And Libya goes on...

[carl]

I don't know if I can frame this properly but looking at these videos and reading various stories, it appears as if there are some high quality people amongst the rebels. You read of this guy being a PHD and this other guy being a former fighter pilot etc. Also it appears that the population of Misrata itself is the rebel force so that may include a representative group of people which would include some fairly accomplished guys, merchants, small businessmen plus older guys. If this is true, would that make up somewhat for their total lack of training, especially when they are defending built up areas? To my tyro mind, it seems as if it might, especially as time goes on and they learn.

[davidbfpo]

In Post 791 JMA commented:

...when the US invades Panama or Grenada it is obviously seen as nothing more than a bully boy. I would have thought this would have been obvious to Americans.

Having been to Grenada several times I know a little more and not one local now opposes the intervention. Grenada went through a terrible period, verging on civil war; yes, it has many problems and the USA in this case was not a bully boy.

Meantime back to our normal programming.

[motorfirebox]

But we're never going to be loved or deeply respected. We're too big and clumsy to do the things required to instill either emotion in most.

This may be six of one / half a dozen of the other, but I think it's the fact that we're an empire. Our approval offers too great an advantage, and our disapproval comes at too great a cost, for us to have friends. The one possible exception to that rule is the UK, and even that 'special relationship' is frequently strained.

[Pete]

Officer Krupke, you're really a slob.
This boy don't need a doctor, just a good honest job.
Society's played him a terrible trick,
And sociologic'ly he's sick!

Armed forces are blunt instruments that kill people and break things, they're not social service organizations that can go overseas and cure all the evils in the world. It's unrealistic to expect that the U.S. Cavalry will always be willing to sally forth to resolve every crisis that might arise in the world. At present the American public and DoD are tired of interventions, not yearning to get into more of them. Perhaps those overseas should realize that a change has taken place, instead of implying that we're "breaking promises." The U.S. Armed Forces will only be committed when the U.S. decides to do it, not when others think we should.

[Ken White]

This may be six of one / half a dozen of the other, but I think it's the fact that we're an empire.

I agree with your post but do take minor exception to the "empire." We have a lot of trappings -- and habits -- of an empire but really are not nor will likely be one. To rule or guide and empire, a nation has to be willing to be ruthless on occasion and we just are not so inclined. As Bill M. has said, we aren't mean enough...

The size and wealth factor is a near equivalent. I've herd folks from South America, several nations, different times, refer to us as "El monstruo del Norte." The tones used implied size, not a monster per se but were still not complimentary. Colussus of the North.

South and Central America are good examples of the foreign policy problems of the US. Several Presidents, FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Nixon, Reagan all tried to patch things up and pay as much attention to South and Central America as I and others think we should -- all got interrupted with other things in other places and the priority accorded to the South dissipated.

Pete:

I think you're right. Hopefully, anyway. What we've been doing hasn't worked too well.

The Troops are always willing to give it a shot and give it their best but a lot of flawed policies and idea have been forced upon them. Not to mention the costs. No single war or operation has cost us that much but maintaining the force eats a big whack of dollars. We will not be able to afford too many interventions.

A Viet Nam era troopie cost about $500.00 bucks to clothe and equip -- today, it's pushing $25K. Everything else has gone up accordingly...

[Rex Brynen]

I don't know if I can frame this properly but looking at these videos and reading various stories, it appears as if there are some high quality people amongst the rebels. You read of this guy being a PHD and this other guy being a former fighter pilot etc. Also it appears that the population of Misrata itself is the rebel force so that may include a representative group of people which would include some fairly accomplished guys, merchants, small businessmen plus older guys. If this is true, would that make up somewhat for their total lack of training, especially when they are defending built up areas? To my tyro mind, it seems as if it might, especially as time goes on and they learn.

Well spotted. Misrata is arguably the most educated (and highest income) city in Libya, and the rebels do seem to have shown some innovation over time. Plus you've got to cheer for a city where the rebels strum Green Day tunes.

[Dayuhan]

I think it's the fact that we're an empire.

We're not. Per OED:

1 an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state

[mass noun] supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority

Unless we rule over other countries or hold supreme political power over other countries, we're not an empire.

[JMA]

In Post 791 JMA commented:

Having been to Grenada several times I know a little more and not one local now opposes the intervention. Grenada went through a terrible period, verging on civil war; yes, it has many problems and the USA in this case was not a bully boy.

Meantime back to our normal programming.

David, for what its worth I supported both those interventions and am happy to hear that the locals have that view.

My comment related to the contrast as seen across the world of the US's fear and trepidation in its dealings with Russia and China as opposed to the alacrity of its resorting to military action against the small and the weak.

[Dayuhan]

the US should tell all people they deal with politically, economically, militarily that at best the word of the United States of America is only good for less than two years at most (depending where it falls in the election cycle). After that all bets are off.

The world has learned this the hard way... now it is up to US citizens to understand the implication of their inability "to be as good as their word".

All Americans know this already, as does everybody else. Other democracies are in exactly the same position: policies change with electoral cycles. The only way to avoid this is to stop being a democracy. Electorates are whimsical and they often want a change. If they vote for a guy who runs on a different platform than the last guy, policies will change.

Dictatorships aren't always consistent in their policies either. Perceived interests change, and policies change with them. Nothing new, or surprising. Always been that way.

My point is simple aim to be liked and respected by those that matter and where you can be sure of what the people are thinking. - the 26 countries who are full democracies and maybe the 53 flawed democracies.

You might perhaps have noticed that the people and governments of the world's democracies were not at all happy about the Bush-era policies of unilateral and preemptive intervention, and for the most part were extremely happy to see the US elect a President who promised a more restrained and more multilateral approach. The democracies of the world have typically seen American intervention, not the absence thereof, as "flipping the world off". The US policies you see now (and complain about now) are aimed largely at trying to be "liked and respected" by those 26 democracies.

A few months ago there were any number of self styled pundits who would venture a guess as to what the thinking was on the "Arab Street" but none of these experts foretold what was about to happen and therefore their knowledge of what the thinking on the "Arab Street" was and is pretty suspect.

What people think and what they do are different things. Pundits and others have known for a long time that there's a lot of resentment against Arab governments, but nobody knew what would set it off or when it would be set off. Even now nobody knows exactly how best to handle it. There are various opinions about, and various options, all imperfect. Whatever option is selected will be widely criticized, but there's no assurance that any other option would have done any better. there's no clear "right" choice, and any could go wrong, including the recommendations of backseat drivers around the world.

When a tin-pot despot like Gbagbo refuses to take a call from the US President it has nothing to do with any anger at Saddam or the Taliban having been seen out of power but rather through the belief that the US is increasingly impotent.

I honestly couldn't care less was Gbagbo thinks, or thought, and I see no reason why any American should. It's not about whether America is impotent or potent in any event, it's about whether America has any interest or not. In this case it was pretty clearly "not". I certainly don't think the US should be petty enough to run around punishing people who don't take calls from the President.

My comment related to the contrast as seen across the world of the US's fear and trepidation in its dealings with Russia and China as opposed to the alacrity of its resorting to military action against the small and the weak.

The Russians and Chinese haven't been exactly eager to provoke the US either, and the US has been way more involved in military action overseas than either Russia or China; if there's fear and reticence around you'd have to say they're showing some themselves.

The Soviet Union is gone, and the Chinese are no longer Communist in anything but name. Didn't Sun Tzu say something about subduing the enemy without battle being preferable to winning battles? I see no reason to think that a more aggressive, confrontational policy from the US would have been a better approach to the Cold War, and it could easily have been far worse.

[JMA]

Libyan city of Misurata pleads for NATO ground forces

Interesting to note that NATO claims to have taken out 40 of Gaddafi's tanks around Misrata - I remember these tanks were the ones that couldn't be taken out from the air without unacceptable risk to civilians.

Anyway the hope for the people of Misrata lies with either or both the British and the French, as the yanks seem to have wimped out on this one.

A plea from who will do the trick? The people of Misrata, Libya's Interim Transitional National Council, the Arab League?

I say the Brits should pull the Marine Brigade out of Afghanistan and use their possible deployment into Misrata as a threat to force Gaddafi's forces to pull out of the city.

Then the trick would be to land the Marines through the port or along the coast while trapping Gaddafi's forces in their positions by deploying 2 & 3 Para inland... then kill the Gaddafi forces in place with the most violent means possible.

Once done... ask Gaddafi if he wants the same for Tripoli.

[Ken White]

Libya today and Hungary in 1956 is absolutely awesome. Weird but awesome -- any method to make a point?

Er, what is your point?

The idea of removing the British Commando Brigade from Afghanistan as they are in process of rotating in is a logistic feat in itself. As would be getting the also moving Para Battalions involved.

I've said before that your political acumen was suspect-- as the Hungarian Goulash indicates -- but praised your military skill. That military suggestion of yours re: Misrata brings my judgement of your judgement into grave question...

[JMA]

Libya today and Hungary in 1956 is absolutely awesome. Weird but awesome -- any method to make a point?

Er, what is your point?

The idea of removing the British Commando Brigade from Afghanistan as they are in process of rotating in is a logistic feat in itself. As would be getting the also moving Para Battalions involved.

