And Libya goes on...

[JMA]

I appreciate in the greater scheme of things that it does not mater if I know what NATO is up to in Libya. My question is whether NATO know what they are up to there?

[davidbfpo]

A good analysis of the Libyan situation and the problems with intervention:

As the war in Libya drags on, the United States faces a familiar predicament: Why, despite possessing overwhelming military superiority over any foe, does it have such a hard time using the threat of force to push much weaker dictators around?...This isn't a new problem....The short answer was that political constraints often bind the United States and its coalition partners much more tightly than their adversaries, and in ways that offset advantages in raw military power.

Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...limbo?page=0,0

Other issues have removed the daily reports on the situation - on the main UK media - and I almost missed that the rebels in Misrata have pushed the Gadafy loyalists out of the city and beyond artillery range:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13421646

Whether the intermittent defections from Gadafy amount for much is a moot point, likewise for the "stiffening" of the rebels and whether air power can do enough.

[JMA]

A good analysis of the Libyan situation and the problems with intervention:

Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...limbo?page=0,0

Other issues have removed the daily reports on the situation - on the main UK media - and I almost missed that the rebels in Misrata have pushed the Gadafy loyalists out of the city and beyond artillery range:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13421646

Whether the intermittent defections from Gadafy amount for much is a moot point, likewise for the "stiffening" of the rebels and whether air power can do enough.

David, I believe that despite the experience of air only campaigns in the past (Bosnia - Yugoslavia) the current set of smart guys in DC decided that a "no boots on the ground" campaign had the right PR ring to it. A few months (and a few $billion) into the Libya campaign and with the Gaddafi regime is still very much entrenched voices of criticism are starting to emerge here and there.

I don't expect to hear too much of that criticism here where there are many obviously serving members and others somewhat dependent on their government/military links.

The simple truth is that they got the strategy wrong.

They jumped in and fired off $500million in missiles in the first few days then took their foot off the gas. Worse still the US then dumped it all on France and the UK while still commanding the operations of NATO (serves the Limeys and the Frogs right for wanting to rush into it in the first place do I hear them say).

The problems right now all relate how long this campaign has taken.

Another example of a decision made by a committee (in Obama style).

At the start of all this my position was to not allow the Libyan people to become militarized as once that genie is out of the bottle it is impossible to get it back inside.

This is another case study in the failure of political leadership at the highest levels of a super power.

It is getting so bad that one must begin to question the moral courage of the chiefs of the services where they (probably for career and pension reasons) choose to play along with the Administration despite the continuing downward spiral in competence.

[Ken White]

The simple truth is that they got the strategy wrong.

Yes.

They jumped in...

Yes.

Another example of a decision made by a committee (in Obama style)...It is getting so bad that one must begin to question the moral courage of the chiefs of the services where they (probably for career and pension reasons) choose to play along with the Administration despite the continuing downward spiral in competence.

Not that simple. The West has gotten conditioned to government by Committee. That will be hard to undo lacking a major trauma. Libya didn't amount to a question, much less an annoyance -- as Afghanistan and Iraq were and are -- and doesn't even approach being a trauma. Except for the poor Libyans who are arguably worse off than before. Everything that has happened was easily predicted.

It was a dumb idea in the first place. To do what you wanted early on, which made sense, would have required that someone be in charge. No one was, is or will be and that should have been realized going in in. It almost certainly was by some but the 'do-gooder' mentality overrode common sense. Western 'leadership' is in decline due to the committee-ization of government. No one is in charge. Not in the US, not in the UK, not in France, certainly not in all three together plus others...

I suspect a coalition of JMA, David and Ken would be just as unwieldy.

[JMA]

Yes.Yes.Not that simple. The West has gotten conditioned to government by Committee. That will be hard to undo lacking a major trauma. Libya didn't amount to a question, much less an annoyance -- as Afghanistan and Iraq were and are -- and doesn't even approach being a trauma. Except for the poor Libyans who are arguably worse off than before. Everything that has happened was easily predicted.

It was a dumb idea in the first place. To do what you wanted early on, which made sense, would have required that someone be in charge. No one was, is or will be and that should have been realized going in in. It almost certainly was by some but the 'do-gooder' mentality overrode common sense. Western 'leadership' is in decline due to the committee-ization of government. No one is in charge. Not in the US, not in the UK, not in France, certainly not in all three together plus others...

I suspect a coalition of JMA, David and Ken would be just as unwieldy.

