Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 298

Thread: The new Libya: various aspects

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default The End as Beginning...

    The Gospel according to the furrin policy establishment as an OpEd titled "Libya Now Needs Boots on the Ground" in the Financial Times...

    LINK.

    That "boots" bit is as overused and Upper West Side hokey as the 'Warrior' shtick.

    Six months later, I still contend there is not an ounce of real as opposed to presumed or wanna-be assumed US interest in Libya. If Europe has a problem there, then Europe should address it. None of our affair. Could be a US domestic politics and budget influencer, though. Surely those wouldn't be considerations...

  2. #2
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Boots on the ground

    During the day, I think it was a junior UK foreign minister, there was a hint that 'experts' from the UK Stabilisation Unit who'd been planning for this day for moths were ready to go.

    Their website:http://www.stabilisationunit.gov.uk/

    Here there has been no mention today of any additional UK military presence and several times the media have skirted round referring to those special "boots on the ground" today.

    The only reference to "boots" has been the TNC's desire to have the Jordanians train the new army.
    davidbfpo

  3. #3
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default That shows great sense...

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    The only reference to "boots" has been the TNC's desire to have the Jordanians train the new army.
    Far more than some enlightened and well educated if ignorant western government types seem to be showing. Glubb Pasha's spiritual descendants would be far more appropriate and beneficial than US over reactionary efforts...

  4. #4
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default Re the article marc cited...

    Democracy will bring freedom and economic opportunities, but also inflation and income inequality. Islamism will bring social justice and religious purity, but also social rigidity. A new autocracy will merely turn back the clock. For Libya, the problem is that democracy and oil do not mix well. Russia has shown that in oil economies, economic liberalization gives rise to the emergence of oligarchs resulting in a call for a strong regime. A Libyan democratic government will most probably be unable to combine freedom and social justice.
    Interesting that democracy is equated here with economic liberalization, as if the two were synonymous. Interesting also that income inequality and the absence of "social justice" are seen as the principal problems facing a Libyan Democracy.

    I suspect that the problems facing an attempt to develop democracy in Libya are likely to be far more severe and immediate than income equality and "social justice" (whatever we take that to mean). Possibly a bit of projection in the picture there.

    The most immediate obstacle will be finding a way for government to function at all. Transitions from dictatorship - especially extended dictatorship - to democracy are extraordinarily difficult. Political parties often coalesce around tribal, sectarian, or personalistic lines, offering little real choice in policy or ideology. In many cases elections see positions contested by large numbers of candidates, leaving winners with questionable mandates and very limited popular support. Without clearly established rules and procedures gridlock often sets in, with most debates over the process, rather than the outcome. Popular frustration is often intense, as unrealistic expectations meet reality. At the same time, there are huge and critical decisions to be made: the structure of the oil industry, the extent of foreign involvement, justice vs reconciliation for members and supporters of the old regime, hundreds more.

    The first problem will be simply putting a government together that is capable of making a decision, any decision. That's difficult enough.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Interesting that democracy is equated here with economic liberalization, as if the two were synonymous. Interesting also that income inequality and the absence of "social justice" are seen as the principal problems facing a Libyan Democracy.

    I suspect that the problems facing an attempt to develop democracy in Libya are likely to be far more severe and immediate than income equality and "social justice" (whatever we take that to mean). Possibly a bit of projection in the picture there.
    Dayuhan,

    In an oil economy, "social justice" would mean that the large majority of the population, rather than a small elite benefits from the country's natural richness. A democracy functions according to the principle of "no taxation without representation." A dictatorship financed by oil revenues puts this principle on its head: "no taxation, therefore no representation". A dictator buys the acquiescence of the people with government jobs and subsidies on necessities like food, fuel and housing. The oil economy cannot provide jobs for everyone, but it can generate more than 90% of the national GDP. Claessen's article holds that it is difficult to reconcile this reality with democracy and economic liberalization, but that it is easy to reconcile this reality with a social contract based either on
    a patronizing system granting government jobs on the basis of subservience or a social security system based on the Islamic duty to help the poor. The former could evolve into a new autocracy. The latter would tend towards an Islamist state.