I've said before that your political acumen was suspect-- as the Hungarian Goulash indicates -- but praised your military skill. That military suggestion of yours re: Misrata brings my judgement of your judgement into grave question...

[shrug]

[SWJ Blog]

‘Restrepo’ Director Killed in Libya

Entry Excerpt:

‘Restrepo’ Director Is Killed in Libya - C. J. Chivers, New York Times. BLUF: "Tim Hetherington, the conflict photographer who was a director and producer of the film “Restrepo,” was killed in the besieged city of Misurata on Wednesday, and three photographers working beside him were wounded."



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

[Pete]

The problem isn't the ease with which Gaddafi could be toppled but what comes afterwards. Basic issues like clean drinking water, food and electricity could lead to an extended stay for Western forces while they try to sort those things out. Before you know it we'd be advising them on the writing of their constitution. At some point the suicide bombings and insurgency might begin, and then the "You broke it, you own it" logic would kick in.

I suppose the COIN doctrine of a few years ago could be supplemented with a better "Whole of Government" approach -- DoD, State, AID, intel, law enforcement, Agriculture, etc, working together but I'm still skeptical that we're there now. No doubt we could come up with all sorts of organizational charts for how it might work, but I think the non-DoD elements would regard it as being a kind of durance vile assignment to be gotten over with quickly so they could move back to Alexandria or Fairfax and resume normal careers. It goes without saying that DoD and military guys would be guilty of their own versions of parochial stone-throwing as well.

One of my stray thoughts about occupation Germany and Japan in '45-'46 is what would have happened had the locals there started insurgencies. The Law of Land Warfare might have shown its limitations and there could have been mass retributions by the U.S. and Britain that are frightful to contemplate. Fortunately that never happened except for isolated incidents.

[motorfirebox]

Re: US as empire--That seems like a technicality when we've shown a ready willingness to topple governments to get what we want. We're not using our military to do it, a lot of the time, and we're not installing our citizens in positions of rulership, but the net result doesn't seem to be much different than if we did. We don't rule other nations; rather, we shape them so that they rule themselves in the manner we choose.

[Ken White]

Re: US as empire...We don't rule other nations; rather, we shape them so that they rule themselves in the manner we choose.

More often it did not and we don't do that much nowadays. That is so partly due to the fact that methodology often did not provide the desired results, partly because the world is a bit nicer, partly because we've realized it is not a really efficient or effective way of operating. Mostly it is due to the fact that we as a nation do not really have the political will to do it and we as a nation are now far more aware of what our government is doing or trying to do (and, Boy, does the increase in knowledge and the 'What do you think you're doing?' queries upset the Mandarins inside the Beltway...).

That's a good thing.

[Dayuhan]

Re: US as empire--That seems like a technicality when we've shown a ready willingness to topple governments to get what we want.

Has it actually gotten us what we wanted? Where?

We're not using our military to do it, a lot of the time, and we're not installing our citizens in positions of rulership, but the net result doesn't seem to be much different than if we did. We don't rule other nations; rather, we shape them so that they rule themselves in the manner we choose.

Who exactly have we successfully shaped "so that they rule themselves in the manner we choose"?

[AdamG]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/wo...ef=global-home

BENGHAZI, Libya — A PKT machine gun, a weapon designed to be mounted on a Soviet tank and fired electronically by a crew member inside, has no manual trigger, no sights and no shoulder stock. That does not prevent many Libyan rebels from carrying it as if it were an infantryman’s gun.

A Carcano cavalry carbine — probable refuse from Italian colonization in Libya between the world wars — is chambered for a dated rifle cartridge that the rebels have not been able to procure. That did not deter four rebels recently seen wandering the battlefield with these relics, without a cartridge to fire.

Photos
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...tml?ref=africa

Note - bring enough magazines to the fight
http://cjchivers.com/post/4289036681...saturday-night

[Rex Brynen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/wo...ef=global-home

BENGHAZI, Libya — A PKT machine gun, a weapon designed to be mounted on a Soviet tank and fired electronically by a crew member inside, has no manual trigger, no sights and no shoulder stock. That does not prevent many Libyan rebels from carrying it as if it were an infantryman’s gun.

...although the actual picture on the NYT website shows a truck-mounted PKT equipped with a home-made electrical trigger (note the cable running from the rear of the weapon, which probably runs from the PKT's solenoid trigger to a foot-switch and battery). That would work.

It might lack sights, but I'm not sure the Libyan rebels aim all that much anyway...

[Steve the Planner]

Dayuhan:

Ditto with this "Whole of Government" BS. Where has that ever worked?

They do love that whole "Three Cups of Tea" charade, but actual governance is just plain hard and messy---everywhere.