Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On Libya
I am about to depart Cairo after five great days here spent conducting interviews and gathering "atmospherics" in post-Mubarak Egypt. I want to thank my employers for allowing me to take an extra five days off work to do this research as well as Issandr el-Amrani and his wife for being such generous hosts. I also want to thank Elijah Zarwan and many other people who have shared their expertise but would prefer to remain anonymous. I got to visit with my old friend Charles Levinson before he ran to the border, and let me continue to recommend both his coverage and that of his colleagues at the Wall Street Journal for what has been, in my observations at least, the best newspaper coverage to emerge out of these events. (al-Jazeera and CNN's Ben Wedeman, meanwhile, continue to set the standard for television journalism.)
Like all of you, I have been horrified to see the images and reports coming out of Libya. Some of the images have been truly shocking, as has been the behavior of the evil Libyan regime.
But I am already reading calls for the United States and its allies to intervene in Libya, and I think we should all take a step back and first ask four questions:
1. Will an international intervention make things better, or worse?
2. If worse, do nothing. If better, who should be a part of this intervention?
3. Should the United States lead the intervention?
4. If so, what should we do?
All too often in humanitarian emergencies or conflicts, we skip ahead to Question 4 without first answering the first three questions. Let us not make that mistake this time. (Because I don't myself even know the answer to Question 1.)
Okay, off to the airport...
yeah like really worth while
yeah like really worth while comments there, glad i checked in.....
You wrote two policy-oriented
You wrote two policy-oriented posts on the Egyptian military and police. So we get a sense of how substantive your Egypt analysis is, can you give us a broad sense of just who you were "interviewing?"
Well, I think a quick across
Well, I think a quick across the pond jump to take out the airfields by the french or spanish airforce wouldnt be seen as any zionist conspiracy... Also, there is urgent need for assistance to the newly freed areas in the east, wich could be channeled through Egypt/EU navy. I think this will be the really important part, helping Egypt and Turkey help the new states so as to make Egypt/Turkey the new stabilizing axis for the southern med.
"...behavior of the evil
"...behavior of the evil Libyan regime."
Really? The same regime that the GWB administration worked with as international partners for 8 years? Hard to believe.
Let me just say that I would see US intervention, and especially as a lead group, to be a really bad idea, and not just because of the full-time commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan. As long as there are no US citizens in Libya, military intervention could only be viewed as another US preventive strike against an Islamic country. At best, you would want to wait until after the shooting stops to offer humanitarian assistance and/or peacekeeping forces, but really, there is no call for active intervention in the internal affairs of a country, no matter how "evil" you think they are.
Don't just do something, sit there. Patience is a virtue, after all.
Andrew...... Problem with
Andrew......
Problem with your flow chart is you do not have WHY?
Any bureaucrat is going to think that any intervention is good. State Department is talking about putting money in to the Egypt political process and we do not even know if there will be one ! You yourself argued that the $1.5B going into Egypt as aid did not influence the government, yet the US just kept giving like it would make a difference.
Israel gets aid cause it is good for business.
Israel gets settlements cause it is good for the lobby.
Afghanistan war is still going on, it is good stimulus. Its Keyesian you know.
Better is easy for the Bureacrat that splits hairs on the legal definition of "it"
Why? That can end your political career in our current political enviroment, the bureacrat has to justify "it".
"The same regime that the GWB
"The same regime that the GWB administration worked with as international partners for 8 years?"
Every President works with evil regimes.
"there is no call for active intervention in the internal affairs of a country, no matter how "evil" you think they are."
Does that include Egypt?
Interesting that we talk to our ally Mubarak in a commanding Darth Vader voice, and talk to our enemy Qaddafi in a whining, ineffectual C3PO voice.
At least C3PO is programmed
At least C3PO is programmed for diplomatic protocol...
Not so sure about this one....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
Practically speaking, an
Practically speaking, an international military intervention would have to be led either by the United States (if it were restricted to opposing Libyan government air strikes on civilian protesters) or by Egypt (if its object were to complete the overthrow of the Libyan government).
As to the first possibility, let's keep in mind that the driver for such intervention, at this point, is news reports. These could be true, or exaggerated; they are unlikely to reflect the major part of Libya's internal politics. The second possibility -- and I think this is obvious -- would have major implications. I doubt the Egyptian military is even considering it, given all it has on its plate now.
I've read the same calls for armed international -- in other words, for American -- intervention to stop reported atrocities in Libya. I sympathize with the motives behind such calls, but believe our support for the opposition to Qaddafi would best be manifested in other ways.
Question 4) should be
Question 4) should be Question 1). It's necessary to establish what, exactly, one means by "intervention" before asking the remaining questions about it.
I'm generally not a fan of armed "humanitarian" intervention. Strike that: I'm probably an *opponent* of "armed 'humanitarian' intervention."
But the world is fluid; fixed rules, while generally advantageous, may occasionally cause deleterious effects; and everything is sui generis.
Still, despite what the prior paragraph seems to imply, I'd probably avoid intervention in this case. This isn't Haiti. Or the Balkans. The US is not trying to oust a defiant dictator. The Libyans are doing that on their own. Nor is the US trying to prevent genocide (in the conventional sense - although weaponless protesters being slaughtered is, it goes without saying, a terrible thing). Libya was not and is not a failed state. Trying to interfere in the political and social dynamics of other countries is...complicated. One's ability to is uncertain, and the costs of trying to do so might be disproportionately high relative to the effects achieved.
It seems to me that if it's fighter-bombers and helicopters which are doing most of the regime's work of suppressing the protesters, then a no-fly zone might in fact be the way to proceed. Yet even there, I hesitate. What happens when, even if perhaps surprisingly, one of the enforcement aircraft gets shot down and its pilot captured? Far more broadly, let's recognize that it's not clear how a new regime would behave, and whether that behavior would be desirable. It's a terrible argument to make - don't interfere because there's the hint that the current regime might be better than the alternative. But it's one to consider.
With all these revolutions, I'm reminded of Chou En-Lai asking for 100 years more to evaluate the French Revolution. As AM's Egypt posts hinted, it's early to make assessments. That goes more so for when the dictator has even to depart or die.
Apologies this didn't conform to the Abu M Manual of Form and Style for Intervention considerations.
ADTS
Zathras, You bring out good
Zathras,
You bring out good points, the reason WHY? is still discussed.
People are being killed in this world by nasty people every day. The Somali's just nailed the people on the Quest last night. It would have been better for the Quest to chart a different course, that is were the responsibility is, but now the US Navy owns the problem. There is not a call for military intervention every time it happens. Even the manifestations of other ways of helping do not occur.
WHY is Libya important ?
Just because American interests supported these countries is not good enough. My conscience is not that bothered because the US helps a lot of coutries in the same way. Just because US defense sold in to these countries is not good enough, someone else would have sold them the hardware. I have more problems with the foreign aid dollars that US gave these countries to purchase the military items more than I do the sales alone. People can boo hoo about GWB and the discussion with Libya, there was a reduction of WMD and world view changed. US is still doing business with China for all the human rights violations that they do. Obama is geasing the skids for US business expansion in to China and just made them number one at the State Dinner.
This is not about calling 911 and having someone fix your problem. Sometimes the help does not come for a long time, people have to find their own solution. That solution is usually the one that lasts the longest.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/2011222101415541965...
Simply put, the Clinton doctrine involves hedging US bets by keeping a foot in almost all camps, maintaining contact with different sectors in the society, emphasising "stability" when regime survival seems possible, and then emphasising "orderly transition" when change seems probable.
It is a mixture of realism and opportunism and a desire to intervene without being seen to intervene. It is a low cost foreign policy. By maintaining open and positive channels of communication (with Mubarak, the military, the April 6 Movement, Mohamed ElBaradei, and even the Muslim Brotherhood) the US made sure that no matter what resulted, it would remain in the picture as a continued player of importance.
Not even sure that what Clinton is doing is the low cost solution. Foreign aid money has been rolling and justified as little here saves a lot later. Seem to me it is just a shotgun approach to spread the wealth and hope you make the crowd happy.
There does not seem to be a strategy.
It is hard to make the right choices, having the right information is important. The US should be looking for synergy that projects US values out into the future if we believe that humans have unalienable rights. Sometimes that is not always possible, the creator may have given the rights, but humans were given dominion. What I am seeing in Egypt is a lot of people wanting something that their economy can not support. Having 50% of your economy in the service sector then chasing away your customers is not a way to grow your economy. The Egyptian people have to grow their economy to support the population's demands or change their expectations. For what has happened, Egypt only has one choice right now. No international investors are going to walk into the mess until there is a constitution and government. For the IMF or US to walk in and start handing out cash would be really stupid with out some guarantees and a road map for real reform. That road map will never happen unless there someone has a crystal ball, too many labor hands are out wanting to be filled to get agreement. There has to be a future and a return to justify the foreign aid spending. You have to remember that the US is trying to sort out its own future and HOPE ALONE just does not pay the bills.
A little here saves a lot later is not good enough, the American taxpayer raised the bar of expectations.
Libya's time line is a couple weeks older than Egypt's and a lot messier.
ADTS then a no-fly zone
ADTS
then a no-fly zone might in fact be the way to proceed
That is a scary idea. Where are you going to fly from? How much is that going to cost?
Where does it get the US?
.........Gee, I can see the headline now.
Another ARAB civilian shot and wounded by a US jet enforcing the no-fly zone.
Well, a couple of dozen
Well, a couple of dozen precision bomba ought to take out some runways, dontcha think?
Visitor 1:15 Good points
Visitor 1:15
Good points all.
ADTS
Let the Colonel's own people
Let the Colonel's own people kill him. He will be his own demise. With the Colonel out of the picture OPEC prices for oil may go down. We owe these people nothing and they need no assistance from any Allied powers to remove their dictator and evolve.
Visitor 11:55pm Not so much
Visitor 11:55pm
Not so much that do not owe Libyans anything, for me it is about strategy.
Start, middle, and end. What is the synergy.
* Americans have been hammered hard in the ME cause of oil. We are told the only motive that Americans have in the ME is oil. Now that Libyans are getting shot at they are ringing the dinner bell, "come and get it".
* Then there is Radical Islam. I am still trying to work that pain out of the back side of my world trade center.
* There is the Israel question. If Americans go to battle for Libya is that going to have an effect on ME peace?
* Iraq is not done with. Americans got rid of another ME dictator and is still doing the nation building. Iraqi statesmen collect their paychecks and ......collect their paychecks. It gets really old to walk into a country expecting nothing in return except a better life for people and be shot at for being an infidel and occupier.
* As Americans are finding out in Afghanistan, nation building is long term and costs a lot. Seems like every one in Afghanistan is on the State Department dole. Their Dubai bank accounts should be about full by now.
* Then there is Pakistan. The ever wanting, never stable nuclear Pakistan. I don't want to talk about it.
When Hillary Clinton opens her mouth and what ever Obama wants to do, they had better look at what is happening at home and the load the US is carrying already in the Middle East.
If the US touches anything in the Middle East, we will own the issue. Nothing in the Middle East is about problem resolution, it is about keeping you involved for more aid money to support their economies.
The people in the ME are welcome to pay my American tax and health care bills with their ME oil money and US State Department funding.
PS....If all Americans wanted was oil , it would be a hell of a lot cheaper just to buy it like we usually do. At $90 per barrel, the ME is getting wealthy. They have the money, we gave it to them.
Americans are very stupid people.
Expectations. If America does
Expectations.
If America does something in Libya what expectations does it set-up?
Algeria
Morocco
Yemen
Iran
Iraq
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Tunisia
Egypt
Sudan
Somalia
I already gave my job to a guy in China, do I have to pay to sell out my children's jobs?
New Government employee
New Government employee retirement plan......
You need 100 credits to get full retirement pension and health care benefits........
If you do something stupid......... minus a credit.
If you do something really stupid......minus ten credits.
Do something really really stupid like get messed up in Libya........... Career Over.
BTW...... The Americans in
BTW......
The Americans in Libya......You went to work in Libya and the pay was good, did not have to pay income tax.
Didn't you expect that there might be a day like this? It is a foreign country ran by one of the worst nut jobs in the ME.
Now you want a bail out?
Read the fine print of your contract......working in Libya pays well but can be bad for your health.
Sort of like sailing through pirate infested waters, does 911 get the US Navy? Where is the responsibility? How much do we pay to get people out of trouble who chose to be in trouble's way for profit.
"It seems to me that if it's
"It seems to me that if it's fighter-bombers and helicopters which are doing most of the regime's work of suppressing the protesters, then a no-fly zone might in fact be the way to proceed."
Because that worked so well in Iraq from 1991 to 2003! Yup, suppressing Saddam's airpower crippled him and enabled his opponents to overthrow the regime! Hey, let's combine that with the same kind of economic sanctions that we applied to Iraq from 1991 to 2003. Those totally punished him, and not the Iraqi people!
1. What we are saying:
1. What we are saying: Secretary Clinton cited the killing of innocent civilians...good. However, she then said that there should be dialogue or some such thing to resolve the issue....very bad. Sounds like support for Seif al Islam's bargain.
2. What the U.S. can SAY that would go down well with others in the region as well as the Libyan people is to make a clear public statement that Gadhaffi must go, his crimes, even if only the most recent days make his continuing rule impossible.
3. MAKE CLEAR that no one will work with his regime anymore and that sanctions would be imposed if Gadhaffi remains.
4. SEEK the advice of the Turks and ask what help they may offer. Their perspective on the region is important and often underappreciated. They have serious business equities in Libya now and it is in their interests to get those Turkish evacuees back into the country and to work.
5. CALL UPON Libyan military forces to follow the example of those that refused to obey orders to kill civilians or bomb the oil fields.
6. APPEAR sympathetic to any European proposal for a no-fly zone if and when all nations think they have no more citizens to evacuate, but NOT be part of it, if the plan moves forward. Might force the great leader to make a stay or go decision immediately.
7. TALK TO any adults left in or near the regime that is not toally insane and may be looking for a parachute. Security guy Musa Kusa? [I said "not insane," not "good."
8. OFFER EGYPT any help they need at their border with Libya. Private Islamic medical teams have already taken over that aspect of assistance and gotten as far as Benghazi. However, a Libyan exile and an Egyptian journalist last night said on a private Egyptian TV channel that Gadhaffi's cousin had crossed the border to round up help from some tribesmen settled on that side of the border for several decades to come and help for good money. No idea if anything came of it or if the story is even true. They also stated that the same cousin Ahmed was trying to round up men from the Arabic-speaking tribes of the Sahel [Mali and Niger] to come and help as well. Whether they would be interested in the money offered, who knows.
8. BERLUSCONI has done some very impressive deals with Ghadaffi and might be a good interlocutor.
9. DROP leaflets on the Republican Palace about how nice retirement living is in Venezuela.
1-Done 2-Done, Libyans are
1-Done
2-Done, Libyans are doing a good job.
3-Done, Think that is a mother hood statement.
4-Turks are ruthless fighters it is up to them to go in, they live in the region.
5-Think the Libya government employees figured it out.
6-Hillary does sympathetic. Useless is the general MO.
7-Five redux.
8-Egypt is doing a great job as a next door neighbor...with the 50 odd Billion dollars the US gave them why not.
8-(again?) BERLUSCONI did a great job in Morocco on the 17 year old girl. Maybe he can talk Gaddafi's security women out of their virginity and nullify their employment opprotunities.
9-Gee, I thought these revolutions were about twitter?
Qadhafi's Cousin Ahmed
Qadhafi's Cousin Ahmed Update
re Comment 23 Feb 12:12
Seems Cousin Ahmed's purpose was not to recruit tribesmen across the border for the crazy one, but to abandon the regime. He now declares from the safety of Egypt that he is against the regime. Or...did he have a change of heart?
Hobos Handbags Women Shoulder
Hobos Handbags
Women Shoulder Bags
Louis Vuitton Shoulder Bags
Cheap Men Shoes
Heritage Bags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Macassar Canvas
Louis Vuitton Utah Leather
Totes Magotes
Louis Vuitton Antheia
Louis Vuitton Jewelry
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Luggage
Louis Vuitton Luggage
Louis Vuitton Scarves
Louis Vuitton Wallets
Louis Vuitton Wallets
Top Handles
Louis Vuitton Top Handles
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Ldylle
Louis Vuitton Mahina
Louis Vuitton Outlet
Louis Vuitton Purese
Louis Vuitton Suhali
Louis Vuitton Travel
Louis Vuitton Travel
Hobos Handbags Women Shoulder
Hobos Handbags
Women Shoulder Bags
Louis Vuitton Shoulder Bags
Cheap Men Shoes
Heritage Bags
Louis Vuitton Monogram Macassar Canvas
Louis Vuitton Utah Leather
Totes Magotes
Louis Vuitton Antheia
Louis Vuitton Jewelry
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Leather
Louis Vuitton Luggage
Louis Vuitton Luggage
Louis Vuitton Scarves
Louis Vuitton Wallets
Louis Vuitton Wallets
Top Handles
Louis Vuitton Top Handles
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Canvas
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Damier
Louis Vuitton Ldylle
Louis Vuitton Mahina
Louis Vuitton Outlet
Louis Vuitton Purese
Louis Vuitton Suhali
Louis Vuitton Travel
Louis Vuitton Travel
Add your comment