A strategic town is lost in the east with another expected to follow soon. In the west, a symbolic centre of resistance is about to suffer an onslaught that it is unlikely to survive. With no international action to stop Muammar Gaddafi’s fierce offensive, the survival of Libya’s revolution hangs in a precarious balance.
Just four days ago the picture was very different: the rebel fighters were seemingly on a march to the capital, Tripoli, and the enemy was in disarray and retreat. But a series of misjudgements, and chronic lack of planning and organisation, have resulted in a dramatic reversal. The regime’s troops are poised to strike at Benghazi, the capital of “Free Libya”.
By yesterday afternoon, the opposition had abandoned Ras Lanuf, an oil port on the key coastal route. They withdrew to Aghala, outside Brega, another petrochemical complex. Control of the two locations would provide the regime with the reserves of fuel needed for the tanks and armoured cars arriving in increasing numbers on the frontline. It would also put Tripoli in a position to shut down power supplies to Benghazi.
It is all going to be too late: the contradictary statements from the West, the shilly-shallying in Washington, the belicose rumblings matched only by besides the point ‘sanctions’ against Libya, and now the deliberately slow and inadequate fact-finding from the UN investigators prior to issuing some report or other to the Security Council. Gaddaffi has tested the international community, and it has been found wanting. He is making the most of the window which has been opened for him to murder the opposition.
One day, the mass graves will be discovered in the desert of the bound, twisted, and tortured teachers, doctors, professors and the children, and everyone will squeal “Oh, but we didn’t know”, “how shocking” and “it must never happen again”….until the next time.
I watched the Press Conference yesterday when Gaddaffi’s son was lying about the atrocities committed by the rebels in graphic detail: the mutilation, the razor cuts, the eyes removed, and so on. I listened with increasing horror to what he was describing with the realisation that he was describing torture and dismembering with an accuracy and vivid detail you would only expect from someone who had watched such things taking place himself.
Pageantmaster
Every action actually contemplated was inadequate to the task. A few overflights would not have prevented this outcome. That’s why there has been such little interest in taking any action at all. Better to take no action than to be seen taking impotent action. Changing the outcome would have required an invasion. Then what would have happened? The competing indigenous factions would have each expected to receive power from the occupying forces. The invading power ends up acting as police enforcer amidst a bunch of actors who desire that power. No nation wanted to assume this responsibility. Some saw the overflights as a fig leaf. Others saw them as an admission of weakness. Either way, no one wanted to step to the task of nation-building in Libya.
carl
#3 carl
[blockquote]Every action actually contemplated was inadequate to the task. A few overflights would not have prevented this outcome. That’s why there has been such little interest in taking any action at all.[/blockquote]
A no fly zone can stop aircraft from bombing, as can a blockade prevent ships with government troops [as happened in the last few days] landing at places which would have been challenging to reach by land. The technology is there. Similarly Gaddaffi’s tanks could have been stopped. It would have required destruction of airfields and of anti-aircraft facilities, but would fall far short of invasion.
[blockquote]Better to take no action than to be seen taking impotent action. Changing the outcome would have required an invasion.[/blockquote]
I would suspect that just the determination to take action shown a week ago would have been a game-changer, when Gaddaffi’s forces were in disarray and the military were deserting. Gaddaffi has now calculated that he has a window to move against opposition forces while other countries are wringing their hands and distracted with Japan. An invasion and nation-building have never been on the cards – only preventing air borne bombing, by a no-fly zone and possibly disruption of Gaddaffi’s communications systems.
[blockquote]Then what would have happened? The competing indigenous factions would have each expected to receive power from the occupying forces. The invading power ends up acting as police enforcer amidst a bunch of actors who desire that power.[/blockquote]
Libya is certainly composed of clans with historically different interests, but for 80 years, clan infighting has not been an issue in Libya and the three territories [Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and the Interior] comprising Libya actually decided to merge into one kingdom. One can no more say that Libya is incapable of proper governance because of its clan system, than one can say that of Scotland. All the indications are that the opposition are clear that they want to see a Libya united under a parliamentary democracy, so Egypt is probably a better model of what a free Libya would look like. Gaddaffi is however keen to claim that tribal divisions will divide Libya. The tribal and clan leaders have however united to state this is yet more untrue propaganda.
[blockquote] ..no one wanted to step to the task of nation-building in Libya.[/blockquote]
The Libyans have been quite clear that they do not want others to nation-build in Libya, any more than they want foreign forces on their shore.
The one thing we could have done would have been to prevent the use of air and sea power to tip the balance in Gaddaffi’s favor, and to prevent Gaddaffi flying mercenaries in via Algeria. But the shilly-shallying continues and one can just see a tragedy occuring.
And when he brings down the next U.S. airliner we’ll all remember this lost opportunity!
Pageantmaster
Many of your suggestions about the use of air power did not involve a ‘no-fly zone to protect civilians’ but a sustained air interdiction campaign. That takes a lot of resources and a lot of planning. It’s not the same as flying what amounts to combat air patrol over Libya. I have never heard anyone suggest that magnitude of commitment.
But there is a more pressing issue. The rebels can win only if they can flip the Army. The rebels do not possess the training or the discipline or the organization or the logistics to defeat an actual Army. We are seeing that reality unfold now. The Libyan Army may not be much by Western Standards but its primary purpose has always been to maintain the power of the present government. It is more than adequate to deal with a bunch of civilians with pick-up trucks and guns. Your contention is that the Army would have deserted Gaddaffi at the sight of NATO overflights. Said overflights would have made things harder for Gaddaffi, but they wouldn’t have changed the calculus of the question “Who do I think will win this war?” The answer to that question turns on “Who has the ability to employ the most power on the ground to control the territory?” The answer has always been “The Government.” A lack of resolve to introduce ground troops would simply emphasize the fact that the Libyan Army would eventually win.
I have one further question. The West does not have the ability to redeem every failed nation on the planet. Why does Libya rate intervention? What is the standard that is being applied? Surely the answer is not “Because we can intervene in Libya without incurring significant risk.” If the justification for intervention has been laid out in terms of human rights violations as per your comment [2] above, then shouldn’t the decision to intervene be independent of the estimated cost? There is after all no real possibility of defeat. It’s only a matter of how much cost would be incurred. So it would seem to me that a desire to avoid ground intervention actually weakens your case. It comes across as “Never again .. so long as it doesn’t cost very much.” If it really was a matter of “Never again” then there would already be western boots on the ground.
carl
Victory for the Libyan Army was never inevitable, although if they secure petroleum supplies it might become so. Until the last few days, Qaddafi has been reluctant to allow most of his technological assets to be used at any distance from the capital.
Carl writes:
[blockquote] “But there is a more pressing issue. The rebels can win only if they can flip the Army. The rebels do not possess the training or the discipline or the organization or the logistics to defeat an actual Army.” [/blockquote]
The Libyan Army is not “an actual Army” by any standard. It is a palace guard combined with a collection of random mercenaries. It has had very little involvement in real fighting, although plenty in committing atrocities against unarmed civilians. This is truly a case of delay and moral relativism in the West leading directly to the triumph of tyranny.
[blockquote] The answer to that question turns on “Who has the ability to employ the most power on the ground to control the territory?†The answer has always been “The Government.†[/blockquote]
There is no evidence to support this. All we have are indications that many in the West seem to prefer Qaddafi in power because he is considered the best guarantee of a supply of oil to the West. This is despite the evidence of atrocities routinely perpetrated against his own people. It seems to have been the trend ever since Tony Blair led the way in bringing Qaddafi “in from the cold”, and others are just lining up to follow Blair’s lead.
The tragedy in all of this is that it will reinforce the perception that many in the third world already have, that the West has no real commitment to democracy or constitutional government. We are seen as a group that is happy to leave repressive dictators in place so long as they secure a steady flow of relatively cheap oil to us.
1. The West will lose its ‘friends’ in the ME because they are squeamish about killing their own people, while Gaddafi isn’t. Chavez will be pleased.
2. Thousands of Libyans will end up in Europe.
3. The price of oil will rise.
4. Obama will ……..?
American inaction does not preclude EU action.
[blockquote]I cam across an article that contains the following:
The Iraq war became known as George W. Bush’s war after Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction didn’t turn up, because at that point no liberal wanted to take responsibility for the conflict. But the initial invasion was supported by Democrats as well as Republicans, liberal internationalists as well as neoconservatives — Hillary Clinton as well as John McCain, The New Republic as well as The Weekly Standard.
Now a similar chorus is arguing that the United States should intervene
directly in Libya’s civil war: with a no-flight zone, certainly, and perhaps with arms for the Libyan rebels and air strikes against Qaddafi’s military as well. As in 2002 and 2003, the case
for intervention is being pushed by a broad cross-section of politicians and opinion-makers, from Bill Clinton to Bill Kristol, Fareed Zakaria to Newt Gingrich, John Kerry to Christopher Hitchens.
The justifications for military action, too, echo many of the arguments marshaled for toppling Saddam Hussein. America’s credibility is on the line. The Libyan people deserve our support. Deposing Qaddafi will strike a blow for democracy and human rights.
It’s a testament to the resilience of American power that we’re hearing these kind of arguments so soon after the bloodiest years of the Iraq war. It’s also a testament to the achievements of the American military: absent the successes of the 2007 troop surge, we’d probably be too busy extricating ourselves from a war-torn Iraq to even contemplate another military intervention in a Muslim nation.
But that resilience and those achievements may have set a trap for us, by encouraging the American leadership class to draw relatively narrow lessons from the Iraq war — lessons that only apply to wars premised on faulty W.M.D. intelligence, or wars led by Donald Rumsfeld.[/blockquote]
The entire article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/opinion/14douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Without a declaration of war, Obama will run into the the same problem that Bush did; when it turns sour and when it goes on and on and when the EU bails out, those who support it now will turn on him. Now while I would fully enjoy the discomfiture of Obama and the Democratic party when this happens, (turn about is fair play don’t you know) that is no way to run foreign policy or to treat the military.
Would all these people be so eager to get into this thing if Bush were still in the White House? I think not. Yet one should not choose ones wars by whether you approve of the political party in power at the time, nor, having sought such, should you throw them under the bus when the going gets tough. Nor should the EU be allowed to avoid putting a lot, a whole lot, of “skin” in the game.
If the world wants to go to war in Lybia, let’s call it what it is, then let’s have the formal declarations of war.
Listening to the news today two things are becoming apparent:
1. Gaddaffi’s forces are by no means as formidable as people are suggesting, even with air support. There are reports that the opposition forces have retaken the oil town of Brega.
2. US debate is about a much more serious engagement than either Britain and France, or the Arab League and Libyan Opposition are calling for. Robert Gates seems to be talking of ground forces, nation building, occupation and indeed declarations of war. This is not what the Libyans or the Arabs are calling for, nor is it what Britain and France are advocating. The call is for a no-fly zone and ancillary action to destroy anti-aircraft capability in order to prevent attacks on those enforcing the no-fly zone.
I think those advocating for a no-fly zone need to clarify exactly what the are talking about.
There is no question of nations declaring war: the only issue is whether a no-fly zone is instituted primarily by European nations in support of either a United Nations resolution, or in support of the standing obligation to prevent attacks on civilians. The conditions being talked about are:
1. A United Nations resolution authorising a no fly zone, or a clear need to take action to prevent air attacks on civilian already permitted by the United Nations – the latter is already in place, but there would be more support if the former is in place. There are indications the US may support a resolution along with Britain and France.
2. A clear need – with bombing of towns and their civilian populations and increasing evidence of massacres this seems supportable.
3. clear regional support – with the call from the Arab League on Saturday for a UN no fly zone, this is now in place.
At the moment people on either side of the Atlantic seem to be talking about different definitions of action for a no-fly zone and it would be helpful if a plan could be put forward to clarify some of this confusion.
11, let’s be perfectly clear. A no-fly zone is an act of war. You want foreign powers to control a sovereign nation’s air space. That is war. And wars should not be entered into without declarations of war.
And for that mater the UN has no, absolutely no, authority, or moral imprimatur for that matter, to declare war or to authorize acts of war. Those are prerogatives of nation states, not the UN.
#12 I can’t speak about internal US definitions, but acting in support of a UN resolution to establish a no-fly zone is not a declaration of war. There was no declaration of war in Yugoslavia, nor in Iraq, neither will there be one in relation to Libya, if any action is taken in the future.
13, and that’s the problem. The UN is used to relieve nations of the moral responsibility for using force to blow things up and kill people. And please don’t declare war, let’s call it a “police action” or a no-fly zone. You can call it what you want to, use all the euphemisms you want, but it is blowing things up and killing people.
I understand Europeans love affair with the UN. I would not be unhappy to see it disappear from the face of the Earth.
#14 Br. Michael
We have no particular love for the United Nations, I can tell you. But we live in a context of International Law, designed to stop people from starting war, and from invading their neighbors.
That said, when the nations united [if I can put it like that rather than the United Nations] do manage to come to a decision, as they did for example in relation to the invasion of Kuwait, then it does permit member nations to take action. No one want to take action in relation to the massacres in Libya without either a specific United Nations resolution, or clarity that such action falls within permitted action under existing UN decisions, such as that permitting intervention to prevent killing of civilians by its government. Britain and France will not do that without such UN authorisation either, but if there is authorisation and support for that, then they have indicated their willingness to take part, at a time when British forces and finances are also stretched, but because we think the humanitarian risks mean it is needed.
Such action as is being considered is for the purpose of avoiding the Gaddaffi government as you put it “blowing things up and killing people.”
Let’s be clear, no one is being asked to invade, declare war, put in troops, nation build or any of the other wild suggestions being bandied about in Washington. The intention is to save life, not destroy it, as we did in Sierra Leone.
15, I will simply repeat that for nations to declare a no-fly zone in another nation is an act of war. It will have to be enforced and that means blowing things up and killing people. I would not indulge in the speculation that it can be done on the cheap. I would not indulge in the speculation that the Libyan military would not contest the violation of their airspace. Given his past history I would not be surprised if Gaddafi engages in asymmetrical war on the nations attacking him. Lockerbie comes to mind. That puts your own citizens at risk and it should not be done without a declaration of war so that they are fully apprised of the consequences of what they are getting into. Only a declaration of war admits of the gravity and seriousness of the thing.
If the EU wants to do it, then do it as seems best to them.
#16 Br. Michael
I don’t think one can ever speculate that any military action can be taken “on the cheap” nor without admitting “the gravity and seriousness of the thing” or that it comes without consequences. In this country we know that does not happen.
However, I suspect those consequences will be the greater if Gaddaffi is left in power to continue to slaughter his people.
Whatever you or I think, the Security Council met this afternoon, and the G8 countries are meeting now to consider the Arab League request for a no-fly zone, and the British and French are leading in drafting a resolution. I hope and pray that a massive slaughter in Libya can be avoided and the Gaddaffi regime brought to book. The alternative is too horrendous to contemplate.
Br. Michael seems to be in effect arguing that there are only two states to be in: “peace” or “total war”. That is not, and has never been the case.
Yes, you can impose a “no-fly” zone without declaring war, and you can even shoot people without declaring war. Australian soldiers have done it quite a lot since 1945 – the Malayan Emergency and the Indonesian Konfrontasi come to mind.
Nor is the UN necessary – in recent years most such operations have been conducted under the auspices of the UN. But if the UN disappeared overnight, such limited wars and operations would still go on.
Let us pray that anyone who does not understand these distinctions is NOT in charge of any serious political or military decisions!
18, you can start nuclear war without a declaration of war. Yes you can kill people without a declaration of war. That is not my argument. Maybe a declaration of war is an outmoded concept. Maybe we want our chief executives to be able to commit a nation to war on his whim. Maybe we want to suspend civil liberties and put the nation on a war footing at the whim of the executive. But you shouldn’t. This is not the case of the executive acting to repel an attack where prompt action is necessary. This is a coldly calculated intervention in a country, not at war with us, to determine the ultimate victor in a civil war.
I want this nation to go to war only after the Congress has acted. Not by resolution, but by formal declaration of war. I want the imperial presidency reined in. I don’t want one man: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagen, Bush, Clinton, Bush or Obama to have the power to commit this nation to aggressive war.
And I’ll tell you this. For the people we kill and for our people who are killed, it’s total war.
Br. Michael,
A declaration of war is not an outmoded concept. Its just that it is of limited application – it is not the only way of conducting armed operations, and it never has been.
I won’t comment on your issues with your own system of government (which apparently go back to the 1950s).
But your whole characterisation of this situation is wrong: you apparently only understand two states: Peace or Total War.
It appears that in your view, it is not possible to conduct a limited military operation: You cannot conceive of an armed force entering a country with declared limited aims, e.g. providing safe conduct to refugees from point A to point B, or securing particular assets. Rather your view seems to be that if armed forces do enter a country, they MUST conquer it.
Such a view ignores the many, many instances in history where armed forces have successfully engaged in limited operations.
[blockquote] “And I’ll tell you this. For the people we kill and for our people who are killed, it’s total war.” [/blockquote]
I disagree, on both counts. I think there is ample evidence that populations in-country understand full well the difference between war and armed operations for a limited purpose. And I can assure you that the soldiers who engage in these operations also understand the difference. I have family members involved in them as I write.
Mind you, if you simply mean that a person killed in a limited military operation is just as dead as a person killed in war, then of course I would agree. But then, they are also just as dead as if they were killed in a road accident or died of disease or old age.
20, I understand very well what you are saying. I disagree with it.
You are confusing total war, with the decision to make war. One can declare war and still, in a strategic and tactical way, wage less than total war.
My issue is who commits a nation to use its power to kill people and blow things up. You are arguing the quantity of things blown up and killed. One can formally declare war and not fire bomb Dresden.
“Mind you, if you simply mean that a person killed in a limited military operation is just as dead as a person killed in war, then of course I would agree. But then, they are also just as dead as if they were killed in a road accident or died of disease or old age.” True, but in the latter case I, or my country, did not deliberately kill them.
Br. Michael,
[blockquote] “My issue is who commits a nation to use its power to kill people and blow things up.” [/blockquote]
The powers of your President have been an issue in the last couple of your posts only. As I wrote, I can’t comment on that. But you have also claimed that any military action must be by declaration of war, and it is that issue that I am addressing.
[blockquote] “You are arguing the quantity of things blown up and killed.” [/blockquote]
No, I am not. Not even close. Although usually far less people/things are killed/blown up in a limited operation, that is merely incidental, and it is not always the case.
[blockquote] “One can formally declare war and not fire bomb Dresden.” [/blockquote]
Of course. But my point (which I cannot work out if you are still disputing or not) is that one can take military action (which may well involve shooting or blowing things up) without a declaration of war, and that this is understood in all countries.
[blockquote] “True, but in the latter case I, or my country, did not deliberately kill them.” [/blockquote]
So what? I don’t mean that as a throw away line, but as a serious question: Why does that fact make some moral, spiritual or philosophical difference in the context of this discussion?
Let me give an example: Australia participated in the Interfet peacekeeping force in East Timor in 1999. There was deliberately no declaration of war – it would have been quite wrong to do so, as this was a peace-keeping mission with specific limited aims. At one point, armed militia attacked an Australian SAS patrol and came off worst – at least five of them were later found dead. The troopers who killed those militiamen did so without benefit of a declaration of war, but why is that situation any different to that of Japanese killed by Australian soldiers in WWII under a declaration of war?
In a rare turn of events, I’m with Br. Michael on this one.
Two of the most important questions to ask about any proposed military action are, “What exactly — and I mean exactly — am I trying to accomplish?” and “How will I know when I’ve accomplished it, so I can pack up and go home?” I don’t see the proposals for a no-fly zone answering those questions.
Conducting wars from the air is attractive because it’s relatively low-risk; technological superiority counts for a lot, and so you’re not likely to lose too many pilots. And it can work well if your goal is only the destruction of specific sites or assets: drop some bombs, fire some missiles, mission accomplished.
But if your goal is anything more complex than “Destroy Site X,” air power is primarily an enabler: you control the skies in order to allow your guys on the ground to do whatever it is they need to do. If you don’t have guys on the ground, then there’s not much point in owning the sky.
So what’s our goal in Libya? We’d like to see Gaddafi out and a peaceful, stable pro-Western democracy in place. We’d be reasonably content with Gaddafi out and a not-Western-hating, not blatantly despotic or anarchic government in place. Neither is something we can bring about from the air. Even on the ground it’s a serious question if we could do it — see our current two wars, where we have yet to manage the feat well enough to be able to walk away — and that’s if we had the resources to make a concerted effort at it, which we don’t.
So, if not “Gaddafi out, something tolerable in his place,” what would be our goal in establishing a no-fly zone? And when would we be done?
Ross,
So far as I am aware, the only suggested goal of a no-fly zone in Libya is to prevent Qaddafi’s air force flying bombing missions. You seem to have morphed the concept of “no-fly zone” into “conducting war from the air” into conducting bombing missions on Libya. Lets not get the concepts confused.
And I would have thought there is no doubt that anyone in the west who supports the idea of some sort of intervention does it on the basis of “Qaddafi out, something tolerable in his place” (which is actually putting it mildly).
OK, so you’re suggesting that we impose a no-fly zone until Gaddafi is removed from power and something better replaces him.
Now it’s true that preventing Gaddafi from using air power certainly makes it more likely that he will fall. But obviously, it doesn’t make it certain — that depends on a lot of factors, primarily how able the rebels will be to take advantage of the situation. And if Gaddafi does suffer a fatal regime-change-related accident, there’s zero guarantee that what replaces him will be better.
So how long do we wait for the no-fly zone to topple the bad guy and replace him with a better government? What if it takes a year? Five years? What if it never happens? How long are we stuck patrolling Libyan airspace? What happens if Gaddafi’s regime survives the rebellion, and we pack up our planes and go home — what effect will that have on Gaddafi’s will to defy us, and on his people’s will to defy him?
Basically what I’m saying is, if you want something, you either commit enough effort to it to actually get the thing you want, or you decide that it’s not worth it and don’t. You don’t go in half-assed and throw down something less than it takes to get the job done.
Ross,
[blockquote] “OK, so you’re suggesting that we impose a no-fly zone until Gaddafi is removed from power and something better replaces him…” [/blockquote]
No, I haven’t suggested that at all. Nor have I endorsed your detailed construct that follows. The issue arose on this thread as to whether a no-fly zone could or should be imposed. This was particularly relevant because the Arab League has requested it. I pointed out that the imposition of a No-fly zone within a reasonably quick period of time was only within the powers of the USA, I urged against confusing a No-fly zone with other forms of action, and I specifically cautioned against your apparent assumption that a No-fly zone also involves an active bombing campaign. They are distinct concepts.
[blockquote] “Now it’s true that preventing Gaddafi from using air power certainly makes it more likely that he will fall. But obviously, it doesn’t make it certain—that depends on a lot of factors, primarily how able the rebels will be to take advantage of the situation.” [/blockquote]
Of course. That is a trite statement about any military operation that has ever been conducted. How does it support your point?
[blockquote] “And if Gaddafi does suffer a fatal regime-change-related accident, there’s zero guarantee that what replaces him will be better.” [/blockquote]
That is a different issue, but in any case I disagree. I do not share the assumption adopted by some that Arabs and Muslims are incapable of forming non-repressive governments (or even democratic government). We have ample evidence that they can do so, and such evidence as we have indicates that this particular group of rebels have made a good start. Furthermore, it is difficult to envision a government worse than Qaddafi’s, so its not a hard bar to get over. One of the only things to recommend Qaddafi is that he cut a deal with Tony Blair a few years ago and provided a steady supply of oil to the west.
So for a number of reasons, I don’t think your claim about “zero guarantee” is valid in any respect.
[blockquote] “So how long do we wait for the no-fly zone to topple the bad guy and replace him with a better government? What if it takes a year? Five years? What if it never happens?” [/blockquote]
You do what every competent military or political leader does, and periodically reassess the situation.
[blockquote] “What happens if Gaddafi’s regime survives the rebellion, and we pack up our planes and go home—what effect will that have on Gaddafi’s will to defy us, and on his people’s will to defy him?” [/blockquote]
No effect whatsoever that is any worse than not imposing a No-fly zone in the first place.
[blockquote] Basically what I’m saying is, if you want something, you either commit enough effort to it to actually get the thing you want, or you decide that it’s not worth it and don’t. You don’t go in half-assed and throw down something less than it takes to get the job done. [/blockquote]
That is a different question, but I disagree. Imposing a No-fly zone in these particular circumstances carries very little political or military risk for the West (particularly not after a direct invitation to do so from the Arab League). Whereas conducting a full scale invasion of Libya greatly escalates the political risk.
You Americans need to learn a bit from one of your very effective presidents – George Bush. He achieved a huge diplomatic coup by persuading Arab nations to join in Gulf War I – Egyptian and Syrian armies and many others lined up alongside British and American forces to fight against the armies of Iraq. It’s a pity we in the West seem to have lost that in more recent years. We need to learn some subtlety.
#26 MichaelA says:
Of course they are, and I don’t recall ever confusing the two.
You misunderstand my point. Of course just imposing a no-fly zone is relatively low risk. But it is also extremely likely not to accomplish the goal of removing Gaddafi from power and replacing him with something better. It’s a half-assed gesture that will make the Western powers feel good, but if it isn’t followed through on — and clearly you and others taking your position have no interest in following through with any of the forces that would actually be required to do a thorough job of this — then the likely outcome is that at some point we just give up and go home with nothing much having changed.
My point is, either we commit enough forces to get the job done, or we decide that we can’t or won’t and stay out of it… and under the circumstances, I vote for “can’t.” But committing only some of the forces needed is the worst of both worlds: it costs blood and money but gains nothing.
Ross wrote,
[blockquote] “Of course they are, and I don’t recall ever confusing the two.” [/blockquote]
See your post #23 and my reply at #24.
[blockquote] “You misunderstand my point. Of course just imposing a no-fly zone is relatively low risk. But it is also extremely likely not to accomplish the goal of removing Gaddafi from power and replacing him with something better.” [/blockquote]
Who says that is *our* goal? It may well be a goal of the rebels, or of the Arab league, but at the moment it is not ours.
We can only contribute to and assist what other players are doing, which primarily means the Libyan people. We can’t do everything ourselves, nor should we set ourselves such a goal.
[blockquote] “It’s a half-assed gesture that will make the Western powers feel good, but if it isn’t followed through on—and clearly you and others taking your position have no interest in following through with any of the forces that would actually be required to do a thorough job of this—then the likely outcome is that at some point we just give up and go home with nothing much having changed.” [/blockquote]
No, that’s not the likelihood at all.
That is *one possible outcome* of this entire situation, certainly. But then, it is also a possible outcome of the invasion that you are advocating.
An important consideration is that nobody has *asked* the West to invade. Even the rebels themselves have not done that. They may in due course, but it is just as possible that they will want us to stay out. However, the rebels and now the Arab league have asked the West to impose a No-fly zone.
[blockquote] “My point is, either we commit enough forces to get the job done, or we decide that we can’t or won’t and stay out of it… and under the circumstances, I vote for “can’t.†But committing only some of the forces needed is the worst of both worlds: it costs blood and money but gains nothing.” [/blockquote]
There is no reason to think so. Western forces have engaged in limited war on many occasions, very successfully. Just in the last few years, the Australian operations in Solomon Islands, East Timor, Rwanda and Somalia come to mind. I have had friends and/or relatives involved in all of those, and I don’t think any of them consider that they were fruitless (to say the least).
In one case (Rwanda), the soldiers all express frustration that they were not permitted to do more, but that doesn’t mean they think that they didn’t accomplish anything with the limited involvement that they were allowed.
By contrast, a full-scale invasion of Libya (for no other reason except that we think it is the only response we can make), is likely to cost both blood and money but gain little, and it may well be detrimental.
MichaelA:
I am not advocating an invasion of Libya.
You seem to have trouble with this concept, so let me say it again: I. Am. Not. Advocating. An. Invasion. Of. Libya.
As I see it, the situation presents the following possibilities:
1) A full-press invasion, which would almost certainly get Gaddafi out, followed by nation-building, which is pretty iffy based on our current track record; but this option is not possible because we currently have our hands full with two other wars and consequent attempts at nation building.
2) Some kind of limited action, which we could possibly scrape together the men and money for if we tried hard enough, but which is almost certain to be insufficient.
3) Do nothing, which will certainly accomplish nothing, but has the advantage of costing nothing.
So only (2) and (3) are actually on the table, and based on my estimation of likely outcomes I choose (3). Are we clear? I am not saying we should invade; I am saying that we should stay home because we cannot invade and shouldn’t bother with costly but ineffective token gestures.
Now, if England and France and the Arab League want a UN resolution to support a no-fly zone, or anything else, I’m amenable; I think it’s a bad idea, but you all are big boys, you can make your own decisions, and I see no reason why we should stand in your way. If such a resolution comes up at the UN, I say we should vote in favor of it — on the understanding that England, France, the Arab League, et al, will be the ones carrying it out. And maybe I’m wrong about what a no-fly zone will accomplish, and Gaddafi will fall and democracy will reign and you all will get the feel the glow of a good deed well done.
But then we come to this:
I refer you to this:
So perhaps you will understand my confusion. But since I now have no idea what your goal is, let me ask: what is your goal, that you think imposing a no-fly zone will accomplish?
Ross wrote:
[blockquote] “I am not advocating an invasion of Libya. You seem to have trouble with this concept, so let me say it again: I. Am. Not. Advocating. An. Invasion. Of. Libya.”
[/blockquote]
Since I have never assumed that you were, we have no reason to argue! I responded to your contention that limited military operations are worse than the options of full scale invasion or doing nothing. You wrote:
[blockquote] “My point is, either we commit enough forces to get the job done, or we decide that we can’t or won’t and stay out of it… and under the circumstances, I vote for “can’t.†But committing only some of the forces needed is the worst of both worlds: it costs blood and money but gains nothing.” [/blockquote]
In response, I pointed out that limited military operations are not in fact the worst of both worlds, but in many cases (including this one) are far more effective than your first option.
[blockquote] “Now, if England and France and the Arab League want a UN resolution to support a no-fly zone, or anything else, I’m amenable…” [/blockquote]
Why should we deal with counter-factuals? The rebels and the Arab League have made an open request for a No-Fly zone. The only country with the ability to do that within a reasonable time-frame is the USA. Of course you don’t have to do that: No-one can force you to carry out any moral action whatsoever. I am simply pointing out that your various rationales for your disinterest or isolationism (“wouldn’t achieve anything”, “token”, “ineffective” etc) don’t stand up to analysis.
[blockquote] “So perhaps you will understand my confusion. But since I now have no idea what your goal is, let me ask: what is your goal, that you think imposing a no-fly zone will accomplish?” [/blockquote]
Your confusion is due to your earlier incorrect conflation of terms (I probably should have pulled you up on this at the time – mea culpa). You used “goal” in the sense of the “aim” or “mission” of a military operation. Of course everyone agrees that our overall goal should be the removal of Qaddafi. But that does not mean that the “goal” (i.e. the aim or mission) of a No-Fly Zone is the removal of Qaddafi – air ops are not capable of achieving such aims, nor should they be set for them.