And Libya goes on...

[JMA]

Why would the US want to get involved in "Mickey Mouse Regional Conflicts" where no US interests are at stake?

Fascinating. The UN Resolution does not just "empower" the US to to prevent what's happening. It empowers all UN member states. Why then do you say the blood would be on Obama's hands? Many UN member states are doing nothing at all... do they have blood on their hands? What about the British and French, who were out front pushing for intervention? By what logic does saving Libya become an American responsibility?

I'm also fascinated by this notion that the US has somehow "lost its steam" because it declines to intervene in regional conflicts. If that's the case, we lost steam decades ago, if we ever had it. Just off the top of my head... did you see US intervention in the Indonesian massacres or the Nigeria-Biafra war in the 60s? In the Cambodian massacres in the 70s? I could go on, and on, as could any of us, but I think any of us who has a third of an eye on history would know that reluctance to intervene in foreign conflicts where the US has no direct interest at stake is nothing new for the US, even when those conflicts are very bloody..

Your posts are entertaining.

I have asked before how does anyone know what is the the US's interests at any given time? Any given two Americans will probably not agree on this.

So when in doubt take it from the President of the day.

Suggest you read the Obama Libya statement transcript and let it guide you from here on.

[JMA]

JMA:

A war, to use a well known author (Clausewitz) is the use of force to impose a political change to an opponent (excuse me if I do not quote word for word).
In deed, in Libya, there is a war. Who does conduct that war is another question and I believe the rebels are fighting a war.

Technically you are correct. But in reality the Libyans in Misrata and a few other places are fighting each other while the majority of the NATO air effort overflies Libya at a safe height while a few Brit/French/? aircraft go through the motions of carrying out ground strikes to give the impression NATO is really attempting to protect civilians. Its all very relaxed it you are operating under NATO in Libya but a different story if you are living in Misrata with your family.

Secondly, about humanitarian military intervention:
I would encourage you to read this:
Humanitarian Military Intervention: The Conditions for Success and Failure
by Taylor B. Seybolt
ISBN 978-0-19-925243-5 (hardback) 978-0-19-955105-7 (paperback)
http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=335

Humanitarian military intervention is controversial. Scepticism is always in order about the need to use military force because the consequences can be so dire. Yet it has become equally controversial not to intervene when a government subjects its citizens to massive violation of their basic human rights. This book recognizes the limits of humanitarian intervention but does not shy away from suggesting how military force can save lives in extreme circumstances.

[snip]

This is a subject of its own but my position is (as you may have gathered) to intervene before the situation becomes "extreme". This requires skill, local knowledge, judgement, finesse and the rest. Here lies the problem.

The zero casualty theory is a nice dream that does not change the nature of war: use of violence to impose by killing combatants and destruction of properties a political end.

Did I say something about zero casualties? As one who has buried friends and comrades in a conflict I could never contemplate or support an exercise where soldiers lives are placed at unnecessary risk. The way to intervene in these Mickey Mouse countries IMHO is through a specifically targeted, very carefully planned and skillfully carried out intervention before the killing/genocide/war starts and the body count begins to rise.

And finally, I would like to flag Save the Children report on Libya which is quite disturbing:
http://reliefweb.int/node/398089

Sad indeed. But it gets worse when limbs get severed and the like. I suggest that these reports support my case for early intervention.

[Dayuhan]

I have asked before how does anyone know what is the the US's interests at any given time? Any given two Americans will probably not agree on this.

We elect people to decide. They may be right or wrong, but they get to decide, until somebody else gets elected.

Suggest you read the Obama Libya statement transcript and let it guide you from here on.

Public statements by elected officials are about putting a noble face on a decision, and say very little about the actual reasons for a decision and the balance of perceived interests that went into a decision. Not a good basis for any assumptions about perceived interests.

I've yet to see any credible argument from anyone, elected or not, suggesting that any US interest, let alone any vital US interest, is at stake in Libya.

[M-A Lagrange]

Technically you are correct. But in reality the Libyans in Misrata and a few other places are fighting each other while the majority of the NATO air effort overflies Libya at a safe height while a few Brit/French/? aircraft go through the motions of carrying out ground strikes to give the impression NATO is really attempting to protect civilians. Its all very relaxed it you are operating under NATO in Libya but a different story if you are living in Misrata with your family.

