And Libya goes on...

[JMA]

Which is why I think we should have sat this one out. Getting screeched at by the usual cast of characters and not spending billions of dollars for the privilege is far more appealing than getting screeched at by the usual cast of characters and spending billions of dollars for the privilege. I would have much preferred a position along the lines of: "We are saddened by the violence in Libya. However, this is a Libyan problem for the Libyans to solve. Regardless of the outcome, we look forward to resuming normal relations with the victor."

As it is now, I have the feeling we've been suckered into a game of "let's you and him fight." We should have known better.

So I guess you would go for this statement of a time some 70 years ago?

"We are saddened about the ongoing problems between the Jews and the Nazis. This problem should be resolved between the two parties themselves and we see no reason to interfere. Regardless of of the methods used or the motives behind the problems we look forward to resuming normal relations with the Nazis one they have solved this problem."

MODERATOR COMMENT: A warning has been issued with regard to this post. It gives the appearance of being structured to either provoke or attack J Wolfsberger, and further conduct such as this will result in additional moderator action.

[Presley Cannady]

Still recent enough to be relevant now:

The Origins and Strategic Objectives of the Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)

In 2007, the Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) emerged after the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) aligned itself with Al-Qaeda. This development captured the world's attention and led several scholars and policymakers to ask the question: Why did this merger take place and what does it say about the motivations of GSPC? This research investigates three hypotheses: (1) This merger is merely an ideological one without operational implications; (2) this merger is ideological, operational, and logistical; or (3) this merger is merely a rebranding of a failing organization that needed to survive and, therefore, is not a genuine threat to the United States and its European allies. Exploring the evolution of Algerian Islamism, from the rise of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) and the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) to the GSPC and AQIM, this study concludes that hypothesis 3 is the best explanation of the merger between GSPC and Al-Qaeda.

[JMA]

Hey JMA,

As an American I sometimes wonder why the African Union and Arab League are not leading the way with regards to COL G and others of his ilk. All of us here at SWJ are aware, however, that the realities of the world often differ from what we might wish them to be...

Why are you wondering when so many people know?

Take a look (as a simple example) at the Democracy Index and see where the Arab and African countries group.

The majority (like China and probably Russia) see the support of humanitarian intervention as something which could backfire on themselves. Why would a brutal dictatorship (Arab or African) want to spend money and effort on freeing citizens of another country who when free may be tempted to do the same in return?

There is your first point. Thereafter it has been important for the world powers to keep these Mickey Mouse countries weak and divided and as a result more easily manipulated. To suddenly expect these "dependent" countries to step up and show initiative is pretty naive.

If the US has tired of being a super power then they should tell the world so and stop feeling sorry for themselves when ever there is a requirement for the country in the position they created for themselves to act for the general good of all.

Go through that list of nations and figure out in which countries the US has had a hand in shaping their current position and recognise that it will not be that easy to just walk away.

Let's hope for the best, however, we soldiers have an obligation to be clear-eyed and honest about what the probable outcomes are. IMHO the NFZ in Libya has a high probability of escalating into something more costly

"We" (that we again) soldiers have the duty to act in accordance with the (often changing) policy and objectives of the politicians.

Sure you can introduce a throw away line about the likelihood of an escalation without any substantiation. Just a gut feeling?

IMHO the international community has to equally share the burden of policing and fixing our broken world. Continually asking the US to solve the majority of the world's problems is not a realistic solution.

Steve

That is why NATO has been increasingly dragged into dealing with these problems.

Look at the converse. Do you not think that the other members of NATO are a little weary of being dragged into ill advised wars of US making - in Iraq and Afghanistan for example?

Then you will be told that as the US has been the super power with its finger in every pie that somewhere it has been a cause or at least a contributing factor in many of these problems that now need attention?

[JMA]

You have been asserting that it was inappropriate to use cruise missiles to eliminate Libyan air defense.

No he didn't.

He said in post #462

I disagree. The DEAD (destruction enemy air defences) phase has become a custom, it was no necessity. Most of those air defence missiles are 1960's vintage, they could probably not even kill civilian aircraft any more.

I suggest an apology to Fuchs for misstating his position is due.

