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.
Bystanders to Genocide
In trying to understand why the Obama Administration has intervened in Libya, it may be helpful to re-read Samantha Power's 2001 essay in the Atlantic on Rwanda.
Susan Rice, Clarke's co-worker on peacekeeping at the NSC, also feels that she has a debt to repay. "There was such a huge disconnect between the logic of each of the decisions we took along the way during the genocide and the moral consequences of the decisions taken collectively," Rice says. "I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required."
I read Power's essay a few years ago and, while Power makes a strong case for intervention in Rwanda, I had some of the same questions reading it then that I do watching the administration's policy unfold on Libya. Some questions were strategic: What would the end state have been? Would U.S. military intervention have helped or have exacerbated drivers of conflict? (How do we know?) Other questions, meanwhile, were tactical: How would we have resupplied a parachute infantry battalion after 72 hours? How would we have conducted casualty evacuations in a land-locked African country? What about other contingency plans? What if our forces came under attack? What would have been their rules of engagement?
In the end, the sheer amount of deliberate planning and rehearsals you have to do in order to execute a proper military operation with clear and defined objectives mean policy makers cannot intervene as quickly and decisively as they would otherwise like. Confronted with a 24-hour news cycle, that must be frustrating for elected officials, but trust me, it is no where near as frustrating as being a platoon leader on the ground unsure of his commander's intent, thousands of miles from home, and responsible for 35 lives.
Alan Kuperman had a Foreign
Alan Kuperman had a Foreign Affairs article making a point similar to yours, and was heavily criticized as excusing Western apathy on Rwanda: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/55636/alan-j-kuperman/rwanda-in-r...
This also brings up the perils of policymakers using historical analolgies, or even basing their decisionmaking on previous experience. Whatever Libya is now, it's not Rwanda '94--our policymakers and those advising them have a responsibility not to try to draw equivalence between them.
agreed. Parallels drawn
agreed. Parallels drawn between Rwanda and Libya would be very crass indeed. Perhaps the most 'dramatic action' the US could take vis-a-vis the turmoil sweeping the ME and NA would be to cease supporting, arming and training those very regimes such as Saudia Arabia that are cracking down on their own and others. Im all for ending suffering, but we need to look in the mirror first.
"Why are we bombing Libya,
"Why are we bombing Libya, when we're nearly broke and already fighting elsewhere? Peter Beinart on Obama's endgame in Libya—and how the difficult lessons of Bosnia shape the campaign against Gaddafi."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-21/libya-war-and-...
Susan.Rice.Won't.Be.In.Flames.
Our comrades will. We back out, or ground war. BTW does anyone realize there's an AQ affiliate in East Libya?
Libyan Islamic Fighters Group (LIFG). Al-Jama’a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya.
Shades of Albright avenging her Albanian relatives deaths at the hands of the Serbs (she didn't know she had Jewish Blood until adulthood, probably at college). For that matter it also smacks of Boutros Broutros Ghali getting us into a pissing contest with Mohamed Farrad Aidid in Somalia - they had bad blood.
Maybe we can find a cheaper solution for her, Hilary, and the other tender souls in charge of our National Security can take a trip over to Bethesda to find a good shrink. While they're at it she can stop by the amputee and burn wards.
Abu M grows daily in my
Abu M grows daily in my esteem. Continue bucking the mainstream, i.e. idealistic old farts who are making debts with all their misadventures that we youngsters will have to pay for. Nothing is more pathetic than a baby-boomer discovering bellicosity in their declining years. Here's to Gen X and Gen Y realpolitik.
The equivalence Brian Burton
The equivalence Brian Burton warns against is precisely what the Obama administration is asserting. It may be more accurate to say Samantha Power and a couple of NSC aides asserted it, and at length got the President to go along.
The Rwandan genocide was carried out by mobs incited by the government to kill their neighbors using small arms and edge weapons. The sudden, timely appearance of an air assault unit in the Rwandan capital might well have backed everyone up enough to avoid the catastrophe that followed and create a tense political environment that other governments might have policed. Not an ideal end-state, but a lot better than what happened instead -- in Rwanda, and then in Bosnia, and then in Darfur. I understand and sympathize with the visceral sentiment against letting something like that happen again.
Is Libya really "something like that"? No, it isn't -- not in terms of the number of lives at risk or the defenseless state of the prospective victims. And not, either, in terms of what armed intervention can reasonably be expected to lead to. Not only can one make a case that forceful, timely intervention in the earlier three cases could have prevented present catastrophe and created an environment in which future catastrophe was dramatically less likely, one can make a persuasive case. That's not true in Libya, not unless we're proposing to kill Qadhafi and his odious children. We're not. When Western intervention ends, they will still be around, and will either kill their enemies or be killed by them.
Western intervention is based on the "responsibility to protect," but that's an expression of sentiment based on past experience in countries other than Libya. I can appreciate that the Clinton administration's failure to handle the situation in Somalia led to the Clinton administration's failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide and the Clinton administration's failure to see what was coming in Bosnia -- and this has led to former Clinton administration officials talking the President into ordering air strikes in Libya. Their sentiment has overwhelmed analysis, and put us on a path to a destination they can't even persuasively define.
The path the Obama administration has taken to war in Libya has shaken my confidence in the President's judgment and that of his senior officials more than anything they have done in the last two years with respect to Afghanistan. That is saying something.
"Their sentiment has
"Their sentiment has overwhelmed analysis, and put us on a path to a destination they can't even persuasively define."
I'd rather have our friend the Rabbit running our FP. She amazingly makes a better argument and I'll bet is not quite so sentimental or squeamish push come to shove.
let me define it for you - we are attacking into AQ country, without strong (or possibly extant) local allies, in fact we may be arming the enemy via Egypt right now. And right now the Muj are headed that way.
And best of all, the USAF and NATO just became AQIM's close air support.
Why are we screwing around,
Why are we screwing around, we just need to turn the lights out... For good. NNEMP generators can be carried as a payload of bombs and cruise missiles, electromagnetic bombs with diminished mechanical, thermal and ionizing radiation effects and without the political consequences of deploying nuclear weapons. A couple of these and the lights go out in Tripoli. It will leave them helpless. These are not something from a science fiction book, they do exist and they should be used immediately.
Additionally, 4 to 8 ....EA-18G Growlers should be deployed to Libya to Jam all hostile military frequencies and disrupt their infrastructure communications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler
They way we are going about this, it's already getting dragging things out. This situation and Rwanda is not even closely similar to each other.
Thanks for the posts. On the
Thanks for the posts. On the points regarding unclear end states:
I agree that ill defined end-states can lead to potential quagmires and place our servicemen in very difficult and very dangerous positions.
I just want to reflect on one point to which I encourage rebuttals. I would argue that often times in situations of potential mass killings, there is only a small window of opportunity for an outside intervention to effectively and quickly halt mass killings, without extreme risks to the intervening force. This is likely early on in the crisis, before sides become entrenched, and unfortunately before a third-party intervener's desired end-state is entirely clear.
In the case of Libya, one could argue that the 'opportune time' to halt mass killings was when there was a clear(ish) geographic dividing line between rebels (and civilians in rebel territories) and Qaddafi forces. This division allowed coalition forces to effectively (if only momentarily) stop the advance of forces that were very likely to commit mass killings. Had the pro-Qaddafi forces taken Benghazi, there would have been even fewer options for any sort of intervention.
This post does not attempt to negate many of the valid questions and skeptic remarks about the intervention in Libya, but I did want to make these comments regarding the condensed time-frame in which the decisions to intervene were being made.
Thanks for the posts. On the
Thanks for the posts. On the points regarding unclear end states:
I agree that ill defined end-states can lead to potential quagmires and place our servicemen in very difficult and very dangerous positions.
I just want to reflect on one point to which I encourage rebuttals. I would argue that often times in situations of potential mass killings, there is only a small window of opportunity for an outside intervention to effectively and quickly halt mass killings, without extreme risks to the intervening force. This is likely early on in the crisis, before sides become entrenched, and unfortunately before a third-party intervener's desired end-state is entirely clear.
In the case of Libya, one could argue that the 'opportune time' to halt mass killings was when there was a clear(ish) geographic dividing line between rebels (and civilians in rebel territories) and Qaddafi forces. This division allowed coalition forces to effectively (if only momentarily) stop the advance of forces that were very likely to commit mass killings. Had the pro-Qaddafi forces taken Benghazi, there would have been even fewer options for any sort of intervention.
This post does not attempt to negate many of the valid questions about the intervention in Libya, but I did want to make these comments regarding the condensed time-frame in which the decisions to intervene were being made.
Zathras: Thank you for your
Zathras: Thank you for your statements.
I am not going to sit here trying to find a path that should have been found before the Libyan bombing started. To prove that point is the bickering that has broken out between France,Britain,Italy, and the Arab League over what happens next and who leads. Reminds me of "Who's on First" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVjrwyYGu2Q . Now there is talk that the US may not be able to take a back ground role. All of this has happened after the United States of American as dropped more than 112,000 lbs of explosives on a sovereign country with deaths resulting. That is hardly excusable. Talking about Rwanda is not going wash those hands. Someone is looking for an exit.
I saw the start, middle, and end.
Now the people the Administration has vowed to protect are provoking that same attack from Gadhafi. That is why you do not get involved in a civil war. Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are actively trying to disarm the American gun owner, has now armed a nation of people with more assault rifles and high capacity magazines than any Mexican drug smuggler or nut case could dream of with absolutely no background checks of any kind. Obama is the best firearm salesman of the year !
Also the worst type of hypocrite.
This is one thing that I find hard to understand. Japan death toll is predicted to reach 18,000. What is the difference between Japanese deaths and those in Rwanda? Japan build Tsunami barricades, put early warning systems in place, and built their buildings to protect for earthquakes. None of that helped. In one case, it made things worse. A whole village was wiped out in Northern Japan. Why? Because the village was behind a Tsunami wall. The village was in a valley between two mountains. To save their lives, all the villagers had to do was to climb the mountain. Instead, they grouped in their homes and died.
Police can not protect everyone. Sometimes the best solution is to enable self protection, that is universal to those who are truly free.
Did anyone consider that
Did anyone consider that Gadaffi has 143 tonnes of gold worth 6.5 Billion (and it will be worth more tomorrow)?
And you have been clear headed in your criticism.
First come, first
First come, first serve?
Rather than $600,000 cruise missiles, the US should be dropping leaflets with directions to the gold !
"How would we have resupplied
"How would we have resupplied a parachute infantry battalion after 72 hours? How would we have conducted casualty evacuations in a land-locked African country? What about other contingency plans? What if our forces came under attack? What would have been their rules of engagement?"
You forgot to ask, who will pay for the radio jammers. or How could US afford them. The "sins" of omission in Rawanda were too many to enumerate, by using the maximal position as foil, you are only compounding them.
"United States of American as dropped more than 112,000 lbs of explosives on a sovereign country with deaths resulting. That is hardly excusable."
why not ? why & how did this arbitrary standard of arise. By this standard we shouldn't be launching even a single drone attack.
"When Western intervention ends, they will still be around, and will either kill their enemies or be killed by them"
I doubt that. He is holding on to his capital by sheer force. But let's suppose he is still around or there is a civil war in libya or defacto partitioning of Libya, why is that a "defeat" to US. That worldview is more damaging to US interests than less thought out limited intervention in unimportant nation.
If Qaddaffi was able to put down the revolution without US intervention, it would have made him & his model invincible.
v1973....Good year, not for
v1973....Good year, not for the guys in Vietnam.
"United States of American as dropped more than 112,000 lbs of explosives on a sovereign country with deaths resulting. That is hardly excusable."
why not ? why & how did this arbitrary standard of arise. By this standard we shouldn't be launching even a single drone attack.
Couple of things come to mind.
1) What the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq were approved by Congress. That does not make it right, it does make it Constitutional by the War Powers Resolution.
2) It is not about drone attacks, it is about who is in charge. It is "putting the cart in front of the horse" to drop the bombs and then draw the straws for leadership after the fact.
Where's George Clooney, Mark
Where's George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg and Ice Cube when you need them?
If you understood the social,
If you understood the social, political, economic and military dynamics leading to and during the Rwandan genocide, and even passing familiarity with the region and its infrastructure, you'd have answers to your (entirely reasonable) questions, Ex. But while they may not have been fully answered in Samantha's article, to ask them as if they were unanswered, or unanswerable, is misleading. It took mere days to put over a thousand Western troops into Kigali for a massive NEO. There were plenty of APODs in the region, and friendly regimes that could have played the same role for a coalition in 1994 as Senegal played for the UK going into Sierra Leone in 2000 (when it deployed 1 PARA, the Pathfinder Platoon and elements of 22nd SAS from Aldershot Barracks to Freetown in 36 hours).
Zathras - you profoundly mischaracterize the dynamics of the Rwandan genocide. 'Incitement' is not remotely accurate to describe the role of the Rwandan government - or more specifically, Reseau Zero. The Rwandan administrative structure extended down into neighbourhoods, with an official for every 10-25 citizens. The genocidaires used that to exert extraordinary social control. Militias were organized, indoctrinated, trained and paid. A network of arms caches was established in the two years preceding the actual genocide. Death lists were drawn up for every neighborhood, and it was all carried out with the assistance of the Presidential Guard and the police. There was nothing spontaneous or disorganized about it.
You are right about the scale of killings being different by orders of magnitude. But it's hard to know what Qaddafi would have done - would Benghazi have been a Hama on a larger scale? The dilemma of prevention is that you're never entirely sure what you're accomplished. From publicly available information, huge questions remain. I'm left wondering what the NSC and the Principals were hearing.
Where y'all absolutely correct is that using military force to protect civilians today without developing a strategy to protect them once that force is withdrawn is reckless. In an emergency, it's unrealistic to expect the end-state to have been fully sketched out, but you've got to hope that the Europeans display as much appetite to resolve this responsibly as they have to get into it.
Let's see here. We don't know
Let's see here.
We don't know if Qadhafi would have successfully taken Benghazi, let alone know how many would have died. Lest anyone forget, 1-2 weeks ago all the instant-Libya experts were predicting Gadhafi was done, until suddenly they decided in tune that he was now invincible. We don't know who's in charge of the rebels. As a result, we don't know who'd come on top if they won, or how they'd behave. Though apparently the former Minister of the Interior, a couple ex-generals, Libya's liberals (all two of them), and an undetermined number of jihadists are included. (I'm sure they'll love each other after this is over.)
We don't know what will happen if Libya fractures or how to put it back together again. We don't know who's backing Qadhafi, or what their breaking point is - shades of Milosevic, there. But, nevertheless, our CINC is sure the operation's going to last days, and we'll turn it over to a coalition that (according to Gates) is still to be determined. (More on that later!) We don't know if the Western tribes are willing to welcome rule by the East. We do know, however, that historically the East has been the most Islamic part of Libya, being the old stomping grounds of the Senussi religious order.
Judging by the leadership's comments across the alliance, we don't even know if we're targeting Gadhafi. That would make sense consider the obvious haste with which this 'coalition of the willing' was put together, based on some last minute mind changing in the Obama Administration (which for 2 weeks signaled it clearly did not want to get involved). Or they do generally know that we're targeting Gadhafi and it's just some leaders are lying, and others not. Something tells me its a combination of both.
In short, we don't have the slightest clue what we're doing. But we're doing something, so there! And we even got 2/3rds of the Security Council and the Arab League (three cheers for kleptocracies!) on board, for at least a day ... though not Congress or the American people. (Oops?)
Yeah, this was real thought out.
Considering the obvious last
Considering the obvious last minute head fake, I'm starting to wonder if these guys have the collective acumen to handle a game of stratego without spazzing out and knocking all of the pieces off the table. Best and Brightest indeed.
Do something!! We need to
Do something!!
We need to think out all the bad things Qaddafi will do, do them ourselves - for they will not care why we bombed after they bury their kin - keep bombing as therapy for the Gang of Three. Keep bombing until the 2 Liberal strawmen from the National Transition Council; respectively Qaddafi's Interior Minister and the Minister of Justice (now there's a couple of Liberals) and their gang of Jihadis take Tripoli. Then we can spend the next 10 years getting IED'd on the road from Benghazi to Tripoli and the Coastal Road, send AQ thousands of recruits.
Oh along the way - can we indict Obama, Biden, Clinton, Rice and Powers for an illegal war since Congress was not allowed to vote? That's under US law. Either the Constitution or the War Powers Act.
Not to mention the ICC indictments for "war crimes" since Civilians will die. By the standards Bushitler was judged by we more than got indictments.
After they flee they can join MQ in Venezuela guest of Chavez, who I am sure won't mind hosting them. Provided MQ transfers his 100+ tonnes of gold.
There see? A mission, situation, stage 4 (occupation), end state and exit strategy. How hard was that?
US Troops in Liyba Boots on
US Troops in Liyba
Boots on the ground, woke up this morning only to see more of the future. Dear Leader can no longer say it is not true.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/22/general-libya-us-jet_8368309.html
BERLIN -- A U.S. official says both the crew of an F-15 fighter jet that crashed in Libya are safe and back in American hands.
.
The official, speaking Tuesday on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record, said a Marine Corps Osprey search and rescue aircraft retrieved the pilot. He says the second crew member, a weapon's officer, was recovered by Libyan rebel forces and is now in U.S hands.
MK up thread. I have a
MK up thread. I have a question.
You explained that Rwanda was planned.
You did not explain why I should care.
The "save the world" policy is bitched up. That applies to both sides of the political spectrum.
Look at US law.
In any State of the Union, if you are carrying valuables on the street and are threatened, you can only protect yourself, not your valuables. Then and only then to stop that immediate threat, not before, not after, only at the single moment that your life is threatened. The act of the threat has to be in progress, otherwise you are outside the law.
Take the discussion one step further.
Caste Doctrine allows a citizen to protect themselves in their home. In some states, if a person is attacking your wife/children you can use lethal force to stop the behavior. In other States, were Democrats rule, you can only stop the attack if you are the person being threatened and then you could be sued for using force against the attacker. In those States where Democrats rule, it does not matter if the attacker busted down the door and went full aggression on your children, you can be held liable for violation of the attacker's civil liberties (try it in Chicago). In any State of the Union, if my neighbor's wife/children is being attacked, I can not under any means legally use lethal force to stop that attack. I can only call 911 and wait for the police to show up. Chopping up my neighbors children in to little bits with a machete would be included under the legal definition of "attack" under US law.
I do no lie, this is the law. People have been arrested and jailed for breaking it. Liberals only want to give the criminals more rights to the attacker, not the victim. We have not even touched the State's Statues on Armed Trespass ( ie..Going to protect your neighbors children, with a weapon, would make you guilty of a crime in some States of the Union) .
**** I live in the US, my home is not in Rwanda.
******** My body is in the US, not in Rwanda.
***************I do not own property in Rwanda.
By US law, if I go to Rwanda to stop a threat to a Rwandan citizen. I would be doing premeditated murder.
I am my government, why should my military be allowed to operate any different?
It is not easy is it to stand by and have your hands tied, is it. Kinda like having someone tell you shut the fuck up, liberals go into self immolation mode when you say that to them.
One key factor in the failure
One key factor in the failure to intervene in Rwanda is that there were U.N. troops already deployed on the ground with a commander who was already seeking permission to intervene PRIOR to the onset of the killings. Permission was denied and the few thousand troops were left to stand bye and do nothing. Once the killing began the Government of Rwanda troops quickly targeted Belgian soldiers who they brutally murdered leading to a withdrawal of most UN forces. This withdrawal was made possible by a rapid deployment of military planes from various countries (including the U.S.) who provided an air lift of civilians and troops out of Kigali. These same planes could have brought small numbers of troops to reinforce Dallaire et. al. No less a figure than John Mueller at Ohio State estimates that such an amplified force may well have been able to slow down if not stop the genocide in progress saving hundreds of thousand lives. This is likely what drives Susan RIce's concerns (not to mention Samantha Power and Hillary Clinton). Machetes and hoes (the preferred weapons of the Interahamwe) are no match for 30 caliber machine guns, the infamous radio station (which may have had less impact than the movie "Hotel Rwanda" suggests) could have been knocked out) and the commanders might well have been captured or at least run out of the country. Rwanda was not like Bosnia nor was it like Libya.
I'm not entirely sure what
I'm not entirely sure what MK's point is upthread. The point of mine, further upthread, was that earlier situations in which governments with no taste for confronting Western military power could have been dissuaded from slaughtering their citizens are not analogous to the situation in Libya today. The reasons involve scale and timing.
His argument with respect to the forethought and preparation required to effectuate the murder of large numbers of people in a short period of time, specifically in Rwanda, is not directly responsive to what I wrote upthread, though on its own terms it is obviously correct.
You did not explain why I
You did not explain why I should care.
You only explained why you care, it takes a village to pay for a War.
America--Stop apologizing for
America--Stop apologizing for Bosnia, Rwanda, et al, et al.
Glad someone made the point about the UN CDR in Kigali asked to disarm the rebel arsenals and was denied by UN HQ.
And yet after the UN muffed Bosnia, Rwanda and anyplace else they met resistance (Lebanon comes to mind) Liberals continue to report to Turtle Bay. Apparently Fearful Leader thinks that's his Congress (Americas would have turned him down).
This isn't an Imperial Presidency - it's President Nero. He just golfs instead of fiddles.
Don't want to leave you all clouds and no silver lining. The lining is no matter who the Repubs put up in 2012, yer gone.
And you won't get back in for decades.
I don't give a crap about
I don't give a crap about "genocide" in Libya any more than I did in Rwanda, Bosnia, or Kosovo.
Not our business.
Not worth the bones of a single American soldier.
Please sign the Demand for
Please sign the Demand for the Restoration of Rule of Law and Accountability for War Crimes: Change.org --> http://www.change.org/petitions/demand-for-the-restoration-of-rule-of-la...
There is a term used in
There is a term used in government agency circles when those who get too close to a group of foreigners and make it their belief that U.S. foreign policy or involvement should be changed to accommodate or help a group of foreigners. The term is called: "Going Native". Ask around about this term and see what people say and how it applies to this situation.
The term is used to identify those who have proverbially "gone off the reservation" and lost their training and understanding that, "their job is to specifically help advance and protect the interests of the United States of America, worldwide. Their job is not to advance or protect the interests of a foreign country or people in foreign lands.
It's not uncommon when those in a junior position in our government "goes native", they are disciplined if caught. I've heard of people being sent home from overseas assignment and/or placed on administrative leave, pending an administrative action, because they have lost sight of what their job is "specifically" and are not upholding their oath of office.
My question is, what happens when those at the top of the tree..... have lost sight of their responsibilities?
Promotions, reelection, the
Promotions, reelection, the Medal of Freedom. At least those were the rewards for going native with respect to Iraq not long ago.
Very little was being done
Very little was being done before & immediately after the CPA turn-over in Iraq. The CPA in Iraq was a rolling train wreck. Lots of people were sleeping during work hours, watching TV or playing video games all day, hid out in remote locations while the Marines and Army protected them. Lots of the civilians were just fuc*ing the dog or KBR's girls, getting drunk and going to parties....always lots of parties at the Palace / Green Zone. Libyan - UN&US / CPA will probably have many of the same boys and girls involved in prostitution, drinking, drugs and mayhem with $135.00 a day per-diem and Joe the U.S. Taxpayer paying for it. If we go in to Tripoli, it should be kept a total U.S. military operation. NO CPA, very few diplomats and almost NO contractors. Keep it total military or as much as possible. No bullsh*t like in Iraq. Iraq CPA was a total mess and a complete waste of taxpayer money.
Add your comment