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.
Hosford and Exum on Libya
Zack Hosford and I have collaborated on a new policy brief for the Center for a New American Security. The .pdf is just five pages, so you should take a few minutes to read it. The following bullet points will not do justice to the arguments Zack and I advance, so, again, read the entire thing before making a comment. In summary, we argue:
- No matter what anyone else says, the United States and its allies are at war in Libya.
- The United States has very few interests in Libya.
- Unlike with respect to Afghanistan in 2009, the Obama Administration went to war in Libya without a deliberate planning process that forced policy makers to articulate U.S. interests, goals and assumptions. This helps to explain why the administration has had so much difficulty articulating, for the American people, our interests in, goals toward and assumptions about Libya.
- Now that we're in this mess, a policy of regime change in Libya makes the most sense.
- We see two possible outcomes in Libya: either a rapid collapse of the regime, or a stalemate. We assess the latter as more likely.
- In order to avoid the latter and in light of U.S. interests, we believe the United States should establish a structure of incentives to get Moammar Gadhafi to leave. Kinetic military action by U.S. forces is not part of our proposed incentive structure. In fact, we think the United States should halt direct military action and work to broaden the international coalition to include more countries who do have interests in Libya.
- We should be prepared to accept the status quo antebellum, though. Why? See #2.
Anyway, again, read the whole thing.
Taken from:
Taken from: highchairanalyst.blogspot.com
I strongly believe that intervention is warranted in certain circumstances, particularly to prevent genocide, but that decision has to be held accountable to the situations when that choice has not been, and continues to not be, made. If the highest standards are not followed when foreign countries can rightfully intervene, it undermines the very basis of the concept of responsibility to protect which clearly specifies the types of situations which should elicit an international response--genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
There is a reason why the scope is as narrow as it is, and it should be. The world neither has the ability or the stomach to intervene in any conflict just because civilians are being threatened or even killed. Intent and target need to be considered. What's more so, and this may be controversial, I believe that evidence in the form of actions and not just words needs to be present to justify the use of outside force. Unfortunately that likely means innocent people will likely be injured or killed before the world can and should react. Yet the unknowns involved in preemption, not the least of which is mission creep, are substantial enough that they should force a pause.
Additionally, the scope of the intervention is paramount. The move towards regime change that appears to be the case in Libya should not have been the aim of the response, if for no other reason than the difficulty that this will cause for getting further Security Council Resolutions approved. That the US, British and French have been perceived by other Security Council members as having overstepped their mandate does not bode well for future deliberations and decisions.
I agree with your two
I agree with your two assessments that a most likely situation is status quo, and best scenario is Ghaddafi leaves, likely through political/economic pressure and not through military operations. Why did you not address the lesser likely scenario of the Libya rebels actually successfully taking over Tripoli and taking out Ghaddafi, likely through another uprising in Tripoli combined with rebel pressure if they are able to take Sert and Misurata? Listening to Libyan officials or the rebels, that seems to be the hope and belief they have. There's a lesser chance of that, but one likely with major effects, and not necessarily a good outcome. Could you have major violence in that process and potential for the rebels to overreact and kill Gaddhafi civilian supporters? How would it look it the rebels actually captured Gaddafi, or killed him, would it be similar to the negative effects from the cell phone video when Saddam was executed? Again, I would agree it's not the likely option here, but overing throwing Gaddhafi is the number one goal of the Libya rebels, and the implications if that happened would be important to go into.
The paper doesn't go into a lot of detail either on the potential implications of a status quo, which I would say is necessary since this is the most likely scenario. Any mitigating policies I would say would likely be linked to the political/economic support for the rebel government. Your statement on that: "The administration should work to build support among the nations of Africa, Europe and the Arabic-speaking world to provide aid to the people of Libya" feels generic, and a robust coalition for stability operations doesn't seem likely (which you do state that would be difficult), and yet don't provide potential alternatives. It seems to me what's important is first a politcal strategy focused on creating legitimacy for the Libya rebel council (as a short-term solution), and more preparing steps for them to actually be able to govern in the vacuum of power. The issue of the vacuum of power is I think the biggest issue outside of actual operations against Ghaddfi and goes to the heart of what happens next? Right now we have $30 billion in freezed assets which could be a good use for start-up costs to establish a government in Benghazi (although hopefully we could make a deal for a 1-2 billion to pay for our operational cost). It's not like there was a complete absence of societal institutions, they existed under Ghaddafi, the issue now is to take that societal infrastructure and build upon it for the new government. Definitely too early to do that across the entire nation, but it probably could start in Benghazi, and would help coordinate the political process with the current military process, and hopefully mitigate the negatives from a protracted statement and vacuum of power.
Timely report, but your work always seems so top notch because you take into account operational concerns and how to actually carry out the strategic goals. That seems lacking in the paper, although I get it's a short brief, but you don't give a lot of hints towards what some of those operational solutions might be.
"...deliberations that did
"...deliberations that did not take place prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq."
That's a convenient myth that justifies the Left's Rabid behavior 03- present, can you back that up? You don't have to prove a negative, because if there was no deliberation they took their time and had a lot of meetings not doing it.
You could say where was Phase IV..well, it was a near fantasy, that was not resourced (Garner got shit for resources, and Chalabi should have been seen through). However Bush debated for nearly 15 months, and we need to take into context 12 years and x-teenth UN resolutions, an air war in 98 and 12 year no fly zone, a resolution of Congress in 02, and the fact that regime change was stated US policy since 1998. Oh did all that go down the CNAS memory hole?
Because unless Bush was an impulsive idiot (actually very deliberative - but if you get uniform bad advice) and Cheney was Darth Vader meets Al Capone, then the Left's endless rabid attacks and Bush hatred- wasn't justified.
Let's put it down to a founding myth of CNAS and the "New" Left. Bush lied, people died. It's truthy.
Rather like the old Left's myth that for instance Hiss wasn't a spy and a traitor. He was, but it will never be admitted.
The US is amazingly arrogant.
The US is amazingly arrogant. World just can not get a long with out the US !
*Arabs have tongues have they been using them for a long time and they are getting lots of use out of them now, why is it that the US has to find a new home for Gadhafi? Let OPEC find a home for G-boy.
*Seems to me Egypt's military restrained it self, let the Egyptian military train the evil police force.
*The US as the cavalry! I find it hard to base policy on something that did NEVER happen. Gadhafi is a blow hard. The Administration is hanging its hat on a FANTASY.
*What is wrong with walking away? Stalemate, hey we tried. See Ya. Like your lack of planning is not an emergency on my part.
*This little mini-war should come out of one of Obama-Baby's favorite charities at home. Maybe taking food out of his voter's mouths might help him improve his Harvard Communication skills ! A Harvard Educated Lawyer that ran for Senator and President can not COMMUNICATE. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
*In your war costs for Libya, did you roll in the incremental increase in the cost of gasoline. WAR GASOLINE TAX. This little post-menopausal invasion of Hillary's is costing more than missiles and ships.
The thing that is most distasteful of this whole Arab Springs is everyone is getting on the band wagon throwing the baby out with the soap water and no one knows how it is going to turn out. There are going to be so many factions that are going to bubble up to the surface after so many years these countries are going to be like a washing machine in the wash mode, constantly agitated.
How much treasure are we paying these people for their oil, ain't that enough? The US needs to walk away and stop fussing with the out come. These are independent counties, not 52nd, 53rd....n th states of the Union.
Think Puerto Rico would like to have a crack as some attention. Hello, America ! Come home and stay a while if you want votes POTUS.
This is a joke right? Start a war then determine a strategy.
Oh, so now you're a Libya
Oh, so now you're a Libya expert all of a sudden? Your myriad skills of self-aggrandizement never cease to amaze me.
No question about it, another
No question about it, another great CNAS policy paper. Even if your reader doesn't 100% agree with your conclusions, they still force the reader to ask some difficult questions.
Do you do requests? If so, would you be willing to write a little bit on the issue reported on in Rolling Stone article below?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327
It isn't the first, nor will it be the last, incident where American soldiers target civilians. However, as someone who has quite vocally asked questions about strategy from the perspective of a platoon leader, should junior officers in situations like this one be disciplined? If so, how?
At what point, if ever, should an O-2/O-3 simply tell their superior officer that there are bad dudes in his platoon/company and though he's working hard at it, there is no way to provide the supervision they need 24/7 with existing resources. As such, it is likely they'll off civilians when and where they can, which is not only illegal and immoral, but also clearly in contravention to any counter-insurgency campaign. Would that be equivalent to career suicide? If so, does that justify doing nothing and simply going along to get along in order to get through that deployment? Moreover, how is fostering that kind of command climate acceptable to promotion boards?
New plan. Let G-boy get the
New plan.
Let G-boy get the no Vaseline rub for his Rebel buddies and the US take the 6.5 Billion in gold. That will just about settle the balance sheet.
US has room in Fort Knox for the spoils of war.
Shit lets have some fun.
Shit lets have some fun. Capitalism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCYOa9egpaM
This authors here seem to be
This authors here seem to be airing their beef with the military intervention rather than offering any novel policy recommendations. They acknowledge that all of their policy recommendations are already being pursued, with the exception of the final suggestion that the administration accept the status quo ante bellum if necessary due to our limited strategic interests in Libya. However, the brief falls to consider the implications of disengaging having already intervened both in terms of 1) msg it sends to other non-democratic regimes in the region; 2) repurcussions of Gadhafi remaining in power for U.S. national security (the authors conveniently forget the not-so-distant history where the Gadhafi regime did very much threaten U.S. national security interests); and 3) the concession of permitting Gadhafi to murder civilians, even after calls from the Arab world for international intervention to prevent such atrocities. The final recommendation also operates on the erroneous assumption that we face a zero sum game with involvement in Libya and engagement elsewhere. I seriously doubt that the U.S. will neglect the Egyptian democracy promotion initiatives regardless of our involvement in Libya. While the authors may disagree with policymakers about the strategic interests of preventing humanitarian catastophy in Libya, I'm certain they agree that successful Egyptian elections are very much in our strategic interests.
I agree with the author's general concerns about our intervening in Libya. Exum has stated his concerns articulately and persuasively in the past. So it was with great hope and interest that I saw this new paper. It's unfortunate that this piece is more about repeating those concerns than offering any equally articulate and persuasive novel policy recommendations about what's next.
The main thing that's wrong
The main thing that's wrong with this paper is that it's difficult to imagine that Gates and Donilon didn't more or less make this argument, so you're making (good) policy recommendations the administration has already rejected.
You ignore the time issue
You ignore the time issue when talking about the decision making. On the rest, I largely agree. Libya is a European problem. They should bear the brunt of the costs. That said, they did go to Afghanistan.
Steve
High chair analyst , it is
High chair analyst , it is not Genocide! I wish people would quit using that term for what is, or would be if Q had his way, going on in Libya. Genocide is a specific legal term and the UN is legally obligated to deal with genocide. Call Q's plans planned murder or massacre, but they are not genocides. You can even cite the problematic duty to protect a population from their own leader bent on massacring them. But there's been too much of this genocide talk.
@visitor 5:42 on the "kill
@visitor 5:42
on the "kill team" thing - i was asking the same questions about the PL's responsibility in this whole mess a while back, and i read somewhere that both the PL and the PSG of the platoon in question had been relieved for letting the platoon kill an inordinate number of dogs (which is also telling). if i can find the link to the article i'll post it. not sure if they were relieved just before one of their squads went rogue, or if the fact that they were relieved ostensibly absolved them from all responsibility. sure does seem that way.
The question I have is what
The question I have is what if the rebels win, and they start massacring the other tribe wholesale? Will we step in to support the human rights of Gaddafi's supporters/tribe, or will we look the other day as the kids take their spoils?
I also think that if we don't destroy Gaddafi, that we will now look week and even empower the guy.
And we still do not know who the rebels are, who will be their leader(s), and if this new crew will snuggle up with the west and love us unconditionally. I am still waiting for a young reporter to go up to a rebel and ask them what they thought of America's war in Iraq or Afghanistan. lol I am sure they will bite their lip, take a pause for the cause....and say 'I love America, and keep bombing the dictator'. Meanwhile AQ is in the shadows and loving every minute of it.
Where's the beef.....I was
Where's the beef.....I was giving policy suggestions.
No matter what I say, the Administration will reject it unless I am another one of this his YES men.
Ever think of why POTUS did not go to Congress? It was because he knew that they would not buy in. He knew what the mood of the US is. He is a Harvard Lawyer, he knew what his responsibilities to the nation were. He wanted to do his own agenda, he knew that once in Libya the USA would be pregnant.
Policy at this point is mute. Cut the budget.
Ex, In case you haven't seen
Ex,
In case you haven't seen Galrahn's rebuttal asking about the opportunity costs of not intervening: http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/03/when-costs-are-all-finan...
An NFZ of indefinite duration
An NFZ of indefinite duration worked OK when Bush Sr. & the UN (I believe) imposed one in northern Iraq. It made life much better for the Kurds. A stalemate here isn't ideal, but I don't see why it's a terrible thing, either.
The argument on p. 3 of the pdf, that Eastern Libya could become a haven for people who want to do bad things to America, seems to me unlikely-- the Kurds didn't hate America, they liked it, because it prevented them from getting crushed by Saddam. A similar result would be the natural prediction for eastern Libya.
Thanks Soap- I'll keep an eye
Thanks Soap- I'll keep an eye out for it.
salaams O Father of
salaams O Father of Proselytizers
Here is my suggestion!
Let the Brothers help out with the ground war in Libya! They can resupply ammo with Authentic American product from Mubaraks stash across the border from Egypt!
After all, the MB put a fatwah on Qaddafi.
Some brother must be dyin' to collect all that hasanat.
Did you know the Muslim Brotherhood is embedded in every local revolution in MENA?
They surround Qaddafi, in Chad, Algeria, Egypt (of course!), Sudan, Niger, Tunisia....
Did you know the MB is active in Yemen (al-Islah), Jordan (IAF), and Syria (Syrian MB) ?
And Libya too?
Oh, and did you see this Rolling Stone piece?
I think you best speed up your dissertation process.
At this rate Operation Frequent Wind II is seriously going to mess up your dissertation defense.
I disagree that this was not
I disagree that this was not in the US vital national security interests. If we had stood by while Gaddafi slaughtered his own people, there's no way that anyone in the Middle East would have believed we gave a lick about rights and freedom for another generation. Aside from the contagion that a massacre would have caused throughout the region, do you not think that's in our vital national security interests that populations across the Middle East believe that we act on our values?
Second, acting quickly was noteworthy, as you mention. Of course there were deliberations, but by definition they couldn't be as comprehensive as they were for Afghanistan. If it was important to move fast, that obviously prevents the type of policy review you criticize the Obama Administration of forgoing.
Why would a stalemate prolong
Why would a stalemate prolong Western intervention? I suppose the embargo would be ongoing, but that seems to be the least objectionable part of the intervention. Once Qaddafi's tanks and aircraft are gone, there's nothing left to bomb. At that point, our intervention will cease to be "ongoing".
Do you know what we heard
Do you know what we heard last night, O Father of Proselytizers?
The instantiation of a new doctrine.
The Obama Doctrine.
It seems to me that the Obama Doctrine reads like this….
will America intervene? It depends.
The Bush Doctrine and COIN brought us the Epic and Ongoing Disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Hopefully the Obama Doctrine won’t.
bi la kayfah
This is just a bunch of
This is just a bunch of compost stirring by the RNC, the resident national experts on everything. This is a policy decision. If our military cannot execute the orders of the POTUS, then replace the Generals, who have lost the two wars, they started in Iraq/Iran and AfghanPak; oh, by the way!
Its Presidential perogative. The RNC has already legalize war crimes and torture in the name of terror. Hope I am not terrorizing anyone by saying this. Someone check with Bohner or DeMinted.
Funny how perceptions get shaped?
Nixon illegally invades Cambodia. Results millions butchered. Right wing cheers.
Carter orders military to retrieve Americans from Iran. Total military failure. Right wing cheers.
Reagan negotiates with Iranian terrorists and trades weapons. Wins election. Invades Central America. Millions die. Right wing cheers.
Bush One almost wins a war but leaves a festering wound. Thousands of Shites slaughtered. Right Wing cheers. Go big oil.
Bill Clinton attempts to confront Bin Laden and Somalian rebels with cruise missiles. Military fails mission. Right Wing Cheers.
Bush Two allows terrorist to gain access to US planes. US citizens murdered in NYC. Bush2 attacks Afghanistan. CIA wins. W and Cheney attack Iraq for oil aka freedom&democracy. Right Wing Cheers.
W declares mission accomplished. Right Wing Cheers. Military loses war in Afghanistan. Right Wing Cheers.
10 years later and two lost wars from inadequate military leadership. Army disintegrates into kill teams. Right wing cheers.
Obama intervenes in a real police action. Right Wing defunds NPR and calls the POTUS a traitor again.
Now, who are the terrorists? who are our enemies? I keep losing my place in this soap opera melodrama. How much did GE and BoA pay in taxes?
Ex. I did like the assessment. But I am just too old and jaded to really care, and I think you and people like you cannot stop the decline of Western Civilization. At least, until we recognize "global capitalism" is a complete bust. Just a second while I breathe some oxygen out of a tank. Rather foul air down here in Texas. F*&^king EPA.
I thought the Right Wing had decided on an Imperial President. Whats up with that? New rules for Obama? Enjoyed the read. I would offer up: Obama deserves all the heat given his ability to shift positions at light speed. Just points to the complete failure of our status quo. No leadership. No real values. Only miles and miles of greed. Here is where the chants usually start up: USA! USA! USA!
Back to chores. Chicken coop clean out day. Weeding the gardens. Got some farm fresh eggs for you. Great with that red gravy and biscuits like the Lovelace in Nashville use to make. Stay low. I probably did embellish the facts, but as my District Judge once said, "Perception is everything!" plus I'm a Texan.
Ps - I forgot to mention Grenada. Now, that was a moment of pride.
I would ask why you assume
I would ask why you assume that a partitioned-off rebel state would necessarily look like this:
A stalemate in Libya would effectively result in a de
facto partition of the country with a severely undergoverned
and disorganized safe haven in eastern
Libya for the rebels that could provide refuge for
various militant and criminal groups capable of
exporting violence and instability to other countries
in North Africa and the Middle East.
They would have most of the oil, and the majority of the people, intellectuals, worlds recognition as the "real" Libya. Why would they accept political Jihadists spouting anti-western rhetoric in their midst?
Could happen, but what are you looking at that makes it appear the default condition? Afghanistan? Iraq? Are the conditions the same as those places?
Seems to me that Eastern
Seems to me that Eastern Libya is actually a fairly good place for underemployed young Jihadis -- they have something to do that is not necessarily counter to American interests, they face a fairly high mortality rate, and it's quite likely they become fully employed old Jihadis (much like MQ) before things sort themselves out.
The bigger concern was that Qaddafi's armor was likely to push most of Cyrenaica's armed young men across the border into Egypt, where their 'energy' and 'enthusiasm' would be much less welcome.
Add your comment