  6. #6
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    In an oil economy, "social justice" would mean that the large majority of the population, rather than a small elite benefits from the country's natural richness. A democracy functions according to the principle of "no taxation without representation." A dictatorship financed by oil revenues puts this principle on its head: "no taxation, therefore no representation". A dictator buys the acquiescence of the people with government jobs and subsidies on necessities like food, fuel and housing. The oil economy cannot provide jobs for everyone, but it can generate more than 90% of the national GDP. Claessen's article holds that it is difficult to reconcile this reality with democracy and economic liberalization, but that it is easy to reconcile this reality with a social contract based either on
    The term "social justice" means lots of things to lots of people, which limits its utility. Certainly the presence of oil or other resource wealth poses certain complications for a transition out of dictatorship, as does the absence of resources.

    The challenge facing Libya now is to transform a loose coalition united only by opposition to the dictator into something resembling a government that is able to provide the basic rudiments of governance. Where it goes from there - if that can be achieved - can be managed after that is achieved.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default war as source of national identity

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    The challenge facing Libya now is to transform a loose coalition united only by opposition to the dictator into something resembling a government that is able to provide the basic rudiments of governance. Where it goes from there - if that can be achieved - can be managed after that is achieved.
    One refrain I heard quite often in Libya was that the prolonged struggle to overthrow Qaddafi may have helped to build a stronger sense of national identity and purpose. This isn't to say the challenges aren't serious--they are, given the factionalism that already exists. However it was striking to hear people say "perhaps its a good thing we didn't win in a week, and instead had to work together to achieve this outcome."
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post

    The challenge facing Libya now is to transform a loose coalition united only by opposition to the dictator into something resembling a government that is able to provide the basic rudiments of governance. Where it goes from there - if that can be achieved - can be managed after that is achieved.
    Dayuhan,

    Sorry, but that sounds like a recipe for yet another failure to get phase 4 right.

    Marc

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Six months later, I still contend there is not an ounce of real as opposed to presumed or wanna-be assumed US interest in Libya. If Europe has a problem there, then Europe should address it. None of our affair. Could be a US domestic politics and budget influencer, though. Surely those wouldn't be considerations...
    Although, in fairness, it was Europe that did most of the lifting on this. By my count, the US conducted perhaps 30% of the sorties over Libya, and perhaps 20% of the combat sorties.

    Certainly the rest of NATO couldn't have done it without US support. However, in some of the media commentary I've seen you would think this was a US operation with European (and Canadian support), not vice-versa.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  10. #10
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default True.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    Although, in fairness, it was Europe that did most of the lifting on this. By my count, the US conducted perhaps 30% of the sorties over Libya, and perhaps 20% of the combat sorties.
    That's a good start. Perhaps for the next such effort, we can cut that small percentage of ours even more.
    Certainly the rest of NATO couldn't have done it without US support. However, in some of the media commentary I've seen you would think this was a US operation with European (and Canadian support), not vice-versa.
    I think they could have done it with no US support, though it might've been a bit -- just a bit, seriously -- harder in spots.

    Perhaps it's a perspective thing but I don't get that US centric sensing from things I read -- I only very rarely watch television -- and most of the visuals I've seen have been of other nations (Canada well represented...).

    BTW, I meant the Euro-centric bit for any ground effort. Neither we nor Canada have much business being involved in that IMO. YMMV.

  11. #11
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Imagining Libya, a Decade from now

    Hat tip to FP Blog for this commentary looking forward:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...m_now?page=0,0

    The author is an optimist:
    My prediction is that Libya will be messy -- but closer to the democratic end of the spectrum than to the chaotic, autocratic, or partitioned outcomes.
    davidbfpo

  12. #12
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    How much "Europe" can do militarily is a question of will / interest / necessity.

    We COULD have invaded Libya with three million soldiers if we WANTED.

    We COULD have created additional airfields on Sicily and Crete and massed more than a thousand combat aircraft there for operations over Libya if we WANTED.



    The Libya drôle de intervention was really done with a very low amount of willpower/interest, with the small finger of the left hand.

  13. #13
    Council Member Graycap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    47

    Default

    IMHO the construction of a "solid" libyan future will depend very much from western and arab approach to what we call "support".

    For Europe it could be a very good test if we europeans are able to conceive a unitarian foreign policy. If Italy, France, GB, Germany will have their "man in Tripoli" (with his own gang of armed individuals, tribe etc...) the outcome is predictable: total caos.
    Everyone who knows the Libyan character knows that everyone will scramble to find a way to gain some power (and money) in the business of restarting the country. Corruption will be rampant and now we have a bunch of weapons to add tothe normal burocratic means to manage a power base and gain some backshish.

    When the NATO will exhaust his military role there will be no political steering with such a strong legitimacy. Then the EU should kick in but we sould find the Ashton ghost.... (Anyone where is she?)

    Italy seems topoint to Jalloud, France to Jalil, maybe Great Britain is in touch with someone in Bengazi. If European politician doesn' understand that only a unified approach could achieve something the future will be bleak.

    Italy has tried this strategy: it backfired at the first occasion because we could not offer any kind of political shield with this US administration.
    France (if Sarkozy could be called France) seems to have a better understanding of this strange "Obama doctrine" but without Italy is very difficult to stabilize Libya. The same for GB.

    Let's hope for a european awakening. It's the only real strategic way out.

  14. #14
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default Libya: Ensuring a Smooth and Peaceful Transition into the Post-Qaddafi Era

