And Libya goes on...

[J Wolfsberger]

This:

... we should never be relied upon to be consistent due to that 2, 4, 6, and 8 year roil of government.

Because it can not be over emphasized. Forgetting this fact will lead to much confusion and upset.

[davidbfpo]

JMA,

Yes I heard the UK Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, on BBC Radio 4 AM today talk about:

..the Brits are going to fund the evacuation by sea of 5,000 odd African migrant workers..(I don't recall next phrase) and the evacuation of wounded by ship...

BBC report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13115874

Details aside what is going to happen when the boats arrive and the Libyan residents seek to leave too? That would be interesting news footage, especially if it is women and children.

The BBC refers to medical aid going in and not an evacuation of the wounded.

[JMA]

He notes in the book that the US sent mixed signals and was ambivalent with regard to the uprising. Per a JMA comment elsewhere, the World at large has great difficulty in understanding US Foreign Policy. That is true, was so with regard to Hungary in 1956 as well as with Libya in 2011 and, in fact, has always been true of this nation back unto the Barbary Pirates and the War of 1812 -- it is a function of our system of governance which we are unwilling to change simply because others cannot understand it and do not like the often conflicting signals it sends which in turns can frustrate their desire for own coherent policies. Those signals conflict not due to dithering but rather because our governmental milieu is conflicted by design.

Its relatively simple Ken. If the US cannot put a coherent foreign policy together and articulate it clearly then it must accept that it will be misunderstood/distrusted/hated by people across the world.

I have noted with interest how shocked your average American is when he is confronted by hostility and distrust in places where they expected friendship and even a little respect and appreciation.

So Ken go ahead and flip the world and say "take us as we are or shove it" it just further reduces your circle of friends in the world.

The US has the unfortunate habit of wanting to be the bride at every wedding and the baby at every Christening but it often ends in tears when they end up as the corpse at the odd funeral.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Abu M and see:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...ote-day.html-0

Which cites WSJ reporting from Misurata; here there has been a flurry of reporting.

The important point being in Misurata the fighters are compared to

..the hapless rebels of eastern Libya..

I do wonder if the implied presence in Eastern Libya of observers and liaison officers has not been replicated in Misurata due to the perceived risk of capture.

That the Libyan regime can daily bombard the city eludes me, although I do note the rare map on the TV news shows a large part of the city is occupied by their forces.

[JMA]

JMA,

Yes I heard the UK Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, on BBC Radio 4 AM today talk about:

BBC report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13115874

Details aside what is going to happen when the boats arrive and the Libyan residents seek to leave too? That would be interesting news footage, especially if it is women and children.

The BBC refers to medical aid going in and not an evacuation of the wounded.

David, I understand that the medical evacuations are being handled by MSF - MSF carries out second medical evacuation by sea from embattled city

But yes, if it gets any worse in Misrata there could well be a rush on the ships that arrive which could lead to ugly situations.

[Ken White]

Its relatively simple Ken.

Yet, this issue is indeed somewhat so. As is the solution to the perceived problem. That, simply is to be aware of the political milieu and adapt to the apparent lengthy decision cycles and in house acrimony. I understand that is difficult for most nations -- it is strangely difficult for many Americans to accept -- but to ignore the process is to invite confusion rather than to be prepared to deal with it.

If the US cannot put a coherent foreign policy together and articulate it clearly then it must accept that it will be misunderstood/distrusted/hated by people across the world.

True. We can but only if severely provoked and will not ordinarily be bothered to do so. Yes, most of us know and accept that with only minor qualms but some Americans do rather wistfully wish to be liked or loved and would like to accommodate your observation.

I have noted with interest how shocked your average American is when he is confronted by hostility and distrust in places where they expected friendship and even a little respect and appreciation.

Those would be the 'some' above. Sad so many believe myths they construct in their minds. That, BTW, applies to other than Americans...

So Ken go ahead and flip the world and say "take us as we are or shove it" it just further reduces your circle of friends in the world.