True, too true for the people. And I do agree with you and join your point on the need to reconnect military with normal people condition during conflicts. Especially when you have such a technology distance between people on the ground (who get assassinated indiscrimialy) and strikes conducted from the air.

This is a subject of its own but my position is (as you may have gathered) to intervene before the situation becomes "extreme". This requires skill, local knowledge, judgement, finesse and the rest. Here lies the problem.

Agree also, just past the link to show that "humanitarian military interventions" are not an easy task and requieres more than just a bunch of "stallone's expendables".

Did I say something about zero casualties? As one who has buried friends and comrades in a conflict I could never contemplate or support an exercise where soldiers lives are placed at unnecessary risk. The way to intervene in these Mickey Mouse countries IMHO is through a specifically targeted, very carefully planned and skillfully carried out intervention before the killing/genocide/war starts and the body count begins to rise.

Short wars as 6 days or 2nd shabba wars are rare. Even Lebanon 2006. I agree with you on the spirit but must admit that conflict are long...
Unfortunatelly, Libya is not a mickey mouse country. Do we like it or not, Gadaffi did train most of the African leaders/rebel groups and still has likes with many of them. Countries like Kenya or Uganda are reluctant to frozze his bank accounts... Chad is playing dirty with Gadaffi to get ead of some tribal fighters by sending them to support him and so does Mauritania.
It may look insignificant from Washingtown or L.A. but it does and will impact power in Africa.
The other problem I can see is that interviene too early to prevent is opening a door to what could be seen has a R2P fascist/military dictature. Exactly what Carl Schmitt points in his critics of the Just War concept.
The problem is that you have to wait until there are massive human rights abuse before launching anything. But once you started: YOU HAVE TO GO UP TO THE END.
Otherwise: just don't do it, you will end up with more ennemies than friends.
Sirya case is also interresting. I personaly believe that "Western" States (and specially US) are now facing a new dilemma: they pushed for people up rise in the name of freedom and democracy. And now that it's arriving, they are backing back saying: well... get organised, do it yourself, it's domestic problems... It's not good foreign policy, it's not defense policy. Basically the onces who are the most shaken in that story are the military and administrations of "Western powers" who finally do not want to see things changing cause it would mean they have to change too. It's more confortable to play with fire by yelling advises than actually facing it.

Sad indeed. But it gets worse when limbs get severed and the like. I suggest that these reports support my case for early intervention.

Cf what I just said.

[M-A Lagrange]

I've yet to see any credible argument from anyone, elected or not, suggesting that any US interest, let alone any vital US interest, is at stake in Libya.

Dayuhan, this looks rather like a I do not want to get out of my confort zone rather than a good argument to not go there.
And this illustrates my point: Bush administration said we will build a new Middle East and failed cause you cannot impose that from outside. Now people of Middle East are fighting to change it and the US (and others) are saying: do it yourself, not interrested anymore. And when an elected administration is saying let's go for it during an electoral period, the first and louder voice is: NO. Why? BECAUSE!
This is exactly what JMA is criticising: a complete lack of consistency in US foreign policy. US cannot start a fire and then say, I have changed my mind and will not play the firemen anymore now.

[Graycap]

Tequila,

Good catch the LAT report.

The capture of a border crossing was reported here without any context or helpful comment; almost as if the rebels had crossed over the border.

I am sure SWC readers have noted the lack of any reporting - except on migrant workers leaving - from the Tunisian border. Where does the new Tunisian government stand? Perhaps our two local observers (Italian & Spanish) can comment.

David, I don't know if I'm the "italian" involved but I'll try to do my best

AFAIK the tunisian government is very, very, weak. It's trying to prepare some kind of political evolution to stabilise the internal situation. IMHO they could be available to support some kind of help by western powers towards western rebels. In exchange for some badly needed help.
Gheddafi regime could have been a great enemy for any kind of political evolution in Tunisia and Tunisia could become a sort of refuge and safe heaven for rebels in the worst case scenario. In tunisian eyes a Gheddafi's victory could be a disaster.

IMHO if you would like to search for Gheddafi's friends you should look a little bit in western direction. Algerian and Libyan army trained together quite often.

Anyway the most important problem is the lack of political unity between the western and eastern rebellions. This could be very dangerous. If it could be possible I think that it should be urgent to engage the western rebels as soon as possible.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan, this looks rather like a I do not want to get out of my confort zone rather than a good argument to not go there.

You don't need a good argument to not go there. Not going there is and rationally should be the default reaction to other people's problems. You need a good argument to justify going there.

US cannot start a fire and then say, I have changed my mind and will not play the firemen anymore now.

How exactly did the US start this fire?

But yes, certainly US policy is inconsistent. That's a consequence of democracy. The Bush administration's policies drove the US into two unpopular and horribly expensive wars, greatly diminished US influence abroad, created all manner of controversy at home, etc. The party that embraced those policies was voted out of office, partly because of those policies. Naturally, those policies changed. Why would anyone want to be consistent with policies that didn't achieve the desired effect and produced all manner of adverse unintended consequences? Why be consistent when something doesn't work?

[JMA]

I've yet to see any credible argument from anyone, elected or not, suggesting that any US interest, let alone any vital US interest, is at stake in Libya.

Well your President believes it and I accept that as being the official US position on the matter... and suggest that if you have a problem with that you take it up with him.

[JMA]

This is exactly what JMA is criticising: a complete lack of consistency in US foreign policy. US cannot start a fire and then say, I have changed my mind and will not play the firemen anymore now.

Exactly... and the Hungarians are still waiting (since 1956) for the US support to arrive which Radio Free Europe implied would be forthcoming.

It is evident that each successive generation of Americans either doesn't care or does not bother to learn from their own history.

I believe it is this everything is negotiable culture that has developed in the US where they will sell their anyone on the street corner if need be so what chance does a Hungarian or a Libyan have when push comes to shove.

[Dayuhan]

Well your President believes it and I accept that as being the official US position on the matter... and suggest that if you have a problem with that you take it up with him.

And you know what the President believes... by telepathy?

The best indicator of the official US assessment of interests in Libya is the level of actual commitment: actions speak a lot louder than words. The very limited US commitment in Libya and the evident desire to avoid further entanglement and withdraw as soon as possible suggest strongly that no significant interests are perceived... no matter what anyone says in a public statement.

[davidbfpo]

Graycap,

You asked:

David, I don't know if I'm the "italian" involved but I'll try to do my best

Yes, you are the Italian and thank you.

I was aware of Gadafy's role in Africa, which has complicated any response by the AU and others. The comment on Algerian-Libyan military links was news to me, although after a few thoughts makes sense.

[Dayuhan]

Exactly... and the Hungarians are still waiting (since 1956) for the US support to arrive which Radio Free Europe implied would be forthcoming.

So what somebody inferred from a radio broadcast is suddenly a binding commitment for the American people?

It is evident that each successive generation of Americans either doesn't care or does not bother to learn from their own history.

What were we to have learned from the Hungarian episode? Do you really think anyone in Hungary, or anywhere in Europe, would have been better off if the US had gone to war with the Soviet Union in 1956? Have you given no thought at all to the probable consequences if the US had gone riding to the rescue in Hungary? Consequences up to and likely including nuclear war?

I believe it is this everything is negotiable culture that has developed in the US where they will sell their own mother on the street corner if need be so what chance does a Hungarian or a Libyan have when push comes to shove.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but if you want anyone to take that belief seriously you'll need to present some shred of evidence supporting it. You might start by explaining why you would hold the US responsible for what happens to a Hungarian or a Libyan in the first place.

As previously noted, the UN Resolution does not mention the US. It addresses all member states. So how do you contrive to place responsibility on the US? Has the US ever been assigned, or accepted, the role of protector Of Everyone Everywhere All The Time? Do you propose that we appoint ourselves to that role?

In governance there is very little that is not negotiable. Those who govern have to weigh all manner of competing interests, possible effects of proposed actions, varying opinions, possible risks and rewards. Many of these involve substantial uncertainty and substantial chance of unintended consequences. If they don't make a decision you approve of, it doesn't mean they're incompetent. It more likely means they're considering factors that you're not seeing, and that the people who don't agree with you have some pretty convincing arguments too.

It's easy to argue from a position of self-proclaimed omniscience, but it's rarely very convincing.

[M-A Lagrange]

But yes, certainly US policy is inconsistent. That's a consequence of democracy. The Bush administration's policies drove the US into two unpopular and horribly expensive wars, greatly diminished US influence abroad, created all manner of controversy at home, etc. The party that embraced those policies was voted out of office, partly because of those policies. Naturally, those policies changed. Why would anyone want to be consistent with policies that didn't achieve the desired effect and produced all manner of adverse unintended consequences? Why be consistent when something doesn't work?

I am not calling for a come back to bad policies and bad administration in the US. Far from it. Your arguments are sound and reflect a probably general domestic public opinion.

Like JMA, I believe, I'm stund by the incapacity of western world to committe to the people onces expectations have been build and raised.
Also, I am regularly disappointed by so called free world government (France, US, Italy, UK... Name it) discourse on the right of the people to live in a safer peacefull world that would benefit everybody and the fact they turn their back anytime something happens in that direction.
It's probably due to the nature of our governmental structures.
It's sad, that's all.

I just support the idea that if people try to break free, this should be regarded as a major concern from all of the "democratic states" and efforts should be made to support them, as a basic policy.

[Dayuhan]

I just support the idea that if people try to break free, this should be regarded as a major concern from all of the "democratic states" and efforts should be made to support them, as a basic policy.

Efforts have been made to support them. The question is who's expected to make the effort, and how much effort any particular "democratic state" can reasonably be expected to apply.

If we're going to maintain that "democratic states" should assist people who want to "break free" with military force, there has to be some effort made to develop a structure where all democratic states would share in the responsibility and expense. It's not realistic or reasonable to always look to the US, Britain, and France. There also has to be some consideration given to responsibility for what happens after a dictator is deposed: if the people who did the deposing are going to be expected to pick up the pieces and put things back in order, it will be very, very difficult to persuade anyone to act.

All very well to proclaim that the developed democracies have a hypothetical "responsibility" to help "the people" against "the dictator"... but that has to be weighed against other responsibilities, notably to their own people, and recognition that what may superficially appear to be a case of "the people" fighting for "freedom" against "the dictator" may in fact be a lot more complicated and may present a situation that rational people might easily want no part of.

PS: It's not incapacity to commit, it's unwillingness. It's also not that hard to understand, if you consider where that kind of commitment can lead. Commitments are not things to be lightly undertaken, and expecting others to make them is a lot easier than taking them on yourself.

[JMA]

Roughly, and of course oversimplified:

Degrade Libyan air defenses, ground forces, logistics, communications and other support facilities to the greatest extent we can achieve within one week, using air and naval assets.

At this point we will relinquish primary responsibility to the British, French, and other allies. Further assistance will be provided at their request, with requests evaluated on a case-to-case basis.

Why do I not see any reference to civilians here? Was their protection not the primary reason for the intervention after all?

First, I would suggest was the requirement to save Benghazi from being sacked by Gaddafi - this the French did in five minutes on 19 March.

Second, would have been the requirement to enforce the no fly zone. This would have had a time factor attached of say 7 days or sooner and have a "no collateral damage" limitation attached - with the requirement of political oversight of the target lists. This would have been carried out by US assets off the carrier and whatever Brit and French assets available. - after 28 March no further mention of Gaddafi air assets (that I could find) - no fly zone effective - allowing the the "just going through the motions" nations to "enforce" the no fly zone risk free at high altitude yet be seen to be involved. On 31 March the US passed command of air ops to NATO.

Thirdly, the naval blockade quickly enforced by air and ship and command handed over to NATO on 24 March.

Fourth, the civilians other than those in Benghazi drew the short straw. With the US packing up and going to sit on the carrier after 12 days there were never going to be enough aircraft to protect the civilians other than in Benghazi from attack from Gaddafi's forces which other than its air and anti-aircraft assets were still more than a match for the rebels. Obama would have known this.

Also rough.

My read of the situation is that little if any consideration was given to civilians other than those in Benghazi and that a conscious decision was made not to go after Gaddafi's ground forces themselves (to any serious extent) other than their war materials to the extent that Mullen said two days ago (or so) that more than a third of Libya's forces had been destroyed (30-40%).

So the very civilians the US and NATO are there to protect are being abandoned to their fate while the Gaddafi forces being the cause of this misery and suffering remain at a 60-70% level of existence and a significant threat to civilians.

I have no doubt that the US forces involved did the best they could (and by all accounts that was a superb effort) and the Brits and French likewise given their limited resources within the operational parameters laid down by the politicians.

...but the intervention has failed in its primary task of protecting civilians. If there is a stalemate it is because Obama wants it that way. If people continue to be killed and maimed in Misrata and elsewhere it is because Obama doesn't care. Gaddafi's forces could have been destroyed in a very short time had Obama wanted the military to do just that. He didn't. Obama has the blood of the civilans in Misrata and elsewhere on his hands.

Autocrats and dictators can only remain in power if the security apparatus, army, police, paid spies and informers remain effectively in place.

[JMA]

True, too true ...

Agree also, ...

OK, lets skip what we agree on...

Unfortunatelly, Libya is not a mickey mouse country.

This is where we disagree.

The US off that carrier (had there been a war against Libya) would have been able to crush Libya in an afternoon. Militarily Libya was a Mickey Mouse setup. The fact that they brought in African mercenaries (of dubious military quality) to help out and together with the trained Libyan forces only have an edge on the rebels through tanks and artillery. Watch the videos carefully, it is quite revealing.

Yes, Gaddafi has exerted significant political influence across Africa, but you need to accept that it was "bought and paid for" rather than through any great leadership and a realistic vision for Africa. Look at who are in his pocket. Buying a dictator is not the same as gaining the support of the whole country. These dictators are just being loyal to their paymaster for as long as the money keeps landing in their Swiss bank accounts (which they no doubt hope will be for many more years to come).

These fellow dictators probably correctly know that after Gbagbo and Gaddafi their number may well come up next. Can't wait, we live in exciting times.

--------------------

Just found this online:

Why John McCain Is Optimistic About Libya

Agree with just about everything McCain is reported to have said (and have probably said so already). The bad news is that because he says it the Obama Administration probably won't do it.

Not sure though whether he thinks a negotiated settlement with Gaddafi is the final solution. If so we disagree on that.

[Rex Brynen]

I believe it is this everything is negotiable culture that has developed in the US where they will sell their anyone on the street corner if need be so what chance does a Hungarian or a Libyan have when push comes to shove.

Has developed? And only in the US?

I must admit that I somehow missed the golden age of selfless American interventions around the world in support of democracy and human rights (or, for that matter, similar interventions by anyone else).

Indeed, the current intervention in Libya comes as close as any—so perhaps Washington today is less willing to put narrow interests before broader principles than during the cynical, dictator-supporting days of the Cold War. There are legitimate concerns over the costs and possible implications of NATO intervention, but the impulse at least deserves praise rather than condemnation.

[jmm99]

is what it used to be called by "vulgar folks" - a "punitive raid" or "regime removal" (not "regime change") are less "vulgar" terms.

The idea is that you go into a territory, kill and/or capture armed groups, destroy installations and even remove a regime by killing or detaining boss man and his backups - without intent to exercise any governance over the territory and without attempting to establish or assist a follow-on governance. In short, invade, achieve limited objectives (one way to define a "limited war") and leave !

For most of my lifetime, "butcher and bolt" has not been the dominant theme in US armed conflicts (two somewhat "b&bs" were Grenada and Panama, I suppose). WRT OIF, I was unpopular about the local watering trough for asserting a "butcher and bolt" approach. According to John Bolton, he was asserting (unsuccessfully) the same thing in the WH - invade, get rid of SH and leave (gifting the Iraqis a copy of the Federalist Papers on the way out the door).

The dominant view is that invasion must somehow be followed by occupation ala WWII Germany and Japan - the "you break it; you buy it" theory (albeit a fallacy).

The approach taken by the HCL study is interesting (although some may think that its section on "foreign occupation" has more than a bit of legal-political sophistry) (footnotes in original omitted here):

7 Can the coalition send ground forces in?

The resolution excludes the possibility of a “foreign occupation force”. Legally, that means that ground forces can be used as long as they do not exercise effective control over the territory.

Asked whether he could guarantee that no ground forces would be used, Mr Cameron told the Commons:

What I can guarantee is that we will stick to the terms of the UN resolution, which absolutely and specifically rules out an occupying force. We have to be clear: we are not talking about an invasion; we are not talking about an occupying force; we are talking about taking action to protect civilian life, and I think that is the right thing to do.

There is speculation that British Special Forces are on the ground in Libya, helping the Air Force to select targets and, it is reported, aborting one RAF mission because civilians were too close to the target. The government has denied the suggestion.

On 3 April, Mr Hague clarified the government’s position:

We’re sticking very closely here to the United Nations resolution… which makes very clear there must be no foreign occupation of any part of Libya and we will stick to that. There have already been circumstances in which we’ve sent small special forces in to Libya. We rescued people from the desert a few weeks ago as you will remember through doing that. So circumstances can arise where limit, such limited operations take place, but there is going to be no large scale ground force placed in Libya by the United Kingdom.

The distinction between what is said here and what Bolton (as I've understood his post-OIF remarks) and I said re: OIF, hinges on this concept (from the quote above):

Legally, that means that ground forces can be used as long as they do not exercise effective control over the territory.

WRT OIF, we (Bolton and I) were taking Iraq as a whole - and suggesting that we decline to exercise control over the entire nation - defining all Iraq as "the territory". Factually, even a lawyer should recognize that, in order to achieve even a limited objective, military forces must exercise effective control over some geographic area.

If the UNSC Res merely excluded a "foreign occupation force" in Libya, the Bolton-jmm99 type of argument would have a better chance of holding up - even though most of the "I Law World" probably is contrary to "butcher and bolt" to begin with.

But, the addition of the language "of any form on any part" would literally exclude ground forces in any form (a squad) because a squad has to control the ground it occupies. That is not a "lawyerly" argument; but simply a factual inference.

I probably won't respond to anything said about this legal point. I followed this discussion at SWC - and the legal discussions at Lawfare and elesewhere. My UN delegation would have voted with Germany on this issue and no cruise missiles would have flown into Libya. No change.

Regards, JMA - and bonne chance in your attempt to convert others.

Mike

[Stan]

Why do we (continue to) justify humanitarian intervention when all we are into is another regime change that we just screwed-up a decade earlier ?

I never really "got" why we argue about whether nations have the duty to intervene in the affairs of others. In fact, the meddling I witnessed leaves me wondering.

Libya is another can of worms we opened in Africa with one side arguing that international forces can prevent or end humanitarian suffering while others assert that intervention is based on the inconsistent application of bleak and puzzling principles which amount to little more than the US looking like oil-hungry imperialists.

IMHO when we stuck our noses into this mess under the guise of "responsibility to protect", we ran the risk of what comes next (assuming we ever end up successful at this FUBAR with a sound exit strategy).

Everyone and someone: Seems we've hashed this issue in Africa over four decades and some conclude "everyone" while the rest are content with just "someone" (being spared). As a pessimistic former NCO I'll accept "someone" knowing I can't realistically spare "everyone" when the town goes Tango Uniform.

When has there ever been an assessment from the ground prior to military operations in Africa ? We have the people and intel, but we let blind politicians lead us into a hamstrung operation in the middle of a financial debate over debt reduction and elections

Who has doctrine that outright justifies humanitarian intervention by a military force because the current dictator that we helped into power is no longer in our good graces and has to go

Give me a break already !

[M-A Lagrange]

Stan,

The question, at least for me, in the case of Lybia is different than removing a dictator US or France put in place and wants to change.
My point is that in this particular case, people have chosent to change the regime.

Mike,
I would have vote as France did. May be because of youth idealism. Also, because there are national interrest a stake in neigbouring countries.

Dayuhan
We could enter in an endless debate on where were the threats to US national security in Irak... I can see why US feels tired of being the sherif of the world. And France is not going to the replecement neither.
But there is a need to go deeper than just unwillingness because of possible bias, pitfall and what ever bad interpretation of such political line.
But still, it might be youth idealism.