And Libya goes on...

[M-A Lagrange]

According to Reuters, the Lybian Army decided to decrete a cease fire at 1900 GMT.
The Lybian Army HQ apparently took that decision without the support of MG.

Let's hope that's for real. And if so, this just proove that crazy clowns remain crazy even for their followers. And that sometimes, military officers decide of war and peace.

Also, if this is followed on the ground, it will prove that most of us were wrong: air campaign can be effective and it was much easier than expected.

Never the less, this will mean a regime change that will include actual members of the regime in place, except MG him self and his familly. A situation that still can turn to civil war.

[Presley Cannady]

It should be noted that it wasn't the Arab League condemning the bombing--it was Amr Moussa, the Arab League Secretary-General (not at all the same thing).

I've yet to see a statement from an Arab capital criticizing Moussa's remarks. The West was more than eager to do the heavy lifting; now that she's committed, what does it cost the Arabs to play the old crusader card? Answer: when you control state media and your population is already prone to conspiracy-mongering, next to nothing.

I've yet to see a statement from an Arab capital criticizing the attack.

Syria and Algeria both dissented, and Syria's reiterated her position in the aftermath of the attacks.

[Rex Brynen]

I've yet to see a statement from an Arab capital criticizing Moussa's remarks. The West was more than eager to do the heavy lifting; now that she's committed, what does it cost the Arabs to play the old crusader card?

Beware talking about "the Arabs"--they're hardly a cohesive lot. I doubt any of the GCC states will wobble any time soon. The Iraqi parliament is set to recognize the opposition as the new Libyan government. The Egyptian government is currently arming the rebels.

[Presley Cannady]

Beware talking about "the Arabs"--they're hardly a cohesive lot.

Since when do you need a lot to be cohesive to have a mere couple of things in common?

I doubt any of the GCC states will wobble any time soon.

They'd have to stand up to wobble in the first place. To date, the only hard commitment is upwards six aircraft from Qatar; and even then, they will operate autonomously. Setting aside the Arab League contribution would at best be symbolic, I'll ask again: what does it cost for their member capitals to turn ingrate?

The Iraqi parliament is set to recognize the opposition as the new Libyan government. The Egyptian government is currently arming the rebels.

We're a long way from determining whether Arab intentions regarding the eastern rebels and Gaddafhi align with the "limited objectives" of the Western commitment.

[Dayuhan]

Would it have mattered?

Certainly to the US it would have mattered. We'd have been stuck out front where we don't want to be.

And the capability of the US + the UK and France suddenly sum to "enough?" More to the point, if the interests at stake do not justify the single most capable member of the Coalition exerting leadership, then precisely what reason is there for that member to even participate?

There's enough reason to participate, not enough reason to lead. Participation is an intermediate step between "dominate" and "do nothing". Considering the extent of our commitments elsewhere, I'm not sure the capacity we can actually deploy in the Mediterranean is "single most capable". We're positioned pretty much where we needed to be, seems to me.

Same question as above. If we do not have any interest in the end state, why intervene in the first place?

We have no ability to dictate the end state with an acceptable level of involvement, but we saw sufficient reason to be engaged in the limited objective of preventing a total victory by Gadhafi. Subsequent objectives may or may not be adopted upon subsequent assessments. How is that unreasonable?

You've been very clear on what the White House does not count amongst its "limited objectives," but not so much on what those objectives actually are. At some point, you're going to have to say "Obama committed force to achieve X." That "X," as far as the White House is saying, is at the very least to halt Qaddafi's offensive against the rebels. If you're arguing that either the UK and France have sufficient capacity to achieve such an end state or that Americans have no interest one way or the other, then why are Americans intervening at all? If not, then why did the US wait to act?

That's been made sufficiently clear by many, and I see no need to repeat. No need to make mountains out of mole-hills.

No one. You articulated a principle that foregoing planning was better than accepting the risk that planning may fail.

I articulated no such principle, though you may have interpreted it as such. There's no sense in imposing a long-term plan on a limited involvement that is specifically intended to be short term, it only restricts the flexibility that is the entire point of limited engagement.

If it ain't our mission, then once again...why bother?

Because at times we may see fit to assist in operations that are primarily someone else's responsibility, just as at times we seek the participation of others in missions that are primarily ours. Doesn't have to be all or nothing, control or avoid.

[Presley Cannady]

Because at times we may see fit to assist in operations that are primarily someone else's responsibility, just as at times we seek the participation of others in missions that are primarily ours.

The canonical case is the mutual defense treaty, the principle feature of which is quid pro quo. Precisely what take do Americans expect from their partners in exchange for "participating?" Why would anyone think of the single largest contributor to the Coalition as anything other than the most interested party in the operation? More importantly, why would they consider themselves in America's debt as a result?

Doesn't have to be all or nothing, control or avoid.

We're not discussing command arrangement here; a pointless exercise given that the "coalition" members are more or less acting autonomously. But since you bring it up, the notion that the United States is "supporting" allied operations is belied by her independence of action.

[carl]

It was US F-15s and AV-8s, not the AdA.

The news reports I read said it was the French who struck the ground targets near Benghazi and the only American airplanes so far are some B-2s.
No matter, we'll find out for sure soon enough and the heavy equipment got destroyed.

[Ken White]

LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK

Those that wanted it got it -- they should be happy...

[Dayuhan]

Why would anyone think of the single largest contributor to the Coalition as anything other than the most interested party in the operation? More importantly, why would they consider themselves in America's debt as a result?

The largest contributor may not be making the largest contribution in this case... and even if we are so far, it's been repeatedly stated that once the initial phase is done we intend to step back and let others carry the weight.

We're not discussing command arrangement here; a pointless exercise given that the "coalition" members are more or less acting autonomously. But since you bring it up, the notion that the United States is "supporting" allied operations is belied by her independence of action.

Why can we not independently choose a supporting role? "Support" doesn't mean "subordinate".

The point that I think is being widely missed here is that from a US perspective, this isn't just about Libya. It's an opportunity to provide a tangible example of the administration's oft-stated desire to reposition US foreign policy, moving away from the aggressive unilateralism of the Bush era but not necessarily to isolationism. The purpose is as much to demonstrate a moderate position between those poles as to achieve any specific end state in Libya, which would e a bit of a fool's errand in any case. The process would have been easier if we'd been able to choose and plan for the time and place for that demonstration, but we didn't have that luxury.

[slapout9]

Also, if this is followed on the ground, it will prove that most of us were wrong: air campaign can be effective and it was much easier than expected.

Bingo! You have my vote. This is NOT a no fly zone operation despite what the spin doctors are saying. This is a straight up Air Campaign right out of Warden's book. And yes Airpower can do it alone, in fact that is the only way to succeed, IF we put our boots on the ground it want work.

Never the less, this will mean a regime change that will include actual members of the regime in place, except MG him self and his familly. A situation that still can turn to civil war.

Again very astute analysis! This is a no Gadaffi Zone operation and as I posted on another thread the real problem is what will happen after Gadaffi. The Rebel forces breaking up into rival gangs and start fighting for power is a real possibility.

[Bill Moore]

The Arab League says:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12801812

The head of the Arab League, who supported the idea of a no-fly zone, has criticised the severity of the bombardment.

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa.

U.S. Air Force statement, and you tell me what this really means and how it will be perceived.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123247716

"It was a spectacular display of Airmenship watching this coalition come together the way it did to execute the first air strikes on behalf of the Libyan people," said Maj. Gen. Margaret H. Woodward, Operation Odyssey Dawn Joint Force Air Component Commander. "Our bombers and fighters performed magnificently and we are fully behind protecting the innocent Libyan citizens while ensuring the safety of coalition aircraft."

This goes beyond the debate of whether it is right or wrong to get involved, but addresses our desire to conduct to get involved only when we think the risk is low, which too often entails greater strategic risk due to miscalculation. Our superior technical edge may be making the decision to go to war too easy due to unfounded expectations. Our enemies have repeatedly found ways to counter our technology advantages. I also doubt that air attacks alone will achieve what is authorized.

Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn is the U.S. Africa Command task force established to provide operational and tactical command and control of U.S. military forces supporting the international response to the unrest in Libya and enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. UNSCR 1973 authorizes all necessary measures to protect civilians in Libya under threat of attack by Qadhafi regime forces. JTF Odyssey Dawn is commanded by U.S. Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, III.

[JMA]

LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK

Those that wanted it got it -- they should be happy...

Help me here Ken. The only location specific reference I could find was in the Huffington Post which was:

He would not elaborate on what was hit or where, but said French forces are focusing on the Benghazi area and U.S. forces are focused in the west.

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

[M-A Lagrange]

With all respect for the head of the arab league:
The actual count down is:
Bombing: 48 KIA may be civilians

G against his people: 8000 KIA mostly civilian.

Who is he trying to abuse?
Arab leaders should stop playing the string of evil westerners trying to kill poor armless civilian. First it is anoying; secondly it's not true this time; third: THEY look bad in the face of their hown people cause arabs are educated and, in the end, know what their leaders do.

[M-A Lagrange]

Russia, based on G casualties numbers and ignoring insurgents figures, just asked to stop undiscriminated use of violence.

This might be the sign that this operation is far too successfull. Russia was expecting the western countries to fall in an another long war trap.
The announcement of cease fire by Lybian Army top command (despite there still are some fightings on the ground) came too early for them (less than 24hours).
The problem now is to control Egypt which is watching this closely and might feel that they would need to engage deeper changes in their governance than expected. Or that despite air support, rebels may loose and they would have to face G...
I believe that for arab leaders the problem now is that they cannot support G but cannot support changes as they all (most of them) based their grasp on power on the idea that "democracy is an evil western thing that is not meant for them". The failure of the democracies in the middle east in the 70 did give them right. But now situation has change and Al Nada out comes are not exactly what they expected.

[JMA]

Your superbly orchestrated and certain to be highly effective and important counterspin operation will take care of that!

Is that what the truth is called nowadays?

Or until all the pro-intervention folks who wish to save the world -- at no cost to themselves, of course -- go north, investigate or get involved and report...

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

Have kit bag, will travel... but then no one needs some one who will ask the difficult questions do they? Better to have tame embeds who will report chapter and verse from the spin released at press conferences.

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.

Oh, the truth -- as much as is known, as you say -- is not unpalatable. The fact that a few do not like it doesn't affect most who wonder what is the point of all the acrimony. Dignation, perhaps...

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.

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...

Like the old Yorkshireman said, "There's nowt strange as folk..."

Strange? Personally I find people entirely predictable.

[JMA]

If "positioning" the country as a "reluctant, non-hegemonic intervenor"--if that's even possible or even relevant--is a precondition for action, then why did the White House call for the regime's ouster almost three weeks ago?

You are asking difficult questions.

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

Yes, it is a good question of yours. That statement was made when it looked as if the rebels had the momentum to roll up the regime in a matter of days.

Seeing that the US Administration had little or no appetite for action Gaddafi brought in the mercenaries and went on the offensive.

Now the Obama/Clinton apologists will tell you that the loss of a few thousand Libyan lives is a small price to pay in order to force Europe to take the initiative in this matter ... but others will sadly recognise yet another serious example of foreign policy incompetence.

The vast majority of Americans I have met in my life have been good, big-hearted and generous people and IMHO deserve better than they get from successive administrations... but as they say, "in a democracy you get the government you deserve." How the military manages to deal with these clowns is truly amazing to me.

[JMA]

Posted by JMA

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.

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.

Of course the US can turn their back on any conflict or humanitarian crisis. There is a price to pay for that though and that comes at a cost of its humanity. Kind of like in Rome before its collapse.

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.

Cast your mind back to the Cold War era. A lot of today's African political landscape was shaped by the tug-o-war of that era of which the US was very much part. There was no reason to have had millions butchered then and even less reason now.

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.

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.

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.

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.

An alternative view? You mean interpretation?

The view that this was all a plan (by the US Administration) to force Europe to step to the front and act is what some are presenting as the facts here. I don't share that view.

[Fuchs]

The news reports I read said it was the French who struck the ground targets near Benghazi and the only American airplanes so far are some B-2s.
No matter, we'll find out for sure soon enough and the heavy equipment got destroyed.

A German reporter team from Benghazi attributed the damage done to the attackers (some of them were already in the city) to the French, and more importantly; the people of Benghazi seem to do the same.

[JMA]

Also, if this is followed on the ground, it will prove that most of us were wrong: air campaign can be effective and it was much easier than expected.

Still astounded that some even thought that this would be a long affair. A rats-and-mice force (can't use the word army) like Gaddafi's is no match for "an intelligent and skillfully planned and executed air campaign." Not sure they even needed 112 plus cruise missiles to achieve a real fear based ceasefire. And the "demonstration of sincerity" missile into his compound was two days too late, but better late than never as they say.

A problem can occur if some of Gaddafi's followers (especially those who have committed capital crimes, now or earlier) resort to urban guerrilla warfare once all else is lost. This is why Gaddafi must either be forced into exile or killed or captured to these hardliners have no one to rally around.

[SWJ Blog]

Blue Birds and Wolverines in Libya: Cinematic Considerations for Military Intervention

Entry Excerpt:

Blue Birds and Wolverines in Libya: Cinematic Considerations for Military Intervention
by Patrick McKinney

On March 17, 2011, the United Nations authorized military force to protect the people of Libya from the forces of its ruler, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Two days later, the United States, France, and England, commenced military action against Libyan air defenses, and command and control sites in preparation for a no-fly zone. As the international community starts action in Libya, words of caution are in order. Seen by some as a lower-cost alternative to ground forces, a no-fly zone intends to protect Libyan civilians and opposition forces from the Qaddafi regime, but such a mission is not without risks. As political and military leaders prepare for action, they should pause for a few hours and watch two films of the 1980s; 1986’s Iron Eagle and 1984’s Red Dawn, and consider the lessons of the Blue Bird and the Wolverines.

Patrick McKinney served as a United States Army field artillery and military intelligence officer, and deployed as a platoon leader in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom IV. He has watched both films since childhood, and they accompanied him on his deployment. He now resides in Alexandria, VA. The views expressed in this piece are his own.



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.