It is not a question of flipping the world. Nor is it a question our way or the highway as the saying goes. It is a question of our unwillingness to modify a governmental process that works fairly well for most of us just to win friends and influence people. Just as most Americans dislike pandering (unless a politician does it for or to them...), the nation is incapable of bending to the will of others. As Americans tend to be more independent than most others national groups, so the nation reflects that. Rightly or wrongly, the US political class focuses intently on US domestic politics and pays little attention to the remainder of the world and that has been true through 220 years, a number of wars and many travails. It is unlikely to change barring extreme provocation. Many of us would like to see some changes to that -- we're unlikely to get any...

You should be pleased to note however that creeping socialism is changing that national characteristic of independence. Whether that results in a change to the national attitude to a more communitarian outlook remains to be seen. The current Administration is certainly doing its part to bring that about (mostly as a directly contrarian reaction to the previous Administration -- that too is a recurring feature of the US political scene which invariably exacerbates the consistency and continuity problems ).

The US has the unfortunate habit of wanting to be the bride at every wedding and the baby at every Christening but it often ends in tears when they end up as the corpse at the odd funeral.

Huh? Interesting turn of phrase. I understand the desire to be liked, an embedded feature of the twitisphere (which the US media generally represents and therefor voices the attitude of which you write). However, haven't seen all that many tears and all funerals are odd (IMO).

I think I understand the gist of that garbled syntax, though -- and there's some merit in the statement. Not totally correct but accurate enough to stand provided one realizes that those with that desire to liked are a minority in this country. IOW, I know some feel that way, however, most do not in my observation. As Canadian newspaper Columnist Christy Blatchford once wrote "Some Americans care but most don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks..." Succinct and uncouth but distressingly accurate, confirming all your prejudices.

That is unlikely to change significantly until the demise of the American republic, and event that will certainly occur, however, probably not in the lifetime of ourselves or even our grandchildren...

[Ken White]

We are back full circle to where we were a few weeks ago.

Back? Didn't know we'd ever left, don't think either of us changed our position in the slightest.

I differentiate between the motive behind any intervention and the skill of the intervention itself.

You may certainly do that, however, if you do not consider the capabilities of your intervenors and the political situation in your planning, you're highly likley to be flummoxed and disappointed...

I stand by my support for a humanitarian intervention in Libya.

And I by mine that it will be a fiasco and shouldn't be attempted due to that fact. Now what?

The intervention has been incredibly interesting...The question that needs to be answered here is whether this situation was the result of a deliberate political plan or as a result of the allocated force not being up to the task.

If by "here" you mean for the operation in total and general, I suspect the answers will come out shortly and my bet will be on a whole series of minor errors and a few disparate political missteps culminating in a very flawed operation that would have been difficult for a powerful single nation with steel will to conduct. The minute it goes to the politically desirable coalition, thrown together hurriedly and with competing priorities, failure was assured. I contend that if failure cannot be assessed as highly improbable, then in most circumstances, the use of force should not be contemplated -- that's particularly true if the potential for great harm from such is present as it certainly was in this case. I also suggest the western gentrification has allowed a certain lack of political will to invade all operations of this nature and that opponents logically take advantage of that weakness. It is IMO unwise to play to the strengths of ones opponents. Better to devise alternative plans

If, OTOH by 'here' you meant on this board, I doubt our answers will affect much of anything...

Either way the reason for the shambles is political and/or military incompetence and as I have stated before should not be used to question the motivation behind the intervention.

Cannot agree. If the shambles create a worsened condition, then the intervention is responsible for creating that worsening. If that potential for a shambles was or is recognized, then the whole idea should have been questioned.

As it was by many -- who were ignored by those who wanted to 'do good.' The Do Good fraternity means well and are nice folks. Unfortunately they dream of the world as a nice place populated by like souls. That's a dangerous fallacy.

To aid others is laudable, to harm them in the process is inexcusable and avoidable.

