Depends on what you call net benefit. If the benefit of syrian intervention was to crush israel influence in lebanon: did workOriginally Posted by Ken White
David, not to pick nits.
But to learn your thoughts on these, are any of them (what one could call) 'resolved?'
If not, do you consider the intervention or mediation of others to be of net benefit?
Depends on what you call net benefit. If the benefit of syrian intervention was to crush israel influence in lebanon: did work
To be clear, I think most such domestic disputes are none of our business to mess with at all, but this one is special for reasons that are sadly missed by most of our senior leadership.
I listened to Pat Buchanan today on the Morning Joe, and he was ranting about how stupid this was, not in our interest, comparing it to the Sudan, Rwanda, etc.
For me, it all comes back to how do we best reduce the threat to the American populace, our infrastructure and our interests from the surge of terrorist attacks coming out of the Sunni Muslim populaces of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula?
The experts rail about ideology, radicals, terrorists, etc I'm not buying it. I think it comes down to the fundamental quest of people for liberty on their own terms under governments that they accept as having the right to government them. We the west over centuries of colonialism, and we the US over decades of Cold War Containment-driven controls, and 20 years of simply being too big for our britches and doing whatever we damn well please, have corrupted this process.
In Libya, as follow-up to Tunisia and Egypt, there is an opportunity to frame the message. To get it right and communicate it to the populaces and the leadership of the region. Leaders cannot count on us to simply retain them in power regardless of how they act, and neither can populaces assume we will come and carry their revolution to success. It is time for everyone to evolve.
Frankly, I think the President is playing this damn smart. If more "experts" thought so as well I would probably have to reassess.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
David,
Agree with Ken that I'm not sure those are "resolved" and, of course, it's hard to know the counterfactual. I'm not saying it can't be done, but those two examples would indicate that it's not simply a matter of "cracking some heads" together to get people to work out their differences - rather it's an effort that takes decades of commitment.
Given everything going on in the US I feel pretty confident in predicting that the US doesn't have the resources or national will/interest for that kind of commitment.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
A Twofer...
M-A Lagrange: I think you made one of my points. There'll generally be a benefit. A net benefit, though, accrues to most if not all parties and is long term. I think that a good portion of benefit should apply to the 'recipient' of the 'assistance.' I'm not sure Lebanon or anyone other than Syria derived much benefit from that intervention...
Bob's World:I understand your point but I'm not buying the 'we' the west item -- to wit the 'we.' I didn't participate in that and while I acknowledge it occurred and the ills (and ill feelings) that were caused have effects that must be considered, the foolishness of 'western guilt' is dangerous and is a strong contributor to the political class's desire to intervene for 'humanitarian' reasons. It's a foolish delusion to think you can make up for two centuries of someone else's wrongdoing by firing a few Tomahawks. Or doing much else. I agree with your oft stated dictum we should change our ways but you at the same time advocate interventions for spurious reasons -- that is a conflict and many have called that to your attention. Either you wish we would change or you want us to keep doing what we've been doing but do it your way. Can't have it both ways.We the west over centuries of colonialism, and we the US over decades of Cold War Containment-driven controls, and 20 years of simply being too big for our britches and doing whatever we damn well please, have corrupted this process.
I also dispute your "20 years of being too big for our britches" -- I realize that tallies with your experience but the reality is the period is not 20 years but about 50 -- the first 30 went by with only one real comeuppance, Viet Nam. So the follow on Administrations allowed their egos to block that lesson that should have been but was not learned -- or the wrong lessons were learned, viewpoint dependent.
Among those not learning the right lessons were -- and are -- the bulk of the Armed forces of the USA. That, BTW, includes USSOCOM.The problem is that it will not be done your way; it will be done in our usual well-meaning but bumbling way and therefor will almost certainly do more harm than good.In Libya, as follow-up to Tunisia and Egypt, there is an opportunity to frame the message. To get it right and communicate it to the populaces and the leadership of the region.
All you strategerists should really learn to think tactically -- worst case everything and backward plan...
That may all true but none of that matters anymore. My point is Daffy will see the US(not NATO,Plato,Snoopy or Droopy) as targeting him, no matter what the spin is. The administration has put our country at great risk by thinking you can mediate with a psychopath, he is going to take it personally and he want forget.Isn't this what so many said about Saddam? Blowing out the old and creating a power vacuum for everyone to fight to fill is no high road to success.
