit opposite. We couldn't do that effectively in any case, and if that's the only thing we've learned from Afghanistan and Iraq, those experiences will be almost worth the cost. An expensive lesson, but we badly needed to learn it.

[Dayuhan]

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.

Pan-Arab unification along EU lines is only one of many ways that Arabs, collectively and separately, could get their act together, and it's far from being the most likely way. Do we need a detailed strategic plan for every imaginable contingency?

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.

Is it "muddling through", or is it maintaining flexibility in a highly flexible situation? We are in a responsive situation here, and the circumstances to which we respond are changing rapidly. We don't know where they are going. Locking ourselves into a rigid strategic goal is only going to impair our ability to respond as the situation evolves.

I suspect that there are people who are thinking ahead and developing contingency plans for various eventualities. I don't doubt that what actually happens will be incompatible with any of those plans. Sometimes agility is needed more than certainty of direction.

From the US perspective, for example, it would be a huge mistake to commit to the goal of removing Gadhafi (which is likely impossible to achieve without taking steps we don't want to take, like introducing ground forces) or to commit to any specific vision of a post-Gadhafi Libya.

[carl]

I suppose that in some alternate universe actions consistent with stated policy and civilian control of military action could be called "sheer incompetence".

That may be true and the actions of the US gov may be the result of forethought. We won't know unless Woodward can ferret it out and then we still have to wait for the next book. But if I had to bet, I'd bet that things happened as they have so far because our betters inside the beltway have been wringing their hands hoping the whole thing would just go away until the French forced their hand.

And since I am speculating about things I have no proof of beyond my own unsupported cogitations, I am glad the French seem to be leading the pack on this thing. Decisiveness may be in order.

[Bill Moore]

I normally don't post on current combat operations due to OPSEC concerns, but since I have absolutely no knowledge on this operation other than what I see in the media I'll offer a couple of thoughts.

The world was slow to react, but not without reason. Good leaders don't commit their nation's treasure to another nation's fight (despite the CNN effect) without first determining what is really happening and if it is in their interest to intervene.

It appears that our actions may be strategically sound, despite the uncertainty.

First we have the support of the Arab League, so Qadhaffi's weak attempt about shaping this as an attack on Islam by Crusaders doesn't appear to be gaining traction. The African Union has benefited from $$$ from Qadhaffi for years (this I know), so I'm suspect when the AU condemns our attack. Who exactly is condemning our attacks? How much are they being paid to do so?

Second, we are standing with the people of Libya (representing our true values, which increases our soft power), as we stood with the people of Egypt and Tunisia. If we don't try too hard to shape events once Qadhaffi falls, and let the people of Libya determine their own future we'll continue to have influence via soft power instead of getting stuck in another quagmire like Iraq and Afghanistan where we tried to create governments and societies in our image based on our values. It will probably be messy, but it is their mess to work through. Every Western nation has its own history of working through similiar messes in their own backyards (the U.S. and France more so than others).

Third and most importantly, as others have mentioned, by taking a seat at the table instead of at the head of the table, we indirectly compelled the Arab League, EU and NATO (or least members of) to take a leadership role in a crisis. There is no reason the U.S. should be the only nation in the West committing its reputation and treasure in response to crises like this.

None of us have an idea on what will happen in Libya, but looking at the bigger picture I think there is some potential good coming out of this beyond saving Libyans from their own government.

[Dayuhan]

But if I had to bet, I'd bet that things happened as they have so far because our betters inside the beltway have been wringing their hands hoping the whole thing would just go away until the French forced their hand.

Possibly the French and British were wringing their hands hoping the Americans would take the risks and do the hard work (it has become a bit of a tradition), instead of forcing their hands by making it clear that we were not going to do that this time.

I think it's an object lesson to Europe, and to many of the others who have been bitching and whining for so long about America always being the one to take action without going through the process.

I'm sure there was some hand-wringing going on all over. There should be: it's a nasty decision with many unknowns and very negative outcomes possible with any course of action. Anyone who's not wringing their hands a bit while addressing a decision like that shouldn't be in a position to make the decision.

[carl]

Possibly the French and British were wringing their hands hoping the Americans would take the risks and do the hard work (it has become a bit of a tradition), instead of forcing their hands by making it clear that we were not going to do that this time.

That is quite possible. And we won't know for a while if ever. Either we have hand wringers, and I use that phrase in the pejorative sense, or the genii inside the beltway had it all figured from the beginning. If they be genii, we have nothing to worry about when the next thing happens. If they be hand wringers, we got worries. My own little beetle brow is furrowed more than normal.

[Dayuhan]

Either we have hand wringers, and I use that phrase in the pejorative sense, or the genii inside the beltway had it all figured from the beginning. If they be genii, we have nothing to worry about when the next thing happens. If they be hand wringers, we got worries.

