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.
And today's prize for Biggest Cup of Ice Water goes to ...
... Jim Mattis of CENTCOM!
AFP - Enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya would first require bombing the north African nation's air defense systems, top US commander General James Mattis warned on Tuesday.
A no-fly zone would require removing "the air defense capability first," Mattis, the head of Central Command, told a Senate hearing.
"It would be a military operation," the general said.
The United States and its allies are weighing possible military action, including a no-fly zone, as Libya's Moamer Kadhafi used his forces to crush mounting opposition.
Although Kadhafi's military is badly outgunned by US and NATO aircraft, the regime has dozens of surface-to-air missiles that could shoot down allied warplanes.
As the head of US Central Commnad, Mattis overseas American forces in the Middle East and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
US military doctrine usually requires knocking out an adversary's air defense missiles and radar any time air power is used.
I have been working under the suspicion that most of the good-natured people clamoring for a no-fly zone in Libya have not thought very hard about what, exactly, that might entail. Most of the people insisting the United States DO SOMETHING are either ignorant about the risks and complexities of contemporary military operations or gloss over those risks and complexities. [For more on no-fly zones, read this informative piece by my old colleague Michael Knights.]
There is an entirely different question about whether or not the Libyans even want us to intervene militarily. I suspect that if the question is phased, "Would you like us to make sure planes and helicopters cannot attack you?" the answer would be a resounding yes. But if the question was instead, "Would you be in favor of a U.S. bombing campaign in Libya if it hastened the fall of the Gaddafi Regime?" the answer would likely be no. The problem, as Gen. Mattis nicely illustrated, is that you might need to do the latter to do the former. I may be wrong about the opinions of Libyans on this matter, of course. This op-ed by "Muhammed" from Libya in the Guardian doesn't clear up much except lend support to the idea that Libyans very much do not want a ground intervention. (SEE UPDATE)
Anyone who has been reading my blog or following my Twitter feed, though, knows that I have been more than a little unnerved by the ease with which people have suggested the United States should intervene militarily in Libya.
I found this Leon Wieseltier piece, with its glib assumptions about both the Arabic-speaking world ("I do not see a Middle East rising up in anger at the prospect of American intervention") and the ease with which military operations could be conducted ("let NATO planes fly over Tripoli to shoot down any Libyan aircraft that make war on the Libyan population") to be the worst of the genre and entirely deserving of the scorn with which it was greeted. As a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who has also spent much of my adult life living in and studying the Arabic-speaking world, it just scares the crap out of me that people can still talk so casually about military interventions in the Middle East.
Update: Libyans very much appear to be debating whether or not to request foreign air strikes:
Three committee members later said they would make the request for airstrikes soon, reversing earlier pledges not to seek foreign military intervention. They said they now understand that they cannot match the military capacity or money that Gaddafi has at his disposal. But they stipulated that they still do not want any foreign ground troops in Libya.
yes! Yes! Yes! More Ice
yes! Yes! Yes! More Ice water!!
"DO SOMETHING" - you owe me Arak, although I never trademarked it.
David Cameron's not taking
David Cameron's not taking the Ice Water well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyfbRz4ObFY
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.co
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/01/how_rumsfeld_misleads_an...
What do you think about Rummy's new book?
Also, is the former SOD just plain stupid? The dumdass talks about G. Myers revealing TS Information to a High-Level Foreign National Government Official, before that Top Secret Information / the Top Secret Map was properly declassified!!!!
Is Rumsfeld untouchable or is someone going to do something about this?
Scared, gates and the
Scared, gates and the pentagon can not and will not deploy MEUs in foreign countries, hostile or not without presidential authority. That's how the civil-military relationship works in our country. Therefore, to the extent that you think such deployments would be a bad idea, your angst should be directed towards Penn. ave. Your questions would be properly phrased as "what the hell are they thinking at the white house?" or "what the hell is Obama thinking?"
From a certain point of view this "3rd world war" you warn us about already started 10 years ago. Welcome to the party, pal.
Guys it is not the Pentagon
Guys it is not the Pentagon !
Who is the Commander and Chief ? Duhho ! .............NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS.
Anyone that whats to get involved in Libya........HAND THEM A F*CKING GUN and point the way. I think Hillary would look hot in army green she should be first in.
First Mubarak fell and all the ME leaders were impressed with how fast Obama turned on a 30 year ally.
..........what are the ME leaders going to think when Obama starts bombing a ME leader ? How many ME people will what thier leaders bombed? Where does it end.
How's Afghanistan these days? Gotten any cheaper to execute the war? Government any less corrupt? Afghan Police any more ready to lead?
I am getting tired of American forces being used as the world's military WHORE. Italy and China just picked up oil at Libyan ports where are their aid package plans. Spain just called for intervention in Libya, how much are they chipping in ? How's Spain's bond rating these days.
Bottom line:
US touches it, US owns it. Do not get involved unless you are ready for a MAJOR aid misson. Once the US starts, the demands will never end.
Say it together..... WHAT IS THE EXIT PLAN TO YOUR PLAN?
...............................WHAT IS THE AID PACKAGE GOING TO COST AND FOR HOW MANY YEARS?
NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS,NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS,NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS,NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS,NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS,NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS,NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS,NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS,NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS,NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS,NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS,NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS,NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS,NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, NO MORE YEARS, Bye Bye don't let the door hit you in the butt.
I think we should just send
I think we should just send Charlie Sheen. If 200 VC couldn't kill him, who could? Plus he might be the only person on the planet who can actually talk Gaddafi on the same wavelength.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/quiz/2011/mar/01/muammar-gaddafi-charlie...
You were right before when
You were right before when you said that this is what happens when you have a public that is so completely indifferent or divorced (if that's the right word choice) from the war. People can call for military interventions knowing full well absolutely nothing will happen to them or their career if it goes horribly wrong. Peter Beinart, David Brooks, Thomas Friedman,etc. We all know other examples; you can be completely wrong and the worst case scenario is that you may have to write some kind of "Wow I really blew that one!" column like Andrew Sullivan.
Boondoggle...... Run deep,
Boondoggle......
Run deep, here is the CNN coverage !! ........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAf2qjrOGO0
Why the fuck do we have to do
Why the fuck do we have to do anything? And why would we want to cause we sure as hell can't afford to.
Elf..... Cameron speaks with
Elf.....
Cameron speaks with fork tongue just like Fearless Leader.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/armed-forces-to-lose-1100...
I've read the "it's really
I've read the "it's really hard" commentary by Mattis, Rees, and others, and I'm unpersuaded. It sounds rather a lot like the kinds of things we heard in the 1990s that masked conventional-army resistance to non-traditional missions, but now they're given an extra helping of presumptive legitimacy and sober analysis by tossing in "Afghanistan" and/or "Iraq."
(And for the record, I'm not a "good-natured" person blithely calling for an NFZ without thinking through what it entails, nor am I "ignorant about the risks and complexities of contemporary military operations" or blithely "gloss[ing] over those risks and complexities.")
Yes, establishing No-Fly Zones would require that Libya's air-defense system be suppressed. Yes, suppressing Libya's air-defense system might require air strikes on system targets.
However, I'm also aware that speaking in that way -- and using scary constructions like "removing the air defense capability first" -- is an effective way of pulling a Goldilocks routine; well that's too hot, and that's too cold, so let's monitor the situation and be just right.
Removing Libya's air defense capability could very well be much less onerous a task than Mattis and others let on, because Libya appears to have done that for us simply by way of its normal politics.
As Anthony Cordesman observed almost 4 years ago, Libya's air-defense system is technologically obsolete, operationally deficient, and largely for show -- it certainly does not qualify for the "I" for "Integrated." As he noted in The North African Military Balance then:
It's probably safe to assume that the "expatriate support personnel" (former Soviet military) are long since gone. Centralized command-and-control seems unlikely. And in 1986, when the air-defense system was controlled by Soviet and Soviet-bloc "trainers," it was still defeated in El Dorado Canyon by 4 EF-111s and 2 detachments of Marine EA-6Bs -- and the target database was much larger than it would be today.
The air force isn't any better:
Could there be a Golden BB? Of course. Is that reason enough to resist the operation? From my point of view -- no. Tactical aviation is dangerous. In 2010 the Naval Safety Center reported a 10-year average of 9.1 Class A flight mishaps per year -- net of OEF/OIF -- and 4.7 fatalities per year during Physical Training. I don't want to minimize the impact of those losses to friends and family, but merely to point out that DoD invests a vast amount of time and effort in risk mitigation -- but there's always going to be risk.
The possibility of creating a "rally 'round the flag" effect as American bombs fall on Libya is well worth considering, but it's also worth considering that, unlike Iraq in (say) 1998, the fact that the bombs were falling on behalf of the side in the Libyan conflict that has legitimacy might mitigate some (though certainly not all) of the rally effect. And at the end of the day we're not going to be able to gauge "real" opinion in Libya. As you point out, all public opinion surveys are incredibly sensitive to the phrasing of questions, and in this case there's no readily identifiable opposition "movement," let alone generally accepted spokesman for such a "movement."
But it would be well to remember that many of the progressive voices shouting "no no no" were all-too-ready to call for intervention in Darfur, where the stakes were lower (yes, oil changes things, and I don't think we do ourselves any favors by pretending otherwise). The hesitancy here seems largely related to the fact that these are "Arabs" and, in the generally Orientalist way of things, if we "go to war" in an "Arab" country, "the Arabs" will all be even more upset.
You know as well as I do that those constructions do more to obfuscate the problem than illuminate it. But just as you argue that many of those "good-natured people clamoring for a no-fly zone in Libya have not thought very hard about what, exactly, that might entail," I would respectfully suggest that many of those good-natured people resisting a no-fly zone are engaging in no small amount of traditional foot-dragging.
Ummm... Russell B, We have
Ummm... Russell B,
We have only to hit one tribesman manning or near those useless SAM's and we have negated ourselves.
For all...
have some pre-op questions:
Did they ask for our "Help"?
Do they want it ?
What is currently the Libyan order of Battle, friendly more than foe?
What is the tribal composition of above?
Have we made contact with the tribal leaders of Benghazi, and ascertained their loyalties to the revolution, what they want from it, and us?
What tribe defends Qaddafi and what are the loyal military units, and why?
What contact has been made with both the educated Diaspora in the US and UK, and how much influence do they have with the people fighting?
Have we leveraged the Diaspora in our own countries ?
How much influence do they have?
Are we currently training or pulling on our USA Diaspora for intel, influence, and translators?
What SF group if any is tasked for Libya? Are they handing out money and arms?
What's the oh shit plan?
What's your plan to evacuate the fools who trust us when it gets "too hard" and we leave? Them in the Lurch.
Look at the big picture. AQ
Look at the big picture.
AQ has held off the world's largest technological advanced army for how many years?
Islam call Jihad and people climbed out of the wood work to fight.
Large amounts of money was produced to extend the cause.
Large amounts of material was purchased, IED's produced.
All these people came out of the ME.
And these people can not overthrow a 3rd world dictator?
..............It is not about foot dragging, it is about common sense and being smart enough to realize that these guys can handle their own business, they have been doing it for hundreds of years..........why not now?
Americans are so stupid............
US helped Iran build a reactor, where did that get the US?
US helped Pakistan build a reactor, where did that get the US?
US gave Pakistan $7.5 B in aid, the ISI still supports and shelters the Taliban.
US built a dam in the '50's in Helmand and now that region is the best Poppy growing area in the world !
US is funding the Mexican Army, Merdida agreement is worth Billions, has the flow of drugs and violence been reduced?
US has been paying out aid to ME countries for more than 30 years, is the ME any closer to Peace?
When does it end? Fools errand.
Moving battleships? Moving marines? Calling for NFZ? Pentagon planning?
Problem is, the US is only talking about part of the people in Libya. Which tribe is the US going to piss off when they take Gaddafi out? How many buildings is the US going to have to rebuild when we are done? What payments are we going to have to make to civilians that get in the way?
Sort of like Democrats and Health Care, screw the rest of the people it is our agenda.
No More Years.......
"The Arabic is quite clear.
"The Arabic is quite clear. It is "qa thaa fee" ephasis on the next to last syllable. pl"
(Arabic: معمر القذافي )
WILL
Rather than declare a No Fly
Rather than declare a No Fly Zone the UN Security Council might declare that any use of aircraft against civilian targets would lead to the creation of an NFZ and an attack on the regime's air defenses. First, that would probably end the issue (Qaddafi has obvious incentives not to escalate). Second, if such escalation did occur responsibility would be squarely on the Qaddafi's shoulders). Third, this wouldn't require any deployment of US or NATO ground forces (and could be ended easily). Fourth, the US could probably strike in such a way so as to do fatal damage to the regime without bearing actual responsibility for its downfall. I'd like to hear the argument that it wouldn't damage US interests if Qaddafi found some way to put down this rebellion.
Ummmm, Foot-Dragging
Ummmm, Foot-Dragging Elf:
Though I suspect your "pre-op questions" were intended -- none-too-successfully -- to be cleverly rhetorical, there are almost certainly answers to them, but not answers we'll necessarily know any time soon.
So while it might be fun for sh*ts-and-giggles to pretend the "answers" sum to your preferred conclusion, in fact we don't know what they sum to.
With respect to a Libyan "diaspora," it's not at all clear to me that one would *want* to utilize such groups.
As far as "we have negated ourselves" goes, frankly I'm not even sure I understand what that phrase is supposed to mean.
And since we heard the same questions with respect to Milosevic, I'll stand by my earlier comment that a lot of this sound-and-fury signifies foot-dragging and little more -- and none of it lends credence to the proposition that a No-Fly Zone over Libya is too hard to do.
There is no doubt in my
There is no doubt in my mind.
This is just another diversion to fixing the American economy and balancing budgets.
Obama is using WAR as a means to spread his social agenda. Libya is just another AID program.
POTUS will have to reign in
POTUS will have to reign in SOS. 2012 is fast approaching and there still is much unfinished business in AFG and Iraq for that matter. War in the Mddle East and Central Asia is a long a protracted endeavor; ask the Brits. Ironically, many who loathed the military now seem content to "not rule out any option". These Peacenik's, who have no skin in the game, are best served by their military when they listen to the cold hard facts of military commandes on the ground. Gen Mattis is the right guy at the right time. My guess is a NEO, w/ an awsome show of force. LHD's are second only to Mercy and Comfort WRT hospital facilities. Their comm suite ain't bad either. As far as NATO helping out; re-visit our last two away games. And while we may be able to attrite their Air Defenses w/ relative ease, to allow for follow on operations, it is still possible that a tactical success could be followed by a strategic failure. Western intervention has never faired too well in the Muslim world. How much credit did we get for stopping Christian Serbs from field daying Muslim's in B-H and Kosovo? To paraphrase Anthony Cordesman, who may have been paraphrasing dead Prussian Generals or ancient Chinese philosophers, ... some wars are better not fought. BTW for Look At The Big Picture author, the Navy doesn't have battle ships anymore and the call to Jihad goes far beyond the ME, but your points are well taken.
General Mattis is the right
General Mattis is the right guy at the right time to help his civilian bosses understand the nuances of NFZ's and all possible follow on military and civilian operations. I would think that POTUS and SoS would be somewhat tempered by their political caledar.
Either way, western intervention has never faired too well in the Muslim world; where a solid tactical success can be followed up w/ an astounding strategic failure. Aside from the risk vs reward and the potential cost of our involvement in Libya, we've got some unfinished business in AFG and Iraq.
As far as doing this under the auspices of NATO, visit the above mentioned AO's. Then fill in the yes or no blank under Good Idea. Also, you may to tempted to ask why does the MEU have to fly Marines aboard? Answer: The original Marines that floated out on the MEU are busy in AFG at the moment.
Just because we can defeat Libyan air defenses and all things military, doesn't mean we should. To paraphrase Anthony Cordesman, who may have been paraphrasing dead Prussian Generals and ancient Chinese philosophers, ... some wars are better not fought.
One last thought, for the good of the order. The Navy retired its' last Battleship 20 plus years ago and call to Jihad goes far beyond the ME.
Last alibi; weak but
Last alibi; weak but true...
I am at a FOB and my stream of consciousness doesn't match my ability to navigate the technology.
I thought my first comments were nuked when I timed out. Sorry for the redundancy.
But I did try and be knider and gentler on second post.
As a friend pointed out:
As a friend pointed out: Since when does CENTCOM have Libiya? Shouldn't this be an AFRICOM issue, shouldn't we be hearing this from GEN Ward not GEN Mattis?
@Navguns, I'm not sure that
@Navguns, I'm not sure that "getting credit" is one of the generally accepted reasons for military operations at either the strategic, operational, or tactical level.
If I were a betting man -- which I'm not, being one of those Kahneman & Tversky-like individuals for whom the pain of a dollar lost is infinitely greater than the pleasure of $100 won -- I'd say NFZs will, "upon further analysis," have become palatable to the brass by the end of Saturday's news cycle, just in time for analysis on the Sunday talking head shows.
It can't be a coincidence that an NFZ over Libya would be "hard" at precisely the same time that (a) there is no actual FY11 defense budget, just a Continuing Resolution; (b) conference meetings begin on the FY12 defense budget in the next 2 weeks; and (c) the Republican majority is under pressure from its teabag wing to keep defense cuts on the table.
@Navguns and friend -
@Navguns and friend - USAFRICOM does not have forces tasked to it under a TPFDD and USAFRICOM's mission does not include direct combat operations and under the terms of the 2007 order that stood USAFRICOM up, USCENTCOM maintains its traditional relationships with Muslim/Arab North African countries, especially Egypt. And, since Egypt is Libya's neighbor....
AFRICOM's Mission: United
AFRICOM's Mission:
United States Africa Command, in concert with other U.S. government agencies and international partners, conducts sustained security engagement through military-to-military programs, military-sponsored activities, and other military operations as directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of U.S. foreign policy.
CENTCOM: With national and international partners, U.S. Central Command promotes cooperation among nations, responds to crises, and deters or defeats state and nonstate aggression, and supports development and, when necessary, reconstruction in order to establish the conditions for regional security, stability, and prosperity.
Wording may be different, but I don't see the distinction you refer to.
Egypt is the only African country in CENTCOM's AOR, AFRICOM has the 53 other countries in Africa, to include Libiya.
Right on, thanks for the Fire
Right on, thanks for the Fire Support Prof Russell. I was being a little "off key" w/ the whole getting credit thing. But I was on the traveling team during the B-H / Kosovo conflict. It was the right thing to do, so we did it.
Noyes, point out to your friend that USAFRICOM, is pretty much a HQ staff on steroids w/ a huge AO. No troops. KLE and FID are a big part of their mission. They're also still based in USEUCOM AO. And come on man, Gen Mattis is on a roll. He's a true warrior. Our decision makers really need to listen to him.
Anyone read anything written by Muslims lately? They do have a vote here. Having spent a fair amount of time in the ME and AFG, I think it's safe to say they have their own idea how things work. They do have the ability to figure things out for themselves. We may not agree w/ their form of corruption and graft, but at the end of the day it's their country.
It was drummed into my head at an early age that Military Force should be weighed against our national interest; which includes our national security. Does Libya meet that criteria? We can say NATO this or UN that, but w/ US war ships off the coast will anyone really believe it's NATO or the UN?
How about Dr Cordesman, any thoughts on his idea of when and why US should use military force?
One last thought WRT airstrikes. The current ROE in AFG are very restrictive and generally do not allow weapons release if a target can not be PID'ed as hostile. This is done mostly w/ guys on the ground. Does any see any potential problems w/ the use of air power?
Respond to Russell
Respond to Russell B:
"Comment by Prof Russell B on March 2, 2011 - 3:18am
Ummmm, Foot-Dragging Elf: -- Though I suspect your "pre-op questions" were intended -- none-too-successfully -- to be cleverly rhetorical, there are almost certainly answers to them, but not answers we'll necessarily know any time soon."
No, I was being quite dead serious. As far as negated if we kill a tribesman ....when you kill someone in the tribe, they must extract payment in the form of cash (or livestock in Astan) or by violence against you. It's an obligation. It's the purpose of the Tribe - mutual protection.
Use of the Diaspora in the US -- Best Practice. Worst waste not to do so.
This makes me wonder if you're trolling, either that or you are just drawing a castle in the Air. But you're probably serious.
Bosnia - another media created Invasion, like Somalia. We just finally got out a couple of years ago. You are right, the same bullshit hysterical media paplum storm put us in those places as well. We had no interests in either.
And this isn't a Rhetorical Exercise.
With the bases loaded you
With the bases loaded you struck us out with that awnser!
Never seen a betetr post!
Never seen a betetr post! ICOCBW
This is a great inspiring
This is a great inspiring article.I am pretty much pleased with your good work.You put really very helpful information. Keep it up. Keep blogging. Looking to reading your next post.
Debt Problems
Add your comment