Neither is latching onto some side, like the Northern Alliance and carrying them to victory, only to get stuck to their own bad politics, ill will and poor governance like the proverbial tarbaby.
What do they say we use, 20% of our brains? Might be about time to dip into the reserves for another 1%.
Ken,
I agree that the US approached the world much differently in the past. From our initial focus on just getting our own act together; shifting to expanding across North America to the Pacific; then to a bit of Colonialism in the first half of the last century to pick the jewels from a fading Spain's crown with a keen eye to securing the access to the Caribbean and Panama; as well as the very best harbors and coaling stations to expand a naval security blanket over our commerce into the Asia-Pacific Region. Next big bump was getting involved in WWI, then II and the subsequent role of leading the West in the Cold War. The final escalation was the hegemon phase upon the collapse of the Soviets. Now here we are today. (Realize you were there for most of that, so the update was more to help organize my own rambling thoughts...)
Personally and professionally, I don't think the US needs to apologize to anyone. Where we stepped on toes, others stomped on balls. It hasn't been all goodness and light, but in the big scheme of things (realizing that I cannot help but be biased) think the world could have done a whole lot worse.
But here we are today. We are not the same country we were at the end of WWII, and we do not operate in the same world that emerged from WWII either. Prior to WWII we were constrained in our actions by more powerful or more established European countries. We were more humble, more apt to mind our own business, and almost always could offer a deal that made us look way better than the European alternative.
People appreciated that, particularly in the context of our own national narrative of how we had stood up to the Euro big dogs and prevailed, and the powerful promise of liberty contained in our national principles was a shining light to little guys everywhere.
Then we grew up and became our parents; when others held up our own documents and demanded their own freedom, we turned our backs and allowed their old European masters to resume their old dominion over them. As nationalist China fell, the Russians got nukes and the Cold War got a whole lot colder, we rolled up our sleeves and got a whole lot dirtier as well. Ike and the Dulles brothers learned that manipulating governments was not all that hard. The proverbial slippery slope. Big business loves dictators, the US loves big business, so the US learned to love dictators as well.
It all worked great until Al Gore had to go and invent the Internet!! (kidding) But the advances in info-tech and transportation-tech that coincided with the fall of the Soviets was a HUGE change. But it was the Clinton era, and we were too busy partying to notice. Every now and then some genocide would compel us to lend a hand, but we did little or nothing to change how we did business. We put the chips on the table and we let it ride.
9/11 was a wake up call. On a certain level we should have thanked bin Laden for the cold slap in the face, kicked his ass and changed our ways. Instead we dug in deeper. No one was going to make us change! Classic addict behavior. Anger, denial, self-destructive behavior. We had all the classic signs.
The new boss is signing up for recovery. A national 12-step program, if you will. Obviously there are strong urges within the national body to stay the course and not change. Such change is hard, and it comes with pitfalls.
We have an opportunity here. My opinion. Also my opinion that we are playing this about right. As we debate Libya on the Small Wars Journal, government leaders and resistance group leaders are meeting (separately, for obvious reasons) in countries across the region and they are discussing this too. We need to remember that, as they are the critical audience for this message.
I predict we see a spike in arrests in many countries, as revolutionary minded citizens break cover in attempts to get better organized; and as governments crank up their efforts to avoid being next. But this is inevitable. It will spread, and there will be more, and it will happen in places that affect our security and economy directly. Count on it.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
No good answers
I saw an interview with GEN Ham last night on ABC and he said (paraphrased)if you're intervening based on humanitarian reasons (to stop the killing), then you have to intervene relatively fast or what's the point? That means we may have to commit forces to stop the killing before we have a military end state figured out.
O.K. I don't entirely disagree with that logic as far at it goes, but getting to Slap's point, Qadhafi has employed terrorism and sponsored militant activity against his foes for years to include the U.S. (the disco bombing in Germany, and possibly PanAm 103, but understand there is still debate on whether that was ultimately sponsored by Iran or Libya), and while never truly an ally, he is definitely an enemy now and we're going to leave him untouched and negotiate with him? State sponsored terrorists can be much more dangerous than non-state terrorists based on the State's ability to provide intelligence, move money, weapons, people, etc. In the past State sponsored terrorism attacks were limited in scale, because they wanted to make a point not start a war. However, if we're already at war why would they limit the scale of their attacks? I agree with Slap that Americans are at great risk now due to this adventure.