[JMA]

I think it's a good idea to leave this discussion after some final remarks.

I hinted at how it's difficult to express the opinion here. Maybe I found a way that's not going to yield a ban.

[snip]

Now I'll test my self-discipline by promising myself to never look into this thread again. Done.

In case you have the will power to not look at this thread again I will PM this to you as well.

I agree with your initial statement in #462

I disagree. The DEAD (destruction enemy air defences) phase has become a custom, it was no necessity. Most of those air defence missiles are 1960's vintage, they could probably not even kill civilian aircraft any more.

I see nothing controversial in this view and it is a legitimate criticism of what we call the "condom approach" to military operations being where one solution fits all circumstances.

While I find the views of many of the (obviously still serving) US servicemen on this board illuminating as to why the US military approaches certain situations in certain ways they too benefit IMHO from your views if only they would pause to listen.

This all takes me back to when I was in a position to encourage and manage officer type tactical discussions on like matters. What I always did (I must have learned it from someone) was once the initial discussions had taken place and the positions on the matter at hand by the individual course members had become apparent I would place them in syndicates and task them with arguing the view opposite to what they seemed to hold. It forced lateral thinking.

Somehow I don't see you as a quitter. Your view on the Libyan intervention remains interesting to me.

[JMA]

At least as many if not more who think it stupid disagree. I sure do not think it is (a) effective, (b) smart, or (c) likely to achieve the stated goal.

Doesn't matter about the "smart". I simply stated that the NFZ was in place and effective. "Smart" is a variable that you are attempting to introduce.

Noted on SkyNews (TV) last night that a Brit air force spokesman declared that the sky over Libya were safe enough for military aircraft to use the airspace with impunity.

NFZ in place and effective, some remaining effort to stop "ceasefire violations" of Gaddafi's forces.

No, it wasn't rather simple -- at least not to judge from all your carping about it. Before we ascribe it to the 'was' column, let's wait until it's over...Uh, yeah -- because no one has been told to shut it down. That and a lot of other things are reasons your "was" is premature.

Sorry Ken but the whole exercise was simple. Had it been put into place earlier (before Beghazi was attacked and other cities/towns overrun) it would have been even more simple.

You and I agreed the US was dithering, we both put it down to a lack of knowledge and other problems. While I know the US system is designed to cause that, you chose to ignore it -- which is certainly okay -- but the real difference between us was I disapproved of the whole idea -- and still do. Whereas you were a cheerleader for the action.

I have constantly attempted to separate the political and the military in my discussions. I don't ignore anything. I just chose to repeat/remind of what I consider to be limitations... and sorry if is seems like I repeated touch a nerve.

Yes I was and am a cheerleader for action. I think I have articulated what I IMHO have thought was the best course of action to take. The politicians came to the party late and the military is doing its thing. Of course I don't know what limitations have been imposed on the military by the politicians and I stand by my criticisms/questioning of certain military actions.

That dithering was likely not intended to force others to step up and do things but it fortuitously did just that. Long overdue, too...

Glad you have come to that realisation.

So-called humanitarian interventions in my observation and experience generally do more harm than good and arguably rarely if ever change the body count much -- just who the targets were and generally both sides were and are at fault.

There are two parts to this. One, is the rationale behind the intervention. Most often it is of noble intent.

The second is the implementation. Should the conduct of the intervention be ineffective or incompetent that has nothing to do with the fundamental rationale behind the intervention. In much of Africa (despite having maintained embassies for years) the interventions have in the main been sub-optimal (trying to be nice here).

Take for example Somalia 1993. Initial reason for deployment solid IMHO (500,000 Somalis dead and 1.5 million refugees or displaced). All going reasonably well until the mission shifted and they forces started to go after Aidid. Delta Force and the Rangers got ahead of themselves and the rest is history. So one accepts in the face of the bloodiest battle since Vietnam people would ask "why are we there?" A bad operation in no way (in my mind) negates from the original purpose for the UN deployment in the first place.

Your "three cruise missile" attack presumes accurate targeting info and success. Probably not as certain as you seem to presume and it would have left us attacking yet another Islamic nation for little benefit to anyone including those that were to nominally be 'saved.' Had they all missed, we'd have looked even sillier than we do...

