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.
From the Dept. of Bad Ideas
On the one hand, while reading this op-ed by LTG (Ret.) Jim Dubik, a man I very much admire, I found myself understanding the logic of the author's argument: fighting half-assed wars is a bad idea. If you are going to fight them, fight them to win, and go all the way. Trying to fight a "limited" war is a fool's errand, and not planning for the post-conflict environment is just ignorant given the challenges we faced in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On the other hand, what am I supposed to make of this?
If Colonel Qaddafi falls, the United States and NATO will have a responsibility to help shape the postwar order, including providing security to prevent a liberated Libya from sinking into chaos.
After all, the pro-Qaddafi Libyan Army and police are unlikely to provide it; many of them could become insurgents as did ’s forces in Iraq. Nor are the rebels, who may well be more interested in revenge than stability.
The responsibility for security, reconstruction and nation-building will likely fall to the , which would mean deploying a multinational force in Libya, including troops from the United States, NATO and Arab nations. Washington must start planning and preparing for this complex and expensive contingency and muster the substantial political will required to see it through. While there is no guarantee that such a project will be any more efficient or effective than in Iraq or Afghanistan, failing to plan for it would be disastrous.
Did the last ten years not happen? How does committing the United States to stabilization operations in a country of six million people with barely 3% of the world's oil reserves make any strategic sense given current committments and spending priorities elsewhere? Why does the United States have a responsibility to provide peacekeeping forces?
Also, I do not think LTG Dubik fully realizes the challenges Libya will face after Gadhafi, which Lisa Anderson has done the best job of explaining here and here. Libya has no effective national institutions. LTG Dubik knows a lot about security sector reform, but the challenge of Libya will not be the same as the challenges facing Egypt and Tunisia, which is to reform existing institutions to make them more responsive to the will of the people. The challenge of Libya is one of state formation ex nihilo. The United States needs to stay the hell away from that for strategic reasons, but there is an argument to be made that all nation-states should stay out of Libya's affairs. Anderson:
...insofar as possible, advice should come from those who do not seek power or profit, which means not from foreign governments or international businesses and consulting companies. Fortunately, Libya does not need financial help, so its leaders can be very selective about where they seek advice and counsel. This means that there may be an opportunity, and perhaps an obligation, for international organisations, including the World Bank and UN bodies like UNESCO, UNICEF and the International Labour Organisation, to play an important role in Libya’s reconstruction. But perhaps more importantly, the non-official organisations of global civil society should be prepared to deploy their expertise. The hard-earned practical knowledge and pragmatic skill of the 70 former leaders of democratic countries represented in the Club of Madrid, which describes itself as seeking “to leverage the first-hand experience of its members to assist countries with critical elements of their democratic transition or consolidation,” could be put to good use, for example, as could the collective wisdom of organisations like Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch.
Sounds like good counsel to me. Committing U.S. troops to another Afghanistan, Kosovo, or Iraq, by contrast, strikes me as a very bad idea.
Why can't you both be right?
Why can't you both be right? Look: this was the case -- as you among others made clear -- against going in in the first place. Because now, if Gaddhafi falls, it can surely be laid at the US' feet, and so, yeah, I think we _do_ have a responsibility to mitigate the ensuing mass slaughter and chaos. Yeah, sure, it's better if we can get some neutral NGOs or what have you to step up and do it and just hang out way, way in the background in a supporting role. That and I'd like elves to clean my house. But if nobody else steps up (surprise!) I'd feel like we have an obligation to spend blood and treasure at least trying to help Libya stabilize. Unless of course we'd been smart enough not to go gunning for Gaddhafi's troops in the first place, which sure would've been nice. As it is, I'm with Dubik: you can't fuck up the place and then say "oops" and walk away.
As it is, I'm with Dubik: you
A. It was already fucked up. Indeed, there was never anything to up fuck in the first place.
B. Yes, we damn well could, anyway. Well, at least I and most of the world can, I'll leave open the notion that you have some sort of unique supernatural inability to do so.
The worst idea though is to
The worst idea though is to enter into this conflict in the first place. It is dumb and certainly a waste of resources. I say pull out of there all together, and let both sides kill each other.
And get this, now we are supporting a rebel leader that used to be a Gitmo detainee. Everyone shake hands with our new best Al Qaeda buddy in Libya--Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu! Amazing.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/7251-former-guantana...
Funny, I knew yesterday that
Funny, I knew yesterday that I would write this response today.
Seems to me the response is always the same, if you and I can see how Libya would unfold then why not the people that made the decision to go into Libya? They knew and they also expect a response we just have not gotten to it yet, but the words are starting to be said. Why do you think the CIA is involved, plan B. We all know that answer too. The people who got the US into Libya can not lose, their futures are already made. Libya was started with the knowledge that it would continue. It forced the issue. The people that loose are the people that have to pay for it in treasure and blood.
One thing that I do not get, so many smart people want to tell Libya how to evolve. Are the Libyan's stupid people? I think not. People fighting the war are educated people. Lawyers in Benghazi are working out the details of governing.
Why don't we ask the people that are working the governing question in Benghazi what they think? Do the Lisa Anderson's know better?
The one variable, we all know what that is, how do the supporters of Gadhafi fit into the future (Yes, there is a post Gadhafi future)? You're right Andrew, they may not be happy campers. Then again, Gadhafi has paid a lot of people for loyalty and that could be a clue.
When the bees have honey, they are content. The hard part is having enough nectar to go around for the bees and the beekeeper. In general, that is going to be the issue in the Arab Fall.
Once Gadhafi is leveraged out of the Libyan landscape, all of Europe will be in Libya the next day looking for business opportunities. Libya will not be a push over, they have bled too much. Just have to make sure that the businessmen do not lobby the governments of the world to fill their pockets for what will be sold as a good cause, then we already know that too.
If Libya post-Mad Dog keeps
If Libya post-Mad Dog keeps descending down a path of violence what the hell will the Club of Madrid be able to do about it? Can the international orgs you listed field a peacekeeping army if the elements left over decide to have it out amongst themselves? Or do we just get rid of ole' Momar and let what's left fight for the next ten or so years?
The lesson that should have been learned from the last ten years is that you don't help to expedite a collapse of a government when there's nothing to replace it with.
Like it or lump it, Ms. Powers & Co. have probably got us in it for the long haul. I'm just waiting for the nasty elements to take advantage of the power vacuum following Gadahfi. Libya could very well move beyond R2P into the realm of national security. Even if bearded men don't step in, do you really think whats emerging as the rebel's leadership is ready to jump right into taking some advice on good governance and democracy building?
You once used "The Wire" to explain Lebanese politics, on that note, I'll use a Clay Davis quote in relation to a rebel led democracy popping up in Libya: "Sheeeeeeeeeeeit."
In response to Dubik, let the rest of NATO take this one. They still owe us about a bajillion favors from that whole Marshall Plan thing.
Hold your panties, ladies. It
Hold your panties, ladies. It is still possible that the euros can come ahead on contigency planning. Turkey has been more and more active, a Turkish-Quatari deal is looking likely. Turkey pulling out of Af/Pak and redeploying to Libya as part of the handover would be a interesting plan. Erdogan seems pretty keen, even.
But it will need assistance. Propably we will end up with a split state along Ottoman lines. (Again)
Oh, and the themesong these days is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnY63APl_6c
feral jundi - best name
feral jundi - best name EVER.
also, this is the most slippery of slopes. we don't have the money, or the manpower to fix the world.
Hold your panties, ladies. It
Hahahahahhahahahhaha *wheeeeze* hhahhahahhahahahhahahha *wheeeeeeeeeze*
Because what's going to fix Libya is a couple of dilapidated "combat groups" led by a bunch of bickering fools who don't even want to be there in the first place. With the current strategy of handing out food to unknown people in a tribal country with no civil society or government. Because apparently Operation Restore Hope (Somalia 92-93) wasn't enough, we now need to see its retarded brother's retarded son.
I think I'd actually enjoy watching this one.
Has there ever been a general
Has there ever been a general officer whom you've not admired? Has there ever been a general officer whose ass you haven't kissed? You're a really bright guy, former junior officer Exum, but you're also an ingratiator who was taught that general officers are always right, and whose opinion is consequently pretty worthless when it comes to what a senior officer has said.
Unless you intend to spend the rest of your life inside the Beltway, you need to work on that. Ass-kissing isn't real important anywhere other than in Washington. Plus you've got a problem if you want people to actually value your opinion: ass-kissers lose in that game.
You're good, man, but you gotta work on that general officer suck up stuff.
Now, that's a little unfair.
Now, that's a little unfair. The main post here was devoted to a fairly strongly worded criticism of Gen. Dubik's prescription for American policy in Libya, after one throwaway line about admiring the guy. I'll grant that after nearly ten years of fighting wars they haven't managed to win, American wearing stars on their shoulders stand a bit lower in most people's estimation than they do in Exum's, and I wonder about that. But I wouldn't draw that inference from this post by itself.
The concerns Gen. Dubik
The concerns Gen. Dubik highlight are not exactly unfounded and they are entirely reasonable when you look at the alternatives. You give Anderson's suggestions as a reasonable solution, yet when has the UN and it's agencies ever been able to deal with security situations effectively? Also the non-official expedition with expertise sounds a lot like private security to me, which is fine as this is where a hell of a lot of relevant expertise rests, however perhaps a degree of honesty in who and what will be required is needed. The U.S. for all of its faults in Afghanistan and Iraq now has a hell of a lot of experience in just this sort of situation and could be best placed to lead the effort.
Brother Ex: I am with you
Brother Ex:
I am with you again, darn it, what is happening here?
gian
Wouldn't it also be a good
Wouldn't it also be a good idea to build up and support multi-lateral organizations that could help states like Libya transition to some form of rule by the people? This way we wouldn't have to abandon failed states and their people, but also not place the financial and political responsibilities so squarely on American taxpayers (or I suppose, the nations that we borrow money).
We need to push for real reform at the UN- the big 5 veto for one is archaic and undemocratic. We should take real leadership on this issue (as well as signing long overdue treaties like the Law of the Seas) so we can develop the institution best situated (morally and politically) to help failed states or humanitarian emergencies. Creating a peaceful and democratic society in Libya will be an extremely difficult and lengthy process no matter how the U.S. or international community responds, but I think reforming and supporting the UN is the best way forward in the long run.
The one good criticism refers
The one good criticism refers to the concept that all exercises of American power must be military and financial. I disagree with the concept that no nation-state can contribute expertise and mentoring. One of the key failures of both Afghanistan and Iraq have been the building of enduring institutions by the host nation under the tutelage of advisors and mentors. We attempt to solve every problem from the top down, with the military and by throwing money at the problem.
The extent of any FID should be done by permitting Libyans of the new regime to attend US military schools and by EUPOL advisors to train their police. Libyans do not want a foreign military footprint. If France wants to mess around there, that is their choice and they have more skin in the game than we do. The formation of a stable Libya is in our general interests, but the Libyans are capable of doing the heavy lifting, and they should do it. They need a Baron von Stueben, sure... but the Baron doesn't have to be an American any more than the original did.
In general, the US is not ready for the "Arab Spring." Our concepts of how to assist countries who are attempting to reform themselves based on liberal principles are still discussed in large part based on assumptions that the military and large sums of money are involved. The good news is that al Qaeda cannot be happy with all of this. While hoping to foment popular uprisings for years, when the uprisings do occur they are not driven by religious zeal but by a yearning for freedom. Pretty cool... but they are not likely to get what they truly need from us. It's not that we don't have lofty ideals; we just haven't grasped the idea that sometimes the best thing you can do is share experience and talent.
Did the last ten years not
Did the last ten years not happen?
Wrong question. Right question: Did the last twenty years not happen?
The answer, as far as I can tell, is no.
Add your comment