If we are authorized to employ all means to stop the murder of Libyan civilians by their Government, then it would seem to me that the person ordering their murder would be a legitimate target? Why not? The longer the coalition waits to kill him the more of hero he will become because he is defying the West. We need to kill him now before he reaches folk hero status. We made this mistake with Sadr in Iraq, so here we go again.
Once again we're seeing the limits of air power. First off the Libyan Air Force was not the main military element killing civilians, it was their ground forces, and their ground forces now are reportly putting on civilian clothes and moving into areas to kill civilians who may be counter government.
GEN Ham's point above is right as far as it goes, but it is also true if you leap before thinking it through then you'll generally end up in a quagmire. Since we leapt and are currently in ankle knee deep mud this is no time to be paralyzed by indecision. Once we're in mud up to our mid thighs it will be too late to exit with honor and actually accomplish something.
Last edited by Bill Moore; 03-26-2011 at 01:06 AM.
Ken,
From my viewpoint, which I surmise is quite different from the America, resolving conflicts is seen differently. Stop or reduce the violence, encourage reconciliation, even compromise (surrender to some) and let the passage of time help. I suspect we see things in a longer time frame than you do; we certainly did in the past.
Lebanon - the civil war ended, a communal resolution of sorts emerged and yes with many issues unresolved.
Northern Ireland - civil insurgency much reduced, to a tiny Republican core, with an overwhelming majority wanting peace and yes a wide resolution on key issues: NI remains part of the UK and non-majority government.
Upper Silesia - irregular violence ended by the international forces presence, begrudging acceptance of the borders and as history teaches us resolved in 1945 with the German population being expelled.
Crisis de-escalation has been paramount in each case cited, although in some places like the Caucasus it has clearly not been a factor.
The intervention or mediation of others in conflicts takes many forms, from the 'Blue Berets' to the quieter, low profile work of Italian priests in Mozambique IIRC and the Scandinavians elsewhere.
davidbfpo
Once again Ken, it really depend on which side you are. For many lebanese: Israel departure is preceived as a good thing. For many in the US, probably not.M-A Lagrange: I think you made one of my points. There'll generally be a benefit. A net benefit, though, accrues to most if not all parties and is long term. I think that a good portion of benefit should apply to the 'recipient' of the 'assistance.' I'm not sure Lebanon or anyone other than Syria derived much benefit from that intervention...
As I said previously, this intervention is aimed to equilibrate the conflict and if possible kick G out of power. This does not mean his government would disapear. As David just said, it's rather a way to force negociations. But I would be less confident in the long term benefits. Zim has proven (for many other reasons) that it was agueable.
I personally would not oppose to boots on the ground but only at the condition it's limited to special ops and advise. Bringing troops in such context would be endangering US and EU. Bringing adequate shadow support to finalise popular push would be certainly more profitable.
Like in chess: remove the queen and then you're in better position. Does not need you will win 100%. But in that case, you certainly have an immediat benefit in the arab world.
You have failed to convince me as to why your suggested COA should be followed.
I see your suggested COA as conflating the Law of War with the Rule of Law, while tripping over the golden rule.
You did not mention it, but COL G's military rank throws an interesting technical curve ball. As far as free press reporting goes, however, it would seem that COL G is not leading the troops from the front and is instead acting as a head of state.
My position is unchanged; Heads of State are out of bounds for reasonable legal and moral reasons.
As I have previously mentioned, US national interests trump JMA's interests.
Regarding my two paragraphs which you refer to, they are a simplification of the concept of DIME - Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economic.
Let’s explore it further.
A good commander maximizes his options and minimizes those of his opponent.
Let's run a quick/incomplete free press SITREP using a DIME filter to see if NATO is following COL G’s hopes and your recommendation that we focus exclusively upon what is occurring inside of Libya:
Diplomacy
- The Arab League continues to back the operation ( Arab League reiterates support for Libya action, By Roula Khalaf in London, Published: March 21 2011 23:24 | Last updated: March 21 2011 23:24, at the FT )
Military
- NATO has taken control of the operation. ( French, British Forces Strike Libya as NATO Steps In, By Patrick Donahue and Gregory Viscusi - Mar 25, 2011 12:13 PM MT, Bloomberg )
Information
- Saudi Arabia has previously experienced a failed attempt on Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and has an interest in Libya as well ( Assassination Attempt Targets Saudi Prince, MIDDLE EAST NEWS, AUGUST 29, 2009, By MARGARET COKER, WSJ )
Economic
- Russia is helping to bring pressure to bear on Libya (Russia bans arms sales to Libya, Last Modified: 10 Mar 2011 09:45 GMT, Al Jazeera)
- Saudi Arabia has increased oil output in order to make up for the loss of Libyan Oil (Iraq Refinery Bombed; Libya Plant’s Supply Cut: Persian Gulf Oil, By Anthony DiPaola - Feb 28, 2011 5:14 AM MT, Bloomberg
I am sticking with DIME; IMHO what is going on behind the curtain is just as, if not more so, as important as what is occurring on the stage.