Roll your eye as much as you like Ken, but I hear tonight that the Brits are going to fund the evacuation by sea of 5,000 odd African migrant workers and the evacuation of wounded by ship is becoming a regular thing. Unless NATO can get its act together and lift the siege of Misrata the UN/EU may need to scale up the evacuations to take all comers.

Consider my eyes again rolled. The Migrants can in theory be returned to their own nations. When or if you evacuate all comers, where are you going to take them?

Even aside from that question, the eye roll was engendered by the thought of the UN/EU getting their act together in the next few years much less days or weeks...

[Dayuhan]

So Ken go ahead and flip the world and say "take us as we are or shove it" it just further reduces your circle of friends in the world.

Might be worth pointing out here that the current US policy of limiting intervention in other countries and intervening only with multilateral support is largely an attempt to regain the circle of friends, the influence, and the relatively almost sort of positive image the US enjoyed before the Bush administration decided that unilateral preemptive intervention was a Good Thing. The world at large is not very comfortable with the idea of an intervention-minded America, and Americans aren't too comfortable with it either: one reason why they voted for a guy who promised a more reticent policy toward intervention.

A more interventionist policy is not likely to win friends and influence people. More the opposite.

[Ken White]

and the relatively almost sort of positive image the US enjoyed before the Bush administration decided that unilateral preemptive intervention was a Good Thing.

"Almost sort of" is a good qualifier. Your post IMO is quite accurate.

In my travels here and there since 1947, it is my observation that the US has never been truly popular or well liked. There are many reasons for that but relative wealth and the unconscious and unintended flaunting of it have been a big factor. Another is that we have helped many -- and no one like to be indebted. That many Americans appear loud and brash, unsophisticated and apparently even relatively uneducated to many does not help...

We have been tolerated because most societies are polite to strangers -- and the wealth got spread.

Like all human phenomena, the liking and the respect fluctuate. The late 60, early 70s and Viet Nam were the lowest point in my estimation and we were slowly rebuilding some friendship, faith and trust from that debacle when first Reagan then G.H.W. Bush invaded other nations and our stock dipped slightly. That was followed by William Jefferson Clinton bombing or otherwise attacking four sovereign nations and the dislike and distrust soared. Then along came Jones -- er G. W. Bush -- and we went downhill again. Way down -- not to Viet Nam era levels but close. Obama intentionally started us back up (and thus his reluctance to be the one removing Qaddafi) and we'll have to wait to see how it goes.

But we're never going to be loved or deeply respected. We're too big and clumsy to do the things required to instill either emotion in most.

[SWJ Blog]

‘Boots on the ground’ to Libya

Entry Excerpt:

According to the BBC, British Foreign Secretary William Hague just announced that Britain will send 10 soldiers to Benghazi to assist Libya’s rebels with logistics, intelligence, and training. This announcement followed a plea from the chairman of France’s foreign affairs committee to send French commandos to Libya to direct NATO air strikes against Qaddafi’s forces.

In another surprising, if odd, development, Reuters is reporting that the European Union has developed a provisional plan to deploy a European military expeditionary force to Misrata, if requested by the United Nations. The mission of the expedition would be to protect aid deliveries to the city, which is currently under siege by pro-Qaddafi forces. What is odd is that according to Reuters, all 27 EU states endorsed this potential mission. Germany, which abstained during the UN vote authorizing military action in Libya and has refused to participate in the current NATO operation, might now be volunteering the Bundeswehr for a trip to the frontline in Misrata.

Each time a setback has occurred in Libya, the West has responded with military escalation. The arrival of Western journalists in Misrata is undoubtedly creating pressure on NATO's political leaders to take additional steps against Qaddafi’s forces.

President Obama and his team are trying to simultaneously be good allies while also strictly limiting the U.S. military commitment. The Obama team must he stunned that NATO is struggling to achieve military effects against the rump of Libya controlled by Qaddafi. Britain and France are rumored to be running out of precision bomb guidance kits.

Libya’s rebels have counted on a bailout from NATO. Europe may similarly be counting on a military bailout from the United States. Is NATO’s operation in Libya too big to fail?

Nothing follows.



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[JMA]

In response to this:

Originally Posted by Ken White
... we should never be relied upon to be consistent due to that 2, 4, 6, and 8 year roil of government.

...this was posted:

This:
Because it can not be over emphasized. Forgetting this fact will lead to much confusion and upset.

Now we are making progress.

It is not a matter of who will "forget this fact" but rather that the US should tell all people they deal with politically, economically, militarily that at best the word of the United States of America is only good for less than two years at most (depending where it falls in the election cycle). After that all bets are off.

The world has learned this the hard way... now it is up to US citizens to understand the implication of their inability "to be as good as their word".

[AdamG]

Getting better, but still a Charlie Foxtrot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsMWvg2NDaU[/URL]

[JMA]

Cannot agree. If the shambles create a worsened condition, then the intervention is responsible for creating that worsening. If that potential for a shambles was or is recognized, then the whole idea should have been questioned.

Quite frankly Ken, this is the Homer Simpson approach to foreign policy. He said:

“Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.”

The trick is to get the implementation right.

To do that maybe America needs to start to elect competent presidents, maybe needs to turn the State Department inside out, close the CIA down and sadly maybe the military needs to get a good shake up as well.

Currently its a pretty pathetic situation.

[Rex Brynen]

Getting better, but still a Charlie Foxtrot

Their military skills may be severely lacking, but the video needs to be seen in perspective.

That's Misrata. Those folks--most of them civilians--are completely surrounded, but have been holding off 3-4 brigades of Qaddafi loyalists for over seven weeks with scrounged weapons and supplies. In many ways, its damned impressive.

[Ken White]

Now we are making progress.

In the immortal words of Tonto, "What is this 'we' stuff, White Man?" WE -- J Wolfsberger and I were there, you're just catching up and trying to look like you were there all along...

It is not a matter of who will "forget this fact" but rather that the US should tell all people they deal with politically, economically, militarily that at best the word of the United States of America is only good for less than two years at most (depending where it falls in the election cycle). After that all bets are off.

See -- you still don't get it. That's only true in some cases, not so in others -- as I've pointed out before (Monroe Doctrine, freedom os the seas...) and while on the one hand, it's not up to the US to tell anyone else in the World how the US policy machine operates, on another, that's broad public knowledge easily available to all. If one does not understand it, that's one's own fault...

As for dealing with it, not all that difficult. all it take is a little forethought (an item apparently in worldwide short supply nowadays, probably as a result of short attention spans caused by watching too much TV... ).

The world has learned this the hard way... now it is up to US citizens to understand the implication of their inability "to be as good as their word".

Again, you still don't understand. We know that. We understand. We're slightly sorry you don't get it -- but only slightly.

Part 2:

Quite frankly Ken, this is the Homer Simpson approach to foreign policy. He said: {Quote:}“Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.”

Wouldn't know about Homer, don't watch Television. Do know that's not what I said -- that was:

""I contend that if failure cannot be assessed as highly improbable, then in most circumstances, the use of force should not be contemplated -- that's particularly true if the potential for great harm from such is present as it certainly was in this case. I also suggest the western gentrification has allowed a certain lack of political will to invade all operations of this nature and that opponents logically take advantage of that weakness. It is IMO unwise to play to the strengths of ones opponents. Better to devise alternative plans."" (Emphasis added /kw)

The trick is to get the implementation right.

Well, yeah -- that's why I said devise alternate plans. Not that difficult a concept, one would think...

To do that maybe America needs to start to elect competent presidents, maybe needs to turn the State Department inside out, close the CIA down and sadly maybe the military needs to get a good shake up as well.

I agree but that's not going to happen as there is no pressing need -- the fact that you and I see a need (as do many others) is not adequate cause to move the enormous Pachyderm that is the US government.

Currently its a pretty pathetic situation.

Yep. That or close to it.

Look at the bright side -- it at least gives you something to fruitlessly fulminate about.

[JMA]

"Almost sort of" is a good qualifier. Your post IMO is quite accurate.

In my travels here and there since 1947, it is my observation that the US has never been truly popular or well liked. There are many reasons for that but relative wealth and the unconscious and unintended flaunting of it have been a big factor. Another is that we have helped many -- and no one like to be indebted. That many Americans appear loud and brash, unsophisticated and apparently even relatively uneducated to many does not help...

We have been tolerated because most societies are polite to strangers -- and the wealth got spread.

Like all human phenomena, the liking and the respect fluctuate. The late 60, early 70s and Viet Nam were the lowest point in my estimation and we were slowly rebuilding some friendship, faith and trust from that debacle when first Reagan then G.H.W. Bush invaded other nations and our stock dipped slightly. That was followed by William Jefferson Clinton bombing or otherwise attacking four sovereign nations and the dislike and distrust soared. Then along came Jones -- er G. W. Bush -- and we went downhill again. Way down -- not to Viet Nam era levels but close. Obama intentionally started us back up (and thus his reluctance to be the one removing Qaddafi) and we'll have to wait to see how it goes.

But we're never going to be loved or deeply respected. We're too big and clumsy to do the things required to instill either emotion in most.

Time to read The Ugly American again, Ken?

Has the US Diplomatic Corps changed much since then? Not according to what Wikileaks has exposed.

You are correct when you say no one likes to be indebted. So don't rub it in, don't keep reminding people of how much they owe you. Just get in, do the business then get out. Sooner or later they will come after you with thanks and appreciation.

I mentioned in another post about whose opinion was important and someone came up with a cute number calculation.

My point is simple aim to be liked and respected by those that matter and where you can be sure of what the people are thinking. - the 26 countries who are full democracies and maybe the 53 flawed democracies.

Down in the cesspool of the hybrid and authoritarian regimes, all 88 of them let the relationship be based on fear and respect.

A few months ago there were any number of self styled pundits who would venture a guess as to what the thinking was on the "Arab Street" but none of these experts foretold what was about to happen and therefore their knowledge of what the thinking on the "Arab Street" was and is pretty suspect.

When a tin-pot despot like Gbagbo refuses to take a call from the US President it has nothing to do with any anger at Saddam or the Taliban having been seen out of power but rather through the belief that the US is increasingly impotent.

In the last 50 odd years the world has seen that the US does not have the bottle to stand up to the Soviets or the Chinese so on this basis when the US invades Panama or Grenada it is obviously seen as nothing more than a bully boy. I would have thought this would have been obvious to Americans.

What you say and what has been seen is that there is no possibility that the US will ever have a consistent foreign policy. This is the problem.

People I know and have met in my travels don't hate the US and are only to be swayed to be pro the US if only the US gave them some reason to do so.

[JMA]

Interesting turn of phrase. I understand the desire to be liked, an embedded feature of the twitisphere (which the US media generally represents and therefor voices the attitude of which you write). However, haven't seen all that many tears and all funerals are odd (IMO).

I think I understand the gist of that garbled syntax, though -- and there's some merit in the statement. Not totally correct but accurate enough to stand provided one realizes that those with that desire to liked are a minority in this country. IOW, I know some feel that way, however, most do not in my observation. As Canadian newspaper Columnist Christy Blatchford once wrote "Some Americans care but most don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks..." Succinct and uncouth but distressingly accurate, confirming all your prejudices.

That is unlikely to change significantly until the demise of the American republic, and event that will certainly occur, however, probably not in the lifetime of ourselves or even our grandchildren...

Sadly it is more than a desire to be liked it is the desire to be the center of attention and in charge as well.

This is why the NATO partners were kept in their place. Now it is clearly ridiculous to be publicly critical of their inability to step out of the shadow of the US and flex their own muscles.

I am surprised that the NATO partners have been so subordinate and obsequious for so long having been treated with off-handed disdain. Expect to be on the receiving end of a few returned favours as they revel in their new found freedom.

[Pete]

People I know and have met in my travels don't hate the US and are only to be swayed to be pro the US if only the US gave them some reason to do so.

Oh well, the following was from before Ken was a Corporal ...

Welcome, BushrangerCZ. In May 1945 my late Dad was in the outskirts of Pilsen with the 97th U.S. Infantry Division when World War II ended. Later when he was in Prague in the 1970s a Communist Party official asked him whether he'd ever been to Czechoslovakia before and he said yes, near Pilsen in May 1945. The official said no, that can't be true, we were liberated by the great Red Army!

Pete, if I only could, I would buy your father whole crate of Pilsener Urquell. Commies really tried to persuade everybody that US soldiers in Pilsen were in fact Soviet soldiers dressed up like Americans. Most people knew the truth, but it was not good to talk about it. My grandfather handed some German POWs to US troops in my own hometown, so it is obvious that most people could not be blamed, but for example history teachers who taught about these facts could loose their job. Commies ruined the whole country, and now we are trying to catch up.

[Ken White]

Time to read The Ugly American again, Ken?

Nah, wasn't that good -- besides, we have Ugly Folks From Elsewhere for entertainment.

...Sooner or later they will come after you with thanks and appreciation.

That has not been my observation. the resentment tends to remain. Not a big thing.

When a tin-pot despot like Gbagbo refuses to take a call from the US President it has nothing to do with any anger at Saddam or the Taliban having been seen out of power but rather through the belief that the US is increasingly impotent.

Your point is well taken but I think it is considerably more complex than that. The issue is not impotence, not at all but rather political will. Lack of that is not a totally US phenomenon...

In the last 50 odd years the world has seen that the US does not have the bottle to stand up to the Soviets or the Chinese so on this basis when the US invades Panama or Grenada it is obviously seen as nothing more than a bully boy. I would have thought this would have been obvious to Americans.

It is obvious to most of us. It is also a mistake to presume -- something you do quite often -- that " the US does not have the bottle to stand up to the Soviets or the Chinese..." It is rather that there has been no need to do so. Many things aren't nearly as important as you seem to think -- nor should nations be judged as one would judge people. Bottle as you use it is not really appropriate applied to a nation. Nations do not have friends nor do they cower -- they have interests and the strength of those interests determines their reaction to many things.

Take the Cote d'Ivoire. Not a smidgen of US interest except probably the price of Cocoa. Obama and Gbagbo both know that and both know that the US is not going to punish the nation or Gbagbo so he had no reason to take the phone call. Obama really had no business making the call either -- but that's an example of the 'do good' mentality at work, do something, even if its futile and silly. Do-gooders seem to relish embarrassing themselves by prostrating before everyone...

What you say and what has been seen is that there is no possibility that the US will ever have a consistent foreign policy. This is the problem.

No, yet again you get it wrong -- not what I said. The US will likely never have a consistent policy in regard to unimportant things. If it is really important, we can and do focus and will be consistent. Frankly, a lot of things you seem to believe important are IMO not worth much worry. That, BTW, would include Libya and the Cote d'Ivoire among others...

People I know and have met in my travels don't hate the US and are only to be swayed to be pro the US if only the US gave them some reason to do so.

Contrary to what you appear to believe, it is not a function of the US Government to give a fig for what others may think of it. The US is like every other nation, it has interests and it does things, some good and some bad. It generally tries -- too hard IMO -- to do good but does not always succeed. People will judge it on the overall balance of good and evil. We are too big and clumsy to be loved or even well liked. I learned to live with that fact in the early 1950s. Not much has changed since then. I also do not anticipate much change in your life time -- I could of course be wrong but that's a seldom thing...

[Ken White]

Sadly it is more than a desire to be liked it is the desire to be the center of attention and in charge as well.

The Shrinks call that Projection...

Still, some truth in it. So?

Expect to be on the receiving end of a few returned favours as they revel in their new found freedom.

This for that among nations. Novel concept. Who'd a thunk it...