And Libya goes on...

[jmm99]

"cousin" Andy's message vibrates my McCarthy heartstrings.

For those USAians who are serious about intervention in Libya, let them seek a congressional AUMF (not a complex piece of legislation and easily passed if you have the votes) and obtain the President's signature on it. Andy thinks that legislation would be DOA.

The alternative is ala Harry Truman (as in the Korean "police action" - obtain a UN SC resolution) and Bill Clinton (as in his Eastern European adventures). In which case, Andy's comments are worth repeating (empasis added):

It seems like a long time ago, but it is worth reminding ourselves that the only missions the American people supported involved destroying the terror network that attacked our nation on 9/11 and toppling its state sponsors. Unlike anything at stake in Libya, those are vital U.S. security interests. Iraq and Afghanistan became overwhelming commitments because of the conventional unwisdom that our security somehow hinges not only on defeating our enemies but on converting Muslim basket-cases into something resembling democracy.

And this, despite the absence of any Islamic democratic tradition; despite the tension between sharia and the Western principles that undergird our notion of democracy; and despite the dearth of evidence supporting the theory — and it is only a theory — that Country A’s being a democracy makes Country B safer from trans-continental terror networks skilled at exploiting democratic freedoms. (In point of fact, the evidence cuts in the other direction — unless you think places like Hamburg, Madrid, San Diego, and Westport, four of the many Western cities and towns where 9/11 was planned, are not democracies.)

So, a critical step that many miss (perhaps intentionally) is obtaining the approval of "We the People" for an African adventure.

If that were done, we (US) would still have to come up with the forces to do it - if, for example, a MAGTF (say, MEF size) would be adequate to handle Libya; and another MAGTF (say, MEB size) would be adequate to handle Somalia, where would they come from ?

Regards

Mike

[Stan]

Morning Stan!

As I survey the state of things on the 'interweb' over coffee this morning my take is that our negotiators are currently doing well.

IMHO we should be seriously preparing for a joint response which will mitigate the humanitarian and economic fallout that will result from the realignment of the Middle East. This will require a broad spectrum and long-term response which is not limited to just going out and shooting select people until some folks feel better.

Steve

Hey Steve !

Yeah, but I’m getting the hibigeebies over the rumors of British secret negotiations with the Colonel similar to our Prez offering Gbagbo refuge in the Peach State. Now what for the Colonel ? Does he get to take Lybia's booty from state coffers, or, does he just peacefully leave with the shirt on his back ?

Don’t get me started with our administration robbing Peter to pay Paul again – taking previously allotted humanitarian funds from progressing countries with real programs and dumping those dollars into another burning hole.

Gotta agree with many herein; best to sit this one out since we're not going to do anything (that will amount to anything), other than another financial burden.

Regards, Stan

Take them at their word, and you wind up in the same position as Qaddafi's soon to be dead enemies."

A shame that we have yet to learn this and apply it to our so-called diplomatic responses

[Steve Blair]

How warped we (US) have become is illustrated by the fact that the greatest amphibious force in the World has spent the last decade prowling about either desert or mountains.

Regards

Mike

I don't know that I'd say we've "become" that warped. I'd actually contend that we've just been plodding blindly down the "interventionist" path first blazed by Woodrow Wilson before World War I. There have been occasions where we've intervened (and chosen NOT to intervene) based on a clearheaded view of national interest, but I'd argue that they have been few and far between since Theodore Roosevelt (which should tell you how often I think we've screwed up in this area).

That said, I'd say that our moment to take effective action in Libya is long passed (if in fact there was a moment for us to take such action), and we should cut our losses. Not very PC, but it's where we're left standing. Better to quietly use whatever influence we have left in the region in areas where it might have been effect (Egypt, the Gulf States, and so on).

[Fuchs]

I don't know that I'd say we've "become" that warped. I'd actually contend that we've just been plodding blindly down the "interventionist" path first blazed by Woodrow Wilson before World War I.

Really?

I know that Wilson usually gets blamed for such things, but somehow I've still got my issues with explaining why exactly the Americans fought against the Barbary Pirates roughly a century earlier.

[J Wolfsberger]

Really?
... but somehow I've still got my issues with explaining why exactly the Americans fought against the Barbary Pirates roughly a century earlier.

Because they were seizing our ships and enslaving the crewmen.

[Fuchs]

Sure, beyond an ocean.

And of course, there died much less citizens in the conflict than became victims previously.

No, seriously. The U.S. was never fully isolationist, it was merely distracted by its Indian Wars from the typical adventures that governments of the time embarked upon f they had the resources.

Oklahoma Land Rush 1893 - few years later the war with Spain at Cuba and the Philippines (including the de facto colonization of the latter) plus the annexation of Hawaii and East Samoa, but a few years later Wilson was the bad, bad guy who steered the ship towards interventionism.

I don't buy it.

[Pete]

It was Wilson who announced his Fourteen Points in January 1918 as the basis for a peace settlement to end the First World War. They weren't as much a set of principles that justified intervention but rather the basis for redrawing the map of Europe after the war.

[davidbfpo]

I meant a No Fly Zone, not a NOZ.

The BBC TV News is reporting an Anglo-French force is being prepared to act, after diplomatic efforts with Arab nations - which has led to four nations promising air support - and at the UN.

Link on BBC World News:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12779628

A separate BBC story, citing UN sources:

Senior UN sources said British and French war planes could be in the air within hours to carry out initial air raids on Libyan positions, if the resolution is passed, possibly with logistical support from Arab allies.

[Fuchs]

I don't see their relevance to this discussion. Few of these points were pursued by the U.S. government later on anyway.

[Steve Blair]

Really?

I know that Wilson usually gets blamed for such things, but somehow I've still got my issues with explaining why exactly the Americans fought against the Barbary Pirates roughly a century earlier.

Wilson was the first to do it on a major, extended scale as opposed to one-offs. I'm not going to try to convince you, Fuchs. You've already made up your mind. But if you examine the record, Wilson was one of the first (note that I don't attribute the first ideological interventions to Wilson) to launch a series of interventions outside of the continental United States for what would now be termed purely ideological reasons. Roosevelt did some interventions, but for the most part he had what he considered sound policy reasons for them (and avoided those that he didn't have good policy reasons for...and Roosevelt avoided more than he actually intervened). Roosevelt's were also for the most part fairly limited.

And Pete, Wilson was launching his interventions before the U.S. got involved in World War I. The 14 Points stemmed from his ideological background, and didn't really provide a basis for his interventions. As you point out, they were intended more to shape postwar Europe.

I don't intend to continue this discussion per se, but more brought it up to illustrate that the US has always been spotty when it comes to this sort of thing.

[davidbfpo]

Yesterday I attended this briefing and tomorrow will add some points of note, e.g. AWACS (NATO or RAF?) and tankers moved to Cyprus.

Link is to the podcast, with a Q&A:http://www.iiss.org/events-calendar/...nal-community/

Brigadier Ben Barry, Senior Fellow for Land Warfare, assessed the state of the civil war.

Provided the rebels can maintain their morale and coherence’, he said, ‘we can expect them to hold out longer in larger towns, where it should be more difficult for government firepower to concentrate on rebel positions.

Note this was before the reports that Libyan state (Gaddafi loyalists) are nearing Benghazi.

[Cliff]

The UNSC just approved the NFZ resolution...

could be too late for the Libyans...

V/R,

Cliff

[JMA]

The UNSC just approved the NFZ resolution...

could be too late for the Libyans...

V/R,

Cliff

Too late for the Libyans? Maybe not.

Too late for the US to save face and retain credibility? Most certainly.

From the Daily Mail: After weeks of hesitancy over imposing a no-fly zone in Libya, the United States made a dramatic about-face, calling for even more expanded action, including strikes on Gaddafi's ground forces besieging rebel-held cities.

[J Wolfsberger]

Apparently it will be primarily the British and French, could start within hours and could include action against ground forces.

[Fuchs]

The UNSC just approved the NFZ resolution...

This basically reinforces my suspicion that both public and governments in the West are infected with serious air power hype and that Western governments are terribly incompetent in military strategy and the art of war.


The few old Mirages, MiGs and Suchois are hardly the key problem.
A smart approach would have attempted to break the loyalty and confidence of the indigenous pro-Gaddaffi troops.

[Ken White]

Too late for the Libyans? Maybe not.

Not sure pure air can swing it...

Though it's notable the UNSC Resolution doesn't limit itself to air power only.

Too late for the US to save face and retain credibility? Most certainly.

You're apparently a great deal more worried about that aspect than are we.

Whether by accident or by design, that dithering may have the extremely beneficial effect of forcing Europe -- and the region -- to take care of their own problems without insisting on the US being involved...

About time. Long overdue.

[Ken White]

This basically reinforces my suspicion that both public and governments in the West are infected with serious air power hype and that Western governments are terribly incompetent in military strategy and the art of war.


The few old Mirages, MiGs and Suchois are hardly the key problem.
A smart approach would have attempted to break the loyalty and confidence of the indigenous pro-Gaddaffi troops.

On both counts. You have any idea why Germany abstained?

Not a problem to me but I'm sure there's a good reason...

[Pete]

President Wilson was the first to state a comprehensive list of principles that guided U.S. foreign policy. I'm also aware of his previous interventions in Mexico, but it should be emphasized that the second one there by Wilson was provoked by an incident on American soil. Wilson has nothing to do with Libya and I've had no involvement in previous debates about this topic of Wilson, so I'd prefer to leave the subject alone.

[Rex Brynen]

On both counts. You have any idea why Germany abstained?

We couldn't possibly have the French, British, and Germans all agreeing on a common European security and defence policy issue. It would be un-European.

[Rex Brynen]

Not sure pure air can swing it...

I think it can certainly prevent a Qaddafi victory, given how small, overstretched, poorly motivated, and poorly-led his forces are--and how much latitude the UNSC resolution gives for selecting targets. Loyalist units have proven very poor at close combat, and have largely relied on tank, artillery, and naval fire to break rebel positions from a distance. Fortunately, Libya is one of those places where MBTs and MRLs stand out for miles.

It is also clear that Egyptians have already started military supply of the rebels, and I suspect that will morph to a quick-and-dirty train and equip soon. In the end, the Libyan opposition will have to win the all important ground part of this on their own.