IMHO, whether COL G is bought off and retires somewhere or dies, the international community will still have a significant problem in Libya. As I have previously mentioned Libya’s Civil Institutions (free markets/private enterprise, free press, mosques/churches, universities, guilds, and associations) appear to have been significantly weakened by a parasitic, kleptocratic, and centralized government. It should be noted that the reported per capita GDP in Libya is high, $16,210 USD (per The Economist’s 2011 Pocket World in Figures for reference Egypt’s was $5,430 USD) and so expectations within Libya will be high with respect to any follow on government. I have not seen any free press BDA on the Libyan oil and gas facilities which will be needed to reconstruct/restore/fund efforts so this, as well as the potential renegotiation of production contracts remain a wild card.
IMHO an East/West stalemate will also be problematic for the international community for many of the same reasons I have outlined in the departure COA above. The stalemate will also require training and arming of an Army for the Eastern portion of Libya as well as a technocratic training and equipping push for basic governance skills. Figuring out how to split the Nation’s oil and gas proceeds will most likely be painful and reminiscent in some way of the UN Oil for Food program we saw in Iraq.
The impact upon the international community surrounding and external to Libya is not a trivial calculation and will take some more time…I’ll think about it, but life is busy and so I may or may not post about what I think
There is always a plan. The US is a super power and it runs 24/7.
IMHO the more appropriate question to ask is: Is the current plan a good plan? I suspect that quote attributed to PM Churchill applies here: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else”
No offense taken
Pesky Americans are difficult to pigeon-hole. There are over 300 million of us, we don’t buy into the royalty/authority thing, we often question/ignore doctrine, we have a moon rock, and we will not go quietly
Sapere Aude
Mike!
Done!
Best,
Steve
Sapere Aude
Pesky USAian variations
As our surfer boy correctly points out:
I found the latest set of Rasmussen polls (see this post for links) re: Libya and other related issues very interesting - especially the gulf between the American Political Class on one hand, and the Mainstream and Most Likely Voters on the other hand.from SB
Pesky Americans are difficult to pigeon-hole....
Regards
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 03-26-2011 at 01:27 AM.
David, many thanks for the great reesponse.
Very much so, I think -- we are entirely too impatient. That impatience is a known factor and should be included in our planning and other strategic evolutions. Unfortunately, it is not...True.The intervention or mediation of others in conflicts takes many forms, from the 'Blue Berets' to the quieter, low profile work of Italian priests in Mozambique IIRC and the Scandinavians elsewhere.
Thanks.
Last edited by Ken White; 03-26-2011 at 02:27 AM.
I promise I have no intention of attempting to convince you or anyone else to accept my belief that to target the cause of the problem as early as possible is the quickest/best/most cost effective manner of resolving many of the conflicts we face today or have faced in the past. Take it or leave it.You have failed to convince me as to why your suggested COA should be followed.
Now you betray that you really don't have an argument against "striking at the head of the snake with the first blows". Posting links of no relevance does not prove anything.I see your suggested COA as conflating the Law of War with the Rule of Law, while tripping over the golden rule.
That is a technical curved ball for whom? A country with a stupid/ridiculous law that you can't target a head of state? That I assure you is only a curved ball for the US. A self inflicted wound if you like.You did not mention it, but COL G's military rank throws an interesting technical curve ball. As far as free press reporting goes, however, it would seem that COL G is not leading the troops from the front and is instead acting as a head of state.
To the French for example he is not the head of state as they have recognised the opposition. So ask the French to do the business. Or you too can recognise the opposition and maybe that bypasses that legal limitation?
Once again I need to draw your attention to that you seem to look at this situation through the narrow single lens of a US point of view. You are missing the other 359 degrees which diminishes your options significantly.
This is complete nonsense. In the case of Gaddafi how the leader of a coup was ever recognised as a head of state merely exposes the weakness of the international diplomacy system and plays into the hands of thugs and military commanders who will seize power by any means and hold on to it by same. Political history of the world over the last 50 odd years bears testament to this.My position is unchanged; Heads of State are out of bounds for reasonable legal and moral reasons.
I don't share you definition of morals (maybe because I don't come from a "everything is negotiable" society). That a thug/murderer and insane to boot person may be masquerading as a Head of State should confer no special protection on him. In fact quite the opposite. Again you are allowing your moral and world view to be shaped by a stupid law of merely one country of the world.
I don't have interests, I merely offer opinions. As for the US interests what exactly are these? Here I read many variations by people who (arrogantly) write as if they and they alone speak on behalf of the US people and not to mention an even wider variation to be found out there in the media.As I have previously mentioned, US national interests trump JMA's interests.
I would suggest to you then that part of the problem is that the US itself does not have any agreement over what is in its best interests.
Don't bother. It was nonsense then and you can't improve on that now.Regarding my two paragraphs which you refer to, they are a simplification of the concept of DIME - Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economic.
Let’s explore it further.
[snip]
That's not the point.IMHO, whether COL G is bought off and retires somewhere or dies, the international community will still have a significant problem in Libya. As I have previously mentioned Libya’s Civil Institutions (free markets/private enterprise, free press, mosques/churches, universities, guilds, and associations) appear to have been significantly weakened by a parasitic, kleptocratic, and centralized government. It should be noted that the reported per capita GDP in Libya is high, $16,210 USD (per The Economist’s 2011 Pocket World in Figures for reference Egypt’s was $5,430 USD) and so expectations within Libya will be high with respect to any follow on government. I have not seen any free press BDA on the Libyan oil and gas facilities which will be needed to reconstruct/restore/fund efforts so this, as well as the potential renegotiation of production contracts remain a wild card.
The point is that unless Gaddafi is "moved on" there are no options for Libya.
...and the beauty about Libya is that they can pay for it all themselves through their oil revenues and the currently blocked funds overseas and the billions more they will be able to uncover once they have a new government in place.
Now had the UN moved faster in this matter there would have been less costs relating to humanitarian and reconstruction efforts. Maybe the US should pay due to the incompetence of the Obama/Clinton tag-team?
So are you suggesting Gaddafi should be left in place? Should Saddam have been left in power? I must say that this is not sounding like a very intelligent argument right now.IMHO an East/West stalemate will also be problematic for the international community for many of the same reasons I have outlined in the departure COA above. The stalemate will also require training and arming of an Army for the Eastern portion of Libya as well as a technocratic training and equipping push for basic governance skills. Figuring out how to split the Nation’s oil and gas proceeds will most likely be painful and reminiscent in some way of the UN Oil for Food program we saw in Iraq.
Sure it runs 24/7 but it is becoming increasingly obvious that the clowns are running the circus. It is also becoming increasingly clear that the US is not being well served by monoliths like the State Department and the CIA which are repeatedly being exposed has being hopelessly incompetent. Little wonder that the US as a super power is on the wane.The impact upon the international community surrounding and external to Libya is not a trivial calculation and will take some more time…I’ll think about it, but life is busy and so I may or may not post about what I think
There is always a plan. The US is a super power and it runs 24/7.
There is a plan?IMHO the more appropriate question to ask is: Is the current plan a good plan? I suspect that quote attributed to PM Churchill applies here: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else”
Last edited by JMA; 03-26-2011 at 02:14 AM.
Two yet again...
Bob's World:That I can and do agree with. Let me suggest that you often come across as one of those American apologists -- a genre that I believe has done us far more harm than good and for whom I have no respect. In any event, that apparent contradiction in your deliveries creates confusion in the minds of us old and addled folks. Thus my "can't have it both ways comment."Personally and professionally, I don't think the US needs to apologize to anyone. Where we stepped on toes, others stomped on balls. It hasn't been all goodness and light, but in the big scheme of things (realizing that I cannot help but be biased) think the world could have done a whole lot worse.
As an aside, every dirty trick that the Dulles brothers and Eisenhower employed they learned from the master, FDR. He still, with the possible exception of Jefferson was the most devious , outwardly nice and inwardly evil (or at least willing to employ it for his own ends...) of all the Presidents.True. I'll also reiterate that the armed forces were -- and are -- a significant contributor to that addiction...9/11 was a wake up call. On a certain level we should have thanked bin Laden for the cold slap in the face, kicked his ass and changed our ways. Instead we dug in deeper. No one was going to make us change! Classic addict behavior. Anger, denial, self-destructive behavior. We had all the classic signs.Pitfalls indeed. That new Boss is highly likely to walk right into a few of those. Somehow, I get the impression that things are awry up there. Hopefully he will not replace the hard stuff with Methadone...The new boss is signing up for recovery. A national 12-step program, if you will. Obviously there are strong urges within the national body to stay the course and not change. Such change is hard, and it comes with pitfalls.I agree in part but have two reservations; one small -- that we will blow the opportunity as we have others in the last 50 (almost precisely to the month) years (that number has significance for idealistic governance...). Let me again remind you, "All you strategerists should really learn to think tactically -- worst case everything and backward plan...We have an opportunity here. My opinion. Also my opinion that we are playing this about right. As we debate Libya on the Small Wars Journal, government leaders and resistance group leaders are meeting (separately, for obvious reasons) in countries across the region and they are discussing this too. We need to remember that, as they are the critical audience for this message.
The second reservation is perhaps more important. My perception is that the message those in countries across the region think they are receiving is almost certainly not the one you and others seem to think we are sending...Oh, I've been counting on it for about eight or nine years as I realized what G. W. Bush was putting in motion in the way of tying his successor's hands. Probably several successors...I predict we see a spike in arrests in many countries, as revolutionary minded citizens break cover in attempts to get better organized; and as governments crank up their efforts to avoid being next. But this is inevitable. It will spread, and there will be more, and it will happen in places that affect our security and economy directly. Count on it.
M-A LaGrange:I'm not communicating my thoughts well, my apologies. To me for it to be a "net gain" most parties involved would have to realize benefits and those benefits would remain for some years. In the case of Lebanon, I do not seem any long term benefits for anyone, really -- not even Syria other than briefly. For most in the US, I doubt the issue reached their consciousness and thus few saw it as either a benefit or not.Once again Ken, it really depend on which side you are... For many in the US, probably not.I agree with your last point, I doubt any meaningful or lasting negotiations will result. Whether Gaddafi stays or goes will make little difference, I suspect.As I said previously, this intervention is aimed to equilibrate the conflict and if possible kick G out of power. This does not mean his government would disapear. As David just said, it's rather a way to force negociations. But I would be less confident in the long term benefits. Zim has proven (for many other reasons) that it was agueable.
I agree with the rest of your post -- actually, I agree with all of it, just wanted to make those comments on the first portion...
If you wait until you have all your ducks in a row then the intervention will be too late as the humanitarian crisis will be over - for that read the killing will be complete like in Rwanda.
[snip]
Why not? I am led to believe that there is a law in the US which prevents a "head of state" being targeted. Seems pretty silly to me.If we are authorized to employ all means to stop the murder of Libyan civilians by their Government, then it would seem to me that the person ordering their murder would be a legitimate target? Why not? The longer the coalition waits to kill him the more of hero he will become because he is defying the West. We need to kill him now before he reaches folk hero status. We made this mistake with Sadr in Iraq, so here we go again.
That is another good reason why the head of the snake should be targeted. Once gone he will no longer be a rallying point and paymaster of these assassination squads.Once again we're seeing the limits of air power. First off the Libyan Air Force was not the main military element killing civilians, it was their ground forces, and their ground forces now are reportly putting on civilian clothes and moving into areas to kill civilians who may be counter government.
I would suggest that there will be a number of senior officers who know exactly what is required to bring peace to Libya. They are not the problem. The clowns in the WH and at State are the problem.GEN Ham's point above is right as far as it goes, but it is also true if you leap before thinking it through then you'll generally end up in a quagmire. Since we leapt and are currently in ankle knee deep mud this is no time to be paralyzed by indecision. Once we're in mud up to our mid thighs it will be too late to exit with honor and actually accomplish something.
Last edited by JMA; 03-26-2011 at 02:54 AM.
Two points, the first the more important.
