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.
War
I got on a plane in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where I spent the morning trying to explain the war in Afghanistan to students and alumni of my high school -- how the war started, why we are still there after nine years, how the war has changed since 2008, and where I see the war headed in 2011. I got off the plane in Washington, DC and learned that we have apparently decided, while I was in flight, to go to war with the government of Libya. Which is to say that we are going to use military force to achieve a political end that has thus far eluded us through peaceful means.
I had dinner with my 85-year old grandmother last night, easily the hardest woman I know, who basically subscribes to Conan's view of what is best in life. Even she doesn't want to go to war. But it seems as if that is where we are headed. And while there are a lot of questions left to be answered -- Who pays for this war? Does the Congress need to authorize anything? What are the vital U.S. interests we are trying to protect? -- the question that most concerns me and pertains to readers of this blog is what happens next?
What happens if Gadhafi pulls back? Do we continue to try and press the advantage of the rebels until his government falls? Do we have the authorization to do that? Do we expect a civil war in Libya to drag out, and if so, how will we take sides? If Gadhafi falls, what comes next? What will the new Libyan government look like? Will they be friendly to U.S. interests? Someone please tell me how this ends.
A lot of the things I have been reading have been along the lines of, "After the dictator falls, everything will be alright," which sounds awfully familiar to Iraq '03 veterans. I would hope that this time around, we are planning Phase IV and have a clear vision for how stabilization and reconstruction should go.
I worry for obvious reasons, but clearly, I hope this U.N. resolution alone forces Gadhafi's hand and either causes him to step down or encourages someone in his inner circle to knock him off and cut a deal with the rebels. But hope is not a strategy, and along with that Phase IV planning I was talking about, I would also like to hear a little more about our strategic goals here.
It really does seem like we are going to go to war with another country in the Arabic-speaking world. Incredible. I should be thankful for the broad international coalition we have put together, and for the fact that a large ground invasion is unlikely, but I mainly just have a horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach.
Interesting, seems very
Interesting, seems very US-centric in its concerns ("Who pays for this war? Does the Congress need to authorize anything? What are the vital U.S. interests we are trying to protect?"), whereas the UK and France seem to be carrying the initial brunt...
Nonetheless, I share your long-term concerns over this endeavour - should we really want all this? Thusfar, it seems we have to wait and see. There's not much more to be said about it at this stage.
Don't forget Somalia. It does
Don't forget Somalia.
It does look very much like doing an act and expecting THIS TIME the result will be different.
This probably will not end well.
Adapted from
Adapted from http://highchairanalyst.blogspot.com
Let's see what happens. While NATO powers will likely be involved, GCC member states like Qatar and the UAE will also probably play a role, as would potentially Jordan. Egypt has stated that they will not be involved in any military intervention and this makes a lot of sense considering that they are Libya's neighbor, would like to avoid a conflict spreading over their borders, and have their own issues to deal with, including holding a national referendum on their constitution on Saturday.
While a UN resolution should be a mandatory consideration for any sort of action, we aren't only talking about a no-fly zone anymore. The language has increasingly moved away from protecting civilians towards the use of air strikes and regime change, and therein lies the problem.
Is the goal of intervention to prevent the loss of life or is it regime change? What's to ensure that the rebels don't do to Gaddafi loyalists exactly what Gaddafi would do if he won? Abdul Fatah Younis seems to be the man of the hour, but up until late February he was debatably the No. 2 in command behind the Colonel and was the Interior Minister. It seems hard to imagine that a guy like that had no blood on his hands in the 40 years of Gaddafi power. Why is he, or anyone else, going to be any better than Gaddafi? Maybe not worse, but any guarantee of them being better?
While an argument can be made that to do nothing is effectively taking a side, i.e. Gaddafi has the initiative and will likely prevail without intervention, military strikes will definitely put us squarely behind the anti-Gaddafi forces. We will be responsible for their actions on the ground, now and in the future. Is anyone prepared for that? Is anyone prepared to intervene again if anti-Gaddafi forces no longer seem to be in the "right side" anymore? One can create an endless number of scenarios with "what ifs," but just because we can agree that Gaddafi is "bad" that doesn't necessarily mean that the other side is "good." It's far too easy, and extremely appealing, to turn things into black and white, good guys and bad guys, but the world, and history, just doesn't work like that.
I'm also concerned about the precedent that this may set. While this is obviously not the first time we have intervened in a country under the auspices of the UN or out of humanitarian concerns, there is an armed conflict going on in Ivory Coast that is even more directly related to democratic principles (isn't that part of this debate about Libya?) and has not received nearly the amount of attention that Libya has. Today, shelling in Ivory Coast left at least 10 dead bringing the total number of killed to over 400 in fighting. This conflict has also seen hundreds of thousands flee their homes following elections this past Fall, only a few weeks before events began in MENA. While UN peacekeepers are on the ground in Ivory Coast, their mission has been extremely limited. They have not been given any mandate to remove Gbagbo from power. Nor should they necessarily have that authority.
The case of Libya is not the same as Ivory Coast, but it is another example of situation where a leader has lost his legitimacy, has refused to leave office, and has engaged in an armed conflict to protect his status. Sure, we are yet to see a full resumption of civil war in Ivory Coast and no planes or helicopters have been used during recent events, but I also don't see anyone clamoring for an expanded role for the US or even the UN either, at least not above and beyond the UNOCI's mission. And there have definitely not been calls for airstrikes.
Ultimately, the question that is being once again raised by events in Libya is when do you make the choice to intervene? I'm glad I don't have to make this decision.
Adapted from
Adapted from http://highchairanalyst.blogspot.com
Let's see what happens. While NATO powers will likely be involved, GCC member states like Qatar and the UAE will also probably play a role, as would potentially Jordan. Egypt has stated that they will not be involved in any military intervention and this makes a lot of sense considering that they are Libya's neighbor, would like to avoid a conflict spreading over their borders, and have their own issues to deal with, including holding a national referendum on their constitution on Saturday.
While a UN resolution should be a mandatory consideration for any sort of action, we aren't only talking about a no-fly zone anymore. The language has increasingly moved away from protecting civilians towards the use of air strikes and regime change, and therein lies the problem.
Is the goal of intervention to prevent the loss of life or is it regime change? What's to ensure that the rebels don't do to Gaddafi loyalists exactly what Gaddafi would do if he won? Abdul Fatah Younis seems to be the man of the hour, but up until late February he was debatably the No. 2 in command behind the Colonel and was the Interior Minister. It seems hard to imagine that a guy like that had no blood on his hands in the 40 years of Gaddafi power. Why is he, or anyone else, going to be any better than Gaddafi? Maybe not worse, but any guarantee of them being better?
While an argument can be made that to do nothing is effectively taking a side, i.e. Gaddafi has the initiative and will likely prevail without intervention, military strikes will definitely put us squarely behind the anti-Gaddafi forces. We will be responsible for their actions on the ground, now and in the future. Is anyone prepared for that? Is anyone prepared to intervene again if anti-Gaddafi forces no longer seem to be in the "right side" anymore? One can create an endless number of scenarios with "what ifs," but just because we can agree that Gaddafi is "bad" that doesn't necessarily mean that the other side is "good." It's far too easy, and extremely appealing, to turn things into black and white, good guys and bad guys, but the world, and history, just doesn't work like that.
I'm also concerned about the precedent that this may set. While this is obviously not the first time we have intervened in a country under the auspices of the UN or out of humanitarian concerns, there is an armed conflict going on in Ivory Coast that is even more directly related to democratic principles (isn't that part of this debate about Libya?) and has not received nearly the amount of attention that Libya has. Today, shelling in Ivory Coast left at least 10 dead bringing the total number of killed to over 400 in fighting. This conflict has also seen hundreds of thousands flee their homes following elections this past Fall, only a few weeks before events began in MENA. While UN peacekeepers are on the ground in Ivory Coast, their mission has been extremely limited. They have not been given any mandate to remove Gbagbo from power. Nor should they necessarily have that authority.
The case of Libya is not the same as Ivory Coast, but it is another example of situation where a leader has lost his legitimacy, has refused to leave office, and has engaged in an armed conflict to protect his status. Sure, we are yet to see a full resumption of civil war in Ivory Coast and no planes or helicopters have been used during recent events, but I also don't see anyone clamoring for an expanded role for the US or even the UN either, at least not above and beyond the UNOCI's mission. And there have definitely not been calls for airstrikes.
Ultimately, the question that is being once again raised by events in Libya is when do you make the choice to intervene? I'm glad I don't have to make this decision.
What I want to know is
What I want to know is whether the wording allows assassinating Ghaddafi?
tactics ≠ strategy. i'm
tactics ≠ strategy.
i'm hoping against hope that some of abu m's questions raised in the post are answered most ricky tick - but this looks suspiciously like our memories are so bad that we have even forgotten the lessons of the past decade. after all, it's not like we are still in iraq and afghanistan largely because we lacked a clear strategy going into said wars. FML.
/cries into beer
//impotent rage
Odd how several years ago, a
Odd how several years ago, a multitude of Libyan suicide bombers were blowing up US soldiers and innocent people all over Iraq, and yet here we are providing a no fly zone in Libya. Mind you, it wasn't Gaddafi that sent those suicide bombers to Iraq, although he has American blood on his hands too. From a practical point of view, perhaps letting them fight it out was the best option? Maybe we should ask a US soldier who was wounded by a Libyan suicide bomber, or ask the parents of a dead soldier who was killed by these irhabists?
The other point is how will the US be framed in this action? Will we be the saviors of Libya, and muslims throughout the land will forgive the US of all of it's sins? Or will this look like the US invading another Islamic country? Will this be one more tool in the propaganda tool box of Al Qaeda and others? We will see says the blind man...
I agree with everything you
I agree with everything you said AM - or rather, every question you raised. But there is one more question to ask: how does intervention in Libya affect prospects for democratization in the rest of the Middle East?
While the plight of the Libyans has been no less than gut-wrenching, we cannot forget the other waves of Arabs who are making the exact same demands for their rights across the region.
Most importantly, we cannot lose sight of Tahrir Square. In every aspect - militarily, economically, politically, historically, religiously/morally - Egypt is far more important to the region than Libya. Egypt is the true domino that the rest of the region will follow. If we can help support a stable transition to a responsible and responsive government in Cairo, regardless of what happens elsewhere, we will have helped score an incredible victory for Egypt, the region, and our own interests in the long run.
We cannot become so engulfed in Libya that we lose sight of the real prize to the east. By dealing with each country on a case-by-case basis, we run exactly that risk.
That is not to say Libyans deserve freedom any less than Egyptians or anyone else. Rather, it is just the recognition of the need for a regional strategy that identifies priorities, deploys our limited resources effectively, and avoids confusion of efforts.
Are we also petitioning for a
Are we also petitioning for a no-fly zone over Bahrain?
Sometimes the stupid questions are the best ones!
It seems to be, especially
It seems to be, especially with the wording of the resolutions, that the goal is to stop the retreat / rout of the rebels and stabilize the lines.
Just like the Brits and the Africa Korps in WWII, it is a long supply line from Tripoli to Benghazi, and overextended supply lines let both sides vulnerable to counterattacks after successful offensive action.
We can interdict and wreck havoc on the 1000 km supply line. The Gadaffi army, operating so far with total aerial supremacy, will suffer some major problems if an air campaign begins in earnest.
That's step one.
Step two: ???
Step three: Democracy, whiskey, sexy.
My guess is that step two can go:
A: Stalemate is maintained, and a long and messy negotiation process takes place, primarily with the goal of moving Gadaffi to the exit, but letting him keep a fair amount of wealth.
B: We begin arming and training the rebels in a proxy war supported by air power.
C: First A, then they try B, with threats of implementing B full throttle unless he accepts A.
Concur. Thanks for your
Concur. Thanks for your comment.
Texas Teetotaler
How It Might Proceed: It
How It Might Proceed:
It seems to be, especially with the wording of the resolutions, that the goal is to stop the retreat / rout of the rebels and stabilize the lines.
Just like the Brits and the Africa Korps in WWII, it is a long supply line from Tripoli to Benghazi, and overextended supply lines let both sides vulnerable to counterattacks after successful offensive action.
We can interdict and wreck havoc on the 1000 km supply line. The Gadaffi army, operating so far with total aerial supremacy, will suffer some major problems if an air campaign begins in earnest.
That's step one.
Step two: ???
Step three: Democracy, whiskey, sexy.
My guess is that step two can go:
A: Stalemate is maintained, and a long and messy negotiation process takes place, primarily with the goal of moving Gadaffi to the exit, but letting him keep a fair amount of wealth.
B: We begin arming and training the rebels in a proxy war supported by air power.
C: First A, then they try B, with threats of implementing B full throttle unless he accepts A.
Let's just hope it is not a
Let's just hope it is not a remake of the first gulf war. Putting a dictator on his knees and then go back home and let him massacre his opponents...
And also let's hope that someone has already an answer to your questions... How will we react ? What are the possible outcomes ? How do we deal with lybia institution wise... Are we capable of doing things right or are we going to end up doing the same mistakes as in irak and being rightfully blamed for it ?
Btw I'm french and there are allegations that my president's campaign has been vastly financed by the lybian regime. The proof is not there yet but it doesn't really surprise me... I know this government was a fraud and a shame to us all.
No surprise to learn that our president is eager to eliminate gadaffi then... Getting rid of the problem while saving population of lybia and being a great humanist and diplomat. This guy has no moral compass, makes me sick and ashamed, trully.
Jim.
I agree completely with your
I agree completely with your concerns, Abu M. Since we (USA) are still engaged in Afghanistan, and have the black cloud of Iraq still hanging over our heads, this is not the time for the USA to take the lead on the Libya issue. Yes, Ghaddafi certainly deserves to be overthrown and tried for crimes against humanity (the list of reasons for that is too long and well known to re-hash here), and bombing his own people to retain power is genocide, but the same things seem to be happening in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, yet these countries are not named in the UN Resolution. The Gulf Cooperation Council and the Arab League want us to get involved and do the dirty work in Libya. Why? We are still suffering the worldwide backlash for Iraq, which the King of Saudi Arabia asked both Pres. Clinton and Pres. Bush to remove the threat of Saddam Hussein for him. Let others lead this fight against Ghaddafi; we can provide moral support and non-combat aide now and humanitarian relief later, and stay out of this fight and the political free-for-all to follow.
I don't have a current or
I don't have a current or detailed analysis of the military situation on the ground available at the moment, but it looks at this moment as if calls for a no-fly zone address the Libyan situation of three weeks ago and calls for air strikes address the situation of ten days ago.
Grounding the Libyan air force soon after unrest against Gadhafi began might have demoralized government forces before they could coordinate their counterattack. Striking supplies from the air might have made it difficult for Gadhafi's people to move armor and heavy guns across the western desert to Benghazi. Right now, though, it appears as if the government forces are there. Air action, to be effective, would have to be intensive and directed at frontline infantry, armor and artillery; otherwise Gadhafi could just keep his aircraft on the ground and let his better trained and equipped ground forces overpower the rebel forces defending Benghazi.
Two other things: first, American military action in Libya requires Congressional approval, no matter what the UN says. If Gadhafi's forces attack ours, it's a different story, but the Libyans have every reason now to avoid that kind of provocation. The second thing is that, if Western military forces do find themselves intervening in this civil war, they had better be prepared to go all the way. This means decimating the Libyan air and ground forces, smashing their lines of supply, and decapitating the Libyan government. Doing less -- intervening to sustain an armed stalemate that could go on for years -- risks reviving Gadhafi's interest in sponsoring terrorism of all kinds. We've seen that movie before.
If Gadhafi wins his war, the consequences for Libyans will be very bad; not as bad as Darfur or south Sudan, perhaps, because Libya has fewer people and some of the rebels can escape over the Egyptian border, but very bad nonetheless. We know what this guy is like. The question is what we are prepared to do to prevent what he will do if he wins.
Right on, 1015 PM. The
Right on, 1015 PM.
The American Likkud constituency now has the cover they needed for brokering arms and mercenaries to Libya.
.
How about we let Israel take the lead on that no fly/no drive plan?
"What happens if he falls
"What happens if he falls back"
What worries me at the moment is what happens if he falls forward . The safest place for his armor to be is in downtown Benghazi. Saif may gamble that he can get it there before the planes arrive.
The US has a war culture.
The US has a war culture. Despite everyone who doesn't live in a swamp always saying they detest war the truth is the nation largely lives for it. Movies, TV, video games, "support the troops", journalistic love affairs with the general of the moment-everything points to a cultural majority that adores war, weapons and the military.
Every politician who seriously has a chance of becoming POTUS will be ensnared by the truth about America and the power of the security complex. Look at poor old hapless Barak Obama. Mr. Hopey-Changey. He was supposed to be completely different from the the evil Chaney and his sock puppet...but lo and behold he's tripled one war and is off on another without an explainable aim. Even better are that his main Arab allies are busy crushing the democratic revolt in Bahrain.
America is an army with a country. It will lurch from one ill conceived war to the next until disaster strikes. In the mean time its power and prestige will just wither.
Zathras, The War Powers Act
Zathras,
The War Powers Act will allow Obama to send in troops. Congressional approval is needed to keep the troops in country. There are also some if, ands, and therefores in that document. In 60 days, a President can do a lot of damage to create a "threat to the nation".
This administration has demonstrated that it has no problems working at the edge of the spirit of the law. Sometimes redefining that spirit which is very dangerous to liberty because it rocks people at the centers of their believes and agitates the electorate. Since this President has gotten into office, America has only become more divided. The administration recently requested that the UN include Land, Sea, and Air into the wording of the UN's action.
It is my understanding Andrew that there were five countries that abstained. This administration got their UN resolution with approval from only 40% of the world's population. The list of abstaining countries concerns me. This action is in no way a multilateral operation, it is an agreement with the major world players sitting on the sidelines and nothing else. It would be irresponsible to call this UN action anything else, but I am sure that this administration will find a way to make it more than what it really is.
Hillary Clinton and Obama got their policy against Gaddafi and now they have their war. Amazing for a person that has the peace prize. I hope I am wrong.
I pray for those who have to be at the tip of this sword and hope that it does not make the US war on terror worse.
This is a one term President.
One last comment..... Hillary
One last comment.....
Hillary Clinton was in Egypt and Tunisia in the past couple days. Handing out money and walking through Tahrir making the US visit very obvious. I have no doubt in my mind that their is linkage to the US visit to Libya's neighbors and the timing of the resolution. Both Obama and Clinton were behind the policy of Gaddafi being on the wrong side of history.
I fear that the US has only encourgaged the protestors of other Arab nations (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain).
This is the type of rapid change the world does not need. Provoking crisis is wrong and immoral.
The most likely consequence
The most likely consequence of this UNSC resolution, it seems to me, is a cease fire in short order and Libya's inclusion on the list of divided troubled states. Qaddafi would be crazy to take any action which would provoke the US or NATO. Such a war could only end with his death of him in the docket at the Hague.
"Someone please tell me how
"Someone please tell me how this ends"
It ends with the 'international community' having tried to do the right thing at the beginning.
Given what Christchurch, large chunks of Japan and swathes of Queensland look like, given what it has been like to watch unarmed citizens set examples for us all against state violence, that is enough for me today.
tell me off tomorrow.
today I say bomb the bastards.
Oh, hell, diablotakahe - our
Oh, hell, diablotakahe - our intuition seems to be working in opposite directions.
Dude, democracy always can wait. Death is not less than a life lived in agony, and democracy carries no guarantees in that regard - sad as it is to say so.
If we are going to die for freedom, let's start where it all started, this time around: Palestine.
Equity under the law? Here in the states, we lost that with the passage of the Patriot Act.
After we declare mission
After we declare mission accomplished in Libya, how about we invade Tunisia just for the heck of it? I mean hey, its right next door. Building on that point, Sudan annoys me. Lets go to war with them. And Syria and Iran are still waiting for theirs...
Today I say: let's check out
Today I say: let's check out yesterday: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/488
Oh, the lamentations of women ...
the shortness of memory...
the failure of self-knowledge...
the agony of a people who thought they controlled their world.
We are but a flyspeck in the record of time
why does agony and sorrow predominate still ?
Why? Hell, honey, look at them dollars!
The timing is unfortunate
The timing is unfortunate (i.e. late) as the rebels have long since lost their momentum in Western Libya and at this stage it'll take a lot to do more than just stabilize the division of the country. Also stopping the govt from taking Bengazi will probably still take some of our people on the ground (at least small teams with JTACs/FACs).
stay classy AM
I hear you. i hear you on
I hear you.
i hear you on palestine, iraq, afpak, world capitalist conspiracy etc.
these are situations not simply solved today.
today one b2 can change the course of history at the gates of bengazi.
there is much badness on the planet today which we must fight.
but there is no other badness on the planet that can be influenced this directly
so bomb them. now.
you have the regional support, you have the un sign off. you have the means. you have clear targets in a desert.
do it.
I think one should take out
I think one should take out the Gaddafi clan to make it a short event. Once these terrorists are gone, people of lybia can manage the transition itself
It's interesting to note that
It's interesting to note that there is always conflict around the world. War ends in peace - after a few decades or so, the circle goes back again - war will ignite itself again. The cause is usually because of misunderstandings or selfish reasons (dictatorships) and the thirst for power. It's a sad cycle and it's not helping us - the youth, either. So, if this dictatorship ends --- I totally agree with your question: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
For sure, this must be the question in most minds of the youths. Do the adults have the capability to ensure that after this all ends - the problems will be solved? Where is the guidance?
Janet
Graphic Design Courses
Damn if it's not the devil,
Damn if it's not the devil, sweet talking me again.
"It really does seem like we
"It really does seem like we are going to go to war with another country in the Arabic-speaking world. "
Yes, but... differences:
1- No ground intervention.
2- The French and the Brits will do the dirty work.
3- The Arab League called for it.
4- Let me say that again: the goddamn ARAB LEAGUE cold stone CALLED FOR a military intervention in Lybia.
This morning on the France Culture (the French equivalent to BBC Radio 4) some guy was pointing out that this would have been unthinkable before the events in Tunisia. Dominos can fall in the right direction.
As far as I can read, the
As far as I can read, the French and British (and Norwegians, yay!) will do most of the work in the air. Im expecting the french will send in "advisors" on the ground as well. US naval surveillance will be the US contribution. The mandate is pretty robust and allows for counter-attacks, it even allows for a expedition force if it is needed, as long as it doesnt amount to an "occupation". Foreign Legion, anyone?
This could actually be very good for the relationship between the west and the "arab street". Clinton in Kairo, and suport for the rebels in Benghazi puts a lot of weight behind the pro-"democracy" forces in the Mediterranean area. But its certainly a blow to the Berlusconi-Putin mafya axis, wich has relied on the colonel a good deal in their business plans.
A question: What missile
A question: What missile capacity does Libya have? It will be interesting to see if Libya will try to strike back at Europe. It fits into the Colonels "mad dog" approach to strategy.
This is very different. The
This is very different. The international community is responding to a request from the Arab league, the US has a genuine coalition, not a fake Cheney AstroTurf coalition. The goal is protecting innocent civilians, which seems to be happening already. If the country is split in two and there is a stalemate but no massacres and no major loss of civilian life then that is a huge victory. Half the country will be like Kurdistan in the 90s - connected to and supported by the international community, although Obama will ensure that effort is led by the Arab League, especially Egypt. Over time the security effort to contain Ghaddafi will be more and more on the shoulders of the Arab world.
Oh, well if the Arab League
Oh, well if the Arab League says it's a good idea, it must be.
I mean, the normal way of conferring legitimacy is for countries B and S take a momentary break from shooting their own protesters to convince countries A and F to go bomb country L, right?
Just wondering why the UN
Just wondering why the UN hasn't passed a resolution calling on the US to stop killing innocent Afghans? After all the evidence we have points to far more Afghans being killed than "innocent" Libyans. What if Qadafi gave a "sincere" apology ala Petraeus? Would he be able to go about his business?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCCyvAwbbso
The geeks and the eggheads in
The geeks and the eggheads in the White House get to decide when the community college kids get to die because: "it's the right thing to do." Sounds pretty familiar.
I loved the comment about
I loved the comment about "America is an army with a country." My version would be, "If all you've got is a military, then every problem can be solved by having a war."
In the words of the great political philosopher, Yogi Beera, "IThis looks like deja vu all over again."
In the great debate of whether America is Sparta or Athens, Sparta wins!
I recognize the difficulty of
I recognize the difficulty of establising a no fly zone, but this all seems to be a little too analytical. All everyone sees is risks. This isnt 2003, there is no ground invasion, France, UK and Arabs are leading the effort and military capabilities, US is a benchwarmer in this one (for once!)
Libyas old Soviet air defense should not be that complex to take down, I know its never a good idea to downplay hazards, but I think in this case we're over estimating the negatives.
Killing Qaddafi's air def network is not the question. A better question to ask is whether we actually want to help the Bengazi rebels, or whether Qaddafi for all his nastiness is a better choice. As ridiculous and brutal as he is, there is an element of familiarity with him that a new rebel government or leader doesnt have, and we all know how these Bengazi folks feel about US or Westerners.
I love the comment upthread,
I love the comment upthread, "Gaddafi would be nuts to attack Nato".
Sorry, Gaddafi is certifiable able.
Gaddafi has already played his trump card and declared a truce. It would be immoral for the UN to attack his troops.
How does it end? It ends with Gaddafi or his son in power and the family getting back into the terrorist business.
Really, it is not for me to explain how this ends.......
It is really up to OBAMA and HILLARY CLINTON, they declared war.
The administration would not declare something as serious as WAR without an END game would they? It would be completely irresponsible otherwise. Right.
So is the END Obama? We are waiting.
"It really does seem like we
"It really does seem like we are going to go to war with another country in the Arabic-speaking world. Incredible. I should be thankful for the broad international coalition we have put together, and for the fact that a large ground invasion is unlikely, but I mainly just have a horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach. "
I can't even watch, I am not at all following this. However by accident I had the radio on this morning and heard Hillary say the model was the Kurds and Kossovo, because neither one led to ground invasion .
Holy.fucking.shit. Pit of your stomach? Dude if I had any hand in this at all I'd be clutch puking. No I don't blame you.
Idealists beware, this may well mean World War. You have already rejuvenated AQ as it was on it's death bed.
Aside from his desire to
Aside from his desire to dress in garish window drapes, what makes Gaddafi nuts?
Hell, the first thing he did today seems absolutely genius. Publicly say you're laying down your arms, make headlines and confuse your enemies while, in fact, he's pounding the shit out of the rebs. This guy has been playing the game better and longer than anyone else, and he counts on people thinking he's a fool. If we don't get serious and kill him, I think he'll eat Obama's lunch.
Well, to all you people
Well, to all you people seeing Iraq 2.0, hold your horses. So far it looks to be a mainly EU based campaign, with little to no ground presence. Also, remember that the Colonel is the arab worlds mad uncle, he has personally insulted each and every nation of the ummah.
And an AQ/Libya alliance? We should be so lucky...
I totally agree with your
I totally agree with your misgivings about the implementation of a no-fly zone in Libya. If the international community wants a no-fly zone then they should shoulder the burden of implementing it. If the Europeans and the Arab league are going to provide the lion share of the military assets to enforce this no-fly zone then I do not have any qualms with it; however, if the U.S. has to foot the bill and exert an already overstretched military then I am totally against it. It is not the job of the West to intervene in another country's internal affairs. The Arabs who supported this intervention are just self interested traitors who are oppressing their own people just like Gaddafi and are quick to throw him under the bus. The U.S. needs to pull back from the world, we need to get our capabilities in line with our ambitions, we are not the same country we once were, and neither is the world. Touching up on what you said, who is going to replace Gaddafi? Will the rebels endanger U.S. interests or bolster them? I truly hope the U.S. plays a minor role in this intervention and not put our troops in harms way. It is time for the U.S. to become introverted, take care of what's at home, let these rising nations play a leading role in global crisises and spend their capital. You always provide and excellent analysis of the world with more understanding than an average scholar do to your background. Thank You
I totally agree with your
I totally agree with your misgivings about the implementation of a no-fly zone in Libya. If the international community wants a no-fly zone then they should shoulder the burden of implementing it. If the Europeans and the Arab league are going to provide the lion share of the military assets to enforce this no-fly zone then I do not have any qualms with it; however, if the U.S. has to foot the bill and exert an already overstretched military then I am totally against it. It is not the job of the West to intervene in another country's internal affairs. The Arabs who supported this intervention are just self interested traitors who are oppressing their own people just like Gaddafi and are quick to throw him under the bus. The U.S. needs to pull back from the world, we need to get our capabilities in line with our ambitions, we are not the same country we once were, and neither is the world. Touching up on what you said, who is going to replace Gaddafi? Will the rebels endanger U.S. interests or bolster them? I truly hope the U.S. plays a minor role in this intervention and not put our troops in harms way. It is time for the U.S. to become introverted, take care of what's at home, let these rising nations play a leading role in global crisises and spend their capital. You always provide and excellent analysis of the world with more understanding than an average scholar do to your background. Thank You
Fnord, if you think this will
Fnord, if you think this will be limited to a groundless operations, I may have to eat crow, but I'm saying you're wrong. This Gutmensch operation is essentially taking sides in a civil war for parties about which we know very little. Know your enemy is good, know your friends is a must. So far, in all the chest-beating, I've heard precious little useful information about the beneficiaries of this operation.
The geeks and the eggheads in
The geeks and the eggheads in the White House get to decide when the community college kids get to die because: "it's the right thing to do." Sounds pretty familiar.
ask yourself 'what would ronald reagan do?'
From a letter to Andrew
From a letter to Andrew Sullivan's blog, where this blog was referenced.
I am very much enjoying the debate over the Libyan war in your columns -- good points are being made on both sides.
However, I do wish to take a moment for a side issue -- the silly comments of Andrew Exum recorded on Thursday.
"What happens if Gadhafi pulls back? Do we continue to try and press the advantage of the rebels until his government falls? Do we have the authorization to do that? Do we expect a civil war in Libya to drag out, and if so, how will we take sides? If Gadhafi falls, what comes next? What will the new Libyan government look like? Will they be friendly to U.S. interests? Someone please tell me how this ends."
How does such a juvenile, sheltered person get a job at a Washington think tank? Probably because this need for "certainty" is deeply ingrained in most average human beings, and very deeply ingrained throughout our so-called "pundit" class, who thus demonstrate that they do not understand the very first lesson of real life: NEARLY ALL FACTORS IN HUMAN AFFAIRS ARE UNKNOWN AND/OR UNCERTAIN.
You never really know what even your best friends are thinking, you never really know "what color their character will turn out to be" when they are faced with unusual situations. The further that other people are from your own social circle, and your own national/religious culture, the less you know about how they will react to stressful circumstances. We NEVER know what's going to happen tomorrow in world affairs, the Libyans themselves don't know "what the new Libyan government will look like," and we don't have much basis to speculate precisely because WE HAVE BEEN ISOLATED from knowing about their day-to-day culture, their tribal and kinship ties, their forces of social change and intergenerational change that may have already been pushing and pulling at them for years.
One of the worst failings of the Western press model, in my opinion, is precisely the false certainty that they attempt to purvey precisely when matters are most uncertain. But it goes on at every level: now we are in the season where every straw poll or county fair hand-shaking event in Iowa MUST BE, according to all norms of all reporters and editors, extrapolated to a certain conclusion regarding an election outcome that won't be known until Wednesday Nov. 7, 2012. (And Ironically, the one factor they WON'T be looking at is who may be cheating and manipulating and fabricating election results in contravention of the will of the voters.)
In short, Andrew Exum is being a big baby, and his credibility with me is pretty much washed up forever. Stop crying, Mr. E, your momma is not going to come in and make it all better with a kiss and a bandaid. Put on your big boy pants and use what intellectual powers you claim to have to make some reasonable decisions that take account of the fact that we are always in a state of great uncertainty about what other human actors and human institutions are going to think and act tomorrow. That's how it was for our parents and grandparents, that's how it is for us today, and I strongly suspect that despite all the miracles of social media and electronic brainpower, that's how it will be for our children too.
I'm sorry if I'm too critical, but that italicized tantrum wail of "Someone please tell me how this ends" is just so offensive to me, and should be so shameful to Mr. Exum, I had to say something. We won't have a real intellectual class in America until they can tell us the truth: Life is uncertain. Nobody knows how its all going to end. And by the way, while individual human lives have an end, isn't it the whole point that the story of human affairs never "ends"??
Thanks very much for putting up with my rant, it's very much appreciated.
Libya is off most Americans'
Libya is off most Americans' radars right now, but if Shadid and the others end up as hostages or tortured and dead, or more likely, if there's a Srebrenika of some kind, it will suddenly leap to the front page, and then we would have the 2012 ads:
"REAGAN SAID 'TEAR DOWN THIS WALL' . . . AND THE WALL CAME DOWN . . .
BUSH INITIATED A FREEDOM AGENDA . . . AND FREEDOM SWEPT THROUGH TUNISIA, EGYPT . . .
EVEN LIBYA . . .
WHERE A BRUTAL DICTATOR RESOLVED TO OPPOSE IT . . .
THE ARAB LEAGUE REQUESTED THE WORLD'S HELP . . .
BRITAIN SAID 'YES' . . .
FRANCE SAID 'YES' . . .
BUT BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA SAID 'NO' . . .
THE MAD DOG REMAINS IN POWER . . .
OBAMA . . . BAD FOR LIBYA . . . BAD FOR FREEDOM . . . BAD FOR AMERICA . . ."
A Republican could likely sustain such an attack (cf. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan). But the rules are different for a Democrat. Especially one who, we are told, is essentially an anti-British, anti-American, Mau Mau sympathizer.
Any American who wonders why this is happening should just look in the mirror. There's your answer.
Add your comment