You saw it coming while I for a moment thought that it was all pretty straight forward and would play itself out in a short sharp intervention. My distaste for the political classes continues to grow as a result but I believe that the upper echelons of the military have to a greater or lesser extent been sucked into the political ways to the detriment of the military. I still cling to the hope someone will prove me wrong on this... but I'm not holding my breath.

Military commanders don't command by "committee" they use their service and corps reps to put together various aspects of the overall plan. I certainly hope the military planning cycle has not deteriorated into a 20 person chat shop where everyone gets to voice an opinion even if it is outside their field of expertize. That is certainly what goes on in today's WH (see what was published about the OBL matter) but not sure what happened in earlier WHs.

It just gets so infuriating when the relatively simple gets turned into a complex and often unworkable operation. With the Brits the military only seem to complain when the leave the service with pension secured. Don't hear much from the US ex servicemen ever. (correct me if I'm wrong)

[motorfirebox]

I'm not sure it's all that accurate to describe the issue as being based in number of people involved in the decision. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that statement itself smacks of politics. It's not like we don't have recent examples of things going crushingly awry on the say-so of one strong-willed leader.

[ganulv]

My distaste for the political classes continues to grow as a result but I believe that the upper echelons of the military have to a greater or lesser extent been sucked into the political ways to the detriment of the military. I still cling to the hope someone will prove me wrong on this... but I'm not holding my breath. […]

It just gets so infuriating when the relatively simple gets turned into a complex and often unworkable operation. With the Brits the military only seem to complain when the leave the service with pension secured. Don't hear much from the US ex servicemen ever. (correct me if I'm wrong)

The phenomenon is not unknown in the U.S., though it seems that it might be more associated with members of the civilian leadership like Robert McNamara and Colin Powell.

I once worked with a retired career officer—certainly not upper echelon—who told me repeatedly that it was vital that the military never be involved in the formulation of policy, that in America the way it worked was that politicians formulated policy and that members of the military carried it out. His is just one interpretation, but I have assumed since knowing him that this is generally the way civilian control of the military is conceived by professional soldiers in the U.S. Anyone care to confirm or deny?

[Ken White]

You saw it coming...

Way too many. Made me old before my time...

I believe that the upper echelons of the military have to a greater or lesser extent been sucked into the political ways to the detriment of the military. I still cling to the hope someone will prove me wrong on this... but I'm not holding my breath.

Good plan, keep breathing because your belief is -- distressingly -- accurate.

Military commanders don't command by "committee" they use their service and corps reps to put together various aspects of the overall plan. I certainly hope the military planning cycle has not deteriorated into a 20 person chat shop where everyone gets to voice an opinion even if it is outside their field of expertize.

Commander dependent. Too many though, do in fact go the chat shop route -- touchy feely r us...

The real problem is not flawed Commanders, most are okay. Upon actual commitment, they and the system work as they should -- it's all the processes that occur in peace and war which occur until that actual commitment -- and then the behind the scenes, rear echelon foolishness and politically driven interference that occurs. The bureaucracy and its stifling effect have to be seen to be believed...

That is certainly what goes on in today's WH (see what was published about the OBL matter) but not sure what happened in earlier WHs.

Much the same thing. Only the Bushes were notable for a hands off attitude. The more left leaning the incumbent of that dwelling, the more attention paid to 'collegiality.'

It just gets so infuriating when the relatively simple gets turned into a complex and often unworkable operation. With the Brits the military only seem to complain when the leave the service with pension secured. Don't hear much from the US ex servicemen ever. (correct me if I'm wrong)

It is quite infuriating (and that's my weekly massive understatement...).

US Retirees are -- like the rest of the US -- a mixed bag, some are voluble, some are not. Mostly they tend to drown each other out. There are an awfully large number of them and their disparate views counteract each other to a great extent. Few have any real effect or garner much of a following or even an audience. The Class cachet is missing here and our mostly pathetic news media doesn't have much idea of what is or may be important.

[Ken White]

I once worked with a retired career officer—certainly not upper echelon—who told me repeatedly that it was vital that the military never be involved in the formulation of policy, that in America the way it worked was that politicians formulated policy and that members of the military carried it out. His is just one interpretation, but I have assumed since knowing him that this is generally the way civilian control of the military is conceived by professional soldiers in the U.S. Anyone care to confirm or deny?

there are too many variations to easily generalize.

IMO, a majority almost certainly agree with your person however, there are a few that disagree and some quite strongly. They tend to believe -- with some justification -- that the inept Politicians need a lot of guidance...

