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.
What We Are Reading (And What We Are NOT Reading)
1. Yesterday, it was Gen. Mattis. Today's big cup o' ice water comes from Sec. Gates:
In his most pointed comment, Mr. Gates said that “we also have to think about, frankly, the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East.”
I have written about how horrified I am that so many folks here in Washington are so casually considering military intervention in Libya -- just 24 months after the negotiation of a status of forces agreement effectively wound down the U.S. war in Iraq. Many* of the people I have read advocating for military intervention in Libya
a) have no expertise in no-fly zones or other military operations,
b) will not be the ones responsible for the lives of any U.S. troops committed to such an intervention,
c) were prominent advocates for another military intervention in an Arab state a few years back and,
d) were themselves no where to be found when Capt. Exum and his Merry Band of Rangers actually ended up fighting in Iraq several months later (and thus were not on hand to learn the lessons about the limits of power than some of us did).
The U.S. military should give the president every available option on Libya and should plan for possible contingencies. But it is good to hear Gen. Mattis, Adm. Mullen and Sec. Gates informing what has thus far been a woefully informed public debate. And it is good to see some needed push-back against what, again, has been an entirely too casual dialogue about possible military intervention.
2. That's a great segue to this heart-breaking, beautifully written piece by Greg Jaffe in today's Washington Post about Lt. Gen. John Kelly, USMC, and his son, who was killed in Afghanistan. I myself fought in Afghanistan in 2002 and again in 2004 and, since 2009, have pretty consistently advocated for counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan because I think they support the president's strategy to end that war. But when my cousin leaves active duty next month, my family will, for the first time since 2000, be one of those many, many American families that do not have any members serving on active duty or fighting overseas. And it will then be my turn to feel a little guilty about the incredible sacrifices that have been made by far too few Americans and their loved ones.
3. Finally, one of the best pieces of investigative journalism I have read in quite some time is this article in the Washington Monthly on the lucrative and poorly regulated terrorism counsultancy business. We basically have a cadre of yahoos running around the country teaching our police forces to fear any and all Muslims, which, if you're trying to radicalize your Muslim population, seems like a damn good way to go about doing it. Very few of these yahoos have any formal training or education in radicalization or currents of thought in political Islam. One consultant they profile is from the minority Christian community in Jordan and has a decidedly hostile view of Islam which he proceeds to share with his audience. Now, don't get me wrong, some of the very best scholars of Islam and political Islam in particular have been Arab Christians and Jews -- you can learn a lot from Albert Hourani (Protestant, Lebanese) and Sami Zubayda (Jewish, Iraqi), to name but two. But this article reminded me of this one scholar who often consults for the U.S. government and teaches about radical Islam without ever mentioning his ties to a certain right-wing Christian militia during the Lebanese Civil War. That has always rubbed me the wrong way.
What am I not reading? Well, Tom Friedman gets the bit about Google Earth and Bahrain right, but all the rest of this column -- the stuff about Salam Fayyad, al-Jazeera's coverage of Israel, President Obama and the Beijing Olympics -- just strikes me as crazy. Students of and experts in the politics of the Arabic-speaking world have never been big fans of Tom Friedman, but I have never seen a column of his greeted with such derision as this one, and I understand why. In defense of the man, let me just say that I once spent six months of my life reading newspaper dispatches in English, French and Arabic from the Lebanese Civil War, and Friedman's reporting for both the Associated Press and the New York Times stood out as top-notch. I sure can't defend this column, though.
*Note: "Many" does not mean "all," gang. Crisis Group has called for a no-fly zone, to pick but one example, and no one would dare accuse the folks on staff there of being callow about military interventions in the Middle East. I have read others make a case -- responsibly, and aware of the gravity of their recommendation -- for military intervention, and the majority of my above criticism does not apply to those people. So relax, David Kenner!
Point 1a is valid. Points 1b,
Point 1a is valid.
Points 1b, c, and d are puerile ad hominem attacks. What was that rule again -- "don't be a jerk"?
Wait, so now you refer to
Wait, so now you refer to yourself in the royal "we"? Nice!
Ex -- You are, of course,
Ex -- You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion about the wisdom of implementing a no fly zone over Libya. But tarring its advocates as Iraq warmongers, or implying that they are unwilling to brave the risks of their decisions, is not only offensive -- it's unconvincing.
Albest, David
Yeah, maybe I need to put an
Yeah, maybe I need to put an asterisk by the "many".
I added a note to the bottom
I added a note to the bottom of the text. I have read some make a strong case for military intervention while at the same time being fully aware of the gravity of their recommendation. My criticism is not aimed in their direction.
Oh, and the fact that many of
Oh, and the fact that many of the people who advocated for war in Iraq were not in Iraq to learn about the limits of military power? Sorry, that's very relevant.
Well, here are some
Well, here are some scenarios:
A no-fly zone over Libya is effective, but does not lead to resolution of the armed stalemate between Qadhafi's forces and those of the opposition.
A no-fly zone is effective, while over time rifts start to develop in the (by-now heavily armed) opposition.
A no-fly zone is ineffective; that is, Libyan government planes are able to launch high-casualty air attacks on opposition-held areas.
A no-fly zone is challenged; Libyan forces fire on American aircraft.
A no-fly zone is challenged; Libyan forces attempt to use chemical or biological agents either against American shipping or Libyan civilians.
A no-fly zone is effective, contributes to the fall of Qadhafi's government, and large numbers of refugees start taking ship for southern Europe.
A no-fly zone is not declared, the armed stalemate persists, and large numbers of refugees start taking ship for southern Europe.
A no-fly zone is effective, contributes to the fall of Qadhafi's government, and an orderly transition process to legitimate or at least non-homicidal government in Libya begins shortly thereafter.
Without more knowledge of the facts on the ground, I cannot say which of these is most likely. Logic suggests the desirability of assessing each possibility. Obviously, the last possibility is what we would like to see, but that by itself is not a good reason for assuming things would play out that way.
While we're thinking about this, why don't we start touching some of the bases suggested by the Constitution? Hearings in Congress, preparation (if necessary) of appropriate authorizing resolutions, and (also if necessary) votes on such resolutions would allow the American military to prepare for any eventuality, while ensuring that responsibility for a decision to intervene militarily in Libya's civil war was broadly shared. Formal consultation with Congress would send as strong a signal as we might wish that indefinite prolongation by Qadhafi of the present hostilities will not be tolerated. If such consultation makes it less likely that an ill-considered military action be rushed into by the Obama administration, so much the better.
Idk about dissing aJ's Little
Idk about dissing aJ's Little Satan coverage ala Freidman. Recently hung out with several Jordanian and Palestinian expats and they all agreed - it's not a antion's geography or size or magnitude of its oil reserves—that determines its wealth, freedom or success in human endeavors - it's stuff like the rule of law applying to everyone, protecting private property, etc.
They called it dignity and respect and cited several Little Satan pols getting busted for illicit chicanery as a raison d'etre to admit that Arab League's fundamental way of doing biz—not crusaders, Little Satan or Euro colonial imperialism—is what makes Arab League boring, weak and poor
Facts are stubbon things,
Facts are stubbon things, even if they are a little embarrasing and inconvenient. Points A thru D Are All Relivant.
Quite frankly, those who have never been involved in a military campaign yet advocate the loudest need to do some real soul searching. Wars are really messy affairs where real people get killed and maimed; and their lives are changed forever.
Who can say w/ a clear conscience and straight face the Libya posses a threat to the United States of America?
And since we're talking about threats; who poses the biggest threat to US forces now at war in AFG? Is it the Taliban, al Qaida, radical Pashtun's? Where are these bad guys? AFG, PAK, SE Asia, North Africa?
Let's pretend we know they're in Pakistan. Why don't we just bomb that tribal area back before there was a stone age. We've got the Air Power to do it ... but what would be the outcome of such a glorious military campaign?
I hope that everyone who has a high opinion of their opinion, read the WashPost article about LtGen Kelly and his son. And those who don't have "skin in the game" respect the opinion of the 1% who have dodged bullets in the past 2 away games.
I had the honor of working for Gen Kelly in Fallujah. He is one the finest and most honorable Americans I've ever known. I heard of his loss just before I deployed. It brought tears to my eyes; reading his words brought back those sames tears.
I flew into Helmand w/ 3rd Bn 5 Marines combat replacements. I was sent to Sangin w/ these young hard chargers and patrolled out of the Patrol Base where Lt Kelly had his platoon. Tough place to operate. In December ISAF signed a Cease Fire Agreement w/ the Taliban. Since then more Marines have been KIA / WIA.
As I complete my 4th deployment and return to CONUS, I'll be able to see my son before he deploys on his 2nd tour. I will again find religion. War is serious business and it is personal.
All the talk here is about a
All the talk here is about a US imposed no-fly zone.How would a UN imposed no-fly zone change the calculations? Basically in a similar manner NATO decided to impose a no-fly zone over Bosnia (with mixed success at the time).
Many countries have moved assets into the Region and even the chinese Embassador to the UN has been open to the possibility of imposing a no-fly zone should Gaddafi bomb more civilians.
That's good news, if the rest
That's good news, if the rest of the world really want's a NFZ. We should moniter their efforts very closely.
In the mean time until our decision makers can reconcile things large and small, not the least of which being our National Interest, my military mind tells me that we need to calm down the war dogs who may be barking w/o knowing why they're barking.
BLUF, w/ all of our NATO partners getting real skinny on us in AFG, they should have the capacity to initiate and enforce a NFZ.
With our current assets in the AO, we'd have the best seats in the house to sit back and watch the show.
"Oh, and the fact that many
"Oh, and the fact that many of the people who advocated for war in Iraq were not in Iraq to learn about the limits of military power? Sorry, that's very relevant."
No, it isn't relevant, because it is an ad hominem attack. You are attacking the person, not the argument. Is that really how they taught you to argue at Penn?
The fact is, you don't NEED to go to Iraq to learn about the limits of military power. All you need to do is read -- either read the papers about present wars, or read books about past wars. All the facts you need are out there in print.
It is particularly droll to hear the chickenhawk fallacy coming from the Left. If only people with military experience who have served in Iraq have valid opinions about military policy or national strategy, that excludes a lot more Lefty commentators than Righty commentators. Indeed, it excludes the vast majority of Americans from the discussion! Will our military policy now be discussed and decided exclusively by Iraq vets? Yee-hah, welcome to Starship Troopers!
"those who don't have "skin
"those who don't have "skin in the game" respect the opinion of the 1% who have dodged bullets in the past 2 away games."
The opinions about Libya (or indeed, about any actual or prospective military action) of those who have never served are PRECISELY as valid and worthy of respect as the opinions of those who have served.
Those who argue that vets have "more worthy" opinions about military matters need to do some soul searching about what civilian control of the military means in a democracy.
By the way, I pay for your war toys, buster, so I damn well do have "skin in the game".
salaam aleykum to the Father
salaam aleykum to the Father of Resistance from the (4th) Daughter of Wisdom.
do you know what I have been reading?
the Quran. ;)
And al-Jazeerha.
I have a shiny new hypothesis to test on you Exum.
Terrorism is defense against proselytization reflex.
You see.....I think shariah law is incompatible with the judeochristian/westernstyle democracy you guyz keep trying to "stand-up-or-implant" over there.
Here is the gist.
Is Islamic culture compatible with democracy?
It entirely depends on your definition of “democracy”.
I believe al-Islam is compatible with democracy, which I understand to be the consent of the governed. That is what it says in the Holy Queran. But if you believe “democracy” must include freedom of speech and freedom of religion, then islamic culture is NOT compatible with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Shariah or islamic LAW is absolutely NOT compatible with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Large parts of shariah law are defense against proselytization; no out-marriage for muslimahs, severe punishment for blasphemy and apostasy, outlawing non-islamic preaching and missionariism, outlawing building of churches and synagogues. Freedom of speech enables proselytization, which is against shariah law.
Christians believe their faith commands them to proselytize, muslims believe their faith commands them to resist proselytization.
Trying to convince muslims to allow proselytization is the same as trying to convince christians not to proselytize.
It cannot be done.
Both proselytizing and resistance to proselytizing are articles of faith in the respective religions.
So if your definition of a “liberal democracy” mandates freedom of speech and freedom of religion, there can never be a liberal islamic democracy under current quranic exegesis and contemporary islamic jurisprudence (shariah).
Rather than say “democracy” is the exclusive property of western judeochristian culture…..perhaps we could call that jc democracy or judeochristian democracy, and call democracy in islamic cultures islamic democracy?
i think that is more accurate, given the importance of culture.
So what happens when Islam gets proselytized ......like in Iraq and A-stan....is more muslims become terrorists.
Like Arid Yuka. Its automatic anti-proselytizing reflex.
And lets face it......the entirety of the last century of American FP in MENA has been proselytizing, pushing judeochristan culture on islamic civilizations. The results are not pretty are they?
So if you really want to neuter al-Q.......stop proselytizing.
Our soldiers arent armed social workers-- they are missionaries with guns.
And every hates missionaries.
Can we go home NAOW?
hahahahaha
Hey Adiwyya, glad you're in
Hey Adiwyya, glad you're in touch w/ your prophet and all the others in your religion who call for Jihad. There are many cultural incompatabilities.
But don't flatter yourself by calling rag tag group of illiterate thugs soldiers. What they've done in the name of Allah is unconsciencable. But my experience is that cowards have no conscience.
And Nope, dude ... carefull re-read what I said. Don't let your guilt or your emotion for not serving in the military over ride common sense. BTW I pay for my shinny toys too.
Relax man we've got many Adiwyya's to deal w/. Let's be smart. Gotta OM now
salaams O Great Navguns jus'
salaams O Great Navguns
jus' saying America creates jihadism by proselytizing..or trying to. Because you cant fight a religion/culture with nearly two billion adherants.
what was the Mission again?
hahahahah
Can we go home NAOW?
"salaams O Great Navguns jus'
"salaams O Great Navguns
jus' saying America creates jihadism by proselytizing..or trying to. Because you cant fight a religion/culture with nearly two billion adherants.
what was the Mission again?"
Can we go home NAOW?"
Rabbit, there's no "we", you're not with us, and the nano-second you pass from Useful idiot to Useless you'll see you don't have a we there either.
Actually nuclear weapons make it quite easy to fight. You and "Yours" like to talk shit, but other than terrorism you haven't gotten shit done since 1683. We're so scared....
Add your comment