Page 46 of 50 FirstFirst ... 364445464748 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 920 of 997

Thread: And Libya goes on...

  1. #901
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Why do I not see any reference to civilians here? Was their protection not the primary reason for the intervention after all?
    Don't confuse the purpose of the intervention with the purpose of the US role in the intervention. Two different things. A specific US commitment to protect civilians would have been far too open ended and made it far too easy for the US to be pulled into a greater role than it wanted. The US role from the start was to use its unique capacity to create an environment where a NATO-led mission dominated by the British and French could pursue the wider objectives. The intention from the start was to scale down and hand over the operation once that limited objective was achieved.

    Of course I know al about the inflated rhetoric used in justifying the participation (that was well overdone, IMO). Like most inflated rhetoric, it doesn't mean much. Looking at what was actually done gives a much better idea of what was intended. I see no reason to suppose that the US ever intended to take on the blanket role of protector of Libyan civilians, nor can I see any credible reason why the US should have or should take on that role.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    If there is a stalemate it is because Obama wants it that way. If people continue to be killed and maimed in Misrata and elsewhere it is because Obama doesn't care. Gaddafi's forces could have been destroyed in a very short time had Obama wanted the military to do just that. He didn't. Obama has the blood of the civilans in Misrata and elsewhere on his hands.
    Repeating that a thousand times won't make it anything but nonsense. The US has no more responsibility to protect Libyan civilians than any other UN member state... and the UNSC Resolution authorizes military action, it doesn't require it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Agree with just about everything McCain is reported to have said (and have probably said so already). The bad news is that because he says it the Obama Administration probably won't do it.

    Not sure though whether he thinks a negotiated settlement with Gaddafi is the final solution. If so we disagree on that.
    What struck me about McCain's comments was the complete lack of any consideration for what comes after. he seems to treat the removal of MG and victory for the rebels as an end point in itself, which anyone who actually has power in the US can't afford to do. The primary goal of any US involvement in Libya, IMO, has to be assuring that the US is not sucked into any involvement in post-MG stabilization and "nation-building". McCain doesn't seem to acknowledge that getting rid of MG will be only the first step in a process that's certain to be long and likely to be an enormous mess.

    Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
    My point is that in this particular case, people have chosent to change the regime.
    Some people have chosen that. Don't forget that MG still has a substantial base of support, and there's likely to be conflict between those factions of the populace long after MG leaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
    I can see why US feels tired of being the sherif of the world. And France is not going to the replecement neither.
    But there is a need to go deeper than just unwillingness because of possible bias, pitfall and what ever bad interpretation of such political line.
    But still, it might be youth idealism.
    If we're going to hold up humanitarian intervention as a goal, the first requirement has to be acceptance that neither the US nor anyone else can be "Sheriff of the world". Any nation stuck in that role would have to balance the responsibilities of that role with its own perceived interests at any given point, and with its responsibilities to its own people. Any nation in that role will be suspected by the rest of the world of using the badge to advance its own interests, and that suspicion will often be justified. if there's going to be a responsibility to protect, there has to be a way of sharing the responsibility for both the decision and the execution.

    I've nothing against humanitarian intervention in principle, if it's used with caution and with appreciation for the full range of issues and potential consequences involved. I just don't want the US stuck with the role of making the decisions, executing the decisions, and taking responsibility for the outcome.

  2. #902
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default OK, with me,

    MAL .....

    Mike,
    I would have vote as France did. May be because of youth idealism. Also, because there are national interrest a stake in neigbouring countries.
    What ? You are placing me amongst all the Old Ba$tards of SWC - you'd think I'm going to turn 69 this August !

    "My" UN vote (in any case) would be based on my conclusion (well, a bit more than "me" - see next paragraph) about what is or is not in the best national interests of the US. As, for example, Dominique de Villepin represented the best national interests of France in 2003 (as I saw his performance).

    When I was young and idealistic, I had a conversation (in LBJ times) with my teacher and mentor Eric Stein (a great person - still teaching into his 90s). His bottom line was along these lines: "You are still young and idealistic. You believe that if you get into a position of power you can move along great changes. Be aware that even the President of the United States is subject to many constraints. One of them is that 100s or 1000s of people will be involved in any Presidential decision."

    The point, of course, is that one should not throw away one's idealism (Dr Stein didn't); but that one should temper it with realism.

    Regards

    Mike

  3. #903
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default The Peacemaker

    I didn't have this at my fingertips when I mentioned Dr Stein, but it's a great bio about Eric Stein, the person.

    But what about the UN's status today? What about Iraq? And more important, what about the people who make laws and draft resolutions and create new constitutions? Can a lawyer's work make humanity's future better than its past? I ask Stein these questions in his office one morning as the radiator clanks. He tips back in his chair. I expect a hearty answer in the affirmative. But he looks at me squarely through his thick-framed glasses, and I become horrifyingly aware of the 60 years of living he has on me. "I have my doubts," he says. "I would like, by instinct, to be optimistic. But by my experience, I have constantly the feeling to control that instinct." Later, he adds: "There has been progress in human rights. I was in the chamber of the UN in '48 when they adopted universal human rights. Just think of the recognition that 'human being' included women. This was wonderful. But no one knows how long it will last. No one knows how deep the trend is. People learn from history only so well."

    No one knows how long it will last. Human rights may be only a trend. I ask Stein how he has mustered such effort for so long on a project—that's what cooperative government is, really: a project—that is so intrinsically experimental, so uncertain. "It is perfectly plausible that the Earth will be destroyed," he says. "The question is, What to do now? This is what I think of." He brings up a poem by Wallace Stevens, The Man with the Blue Guitar, from which he quotes in his book Thoughts from a Bridge. A line from the poem reads, "I cannot bring a world quite round / Although I patch it as I can."
    This reflects in part from whence I come.

    Regards

    Mike

  4. #904
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Misrata

    Just overheard a very direct report by Marie Colvin, The Times reporter in the city, very similar to "Where is NATO, this city is being shelled, why cannot they stop them?".

    Undoubtedly the media are going to press on with this aspect.

    A BBC report from the city has little new, such as this:
    During a three-day stay in the city, we heard Nato warplanes overhead several times, but did not see or hear any fresh air strikes.

    But another soundtrack became very familiar - the percussion of war. Both day and night were punctuated by the cracks, thumps, and thuds of heavy artillery and mortars.
    Except for this:
    A three-man French team had arrived in the city, they said, to help pinpoint the location of Col Gaddafi's forces.
    Given the speculation about AQ's role I liked this:
    Please don't think we are al-Qaeda," he said. "We all agreed not to shave until Col Gaddafi was gone," he said. "Nobody thought it would take this long.

    Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13188444
    davidbfpo

  5. #905
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Lets deal with this aspect first:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    What struck me about McCain's comments was the complete lack of any consideration for what comes after. he seems to treat the removal of MG and victory for the rebels as an end point in itself, which anyone who actually has power in the US can't afford to do. The primary goal of any US involvement in Libya, IMO, has to be assuring that the US is not sucked into any involvement in post-MG stabilization and "nation-building". McCain doesn't seem to acknowledge that getting rid of MG will be only the first step in a process that's certain to be long and likely to be an enormous mess.
    Here's my take on the McCain article in Time:

    First of all this article seems to have been put together after two chance/random conversations between the author and McCain. So I for one did not expect the article to reflect McCain's definitive position on Libya.

    MIRAS (McCain is reported as saying) "Gaddafi is a third-rate military power," - he is correct

    MIRAS "...one thing we know about mercenaries is that if they think things are going in the wrong direction, they'll get out of Dodge." - correct, that's why they need to be on the receiving end of some ordinance so that get a strong feeling things are going in the wrong direction.

    MIRAS - "the West still has tools at its disposal that can bring about Gaddafi's downfall, even without a major commitment of U.S. military force. "- indeed and if they had aggressively acted against Gaddafi's forces from the outset this would have happened in the first few weeks. The wimp in the WH vacillated and the opportunity passed and the people of Misrata died.

    MIRAS - "By the time they arrived in Benghazi, a 20-hour journey by sea, wounded rebel fighters had little chance for survival. " - so what to do about it? Is assistance with medical supplies, treatment and evacuation either a breach of the UNSC resolution or not in the US's best interests?

    MIRAS - "The rebels have "learned by doing" — they have neutralized Gaddafi's advantage in weaponry by improving their use of guerrilla tactics." - yes, as stated the local knowledge of all the lanes and alley ways is a massive advantage for the rebels. But is this a skill that should be fostered among Libyans? Who could they use these guerrilla tactics against next?

    MIRAS - "We're talking about a fourth-rate power taking on a third-rate power," - yes and its in the interests of Libya, the region and the continent that Libyans do not learn to become first rate soldiers.

    MIRAS - "the citizens of Benghazi cheered McCain, they also said they were baffled at the West's seeming unwillingness to take more aggressive steps to stop Gaddafi's shock troops. "There is some anger, but a lot of it is just, 'I thought the Americans would help us," - and with just reason the anger will rise. There was an opportunity to improve the goodwill towards the US by aggressively going after Gaddafi forces and thereby protecting the civilians. An opportunity lost.

    MIRAS - "We should recognize" the rebel leadership as a provisional government, " - should have been done long ago... or withdrawing the recognition of the Gaddafi regime.

    MIRAS - "get the rebel satellite phones and uniforms" - should have been done long ago.

    MIRAS - "Most importantly, the Obama Administration needs to reclaim ownership of NATO's air campaign. "I love the British and I love the French, but they do not have the military capabilities of the United States of America ... We are fighting half a war. You can never win conflicts unless you do what is necessary to win." - Handing over to NATO was another supposedly "smart move" that proved to be a mistake. The soloution is to admit it, fix it and finish this business... quickly.

    MIRAS - "I don't think it would be a lengthy campaign." - of course. You let those boys on the carrier loose on Gaddafi's forces and it will be over in an afternoon.

    Quite simply Gaddafi must be forced out of power. The world should expect and should accept that him, his sons and inner circle will face the death penalty and let it happen. Thereafter let the Libyans sort their country out for themselves. Why, the US could even charge them a few billion for the military assistance and I'm sure the Libyans would cheerfully pay. An oil rich country, the one thing they have is the money.
    Last edited by JMA; 04-26-2011 at 05:27 PM.

  6. #906
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Sound oddly reminiscent of all the reasons given for invading Iraq and removing Saddam. I distinctly recall being told that the Iraqis would dance in the streets, welcome us with open arms, and be eternally grateful, and that Iraqi oil would pay the cost of the operation. Hasn't quite worked out that way.

  7. #907
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Sound oddly reminiscent of all the reasons given for invading Iraq and removing Saddam. I distinctly recall being told that the Iraqis would dance in the streets, welcome us with open arms, and be eternally grateful, and that Iraqi oil would pay the cost of the operation. Hasn't quite worked out that way.
    Well yes, the weak constant with Libya and Iraq (and Afghanistan) is the State Department and the CIA. As long as the US has to rely on these clowns for briefings, guidance and intel the planning and execution will be like going blindfolded into the great unknown.

    Further to that it should be asked what the US has learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan. Now older, wiser and more experienced heads will not make the same mistakes... but we have a brand new bunch of arrogant clowns in the Administration now who seem intent on reinventing the wheel. So the 4 to 8 year cycle continues.

  8. #908
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    In short, invade, achieve limited objectives (one way to define a "limited war") and leave !
    I recalled you saying more on the limited concept before. Found it here:

    Limited result vs limited means

    I would just comment that the politicians determine the objectives which almost certainly will be limited and will limit the means the military will have for achieving these objectives. The Concept of Limitation (in British doctrine) has bearing and as mentioned elsewhere has four general categories: objectives, means, area and time.

    BTW... I agree with hitting hard and leaving... with the promise that "if we have any more trouble from you lot, we will be back with some more of the same."
    Last edited by JMA; 04-27-2011 at 05:48 AM.

  9. #909
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Well yes, the weak constant with Libya and Iraq (and Afghanistan) is the State Department and the CIA. As long as the US has to rely on these clowns for briefings, guidance and intel the planning and execution will be like going blindfolded into the great unknown.
    You might find a few parallels between Iraq and Libya without straining to look too hard. Long-standing dictatorships, deeply divided "nations" held together only by force, etc.

    I'd suggest that the problem in Iraq in particular was less with planning and execution than with the decision to go there in the first place... and still more with the "idea" (using the term very loosely indeed) that the US could "drain the swamp in the Middle East" by "installing" a democracy in Iraq. Start with that set of delusions and no amount of planning and execution is going to produce anything but disaster, even with the best briefings, guidance and intel on the planet. There are things you just shouldn't try to do, usually because they are dumb.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Further to that it should be asked what the US has learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan. Now older, wiser and more experienced heads will not make the same mistakes... but we have a brand new bunch of arrogant clowns in the Administration now who seem intent on reinventing the wheel. So the 4 to 8 year cycle continues.
    They seem to have learned that charging into places you don't belong and trying to remove or replace governments is often not a good idea. That's a start. They seem less inclined to unilateral intervention and more inclined to place sharp limits on intervention, and that's not half bad either. Long way from perfect, but a step in the right direction.

    I suppose you could argue that a nice permanent dictatorship would give greater continuity to US foreign policy and a better opportunity to learn from mistakes... in fact it sounds like you're arguing exactly that. Alas, we're quaintly attached to this notion of democracy. Incomprehensible, of course, but there it is.

    The repetitive and tedious accusations of arrogance, incompetence, cowardice and what have you really don't do your arguments much service, and are easily perceived as a rather shallow sort of bluster in the Colonel Blimp vein. I doubt they are intended to be that, but they easily leave that impression.

  10. #910
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    You might find a few parallels between Iraq and Libya without straining to look too hard. Long-standing dictatorships, deeply divided "nations" held together only by force, etc.
    Well yes, there will be parallels and there will be significant differences. Each case has to be handled on its merits. The current WH and State clearly is all at sea over how to handle the Arab Spring. An opportunity lost.

    I'd suggest that the problem in Iraq in particular was less with planning and execution than with the decision to go there in the first place... and still more with the "idea" (using the term very loosely indeed) that the US could "drain the swamp in the Middle East" by "installing" a democracy in Iraq. Start with that set of delusions and no amount of planning and execution is going to produce anything but disaster, even with the best briefings, guidance and intel on the planet. There are things you just shouldn't try to do, usually because they are dumb.
    Well maybe. But like with GWB Obama brought certain preconceived ideas to the presidency. That is why I refer to "a brand new bunch of arrogant clowns" replacing another. What I suggest to you is that the "cock-ups" have been as a result of all too smart politicians getting beyond themselves which reflects badly on the military in the end. But that said if the briefings, guidence and intel from State and the CIA were better the chances are that the WH would make better decisions. You want to cut costs? Do it at State and the CIA.

    They seem to have learned that charging into places you don't belong and trying to remove or replace governments is often not a good idea. That's a start. They seem less inclined to unilateral intervention and more inclined to place sharp limits on intervention, and that's not half bad either. Long way from perfect, but a step in the right direction.
    Well you see if the new Administration can't make an intelligent deduction from the facts before them there is the reason why the world sees one shambles follow the next every 4 or 8 years. Not good for world peace.

    I suppose you could argue that a nice permanent dictatorship would give greater continuity to US foreign policy and a better opportunity to learn from mistakes... in fact it sounds like you're arguing exactly that. Alas, we're quaintly attached to this notion of democracy. Incomprehensible, of course, but there it is.
    I am not arguing that... but if all you have left is to misrepresent what I say then that's a new low.

    The repetitive and tedious accusations of arrogance, incompetence, cowardice and what have you really don't do your arguments much service, and are easily perceived as a rather shallow sort of bluster in the Colonel Blimp vein. I doubt they are intended to be that, but they easily leave that impression.
    Yes, the truth is often unpalatable... but to turn that into personal innuendo is a little cheap don't you think?

  11. #911
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default A favorite sport of professional armies

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Have not seen any obvious difference between the individual soldiering skill between Liberia and Libya.



    Anyone seen a photo of someone using their weapon sights?
    History is a pretty long list of professional armies and their leadership who had great sport in their assessments of the unprofessional, populace rabbles they confronted.

    Right up to the point where they realized that the "rabble" had somehow defeated them.

    Often the pursuit of liberty is the powerful cause that elevates such rabble over professionals fighting for 3 hots and a cot; and who believe their own liberty is not at stake in this match.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  12. #912
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    History is a pretty long list of professional armies and their leadership who had great sport in their assessments of the unprofessional, populace rabbles they confronted.

    Right up to the point where they realized that the "rabble" had somehow defeated them.

    Often the pursuit of liberty is the powerful cause that elevates such rabble over professionals fighting for 3 hots and a cot; and who believe their own liberty is not at stake in this match.
    Yes did happen Bob.

    My interest in this is not to denigrate the Libyan rebels but rather to understand who they are and what they have to offer (see my later comment to David).

    Its a "know your enemy" thing ... as in Sun Tzu

    Interesting that these people have held Gaddafi's forces and mercenaries at bay in Misrata for weeks now. By knowing the rebels skills and capabilities one learns much about the skills (or the lack thereof) of Gaddafi's forces. McCain is correct, it is the third rate against the fourth rate.

  13. #913
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Redux

    JMA,

    Yes, I have distinguished between "limited means" (in military strategy and/or tactics), as opposed to a "limited result" (in the policy end goal which underlies the war) - Limited result vs limited means.

    I'd suggest that the problem lies in confusion with the concept of "limited war", where that concept is considered to require "limited means" (in military strategy and/or tactics), as opposed to a "limited result" (in the policy end goal which underlies the war).

    E.g., we (say the political masters) will conquer only the south 20 miles of the opponent's country - the "limited result". The means used do not have to be limited and may in fact take everything off the table - and use it. An example was Ike's back-channel proposition to the North Koreans, which would I suppose be patently illegal today (according to the ICJ) because it involved the threat to use nuclear weapons.

    So, a "limited result" may be logical as a policy; but then all means necessary to that end goal must be employed.
    I think I have been reasonably consistent with that distinction since 1964, when my mantra (as to policy vs North Vietnam via Lemay's stalking horse) was:

    Choice Lemay,
    Not LBJ.


    2/3 of the US disagreed and voted for the "Peace Candidate". We soon entered into an Asian ground war and a halfa$$ed limited means bombing of North Vietnam.

    Still a No Go on Libya - Nice try, though

    Regards

    Mike

  14. #914
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Yes...

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    BTW... I agree with hitting hard and leaving... with the promise that "if we have any more trouble from you lot, we will be back with some more of the same."
    That makes much more sense than the ineffectual efforts seen over the last 50 plus years -- and today.

    Now, if we can just get the inane politicians geared up (the Media will not be a problem, they'll jump at the idea...).

  15. #915
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    JMA,

    Yes, I have distinguished between "limited means" (in military strategy and/or tactics), as opposed to a "limited result" (in the policy end goal which underlies the war) - Limited result vs limited means.

    I think I have been reasonably consistent with that distinction since 1964, when my mantra (as to policy vs North Vietnam via Lemay's stalking horse) was:

    Choice Lemay,
    Not LBJ.


    2/3 of the US disagreed and voted for the "Peace Candidate". We soon entered into an Asian ground war and a halfa$$ed limited means bombing of North Vietnam.

    Still a No Go on Libya - Nice try, though

    Regards

    Mike
    OK I believe I understand where you are coming from now.

    Politician to General: General, this is your mission nothing more, nothing less. To achieve this mission within the laid down time frame what means do you require?

    I believe that by limiting the means at the disposal of the commanding general it probably ensures that only a limited result can be achieved (with an unnecessary higher cost of soldier casualties).

    As to Libya, once you realise the enormity of Obama's strategic error I hope you will appreciate that there was a quick, clean and easy (and low cost) option that could of/should of been attempted.

  16. #916
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default "Limited options"

    Hello South Africa,

    I do not believe that, usually, "quick, clean and easy (and low cost) options" exist in the military realm. I bolded "believe" because you obviously have a different belief - beliefs are not subject to argument.

    That being said, let's have a conversation - going back to 1964. A number of options existed.

    1. One was a very large infusion of ground forces into South Vietnam and the Laotian Panhandle - JCS estimated ca.1954-1962 up to ~600K for SVN and ~100-150K for the Laotian Panhandle. A Marine Staff study ca.1964 estimated ~700K would then be required for both the SVN and Laotian efforts. That plan (never executed, of course) would have reversed the geographic disadvantage which we sustained in SVN by losing Laos and Cambodia 1959-1962. This option was definitely not a "quick, clean and easy (and low cost) option"; and might have required some direct action vs NVN as well.

    2. From Lemay's viewpoint (informed by WWII), NVN had by 1964 completed a decade of re-building; and its riverine system had an extensive flood control system (dikes, etc.). So, there were targets to hit. As a initial step, Lemay wanted a non-graduated "hard knock" bombing. It would have looked something like the 1972 Xmas bombing (Linebacker II), but probably much more extensive and violent. If not a "win" (hard to "win" with air power alone), the idea was to buy time at the least.

    3. What LBJ, McNamara, et al, came up with was "graduated pressure" vs NVN and the Viet Cong in SVN - treating each as nearly separate issues. And so it went on and morphed and morphed, with increases in both ground forces and bombing. And, of course, this exchange was certainly absent in LBJ's interface:

    Politician to General: General, this is your mission nothing more, nothing less. To achieve this mission within the laid down time frame what means do you require?
    and targeting was done by the civilian staff.

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 04-27-2011 at 07:17 PM.

  17. #917
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Who has provided what?

    I missed this. An IISS list of contributions and a map:http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-v...mattan-mobile/

    IIRC some nations within NATO have declared no ground attack role.
    davidbfpo

  18. #918
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Well yes, there will be parallels and there will be significant differences. Each case has to be handled on its merits. The current WH and State clearly is all at sea over how to handle the Arab Spring. An opportunity lost.
    I don't see that they are "lost and at sea", they simply have a policy that's not what you approve of. The general idea appears to be to support change of government, but with minimal actual involvement, which worked fine in Egypt and Tunisia. Libya's a little more complicated and has to be handled as it emerges: nobody here has a crystal ball, and nobody in the US government does either. While you are personally convinced that you have a better way of doing things that would yield better results, that's only an opinion, and a lot of competent and well informed people don't share your opinion. That doesn't make them incompetent or cowards or fools or anything else of that sort; it means there's a variance of opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Well maybe. But like with GWB Obama brought certain preconceived ideas to the presidency. That is why I refer to "a brand new bunch of arrogant clowns" replacing another. What I suggest to you is that the "cock-ups" have been as a result of all too smart politicians getting beyond themselves which reflects badly on the military in the end. But that said if the briefings, guidence and intel from State and the CIA were better the chances are that the WH would make better decisions. You want to cut costs? Do it at State and the CIA.
    Anyone running for office has to bring preconceived ideas and general policy outlines: nobody will vote for a tabula rasa. The Obama administration is staying as close as it can to the policy framework that it campaigned on, and that the people voted for, which does not seem unreasonable to me.

    Smart politicians have often gotten ahead of themselves and messed things up. Dumb ones have often done the same. More often than not they've cocked things up by pushing the US into places it doesn't belong, which is one good reason why intervention in other nations hasn't got a great deal of support in the US.

    Guidance from State and Intel is only one of many influences on political decision-making in the US, and often not the most important one... and for better or worse, the State and CIA budgets are too small to make much difference in budget reductions.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Well you see if the new Administration can't make an intelligent deduction from the facts before them there is the reason why the world sees one shambles follow the next every 4 or 8 years. Not good for world peace.
    Their deductions are different from yours. That doesn't necessarily make them unintelligent... and world peace is not going to be achieved by anything the US does or doesn't do. The US does not run the world. I have my own criticisms of US policy, and have for many years... but I can't guarantee that my own preferred policies would have generated better results, and neither can you.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    I am not arguing that... but if all you have left is to misrepresent what I say then that's a new low.
    Then what are you arguing? The electoral cycle is implicit in democracy; you can't have a democracy without it. The right of the populace to choose leaders with different policies is implicit in democracy. If you're complaining about the impact of the electoral cycle on democracy, you're complaining about democracy, because you can't have one without the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Yes, the truth is often unpalatable... but to turn that into personal innuendo is a little cheap don't you think?
    It's not the truth, it's your opinion. Your occasional failure to distinguish between these two very different things is what creates the impression I described earlier.

  19. #919
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default Illustration

    Noted the comments below...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110430/...izing_predator

    Stephen Biddle, a military analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the reasons are as much diplomatic as military.

    "A big part of what's going on is our British and French allies want to get out of what looks to be a stalemate that they now own, so they are busy pressuring us to escalate, and we don't want to escalate," he said. "One of the things the Predators do is they give you something that allows you to say to the British and the French, `We're doing more,' but doesn't get us a lot more committed."

    Biddle called the addition of two Predators a "marginal" gain for NATO that won't give the alliance the upper hand or stop Gadhafi's attacks on civilians.

    "But it helps solve the immediate issue of responding to pressure from allies," Biddle said.
    That's consistent with what I've thought from the start: the US effort is less about achieving any specific end state or result on the ground in Libya than about establishing a US position. The administration does not want to be seen in a fully isolationist "doesn't give a $#!t" role, does want to be seen working through multilateral organizations, but does not under any circumstances want to take "ownership" or take over any kind of a lead role that could lead to "ownership". Given recent history it's easy enough to understand why: getting rid of an undesirable government can easily be the start, not the end, of the problems if one accepts that "ownership" role.

  20. #920
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Noted the comments below...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110430/...izing_predator

    That's consistent with what I've thought from the start: the US effort is less about achieving any specific end state or result on the ground in Libya than about establishing a US position. The administration does not want to be seen in a fully isolationist "doesn't give a $#!t" role, does want to be seen working through multilateral organizations, but does not under any circumstances want to take "ownership" or take over any kind of a lead role that could lead to "ownership". Given recent history it's easy enough to understand why: getting rid of an undesirable government can easily be the start, not the end, of the problems if one accepts that "ownership" role.
    What is consistent is the evidence that the Obama Administration does not have the vaguest idea of what's going on and how to proceed in Libya. What we are quite possibly witnessing is the most inept Administration in US history.

    Spin the situation as much as you wish but what the world is witnessing is the horror of a US President Leading from behind

    But "leading from behind" doesn't produce that outcome. It produces resentful allies who feel we set them up to fail, resentful rebels who feel we would not help them win, resentful victims who continued at great danger to resist despots. It produces governments that ponder whether another powerful state should be assisted because it might prove less aggravating than we are.

Similar Threads

  1. Gaddafi's sub-Saharan mercenaries
    By AdamG in forum Africa
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 06:45 PM
  2. Coupla Questions From a Newbie
    By kwillcox in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-09-2007, 07:32 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •