And Libya goes on...

[JMA]

Hi Ray just to single out one point at this time.

If you opine that ‘motivation for an intervention is sound but the method of the intervention is poor or unsuccessful , and find cause for ‘humanitarian assistance’, and also feel that one has to be pragmatic over morality, what is your blueprint/ roadmap? Go gung ho as in Iraq, be labelled ‘neo colonialist and imperialist’ and then have another lament on the hands?

The linkage is not sound.

My first point was simply that if the intervention fails it should not throw the motivation behind the intervention itself into doubt. For example the US humanitarian intervention into Somalia was well intentioned and IMO justified and necessary. That the aim got lost and it all ended in tears should not (and does not in my mind) lead to the advisability of such humanitarian interventions being questioned thereafter. Thats it, that's all on that point.

As to the second point. Sadly it is a reality that countries dependent upon oil imports often need to compromise their integrity and trade with some very evil and unsavory states to satisfy that need. Nothing more, nothing less.

If it wasn't for oil or WMD I can't think of why the US led the "willing" into Iraq. Of Afghanistan apart from the obvious need to strike out after 9/11 can't think why they backed Karzai and are still there. All very strange.

But in terms of the law of unintended consequences what 9/11 aimed to achieve was apparently to "wake the American people up" ended up with the US bankrupting itself through its response. A self inflicted wound if there ever was one.

[tequila]

Guess Qatar didn't get the memo on Gaddafi's Islamic charms.

Qatar is supplying anti-tank weapons to Libyan rebels in Benghazi as part of its strategy of working to overthrow the Gaddafi regime, officials in Doha have confirmed.

Qatar's prime minister and foreign minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem, has said that UN resolutions on Libya permitted the supply of "defensive weapons" to opposition forces struggling to fight Libyan armour.

Qatari government officials were reluctant to be drawn on the delivery of French-made Milan missiles, thought to be by sea. "We need to send the Libyans equipment so they can defend themselves and get on with their lives," a senior source said. "These are civilians who have had to become fighters because of the situation ..."

[Ken White]

...ended up with the US bankrupting itself through its response. A self inflicted wound if there ever was one.

Near bankruptcy has many fathers and more than a few Mothers (of various types...) involved. However, the gross expense of Afghanistan, Iraq and all the rest since 9/11 is barely a condensation bubble on the side of the glass, about 1% of GDP (LINK) . We have nearly bankrupted ourselves but the wars were and are only a very small part of that. A profligate Congress over a good many years (over 60, both political parties) has far, far more to do with our economic problems.

[carl]

To add to Tequila's earlier post. Here is a link to a story about how the rebels set up a cell network in eastern Libya. They did with wit and a lot of equipment purchased for them by the U.A.E. and Quatar.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...fox_australian

I find it interesting that the civilians of Misrata are still holding out.

[Pete]

If it's the U.S., you want to be the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, DG of the CIA, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and every military command level below that.

If we could put an end to the separation of powers within the U.S. Government we might indeed have a more efficent foreign policy and military strategy overseas. Who knows, we might even win a few of them big time, hands down, dramatically, and for all the world to see. However, the "Ein Reich, ein Volk, und ein Fuhrer" approach tends to lead to major big-time screw-ups from time to time.

[JMA]

Near bankruptcy has many fathers and more than a few Mothers (of various types...) involved. However, the gross expense of Afghanistan, Iraq and all the rest since 9/11 is barely a condensation bubble on the side of the glass, about 1% of GDP (LINK) . We have nearly bankrupted ourselves but the wars were and are only a very small part of that. A profligate Congress over a good many years (over 60, both political parties) has far, far more to do with our economic problems.

Thanks for that Ken, it certainly makes my comment look alarmist and badly incorrect. I wonder how I was led to that impression.

I will use this reference on the next "drama queen" who dares to suggest that the US can't afford the Libyan intervention.

I consider myself duly "put straight" on the matter.

[Surferbeetle]

Quick case studies over morning coffee as to why the trend is not our friend in this instance...

Greek debt hit by restructuring fears, By Jennifer Hughes, Senior Markets Correspondent, Published: April 14 2011 11:55 | Last updated: April 14 2011 19:04 at the FT

Greek borrowing costs reached a euro-era high compared with those of Germany. The euro tumbled on Thursday and premiums charged on Greek debt over Germany’s hit euro-era highs after the countries’ respective finance ministers talked of Greece needing more time to attract investors and raised the prospect of debt restructuring.

George Papaconstantinou told the Financial Times that Greece needed more time to convince international investors of its commitment to reform its finances.

Yields on Greek two-year bonds jumped 0.9 of a percentage point to 17.829 per cent.

Moody’s cuts Ireland debt rating, By Neil Dennis, Published: April 15 2011 09:40 | Last updated: April 15 2011 09:40, at the FT

Ireland’s sovereign debt rating has been cut on Friday by Moody’s Investors Service just hours ahead of the expected announcement by the government of a revised agreement with international lenders on the terms of its €67.5bn bail-out.

Moody’s reduced the rating by two notches to the lowest investment grade to reflect the country’s struggle to address its budget deficit.

Although Moody’s lowered its rating on Ireland to Baa3 from Baa1 and kept its negative outlook, an analyst with the rating agency said debt restructuring was not a “plausible scenario”. Dietmar Hornung of Moody’s told Reuters that while the downgrade reflected the unbalanced risks faced by Ireland, the country had a good record of delivering fiscal consolidation.

EU and IMF to drive Portugal bail-out terms, By Peter Wise in Lisbon and Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt, Published: April 11 2011 18:45 | Last updated: April 11 2011 18:45, at the FT

European Union and International Monetary Fund officials will begin talks in Portugal on Tuesday on a programme of austerity measures and economic reforms as a condition for an €80bn ($115bn) bail-out.

“It’s not an exaggeration to call it shock therapy,” said Filipe Silva, head of public debt trading with Portugal’s Banco Carregosa. “The country has to break out of a vicious circle of debt and low growth.”

Spain backtracks on China investment claim, By Miles Johnson in Madrid, Published: April 14 2011 13:57 | Last updated: April 14 2011 13:5, at the FT

Madrid has been forced to make an embarrassing clarification after claims that Spain had secured from China up to €9bn in investment in its troubled savings banks were denied by Beijing.

Spanish officials said an “error of communication” had led to reports that China Investment Corporation – one of the country’s sovereign wealth funds – was considering a €9bn investment after José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Spain’s prime minister, met Chinese leaders this week.

[JMA]

I find it interesting that the civilians of Misrata are still holding out.

The US/NATO failure to lift the siege of Misrata is a shocking disgrace.

The politicians and their spin-doctors have gone crazy. Everything is about appearances and going through the motions. The difficult aspects are just ignored.

[JMA]

RF concerned over abused mandate of UN resolution on Libya

Yes, I know that the chirping of the Russians from the back row of the bleachers (like that US strikes were killing civilians) were diplomatic amateur-hour at its worst but... given the recent statement (by Obama, Sarcozy and Cameron) that Gaddafi must go opens the door for the Russians to make this more accurate accusation.

So what is the sad part? That once the UNSC authority to act was granted instead of getting in fast and hitting hard and then getting out the world saw burn-out after 48 hours followed by a hopelessly inept performance ever since. If anyone doubts what I say go and ask the people of Misrata.

To make matters worse given the fear of many US citizens of being sucked into another Iraq/Afghanistan swamp anyone with even basic intelligence would have gone for the short-sharp option.

[carl]

JMA:

I saw a bit of footage by a British reporter and cameraman who were in Misrata. There was a shot of a tank taken through what was in effect a peephole. They said the tank was one of the dictator's and it was sitting there in what looked to be the middle of a street basking in the sunshine. It doesn't seem as if it would be too hard to find and hit.

I did read that the Italians wanted NATO to lead rather than the French because the French would have been inclined to do something, NATO would be inclined to do nothing much.

[JMA]

JMA:

I saw a bit of footage by a British reporter and cameraman who were in Misrata. There was a shot of a tank taken through what was in effect a peephole. They said the tank was one of the dictator's and it was sitting there in what looked to be the middle of a street basking in the sunshine. It doesn't seem as if it would be too hard to find and hit.

Good spotting Carl. Look at the location of the tanks that the Brits release footage of being taken out ... right out in the open.

I am pretty sure the good folk of Misrata don't remain in their homes when the fighting approaches down the road towards them. They get the hell out of the area. So I don't see where civilians will be found in the middle of the fighting ... unless there is a bold and rapid move by Gaddafi's forces trapping them.

JMAs Second Rule: If you can't hit the snake on the head, then crush its tail. In the case of Misrata cut off the Gaddafi forces logistic tail.

I would like to find out who started the crap about not being able to use aircraft in urban environments. Yet another poor excuse for failing to lift the siege of Misrata.

BTW where are the UAVs?

[Ken White]

Thanks for that Ken, it certainly makes my comment look alarmist and badly incorrect. I wonder how I was led to that impression.

Possibly reading too many left wing publications or web sites? Or just paying attention to the US media who rarely get much right...

I will use this reference on the next "drama queen" who dares to suggest that the US can't afford the Libyan intervention.

You could do that but you'd be wrong to do so. Libya, like everything, does cost and we are strapped -- almost bankrupt, I believe you wrote -- so no added costs where we really have no interests would be helpful. As you sort of imply though, the cost factor is more related to 'I don't want to spend my money on that' than it is to total inability to afford it. The cost is cited in the effort of getting Europe to step up and take care of things that are in their interest without involving the US.

I consider myself duly "put straight" on the matter.

Heh. LINK.

[JMA]

You could do that but you'd be wrong to do so. Libya, like everything, does cost and we are strapped -- almost bankrupt, I believe you wrote -- so no added costs where we really have no interests would be helpful. As you sort of imply though, the cost factor is more related to 'I don't want to spend my money on that' than it is to total inability to afford it. The cost is cited in the effort of getting Europe to step up and take care of things that are in their interest without involving the US.

But it changes everything. If it is not a case of the US really not being able to pay for such an intervention it merely becomes someone's opinion that they don't think the US should spend money on that intervention. Big difference... IMHO

[davidbfpo]

I know this is a sub-issue in this thread, mainly for our USA members and a few who live this side of the Atlantic - the perception that Europe is not paying it's way in European security and the USA is frustrated at this.

Can I point out that such criticism is a long standing factor in relations across the Atlantic, notably with NATO, later the EU and sometimes with others in Europe. At times the USA has sought help in places where some over here have demurred, for example in both Gulf Wars.

In the Libyan action very few European nations have an active role, even if the NATO command structure and more (logistics & bases) are being used. There is a political and public viewpoint that the action will not contribute to European security, indeed will have an adverse impact.

Nor are many European nations (whether in NATO, the EU or not) prepared politically to back 'liberal intervention', let alone have the will and capability to get "boots on the ground". Those nations sometimes contribute "boots" and cash to UN peacekeeping, e.g. Irish infantry being in eastern Chad recently to protect Sudanese refugees.

The USA during the Cold War made a massive contribution to West European security, which sometimes meant a high risk to those nations, notably Germany and NATO's two senior military commanders were American, still are in fact.

Yes, many European nations have "free-loaded" since the Cold War ended and now feel they decide on security policy, even if that means a political price is paid with the USA.

[Pete]

Yes, many European nations have "free-loaded" since the Cold War ended and now feel they decide on security policy, even if that means a political price is paid with the USA.

I like Europeans and a grandfather of mine was British, a 17th London veteran of 1915-19, so please take what I'm saying in that friendly context. American spending and leadership in things military often allows others to sit back and act as though they're morally and intellectually superior to the U.S. while we do most of the dirty and immoral stuff. Some years ago Simon Jenkins of The Times wrote that the B-52 bomber was the symbol of all that is wrong with American foreign policy, as though he'd forgotten about Harris' Bomber Command and the U.S. 8th Air Force back in the bad old days.

[Ken White]

JMA:

But it changes everything...Big difference... IMHO

Well, I certainly agree it is a difference but I do not see it as a large one or think that it changes much of anything other than some skewed perceptions. Anyone who thinks the US is a liberal bastion who is ready and willing to intervene to help mankind isn't paying much attention. We may be a bit nicer and willing to 'help' than some but national interest still trumps. As it should..

davidbfpo:

Can I point out that such criticism is a long standing factor in relations across the Atlantic, notably with NATO, later the EU and sometimes with others in Europe. At times the USA has sought help in places where some over here have demurred, for example in both Gulf Wars.

That's true and a lot of folks in the US overstate or wrongly state the issue and that is not helpful. With respect to joining in both Gulf Wars, some in Europe did, others did not as they saw their national interests. Nothing wrong with that and no thinking American objects to it.

What some do object to is the fact that during the Cold War, Europe spent less on a per capita basis for defense than did the US and devoted the difference to enhancing social democracy on the Continent. There is some truth in that but it is also true that the US spent (and still spends) far more per capita on defense than is required (for various reasons, some good, some not so good). So that's sort of the old Red Herring, Europe made choices as did we and second guessing it at this point is somewhat of a waste. It is also noteworthy that Europe has discovered what many on both sides of the Atlantic said all along, that model of governance and economic leveling is simply unaffordable. So Europe is largely abandoning the wilder excesses and the US is expanding them...

However, IMO, the issue that most affects the US - European relationship with respect to defense matters is the insistence by some on both sides in varied rotation that the US must lead in issues that most Americans view as none of the US' business -- all the Balkan stuff is an example. We really tried to avoid Bosnia and Kosovo as not our business but European insistence that we help was acceded to.

The requests for US involvement were based, IMO, on two factors. Capabilities we could bring to bear and getting the US involved as a way to ameliorate costs as the perception was the US would not let an issue it was involved with -- or leading (see NATO) -- fail. In fairness, there's a two way payoff there but most things boil down to costs and the belief, rightly or wrongly, is that the US picks up a large part of those.

In the Libyan action very few European nations have an active role, even if the NATO command structure and more (logistics & bases) are being used. There is a political and public viewpoint that the action will not contribute to European security, indeed will have an adverse impact.

Interestingly, the Libyan affair is another example. Rightly or wrongly, many Americans whom I've read and with whom I've talked seem to believe that Libya is a European problem and that we have absolutely no business there. Yet you believe Europeans do not see it as a good idea -- the Germans, wisely IMO, obviously do not. There's a US tale about a trip to Abilene on a hot Kansas summer day before car air conditioning in which everyone went but, after returning home, no one had really wanted to go at all, everyone was just dragged along by the moment.

Nor are many European nations (whether in NATO, the EU or not) prepared politically to back 'liberal intervention', let alone have the will and capability to get "boots on the ground". Those nations sometimes contribute "boots" and cash to UN peacekeeping, e.g. Irish infantry being in eastern Chad recently to protect Sudanese refugees.

True and I don't think that is an issue in the minds of most Americans -- the majority of whom also are not at all enamored of liberal interventions -- the fact that smaller nations cannot afford large, diverse forces is generally if not universally understood but statements flowing from Europe that castigate the US for this or that bit of saber rattling from mid sized nation that also make warlike moves (as their own interests dictate) -- or are capable of it but elect not to do it do draw some criticism.

The USA during the Cold War made a massive contribution to West European security, which sometimes meant a high risk to those nations, notably Germany and NATO's two senior military commanders were American, still are in fact.

True but the US is not responsible for geography and the command issue was based on the fiscal, equipment and personnel considerations. I do not agree that should be the criteria but I suspect I'm in the minority on that...

The US also contributed at some risk (and great cost, all sorts), arguably at least, to western European security during that period by global actions that taxed the Soviet government and economy and focused their attention elsewhere..

Yes, many European nations have "free-loaded" since the Cold War ended and now feel they decide on security policy, even if that means a political price is paid with the USA.

I don't think they "free loaded," they simply had different priorities. I also think most Americans don't much care. I think both those factors are larger issues in Europe than in the US.

[Pete]

JMA: ... statements flowing from Europe that castigate the US for this or that bit of saber rattling from mid sized nation that also make warlike moves (as their own interests dictate) -- or are capable of it but elect not to do it do draw some criticism.

That's somewhat unclear. Could you expand on that or rephrase it a bit?

[Dayuhan]

Near bankruptcy has many fathers and more than a few Mothers (of various types...) involved. However, the gross expense of Afghanistan, Iraq and all the rest since 9/11 is barely a condensation bubble on the side of the glass, about 1% of GDP

A better measure of affordability would be the cost of these wars as a percentage of discretionary federal spending... along with, of course, a look at what's competing for slices of that pie.

But it changes everything. If it is not a case of the US really not being able to pay for such an intervention it merely becomes someone's opinion that they don't think the US should spend money on that intervention. Big difference... IMHO

Of course we could spend money on the intervention. All we'd have to do is borrow some more from the Chinese, or tax our own citizens more (something our citizens generally don't like), or cut something else in that discretionary budget (also not popular). Can you provide any reason why the US would want to take any of these steps to pursue deeper involvement in a war that does not advance or protect our interests and which could, if we get pulled too deeply into it, actively undermine our interests?

Concerns about Misrata you'd have to take up with the French and the British... it's their show. Not that I make any decisions, but I'd be inclined to provide a little more help, if they ask for it very nicely (i.e. beg for it) and if they make it very clear that they can't do the work on their own, and if the involvement is clearly of very limited extent and duration. Limited, temporary, and transient involvement in an effort driven by NATO is about as far as the US should want to go in this.

[Surferbeetle]

I know this is a sub-issue in this thread, mainly for our USA members and a few who live this side of the Atlantic - the perception that Europe is not paying it's way in European security and the USA is frustrated at this.

With tongue firmly planted in cheek, I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt provided that the FT, Economist Intelligence Unit, The Economist, Ducati Motorcycles, BMW Motorcycles, Triumph Motorcycles, Guinness Beer, Hefe Weizen Beer, Polish Vodka, Senf, Swiss dark chocolate, and Dr. Who continue to make it across the pond on a very regular basis. Otherwise all bets are off

Heading back to the serious side of things the economics, energy, and politics of the EU appear to be firmly linked to the events in Libya (...and MENA = Middle East North Africa), and via globalization, firmly linked to those of us across the Atlantic and beyond.

Some of the EU themes/meta-narratives (the kids are referencing GIS influences with that meta-narrative phrase) of concern include the coherence and financial viability of of the EU (core vs periphery - defaults & transfer union concerns which strengthen EU skeptics - True Finns, etc), stability of energy producers supplying the EU (Russia, MENA, etc.), increased energy needs (Germany's shut down of Nuclear Power Stations) increased ascendency of the far right (Gert Wilders, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and even the NPD), probable ruling party changes/weakening (France, Germany, Italy, etc) xenophobia, the demographics of aging and immigration, and changes to social contracts (UK, etc.). Europe certainly appears to have it's hands full, but then security concerns are merciless and never rest, nor sleep

In order to get through this particular reorganization of the geopolitical landscape fresh folks will need to break trail, while we all continue to prioritize, effectively allocate scarce resources, and continue to pull together.

[JMA]

JMA:Well, I certainly agree it is a difference but I do not see it as a large one or think that it changes much of anything other than some skewed perceptions. Anyone who thinks the US is a liberal bastion who is ready and willing to intervene to help mankind isn't paying much attention. We may be a bit nicer and willing to 'help' than some but national interest still trumps. As it should..

It is this national interest thing again. If there was any agreement within the US of what constitutes US national interest it would help outsiders understand what the US is doing and take the US seriously.

Watching the US budget debate on TV (I can take a couple of minutes of that now and again) it quickly becomes obvious that there is no general agreement in the US over what is and what isn't supposedly in the US national interest. In fact it soon becomes horrifyingly apparent to the foreign observer that the "other" party's plan (for balancing the budget and just about everything else) is seen to pose a greater risk to US national interest than Osama bin-Laden. A truly bizarre spectacle.

Ken, you would have noted that I often ask some of the serial offenders in the use of "we" who in so doing somewhat arrogantly purport to speak on behalf of the American people on what basis do they believe they are able to speak on behalf of the American people. Never had a straight answer.

Now you have used the term national interest in terms of how it guides US decision making.

I have noted that supposed US national interest seems to change with every change in Administration. This has not done US credibility much good in the third-world or anywhere. In the good old bad days this could have meant that what you did last year was OK but if you do that this year you could receive a visit from a few squadrons of B52s. All very confusing.

I served with a fine ex-Marine officer in the 70s and asked him this question back then. His reply was something like this. The use of "national interest" is the fall back position for a person who has no sane and/or logical argument to support his position on normally some foreign policy issue. After that the argument degenerates into a "not it isn't", "yes it is" exchange where the merits of the various arguments are then lost.

So to my point. Who decides what is in the US national interest? How do those under possible threat of (nowadays) a drone strike find out what the Americans believe to be in their national interest before its too late?