Yes it is a little simplistic, but there is a principle there.

It goes something like this: "Get in quick and hit the snake(s) on the head."

You really don't have much confidence in the accuracy of your precision weapons do you?

BTW, your post on another thread on that topic, so-called humanitarian intervention, failed to mention the five paragraphs of valid criticism of the concept. To rectify that omission on your part, here are some quotes from those paragraphs and the LINK:

Those in order seem to indicate a massive amount of western / European hearth presumed superiority and egos at work; the US is guilty of using 'humanitarian' issues to further its own interests -- so are the others who think it a grand idea; the inconsistency is routinely noted by others whiule the proponents blow those concerns off with various rationales, regardless it appears quite hypocritical to most of the world; one such rationale can be and is applied to the G-77 'Well, of course, they object...'

As I wrote, sneering European condescension and egos.

I posted the link and that's good enough. Good to see you followed it.

Did you find any of the arguments against such intervention persuasive? I didn't. Silly really.

There are 26 full democracies in the world. Should care somewhat what they think... beyond that... a pinch of salt.

[J Wolfsberger]

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
You have been asserting that it was inappropriate to use cruise missiles to eliminate Libyan air defense.

No he didn't.

He said in post #462

I disagree. The DEAD (destruction enemy air defences) phase has become a custom, it was no necessity. Most of those air defence missiles are 1960's vintage, they could probably not even kill civilian aircraft any more.

I suggest an apology to Fuchs for misstating his position is due. .

By way of explanation, Fuchs had not only been asserting that taking out the air defenses was unnecessary, he had also been pointing to the number of casualties as excessive. That would have made the level of force used inappropriate. I was summarizing his line of argument, not quoting him, and I think accurately.

[J Wolfsberger]

So I guess you would go for this statement of a time some 70 years ago?

"We are saddened about the ongoing problems between the Jews and the Nazis..."

No, I wouldn't have gone with that. I would have supported intervention, just as I did support intervention in Bosnia and Rwanda, and would support intervention to stop any attempted genocide in the future.

That does not, however, translate into an open ended commitment to support any group of unknowns involved in civil violence with their government. Especially not in a region where the people calling on us to intervene are likely to condemn us for it the day after we do.

It most definitely does not translate into using less than all available resources to ensure that our troops conduct it as safely to themselves as possible.

[Ken White]

Doesn't matter about the "smart". I simply stated that the NFZ was in place and effective. "Smart" is a variable that you are attempting to introduce.

No, I introduced that variable two weeks ago. It was dumb then, it still is...

Noted on SkyNews (TV) ...NFZ in place and effective, some remaining effort to stop "ceasefire violations" of Gaddafi's forces.

Yes, the "remaining effort" should be the interesting part.

Sorry Ken but the whole exercise was simple. Had it been put into place earlier (before Beghazi was attacked and other cities/towns overrun) it would have been even more simple.

I agree with both those statements. However, simple does not equate with effective and neither is the same as success (in either case)

I have constantly attempted to separate the political and the military in my discussions. I don't ignore anything. I just chose to repeat/remind of what I consider to be limitations... and sorry if is seems like I repeated touch a nerve.

You seem to have this fetish about nerves. Mine are long gone...

Your military commentary is usually accurate IMO. Your political commentary I often agree with as a statement of goals but I almost invariably disagree with the practicality of implementing most of your recommendations.

Yes I was and am a cheerleader for action...

I have no problem with action, all for it in fact -- I simply prefer smart action to stupidity and the all too often western habit of doing something even if it's wrong. We can disagree on the advisability of what is being done -- as to who's correct, we'll have to wait and see.

Glad you have come to that realisation.

Good try -- I realized that long ago, your incorrect assumption that it was spin -- you do that a lot -- led you astray. As occurs frequently when one misconstrues for whatever reason. A lot of things the US does, good and bad, are pure serendipity. Function of the rather chaotic governmental process...

There are two parts to this. One, is the rationale behind the intervention. Most often it is of noble intent.

Ah yes, those things with which the road is paved...

The second is the implementation.... (trying to be nice here).

