And Libya goes on...

[Fuchs]

Surferbeetle, the last headline is crap German, but it's not your fault. The headline is actually crap German in the original.

They're merely dusting off their standard repertoire: throw money at a problem, pretend that standard tools are good tools.
The most important thing in the short term is to supply as many qualified free election observers through OECD as the countries ask for. Tunisians have already signalled that this is going to be important.

The EU and Barroso are not really relevant in regard to what happens in North Africa, but bureaucracies and politicians always want to expand...

[TROUFION]

The necessary questions:

Qadafi reasserts power?

The rebels win?

Libya splits into two factions and the rebellion becomes a prolonged civil war?

Then does this matter to the West? Europe? US?

If it does matter then how much...what is it worth?

Then if it is worth so much why is it not worth the same to the neighbors of Libya? If Libyan democracy is so important why are not Eygpt and Tunisia providing assistance to the rebellion?

There are dozens of other questions but these seem the most salient. the bottom line in my opinion is we need to ask WHY we (US and the West) should intevene when the local actors Egypt and Tunisia won't?

-T

[carl]

This is what I figure. The dictator has been around a long time, preserving his power through brute force. During that time he has intentionally killed Americans and we tried to get him once. The brute force has made what seems to be most of his people very unhappy, unhappy enough to protest in the streets. That is a very dangerous thing to do in the dictator's land but the people let their excitement get the better of them and did it anyway.

The arguably psychopathic dictator shot them down in the streets for their trouble and brought in hired killers from foreign lands to shoot more of them. The people reacted in a noble but maybe foolish way and defended themselves and many of them decided they'd had enough of the dictator and are trying to get rid of him, the only way that it is possible to get rid of him, through violence. Since this is pretty much a spontaneous uprising, the people are completely disorganized and are now learning, first hand, a lesson of history-that organized groups are much better at violent endeavours (sic) than unorganized groups, even it the unorganized groups are much larger. The people are having a lot of trouble now but have no choice but continue with the desperate attempt because the dictator is not likely to be merciful if he wins. The people have to win, die or flee. Win or die mostly because a lot can't flee.

Given the above, it seems to me we should help the people to the extent we can, especially if they request it, which, from David's references above, a number of them have. To the extent we can; and we can now. It isn't 1956 and circumstances force us to stand aside. We don't need to round up all the L ships and land the troops. The people don't seem to want that anyway. But we can keep the airplanes off their heads. We can help and if that assistance allows them to win, then good for them and good for us. It will be their victory and maybe we will have a little influence in the aftermath. If they lose even with us helping some, then that is what happens sometimes, but, but at least we will have tried. That is important I think.

Like I said I don't see us getting up steam in the L-ships but I can see us putting some Aegis cruisers and destroyers offshore and some shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile teams on the ground to keep the dictators jets and helos off their heads, especially since some have asked for that kind of help. I can even see some A-teams going to help coordinate things, since that is what A-teams do. Not much more than that, but that will have been something. Maybe a lot too since the morale effect of jets and helos is perhaps more than the physical effect. If that doesn't work we will have tried.

There may be no immediate benefit to American interests in that. Most of the time you can get along with the devil himself if you make acommadations (sic). We could have left the Brits to rot but for the dopey Japanese and we did leave the Rwandans to die. But the world is watching and they judge so I think it is in our long term interest to try just a little.

I know that is coming off as Pollyanna (you are hear by cleared to use that in any way you see fit) and not many think the same, but I think this is important and we should help. This won't be a sure thing in any respect but we should try.

Life ain't fair in that it is us who do these things, if we do them. But that is the way it is because we are the only ones who will. We should be proud of that.

[Ken White]

And all I got was a lousy T-shirt (literally)...

...If they lose even with us helping some, then that is what happens sometimes, but, but at least we will have tried. That is important I think.

Having done that a few times, I'm very aware of what happened AFTER we 'helped.' That is not always pretty and our reactions to what occurred are, frankly, often pretty poor -- because the idealistic 'help' eventually runs afoul of hard national interests, time or money crunches and those we helped are abandoned to a fate worse than had we not helped at all. That's one of those 'be careful what you wish for, you may get it' things...

Like I said I don't see us getting up steam in the L-ships but I can see us putting some Aegis cruisers and destroyers offshore and some shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile teams on the ground to keep the dictators jets and helos off their heads, especially since some have asked for that kind of help.

Some. More have not. Most would take it if it appeared and would later be about as thankful as are most of the others we have 'helped' over the years -- which is not much.

Any way you cut it, you're suggesting military involvement and that is sort of like pregnancy, just a little isn't an option. You get just a lowly A Team clobbered or lose a C-130 and crew and your fellow Americans will start screaming for blood and we're off to the races...

Don't cuss at anyone unless you're prepared to be cussed in return. Do not ever pull a gun on anyone unless you're prepared to use it. Do not employ military force unless you're prepared for the escalation that will almost certainly occur.

There may be no immediate benefit to American interests in that. Most of the time you can get along with the devil himself if you make acommadations (sic). We could have left the Brits to rot but for the dopey Japanese and we did leave the Rwandans to die. But the world is watching and they judge so I think it is in our long term interest to try just a little.

A valid and decent opinion, others share it. However, many do not agree. Who's right? Hard to say. The US Guvmint will work its ponderous way and do -- or not -- something and, either way, the world will pretty much go on. That, BTW is not accommodation, simply reality. As was the fact that the "dopey Japanese" were provoked into war by FDR who used that same war to start denuding the British and the French of their Colonies. That, too, is reality.

I know that is coming off as Pollyanna (you are hear by cleared to use that in any way you see fit) and not many think the same, but I think this is important and we should help. This won't be a sure thing in any respect but we should try.

Not a Pollyanna, just very idealistic -- and that's not bad. Unfortunately, it is of little help in a world where many will use idealists and then try to damage them -- as many do to us today in subtle and not so subtle ways. Gratitude and altruism are desirable human traits in individuals. Nations are not individuals and they do not really deal in either of those attributes...

Life ain't fair in that it is us who do these things, if we do them. But that is the way it is because we are the only ones who will. We should be proud of that.

We can be proud of a lot of things and I am -- we can (or should) also bemoan a lot of things we've done to 'help' that did more harm than good.

Fairness isn't an issue, as you say life is not fair. The issue is one of the cost-benefit ratio. The result achieved should at least approach the costs incurred -- there are NO zero sum equations internationally -- and the idea of military 'aid' or low key involvement ALWAYS starts off that way. Unfortunately, as Petreaus famously asked early on in Iraq, "Tell me how this ends?" is usually not asked until it's too late...

[Ken White]

They're merely dusting off their standard repertoire: throw money at a problem, pretend that standard tools are good tools...

We do that for everything...

Troufion:

...the bottom line in my opinion is we need to ask WHY we (US and the West) should intevene when the local actors Egypt and Tunisia won't?

Yes. Great question -- and both are capable of doing that...

[Surferbeetle]

Surferbeetle, the last headline is crap German, but it's not your fault. The headline is actually crap German in the original.

Oftmals wenn ich Deutsch-Englisch lese, bin ich zufrieden mit meiner Englisch-Deutsch. In this case the headline comes from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung which is headquartered in a country with four official languages (German, Italian, French, and Romanisch) unlike our countries which each have only one. Nonetheless, the headline could use some work:

EU will Milliarden für die Entwicklung Nordafrikas sprechen

My 'diplomatic' translation which takes into account intent is:

EU will discuss committing billions (one would imagine Euro's) for development in North Africa

My literal translation is:

EU wants to speak for billions for development in North Africa

The article goes on to discuss Mr Barroso's pitch to the EU Parliament on this topic on Tuesday 8 March 2011, as well as Joschka Fischer's negative take on the idea. Herr Fischer is in an interesting position given that CDU/CSU could potentially lose their political grip on things in Germany this year...one state election down (Hamburg) and six to go.

The EU and Barroso are not really relevant in regard to what happens in North Africa, but bureaucracies and politicians always want to expand...

This is an interesting statement. Portugal, a member of the EU periphery, is once again inching closer to default while Frau Dr. Merkel, even though she has unexpectedly lost Herr Axel Weber, continues her inexorable moves to control the heart and soul of EU fiscal policy.

Carl,

Let's not 'rush to failure'

Italy has the Carabinieri, the Folgore, and the Alpini, Silvio and Vladimir are continually working some energy deals while the EU and NATO are looking at options as well (Libya: European navies update, and links, by Alex Harrowell, 6 March 2011, at A Fist Full of Euro's)

IMHO, we need to keep our powder dry; let's keep eye on the cultural heart of the Arab World - Egypt, keep an eye on the energy heart of the Arab World - Saudi Arabia ( Saudi Arabia's `Day of Rage' Lures Record Bets on $200 Oil: Chart of Day By Ann Koh and Kim Kyoungwha - Mar 7, 2011 1:09 AM MT at Bloomberg ), and of course keep an eye on Israel and Iran.

[Fuchs]

The headline should have been "...versprechen.", not "...sprechen" - entirely different verb.


The EU has neither the experience nor the budget nor the mission to do what Barroso wants. The European powers are very surprised by the developments, here's a summary:

Germany
7% of our oil imports come from Libya and North Africa is popular among German tourists. There aren't much more links.

UK
Had close ties to Ghadaffi's regime (dunno why), is embarrassed - Cameron wants to play over this by feigning the resolute contra-Ghadaffi man.

France
Had close ties to Tunisian regime and has close ties to Algerian regime. Got caught in the turmoil and embarassed. Sarkozy is unable of strategy and still doesn't seem to have selected a new path.

Italy
Had a strange love-hate relationship with former colony Libya, and its almost autocratic Berlusconi is way too close to Ghadaffi. Italy has the advantage of not being embarrassed by such minor issues any more; Berlusconi and the Mafia provide much greater embarrassments all the time.

Spain
Really, really busy with economic and fiscal woes.

Greece
Same as Spain.

Eastern EU members and Benelux
Afaik not really involved.

-------------

Barroso would need a broad support from these governments for major actions in this affair, and he's not going to get it. The EU cannot simply go to a bank and get the money for an adventure; it must not have any deficit. It cannot raise taxes either; all its money comes from the member states.

[Bob's World]

Fuchs, I suspect your "oil math" is the direct costs and only the tip of the iceberg; with the majority of the true costs to the US, and in turn, the global economy looming beneath the surface in the indirect effects.

A better point to support your argument is that it is a global market and all of these countries must sell oil to survive. For the even the Saudis to threaten to not sell us oil is like a small child threatening to hold its breath until it gets its way. Either it must soon gasp for air or collapse; or you just turn the impetuous brat over your knee and remind him of his true place in the big scheme of things. Bottom line, is that such disruptions are minor.

For Germany, the better example is probably your relationship with Russia than your relationship with Libya when we discuss the US and the Middle East as a whole.

All of this could be solved in short order if the US were a good colonial empire like our similarly situated predecessors. We would have simply colonized all of these places, or carved off the parts that we wanted (ala the Brits all along the gulf coast, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc) and exerted our dominion over the same, taken the resources at cost, and emplaced puppet regimes to guard our interests under the Stars and Stripes.

But we are in this moral middle-ground. An "Empire without Colonies" is how I see it. We get into all the same messes, but with half the benefit and far less ability to easily smack unruly leaders and populaces back into line when they try to exert some independence as well. We'll just chalk that up as a phase we had to go through.

Now it is time to move on to the next phase, perhaps a "World Power without Empire"? Who knows, but events such as are unfolding now across the middle east are shaping that transition right now. We miss all of that if all we do is stare into the flames.

We live in dynamic times, and an new era is emerging. I personally think it will be an era marked my much more conventional warfare, though with new non-state players in the mix in new ways, than this transitionary period has been. We would be foolish indeed if we confuse transition for the new reality and prepare for it rather than what comes next.

[Entropy]

Don't cuss at anyone unless you're prepared to be cussed in return. Do not ever pull a gun on anyone unless you're prepared to use it. Do not employ military force unless you're prepared for the escalation that will almost certainly occur.

I doubt that truer words have been written.

[Ken White]

We live in dynamic times, and an new era is emerging. I personally think it will be an era marked my much more conventional warfare, though with new non-state players in the mix in new ways, than this transitionary period has been. We would be foolish indeed if we confuse transition for the new reality and prepare for it rather than what comes next.

And thus far I see little evidence that we are doing so...

[Bob's World]

And thus far I see little evidence that we are doing so...

We'll see when we attempt to use mortars, MRAPs and Strykers to fight a conventional foe that is more force or terrain oriented than the current internal conflicts we have gotten into the middle of.

There are still plenty of unresolved and evolving issues in that huge fault line of Eastern European States; coupled with a mix of geo-political realities that could boil up into conventional state on state conflicts in the near future. The US has a habit of getting sucked into these things. Alliances will shift, muscles will flex. It is inevitable.

In the east the Japan/China dynamic will continue to grind along as well. Hard to say how that could play out, but undoubtedly it will affect the US. We fixate on North Korea and Taiwan, but those are probably low on our list of real worries in that region.

Don't have a crystal ball, but do think it is best to remain postured for maximum flexibility, and being capable of deterring or dealing with threats that can actually hurt us; rather than getting over fixated and fixed to problems that in the big scheme of things are fairly minor irritants.

[Ken White]

We'll see when we attempt to use mortars, MRAPs and Strykers to fight a conventional foe that is more force or terrain oriented than the current internal conflicts we have gotten into the middle of.

Yep. Trying to be something one is not always causes one to buy things that are not only not needed but a drain on other things...

The US has a habit of getting sucked into these things. Alliances will shift, muscles will flex. It is inevitable.

The US does have a terrible penchant for trying to 'fix' things that aren't ours to fix...

Don't have a crystal ball, but do think it is best to remain postured for maximum flexibility, and being capable of deterring or dealing with threats that can actually hurt us; rather than getting over fixated and fixed to problems that in the big scheme of things are fairly minor irritants.

Heh. True -- and some don't even really rise to the minor irritant level...

[JMA]

I personally think it will be an era marked my much more conventional warfare, though with new non-state players in the mix in new ways, than this transitionary period has been. We would be foolish indeed if we confuse transition for the new reality and prepare for it rather than what comes next.

Between who and who?

The problem the US is experiencing in Afghanistan is their inability to fix the enemy. If the US are able to fix the enemy they will kill it with the overwhelming force available to them.

The Boer Wars are a reminder of how a relatively small force with solid local support were able to run circles around a large conventional army which was too slow to adapt to the conditions on the ground and the tactics of the enemy. It took a policy of scorched earth to finally break the back of the rebellion (a policy which the Brits would rather not talk about even today).

So maybe your forecast expresses the hope that some bunch of idiots will try to take on a major power in a conventional war rather than any real likelihood.

[Bob's World]

Between who and who?

The problem the US is experiencing in Afghanistan is their inability to fix the enemy. If the US are able to fix the enemy they will kill it with the overwhelming force available to them.

The Boer Wars are a reminder of how a relatively small force with solid local support were able to run circles around a large conventional army which was too slow to adapt to the conditions on the ground and the tactics of the enemy. It took a policy of scorched earth to finally break the back of the rebellion (a policy which the Brits would rather not talk about even today).

So maybe your forecast expresses the hope that some bunch of idiots will try to take on a major power in a conventional war rather than any real likelihood.

JMA,

I think you are getting your apples mixed in with my oranges a bit here. Rather than agonizing over the tactual inability to "fix" the enemy, it may be more instructive to step back and ask what exactly the Brits were doing in South Africa and what exactly the US is doing in Afghanistan and what they hoped to gain from their respective operations.

Neither were on their home turf, but my understanding is that the British intent was to stay, setup shop, and establish dominion and governance over the region and all who lived there. Killing off all who opposed such an arrangement works, as was well demonstrated in North and South America.

The US goals in Afghanistan are quite different. "All" (in quotes, because even this is infeasible) the President has asked us to do is “to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda and to prevent their return to either Afghanistan or Pakistan.” I believe that would make the "enemy" AQ rather than the Taliban, and any earth that gets "scorched" in the process is not going to belong to either the US or AQ, now is it?

If asked, I would advise the President to back his guidance back a notch or two to something more along the lines of “to disrupt al Qaeda in South Asia without destabilizing either Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

After all, I believe we can achieve disruption of AQ in concert with Pakistan and Afghanistan in a manner that is acceptable to the Pashtun populace they take their sanctuary among; but that we certainly will not be able contain AQ in the FATA, nor "dismantle/defeat" them by operations that only take place in that one little corner of their global playground.

No, our problem is not a tactical one, our problem is that we have mischaracterized the nature of AQ in general, and then allowed ourselves to get into a supporting operation of helping the Northern Alliance gain power in Afghanistan and then defending them against the other half of the society that was represented by the Taliban.

Kind of like cops in hot pursuit chasing a murderer into someone's home, and then getting caught up in a domestic dispute there while the murderer hides out in the house next door, where he ran to with the abusive head of the first household to hide out with his relatives. Here we are attempting to force a resolution of our own making onto someone else's domestic drama, and totally losing sight of why we even ran into this madhouse in the first place. Meanwhile the murderer is still at work, running his global operation, enjoying the support of the abusive husband we threw out into the street, while we are stuck with the crazy wife and her kids back in the house. Probably time to just say our good byes, and get back to the business that brought us here.

[JMA]

JMA,

I think you are getting your apples mixed in with my oranges a bit here. Rather than agonizing over the tactual inability to "fix" the enemy, it may be more instructive to step back and ask what exactly the Brits were doing in South Africa and what exactly the US is doing in Afghanistan and what they hoped to gain from their respective operations.

Not sure I am Bob. Who would be crazy enough to want to take any of the larger/major powers with "much more conventional warfare"? Take look back at the South Ossetia war where Georgia made a miscalculation over Russian willingness to resort to military action (and the unwillingness of the US to support them in the face of and at the risk of some real war).

So in this and the previous response I am addressing the likelihood of "much more conventional warfare" in the future.

Yes, I guess one could step back and find a few small points about any different action/war which will render the lessons learned tenuous (in some peoples minds). I say that one (certainly the US) should learn (or better should have studied and learned from) from the British experience of fighting wars all over their empire and the world against disparate enemies. Most often arriving in a new land to face a new enemy with an arrogance in the officer corps (who knew it all from past campaigns) to ensure early reverses against any but the most inept enemy.

To excuse their history of more losses than victories the Brits will tell you that in a war all you need to do is win the last battle.

Like the Brits in the Boer wars who threw "numbers" rather than brain power at the problem so have the US begun to use "surges" as their means of overwhelming their enemies (as a variation on that theme). May have worked in South Africa circa 1900 and in Iraq but maybe not so good in Afghanistan (time will tell).

Neither were on their home turf, but my understanding is that the British intent was to stay, setup shop, and establish dominion and governance over the region and all who lived there. Killing off all who opposed such an arrangement works, as was well demonstrated in North and South America.

May I suggest you need to improve upon your understanding of the events around the two Boer wars

The US goals in Afghanistan are quite different. "All" (in quotes, because even this is infeasible) the President has asked us to do is “to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda and to prevent their return to either Afghanistan or Pakistan.” I believe that would make the "enemy" AQ rather than the Taliban, and any earth that gets "scorched" in the process is not going to belong to either the US or AQ, now is it?

Is that what is happening on the ground?

But that does not matter. The fact remains that the US and Brit forces in Afghanistan has no chance of winning any war there against the Taliban, the heroin producers and dealers, or anyone else. Bad strategy, tactical restrictions and in too many cases just plain poor soldiering give a prognosis of no hope in hell.

[snip]

No, our problem is not a tactical one, our problem is that we have mischaracterized the nature of AQ in general, and then allowed ourselves to get into a supporting operation of helping the Northern Alliance gain power in Afghanistan and then defending them against the other half of the society that was represented by the Taliban.

The problem is a tactical one in that without tactical competence the goals (of the US president, what ever they may be at any given moment) cannot be realised.

[snip]

[Ken White]

Between who and who?

Lots of little guys -- think the 1930s, once removed...

The problem the US is experiencing in Afghanistan is their inability to fix the enemy.

That's the "Not really" -- it's not an inability, it is unwillingness, two very different things.

Unfortunately, the problems thus generated are that unwillingness creates excessive own casualties and sends a bad message on ability and / or capability that can lead some to misjudge.

Alas, we've had that problem for many years and that's why the US should not play an active or overt part in these sorts of wars.

The Boer Wars are a reminder of how a relatively small force with solid local support were able to run circles around a large conventional army which was too slow to adapt to the conditions on the ground and the tactics of the enemy.

As Bob's World pointed out the British had reason to stay and do that -- or believed they did. We have no such impetus and we do not need to do these things. There is absolutely no reason for us to play to the strengths of others and hopefully, that will finally dawn on the power structure. My sensing is that it's finally starting to penetrate though there are of course the few odd, old Cold War fighters Bob properly denigrates...

The point being the British were forced to play to their adversary's strengths. We do not have to do that, yet we continue to try to do so and it's stupid. You'd think the Politicians would learn but they don't seem to do so...

So maybe your forecast expresses the hope that some bunch of idiots will try to take on a major power in a conventional war rather than any real likelihood.

Or expresses just the thought that some bunch of idiots may try to take on another bunch and we can either join them or, far better, just watch and be prepared to reject idiocy if it approaches.

[JMA]

Lots of little guys -- think the 1930s, once removed...That's the "Not really" -- it's not an inability, it is unwillingness, two very different things.

A political unwillingness translates into a military inability IMHO. How are soldiers supposed to do they job if they are not given the tools or not allowed to use them to maximum effect?

Unfortunately, the problems thus generated are that unwillingness creates excessive own casualties and sends a bad message on ability and / or capability that can lead some to misjudge.

Yes, if you mean that a politically induced military failure leads an observer to question the military rather than the politicians.

Alas, we've had that problem for many years and that's why the US should not play an active or overt part in these sorts of wars.As Bob's World pointed out the British had reason to stay and do that -- or believed they did. We have no such impetus and we do not need to do these things. There is absolutely no reason for us to play to the strengths of others and hopefully, that will finally dawn on the power structure. My sensing is that it's finally starting to penetrate though there are of course the few odd, old Cold War fighters Bob properly denigrates...

Sorry, but I believe my analogy (using the Boer wars and Afghanistan) holds good. In both cases it took too long to figure out how to conduct those wars. The bad news in Afghanistan is that there will be no final battle or peace treaty to decide the end of the war, only another ignoble withdrawal which will go down in history as another war loss for the US.

The point being the British were forced to play to their adversary's strengths. We do not have to do that, yet we continue to try to do so and it's stupid.

Tell me more... what did the Brits do?

You'd think the Politicians would learn but they don't seem to do so...Or expresses just the thought that some bunch of idiots may try to take on another bunch and we can either join them or, far better, just watch and be prepared to reject idiocy if it approaches.

Not enough soldiers reject the politicians strategy while still serving (which is sad but pensions are important and al that).

Yes as long as some precocious kid from some Ivy League university believes that when he is appointed to some position in government as a thank you for helping with a campaign he immediately is an expert in that field then the slope is still steep and the way down is still potentially far. Add to that the "smart guy" presidents and veeps (yes Obama and Biden) who don't don't know it from Shinola yet are framing military policy. The mind boggles. Its all very sad.

[JMA]

Now it is time to move on to the next phase, perhaps a "World Power without Empire"? Who knows, but events such as are unfolding now across the middle east are shaping that transition right now. We miss all of that if all we do is stare into the flames.

As much as some would prefer to ignore the fact the US needs oil and access to natural resources and world trade it is clearly obvious that intervention will be needed from time to time to ensure the above.

Looking at the US as an outsider it is obvious and understandable that the US needs to secure its access to oil, resources and trade and will do what it needs to do to ensure that. Sometimes not pretty but necessary.

(As an aside probably the only thing of value that the worst world leader in the last 50-60 years (Carter) attempted was to promote alternative sources of energy. Had this and drilling in the Arctic been actively promoted and pursued then maybe, just maybe, that together with tying up oil supplies from South America and West coast Africa then the issues in the middle east would be somewhat less of a problem today. What were the idiots in State doing all this time?)

It doesn't help (as I have stated before) that US policy radically changes every eight years.

That Gbagbo (in the Mickey Mouse country - Ivory Coast) can refuse to take a call from the US president means that he has seen around a million killed in the Rwandan genocide while the US saw no need to "get involved". It has seen brutal dictators like Mugabe all across Africa thumb their noses at the US and other western powers and get away with it. So what has he (and others like him) got to fear?

Then just like the Hungarians, still waiting (from 1956) for the US to come to their aid... as are the Iraqi Shias from 1991 and now the Libyans in 2011. The Shias can be forgiven (as they took the example of Kuwait) but the Libyans are obviously slow learners. The message is simple... you can't rely on the US.

The problem for the US is that it cannot go home and sit in the corner and suck its thumb unless it finds oil and a bunch of natural resources at home and can trade to a satisfactory internally or at most locally.

A great nation badly governed the US needs to start to take foreign affairs a little more seriously, I humbly suggest.

[Ken White]

(As an aside probably the only thing of value that the worst world leader in the last 50-60 years (Carter) attempted was to promote alternative sources of energy. Had this and drilling in the Arctic been actively promoted and pursued then maybe, just maybe, that together with tying up oil supplies from South America and West coast Africa then the issues in the middle east would be somewhat less of a problem today. What were the idiots in State doing all this time?)

We agree on all that, as for the State Department, not totally their fault -- they knew all that and pushed it but a series of Presidents who were far more concerned with their party's fate and domestic politics paid no attention to them.

It doesn't help (as I have stated before) that US policy radically changes every eight years.

As many of us have stated. It's also been stated that's not going to change. We're stuck with it. S'okay, it has merit in other ways.

Then just like the Hungarians...The message is simple... you can't rely on the US.

Regettably -- to many of us here -- that's partly true but there is one big caveat -- you can rely on us if DC believes a strong domestic interest is involved.

A great nation badly governed the US needs to start to take foreign affairs a little more seriously, I humbly suggest.

Humble? Surely not.

No need to be in any event, you have two valid points there -- regrettably, that's unlikely to change a great deal, domestic priorities will always trump barring a really major trauma or until we are no more and the electoral process won't change so -- do you have any other ideas?

[Dayuhan]

As much as some would prefer to ignore the fact the US needs oil and access to natural resources and world trade it is clearly obvious that intervention will be needed from time to time to ensure the above.

It might be possible to hypothesize a situation where intervention in other countries is necessary to secure access to resources or trade, but it's far from inevitable, and no such circumstances exist today, either where the US is intervening or where it is not. The Europeans, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Australians, Canadians, Indians, Brazilians and a fair number of others enjoy unfettered access to trade and resources without any need for military intervention, why should matters be any different for the US?

(As an aside probably the only thing of value that the worst world leader in the last 50-60 years (Carter) attempted was to promote alternative sources of energy. Had this and drilling in the Arctic been actively promoted and pursued then maybe, just maybe, that together with tying up oil supplies from South America and West coast Africa then the issues in the middle east would be somewhat less of a problem today. What were the idiots in State doing all this time?)

Possibly the idiots at State deviated from idiocy long enough to realize that there is no way the US can "tie up" oil supplies in South America, West Africa, or anywhere else.

The failure to develop alternative energy supplies is not a failure of policy, but a consequence of the oil glut: no amount of "promotion" was going to stimulate meaningful investment in alternative energy with oil below $30/bbl. Not drilling in the Arctic and in US offshore areas was, in retrospect, rather smart: it held those (largely hypothetical) reserves in place against future depletion. Better to leave your oil in the ground when oil is cheap (as it has been for most of the last 35 years) and pump it when it's expensive.

That Gbagbo (in the Mickey Mouse country - Ivory Coast) can refuse to take a call from the US president means that he has seen around a million killed in the Rwandan genocide while the US saw no need to "get involved". It has seen brutal dictators like Mugabe all across Africa thumb their noses at the US and other western powers and get away with it. So what has he (and others like him) got to fear?

Then just like the Hungarians, still waiting (from 1956) for the US to come to their aid... as are the Iraqi Shias from 1991 and now the Libyans in 2011. The Shias can be forgiven (as they took the example of Kuwait) but the Libyans are obviously slow learners. The message is simple... you can't rely on the US.

Why would they "rely on the US" in the first place? How is it the business of the US to come to the rescue of the Libyans, Ivorians, Zimbabweans, Rwandans etc? The Iraqi Shi'a have a legitimate complaint, to the extent that the US actively encouraged them to rebel, but I can't see how any of the others ever had any reason to expect to be rescued by Americans. As far as I know the US has never been appointed saviour of the world.

The problem for the US is that it cannot go home and sit in the corner and suck its thumb unless it finds oil and a bunch of natural resources at home and can trade to a satisfactory internally or at most locally.

Or one might say that if the US faces a realistic prospect of a need to intervene in a situation that actually has an impact on US access to trade or resources, it would be very unwise for the US to commit limited military resources to situations that have no such impact. We might very well need those resources for a situation that does pose a problem for us, why should we apply them in situations that do not pose such a problem? Resisting the temptation to further overextend a capacity that is already overextended and might in the future be badly needed is hardly thumb-sucking.