Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
"The Libyan people" are hardly a unitary entity, and continued violence on their terms is as likely as liberty and good governance on their terms... probably more likely. Possibly I'm overly cynical, but in Libya or Yemen I'd count liberty and good governance among the least likely outcomes, in anything but a very long term.

Not really sure how we could "conduct peace" in Libya in a way that would, or even might, "create effects across the Arab World that serve to lessen the risk of terrorist attacks on the U.S." What effects do you propose to create, and how specifically do you propose to create them... especially given the very limited nature of our commitment in Libya and our even more limited ability to influence how events emerge there?
That no "populace" is some homogeneous entity is implied; that all effective COIN is difficult is a certainty. Both of these facts are incorporated in my comments, and neither detracts from their value.

As I have stated elsewhere, the challenging message that we must create with our efforts regarding Libya has many audiences. To "the populace" (yes, ever dynamic and with varying issues and concerns within and between nations) it must be one that the US is consistent with our principles and that we will not act overtly to deny for others what we demand for ourselves; but neither will we dash about the world to carry such causes on our back. To the governments of the region it is that the support of the U.S. does not come without condition. While history proves us to be far more respective of local legitimacy than those who have been similarly situated before us, our commitment to such largess has limits. We will not tolerate attacks on our own people by the people of others due to the bad acts those governments comment with impunity while emboldened and enabled by the nature of our intergovernmental relationships.

We have contributed to these conditions by disrupting natural shifts in the balance of power, both within and between nations in regions where we feel we have vital national interests to serve. For that we will not apologize, but we must none the less recognize that there are negative as well as positive effects from such engagement. We will not allow without consequence the government of any of these nations employ inappropriate violence to suppress their people. What those consequences should most appropriately be is what the Obama administration is attempting to sort out. It will vary by situation, but should be clearly consistent as well.

But this is our current problem:

In Libya we engage to protect the people against the government.

In Saudi Arabia we look away and publicly support the fiction that the Saudis are fighting "terrorists" when they subdue their populace through harsh ways and means.

In Afghanistan we vigorously act in support of the government in its efforts to violently suppress the insurgent elements of their populace.

We are conflicted. We really need to tighten our shot group on this.