No need to be. They were -- as are most, everywhere.

Take for example Somalia 1993... A bad operation in no way (in my mind) negates from the original purpose for the UN deployment in the first place.

That's where we differ; you believe noble intent is adequate in the face of or to offset flawed execution and exacerbated situations. I disagree. Consider the force or forces to be involved and all too often one creates more problems than are solved. Noble intent not realized or thwarted for whatever reason is quite simply a waste.

You really don't have much confidence in the accuracy of your precision weapons do you?

I have great confidence in the weapon -- I have almost none in the intelligence community to provide the same degree of accuracy...

I also have fair confidence in the ability of the evildoers of this world to outsmart our ego driven attempts.

I posted the link and that's good enough. Good to see you followed it.

I try to be polite and generally follow links others provide, most often to see what they left out. I'm rarely disappointed. Was not in this case...

Did you find any of the arguments against such intervention persuasive? I didn't. Silly really.

What you and I think about them is largely irrelevant -- what affected populations and politicians think is another thing entirely. We can discount that and post merrily on any discussion board -- the other folks may end up involved -- or losing an election over it. That may not matter to you -- it matters to them.

There are 26 full democracies in the world. Should care somewhat what they think... beyond that... a pinch of salt.

Nah, not salt -- try the pepper. Old Soldiers should be math whizzes. I figure your 26 as really being ~600M people (Nations are neat but they don't fight, people do), add another similar amount for the 'almosts' and you get 1.2B. That's ~20% of the nominal global population. You may not be concerned about that other 80% but someone better be...

[Surferbeetle]

JMA,

Given your history, here at SWJ, of regularly advocating for the ultra-violence it is interesting to me to note your recent concerns regarding humanitarian issues in Libya.

The majority (like China and probably Russia) see the support of humanitarian intervention as something which could backfire on themselves. Why would a brutal dictatorship (Arab or African) want to spend money and effort on freeing citizens of another country who when free may be tempted to do the same in return?

Indeed

Please reread my previous response to you.

The two articles which I linked to, highlighted South Africa’s flip-flopping regarding intervention in the internal affairs of Libya, and mapped out a portion of Libya’s political patronage network within the AU by project and country.

You will find that the articles were intended as an answer to my rhetorical question to you.

There is your first point. Thereafter it has been important for the world powers to keep these Mickey Mouse countries weak and divided and as a result more easily manipulated. To suddenly expect these "dependent" countries to step up and show initiative is pretty naive.

…and so your argument is that only America is qualified to make appropriate choices for say, South Africa?

The popular expectation that a leader will place the needs of a nation above that of his or her personal enrichment and amusement is not limited by geography.

The various leaders of Africa have had, and continue to have, myriad opportunities to decide between these two options. The opportunities arising from China’s investment in Africa as well as that of the International Community are ongoing.

If the US has tired of being a super power then they should tell the world so and stop feeling sorry for themselves when ever there is a requirement for the country in the position they created for themselves to act for the general good of all.

The US has not tired of being a super power; instead decisions regarding what furthers the interests of the US will, by definition, not please everyone within the international community.

It appears to me that you are not pleased with the decisions made by the US with respect to Libya. Our nation’s decisions will not be changed to please you.

"We" (that we again) soldiers have the duty to act in accordance with the (often changing) policy and objectives of the politicians.

That responsibility includes providing frank and objective advice regarding military operations.

Sure you can introduce a throw away line about the likelihood of an escalation without any substantiation. Just a gut feeling?

My statement that NFZ’s generally escalate into something more than a NFZ is based upon more than a gut feeling.

I have been following the evolution of ‘Kurdistan’ for a number of years and served in a supporting role in Europe during the establishment of Operation Provide Comfort (later Operation Northern Watch). I served on the periphery of Yugoslavia, watched it’s disintegration, followed Bosnia, and had trained up for Kosovo when Iraq intervened and I was attached to the 101st during OIF1.

Look at the converse.

Surely

Do you not think that the other members of NATO are a little weary of being dragged into ill advised wars of US making - in Iraq and Afghanistan for example?

Discounting your characterization of ‘ill-advised’, history nonetheless reflects that the national interests of NATO members have overlapped sufficiently to formulate joint responses to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

Then you will be told that as the US has been the super power with its finger in every pie that somewhere it has been a cause or at least a contributing factor in many of these problems that now need attention?

It would appear that this has been done

Will you acknowledge the successes that have accompanied the failures? Will you acknowledge that the US is not the only actor implementing changes? Will you further acknowledge the responsibilities of a nation’s leaders and inhabitants to effect positive change?

[JMA]

No, I wouldn't have gone with that. I would have supported intervention, just as I did support intervention in Bosnia and Rwanda, and would support intervention to stop any attempted genocide in the future.

The definition of genocide is weak in that it excludes the mass murder of political groups. But it was clear that such was in the process of playing out in Libya and there was most certainly a tribal factor in play.

So I would assume then that you would be supporting of such an intervention in Libya and also in (another brewing cesspool) Ivory Coast (where the mix there is both tribal and religious)?

That does not, however, translate into an open ended commitment to support any group of unknowns involved in civil violence with their government. Especially not in a region where the people calling on us to intervene are likely to condemn us for it the day after we do.

Did I, did Fuchs, has anyone proposed an open ended commitment to rebels, future government or what ever in Libya? Don't think so.

It appears that (with some justification) there is a pathological fear (in some quarters) about Libya becoming another swamp into which the US military will be sucked.

My point all along has been that to cause the Gaddafi regime to collapse is pretty easy (if you go for the pressure points and not try the multiple body blow routine).

I remain interested in these so-called "unknowns". Many countries have maintained embassies in Libya and no doubt had intel assets constantly on the go but when something major happens every shouts that no one could have seen it coming and that they don't know who these people are (the rebels). (I don't want to get started on the competence or otherwise of the State Department or the CIA - or indeed the British Foreign Office and MI6)

But surely they knew that the military structure designed to protect the state against a military coup was inherently weak and that the weapons systems were somewhere between obsolete and obsolescent?

You only need to use what is needed to deal with a particular situation. Any more is wasted.

It most definitely does not translate into using less than all available resources to ensure that our troops conduct it as safely to themselves as possible.

My point was that it clearly backfired when the number of Tomahawks used was announced in the press. It freaked out the weak and the vacillating. A PR mistake which they seem to have learned from.

[JMA]

No, I introduced that variable two weeks ago. It was dumb then, it still is...

But the point of mine you challenged was:

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..

You expressed that you were dubious about that and I asked which of the two... and we are still going on with that.

Yes, the "remaining effort" should be the interesting part.

Yes, like when does protecting civilians translate into CAS for the rebels.

I agree with both those statements. However, simple does not equate with effective and neither is the same as success (in either case)

Effective in terms of the NFZ means that none of Gaddafi's aircraft can get airborne (which the Brit air Force chap assured the world on TV last night was the case) without getting shot down by "coalition" aircraft themselves at next to no risk from Gaddafi's air defences.

I talk here of the ease of establishing a NFZ over a Mickey Mouse country with few military skills and obsolescent equipment. My opinion on what happens later was not covered in that post.

You seem to have this fetish about nerves. Mine are long gone...

In this case I would think it is prudent to be concerned about the nerves of the "coalition" who may if freaked out enough may withdraw their support for the exercise.

As to my nerves I have more nerves about being paid on time these days than I ever had in the military. Back then life was simple, dangerous but simple. (I did not appreciate either then)

Your military commentary is usually accurate IMO. Your political commentary I often agree with as a statement of goals but I almost invariably disagree with the practicality of implementing most of your recommendations.

That's fine Ken. My recommendations are based on the information I have to hand on any issue and also on my experience both in this neck of the woods or in the military. I would (humbly) suggest that most of my recommendation would work but due to a number of reasons (like the dithering incompetence of politicians and the inability of the military to think out of the box sometimes) would be impossible to implement.

Take for example the Ivory Coast development.

The U.N. peacekeeping mission to Ivory Coast said Laurent Gbagbo's forces were readying an attack helicopter and multiple rocket launchers on Tuesday and condemned the growing use of heavy weapons against civilians

Now you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realise that one missile per target will fix this little problem (based on the fact that they will not be expecting any strike and this this weapons may well be grouped together.) As easy as that. Will it happen...nah.

I have no problem with action, all for it in fact -- I simply prefer smart action to stupidity and the all too often western habit of doing something even if it's wrong. We can disagree on the advisability of what is being done -- as to who's correct, we'll have to wait and see.

As I have stated elsewhere there are two actions in play here. One, to intervene and two, how to intervene.

On the first I agree but criticise the late decision (with the cost in Libyan lives) and on the second I can merely comment based on what I hear with the possibility that some of those actions the military carries out may be governed by the decisions of the politicians.

Good try -- I realized that long ago, your incorrect assumption that it was spin -- you do that a lot -- led you astray. As occurs frequently when one misconstrues for whatever reason. A lot of things the US does, good and bad, are pure serendipity. Function of the rather chaotic governmental process...

I am a believer in the eponymous law of Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

That's where we differ; you believe noble intent is adequate in the face of or to offset flawed execution and exacerbated situations. I disagree. Consider the force or forces to be involved and all too often one creates more problems than are solved. Noble intent not realized or thwarted for whatever reason is quite simply a waste.

Clearly we are at odds on this point. One comes before the other. The decision to intervene is made then a military strategy is formulated. Timing is often at a premium so, yes, certainly political interference and the abilities of the units available will count heavily in terms of the potential for success. I wonder how much the military has learned about being prepared for the least expected at the least opportune time?

I have great confidence in the weapon -- I have almost none in the intelligence community to provide the same degree of accuracy... I also have fair confidence in the ability of the evildoers of this world to outsmart our ego driven attempts.

So what you saying here? That it has less to do with the merits of the intervention but rather more to do with your confidence in being able to execute the intervention effectively?

What you and I think about them is largely irrelevant -- what affected populations and politicians think is another thing entirely. We can discount that and post merrily on any discussion board -- the other folks may end up involved -- or losing an election over it. That may not matter to you -- it matters to them.

And this is only possible with an uneducated electorate?

Nah, not salt -- try the pepper. Old Soldiers should be math whizzes. I figure your 26 as really being ~600M people (Nations are neat but they don't fight, people do), add another similar amount for the 'almosts' and you get 1.2B. That's ~20% of the nominal global population. You may not be concerned about that other 80% but someone better be...

Oh I am concerned about the people but as per the context of my post I am speaking about being concerned about what the dictator or non-elected so-called leader of a captive nation says. This is the problem in the UN.

[JMA]

JMA,

Given your history, here at SWJ, of regularly advocating for the ultra-violence it is interesting to me to note your recent concerns regarding humanitarian issues in Libya.

Why? It is quite possible to target only very evil people with extreme violence. Hence my saying that if you take Gbagbo out, take Gaddafi out, take Mugabe out by violent means you are actually doing the world and their respective countries a favour for which they will be eternally grateful.

The two articles which I linked to, highlighted South Africa’s flip-flopping regarding intervention in the internal affairs of Libya, and mapped out a portion of Libya’s political patronage network within the AU by project and country.

What you need to learn about South Africa is the following:

Opposition challenges dropping of 16 criminal charges against President Zuma

and

ZUMA’S SON TO BE THE YOUNGEST SA BILLIONAIRE

So you do realise that South Africa has already been bought and sold. The decisions which can be influenced by those means have been and will continue to be made. So you need to figure out how to do business with the current government (which is obvious).

It appears to me that you are not pleased with the decisions made by the US with respect to Libya. Our nation’s decisions will not be changed to please you.

I am entitled to an opinion. I am entitled to take a position. I have no expectation that I will be in step with US thinking and actions more than on the odd occasion. This worries me not... as it shopuld not worry you.

My statement that NFZ’s generally escalate into something more than a NFZ is based upon more than a gut feeling.

I have been following the evolution of ‘Kurdistan’ for a number of years and served in a supporting role in Europe during the establishment of Operation Provide Comfort (later Operation Northern Watch). I served on the periphery of Yugoslavia, watched it’s disintegration, followed Bosnia, and had trained up for Kosovo when Iraq intervened and I was attached to the 101st during OIF1.

What do you think the US Administration see as "mission accomplished" in Libya? This you probably realise may go beyond UNSC resolution 1973.

Discounting your characterization of ‘ill-advised’, history nonetheless reflects that the national interests of NATO members have overlapped sufficiently to formulate joint responses to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

Some believe the Libyan intervention to be ill-advised. I personally believe that NATO was arm twisted into Iraq and Afghanistan. Have not read anywhere where European "national interests" were served by their Iraqi and Afghan involvement other than to keep uncle Sam happy.

Will you acknowledge the successes that have accompanied the failures? Will you acknowledge that the US is not the only actor implementing changes? Will you further acknowledge the responsibilities of a nation’s leaders and inhabitants to effect positive change?

To the first, I'm a bit lost as to list any successes... please help.

To the second, yes... but quite often they need a little help

[davidbfpo]

The UK-based think tank, the Quilliam Foundation, which has an ex-LIFG senior member as a staff member, have published a paper 'The jihadist threat in Libya':

Noman Benotman, a senior analyst at Quilliam and a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, said:

‘Gaddafi has tried very hard to give the impression that the Libyan opposition is controlled by al-Qaeda. This ideas flies in the face of all the evidence. The opposition is a diverse coalition of Libyans from many tribal and political backgrounds. Just because some Islamists support the opposition against Gaddafi this does not make the opposition Islamist.

‘At the same time, there are some extremists who want to manipulate the Libyan conflict for their own ends. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is looking for ways to play a greater role in this conflict. Since the start of the year it has tried to move men and arms into Libya from its bases in Niger and Mali, near Libya’s southern border. At the same time, al-Qaeda’s leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan are trying to portray the international intervention in Libya as a ‘crusader’ attack on Muslim in order to further their own agenda.’

James Brandon, Director of Research at Quilliam, said:

‘Although Gaddafi’s claims that the opposition is an al-Qaeda front are utter nonsense, it is clear that the fighting in Libya has created a vacuum in which extreme groups – including al-Qaeda – may be able to operate. There are signs that al-Qaeda leadership, both in Pakistan and in North Africa, believe that events in Libya could be a chance for them to create a second Iraq. The international community needs to work with the opposition leadership in Libya in order to shut out these extremists before they can hijack Libya’s popular uprising for their own ends.’

‘But while there are significant extremist elements active in Libya, we should welcome the fact that many members of the Libyan opposition movement say they are fighting Gaddafi out of religious conviction. If these people sincerely believe that democracy, human rights and freedom are compatible with Islam, this is all the more reason why we should support them in their struggle. Such people are the best antidote to groups like al-Qaeda that believe that democracy and human rights are incompatible with Islam.

‘The small number of extremists fighting against Gaddafi should not distract us from the fact that most of the opposition – and indeed most Libyan people – aspire to create a modern, democratic and open Libya. We need to distinguish between extreme Islamists who dress up their anti-democratic politics in religious language and mainstream Muslims who express their opposition to Gaddafi through religious language and references.

Link:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/im...a24march11.pdf

[ganulv]

Some globalpost coverage of the opposition forces. Does the United States Government know how to pick a winner or what?

[Ken White]

I talk here of the ease of establishing a NFZ over a Mickey Mouse country with few military skills and obsolescent equipment. My opinion on what happens later was not covered in that post.

My point is you cannot -- or certainly should not -- ever divorce the two. Such thinking, that divorce, effectively puts the contributing nations and the Libyans (both or all sides /parties) in never-never land...

That flawed thinking has occurred all too frequently in these interventions. Plain old simple backward planning could fix most of that.

Clearly we are at odds on this point. One comes before the other. The decision to intervene is made then a military strategy is formulated. Timing is often at a premium so, yes, certainly political interference and the abilities of the units available will count heavily in terms of the potential for success. I wonder how much the military has learned about being prepared for the least expected at the least opportune time?

My reluctance to support such operations is induced by participation in a couple and observation of many more all of which show that the military (generic / worldwide) has learned, or more correctly, instilled little. That and the seemingly almost mandatory vacillation of all politicians...

