And Libya goes on...

[Ken White]

Sad that the same criminal folly has taken hold in the US military...Relieving an officer after operational failure or incompetence is one thing but perhaps the next step should be considered to drive the message home.

On the first, not just the US military, as I mentioned, it appears in most. On the other point, democratic nations mostly tend -- foolishly IMO -- to avoid reliefs and such as being 'unfair.' Militarily foolish but politically expedient. Sad but true and unlikely to change. Reality bites..

In another Post, you say:

Are there national interests at play here? I thought this was a humanitarian intervention?

You're kidding, right?

US political strategy has been poor and has limited the military action to the point of emasculation. Nothing to be proud about.

See my previous statement. Reality again. Poor in the eyes of many, not so in the eyes of others -- as two others mentioned in this thread. It appears the World according to JMA is not universally accepted. That, too, is reality...

Then there was this exchange:

The Taliban government folded? When? from Presley Cannady and to which you responded:

Wow! You for real?

I suggest you start here and find that out for yourself: War in Afghanistan (2001–present).

Wow! You for real?

His point was they didn't fold, they merely went underground or out of town and are still there -- as you likely are quite aware -- thus your answer was superficial to say the least. Bad form, Old Boy, if one rouses the rabble, one receives a reasonable responsibility to respond responsibly, righteously not required.

Realistically is desirable but not mandatory.

I'll credit you with refining the 'Don't bother me with facts, I brought my own' act to a science. Your ability to turn any thread into 'Everyone else is wrong. Always' is truly impressive if not terribly realistic.

[JMA]

On the first, not just the US military, as I mentioned, it appears in most. On the other point, democratic nations mostly tend -- foolishly IMO -- to avoid reliefs and such as being 'unfair.' Militarily foolish but politically expedient. Sad but true and unlikely to change. Reality bites..

OK

See my previous statement. Reality again. Poor in the eyes of many, not so in the eyes of others -- as two others mentioned in this thread. It appears the World according to JMA is not universally accepted. That, too, is reality...

You mean there is someone out there who believes that the political strategy has been good (apart from Ray) and the the military intervention has been effective in protecting the civilians of Libya?

Then there was this exchange:Wow! You for real?

His point was they didn't fold, they merely went underground or out of town and are still there -- as you likely are quite aware -- thus your answer was superficial to say the least. Bad form, Old Boy, if one rouses the rabble, one receives a reasonable responsibility to respond responsibly, righteously not required.

Come on Ken, you are joking right?

I quote from that Wikipedia entry:

In the first phase of Operation Enduring Freedom, ground forces of the Afghan United Front working with U.S. and British Special Forces and with massive U.S. air support, ousted the Taliban regime from power in Kabul and most of Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. Most of the senior Taliban leadership fled to neighboring Pakistan. The democratic Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was established and an interim government under Hamid Karzai was created....

I stand by my terminology describing the Taliban government as having "folded".

I'll credit you with refining the 'Don't bother me with facts, I brought my own' act to a science. Your ability to turn any thread into 'Everyone else is wrong. Always' is truly impressive if not terribly realistic.

Thanks for the kind words Ken.

[Pete]

I'll credit you with refining the 'Don't bother me with facts, I brought my own' act to a science. Your ability to turn any thread into 'Everyone else is wrong. Always' is truly impressive if not terribly realistic.

It's the snap moral judgements that everyone in the U.S. or U.K. involved in any given situation must be seriously lacking in ethics, integrity and professionalism that drive me up the wall. It doesn't matter what the subject is, be it patrolling techniques in Afghanistan, the choice of caliber for rifles, or policy in Libya.

[Dayuhan]

You mean there is someone out there who believes that the political strategy has been good (apart from Ray) and the the military intervention has been effective in protecting the civilians of Libya?

The political strategy has been what it needed to be to be consistent with stated objectives of US foreign policy, to satisfy domestic political imperatives, and to avoid handing propaganda points to AQ... all of which are much more important to the US than anything that happens in Libya.

Obviously the capacity to protect civilians is limited by political constraints. We brought help, not salvation.