Acerbic responses are okay, those that dip into condescension and dismissiveness are approaching a degree of incivility that is not necessary. You are a valuable contributor and have proven you can be civil and not scathingly caustic. The "(snip)" bit is unnecessary, just don't comment -- but then, you know all that...To clarify, the US law is that a head of state cannot be targeted outside his own country. (LINK .pdf -- see .pdf page 40, document page 35) In event of a condition of war and if he or she is in that country, they are just another target and are fair game. There is some ambiguity as is usually the case. The Executive order that pertains to assassination (a different thing than targeting...) can be dismissed by the originator or by any other President. That order was promulgated as a result of specific incidents and to buy Congressional favor for other things. It was, in the opinion of many, not well thought out.
The issue is in conditions less than a state of war -- which applies to the Libyan operation -- there are moral constraints. As morals are an individual construct, what anyone of us thinks is our business. What the President of the US thinks is his business. Unlike the rest of us, he can impose his morals to an extent.
Heads of state are fair game but there are minor rules. Governments are bureaucracies, after all. We may be dumb in spots but we are not stupid and in an existential case, rules go by the wayside. Essentially, the effect must be worth the cost. I'd also note that France (among others) can for a variety of reasons do things the US tends to catch an excessive amount of often ignorant flack for doing...
Rasmussen vs Gallup
Comparison of Rasmussen with another usually trustworthy poll (Gallup) seemed in order.
Here is Rasmussen, 45% Support U.S. Military Action in Libya, 34% Oppose, 21% Undecided.
Here is Gallup, Americans Approve of Military Action Against Libya, 47% to 37% (16% Undecided).
The two polls are in remarkable agreement.
Gallup also provides a comparison with initial pollings in other US military interventions:
Thus, 2011 Libya ranks with Grenada, Haiti and Kosovo - all with initial approval ca. 50%.
Since 2011 Libya resembles 1950 Korea (in that the Obama administration has bypassed Congress in favor of the UNSC - as Harry Truman did then), we can look to Gallup historical poles, War Through Partisan Lenses.
Gallup's initial polling for Korea in August 1950 (before Inchon, when we were fighting along the Naktong) showed a majority in support. But, by Feb 1951 (after Inchon to Yalu, ChiCom intervention and our retreat below the 38th Parallel), the poll flipped:
and by March 1952 got even worse for Harry Truman (see next chart in Gallup article).
A lesson learned is that unfavored military operations don't improve with age.
Regards
Mike
Targeting Leaders
Before everyone goes off half-cocked, read Hays Parks' 1989 Memo (attached in full as pdf).
BLUF:
Still definitive (IMO, humble or otherwise) - esp. as to enemy leaders:In a Memorandum of Law originally dated November 2, 1989, W. Hays Parks, Special Assistant for Law of War Matters to The Judge Advocate General of the Army, examined national and international legal interpretations of assassination in order to provide guidance in revising a U.S. Army Law of War Manual. The memo is not a statement of policy, but rather a discussion of the definition of assassination and legal issues to consider in its application, including levels of conflict and the distinction between assassination in wartime and peacetime. It explores the meaning and possible application of assassination—which is prohibited as a matter of national policy by Executive Order 12333—in conventional, counterinsurgency, and counter-terrorist operations. The memo concludes that the use of military force against legitimate targets that threaten U.S. citizens or national security as determined by the President does not constitute assassination and would therefore not be prohibited by Executive Order 12333 or by international law.
Note that, if Libya is not a war or armed conflict, a targeted killing might well be questionable. As COL Parks (then on loan from the Marines to the Army12. While a civilian head of state who serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces may be a lawful target (and his or her attack therefore would not constitute an act of assassination), as a matter of comity such attacks generally have been limited. As previously stated, the death of an individual incidental to the attack of a military objective would not constitute assassination.
That is one reason why I have a problem with the Bob's World argument based on the assertion that we must consider ourselves in a state of peace. A state of armed conflict (even though very constrained by ROEs or otherwise) is necessary for most all legal direct actions.Assassination in peacetime.
In peacetime, the citizens of a nation – whether private individuals or public figures – are entitled to immunity from intentional acts of violence by citizens, agents, or military forces of another nation. Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all Member States “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any manner inconsistent with the Purpose of the United Nations.”
Peacetime assassination, then, would seem to encompass the murder of a private individual or public figure for political purposes, and in some cases (as cited above) also require that the act constitute a covert activity, particularly when the individual is a private citizen. Assassination is unlawful killing, and would be prohibited by international law even if there was no executive order proscribing it.
Regards
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 03-26-2011 at 04:24 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks