And Libya goes on...

[Fuchs]

As Dayahun posted

Fuchs - Where does Germany and France get most of thier petrol products

Russia leads by far, followed by Norway and UK - then Libya.


Btw, the U.S. refineries are known for being obsolete due to marginal investments for decades - the European refineries are on the average not in such bad shape, at least not the Central European ones. I doubt that they would need to retool mush - and even if they did, we've got a huge industry sector for machine & tool production.

Overall I think a loss of the Libyan 7% oil imports would push us out of business as usual, but it wouldn't be a really major national problem.
In worst case we simply offer more money for gasoline than the East European can afford.

[Dayuhan]

We were the only ones who could have, and we should have.

You are absolutely correct that it would not have taken much to knock that genocide on the head.

One of these statements can be true, or the other can be, but not both. If it would not have taken much, the US were not the only ones who could have done it.

Then finally I believe that indifference degrades us as humans. I say OK turn your back and walk away but in so doing realise what that makes you as a person...

There's a difference between indifference and the knowledge that one nation cannot be handed the responsibility for assuring that the rest of the human race behaves. That's not a reasonable expectation and anyone that holds that expectation is going to be disappointed.

[carl]

Fuchs is correct, others had the capability. Even had they not we could have done what I got to do in '64 -- hop on a US C-130 and ferry and jump Belgique paratroopers in the Congo. We've provided airlift for many people going many places we did not send ground troops. LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK.

We didn't even offer airlift to others, and airlift is the one thing that we do better than anybody.

The mood in the US after the Mogadishu screw up by Delta and the Rangers -- and make no mistake, they're the ones that screwed the pooch -- was totally opposed to any intervention anywhere. Rwanda was the victim of two pieces of bad luck: Timing and not one single US interest. You may think stopping genocide is in the interest of the US. The folks who'd have gotten killed and their parents, wives and kids might disagree.No it's not a fallacy. A thing is either right or wrong. The issue with both China and Russia is not that we could not have stopped it because we could have -- the issue is the cost. What you're saying is if it appears * the cost won't be too high, we should go in, OTOH, if it might be too great, we just cannot.

A lot of ideas in the above paragraph. I would say the inside the beltway crowd was in no mood to do anything after Mogadishu. The Americans, if told that we were going to make a small effort but decisive effort to stop a genocide by the knife, would have been up for the effort. We are a great people handicapped by poor leaders, especially in that case.

It is true that 800,000 sliced and brain shattered to death Rwandans not dying was not in the vital interest of the US. The internet still worked, gas prices were low, beer was cheap and the Indians didn't win the world series. Life went on as pleasantly as before. But we could have kept most of those people from dying a wide eyed terror stricken death and that would have benefited them, humanity and thereby us.

The question of the human cost when viewed on an individual basis is unanswerable. What is worth a child? Has any war we've fought since the days of Indian attacks really been needed? We have oceans between us and them. It is my opinion that the men who would have gone, volunteer combat soldiers, if told that they were going to risk in order to save hundreds of thousands of innocents from having their heads bashed in; they would have been willing to chance it.

It is obviously a matter of cost. If a great good can be done with very little cost, you are rather less than justified in not doing it. Cost of course is a relative term. What is small cost for us is great cost to another and they cannot be blamed for not trying. If the 5 year old sees the 14 year old snatch the purse of the old lady, he isn't blamed for not helping. If the 27 year old olympic track star sees the same thing, he is blamed. It is not wrong that the track star is blamed because he didn't help and the 5 year is not blamed. We were the track star.

Do you really think we could have stopped Mao's China from causing the famines and the other evils? That track star can't be blamed for not going up to a pair of grizzly bears that are eating the mailman and punching them on the nose

So you're willing to interfere because the target is weak but not to do so if it is strong. I didn't present a fallacy because a wrong is a wrong -- you are engaging in moral equivalency -- do 'what's right' only if it might not hurt too much...

No that is not moral equivalency. That is a recognition of the practical realities of life. We do what we can when we can and mourn when we can't, if we genuinely can't. In the case of Rwanda, we could have but we didn't and we rationalize our failure.

How can you say with any degree of assurance that stopping the killing in Rwanda would be a "relatively small effort?"Oh? How so? Please tell me of what the US -- or I -- should be ashamed.

Are you looking for certainty? It won't be found anywhere. As for a guess as to the magnitude of the effort required to stop the slaughter, I say that from the history of the continent in the last 70 years, that chances were good that effort would have been relatively small. Also the slaughter stopped because the RPA stopped it, light armed, foot mobile troops who were outnumbered by the killers. That may be another indicator.

You don't have to be ashamed. The Americans don't have to be ashamed, they would have responded if asked. America should be ashamed because the leaders we elect didn't act. I am ashamed because of that.

Many here say others were capable of helping the Rwandans live. In an absolute physical sense they were. But that overlooks the relative likelyhood of somebody helping if the cost is small vs. large. For us the cost would have been relatively small. But even that overlooks something much more important; the heart for it. When I say we were the only ones, it is as much a matter of us occasionally having the heart for it vs. the others not having the heart for it. We would have had the heart for it if our leaders had not been feckless and had asked. The other countries would probably have followed. That is the reason we, the US, were the only chance those dead Rwandans had, and we let them down.

It is well to say if we don't act then the others will have to. Maybe that is true. But even if it is it will be a long time before they develop the heart for it. In the meantime, innocents pay.

The way it is is we are the leaders, if we act the others will follow. If we act in a small way in Libya now, the others will follow, slowly maybe but they will. If we don't they won't act. Besides now, we even have an interest or two and the Libyan rebels will take great heart from it.

[JMA]

That is the reason we, the US, were the only chance those dead Rwandans had, and we let them down.

Correct. And with that down the toilet goes the US reputation as the leader of the free world. Little wonder tin pot dictators can just sit back and thumb their noses at the US and the EU. They know the US is mainly hot air and hollow threats.

It is well to say if we don't act then the others will have to. Maybe that is true. But even if it is it will be a long time before they develop the heart for it. In the meantime, innocents pay.

Its called leadership. You watch toddlers develop it in the playground and see the others happily follow their lead. You hope your kid is one of the natural leaders but that can't be guaranteed.

What we see from the US over the North Africa matters of the recent past is not leadership. The President, the Clinton woman and others have a lot to say on what's going on but offer no concrete action. Why are they doing all this talking and issuing of statements if they are not going to do anything? Maybe the Russians are getting it nearer correct with what seems to be the approach of "don't open your mouth unless you are prepared to back it up with action" - or the old "don't draw your weapon unless you are prepared to use it" .

Obviously the Obama administration does not understand the first thing about leadership. I ask myself after hearing one of these "talking head" speeches what the speaker wants the reaction to be? Is he/she just trying to seem knowledgeable or informed or are they wanting to stimulate some sort of reaction?

Take Obama and Libya. What does he say? That he wants Gaddafi to stop killing the people or he is going to sic the security council on him (while knowing full well that the two regimes with equally low human rights records stand ready to veto any aggressive action). What does the world see? A weak and vacillating excuse for a leader. Does he come across that he really cares for the people of Libya or is it that he is just going through the motions? The bottom line is that there is no US leadership on the matter... so the best advice is for someone to tell him and the Clinton woman to rather just shut up.

The way it is is we are the leaders, if we act the others will follow. If we act in a small way in Libya now, the others will follow, slowly maybe but they will. If we don't they won't act. Besides now, we even have an interest or two and the Libyan rebels will take great heart from it.

You know we watched the British empire run out of steam where the Brits were no longer up to the challenges that the leadership of a vast empire demanded anymore. They just wimped away into the sunset suffering one diplomatic humiliation after the other. Still believe it or not there are Brits who want a world class navy with reach and a military capable of responding all over the globe at a moments notice. Its over, gone, finished.

Quo vadis the US?

[Bob's World]

There is a simple map that David Galula put in the back of his "Counterinsurgency Warfare" that is very telling. It essentially divides the world of the early 1960s into three parts. There is the "Capitalist Countries" block on the upper left; the "Communist Countries" block on the upper right; and holding up both of those at the base is the "Colonial and Semicolonial countries" block.

During the Cold War the countries of Capitalist and Communist blocks competed for influence among the countries of the Colonial and Semicolonial block in a persistent engagement of UW and FID, depending on where one had a relationship with the government, or where one was working to leverage some populace group into power as a new government.

In 1989 the Communist block stopped playing. They had turned internal, and were focused on core survival and reorganization within the block. This in turn negated the national interest that had driven much of the US engagement in the Colonial and Semi Colonial block for the previous 40+ years. So we remained engaged where we had interests tied to our economy (markets, sea lanes, energy) and also turned our back on much of the rest.

This logical decision by the U.S. had two painful secondary effects: First, it meant that unstable countries that had been held to some degree of balance by the engagement efforts of the two northern groups quickly fell out of balance, and events devolved to genocide in places like Somalia, Rwanda and the Balkans before there was sufficient media uproar to cause the US to reluctantly act on humanitarian grounds.

The second negative effect was that populaces in those countries where we sustained our system of Cold War controls/relationships began to increasingly grow less tolerant of a presence that they could no longer rationalize. This in turn was inflamed by governments in those countries which had largely been freed from any duty to draw legitimacy from their own populace to act with an ever growing sense of impunity and entitlement.

It was onto this scene that AQ emerged, empowered by the information and transportation tools of an emerging age to begin, as a non-state Actor, to play the same game that the big boys had played throughout the Cold War. Conducting FID where they had relations with a government, and UW where they sought to leverage some dissatisfied populace to create new governments favorable to them.

Now the US has a choice, we can continue to play the old game against this frustratingly slippery non-state actor that has functional sanctuary from most of the tools of statecraft; or we can design and play a new game. One that is less controlling and more sensitive to the will of the people.

I vote, as most here appreciate, for the latter. The "Good Cold Warriors" had a good run, but what they know and understand is far less relevant today than they are willing to appreciate or acknowledge. They default to "harder and faster" at the old techniques. What we need is less of that, and a little more "smarter."

[omarali50]

I dont think the US should have jumped in with guns blazing into Libya. But I agree that Obama and Hillary are trying to have it both ways, saying things like "this will not be tolerated" while knowing fully well that they have no serious plan to do anything about it.
It would have been at least a little bit better to be more upfront. Let the rebels AND the Arab league ASK for US help. Emphasize that they are the ones saying they dont want American intervention. And maybe ask if liberals and leftists want the US to invade countries to establish democracy? At least it would have been interesting to see how that was handled...
saying less would probably have been better for Obama and Hillary. Doing more may have been even better if there were clever and workable plans out there, but there probably were not. We are at a different point in history and this is not the Punjab and the Frontier in the 1850s with Nicholseyn and Abbot running around...So it would have been better to aim low...
But then again, I may be wrong.. Maybe realpolitik demands a different combination of aggression and lies.... in which case, the indictment against the Obama administration is more serious...they have proved to be bad at both the aggression and the lying.
Still, its not like the Chinese are going to run the world now. Nobody is running the world. Which may be all for the best. Its not like we didnt have two world wars and a lot of smaller messes while the Western powers were in charge. Maybe most people in the US will actually do fine if the US doesnt have an overseas empire and is not playing world cop at great expense.
My apologies for the incoherent post. I have to run, but had some random thoughts.

[J Wolfsberger]

Now the US has a choice, we can continue to play the old game against this frustratingly slippery non-state actor that has functional sanctuary from most of the tools of statecraft; or we can design and play a new game. One that is less controlling and more sensitive to the will of the people.

I vote, as most here appreciate, for the latter. The "Good Cold Warriors" had a good run, but what they know and understand is far less relevant today than they are willing to appreciate or acknowledge. They default to "harder and faster" at the old techniques. What we need is less of that, and a little more "smarter."

I agree that the old techniques may not work in today's world. So far, though, all we've seen are the old approaches favored by the domestic Left side of the Cold War. We, as in the "Capitalist Countries" block, seem to be spending all our time debating whether we should escalate our response from a "strongly deplore" to a full blown "harshly condemn" with a few voices recommending a deescalation to a simple "view with alarm." And while they're doing that, the rebels in Libya are getting hammered by Gaddafi's Tuareg mercenaries. The best response our Secretary of State can come up with is an absurd statement that we won't tolerate actions we are clearly tolerating.

So, I'm in agreement that we need a new game. But what does it look like?

[Bob's World]

It looks a lot like Star Trek. Do not harm, remain neutral. Have the full power of the Enterprise on station to employ as necessary, and never be the guy sent on deployment with a listing such as "crew member" in the credits...

[carl]

...never be the guy sent on deployment with a listing such as "crew member" in the credits...

Or girl either. I used to hate that. They always would kill off the prettiest girl crewmember.

[AdamG]

Narrator's voice (sotto voce) : Meanwhile, back at the Topic...

“The UAE Air Force can deploy couple of squadrons – one F-16 Block 60 and another Mirage 2000-9 – the Saudi Air Force can deploy a couple of F-15S squadrons and Egypt a couple of F-16 squadrons out of Mersi Matrouh Air Base in western Egypt,” Al-Bu Ainnain said. “This would provide 120 fighters and attack aircrafts that would be backed with airborne early warning planes like Egyptian E-2C Hawkeye or Saudi AWACS, some unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for reconnaissance, and air-refueling tankers from Saudi Arabia and couple of Egyptian or UAE helicopter squadrons comp osed of Apache Longbow gunships, Blackhawks and Chinook helicopters, for search and rescue missions.” Crews and troops needed for the operation could be quickly airlifted to western Egypt, and even Algeria, within hours using a large fleet of UAE and Egyptian C-130 and Qatari C-17 transporters.

*

According to reports out of Libya, only few Su-22 and MiG-23 aircrafts were seen involved in the air raids in addition to MiMi-24 gunships. As for Air Defense, Gadhafi’s forces are believed to be in possession of a few batteries of Soviet-era SAM-2, SAM-3 and SAM-6 surface to air missiles. “All of the Libyan Air Defense SAM’s and radars can be taken out swiftly by the arsenal of smart weapons and cruise missiles in possession today by GCC and Egyptian Air Forces,” Al-Bu Ainnain said. “Runways can be destr oyed with bunker-busters to ground all the jets, and the gunships can be easily destroyed on the ground.” He pointed out that GCC and Egyptian Air Forces have considerably enhanced their joint-operations capabilities as a result of almost annual exercises they have done together along with the U.S. and some EU countries. “Issues related to command and control and interoperability would be resolved quickly which would ensure a smooth running of NFZ operations.”

http://www.eurasiareview.com/analysi...zone-11032011/

[Surferbeetle]

If you can dream-and not make dreams your master;
If you can think-and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:

Gulf states send force to Bahrain following protests, 14 March 2011 Last updated at 11:58 ET, at BBC

Troops from a number of Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, have arrived in Bahrain in response to a request from the small Gulf kingdom, officials say.

The troops are part of a deployment by the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC), a six-nation regional grouping which includes Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

It is believed they are intended to guard key facilities such as oil and gas installations and financial institutions.

The intervention from Bahrain's predominantly Sunni neighbours may deepen the rift between Shia and Sunni Muslims in Bahrain and beyond, says the BBC's Middle East analyst Magdi Abdelhadi.

France and Libya, Sarkozy's Libyan surprise, Mar 14th 2011, 13:12 by S.P. | PARIS at the Economist

AS HILLARY CLINTON prepares to discuss Libya with President Nicolas Sarkozy this afternoon, she could be forgiven for a touch of confusion about what exactly the French are up to. In an attempt to make up for complicity and dithering in Tunisia and Egypt, France has stuck its neck out over Libya. After initial hesitations, it has become the most vigorous advocate of a no-fly zone over the country, and is working with Britain on a UN Security Council resolution to this end. So far, so commendable. But its apparent decision last week to recognise the Libyan opposition—the first big western power to do so—surprised not only France’s allies but members of Mr Sarkozy’s own government.

Energy markets braced for shock, By Javier Blas, commodities editor, Published: March 13 2011 16:56 | Last updated: March 13 2011 16:56, at the Financial Times

Japan has shut down 9,700 megawatts of nuclear capacity, which equals about a fifth of the total. The country no longer influences energy markets as it once did because of its shift away from oil but the loss of nuclear power will force Tokyo’s utilities to scramble for crude, thermal coal and LNG as replacements.

If the country were to replace all its shutdown nuclear capacity with oil, it would have to import 375,000 barrels a day more on top of Japan’s expected purchases this year of about 4.25m b/d.

[Ken White]

We didn't even offer airlift to others, and airlift is the one thing that we do better than anybody.

Not least because no one wanted it. You might consider that and wonder why...

A lot of ideas in the above paragraph...We are a great people handicapped by poor leaders, especially in that case.

Perhaps. I'm not all that sure we're such a great people. If we were, then as JMA likes to point out, we wouldn't elect such feckless leaders...

It is true that 800,000 sliced and brain shattered to death Rwandans not dying was not in the vital interest of the US...But we could have kept most of those people from dying a wide eyed terror stricken death and that would have benefited them, humanity and thereby us.

Another perhaps. The likelihood is that we would have stopped some deaths but not all that many -- takes time to deploy nationwide, even in a small nation. Then we would have been castigated for not doing it right or doing enough -- and would have had an indeterminate number of US casualties in the process. You and JMA can dismiss those casualties, politicians in a democratic state cannot. Commanders of Armies in such nations should not.

The question of the human cost when viewed on an individual basis is unanswerable... they would have been willing to chance it.

Had they been ordered to go they would have -- not quite the same thing as your comment. That, however misses the point that to get them to Rwanda under any circumstances requires an order. The reluctance to issue that order was very sensible IMO. You and JMA do not agree -- your prerogative. It was not in our national interest to do that and, once more, one cannot ascribe human traits to a nation. Nations are not and should not be altruistic.

It is obviously a matter of cost. If a great good can be done with very little cost, you are rather less than justified in not doing it.

That's one way to look at it and as you say, cost is relative -- and a judgement call.

We were the track star.

That statement may be the crux of our disagreement. I disagree that we are that. We do have some capabilities -- we also have some very significant shortfalls. It is my sensing that you and JMA do not care about those or are not fully conversant with them. Those shortfall also had an effect on the decision to not go. Without going into excruciating detail on those problems, they were highlighted by the experience in Mogadishu -- at that time fresh in everyone's mind. Particularly in the minds of those with the responsibility to make the decision. Many with no responsilbity in that regard disagreed at the time as you now do.

Do you really think we could have stopped Mao's China from causing the famines and the other evils?

Yes.

That track star can't be blamed for not going up to a pair of grizzly bears that are eating the mailman and punching them on the nose.

Moral equivalency -- either one has a perceived duty to intervene if evil is being done or one does not. It is not a conditional thing.

The fact is that we could have stopped either Russia or China but the cost would have been ferocious, perhaps unsustainable -- certainly true if we had tried to interfere in both. The cost of interfering in Rwanda would probably have been less but there would still have been a cost. You are willing, you say, to have asked Americans to underwrite that cost. Whether you -- or JMA -- would have done so with the actual responsibility is not known.

What we both are saying there, regardless of morality, is that intervening in China or Russia does not pass the cost:benefit test. You believe Rwanda does pass that test, I do not. JMA may also believe it does or he may be frying other fish, either way it is -- was -- a judgement call as was that on China and Russia and it was made as it was, ergo, you two are in a minority position. That doesn't mean either of you is wrong or that I an others are correct -- just that a judgement was applied and a decision made. For good or bad, it's now history and isn't gong to be changed.

No that is not moral equivalency. That is a recognition of the practical realities of life.

Actually it's both...

We do what we can when we can and mourn when we can't, if we genuinely can't.

And that is rationalizing the unfairness of having to adjust to practicalities...

In the case of Rwanda, we could have but we didn't and we rationalize our failure.

Who is this "we." You aren't rationalizing it, you just believe it was a bad decision. I'm not rationalizing it, I believe it was the correct decision, therefor I do not see it as a failure. Some may, they certainly can do so if they wish.

Are you looking for certainty? It won't be found anywhere.

Heh. After 45 years in a trade that knows no certainty, I'm certainly neither looking for it nor do I expect it. What I can do is assess probabilities and look at that same 70 years and determine that interventions there have not ended well -- for anyone.

You don't have to be ashamed.

That's nice.

The Americans don't have to be ashamed, they would have responded if asked.

That's one thing we can agree on. The issue is whether they should have been 'asked.'

America should be ashamed because the leaders we elect didn't act.

Hmm. That's one opinion. Mine differs.

I am ashamed because of that.

Also your prerogative.

I'm not one bit ashamed about Rwanda -- I am however ashamed of the way this Nation, America, your paragon of virtue, has treated those from other nations where it has intervened. The plight of the South Korean agents and operators we shipped north, of the Hmong and the numerous south Viet Namese we employed for various things, of the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs and Southern Iraqi Shia among others we have abandoned. Those things are something to be bothered about...

As JMA has said, correctly, America has proven it cannot be relied upon ( * )...

Many here say others were capable of helping the Rwandans live...That is the reason we, the US, were the only chance those dead Rwandans had, and we let them down.

I believe that statement to problematic on many levels but this is no place for an ideological discussion. Suffice to say IMO we were not the only chance by a long shot but other nations did not intervene as they did not believe it was in their interest to do so. So also did we decide that was the case. You disagree. That's okay.

It is well to say if we don't act then the others will have to. Maybe that is true. But even if it is it will be a long time before they develop the heart for it. In the meantime, innocents pay.

As they always have and likely always will. Unfair world.

The way it is is we are the leaders, if we act the others will follow. If we act in a small way in Libya now, the others will follow, slowly maybe but they will. If we don't they won't act. Besides now, we even have an interest or two and the Libyan rebels will take great heart from it.

I do not agree with that assessment. The JMA position stated above ( * ) applies.

I think it has never been fully correct, is excessively idealistic and is even a bit romantic. I realize that many in the US and around the world believe -- or want to believe -- in that to one extent or another but I see it a flawed wish with little basis in fact or history. People will not follow our lead, they will do what we pay for (to include provision of airlift, equipment and personnel costs as we did for the Koreans and Thais in Viet Nam and have done elsewhere to include Iraq and Afghanistan) or accompany us for no pay if they see it as in their interest to do so. I also suggest that attitude, that misperception, has led us into numerous foreign adventures since WW II and NONE of them have been unqualified successes while all of them have lessened our status in the eyes of many to one degree or another.

People can be led and will give of them selves. Nations cannot be led and they don't give anything without a reason that provides at least some benefits to themselves. It is IMO very unrealistic to wish that were not so nor am I at all certain the world would be better off for such an attitude. Depends on one's attitude toward what government ought to be doing -- and bicycle helmets -- I suppose.

As I said, unfair world.

To return to our regularly scheduled programming, Libya is also not in our interest. IMO, of course.

[ganulv]

Lafayette was only dispatched to the Continental Army after the Battles of Saratoga because the French were awaiting indication that they were putting money down on a winner. What indication have the anti-Qaddafi forces given that U.S. involvement at this juncture would amount to military aid rather than service as a proxy army?

[carl]

Lafayette was only dispatched to the Continental Army after the Battles of Saratoga because the French were awaiting indication that they were putting money down on a winner.

Lafayette arranged to enter American service in Dec of 1776. He arrived in April of 1777, some months before the Battles of Saratoga were fought. I always thought he came here because of personal enthusiasm for the cause. When he he arrived he was only 20 years old and at least according to Wikipedia, the king ordered him not to come.

What indication have the anti-Qaddafi forces given that U.S. involvement at this juncture would amount to military aid rather than service as a proxy army?

Military aid can range from sending surplus socks to landing the entire Marine Corps and putting all the B-52s at the disposal of the Benghazi Chamber of Commerce. What we send, if we provide anything beyond encouraging words, is in our hands.

[ganulv]

He arrived in April of 1777, some months before the Battles of Saratoga were fought.

Against Louis’ orders. He returned in 1780 with his blessing and news of aid.

[Ken White]

What we send, if we provide anything beyond encouraging words, is in our hands.

That's only true so far it is conditioned by other commitments, by other potential contingencies and other Theater requirements as well as, for such an operation, the tangible costs and amount of risk (human [us and them], political, military and economic) we see commensurate with or measured against the potential for any benefits.

I sadly note that feeling good or morally superior is not a reward or benefit for a nation as opposed to generally being so for individuals or some groups of them.

[Surferbeetle]

The Economist has a very interesting interactive tool on their website, entitled Arab unrest, Build your own revolutionary index, Mar 14th 2011, 14:06 which takes a look at 17 separate countries in the ME (to include Libya), and aids you in developing an estimate for a revolutionary index by allowing you to varying values for:

• Years in power
• % of population under 25
• Total population under 25
• GDP per person
• Democracy Ranking
• Corruption Ranking
• Press Freedom Ranking
• Adult literacy
• Internet users

Setting for Years in power (37%), Total population under 25 (12%), Corruption Ranking (16%), Adult literacy (15%), Internet users (16%) with minor % for the remainder lead to an interesting ranking...

Japan earthquake disrupts technology companies, 14 March 2011 Last updated at 14:56 ET, at BBC

Technology firms are facing major disruption to supplies in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami which have devastated parts of Japan.

Toshiba, which makes around a third of the world's NAND memory chips - found in devices such as Apple's iPad - said on Monday that it was restarting a chip factory in Iwate, northern Japan.

Even so, spot prices for 16-gigabit NAND flash memory chips rose sharply - up 12.5% from the close on 11 March, according to DRAMeXchange, Asia's largest spot market for chips.

The seas around Japan are a major hub for undersea telecoms cables, forming a critical part of the global internet.

According to Stephan Beckert, an analyst with telecoms research group TeleGeography, several sub sea cables have been damaged as a result of the earthquake.

[Ken White]

Hard to disagree with that. He contends, accurately I believe, that we do not need to be overly concerned about what type of government others have. However, he also proposes a variation on part of that old cold war mentality, to wit, assisting in the provision of good governance. I've tweaked him often about the dichotomy of not interfering but assisting...

Which brings me to what constitutes interference (good) and interference (bad). Quite simply, I think the difference is a matter of individual opinion. However, I am convinced that ANY intereference of one nation into the affairs, bloody or not, of another which is based on nominal moral and / or humanitarian grounds is fraught with applying ones (or one group) judgement to a situation that one might not fully comprehend. That is not to say one cannot or should not so intervene.

It is to say one should be very well informed of all the potential pitfalls as well as all the apparent benefits. It is not enough that the intervention be seen as in the best interest of mankind (or subsets thereof).

I have no hesitation to advocate the use of force, all for it in fact -- however, I do think force carries with a responsibility to be used wisely and inappropriate amounts and I do think it should be used only after it is obvious other methods have failed. It is, in our case, a national asset and should be used only for those activities where it is appropriate, in the proper amount and in the national interest.

I first heard the phrase "We must do what we can..." in relation to fixing other nations in the early 1960s from a WH staffer who came to Fort Bragg to tell us why were were going to Laos. Unfortunately, that one didn't work out too well for us. I've heard it in variations many times since -- and none of those worked out very well either. Viet Nam in particular was a major drag. Iraq was not a 'cake walk.' We're still in Afghanistan -- and Kosovo -- remember that one "It'll only take a year..." Kosovo is an absolutely brilliant example of moral triumphalism overcoming common sense for no coherent reason.

In these 'failed state' and humanitarian imperatives' interventions, what a lot of well intentioned people are really try to do is shoot for the low hanging fruit and fix a few ills. Some are doing that solely for the potential publicity and pats on the back, most are truly sincere and well meaning.

A problem arises when we go after those 'we can' and reluctantly do not pursue or even mention where possible those in the too hard box. That's hypocritical in the eyes of many. That "many" are both in the US and in the wider world and if you think that little trick escapes notice from those in other nations, you need to get out on the street and talk, really talk, to the locals.

That unintended consequence is not in the national interest. Ever.

Well intentioned people who advocate 'fixing' wrongs, particularly when they have no intention of getting involved in the actual doing of that and will likely not be personally affected are, frankly, not helpful. While most truly mean well and are sincere, they often do not fully comprehend the forces they are likely to set in motion. In fact, I'm convinced such well intentioned types have done more harm to the US over the last 70 or so years than all the evil people, crooked politicians, chicanery and natural disasters combined.

Carter got snookered into going into Afghanistan while Clinton got snookered into going into Kosovo and Bush into Iraq. Will Obama get snookered into Libya? Stay tuned...

Though Moammar seems to be doing well enough that the issue may be moot. Some can then decry the failure of the West to react forcefully. I'm sure most are advocating that we do something forceful about Iran. At least, I guess they are...

[Fuchs]

Libya is a test of the self-discipline of principled doves.

I am against a military intervention (NFZ IS a military intervention!) by NATO in this case and similar cases.

I'm not opposed to more countries recognising the opposition 'government', to the UNSC legalising military intervention and some non-allied (to Germany) power intervening there.


We should prove that we can learn lessons without forgetting them in record tempo.

[Bob's World]

We should be able to influence Qadaffi short of employing direct military power. Why hit him over the head, when we can kick him in the crotch...or wallet, or whatever else it is that he values and that is vulnerable to "targeting."

We too often employ military strikes that punish the poor guys in the military or hurt the populace by destroying infrastructure; or employ sanctions like we did in Iraq for years that punish a populace that has no say in the governance.

When these guys vest all power in themselves, we need to make it equally personal when we seek to influence them. We need to understand what they value most, and engage that (ala the horses head in the bed of the movie mogul in Godfather part 1) We need to know where the pressure points are, and apply appropriate pressure. So smarter targeting is one aspect.


As to Ken's question regarding how to we influence without overly intervening that is a good question and one I think about a great deal. One concept that I think helps is the area of law known as "Master and Servant". From Black's law dictionary:

“The relation of master and servant exists where one person, for pay or other valuable consideration, enters into the service of another and devote to him his personal labor for an agreed period. The relation exists where the employer has the right to select the employee, the power to remove and discharge him and the right to direct both what work shall be done and the manner in which it shall be done.”

Within the borders of the US our government stays fairly on track in remembering that the government is the servant and the populace is the master in this relationship. As we go overseas to 1st world countries that slips a little; It slips more in 2nd world; and by the time we get to 3rd world countries it has completely inverted. In other words, we're not a very good house guest. This is one reason why the best COIN the US has ever done has been at home, because at home we remember that the government is the servant so we are quicker to make fixes in the government rather than impose them on the populace.

In places like Afghanistan we come to see ourselves as the Master and therefore are far more apt to force the local government and populace to adjust to us. Stepping out of that "master" mentality is one aspect of these new approaches that we need to adopt.

A work in progress...