Thanks for the kind words Ken.

Those fond of dishing out harsh words shouldn't be surprised to see a few coming back. They're only words, and not terribly harsh ones at that.

Ray, re this:

The national interest is OIL. In this world of global recession, oil prices going through the ceiling would be catastrophic and so the control of oil and manipulating the prices is essential. That is the national interest.

If oil were the primary interest the logical US response would have been to do nothing and let MG crush the rebellion. He would have restored oil production quickly, and he'd have had no trouble finding buyers.

Of course any government that takes over Libya will need to sell oil, and Libyan production could expand significantly under a less capricious government... but if no government takes over, and Libya goes into an extended contested or anarchic period, oil production is likely to be constrained for some time. That's quite likely if MG falls to the rebels. Some Americans may still think that all we have to do is hold an election and all will be ok, but the limits of that peculiarly American delusion should be fairly clear by now.

[Ken White]

You mean there is someone out there who believes that the political strategy has been good (apart from Ray) and the the military intervention has been effective in protecting the civilians of Libya?

A good many do for the first, few to none do for the second.

Come on Ken, you are joking right?

I do that a lot but not in this case...

I quote from that Wikipedia entry:...

Confucius say man who rely on Wikipedia and Wikileak have leaky Wiki.

I cannot attest to the veracity of that.

I stand by my terminology describing the Taliban government as having "folded".

Of course you do, I'd expect nothing less...

The fact remains that the then leader of the Talibs, the Good Mullah Omar, is still apparently and nominally in charge ruling through the bulk of his then available and now ten years older and wiser power structure. Recall that the Talibs today are foremost among the several opposing forces ISAF, the US and the theoretical de jure if not de facto Afghan government deal with daily. It thus appears that such 'folding' is or was about as effective as 'humanitarian intervention.'

Thanks for the kind words Ken.

They were kind. They are also IMO -- as well as in the opinion of several others -- quite true and thus were meant as a kindness. Constructive. Really. One might give them some thought. You post some great stuff and you also do things that draw words that may seem mildly unkind. We all do that occasionally, most of do not revel in so doing.

[Pete]

JMA, you have real-world combat experience when it comes to light and air-mobile infantry operations. In that regard you truly enrich the quality of discussion on the forum. Your expertise on those subjects is not only welcome, it is needed here.

It is in these discussions of current events where I'm turned off. If it involves the U.K. you want to be the PM, Foreign Secretary, Minister of Defence, DG of MI6, Commander of the British Armed Forces, and commander of every level below from Army Group to squad, all rolled together. If it's the U.S., you want to be the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, DG of the CIA, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and every military command level below that.

It gets a bit unreal at times, like "Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."

[JMA]

JMA, you have real-world combat experience when it comes to light and air-mobile infantry operations. In that regard you truly enrich the quality of discussion on the forum. Your expertise on those subjects is not only welcome, it is needed here.

It is in these discussions of current events where I'm turned off. If it involves the U.K. you want to be the PM, Foreign Secretary, Minister of Defence, DG of MI6, Commander of the British Armed Forces, and commander of every level below from Army Group to squad, all rolled together. If it's the U.S., you want to be the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, DG of the CIA, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and every military command level below that.

It gets a bit unreal at times, like "Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."

Thanks Pete.

[JMA]

A good many do for the first, few to none do for the second.I do that a lot but not in this case...Confucius say man who rely on Wikipedia and Wikileak have leaky Wiki.

I cannot attest to the veracity of that.Of course you do, I'd expect nothing less...

The fact remains that the then leader of the Talibs, the Good Mullah Omar, is still apparently and nominally in charge ruling through the bulk of his then available and now ten years older and wiser power structure. Recall that the Talibs today are foremost among the several opposing forces ISAF, the US and the theoretical de jure if not de facto Afghan government deal with daily. It thus appears that such 'folding' is or was about as effective as 'humanitarian intervention.' They were kind. They are also IMO -- as well as in the opinion of several others -- quite true and thus were meant as a kindness. Constructive. Really. One might give them some thought. You post some great stuff and you also do things that draw words that may seem mildly unkind. We all do that occasionally, most of do not revel in so doing.

Sorry not going to follow the red herring that the Taliban government never folded. Whether they are an underground alternative government or not does not relate to my comment that their government "folded" after the superbly implemented first phase of Operation Enduring Freedom.

[JMA]

The political strategy has been what it needed to be to be consistent with stated objectives of US foreign policy, to satisfy domestic political imperatives, and to avoid handing propaganda points to AQ... all of which are much more important to the US than anything that happens in Libya.

The timing of the intervention was "just in time" to prevent a massacre in Bengazi. That saves everything.

There was dithering right up to the last minute by Obama and it has been well reported how the "three women" pressed him into action.

So I for one am not going to swallow the after the fact spin being applied to turn a dithering last gasp decision into a political master stroke.

Now we see that France and Britain are calling for increased NATO efforts to protect the civilian population. Thereby stating the obvious that the US political hand is very much in control of the NATO effort. I mean who does not know that NATO is mere a surrogate of the US?

(It is noted that the French have also criticised the German efforts)

Now one wonders why the US political strategy is to limit the efforts at protecting Libyan civilians? For example the failure to lift the siege of Misrata.

[Dayuhan]

The timing of the intervention was "just in time" to prevent a massacre in Bengazi. That saves everything.

There was dithering right up to the last minute by Obama and it has been well reported how the "three women" pressed him into action.

So I for one am not going to swallow the after the fact spin being applied to turn a dithering last gasp decision into a political master stroke.

Now we see that France and Britain are calling for increased NATO efforts to protect the civilian population. Thereby stating the obvious that the US political hand is very much in control of the NATO effort. I mean who does not know that NATO is mere a surrogate of the US?

(It is noted that the French have also criticised the German efforts)

Now one wonders why the US political strategy is to limit the efforts at protecting Libyan civilians? For example the failure to lift the siege of Misrata.

What you see as "dithering" is both intentional and necessary. I don't know how many time it's necessary to point it out, but this isn't just about Libya and there are factors involved that, for the US, are much more important than Libya. The US has to portray itself as a reluctant participant, and Obama has to portray himself as reluctant to order intervention. Anything else would be spun by AQ and other Islamists as America jumping at another chance to impose itself on another oil-producing Muslim country, and that spin will be believed. Obama also has to be consistent with the foreign policy platform he ran on, which promised reduced intervention and a preference for multilateral action.

There's probably a good deal of real reluctance involved as well: the US has little incentive to be involved in Libya, and there are many possible negative outcomes and few likely positive ones. Whether reluctant or not, though, the public portrayal of reluctance is essential to maintain the foreign policy position that the US is trying to establish.

[JMA]

I do have to shake my head when I compare your current posts on Libya to your first one which started this discussion. Will the real person please stand up?

What you see as "dithering" is both intentional and necessary.

No, no, no. Lets rephrase that shall we...

What I see as dithering you see as both intentional and necessary.

Maybe you need to apply for a position as spin doctor for the Obama administration or maybe you are just blindly following their line regardless.

I don't know how many time it's necessary to point it out, ...

You can do that as many times as you like but it will never be more than your opinion.

[Entropy]

What I see as dithering you see as both intentional and necessary.

Here's a thought, maybe those two are not mutually exclusive?

Maybe you need to apply for a position as spin doctor for the Obama administration or maybe you are just blindly following their line regardless.

Your ad hominems are growing increasingly tiresome and they undercut the credibility of your arguments. Please try to make your points without impugning motives. Thanks.

[JMA]

Gaddafi maybe a dictator in the eyes of the West, and even a tinpot one at that, but in the Muslim and African world, he is not viewed so. He commands respect and he has done much to project Islam power and African prestige. He is not a Gbagbo of Côte d'Ivoire, that he can be given a shakedown without a whimper from the international community. The UNSC voting pattern would indicate the drift.

[snipped for brevity]

The Americans made not be proud of what the US is doing, but the world cannot and does not grudge what the US has been forced to do!

Hi Ray, I will attempt a broad response rather than just a point for point one.

I have always had a problem with trying to understand what exactly the Arab and African Worlds were really thinking. Mostly the views that were expressed were coming from spokesmen from the various regimes whose view was obviously prepackaged. Then given the propaganda and the way the news was/still is presented in most of these countries there would be little doubt as to how the various peoples were indoctrinated.

In summary then Gaddafi has recently got some support from a section of the Ugandan population (as reported on TV here) as a result of his building mosques around the country there and dispensing aid. Understandable. Things are slowly changing among the educated in Africa (by my observation) where the young educated can recognise an old-school idiot when they see one. Gaddafi, Mugabe etc are increasingly seen a joke and a relic of a bygone era.

Look at the Democracy Index. It is from that list that the West (IMHO) should decide how to deal with the various countries on the continent. There are only 26 full democracies in the world. Surely one should treat these nations “better” than the rats-and-mice at the bottom of the list? From #113 downwards apart from oil and some strategic minerals can’t think why they are even allowed in the UN or have diplomatic relations with the top 50 odd countries?

Why should the West be concerned what these authoritarian regimes say or care about them? So lets move onto the AU. An absolute waste of time and someone else’s money. Who did they send to Libya to negotiate? What is democracy and human rights status of these countries? They have credibility with who? Little wonder they were shown the door by the rebels in Bengazi.

The US displaying a trait of “patience and Machiavellian astuteness!!”. I would really like to hear how you arrived at that conclusion as the US clearly hasn’t had the vaguest idea of what is happening in the Arab world and what to do about it. In fact the current US administration’s utter incompetence has woken up and scared half of Europe into action… (at last).

In another reply I have stated that when the motivation for an intervention is sound but the method of the intervention is poor or unsuccessful then sadly the whole concept of humanitarian intervention gets questioned (instead of just questioning how they went about it).

Yes over time a lot of people have been let down by a lack of willingness to intervene but that does not diminish in any way the soundness of humanitarian intervention as a doctrine … (even if it upsets the Russians and the Chinese.)

Acting in one’s national interest is expected. This is why that hackneyed call “its all about oil” is so ridiculous. Of course it is and it always will be. Yes and (as we see in the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and others) there are times when one has to be pragmatic over morality and other issues.

Yes the US needs a change in style and intervention method. I agree.

I suggest that the people of the world are more ignorant than we give them credit for

If no one can say the US were behind the humiliation of the Soviets in Afghanistan I suggest it proves my point that the people of the world are more ignorant than not.

All the US needs is a change in attitude and style. It is just very difficult to turn this supertanker in high seas. It’s a 50-50 call whether they can achieve this IMHO

[Ken White]

Here's a thought, maybe those two are not mutually exclusive?
...
Your ad hominems are growing increasingly tiresome and they undercut the credibility of your arguments. Please try to make your points without impugning motives. Thanks.

JMA:

Entropy said it well. You can do better, please do so.

[Surferbeetle]

From the Atlantic, The Management Myth, By MATTHEW STEWART, June 2006

Mayo’s work sheds light on the dark side of the “humanist” tradition in management theory. There is something undeniably creepy about a clipboard-bearing man hovering around a group of factory women, flicking the lights on and off and dishing out candy bars. All of that humanity—as anyone in my old firm could have told you—was just a more subtle form of bureaucratic control. It was a way of harnessing the workers’ sense of identity and well-being to the goals of the organization, an effort to get each worker to participate in an ever more refined form of her own enslavement.

So why is Mayo’s message constantly recycled and presented as something radically new and liberating? Why does every new management theorist seem to want to outdo Chairman Mao in calling for perpetual havoc on the old order? Very simply, because all economic organizations involve at least some degree of power, and power always pisses people off. That is the human condition. At the end of the day, it isn’t a new world order that the management theorists are after; it’s the sensation of the revolutionary moment. They long for that exhilarating instant when they’re fighting the good fight and imagining a future utopia. What happens after the revolution—civil war and Stalinism being good bets—could not be of less concern.

In the case of my old firm, incidentally, the endgame was civil war. Those who talked loudest about the ideals of the “new” organization, as it turned out, had the least love in their hearts. By a strange twist of fate, I owe the long- evity of my own consulting career to this circumstance. When I first announced my intention to withdraw from the firm in order to pursue my vocation as an unpublishable philosopher at large, my partners let me know that they would gladly regard my investment in the firm as a selfless contribution to their financial well-being. By the time I managed to extricate myself from their loving embrace, nearly three years later, the partnership had for other reasons descended into the kind of Hobbesian war of all against all from which only the lawyers emerge smiling. The firm was temporarily rescued by a dot-com company, but within a year both the savior and the saved collapsed in a richly deserved bankruptcy. Of course, your experience in a “new” organization may be different.

Professor Elton Mayo of the Harvard Business School

Frederick Winslow Taylor, the author of The Principles of Scientific Management

[Dayuhan]

I do have to shake my head when I compare your current posts on Libya to your first one which started this discussion. Will the real person please stand up?

Just went back and looked, and it doesn't seem to me that I suggested anything other than what's been done. I didn't suggest waiting for a UN resolution, letting the French take the lead, or exiting as soon as possible, but I think all three were excellent ideas and I approve of them.

You can do that as many times as you like but it will never be more than your opinion.

Of course. Just as everything you write here will never be more than your opinion. Anything any of us writes here is nothing more than our opinion. I've cited a number of reasons why I think the policies and actions taken by the US make sense in the broader context of US interests. I've yet to see you do the same. Possibly you should tell us what you think the US should do or should have done and how those actions would advance or protect US interests.

You seem to believe that any policy or action other than those you recommend constitutes incompetence, dithering, cowardice, or a few other negative things, but I really don't see how you can expect the US to take actions that are completely inconsistent with stated policy and which would undermine US interests.

[Steve the Planner]

Dayuhan:

It seems you folks have not been able to get across to JMA the truly complex inter-relationships that the US, on a daily basis, wanders through.

Obviously, the Big Game of the Week is to convince Iraqi leaders that they really need to keep us for a few more years, even if, by saying so, their heads will be rolled down the street.

As Mr. Gates, and now even Khalilizad tread this salesman's path, Mr. Al-Maliki's concern is his Shia brethren in Bahrain. He reluctantly agreed to vote the limited action in Libya, but recognizes the profound US inconsistencies inherent in the Bahrain vs. Libya circumstances.

Similarly, an open policy of "your a dictator, your dead," might not go over well amongst some of our other Gulf allies.

Entropy's reference to strategic dithering, like democracy, produced results which are neither rapid nor optimizing.

We could, in effect, take the governor off the engine so that there is no need for civilian/international discourse and swift and certain military responses are assured (Damn the torpedoes (and unintended consequences) but SOMEBODY would have to serve as the Dictator whose divine right of decision/action/funding is unquestioned.

Not sure that notion/structure fits in any modern country.

Sorry, JMA, but it's always going to be complicated.

And that's before we even get to Beetle's type of organizational complexity, and the sheer logistics essential to keeping the tip of the spear sharpened.

Personally, I believe that our air toys are really great, but can't seize and hold ground after the flames die down, and can't effectively target without a ground component.

Our biggest gap is the failure to appreciate that success does not come from military action, but from post-conflict stabilization, and our system has routinely proved its Achilles Heel in this area.

Tell me how it ends, then reverse engineer to your proposed action plan.

[Ray]

Hi JMA,

No news, emanating from anywhere in the world is free from agendas, interests, prejudices, bias or even not aimed at serving national interests. The difference is that the degree varies. Therefore, one has to take it for what it is worth and base one’s views on that. That is an infirmity that one has to accept.

Gaddafi’s ‘charm’ extends far and wide in the Islamic world, not only in Uganda but as far as Pakistan, for ‘services’ in propagating the Islamic ‘honour’ and cause! The Islamic nations matter in international politics, whether we acknowledge it or not, or else an obscurantist, fundamentalist, autocratic, despotic regime as the House of Saud, would have been taken to task well before Saddam Hussein.

Therefore, IMHO, to ride rough shod over an icon and hero of Islam like Gaddafi remains a moot point and then have the albatross around the neck that the Great White Satan reigniting the Crusades!

The Democratic Index may have great meaning in the western world, but it has no meaning in large part of the world, especially in those parts where Democracy is merely a buzz word and where religion or money making is the paramount concern like the Islamic world (religion) and China (money). A visit to the numerous foras of these countries where the cyber warriors abound, will indicate how the common man of these countries have very little concern about ‘democracy’ when pitted against religion (Islamic countries) and China (money).

As to why they are in the UN the answer is simple. They also a part of the world. And to ensure that the voice of only the powerful is what makes the world move, inspite of the sham democratic façade of the UN, we have the UNSC. So, it is quite safe, depends on your perspective on the issue.

The fact that the US is keeping in the background is the best thing for the US. It has been buffeted too long where if they act, they are damned and if they don’t act they are damned. This time around, the US actions, on the face value, appears to indicate that they are keeping their hands off and practically telling the world to solve their problems themselves and see how difficult it is! Yet, one would be naïve to believe that US is not keeping its finger on the pulse and administering the necessary tweaks. I would shudder to believe that the US has no clue as to what is happening in the Arab world.

As I see it, the US is allowing all the Pollyannas to act – the UN, Arab League, the AU and even the NATO. It is when they will all raise their hand in desperation, maybe then the US will ‘reluctantly’ act!! That is why I felt that the US is showing ‘patience and Machiavellian astuteness’.

If you opine that ‘motivation for an intervention is sound but the method of the intervention is poor or unsuccessful , and find cause for ‘humanitarian assistance’, and also feel that one has to be pragmatic over morality, what is your blueprint/ roadmap? Go gung ho as in Iraq, be labelled ‘neo colonialist and imperialist’ and then have another lament on the hands?

Another observation I have is that if the world is so disgusted with Gaddafi, then why don’t they act unilaterally? Why must they expect the US to do their dirty work, if one calls it dirty work; and if they (US) don't do it to the satisfaction of others, then should the others then bellyache?

In so far as Afghanistan is concerned, the US does not bear the blame as much as Pakistan, their ISI and the Arab hordes do. If that means the world is ignorant, then it is to the US’ credit that they have palmed off the blame!!

[JMA]

Dayuhan:

It seems you folks have not been able to get across to JMA the truly complex inter-relationships that the US, on a daily basis, wanders through.

[snip]

Sorry, JMA, but it's always going to be complicated.

Steve I will look past your obvious condescending tone.

I am not sure I have ever said the political/military/tactical situations were not either fully complex or potentially complex.

I acknowledge too that many military commanders at various levels seem unable to see through the fog-of-war. This inability is further exasperated by interference and attempts at micro-management by politicians which also contributes to greater complexity and confusion. It seems confusion reigns in far too many "war" situations these days.

An outstanding commander and his staff will be better able to cut through the crap and focus on the essentials and comply with the Simplicity principle of war - because they know even simple plans become complex in war while complex plans become totally unworkable. Politicians don't know this.

I will also acknowledge also that complexity is a well used excuse for dithering, failure and incompetence. Some people buy it...

Tell me how it ends, then reverse engineer to your proposed action plan.

You are the planner Steve. Lets hear it from you.

[JMA]

You seem to believe that any policy or action other than those you recommend constitutes incompetence, dithering, cowardice, or a few other negative things, but I really don't see how you can expect the US to take actions that are completely inconsistent with stated policy and which would undermine US interests.

"Any" policy? Give me ten examples or so that have led you to this conclusion. Can you? Any smaller sample would be meaningless, yes?

Not too many people in the real world seem to believe that the WH and State and the CIA had the faintest idea of what has been going down in the Arab world and how to respond.

On the matter of US interests it seems only here on SWC that anyone attempts to present with any certainty exactly what these US national interests are. This while it is obvious that there is no consensus on this even in the WH.

It is quite obvious that the Obama Administration is flying this thing by the seat of their pants.