The tradition of civilian control is quite strong however and only when a military senior leader of strong personality who's worried about civilian ineptitude does any heavy lobbying occur. Even more rare is a MacArthur like usurption of or challenge to that civilian primacy. Most will accede to what the civilian master wants (or thinks he or she wants...) with little complaint, no matter how dumb a particular set of policies happens to be.

The Forced retirement of Jack Singlaub, Michael Dugan and Stanley McChrystal (there have been others of lesser stature) are examples of why this is so...

[Ken White]

I'm not sure it's all that accurate to describe the issue as being based in number of people involved in the decision. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that statement itself smacks of politics. It's not like we don't have recent examples of things going crushingly awry on the say-so of one strong-willed leader.

Did they go wrong because though that leader made the right decision, the committees below him or her made a total mess of the problem?

[motorfirebox]

Did they go wrong because though that leader made the right decision, the committees below him or her made a total mess of the problem?

That's one possible scenario, but the one I'm thinking of illustrates the point that the right person can make decisions just as bad as any made by a committee.

The air campaign has a significantly lesser chance of achieving the goals set forth, but it also has a significantly lesser chance of turning into a decade-long bog--both of those in comparison to fully committing to Libya, boots on the ground and all. If the air campaign is more politically palatable, well, this entire adventure is an exercise in political palatability regardless of what strategy we pursue. This is about showing the flag and making sure we're involved, or at least a consideration, in the major changes sweeping the ME.

[Ken White]

... the one I'm thinking of illustrates the point that the right person can make decisions just as bad as any made by a committee.

Could be, don't know which one that is so can't comment further.

The air campaign has a significantly lesser chance of achieving the goals set forth...

That's a massive understatement. True of all 'air campaigns' -- and before Airpower Advocates rush to correct that and say "If it were allowed to be properly conducted..." I agree -- but it never has been so allowed and is unlikely to ever be. Airpower could unquestionably do more but if it isn't to be allowed to do more, planners should factor that in. They are remiss in not doing so (applies to this and many previous operations ranging back to 1950 at least)...

...This is about showing the flag and making sure we're involved, or at least a consideration, in the major changes sweeping the ME.

Yes. Very flawed methodology with far more downsides than pluses, though. There were better ways -- and I suspect the "decade long" effort will still occur. It'll just cost a little less.

[motorfirebox]

There were better ways -- and I suspect the "decade long" effort will still occur. It'll just cost a little less.

Heh, well, I'm not in favor of even a minute-long effort, so to me anything that reduces the overall cost to us is a plus.

[davidbfpo]

A lengthy IISS Strategic Comment on the situation:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...pace-in-libya/

A shorter article - with a map - illustrates how the situation is changing in Western Libya:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...all-sides.html

Note the situation at Misrata has changed, with the rebels expanding far beyond the port city, but I did hear a BBC radio item that Gadafy's artillery are still firing on the city.

Hopefully some clarity on what is really happening - amidst the sand and smoke.

[AdamG]

Busted!

[ganulv]

Busted!

[M-A Lagrange]

Obama Libyan Actions Attacked on Two Fronts: Political and Legal
http://www.suite101.com/content/obam...#ixzz1PQ4NLviV

Discussing the decision to go to war is always difficult and requires an in-depth knowledge of the legislation and its practice.
Also, the political debate pitfall is always there.
But still, I am very interested in how the SWJ community perceives that particular action against the decision of a president to engage forces (In the light of military action decision, not domestic politic).
Would Libya be a “jurice prudence” (in both way: wait for congress approval or not) and to which extend this might affect the use of force by USA to defend and protect civilian population under threat of mass murder and human rights abuses.

[motorfirebox]

"It's not that kind of conflict" is about the dumbest thing I've heard this month. To call it a shaky legal basis is giving it too much credit, and politically it's an incredibly dangerous precedent.

[davidbfpo]

A curious mixture of photos of rebel weapons, I noted the FN SLRs:http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...rebels/100086/

A commentary from Australia, which draws attention to AK100's being spotted and associated al-Jazeera film clip:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...ming-From.aspx

[ganulv]

But still, I am very interested in how the SWJ community perceives that particular action against the decision of a president to engage forces (In the light of military action decision, not domestic politic).

They’re inseparable. There is plenty of evidence that Dennis Kucinich actually cares about the War Powers Act. I have a hard time believing that John Boehner does.