    ICG just issued a letter on post Qaddafi Libya. It resumes well most of the worries and challenges for future Libya:
    As Libyans prepare for the Qaddafi regime's imminent demise, the country faces a pivotal moment of historic proportions. Steps taken in the next few days and weeks will decisively shape the post-Qaddafi order. The new, still nascent, Libyan leadership, faces a dual, difficult legacy which it will need to overcome: four decades of an autocratic regime that failed to build genuine state institutions and six months of a civil war that, together with inevitable human and material losses, exposed old divisions and fissures while prompting new ones. The challenge for that leadership, as well as for international actors who enabled its drive into Tripoli, is threefold: to establish a broadly inclusive and representative transitional governing body; address immediate security risks; and find an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the search for accountability and justice and, on the other, the imperative of avoiding arbitrary score-settling and revenge.
    As rebel fighters stream into Tripoli, they will come upon the collapse of a quasi-state, the Jamahiriya, or so-called "state of the masses" - a somewhat jerry-built contraption created by Muammar Qaddafi that, however sincere it might have been at its revolutionary inception, became a vehicle to advance his personal and political ambitions. It is this twin challenge - replacing an autocratic regime and rebuilding a new state from the ground up - that will be so daunting for the new leadership.
    Further complicating this task are the inevitable difficulties in establishing the national legitimacy of Libya's new leaders. The Transitional National Council (TNC), created in rebel-held Benghazi in March 2011, could stake a clear claim to representing Libyans in areas free of regime control, and it has done a remarkable job in constituting basic institutions to manage civic life in those areas and attract international support. Yet the TNC never could claim to represent all Libyans, even if it broadly reflected their aspirations, for the simple reason that most Libyans, especially in the capital Tripoli, were not in a position to freely voice their opinions or participate openly in the TNC, whose membership was therefore wei ghted, by default, toward those in liberated zones. The TNC will now have to reflect in its membership all of Libya in its full diversity, and merge its administrative operations with those of the remaining, functioning public sector institutions.
    Six months of insurgency, while ultimately successful, created, laid bare or exacerbated divisions - both within the country at large, along regional, ethnic or tribal lines and within the rebel leadership, as evidenced in the 28 July assassination, apparently at rebel hands, of rebel commander Abdel Fattah Younes. A clash of competing legitimacies - between forces based in the east and those based in the west, those who fired the first shots, those who first entered Tripoli, those who remained in Libya throughout the Qaddafi era (and, in some cases, worked for the former regime) and those who return from the diaspora - is virtually inevitable. There will be, too, tensions between secular and Islamist forces. None of t his suggests that it will be impossible to create a unified government, or a single military force under civilian control, merely that much hard work will need to be done very quickly to reduce the real risk of the country slipping into chaos.
    In this context, Libya's rulers will need to urgently turn their attention to the following areas:
    Political legitimacy: Libya's new leaders, led by the TNC, should convene, at the earliest opportunity, an inaugural council meeting in Tripoli, inviting representatives from all parts of the country and all strands of society and the opposition - various rebel groups, as well as local underground resistance groups in Tripoli and elsewhere - to participate. Indeed, the TNC should strive to be fully inclusive, embracing qualified former-regime elements who were not direct perpetrators of human rights abuses, lest their exclusion create the conditions for a future insurgency of the kind that blighted post-2003 Iraq. The TNC should strive to be transparent in its actions and, along with local leaders and rebel groups, should c ommunicate its decisions clearly, explaining its motivation for each step in a situation where people can be expected to harbour an innate distrust of authority. Particularly important to Libyans is transparency in contracts and provision of services. The expanded council should continue to make clear it is a strictly provisional body charged with managing day-to-day affairs. Its focus should be on providing law and order and ensuring proper delivery and functioning of essential services until elections can be held.
    Security, law and order: How the new leaders deal with law and order will be essential in determining popular perceptions of their qualifications to run the country in the interim period. In the critical first days, the erstwhile rebel groups should fill the security vacuum left by the surrender or disappearance of the former regime's security forces. They should stop distributing arms to the population and instead begin collecting and securing them. They should integrate whatever viable elements of the former regime's security forces can be retained into a new structure led by commanders appointed and supervised by the interim ruling council. The disparate, mostly community-based rebel movements and their various leaders= 0and commanders should take steps to protect and ensure the well-being of all Libyans, with special care for internally displaced people, Libyans and non-Libyans. Particular attention should be paid to protecting citizens of sub-Saharan nations who were swept up in the conflict, whether as hapless victims, paid mercenaries or misplaced migrants. There is also a risk that Libyans of Saharan or sub-Saharan African origin could be victimised by retributive or retaliatory actions. In this respect, every effort should be made to protect groups such as the Mashashia, the Twergha and other native Libyans from the country's centre and south.
    Transitional justice and reconciliation: One of the most glaring omissions of Iraq's transition from tyranny was the new rulers' failure to establish a mechanism to hold to account those who committed major crimes, while allowing others to clear their record or obtain pardon on condition they provided full disclosure of their participation in the regime. Instead, de-Baathification became a political instrument of disenfranchisement and retribution. This explains Iraqis' enduring inability to reach a degree of closure about the past and accounts for the continuing impetus toward insurgency.
    Libyans should not be led down this destructive track of politicised score-settling and witch-hunts. One of the interim ruling council's immediate tasks should be to urge fighters under its command and the population at large to foreswear any reprisal against former-regime elements, including members of the Qadhafi family, who should be treated in accordance with principles of international law. Those suspected of crimes should be detained and brought to justice before proper judicial institutions. The council also should establish a special commission, comprising independent Libyan figures of impeccable qualifications and reputation, charged with processing persons accused of crimes with a view to integrating most back into society while= 0handing the worst offenders, including Qadhafi's inner circle, over to the courts (and those indicted by the International Criminal Court to the ICC in The Hague).
    All of these priorities - whether calling together a truly representative interim council; ensuring law and order along with efficient weapons collection; or putting in train transparent justice mechanisms - will require clear, consistent messaging on the part of the emerging leadership. In fluid situations such as prevail now in Libya, the risk of misinformation - and consequent panic - is acute. Emphasis must be placed, from the start, on effective communication. In this respect, initial statements emanating from the TNC leadership to the effect that all Libyans should show self-restraint, respect the rule of law, avoid street justice and accord due process to figures from the Qaddafi regime are to be welcomed - and put into effect.
    Members of the international community should match their military campaign with a new and commensurate political, diplomatic and reconstruction/development-focused effort. In this context, the UN should be given a central role in the transition process. In providing assistance to Libya, however, international actors they should steer clear of any overbearing tendency to dictate terms for international aid, instead working jointly through the UN to deliver assistance requested by the interim ruling council and eventually its elected successors. In the short term, there is the risk of a humanitarian crisis, and - in addition to the lifting of sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council -- significant international work should go into 20helping provide sustenance and shelter to those in need.
    As the struggle to bring an end to the Qadhafi regime comes to a close, the effort to build a new Libya whose government is representative, which meets the basic aspirations of its people and avoids the settling of past scores begins. Amid today's understandable euphoria, the magnitude of tomorrow's challenge ought not be underestimated.
    http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/public...ddafi-era.aspx

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Swansea, Wales, UK.
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Graycap View Post
    IMHO the construction of a "solid" libyan future will depend very much from western and arab approach to what we call "support".

    For Europe it could be a very good test if we europeans are able to conceive a unitarian foreign policy. If Italy, France, GB, Germany will have their "man in Tripoli" (with his own gang of armed individuals, tribe etc...) the outcome is predictable: total caos.
    Everyone who knows the Libyan character knows that everyone will scramble to find a way to gain some power (and money) in the business of restarting the country. Corruption will be rampant and now we have a bunch of weapons to add tothe normal burocratic means to manage a power base and gain some backshish.

    When the NATO will exhaust his military role there will be no political steering with such a strong legitimacy. Then the EU should kick in but we sould find the Ashton ghost.... (Anyone where is she?)
    Italy seems topoint to Jalloud, France to Jalil, maybe Great Britain is in touch with someone in Bengazi. If European politician doesn' understand that only a unified approach could achieve something the future will be bleak.

    Italy has tried this strategy: it backfired at the first occasion because we could not offer any kind of political shield with this US administration.
    France (if Sarkozy could be called France) seems to have a better understanding of this strange "Obama doctrine" but without Italy is very difficult to stabilize Libya. The same for GB.

    Let's hope for a european awakening. It's the only real strategic way out.
    I saw part of an interview with her on BBC/Sky news. She spoke a lot but didn't really say anything if you get me. I won't get into an Ashton rant. It seems the EU are the best vehicle for the post conflict Libya, security sector reform, soft power policies etc. All about how long it takes to find Big G (Gaddafi) whether or not those around him will no defect.

  16. #16
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Graycap View Post
    For Europe it could be a very good test if we europeans are able to conceive a unitarian foreign policy. If Italy, France, GB, Germany will have their "man in Tripoli" (with his own gang of armed individuals, tribe etc...) the outcome is predictable: total caos.
    I guess we'll do something similar as we did with the Palestinian authorities, except with a bit more personal attention by the French president.




    Now some relevant humour...
    Last edited by Fuchs; 08-24-2011 at 04:12 PM.

  17. #17
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Six months later, I still contend there is not an ounce of real as opposed to presumed or wanna-be assumed US interest in Libya.
    Libyan forces possess, or possessed, SA-24s. It is very much in our interest that those missiles be gotten control of. I imagine it would be easier for us to do that given that we are involved in an important way. This may not be a big picture consideration, but if those things showed up in the wrong place it would be bad.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  18. #18
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Why do WE need to get control of them???

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Libyan forces possess, or possessed, SA-24s. It is very much in our interest that those missiles be gotten control of. I imagine it would be easier for us to do that given that we are involved in an important way. This may not be a big picture consideration, but if those things showed up in the wrong place it would be bad.
    France, Italy and the UK are fairly trustworthy -- in the eyes of many, more so than is the US...

    Given the net costs to us thus far even if those Grinches got into the hands of the Evil Enema and were to down a bird or a few, I doubt the cost benefit ratio works out well. That without adding any US efforts on the ground, post conflict (After the screaming about the US getting others to do their dirty work then stepping in at the end to hog glory, credit --and Grinches <--[the eyeroll is for those 'others' folks, not the Grinches...]). As I said, real as opposed to assumed...

  19. #19
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Given the net costs to us thus far even if those Grinches got into the hands of the Evil Enema and were to down a bird or a few, I doubt the cost benefit ratio works out well.
    That is just a tad glib, especially to the crews of the bird or two, especially if the bird was a C-17 climbing out of Kandahar with load of wounded soldiers. Preventing that kind of thing seems a real US interest to me. The cost benefit ratio you can argue with others. It is a US interest.

    Fuchs:

    That's me, looking at the world through thick lens' of distortion, thinking that a very sophisticated shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile, that was designed by some very proficient people to defeat our countermeasures, in the hands of people who would do us ill, might actually do us ill. Talk of context mystifies me. All I can think of is our ops throughout the world depend on unfettered air ops and that possession of a sophisticated missile in the hands of insurgent forces had some pretty profound consequences in the past.

    There now that I've vented my spleen, I really don't understand why you think concern about this is irrational.
    Last edited by carl; 08-25-2011 at 08:54 PM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  20. #20
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I can do glib. I can also do focus. Give it a try...

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    ...especially to the crews of the bird or two,
    That's focused...
    especially if the bird was a C-17 climbing out of Kandahar with load of wounded soldiers.
    That would be most regrettable. Particularly as I've got a son working out of KAF as we write but unfortunately, things like that happen in wars. It goes with the territory. He knows and accepts that and so do I.
    Preventing that kind of thing seems a real US interest to me.
    Of course it does. Regrettably, while it is a minor interest, it is also virtually impossible to prevent that sort of thing. One should try to preclude things like that but this:
    The cost benefit ratio you can argue with others.
    gets in the way of the precluding effort.

    It's a question of priorities and of scale. As I mentioned elsewhere yesterday, we kill more people in automobile accidents OR medical misadventures in the US every year than we've had killed in 10 long years of this so-called war on whatever. Rex Brynen's 747 or your C-17 would be bad and unwanted events but either could happen if all the Grinches were scuffed up and accounted for by the French. Conversely, even if none of the missiles were located, those events might not ever occur. You may not like the cost benefit ratio but it must be considered and will be. No need for anyone to argue it, it is what it is and the decision makers are unlikely to listen to me or to you.

    I too worry about thing like loose missiles but I can do the math -- and that does not favor putting US forces on the ground in Libya. It does not preclude it but it certainly doesn't make it desirable...
    It is a US interest.
    As you said, it is -- to you. More correctly, it is a US interest that to you merits our intervention on the ground. The problem with which you're confronted is that the planners and policy maker will look upon that as an ancillary issue if there is a decision to send folks in. It is an item to consider if force are there, it is not significant enough to justify a big effort on its own merits. Add all the potential issue and IMO, there is not adequate interest to send troops to Libya. YMMV.

    I do not propose to speak for Fuchs but this merits a response based on your perception of my comment.
    I really don't understand why you think concern about this is irrational.
    it's not irrational, it's sensible but like it or not, you bump into the cost-benefit ratio. You're suggesting certain and relatively easily calculated costs and impacts be absorbed to possibly prevent a possible harm. Two possibles don't outweigh a negative.
    Last edited by Ken White; 08-25-2011 at 10:49 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Coupla Questions From a Newbie
    By kwillcox in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-09-2007, 07:32 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •