And Libya goes on...

[Entropy]

JMA,

Technically we're not doing CAS in Libya, but air interdiction. There is not, as far as we know, a ground element to identify targets and coordinate strikes (unless you count the grids I see coming in over twitter from anonymous Libyans, which I don't) so there is no CAS.

Also, with no ground element, the air forces have to obtain targeting intelligence via other means - typically ISR aircraft and various other intel systems and sources. These are all quite good at finding armored formations and the other "stuff" that most modern military forces use and this effectiveness has already been demonstrated in Libya and Iraq. However, as the cliche' goes, the enemy gets a vote, and finding targets is complicated by the fact that the Libyans are now using tactics specifically designed to counter our targeting efforts (ie. using civilian vehicles, civilian clothes, etc. - all of which have been widely reported). Weather is a huge factor when it's dumped on top of these existing limitations - much more than it would be by itself. With a ground force, targeting information, positive ID (PID), etc. comes from units on the ground - weather doesn't matter as much as long as the ground force is able to ID targets and pass grids. Similarly, ground forces are much better able to figure out if the pickup truck full of guys with AK's is friendly or not.

None of this is at all a surprise - or at least it shouldn't be. All these factors were in play in Kosovo (IIRC, operations slowed for about two weeks because of weather) and I think it was Mr. Haddick (one of the proprietors here) who wrote a post a week or two ago explaining how how the Libyan government forces would adapt to the coalition air campaign.

[Presley Cannady]

JMA,

Technically we're not doing CAS in Libya, but air interdiction.

The difference being "don't call us...we'll call you..."

[J Wolfsberger]

We, the United States and NATO, are now engaged in an undeclared war against one party (or both parties, depending on what day it is) where the casus belli is a doctrine entitled Responsibility To Protect. Is anyone else concerned at what this precedent might lead to?

[M-A Lagrange]

We, the United States and NATO, are now engaged in an undeclared war against one party (or both parties, depending on what day it is) where the casus belli is a doctrine entitled Responsibility To Protect. Is anyone else concerned at what this precedent might lead to?

The answer is simple: a military facism blessed by the Just Cause of the mightiest.

WHY?
Is that a problem?

[Ken White]

I doubt that all the causes are indeed just. In fact, like you, I know that many are not...

The cost:benefit ratio is poor and we devote excessive energy to things that we not only cannot really fix but generally tend to make slightly worse and therefor devote inadequate energy to fixing our own shortfalls. So, yes, it's a problem and like J Wolfsberger, I'm concerned about it...

I have no problem with the use of force or with interventions but I don't think it's too much to ask that we do all that wisely instead of foolishly.

Or maybe it is...

[JMA]

... we devote excessive energy to things that we not only cannot really fix but generally tend to make slightly worse and therefor devote inadequate energy to fixing our own shortfalls. ...

Ken, in my book FWIW the US gets an A for effort. The failure to "fix" things is because idiots seem to make the plans for the military to carry out to the extent that the confidence of the military to sort out even a minor matter like Libya is shot to hell.

Of course sometimes the military screw up (like in Somalia) so the cancer has spread to the military as well.

How you fix this, I don't know.

[Pete]

After 9/11 there was a lot of talk about "draining the swamp" that breeds terrorism in the Middle East and Central Asia. In that sense the recent uprisings in Libya and other Islamic countries present unique "opportunities." However, during the last 10 years we've gotten bogged down in costly wars and nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now this Libyan intervention comes along. Rather than being the world's international policeman I think the U.S. should save its military power and money for situations in which vital American interests are at stake, and until such time as that happens we should keep our saber in its scabbard. That's my humble opinion.

[M-A Lagrange]

I doubt that all the causes are indeed just. In fact, like you, I know that many are not...

The cost:benefit ratio is poor and we devote excessive energy to things that we not only cannot really fix but generally tend to make slightly worse and therefor devote inadequate energy to fixing our own shortfalls. So, yes, it's a problem and like J Wolfsberger, I'm concerned about it...

I have no problem with the use of force or with interventions but I don't think it's too much to ask that we do all that wisely instead of foolishly.

Or maybe it is...

Ken,

I believe we agree, my post was a joke.
What J Wolfsberger describes is exactly what Carl Schmitt warned about in his critic of the Just War doctrine and I pushed it to its extrem.

I do believe in R2P and the obligations for the international community to interviene to protect civilian populations against crazzy guys. But the way J Wolfsberger resumes it is quite frightening. And it's an open door to barbarism in the name of "Just" (Latin definition in legal language) and not a step to better wealth of mankind.
I believe JMM could enlight us on that particular issue of how you turn a good positive rights (Droit positif) ideas into a crazy repressive system that set a norm which is applied by force to any deviant.

Saying this, we are talking star wars and galactic empire stuff as for the moment we are in the very first expression of it in the realm of reality.
What has to be done now is effectively to take the time to sit, look at how things went and how not to fall in the pit of either "no action" either "bomb everything we do not like".

Let see what future brings in Lybia. Taking Daffy out is just the door step of a long journey.

[jmm99]

from JW
We, the United States and NATO, are now engaged in an undeclared war against one party (or both parties, depending on what day it is) where the casus belli is a doctrine entitled Responsibility To Protect. Is anyone else concerned at what this precedent might lead to?

Yes.

from MAL
The answer is simple: a military facism blessed by the Just Cause of the mightiest.

I wouldn't use "facism" ("democratic humanitarianism" can be equally doctrinaire and devastating). And, I'd put "Just Cause" in quotes - it may or may not be "just", with strong views on both sides. E.g., the stance of the liberal and more to left UN members re: Rhodesia and South Africa (as to which, JMA need not respond).

from MAL
I do believe in R2P and the obligations for the international community to interviene to protect civilian populations against crazzy guys. But the way J Wolfsberger resumes it is quite frightening. And it's an open door to barbarism in the name of "Just" (Latin definition in legal language) and not a step to better wealth of mankind. I believe JMM could enlight us on that particular issue of how you turn a good positive rights (Droit positif) ideas into a crazy repressive system that set a norm which is applied by force to any deviant.

The remainder of this discussion is probably best conducted privately over more than one bottle of Maccarthy-Moula (not the best of clarets, despite its noble name ).



Regards

Mike

[JMA]

We, the United States and NATO, are now engaged in an undeclared war against one party (or both parties, depending on what day it is) where the casus belli is a doctrine entitled Responsibility To Protect. Is anyone else concerned at what this precedent might lead to?

I think you are being altogether too kind to the Obama Administration. I think they are flying this thing by the seat of their pants. In other words they haven't got the foggiest idea of what they are doing or what to do.

As of yesterday (I note sudden increased air activity today) the US/NATO were losing the war (as you call it). Seem to have put half a billion into taking out anti-aircraft and other ground targets while failing spectacularly to lift the siege of Misurata and have allowed the liberated towns/villages all the way back to Brega to be retaken by Gaddafi's forces. This represents an absolute failure to implement UNSC Resolution 1973. Very disappointing.

Noted that the US has finally accepted the Russian demand for a ceasefire and are attempting to find a way to implement this without losing face.

[Oiten the Viking]

I still have to wonder. Now that we are involved and all the sudden there is a cease-fire talk in the works. Is this the equivelant of Desert Storm and we have to come back in 10-15 years? Did we just make a move that dusted off old enemies? I think that if it were only people looking for democracy, then great! But there are too many coincedences for me to overlook and say everything is innocent and just for freedom.

Two things, in my mind, will happen this year.

1. Muslim Brotherhood will show their true colors when these states in chaos choose new leadership.

2. Israel will suffer a major attack from the results of the new leadership changes.

Let's see.

[JMA]

JMA,

Technically we're not doing CAS in Libya, but air interdiction. There is not, as far as we know, a ground element to identify targets and coordinate strikes (unless you count the grids I see coming in over twitter from anonymous Libyans, which I don't) so there is no CAS.

That is why I said CAS type ground targets to differentiate between what is needed to protect civilians in places like Misrata and Zintan and the destruction of aircraft on the ground and radar installations etc etc.

Clearly to comply with UNSC Resolution 1973 one needs to go beyond interdiction strikes. The failure to strike tactical ground targets (tanks, vehicles, troop concentrations etc etc) decisively in the early stages has allowed the Gaddafi forces to rapidly adapt to a highly mobile insurgent/guerrilla style of operations. The cost of this failure and the inability to protect Libyan civilians through tactical air strikes is depicted in the rising civilian body count.

It now seems that by removing/reducing the air effort ahead of the advancing rebels and thereby allowing Gaddafi to counter attack was a cynical move to prove to the rebels that they need US/NATO aid and to get it they need to subordinate themselves and take orders and accept command from the US/NATO.

To avoid the OPSEC Nazis it needs to be said that the SAS operations in Libya have been reported on in the media. I saw on CBS two ex-military types stating with absolute certainty that the same holds good for US special forces. So instead of looking for tanks hidden under bushes they should possibly be getting a little closer to the action in Misrata and Zintan, yes?

This whole Libyan exercise is turning into a box-of-frogs and will result in another embarrassment for the US military unless someone takes the situation by the scruff of the neck and focuses on the mission.

Someone should form up that smooth taking Admiral in charge of NATO and give him 48 hours to relieve Misrata and Zintan or he is on the next flight home. Now if there is no one in the top military echelons or the WH with enough balls to do this... get Donald Trump to do it.

[Ray]

That is why I said CAS type ground targets to differentiate between what is needed to protect civilians in places like Misrata and Zintan and the destruction of aircraft on the ground and radar installations etc etc.

Clearly to comply with UNSC Resolution 1973 one needs to go beyond interdiction strikes. The failure to strike tactical ground targets (tanks, vehicles, troop concentrations etc etc) decisively in the early stages has allowed the Gaddafi forces to rapidly adapt to a highly mobile insurgent/guerrilla style of operations. The cost of this failure and the inability to protect Libyan civilians through tactical air strikes is depicted in the rising civilian body count.

It now seems that by removing/reducing the air effort ahead of the advancing rebels and thereby allowing Gaddafi to counter attack was a cynical move to prove to the rebels that they need US/NATO aid and to get it they need to subordinate themselves and take orders and accept command from the US/NATO.

To avoid the OPSEC Nazis it needs to be said that the SAS operations in Libya have been reported on in the media. I saw on CBS two ex-military types stating with absolute certainty that the same holds good for US special forces. So instead of looking for tanks hidden under bushes they should possibly be getting a little closer to the action in Misrata and Zintan, yes?

This whole Libyan exercise is turning into a box-of-frogs and will result in another embarrassment for the US military unless someone takes the situation by the scruff of the neck and focuses on the mission.

Someone should form up that smooth taking Admiral in charge of NATO and give him 48 hours to relieve Misrata and Zintan or he is on the next flight home. Now if there is no one in the top military echelons or the WH with enough balls to do this... get Donald Trump to do it.

One can criticise the US action from the military standpoint. However, waiting for the Arab League to 'plead' for US intervention, notwithstanding the UN go ahead, was a diplomatic coup and was well waiting for, even though it allowed Gaddaffi to advance causing civilian casualties.

I agree that it appear heartless, but then realpolitik is heartless and is only focussed to further the national interests.

By waiting and then acting because of 'requests' and then handing over the ops to NATO, none can complain and whine about 'US imperialism'. The fact that there is no ground troops also goes well that the US is not doing another Iraq and instead is only ensuring that civilians are not killed en masse. And another aspect that goes in favour, having been proved by the delayed action by the US, is that Gaddafi is killing his own people!!

It was essential to indicate to the Islamic world that the US is not on a drive against Islam, as is popularly believed in the Islamic world, and instead was constrained to act to save the mindless slaughter of own civilians by Gaddafi! Another coup of sorts!

Just a thought.

[JMA]

One can criticise the US action from the military standpoint. However, waiting for the Arab League to 'plead' for US intervention, notwithstanding the UN go ahead, was a diplomatic coup and was well waiting for, even though it allowed Gaddaffi to advance causing civilian casualties.

Well yes and that is what happened and the military action as it played out thereafter has not been affected by the delay. In fact where the situation stands today was just about where it was on day one with the single exception being that Gaddafi has no air force. So what exactly has the US/NATO action achieved other than to create a stalemate. Is this what the real intention was all along?

I agree that it appear heartless, but then realpolitik is heartless and is only focussed to further the national interests.

Are there national interests at play here? I thought this was a humanitarian intervention?

By waiting and then acting because of 'requests' and then handing over the ops to NATO, none can complain and whine about 'US imperialism'. The fact that there is no ground troops also goes well that the US is not doing another Iraq and instead is only ensuring that civilians are not killed en masse. And another aspect that goes in favour, having been proved by the delayed action by the US, is that Gaddafi is killing his own people!!

How does this ducking and diving of the US benefit the Libyans? The US has been so politically correct that Misrata is still under siege and Gaddafi is once again almost at the gates of Bengazi. No doubt the politicians think they have been clever but I'm not sure Libya and the Libyans have benefited that much other than a massacre in Bengazi has not taken place.

To follow the "heartless" line why not have let Gaddafi butcher the people of Bengazi then it would probably have been acceptable to target him and go for regime change? Would that not have been more in the "national interest"?

It was essential to indicate to the Islamic world that the US is not on a drive against Islam, as is popularly believed in the Islamic world, and instead was constrained to act to save the mindless slaughter of own civilians by Gaddafi! Another coup of sorts!

Just a thought.

Yes limited objectives are fine and unfortunately the way the US played it the good people of Bengazi are more grateful to the French and British than the US for the intervention (although the effort was probably 95% US and 5% the rest). And because life is a bitch the people of Misrata will probably blame the US for not saving them from Gaddafi.

US political strategy has been poor and has limited the military action to the point of emasculation. Nothing to be proud about.

[Ray]

Well yes and that is what happened and the military action as it played out thereafter has not been affected by the delay. In fact where the situation stands today was just about where it was on day one with the single exception being that Gaddafi has no air force. So what exactly has the US/NATO action achieved other than to create a stalemate. Is this what the real intention was all along?

Gaddafi maybe a dictator in the eyes of the West, and even a tinpot one at that, but in the Muslim and African world, he is not viewed so. He commands respect and he has done much to project Islam power and African prestige. He is not a Gbagbo of Côte d'Ivoire, that he can be given a shakedown without a whimper from the international community. The UNSC voting pattern would indicate the drift.

Therefore, he has to be handled carefully and his sheen tarnished before the coup.

To believe that the West has no role to play in the rebellions around the Arab world would be naive since it would be a real coincidence that the whole Arab world suddenly is going up in flames with a new found messianic zeal for "Freedom and Democracy". Neither can one take it that the Libyan revolt is totally self generated. The Islamic world is used to authoritarian rule given the authoritarian rules of Islam and history shows that 'freedom' as is understood in the West is alien to them. Pakistan, would not be going down the chute, having inherited freedom and democracy from the British, if religion's authoritarian dictates did not have a greater impact than democracy that the British left as a legacy.

There are SF of western powers operating with the rebels, ostentatiously to ensure that western civilians are safe, when in actuality are said to be guiding the aircraft on their bombing runs and even indicating the FEBA. That there would be more or even guiding the rebels is a moot point.

The African Union is attempting to broker a peace between Gaddafi and the rebels, but one wonders how far it will succeed and how the conflict will pan out, if Gaddafi continues to resist and kill more Libyan rebels.

It is just the beginning and for once, the US is displaying a trait that was conspicuous by its absence - patience and Machiavellian astuteness!!

It appears that the US does not want to soil its hands, and rightly so, and instead allow the Libyans (with a little bit of help from friends) to sort out their internal issues.

Are there national interests at play here? I thought this was a humanitarian intervention?

Which intervention is not for 'humanitarian' reasons?

Iraq was too was a humanitarian cause! Regime change. Save the poor Iraqis from a ruthless dictator!!!!

And yet Mugabwe was allowed to run a riot massacring his people!! Obviously, such massacre was minor and did not require any 'humanitarian' intervention.

Neither did the genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda warrant 'humanitarian' intervention. That too was minor!

That leads me to 'national interests'.

The national interest is OIL. In this world of global recession, oil prices going through the ceiling would be catastrophic and so the control of oil and manipulating the prices is essential. That is the national interest.

It maybe worth noting that China, which panders pious platitudes and homilies abstained in the UNSC vote. Yet, it is the first one to buy and ship out oil from the very rebels that the UNSC vote went ignored! National interest for you. Morality is not the issue.

Rwanda and Zimbabwe did not warrant a 'humanitarian' intervention since there was no Oil to upset national economies.

How does this ducking and diving of the US benefit the Libyans? The US has been so politically correct that Misrata is still under siege and Gaddafi is once again almost at the gates of Bengazi. No doubt the politicians think they have been clever but I'm not sure Libya and the Libyans have benefited that much other than a massacre in Bengazi has not taken place.

Is anyone really worried about the Libyans?

To follow the "heartless" line why not have let Gaddafi butcher the people of Bengazi then it would probably have been acceptable to target him and go for regime change? Would that not have been more in the "national interest"?

Allow genocide and then target Gaddafi?

And have the world in arms over 'US imperialism' and NATO 'neo colonialism'?

Yes limited objectives are fine and unfortunately the way the US played it the good people of Bengazi are more grateful to the French and British than the US for the intervention (although the effort was probably 95% US and 5% the rest). And because life is a bitch the people of Misrata will probably blame the US for not saving them from Gaddafi.

It is only the Americans who feel that they are not 'in the reckoning' since they are not in the forefront going with all guns blazing. That famous macho cowboy image!

No, the French, the British or anyone may appear to be in the forefront, but the world is not ignorant. They know who is behind the driver's wheel. Being a thirdworlder, I may say that the US, for once, is playing a master role, just like it did against the Soviets in Afghanistan, where without the US assistance, the Mujhaideens and the ISI would be mere damp squibs and today, the Soviets have been removed and yet, none can say it was the US which did the damage.

US political strategy has been poor and has limited the military action to the point of emasculation. Nothing to be proud about.

The world is tired of US gung ho, shoot first and talk later cowboy image. This time around, the US appears to be with the world sentiment and yet are firmly in the driver's seat. None can blame the US.

The Americans made not be proud of what the US is doing, but the world cannot and does not grudge what the US has been forced to do!

[JMA]

Gaddafi maybe a dictator in the eyes of the West, and even a tinpot one at that, but in the Muslim and African world, he is not viewed so. He commands respect and he has done much to project Islam power and African prestige. He is not a Gbagbo of Côte d'Ivoire, that he can be given a shakedown without a whimper from the international community. The UNSC voting pattern would indicate the drift.

[snipped for brevity]

The Americans made not be proud of what the US is doing, but the world cannot and does not grudge what the US has been forced to do!

Hi Ray, I will attempt a broad response rather than just a point for point one.

I have always had a problem with trying to understand what exactly the Arab and African Worlds were really thinking. Mostly the views that were expressed were coming from spokesmen from the various regimes whose view was obviously prepackaged. Then given the propaganda and the way the news was/still is presented in most of these countries there would be little doubt as to how the various peoples were indoctrinated.

In summary then Gaddafi has recently got some support from a section of the Ugandan population (as reported on TV here) as a result of his building mosques around the country there and dispensing aid. Understandable. Things are slowly changing among the educated in Africa (by my observation) where the young educated can recognise an old-school idiot when they see one. Gaddafi, Mugabe etc are increasingly seen a joke and a relic of a bygone era.

Look at the Democracy Index. It is from that list that the West (IMHO) should decide how to deal with the various countries on the continent. There are only 26 full democracies in the world. Surely one should treat these nations “better” than the rats-and-mice at the bottom of the list? From #113 downwards apart from oil and some strategic minerals can’t think why they are even allowed in the UN or have diplomatic relations with the top 50 odd countries?

Why should the West be concerned what these authoritarian regimes say or care about them? So lets move onto the AU. An absolute waste of time and someone else’s money. Who did they send to Libya to negotiate? What is democracy and human rights status of these countries? They have credibility with who? Little wonder they were shown the door by the rebels in Bengazi.

The US displaying a trait of “patience and Machiavellian astuteness!!”. I would really like to hear how you arrived at that conclusion as the US clearly hasn’t had the vaguest idea of what is happening in the Arab world and what to do about it. In fact the current US administration’s utter incompetence has woken up and scared half of Europe into action… (at last).

In another reply I have stated that when the motivation for an intervention is sound but the method of the intervention is poor or unsuccessful then sadly the whole concept of humanitarian intervention gets questioned (instead of just questioning how they went about it).

Yes over time a lot of people have been let down by a lack of willingness to intervene but that does not diminish in any way the soundness of humanitarian intervention as a doctrine … (even if it upsets the Russians and the Chinese.)

Acting in one’s national interest is expected. This is why that hackneyed call “its all about oil” is so ridiculous. Of course it is and it always will be. Yes and (as we see in the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and others) there are times when one has to be pragmatic over morality and other issues.

Yes the US needs a change in style and intervention method. I agree.

I suggest that the people of the world are more ignorant than we give them credit for

If no one can say the US were behind the humiliation of the Soviets in Afghanistan I suggest it proves my point that the people of the world are more ignorant than not.

All the US needs is a change in attitude and style. It is just very difficult to turn this supertanker in high seas. It’s a 50-50 call whether they can achieve this IMHO