As the United States, France, and Britain take the plunge into Libya's internal conflict, we need to be very careful about understanding what the objectives really are. Proponents of intervention offer a mix of three distinct objectives being sought -- and they don't necessarily match.
First, yesterday's U.N. Security Council Resolution allows for the use of "all necessary means" to protect civilians, which is great except that nobody who knows anything about military operations -- and no one who I have talked to in the military -- believes that the no-fly zone will achieve that. If you look at the tactics being used by the Muammar al-Qaddafi regime, it's ground forces that are executing the regime's oppression. Where we have seen bombings, it is primarily of rebel arms depots or barracks.
A second objective being advanced by intervention proponents -- but not supported in the resolution -- is the need to tilt the balance of power away from Qaddafi. The no fly zone stands little chance of achieving this either; it's a more than 600-mile trip from the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to Tripoli, and even if the rebels had air support on their journey, Qaddafi's forces could clean their clocks as they advanced. To really tip the balance, you'd probably need sustained close air support and arms. Yet paragraph nine of the earlier resolution (1970) expressly forbids arming the rebel forces. So if we really want to tip the balance of power and arm the rebels, as the Egyptians seem to be doing, we need to recognize that we will be in violation of a U.N. Security Council Resolution. And again, there's no guarantee it would work.
The final objective is the maximalist one: regime change. Nearly every Western leader has said it: Qaddafi must go; he's not fit to lead. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even called him a "creature." But if you want to achieve regime change, you need to have broader debate, and frankly, you would probably need foreign military boots on the ground. Yet everyone who supports this maximalist objective has approved only minimalist tactics.
In short, while we believe we are ready to "do something" in Libya, we are having a debate over what tactics we find acceptable, rather than what strategy will succeed.
This actually plays into Qaddafi's hands. Now he knows that the air option is out. But he also knows that Western powers will be unwilling to send in troops -- the only thing that would assure he is removed from power. The message he'll take away is to go hard on the ground war.
It's not clear we know who we are supporting, either. In any conflict between two parties, the weaker party always wants third-party support. The rebels know exactly how to play the tune that we want to hear. They have been waving banners -- both in Arabic and English -- asking for a no-fly zone. There are reports of volunteers recruited to the rebel forces who are first required to shave, because they don't want their men to appear Islamist. The rebels have silenced or hushed some of the Islamist leaders who are involved on their side. And the spokesmen they put forward speak solid English and talk about Jeffersonian democracy. They know exactly what key words to mention; they know how to play on the moral language. The West will "let us down," without intervention, they argue.
The trouble is, although we are prepared to "do something" and pull out the most impressive kit in the U.S. toolbox -- military power -- we aren't actually willing to get involved at the level required to win. This minimal engagement does more harm than good. Not to mention that there are plenty of conflicts that are far more -- or at least equally -- pressing. In October and again this spring, for example, the African Union requested a no-fly zone from the U.N. Security Council to patrol Somalia. Guess how many French and British planes are flying over Mogadishu today? None.
[Asharq al-Aswat] Just ten days ago, we believed that Colonel Qadaffy's time was up, that his regime was history, and that the Libyan capital Tripoli was on the verge of falling into the rebels hands, especially after they took control of the city of Zawiya, less than 50 km away. Today it seems that the opposite is true, with Qadaffy's troops having reclaimed many areas of the country that were previously under rebel control, and with these forces beginning to shell the rebels' capital Benghazi. It was this development that forced the UN Security Council to rush to issue a critical resolution. Despite the differences and divisions between some states over the issue of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, this draft resolution achieved a majority and was quickly passed by the UN Security Council, resulting in Libya today becoming -- like Afghanistan -- the scene of an international war that aims to forcibly remove the ruling regime.
Although Qadaffy's troops achieved a number of victories over the past days, and are much better armed than the rebel forces, they are now in the cross-hairs of the internationals forces who are similarly much better armed than they, and who -- under Chapter VII of the UN Charter -- are allowed to target them, and not just impose a no-fly zone, as was initially believed.
Colonel Qadaffy must have been overjoyed with the Libyan army's successive victories over the rebel forces, especially as just a few days prior to this it seemed that he was facing the choice between seeking asylum abroad or trial and execution. [Prior to the UN resolution] Qadaffy's victory seemed assured, and this can be seen in the statements he issued from Tripoli asserting that he intended to enter Benghazi one way or the other, and that only those who left the rebel stronghold -- which has a population of 1.5 million -- would be safe.
The scene in the coming days, and perhaps even weeks, and months, will see the conflict intensify in comparison to what we have seen so far, that is unless Colonel Qadaffy chooses the path of negotiating with his opponents, in order to spare Libya from harm. It is believed that Qadaffy has huge [financial] capabilities that will allow him to cling on and exert control, and the large amount of money that remain in the government banks in Libya -- estimated at a few billion dollars -- means that he is not in immediate need of the financial assets belonging to the Qadaffy family, which have been internationally frozen. Of course we must also recall how committed Qadaffy was to fighting this challenge to his authority since the crisis first occurred, and he has said that this is a matter of life and death for his family and regime. However even if Qadaffy is victorious [over the rebels], this will only incite an international conflict, as well as increase the international calls to widen the scale of this conflict.
I do not know what the possible solution to this crisis is, and the situation is only becoming more and more dangerous, with the potential risk increasing with the military involvement of superpowers like La Belle France and its allies. Such a war will only increase the likelihood of Libyan citizens being subject to genocide on the ground.
If Colonel Qadaffy does not take a flexible position that is open to a political resolution of this crisis that the rebels find satisfactory then he will find himself in an even more difficult position; a position where negotiation is no longer possible. Although the Libyan leader's management of his forces has improved, changing the equation on the ground, he must be aware that any military victory [against the rebels] will be nothing more than him winning a battle, rather than war, for there is a genuine popular opposition to his leadership in Libya and it will not be easy to get rid of them.
This opposition will not simply return to their homes. With international support and after being granted international legitimacy, these rebels will be protected, and a Qadaffy victory -- should one occur- will only be temporary. The external factors are now the most important ones with regards to resolving the conflict in Libya; this is something that Qadaffy seems to have failed to understanding. Qadaffy seems to be under the impression that he will be able to ride this storm, because the previous [international] blockade against him in the 90s failed, and because following the international war in Afghanistan, and the lack of victory there, the popular mood in the US has now moved away from military intervention. Whilst all of this is true, the regime in Tripoli has many enemies across the globe, and Qadaffy will be unable to fight all of these and emerge victorious.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/20/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
(I simply LOVE the picture provided to accompany this Arab editorial.)
It makes me think of Yassir Arafat's grave.
But that being said.... No matter HOW it all goes in Libya over the next few terms...the bottom line remains that its going to be Moslems killing other Moslems. PLUS its going to be happening in THEIR yard, not ours.
We dont have to make any serious effort to slow any of that down. I say we look for business opportunities with control of the Oil Pipelines and sell guns to whichever side can eat the most Moslems, and then switch sides and sell some more to the other side when we are reliably supplied with a steady dependable Oil load at the Port. Then we cash it in with France and Italy and encourage them to give their all for "Peace".
And lots of colorful postcards of happy children(and their older sisters) in the green meadows of gracious Europe.
Remember to keep a song in your heart for good old PBUH...but dont get any on your shoes.
#2
I say we look for business opportunities with control of the Oil Pipelines and sell guns to whichever side can eat the most Moslems, and then switch sides and sell some more to the other side
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/20/2011 17:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Consider the source, tw.
I'm not as quick as you to realize such things, Barbara -- Dave D. and AutoBartender used to chide me for it. But even in adulthood my world has been a sheltered one, full of kind and generous people, so my knowledge is theoretical.
[Yemen Post] The Yemeni authorities must immediately act to bring to justice those responsible for an apparently co-ordinated sniper attack on protesters in Sana'a today that has left dozens dead.
At least 40 people were killed and more than 200 maimed in the incident, which took place following Friday prayers as protesters gathered near Sana'a University.
"This appears to have been a sniper attack with security forces deliberately shooting to kill protesters from strategic vantage points," said Philip Luther, Amnesia Amnesty International's Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.
"Such attacks are deplorable and the Yemeni authorities must investigate and bring to justice those who ordered and carried them out. If they do not do so immediately, this crisis is only likely to deepen further."
Protesters were reportedly chanting anti-government slogans at a protest camp near Sana'a University when at around 1.30pm local time, gunnies in plain clothes, believed to be members of the security forces, started shooting live rounds from the top of nearby buildings.
Members of the security forces also shot at protesters at street level around the same time.
An eyewitness told Amnesia Amnesty International that "the shooting started from different buildings around the same time and continued for more than 30 minutes."
Another eyewitness said that most of those killed were shot in the head, chest or neck, many of them dying at the scene.
At least 30 of those injured are said to be in a critical state. So far at least 80 people have been killed in protests in Yemen since February 2011.
"The Yemeni authorities generally appear to be turning a blind eye to killings of protesters by their security forces, raising the question of whether they condone them," said Philip Luther.
"The international community must put pressure on Yemen's leadership to take action to stop the rapidly mounting corpse count."
Posted by: Fred ||
03/20/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
given his track record, we can expect a losing debacle. Here is for hoping that the odds of the coin finally turning up heads will prevail.
Posted by: Martini ||
03/20/2011 6:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Sad when even the Germans understand him. Of course this is really the EUs war (see French) and bammer is just trying to hop on to burnish his self esteem. Needs to prove to himself that he's a REAL leader.
They "understood" Adolf Hitler as well. Didn't gain them a great deal however, in the end.
Posted by: Besoeker on the road again ||
03/20/2011 7:49 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Then came the most important part of the speech: why the US should get involved. "Now, here is why this matters to us," said Obama, sounding a bit like a math teacher explaining a problem to his students. "The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow." In other words, America is prepared to go to war over such concerns.
Sounds like his predecessor. My irony meter exploded.
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/20/2011 8:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It would of been great if Obama wears his Nobel Peace prize at the next press conference to talk about the war.
#8
given his track record, we can expect a losing debacle.
Perhaps but given his weak, spineless & extremely impatient nature I doubt he'll have the stomach for a long engagement. I expect the losing debacle to take the form of a quick loss followed by an even quicker exit and a loud proclamation of victory. Alternatively, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he were to perceive the use of overwhelming force as a kind of antidote to his domestic image as a wimp and if he were therefore to go all-in. I doubt there will be much middle ground, he doesn't have the character to go there.
#9
It would seem that at some point Gadaffi will have to be targeted or he will follow through on his threats in the future, i.e. shooting down airliners, disrupting shipping in the Mediterranean, and terrorism.
#10
"It would seem that at some point Gadaffi will have to be targeted"
That point was a couple of decadesyears weeks ago, John, but NOW would be better than nothing.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/20/2011 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Congress does not need to approve the US action, because it is not an official declaration of war.
War Powers Resolution of 1973
1541. Purpose and policy
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
#12
via RSM: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
Sen. Barack Obama, Dec. 20, 2007
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/20/2011 11:14 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I don't care about the Middle East anymore. Rot in hell f-ers and f-ettes.
Posted by: Fi ||
03/20/2011 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
#19
"OBAMA'S WAR"
versus
* PEOPLE'S DAILY FORUM > [US SecDef] GATES: US EXPECTS TO HAND OFF LIBYA LEAD IN "DAYS", most likely to France, UK, or combined NATO].
* WAFF >[US State Dept]TURKEY WILL SERVE AS PROTECTING POWER FOR THE US IN LIBYA, US STATE DEPT. OFFICIALS TOLD CNN ON SUNDAY. Protection of Americans in Libyuh, + as a quasi-US Station for regular Diplomatic-Embassy services.
Until further notice.
* CHINESE MILITARY FORUM > GADDAFI" LIBYA READY FOR A "LONG, GLORIOUS WAR" ["Long War" widout Limits].
Aka protractive "UNLIMITED WAR" - Jeebus, haven't heard or used this term in a long while.
* NEWS KERALA > [Gaddafi's Boyz]LIBYAN ARMY SAYS 48 KILLED IN [NFZ]STRIKES [circa 150 Wounded], REBELS FEAR [use of] CHEMICAL WEAPONS as per their discovery of allhehed Internationally outlawed/illegal CHEMWEAPS at a former Gaddafi arms depot near Benina Airport in Benghazi.
* Also from NEWS KERALA > FRENCH AIRCRAFT CARRIER LEAVES FOR LIBYA.
The infamous, "RELIABLE-PROPELLERS-ARE-ANTI-GREEN-HENCE-FOR-WUSSY-BRITISH-NAVAL-SHIPS", FNS CV CHARLES DE GAULLE.
"Propeller-Gate" Net betting pools have begun on whether the Chuck's Props will surrender once again.
The UN Resolution was the news many were waiting to hear - and Qadhafi's announcement of a ceasefire seems to have vindicated calls for intervention. But is this merely the first phase of an ill-conceived, protracted conflict?
#1
But is this merely the first phase of an ill-conceived, protracted conflict?
That would be my guess.
Posted by: Besoeker on the road again ||
03/20/2011 7:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Who cares, if its Moslems killing other Moslems? Sell the goons some guns. Make a deal with anyone who holds an Oil pipeline to the port.
Starve the rest.
Use French ground forces. Get Norway and the Italians to help. Pay for it all in EUros. And serve those little pork sausages and crackers with the Vichy water.
Get the Media to show lots of little French children drinking a small glass of watered wine and smiling. Get the Media to show friendly Italian children selling colorful postcards of their sisters wearing native costumes. And the Norwegian children feeding the reindeer or whatever it is they do on those cold six month long Arctic nights.
And as the French manufactured Rafales sell like hotcakes to African dictators we bid a fond adieu in the sunset to our many pleasant memories of our friends in Europe. I wish them well. Meanwhile I would stay on the Carrier and keep Tripoli on the Radar while I waited for Lunch in the Messhall.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/20/2011 10:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Twice today dribble has gotten grief for stating his mind. Do you really want to censor people because you dont agree?
Groupthink is exactly why i stopped arguing with the buffoons on dailykos.
#5
Who cares, if its Moslems killing other Moslems?
We care. Life is precious enough. It isn't right that Muslims are killing other Muslims. Or would you have the Catholics and Huguenots go at it again?
I'm a neo-con. George Bush was right. People everywhere want freedom. They want to be treated decently and they're generally willing to treat others decently. Yes, even Muslims.
What Qadaffy was doing was well beyond what any decent people should tolerate. The issue is NOT whether it's right to settle his hash now, it's why we didn't do this two decades ago.
I won't abide genocide. I won't support thuggery. I may have to bide my time here and there but I'll always support the driving of evil people from power.
My complaint this morning isn't that Bambi intervened. My complaint is that he didn't do it last month.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/20/2011 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#6
In theory, and in my soul I agree with Steve White. However, when you read headlines that the Arab League is criticizing the Western Allies for causing casualties, I become more like Dribble.
#8
It isn't right that Muslims are killing other Muslims.
No, it isn't. But they seem to do so with extraordinary regularity. Regardless of our actions.
Or would you have the Catholics and Huguenots go at it again?
Well, I don't recall objections when Noraid had fund raising billboards around Route 128. So we were willing to tolerate some level of it.
People everywhere want freedom. They want to be treated decently and they're generally willing to treat others decently.
At an individual level in isolation this is probably true. But people have always lived in groups and the groups become societies with roles and norms, etc. People become secure in their position in the group. They can't really imagine, and don't want, a life of freedom where there is no illusion of security.
This is true even in America, as was clearly demonstrated by the nuts of Madison. As we proceed from what Walter Russell Mead has called the Blue Social Model to Liberalism 5.0, there is great fear, uncertainty and doubt in the land. It's no where near as reassuring as knowing your place and that if you die a martyr for Allah you get 72 virgins.
So I don't really know that the Arab Street is yet ready to escape to and accept freedom. Especially from us at the end of a gun. I'd much rather continue our little experiment in Iraq for a few decades before jumping into another situation.
What Qadaffy was doing was well beyond what any decent people should tolerate.
As are the leaders of most of the other members of the Human Rights Council, let alone the non-members.
The issue is NOT whether it's right to settle his hash now, it's why we didn't do this two decades ago.
There's too much hash in the world for us to settle it all at once, if it's even within our abiltiy to settle it.
I won't abide genocide. I won't support thuggery. I may have to bide my time here and there but I'll always support the driving of evil people from power.
My complaint this morning isn't that Bambi intervened. My complaint is that he didn't do it last month.
I don't like evil either, but I'm not eager to do battle with every dragon out there. Especially when there is so little known about what will follow. It could easily be worse.
#12
Flash and Steve White I understand where you are coming from. Dribble has a different style and is provocative. We can get carried away with our thoughts at times. The media as an example does this all the time to sell product. I have made errors and have been corrected. The is called Rantburg University as TW fondly points out. I encourage Dribble to carry on but be mindful of correction when needed. I am personally drawn to this site because I perceive a great deal of talent.
#13
Get the Media to show lots of little French children drinking a small glass of watered wine and smiling. Get the Media to show friendly Italian children selling colorful postcards of their sisters wearing native costumes. And the Norwegian children feeding the reindeer or whatever it is they do on those cold six month long Arctic nights.
I'm not sure what that entire statement has to do with anything, but it IS kind of funny. And a lot like what watching television in France is like.
I also don't enjoy seeing Muslims kill Muslims, any more than enjoy any other kind of fratricide. It makes me profoundly sad. But Dribble's statement is basically Kissinger-era Realpolitik, which we can't exclude from Rantburg merely because it's insensitive.
#14
And discussion of intervention in the ME should be accompanied by a real-time ticking debt counter--even a counter that just showed the interest accruing on our national debt. Sobering reality is we need to conserve some resources for our own survival. We cannot sustain saving everyone everywhere. Impossible.
Posted by: Fi ||
03/20/2011 21:41 Comments ||
Top||
#15
The sooner we get independent of ME oil the healthier we become as a nation. Then we can lecture the ME govts and jihadis till the cows come home on morality, the golden rule, and all those mundane things that they think is not important.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/20/2011 21:56 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Sell the goons some guns. Make a deal with anyone who holds an Oil pipeline to the port.
Starve the rest.
That part is not cute, Secret Master, or Realpolitik. That part is evil. Americans don't pull that shit.
#17
1) Sell the goons some guns. Make a deal with anyone who holds an Oil pipeline to the port. Starve the rest.
2) Realpolitik: refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises.
One and two seem like a match to me, TW. That said, I didn't say that I found that part of his statement to be cute: I don't. I Simply stated that Dribble shouldn't have his comment removed simply because it's ugly and amoral.
#18
Elsewhere, today, Dribble advocated selling guns to both sides, Secret Master. And he didn't say, "Let them starve," but "Starve the rest." Active voice, not passive. Dribble is a facile and evocative writer, so it's reasonable to assume the choice was deliberate.
I don't want to associate with people who are ugly and amoral, which to me is very different than killing people and breaking things.
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.
[Asharq al-Aswat] Just ten days ago, we believed that Colonel Qadaffy's time was up, that his regime was history, and that the Libyan capital Tripoli was on the verge of falling into the rebels hands, especially after they took control of the city of Zawiya, less than 50 km away. Today it seems that the opposite is true, with Qadaffy's troops having reclaimed many areas of the country that were previously under rebel control, and with these forces beginning to shell the rebels' capital Benghazi. It was this development that forced the UN Security Council to rush to issue a critical resolution. Despite the differences and divisions between some states over the issue of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, this draft resolution achieved a majority and was quickly passed by the UN Security Council, resulting in Libya today becoming -- like Afghanistan -- the scene of an international war that aims to forcibly remove the ruling regime.