Most people use it in the pejorative sense. Realistically, though, isn't it possible to have a plan from the beginning, execute that plan, and then have some hand-wringing moments over whether it's actually going to work, or work in time... especially in high-pressure high-stakes situations where any decision and any plan will have strong potential for adverse consequences?

Full points to Obama for sticking with stated principles, but you have to believe there were some questions and concerns and uncertainties along the way. If there weren't, there should have been: an excess of certainty usually indicates a deficit of thought.

We'll have plenty to worry about when the next thing happens; we always do. If there's nothing to worry about it ain't a thing happening...

[M-A Lagrange]

I would tend to agree with Bill:
There is a large picture benefit for all of us (western nations) for our soft power and image among the arab world. We do tend to forget that populations in the arab world have a VERY critical opinion about their governments. Backing the people in Tunisia, Egypt and now Lybia is in deed a strong message.

Also the fact that Europ was forced to take the lead on this and convince its arab friends is a good thing. US cannot do all the work and has different interrest in the region. We (Europ) were to quick to reabilitate G and take him as our allie for immigration reasons. Tunisia revolution has proven that what the tunisians wanted was to change their government and not "invide europ" as the extrem right wing in France and Itali tried to make believe.
Also providing Lybia with weapons and backing its come back in the international scene for the reason thay are our last wall against african immigration was a very stupid mistake taken by populist government as Berlusconi and Sarkosy.
Now it feel good to be european again! and it's not a small thing on the african continent.

Also, JMA, don't worry about the AU complains. As we both know, it's just a club of dictators who are affraid their populations would be inspired this year. And 2011 is an african electoral year!
It's just part of their stupid cultural differencies tool box to justify that democracy is not meant for Africa. An idea that needs to be tackle down!
If Lybia can send them a message: that's good. Especially for those "president" who look too much at Bagbo as a anticolonial liberation hero.

I believe Lybia will be a good lesson for Africa. Now, responsability get in the hand of african civil opposition to not play with fire if they cannot organise the people and proove they are a credible alternative.

[JMA]

Third and most importantly, as others have mentioned, by taking a seat at the table instead of at the head of the table, we indirectly compelled the Arab League, EU and NATO (or least members of) to take a leadership role in a crisis. There is no reason the U.S. should be the only nation in the West committing its reputation and treasure in response to crises like this.

OPSEC? There was discussion on operations somewhere in your post?

I note this face saving spin on the actions of the US politicians is becoming standard now.

As Carl said, this we won't know until Woodward or (I would add) Wikileaks clues the world in.

Rather than the current face saving spin I suggest that it is closer to the truth that the foreign policy “realists” (whoever they may be) inside the administration are the ones who put stones under the wheels of progress on this issue.

From the article:

Despite growing pressure by neoconservative and liberal hawks, the administration clearly hopes that a direct military commitment of the kind required by an NFZ will not be necessary.

This naive denial even in the face of this:

The rebels are “in for a tough row”, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Gen. James Clapper told a Senate hearing here Thursday. Given Gadhafi’s greater logistical resources and weaponry, he said, “I think, from a standpoint of attrition …in the longer term that the regime will prevail.”

When the horrible truth finally became obvious there was a mad scramble to play not only catch-up but to hijack the whole initative.

So I really don't blame you for applying this spin. The truth is a little too unpalatable to face it seems.

[Dayuhan]

When the horrible truth finally became obvious there was a mad scramble to play not only catch-up but to hijack the whole imitative.

I didn't see anyone hijack anything. The US did not act until there was international sanction and insisted that European powers take a leading role, all of which is consistent with stated policy. When those conditions were met the US performed tasks which meet its unique capacity, and has made it clear that it intends to reduce the level of engagement in the future, leaving most of the work to the Europeans.

Reluctance to engage in military intervention and engagement at the minimum possible level when it cannot be avoided seem entirely palatable to me; we could use a lot more of those, especially in cases where others who have the capacity to act have greater interests in play than we do. Intervention is and should be a last resort, not a default recourse. If we intervene without having to be forced into it kicking and screaming for a better alternative, something's really wrong.

[JMA]

Now it feel good to be european again! and it's not a small thing on the african continent.

And two pictures which tell the story: First the appeal for help which fell on deaf ears:



...and then the thanks for the first country to step up to the plate:





...this is what will be remembered by Africans and Arabs and not the spin version currently being put out by the US Administration apologists.

Also, JMA, don't worry about the AU complains. As we both know, it's just a club of dictators who are affraid their populations would be inspired this year. And 2011 is an african electoral year!
It's just part of their stupid cultural differencies tool box to justify that democracy is not meant for Africa. An idea that needs to be tackle down!
If Lybia can send them a message: that's good. Especially for those "president" who look too much at Bagbo as a anticolonial liberation hero.

Each of those countries fall into three cruise missile category. But all this proves that for relatively little money Sub-Saharan Africa can be bought. Tiny Rowland (LonRho mining) proved just how easy that was. The Chinese have learned and have a number of countries in their "pocket" while the West is asleep as usual.

I believe Lybia will be a good lesson for Africa. Now, responsability get in the hand of african civil opposition to not play with fire if they cannot organise the people and proove they are a credible alternative.

Before thousands (possibly millions) of Africans are butchered the West needs to learn how to deal with the African dictators and their thugs. Will old Africa hands such as Stan be asked to assit with the benefit of their experience? Never. A new bunch of smart kids will emerge and when the killing starts by the hundreds of thousands they will (like now with Libya) rationalise it all by saying it was important for Africans to sort their own problems out. The clowns are running the circus.

[JMA]

...in the absence of statesmanship from across the pond maybe young David should step up and repeat something along the lines of Churchill's WW2 broadcast to the French people.

DIEU PROTEGE LA FRANCE
Broadcast
21st October 1940

[Bill Moore]

Posted by JMA

Before thousands (possibly millions) of Africans are butchered the West needs to learn how to deal with the African dictators and their thugs. Will old Africa hands such as Stan be asked to assit with the benefit of their experience? Never. A new bunch of smart kids will emerge and when the killing starts by the hundreds of thousands they will (like now with Libya) rationalise it all by saying it was important for Africans to sort their own problems out. The clowns are running the circus.

It sounds as though you are making the argument that the West is somehow obligated to intervene? Why? Of course when most people refer to the West they default to the U.S. to provide the leadership and the majority of the resources, and as Dayuhan points out we're tiring of it.

You mentioned before millions of Africans are butchered? We have already seen millions of Africans butchered in Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, DROC, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Equatorial Guinea, etc. and failure for the West to "react" until late in the slaughter had little impact on our interests in the long run. Until we tie the condition of humanity "globally" to our collective national interests we'll continue to drag our feet in responding, and not without good reason. No country wants to get left holding the bag, because after the media runs off to cover the next crisis their citizens will be wondering why they're spending money and expending blood there.

This is not unique to Africa, we also ignored Mao's and Stalin's slaughter of millions of their own people (hell our left worships them). We ignored Hitler's slaughter of the Jews until millions were killed. We ignore the slaughter in Burma today, Cambodia yesterday, and sadly the list goes on, but the fact of the matter is while intervention to stop the slaughter is obviously the humane thing to do, it is hard to stop and even harder to extract ourselves once we're in. After we fail (as we did in Somalia) we tend to the get the blame and have spent millions and billions of dollars and more importantly sacrificed our flesh and blood in the pursuit of a dream that we eventually had to awaken from.

I'm not spinning the situation in Libya, simply stating an alternative view. A month from now I may have another view based on how this plays out, but for now a few photos of civilians holding signs in "English" asking us to help (CNN affect) just doesn't tug at my heart strings.

[davidbfpo]

The ex-UK CDS, General Dannatt has penned a comment, which opens with:

Headline - Libya crisis: the real task for the world is to remove Gaddafi – but that will be difficult

Military planners will have one key task at the back of their minds, the removal of Colonel Gaddafi's regime.

Ends with:

When Gaddafi's army commanders in the field realise that, like the Wehrmacht in north west Europe in early 1945, they could move nowhere without deadly air attacks upon them, they will think quickly about their loyalty.

Will they want to continue to show loyalty to their manifestly eccentric leader, or will they think about their loyalty to their country, their families, their tribes, their homes and themselves?

As they experience, or hear stories, of what modern combat aircraft can do to their Soviet-era fighting vehicles, the realisation will grow that there is a better way – and the implied task of regime change may well be on the way to being achieved.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...difficult.html

[Presley Cannady]

That's perception, not fact. You don't know the facts, because you don't know what was going on behind the scenes.

I do know that short of the EU and other UNSC members deploying mind control laser satellites over Washington, the notion that it was "impossible" for the US, the UK and/or France to act in absence of unspecified diplomatic preconditions is bunk.

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.

The only two powers lifting a finger are the two nations that led the US in pushing for intervention. Precisely what does "g[etting] off their asses" mean? While you're at it, which countries actually "got off their asses," and why was it necessary to wait for them to do so?

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.

The decision to act or not to act is the President's alone. Is this office now and forever beyond being held accountable for the decisions issued from it, or does this particular President get a get out of jail free card?

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.

Then what's the point of the intervention? Why not let the belligerents sort it out amongst themselves?

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

Same question as above.

[Presley Cannady]

Why should they know what comes next? They don't. They can't.

They can't know their own objectives? That's new.

Far better to accept that than to proclaim a vast plan that you have no capacity to implement.... like "install democracy".

How is not planning at all even remotely better than planning to achieve a risky objective?