Noble intent is laudable and desirable; at least marginal competence, consistency and will are desirable and IMO more important. The first will be wasted in the absence of the latter. I believe the Hippocratic dictum of "First, do no harm..." applies.

The usual error is indeed to decide to intervene then direct a 'strategy' or plan be devised. What should happen is that nations who espouse such an interventionist policy should develop a strategy on intervening, insure it is resource and effective and then wait for a need -- but that requires more foresight than most are willing to support.

So what you saying here? That it has less to do with the merits of the intervention but rather more to do with your confidence in being able to execute the intervention effectively?

Yes. That is based on the dual premise that failure in not achieving aims and thus potentially doing more harm than good to the affected populace also induces in others a perception of weakness or incompetence on the part of the intervening nation or force that frequently leads to more such 'crises.'

And this is only possible with an uneducated electorate?

Sadly, that does seem to be always correct...

Oh I am concerned about the people but as per the context of my post I am speaking about being concerned about what the dictator or non-elected so-called leader of a captive nation says. This is the problem in the UN.

I got the context but the broader problem is as you say...

[slapout9]

Why? It is quite possible to target only very evil people with extreme violence. Hence my saying that if you take Gbagbo out, take Gaddafi out, take Mugabe out by violent means you are actually doing the world and their respective countries a favour for which they will be eternally grateful.

Absolutley agree 100%. Why do we fret and worry about being mean to people who are absolutley evil. I just don't get it myself

[slapout9]

That flawed thinking has occurred all too frequently in these interventions. Plain old simple backward planning could fix most of that.

Absolutely! do they even teach that anymore? I was taught that as 18 year old Paratrooper. What is that saying Americans have a memory or attention span of about 5 minutes.

[Ken White]

Both due in my belief to the fact we've allowed, even encouraged, the inmates to take charge of the institution.

[Surferbeetle]

Why? It is quite possible to target only very evil people with extreme violence. Hence my saying that if you take Gbagbo out, take Gaddafi out, take Mugabe out by violent means you are actually doing the world and their respective countries a favour for which they will be eternally grateful.

IMHO this is not a reasonable course of action nor is it recommended at this time.

Your suggested COA does not address reasonable legal and moral restrictions regarding the prohibition of assassination of heads of state.

IMHO all projects have at least three primary components; political, economic, and technical. Leaders of all ranks and positions remain leaders because they are able to consistently harmonize these three components.

As presented, your recommended course of action is focused exclusively upon a small portion, belonging to the security portion, of the technical component of a solution. To reiterate, it does not address the full range of issues involved and would result in more problems than it would solve.

A case study of the trial of Saddam Hussein is a place to look for possible answers.

I am entitled to an opinion. I am entitled to take a position. I have no expectation that I will be in step with US thinking and actions more than on the odd occasion. This worries me not... as it should not worry you.

I recognize your right to an opinion and position and do not think or imply otherwise. I too have an opinion and will not be deterred in expressing it either.

Between these two positions there is ample room for both of us to discuss a variety of events and experiences, and I look forward to discussing additional ones with you.

What do you think the US Administration see as "mission accomplished" in Libya? This you probably realise may go beyond UNSC resolution 1973.

I am concerned that the publicly stated objectives for the NFZ are based upon a simple and static viewpoint while the actual problem is a very complex one, which is also quite dynamic and not constrained by arbitrary national borders.

Turkey attacks France on Libya ‘crusade’, By Delphine Strauss in Ankara, Published: March 24 2011 17:00 | Last updated: March 24 2011 17:00, at the FT

The Turkish government on Thursday lashed out at France over its approach to military intervention in Libya and its refusal to confer sole command of operations to Nato.

Ahmet Davutoglu, foreign minister, also said it would be “impossible for us to share responsibility in an operation some authorities have described as a crusade” – a reference to the gaffe made earlier this week by Claude Guéant, French interior minister.

Reçep Tayyip Erdogan, prime minister, cast doubt on the motives for the French-led intervention, telling a conference: “I advise our western friends, when they look at this region, to see the hungry children, the suffering mothers, the poverty . . . I wish they would not only see oil, gold mines or underground wealth.”