Nato's military campaign in Libya "defies strategic logic" and needs to be completely rethought before the country descends into anarchy, a former Royal Navy admiral has warned.
Rear Admiral Chris Parry said the conflict was becoming all too reminiscent of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a "classic example of how to act in haste and repent at leisure".
Writing in the Guardian, Parry says Nato must accept that the UN resolution which allowed coalition forces to protect Libyan civilians will not bring an end to the fighting, and that diplomats should now consider seeking a new mandate.
"What might a decent strategy look like? The Libyan people should, with international assistance, establish and articulate the political ends they require for themselves and their country.
"The UK and its Nato allies could then conduct a campaign that is built around an explicit political purpose, expressed in a single, unambiguous aim (the 'master principle of war').
"That would focus and prioritise military activities. This would also enable a more sensible assessment of whether further authorisation from the UN might be required."
Parry's analysis is understood to be shared by many senior strategists at the Ministry of Defence, who cannot speak out despite growing frustration at the limits of Nato's activity.
#2
Pappy, Perry tends to be realist, although at times he tends to get carried away, as in this article, where he expects politicians to wake up to themselves and do the right thing.
#3
Remember when the MSM would plaster the media with retired flag officers critical of the operations in Iraq under Bush. Seems a little quiet out there now their agent is in the same seat with an endless and meandering policy.
#4
#2 Pappy, Perry tends to be realist, although at times he tends to get carried away, as in this article, where he expects politicians to wake up to themselves and do the right thing.
Posted by tipper
Mutually exclusive terms and concepts. My head is exploding!!!
rantburg exclusive
About noon today 5-20, former Congressman Robert Wexler (now Prez of the S. D. Abraham Middle East Center) gave a talk in Potomac praising Obama's 5-19 speech (and also saying nice things about Netanyahu.
Wexler said that Obama's phrase "the 1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps of land" is similar to the phrase Netanyahu used on 5-18 before the Knesset "we accept an independent Palentinian state in much of Judea and Samaria but not insofar as the Etzion and Ariel bloc".
Wexler also said that Obama's phrase "Israel as a Jewish State" is the same thing as saying "Palestianian refugees will be allowed in a future Palestinian state, not in Israel" (this latter phrase is in the 2004 letter from W to Sharon which was endorsed by both houses of Congress - Wexler takes partial credit for the endorsement).
The audience (Beth Sholom of Potomac) was somewhat skeptical but gave wexler a thank you.
Wexler's talking points are similar to those of other pro Israel Democrats - for example the op ed by Matthew Levitt in the NY Daily News which I have used as the 'source'.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
05/22/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Really? How about moving our embassy to Jerusalem as a sign of that?
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/22/2011 11:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Bambi and his Chicago mafia circle of advisers have made a serious mistake. The Dems need the American Jewish vote. If Bambi makes them choose between him and Israel, Bambi will loose.
The 1967 boarders were clearly indefensible. Bambi argued that any land swaps would mean trading pre-1967 Israeli land for post-1967 Paleostianian (well Jordanian, Syrian, and Egyptian) land.
If there have been any lessons learned from fighting two world wars in the 20th century, it is that weakness invites aggression. Israel cannot afford vulnerable boarders.
The Paleostianians must hate their kids to condemn them to 60+ years of poverty and no opportunity.
Posted by: Mike Ramsey ||
05/22/2011 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Bambi and his circle of advisers have made a serious mistake
Gimme an example of anything (except wacking Osama---in even here the followup was screwed) O & Co did in office which wasn't a mistake.
In which the Pak government and the Pak ISI struggle mightily to see which one is going to be in charge of screwing up the country and its relations with the world...
Posted by: Mike Ramsey ||
05/22/2011 12:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
