Trying to outmaneuver Western military intervention, Moammar Gadhafi’s government declared a cease-fire on Friday against the rebel uprising faltering against his artillery, tanks and warplanes. The opposition said shells rained down well after the announcement and accused the Libyan leader of lying.
Wary of the cease-fire, Britain and France took the lead in plans to enforce a no-fly zone, sending British warplanes to the Mediterranean and announcing a crisis summit in Paris with the U.N. and Arab allies. In Washington, President Barack Obama ruled out the use of American ground troops but warned that the U.S., which has an array of naval and air forces in the region, would join in military action.
Imagine that. The Col. thinks fighting a B-2 is an unfair fight.
[blockquote] “The driving consideration is what comes next if a no-fly zone doesn’t work,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast adviser to six U.S. secretaries of state. [/blockquote] I think we all know ‘what comes next.’ It is just a matter of who steps up to do it. Once you commit to a course of military action, you can’t just say “Well, I guess it didn’t work. Better luck next time.” You have to follow through. Otherwise, you make contemptible your future threats. It will be enlightening to see if Europe has the intestinal fortitude to back up its martial rhetoric with action – and I am not referring to the sparse collection of overflights that Europe might be capable of sustaining. I am referring to the hard work of rebuilding a country like the US did in Iraq.
carl
Carl, what makes you think Europe, the UK, Arab League, BRIC, etc. aren’t capable of doing nation building?
3. Isaac
The Europeans didn’t have the ability to project power on the continent in Bosnia let alone across the Mediterranean sea to Libya. I doubt they have the military capacity to pacify the country, or the lift capacity to sustain the effort. More important, I doubt they possess the will to absorb the cost (both in blood and money) that such an effort will incur.
carl
Where is the authorization from the Congress for Obama to do this thing? Obama must be impeached. The UN cannot give this person the authority to commit US forces.
This is an unconstitutional and illegal war.
I have to say I am mightily relieved that there is now some prospect of these million people in Benghazi being safe, and very thankful for the efforts of my government, the French, US and others for acting to protect them. As an eight year old I remember listening on the radio to the pleas coming from Czeckoslovakia for the world to help for several days as the Russian tanks were at their borders and rolled in to snuff out the Prague Spring. I couldn’t understand why nobody did anything even as the tanks rolled in and the radio appeals eventually went off the air. Since then it seems to have been one tragedy after another – Cambodia, Ruanda, Congo and Bosnia. At least now a shameful tragedy and massacre may have been avoided, and I am sure that we have all done everything we can to protect these people. May God look after and protect them and our military putting their lives on the line to protect them, and may he also soften the hearts of the Libyan regime.
I am proud of the role my country has played and impressed by the efforts of David Cameron and William Hague and glad that all our political parties have united behind them. The French have redeemed themselves, and thankfully the US has developed resolve this week even though I have come to understand how deep the divisions between the Hawk and the Isolationalist extremes have become in that country. It is also remarkable to see the Arab world coming together and acting together.
6. Pageantmaster [blockquote] I have come to understand how deep the divisions between the Hawk and the Isolationalist extremes have become in that country.[/blockquote] Yeah, that’s me. Mr Isolationist himself. [blockquote] I am sure that we have all done everything we can to protect these people.[/blockquote] Everything that you are capable of doing, or everything that you are willing to do? Which is it? Because you haven’t exhausted the range of the possible. You haven’t sent soldiers to fight the Libyan Army. If you haven’t sent the Army because you can’t, then it seems to me that you have created for yourself a moral imperative to create just such a capability. If you haven’t sent the Army because you are unwilling, then I wonder just how important these millions of people in Benghazi really are. Certainly not as important as Tommy Atkins it would seem.
carl
#7 carl
[blockquote]Yeah, that’s me. Mr Isolationist himself.[/blockquote]
Heh – I thought you were a Calvinist, carl.
[blockquote]You haven’t sent soldiers to fight the Libyan Army. If you haven’t sent the Army because you can’t, then it seems to me that you have created for yourself a moral imperative to create just such a capability. If you haven’t sent the Army because you are unwilling, then I wonder just how important these millions of people in Benghazi really are.[/blockquote]
We are not going to send our army into Libya, because firstly, the Libyans and the Arabs have not asked us to do so; indeed thay have all asked us not to do so, and moreover the UNSC Resolution done not permit either us nor for that matter the US to do so – which makes me wonder what on earth you are all talking about above.
We have committed ourselves to providing military support and indeed to take a lead, along with other UN coallition members to back up the UNSC Resolution 1973 strictly in accordance with its terms. We will not go outside it. All the other things people are talking about: ground troops, regime change and nation-building are all matters for the Libyans themselves and we will not get involved unless firstly they ask us to, and moreover the UN authorises it.
You will note the last line of the UNSC Resolution which provides that the UNSC remains ‘seized of’ this matter and it is the UN which will be the obvious body to coordinate anything which needs to be done. We actually have a history of nation-building – most recently in Sierra Leone. One of my father’s friends, who I knew well, drew up up the borders of a new country and wrote the constitution of another. We have a history longer than perhaps we remember.
8. Pageantmaster
Nice sidestep there, Pageantmaster. “We haven’t sent soldiers because we haven’t been asked and we haven’t been given permission anyways.” Very lawyerly response. Of course it completely begs the question of whether you would send soldiers if you were asked, or whether there would have been any support in Europe for a resolution that included permission to send soldiers. You don’t seriously expect me to believe the British government is even now ready, willing and able to send an armed force into Libya as soon as permission is given, do you? The resolution instantiates the limits of the will of those who wrote it. There is no permission for ground forces because those who wrote it did not want to send ground forces.
So let’s say you set up this NFZ, and it doesn’t work. Because it likely won’t work. It will require a lot of aircraft flying coordinated constant patrols. Gaddaffi is eventually going to determine the limits of its effectiveness, and then he will operate within those limits. You will be right where you are now facing a humanitarian catastrophe. At which point someone in Libya might ask you to intervene, and then you won’t be able to take cover behind lawyerly evasions. You will have to answer those questions I asked above about capability and willingness and the relative worth of 1,000,000 non-British citizens when set against the blood and money of England. Or perhaps the UN resolution will provide cover for inaction. Then we can all pretend that someone would have done something but the UN wasn’t willing. Seems strange that 1,000,000 live would be sacrificed merely to protect the presumed authority of the UN when nations have the power and ability to act without UN approval. Especially when those 1,000,000 lives are the reason for intervention in the first place.
carl
#9 carl
[blockquote] Nice sidestep there, Pageantmaster. “We haven’t sent soldiers because we haven’t been asked and we haven’t been given permission anyways.†Very lawyerly response.[/blockquote]
It is not just a lawyer’s response, it is also the response a politician and a statesman would give. We have no authority to send ground troops into Libya, and it is quite possible given the sensitivities that were we to do so, those who we seek to protect would turn on us as invaders. We can’t make people invite us in, even if it were legal for us to go in, which it isn’t.
[blockquote]Of course it completely begs the question of whether you would send soldiers if you were asked, or whether there would have been any support in Europe for a resolution that included permission to send soldiers. You don’t seriously expect me to believe the British government is even now ready, willing and able to send an armed force into Libya as soon as permission is given, do you? The resolution instantiates the limits of the will of those who wrote it. There is no permission for ground forces because those who wrote it did not want to send ground forces.[/blockquote]
We would not be invited in because those who asked us to establish a no-fly zone firstly do not want us there, and secondly because it would open them to criticism and propaganda assault. Although the British have a long history of getting along with Arabs and indeed running a number of Arab protectorates and having defence arrangements with a number of states in the Gulf until recently, at the moment it is extremely problematic:
1. Because of the difficulty Arabs have with Christian troops on Arab soil [as the US knows from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait].
2. Because of the colonial history of Libya.
3. Because of the propaganda coup it would hand to Gaddaffi. Gaddaffi’s propaganda is already claiming that the free Libyans have invited in ‘Zionist Christians’ onto Libyan soil.
So no – for good reason we did not want it included in the resolution nor did the Arab League, and it is unlikely the coalition with them would have come about had it been in the resolution.
[blockquote]So let’s say you set up this NFZ, and it doesn’t work. Because it likely won’t work.[/blockquote]
The resolution provides for more than a no fly zone, it permits us to hit tanks and artillery, and perhaps troops if they are seen as a threat to civilians. People talk about a no drive zone. There is no reason to think that this will not work. As far as I understand it, the aim is to stop bombardment of the civilian centers and by taking the armor of Gaddaffi out of the equation to level the playing field stacked against the free Libyans.
[blockquote]I asked above about capability and willingness and the relative worth of 1,000,000 non-British citizens when set against the blood and money of England.[/blockquote]
A curious equation I have never heard here, and with xenophobic overtones. We have often risked our lives for non-British citizens as happened for example in Sierra Leone, and in Kuwait.
There are sensitivities in an Arab country which mean that if in the future unlikely event of an invitation in and a UN Resolution the most likely scenario is that there would be ground troops sent in by a multi-national coalition spearheaded by Arabs, as happened in Kuwait, with us assisting, if at all. It is not that we are unwilling to commit troops, but that everybody recognises that it would be counter-productive, and not what this resolution is about, which is preventing bombardment of civilian centers from land sea and air forces under Gaddaffi’s direction. The terrain is open and not unlike that of Kuwait/Iraq, so in effect armor is a sitting duck out in the open, and air superiority should enable it to be dealt with effectively without the need for ground troops. The only exception to that would be urban combat where the free Libyans have shown themselves to be quite adept at handling themselves, were the Gaddaffi troops to entrench themselves in say Benghazi. We will be limited in our ability to deal with that but we can at least level the playing field by restricting the use of air, tank, artillery and sea threats, destroying defensive, communication and supply lines; after that it is up to the free Libyans, as they have themselves asked.
It’s called ‘interdiction.’ That means airpower assets destroying air bases, supply centers, truck traffic, armored columns, troop transport, shipping, railroads, etc. It’s not a job for infantry or armor.
#5,
It’s legal – for 90 days, at least. The authority is found under 50 U.S.C. 1541-1547, a.k.a the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
I wonder if a US military commitment to Libya will be seen as permission for the current US administration to run massive budget deficits, a la the Bush years.
MG will quit and flee as soon as he begins to feel what real power means. Interdiction is where we are headed, have know it from the outset, and I think the central prosecutors know how and where to bring it.
Only the brave go down with the ship, and MG is not one of them.
How do I know this? Time will show. Larry
RE: “Gaddaffi is eventually going to determine the limits of its effectiveness, and then he will operate within those limits. You will be right where you are now facing a humanitarian catastrophe.”
And it looks as if that’s in the process of being done right now.
RE: “I have come to understand how deep the divisions between the Hawk and the Isolationalist extremes have become in that country . . . ”
Not sure how that was, as there has been no isolationism on this blog or in these threads. The notion that a person like me or Carl is an “isolationist” is laughable. Tell that to the actual isolationists over here and see them ride us out of town on a rail. We wouldn’t be accepted into their club if we tried.
So maybe you’re off on an actual isolationist blog somewhere engaging with some actual US isolationists.
RE: “I think we all know ‘what comes next.’ It is just a matter of who steps up to do it. Once you commit to a course of military action, you can’t just say “Well, I guess it didn’t work. Better luck next time.†You have to follow through. Otherwise, you make contemptible your future threats.”
Oh Carl — I don’t think Europe and the UN has *any* problem in making contemptible their future threats. So it’s all good.
I think they’re perfectly capable of saying “well, I guess it didn’t work.” ; > )
RE: “seen as permission for the current US administration to run massive budget deficits . . . ”
Oh, rather obviously they don’t need any kind of military action or war or defense needs of the country to give them that kind of permission.
Heh.
I am absolutely opposed to sticking our nose into this mess. But given that intervention appears to be a done deal, my feeling is let’s get this done and over with as quickly as possible. The decision has been made and troops committed. So it’s time to take care of business and ring this tin pot dictator’s bell. And then let’s get the H— out of there, within a month if possible.
The only thing worse than getting into a war we should not be in, is getting into a war by half measures. Smash him and then go home… QUICKLY.
I have actually had two emails about my hawk/isolationalist paradigm. I am not sure they are opposite extremes, perhaps their opposites somewhere I have not identified or understood. I think what has become apparent to me as I have tried to get my head around American political groupings and thought is how complicated it all is, and how people in one camp often have quite surprising views coming from the opposite political left/right wing spectrum. Moreover those views seem to be shifting over time. There really isn’t any equivalent in Britain/Europe. I still haven’t worked out where the Tea Party fits into all this as it doesn’t all seem to be about the traditional Republican/Democrat system. Fascinating, but I have become aware how complex it is, and how hard it is for a European to understand.
As Ad Orientem says, now a decision has been made, I am certainly one for falling behind our militaries as they deal with these issues, and to continue to pray for the Libyan people, particularly those under bombardment in Misrata, Benghazi and elsewhere are the Tripoli regime throws all its toys out of the pram. I am under no illusion that this will be quick, but I am certainly for not going into military operations half-cocked.
[i] . . . I remember listening on the radio to the pleas coming from Czeckoslovakia for the world to help for several days as the Russian tanks were at their borders and rolled in to snuff out the Prague Spring. I couldn’t understand why nobody did anything even as the tanks rolled in and the radio appeals eventually went off the air. [/i]
Pageantmaster, I am in sympathy with you on this but it comes down to one question: Is the President, willing to ask mothers to sacrifice their sons for another country. Eisenhower decided against it in ’56. Johnson already had troops elsewhere in ’68. Did you feel the same way in 1975 as tanks rolled into South Vietnam?
10. Pageantmaster:[blockquote] The resolution provides for more than a no fly zone, it permits us to hit tanks and artillery, and perhaps troops if they are seen as a threat to civilians.[/blockquote] Yes, I realize. That’s why I said it would require “a lot of aircraft flying coordinated constant patrols.” I just used NFZ for convenience. You seem to think this is an easy job. So here are a few questions to think about.
1. How many aircraft can you devote to the operation?
2. How long can you keep an individual aircraft over the target area?
3. What is the probability of kill on any given sortie?
4. Will you fly high as during the Balkan ‘Campaign’ to avoid aircraft losses, and thus reduce your Probability of Kill? Will you fly low to increase effectiveness at the cost of losing aircraft?
5. How many aircraft can you afford to lose? Remember that most of the American aircraft shot down during the Vietnam War were shot down by ground fire.
6. How fast will the aircraft attrit from mechanical failures?
7. What will you do about a captured pilot?
And that doesn’t even address the problem of suppressing Anti-aircraft defenses, and finding/designating targets. My Program Manager was a fighter pilot in the Second Gulf War flying Harriers for the USMC. He described his job thusly: “We would fly a pattern in a kill box until the FAC designated a target, and then we would roll in on the target. Then we would get back in line behind the other aircraft designated for that kill box, fly the pattern and wait for the next call.” In other words, it was a highly coordinated action that required a lot of aircraft constantly loitering over the target area. It’s not just a pilot flying along a road looking for a tank. I highly doubt that Europe has the resources (i.e. planes, pilots, munitions, logistics, command and control, intelligence, air refueling) necessary to sustain this operation for any given period of time. I wonder about the effectiveness of any given sortie, and the sustainable sortie rate that will be possible. [blockquote] There are sensitivities in an Arab country which mean that if in the future unlikely event of an invitation in and a UN Resolution the most likely scenario is that there would be ground troops sent in by a multi-national coalition spearheaded by Arabs, as happened in Kuwait, with us assisting, if at all. [/blockquote] That’s a joke, right? You don’t honestly believe the first Gulf War was a multi-national coalition spearheaded by Arabs, do you? And who exactly will comprise this multi-national coalition spearheaded by Arabs? Egypt? Tunisia? In any case, you had better hope no one asks, because people will do mighty desperate things when they are being annihilated. It’s British planes they will see overhead. It is western military power that will hold out the promise of recovering victory from edge of defeat. Certainly not the vaunted army from Tunisia. [blockquote] A curious equation I have never heard here, and with xenophobic overtones.[/blockquote] Oh please. You are the one who has made this operation all about the humanitarian catastrophe in Libya. You are the one who said “We have done all we could.” No, you haven’t. I am simply wondering why you are willing to risk pilots but not soldiers if the stakes are so high? And it’s not because “No one has asked.” It’s not because “It isn’t legal.” It’s because there is no political will to assume responsibility for Libya after the war. It wouldn’t matter if they did ask. It wouldn’t matter if the UN did call for it. There still would be no intervention – 1,000,000 dead people or not.
Let me paraphrase George Will. The Libyan Action is yet one more example of a cause worth killing for, but not worth dying for.
carl
#11 Cennydd
[blockquote]It’s called ‘interdiction.’ That means airpower assets destroying air bases, supply centers, truck traffic, armored columns, troop transport, shipping, railroads, etc. It’s not a job for infantry or armor.[/blockquote]
Thanks – that is interesting, and pretty much from what I remember what was done at the front line in the first Gulf War. I think the difference this time is that there won’t be the international troops behind which went into Kuwait. It is at the moment a matter for the Libyan opposition, and it is the internal Libyan groups which will decide where this all ends. All we can do is to try to protect the free Libyan cities.
RE: “Moreover those views seem to be shifting over time.”
Not really. Conservatives have always been for a small government in keeping with its constitutional limited powers and military action only for the defense of the US, not in order to go save civilians in various countries that have murderous thugs for rulers.
A lot of those conservatives are in the Republican Party and some are in no party at all and some are in the libertarian/other small parties.
Pretty much one has people on the right side of the pole — in varying degrees, some more consistent then others — and people on the left side of the pole, who generally don’t give a flying fig for something so antiquated [like REALLY old — you know, like at least 30 years old or something] as the Constitution — and most of the latter, thought not all, are in the party of the Democrats.
That’s a thumbnail of the political landscape.
#19 Don C
[blockquote]Did you feel the same way in 1975 as tanks rolled into South Vietnam?[/blockquote]
I think that what I felt at that time was that the South Vietnamese government had shown itself to be so corrupt and incompetent that the withdrawal of the US was understandable because it was not clear where any future US action would be going. I am not an expert, but one of the problems was that the real battle for hearts and minds had not been engaged, and like I rather feel about Afghanistan, the hands off approach to supporting whatever local government does is not helpful. Nevertheless the sudden withdrawal was catastrophic for the many locals who had supported the US and the panicked televised helicopter evacuation from the US embassy was iconic. My personal feeling at the time, having met some of them, was that the US military handled itself with honor and with competence, but the political waves washing over the whole war were disasterous for them.
#20 carl
Interesting points, but I don’t have the military knowledge to answer your many detailed questions. I am sure that we will commit what resources we have to this fight in support of the UN coalition which seems to be expanding all the time. We have the world’s fourth largest declared military spending in the world, but one has to remember that the US Marine Corps is larger than the British Army. The reason we are getting involved is purely for humanitarian reasons.
#22 Sarah
Thanks for the thumbnail sketch.
Also carl #20
[blockquote]I am simply wondering why you are willing to risk pilots but not soldiers if the stakes are so high? And it’s not because “No one has asked.†It’s not because “It isn’t legal.†It’s because there is no political will to assume responsibility for Libya after the war. It wouldn’t matter if they did ask. It wouldn’t matter if the UN did call for it. There still would be no intervention – 1,000,000 dead people or not.[/blockquote]
At the moment, the infrastructure both for oil production and the internal electricity, health, transport and other infrastructure in Libya is intact which was not the case after the Iraq war.
I think you are still thinking in terms of unilateral US or UK or even European intervention. Even if invited, we would not assume the responsibility for Libya or nation-building ourselves after any military action. We are quite likely to contribute our resources including perhaps troops to any UN efforts undertaken after military action but wearing the blue beret, as we did in Bosnia including contributing the High Commissioner to that, and as we did in Sierra Leone. I think one has to accept that the UN is seized of the Libya operation and will be in charge of any reconstruction necessary. The UN has a checkered history in its intervention, but I have to say so far I have been very impressed with its Korean Secretary General Ban Kee Moon who has been pushing for international action in this case. Much of the prior problems may be laid at the foot of the UN’s prior Secretary Generals from Ghana and Japan respectively who were corrupt and ineffectual respectively. We will have to see where that goes, but first of all, there is an immediate military imperative.
24. Pageantmaster [blockquote] I think you are still thinking in terms of unilateral US or UK or even European intervention.[/blockquote] Well, if things go badly in Libya – and there is a huge risk that this will happen – then there is going to be extreme moral pressure on the western powers who have been bombing Libya to “do something about it.”
Look, this is the reality. Unless the US military takes over this operation, and devotes considerable assets to making it work, the whole intervention is likely to be an exercise if Opera Buffa. Europe on its own simply can’t do it. So let’s assume the United States takes over, the air operation is effective, and then what happens? I will tell you the one thing that will not happen. Upon hearing of Gaddaffi’s death, Libya will not experience a great outpouring of democratic fervor, gather a constitutional convention, and create a western-style limited government. So what will happen? By “leveling the playing field”, do we condemn the whole country to a perpetual unwinnable civil war? When do we decide the playing field is level? Does Gaddaffi fall? Who takes over? Will his replacement be anymore acceptable to the rebellion? Does the Civil War end? Will the rebels accept the new government or keep fighting? What happens when our erstwhile allies start acting like Gaddaffi? What happens if civil order collapses? At that point, someone is going to say “Look at all that humanitarian suffering. Look at all those refugees. Look at all those refugees coming into Europe! Someone should really do something about this.” And who do you suppose “everyone” is going to look at as the “someone” who should do something about this? There is only one country capable of doing something.
Remember that the UN is a building in NYC. It doesn’t have an Army. It doesn’t have a Navy. It doesn’t have an Air Force. It is a creature of the member states, and it does only what the member states want it to do. The UN cannot take responsibility for anything. It has to convince other states to do the things it desires done. Saying the UN has seized this cause means nothing. The UN didn’t liberate Kuwait. So you can’t deflect responsibility in that direction. When you commit to using military force, you will find it hard to limit the level of your involvement. Which is why I am convinced the Europeans are so desperate to involve the US in this adventure. They need American involvement so the Americans can eventually do the heavy lifting Europe is unwilling to do. After all, that’s why Europe thinks the US military exists – to carry burdens that Europe wants carried.
carl
Well it looks as if things have already kicked off. The French appear to have their planes over Benghazi and are blocking Gaddafi’s communications/radar according to the French Foreign Ministry and reports from Benghazi. Canadian and Danish aircraft are arriving in Sicily. Some information here and here
18 nations have just met in Paris including Germany, Jordan, UAE and Quatar to plan cooperation and have issued a communique, and Sarkozy gave a statement, but I have not yet found the texts online.
Carl – it looks as if things are moving fast, and we will just have to wait and see what sort of cooperation all the participants have agreed on, but it looks as if the French and perhaps British will be sending in their aircraft first. The US has a capability in command, cruise missile targetting of air defences, and drone involvement, but it remains to be seen if the US will take on a more front-line involvement. I am not hearing any calls from the UK or Europe for them to do so – it is a matter being left up to the US to decide.
This is Sarkozy’s Statement in translation given at the end of the Paris summit:
[blockquote]”Together, we have decided to ensure the resolution of the Security Council demanding an immediate ceasefire and the stopping of fighting in Libya. The participants have agreed to apply all means necessary, in particular military ones, to respect the decisions of the UN Security Council.
“That is why in agreement with our partners, our air forces will fight any aggression on behalf of Colonel Gaddafi against the population of Benghazi. Our planes will prevent aerial attacks on the town. Other French planes are ready to intervene against tanks who would threaten civilian people.
“From yesterday, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Arab countries have sent to Colonel Gaddafi and to the troops that he employs the follow warning: in the absence of an immediate ceasefire, and failing a withdrawal of the forces that have attacked the civilian population over the last few weeks, our countries will resort to military action.
“This warning was repeated by all the participants at the summit that has just concluded. Colonel Gaddafi has disregarded this warning. During the last few hours his troops have intensified their deadly offensive.
“Arab countries have chosen to free themselves from the slavery in which they felt themselves trapped for too long. These revolutions have created an enormous hope in the heart of all those who share the values of democracy and the rights of man.
“But it is not without risk. The future of these Arab people belongs to them. In the midst of all the difficulties and challenges that they have been faced with these Arab populations need our help and our support and it is our duty.
“In Libya, a civilian population which is passive which requires nothing further than the right to choose itself its destiny finds itself in danger of life. We have a duty to respond to its angst-ridden call.
“The future of Libya belongs to the Libyans. We do not want to take a decision on their behalf. The fight that they are undergoing is their’s. If we intervene on the side of Arab nations, it is not to impose on the Libyan people, but to apply to a universal conscience that cannot tolerate such crimes.
“Today, our intervening in Libya with the mandate of the UNSC, with our partners, namely our Arab partners, we do it to protect the civilian population, and to protect it from the deadly madness of a regime which by assassinating and killing its own people has lost any legitimacy. We intervene to allow the Libya people to choose itself, its destiny.
“It cannot be prevented from these rights through terror and violence.
“There is still time for Colonel Gaddafi to avoid the worst by agreeing unreservedly to all the requirements of the international community.
“The door of diplomacy will reopen when the fighting will stop. Our determination is total, and I say it with solemnity. Everyone now finds themselves faced with their responsibilities. It is a serious decision that we have been forced to take, together with our Arab partners, our European partners, our North American partners, France has decided to take up its role in front of history.”[/blockquote]
It’s been this way since 1945, and since then, the western European powers have rebuilt their economies while relying on good old Uncle Sam to carry their defense load. Britain is the only country to carry at least a portion of that load. Americans have been saying that ‘enough is enough, and it’s time for western Europe to shoulder the load.’ I agree 100%.
Let them spend [i]their/i] money. Let them send [i]their young men and women[/i] in harm’s way. [/i]I don’t see this as abandoning our role as a defender of what’s right; I see it as expecting others to do more……[i]MUCH[/i] more.
I couldn’t summarize that past week more articulately:
[blockquote]Which is why I am convinced the Europeans are so desperate to involve the US in this adventure. They need American involvement so the Americans can eventually do the heavy lifting Europe is unwilling to do. After all, that’s why Europe thinks the US military exists – to carry burdens that Europe wants carried.[/blockquote]
2012 — and at least a possibility of electing an actual conservative President [and that means not electing numerous Republican candidates] — can’t get here fast enough. 20 months and counting . . .
It now looks like the word has gotten out with President Sarkozy’s speech.
29. And I’m with you, Sarah.
Fortunately, it’s clear that this must be untrue.
1) There’s no mention of support (or even comment) by Code Pink.
2) No quotes from Cindy Sheehan, who has “absolute moral authority”, are cited.
3) President Obama’s campaign included harsh criticism of US involvement in Iraq, and during his presidency his trips to the Middle East have highlighted a desire for the US to draw back from interfering in the affairs of other nations.
4) No opinions or actions by the Berkley City Council against war-mongers are noted.
If anyone who took issue with US efforts in Iraq can provide me with a definitive argument as to why the US should be part of any intervenion in Lbya, I’d be *really* interested to hear it. Especially after the US (under the current administration) stood down *very* notably from any support for the Egyptian insurgents.
Don’t get me wrong; I firmly believe in the US supporting the causes of freedom and liberty for any people seeking them. But given the history of treating our involvement in Iraq as something worthy of criminal prosecution, and the general notion of “the US is imperialistic, and is guilty of seeking to put its own interests first” which has been set forth by various elements, I can’t help but want to see them squirm as they try to justify why action in case “A” is wrong, but in case “B” it’s right.
I find Carl’s and Sarah’s posts difficult to follow. They basically attempt to argue that no-one should be involved in any sort of limited military operation in Libya. They also seem to argue (and the grounds for this aren’t at all clear) that a limited operation such as a No-Fly Zone must both “fail” (although the criteria against which failure is to be measured aren’t articulated) AND lead inevitably to full-scale invasion of Libya.
[blockquote] “That’s a joke, right? You don’t honestly believe the first Gulf War was a multi-national coalition spearheaded by Arabs, do you?” [/blockquote]
That actually is a pretty good description, if Pageantmaster was referring to operations to liberate Kuwait, in which the Egyptians, Syrians and several Gulf states forces were involved. The Egyptians ran a breaching operation very similar to what they did over the Suez canal defences during Yom Kippur.
Carl may be referring to the fact that the single envelopment through Iraqi territory did not involve any Arab forces (deliberately – they were not asked to do so, and it would have been politically impossible for them to do so). But that is not relevant to Pageantmaster’s point.
[blockquote] “And who exactly will comprise this multi-national coalition spearheaded by Arabs? Egypt? Tunisia?” [/blockquote]
Since Pageantmaster said it was “unlikely”, the short response might be “who cares”. But I would not rule any of 100 different scenarios out. It will depend on the politics.
[blockquote] “Oh please. You are the one who has made this operation all about the humanitarian catastrophe in Libya. You are the one who said “We have done all we could.†No, you haven’t.” [/blockquote]
Yes, he has. You are demanding that the west invade Libya before there is an imperative to do so (and such imperative may never arise). Again we see this curiosity – Americans who demand full scale invasion, or nothing at all.
And yes, this IS about the humanitarian catastrophe in Libya, however much some may try to hide from that fact. You appear to be under the impression that Qaddafi has been running a benign socialist republic over the past 40 years, rather than indulging in wanton tortures and executions.
[blockquote] “I am simply wondering why you are willing to risk pilots but not soldiers if the stakes are so high?” [/blockquote]
Presumably because the time has not yet come to insert soldiers. Don’t worry about the grunts, their time will always come.
[blockquote] “It’s because there is no political will to assume responsibility for Libya after the war.” [/blockquote]
A comment without foundation or reasoning in support. Carl, do you still support John Macarthur who argues that there is a biblical imperative on the Libyan people to never revolt against their lawful sovereign, Qaddafi? Is that the real reason behind your position?
[blockquote] Well, if things go badly in Libya – and there is a huge risk that this will happen – then there is going to be extreme moral pressure on the western powers who have been bombing Libya to “do something about it.†[/blockquote]
There is no “huge risk”, because things already have gone badly. They have been going badly for years. Its just that we are now looking at a wholesale bloodbath threatened by Qaddafi.
Further, why would “extreme moral pressure” depend on whether anyone has “bombed Libya” or not?
[blockquote] “So let’s assume the United States takes over, the air operation is effective, and then what happens?” [/blockquote]
What do you mean by “effective”? In the following sentences you imply that “effective” means the death of Qaddafi, which has never been the aim of a No Fly Zone so far as I am aware.
And the short answer to your question is, ‘that depends on a whole host of factors’. Military operations are not deterministic.
[blockquote] “I will tell you the one thing that will *not* happen. Upon hearing of Gaddaffi’s death, Libya will not experience a great outpouring of democratic fervor, gather a constitutional convention, and create a western-style limited government.”
[/blockquote]
No, and they will not adopt the US constitution either, nor ask for a copy of the USDI to put in their library. Is that relevant to anything?
The government almost certainly will be better than what they have already got, which is the real issue. Or do you believe that Arabs are not capable of forming a constitutional government?
[blockquote] “By “leveling the playing fieldâ€, do we condemn the whole country to a perpetual unwinnable civil war?” [/blockquote]
Why is such *speculation* about possible future events our problem? One could have asked similar questions in 1939 (or 1941 for the USA) and they would have been just as irrelevant then as they are now.
And let’s follow through on your reasoning – you have stated that you don’t think Qaddafi can be beaten, so lets accept that for the sake of the argument. You then argue that the alternative to having Qaddafi win and massacre his opponents (as he has promised to do, and as he has form) is a perpetual unwinnable civil war – why is the latter so much worse than the former?
[blockquote] “Look at all those refugees. Look at all those refugees [i]coming into Europe! [/i] Someone should really do something about this.†And who do you suppose “everyone†is going to look at as the “someone†who should do something about this? There is only one country capable of doing something.” [/blockquote]
Okay, so your real concern appears to be illegal immigration. Why don’t you leave Europe to worry about that? What you are saying is that you want Qaddafi to remain in power because he stops his people emigrating, by shooting and torturing them.
You could just as easily have argued in 1939 that nothing should be done about Hitler, because the end result would be massive immigration to the United States. And you would be right IF you saw stopping immigration as some overriding moral goal – from 1945 on, we saw massive immigration of many people from Central and Eastern Europe, to the USA and other places, and all because the USA played a significant role in defeating Hitler? Wouldn’t it have been so much better if the USA had left Hitler alone…?!
And don’t kid yourself that your country is the only one “capable of doing something”. It is the only one capable of imposing a No-Fly Zone quickly in this situation, but that is about as far as its uniqueness goes. You seem unaware of the large number of peace-keeping operations that are run around the world without US involvement.
[blockquote] The UN didn’t liberate Kuwait. [/blockquote]
No, a large coalition of nations did, many of whom were Arab nations, as Pageantmaster pointed out. Without their presence, George Bush, Margaret Thatcher et al. would not have proceeded.
[blockquote] “Which is why I am convinced the Europeans are so desperate to involve the US in this adventure. They need American involvement so the Americans can eventually do the heavy lifting Europe is unwilling to do. After all, that’s why Europe thinks the US military exists – to carry burdens that Europe wants carried.”
[/blockquote]
Yes, yes, and all the other conspiracy theories. The truth is that the US is as desperate to have Europe involved, as Europe is to have the US involved. The entire West, not just the US or Europe, have a vested interest in what is happening in the Middle East, because our supply of cheap oil depends on it. So don’t go writing as though the US is special compared to other western nations. Its just bigger, and therefore needs more of what the rest of the west needs (oil).
So your country and mine will *always* have an interest in what happens in the Middle East and surrounding nations. But I predict that we will find that we accomplish our goals more easily there if the people of the Middle East think that we do actually have some concern about them.
Hi MichaelA, I don’t see that you responded to anything that I said.
Carl’s comments are in response to Pageantmaster’s rosy views of what is happening in Libya.
In short, I made no such statements as you attempt to summarize: “They basically attempt to argue that no-one should be involved in any sort of limited military operation in Libya.”
No — I am perfectly fine with all sorts of countries being involved in a military operation in Libya. I’m chill with England and France riding forth, if they think it would be helpful.
RE: “They also seem to argue (and the grounds for this aren’t at all clear) that a limited operation such as a No-Fly Zone must both “fail†(although the criteria against which failure is to be measured aren’t articulated) AND lead inevitably to full-scale invasion of Libya.”
Depends on what you mean by “fail.” I don’t think that things will *stop* at establishing a “no-fly zone” — and as we have seen in just 48 hours . . . they didn’t. In fact, we assaulted Libya from the air. We have already “invaded” Libya by air, and there is a strong possibility that we will do so by ground as well, since Kaddaffi has all the time in the world.
But those issues of whether or not things will be so easy as “establish a military no-fly zone and voila, all will be well” are quibbling over smaller details.
My larger issue — which I’ve stated pretty clearly now on numerous threads — is that I don’t want the US to expend blood or treasure in trying to help countries oust murderous thugs, as that basically is 1/3 or more of the countries in the world.
If the US has an urgent defense-of-country reason for ousting murderous thugs, then by all means do so. That case could be made — and was — regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. But no such case has been made at all regarding Libya, nor can it be. It is, simply, a “humanitarian” issue. I don’t believe in expending blood and treasure for “humanitarian” reasons. That is not the purpose of the US Military, nor is it practical%
#34 Sarah
[blockquote]Carl’s comments are in response to Pageantmaster’s rosy views of what is happening in Libya.[/blockquote]
Not just my rosy view, more importantly it is the view of the residents of Benghazi who have been publicly thanking the international allies for saving their city which they say was only a day or so away from being levelled and slaughtered – it is also the view of France, Britain, the UN, the US, the Arab League, and others. A terrible massacre and humanitarian disaster has been avoided in part in Benghazi, but unfortunately because the help has been so late in coming, the position in other Libyan cities is not so clear.
In terms of the UN resolution and its intention to avoid massive civilian bloodshed, the enforcement action can certainly be seen as a qualified success.
[blockquote]In fact, we assaulted Libya from the air. We have already “invaded†Libya by air, and there is a strong possibility that we will do so by ground as well, since Kaddaffi has all the time in the world. [/blockquote]
and
[blockquote]If the US has an urgent defense-of-country reason for ousting murderous thugs, then by all means do so. That case could be made—and was—regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. But no such case has been made at all regarding Libya, nor can it be.[/blockquote]
Firstly, this is not a US action, nor is it a US invasion, although people of all views in the US do not seem to get beyond this US-centric outlook. It is an international enforcement action being made by a growing coalition in support of a decision by the UN Security Council to avoid the massacre of civilians supported by all continents.
Secondly, it is not an “invasion”, by air or otherwise which is not permitted by the UN or by international law; it is an “enforcement action” legitimately undertaken pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1973, and strictly in accordance with its terms, which does not permit ground occupation. Its sole aim is to prevent civilian death as provided for by that resolution, and may not without further UN resolution be expanded to include “invasion”, “ground troops”, “occupation”, “regime change”, “nation building” or any of the other wild ideas being bandied about in the US papers.
Thirdly a case has been made out for the action taken by the United Nations and for the enforcement thereunder by the international community. This is not a case for a US invasion, but that was never and is not now in the minds of the international community. A strong case has been made for humanitarian action and it is that which which has received support from the UNSC and by the coalition partners. There may be other reasons why this action has been supported in addition to humanitarian aims by others [including perhaps the US] but such reasons do not form either part of the UNSC International enforcement action or the UNSC Resolution it is taken to enforce.
The US has joined in that International Enforcement Action by the United Nations as a part of the Coalition and has taken a major part of the early action to take out the air defenses and their command centers to enable the no-fly zone to be operated safely and to stop the slaughter in the beseiged cities, reluctantly it has to be said, presumably because of the kickback by those such as Sarah and others. Although the international community is grateful for that, as I am, it has always been a choice for the US.
[blockquote]I don’t believe in expending blood and treasure for “humanitarian†reasons.[/blockquote]
Noted Sarah, and presumably stemming from what you see as your Christian duty; for exactly the same reason, I have reached the opposite conclusion.
[blockquote]That is not the purpose of the US Military, nor is it practical% [/blockquote]
Again I can’t comment on the purpose of the US Military, that is a matter for the US, but events have already shown that US participation in the International Action to enforce the UNSC Resolution has been shown to be both practical and effective in achieving the protection of a million civilians for which the citizens on Benghasi and other parts of Libya are already expressing their gratitude, as we have.
If we do not stand up for the widow, the children, the oppressed and those at risk of genocide, what is the purpose of being a Christian?
Meanwhile whatever we may think of the action now under way, we should now support and pray for our forces and their safety without reservation.
RE: “it is also the view of France, Britain, the UN, the US, the Arab League, and others . . . ”
Um, no it’s not. To be more precise, it is “the view” of certain leaders of the US. It most certainly is not the view of the American people. Can’t wait until 2012.
Furthermore, your “rosy view” includes 1) opinings about the glories of the UN and “international law” as well as 2) opinings about the possible alternatives to Kaddafi’s reign and the makeup of the “rebels.” And that composite rosy view is what Carl was responding to.
Most of the rest of your comment is simply fluff and meandering red herrings, but I’ll respond to the substance:
RE: “Firstly, this is not a US action, nor is it a US invasion . . . ”
Who cares. I didn’t say that it was. We *assaulted* Libya, we did not simply “establish a no-fly zone”. You’re happy with that, I, as a US citizen, am not.
RE: “Secondly, it is not an “invasionâ€, by air or otherwise which is not permitted by the UN or by international law; it is an “enforcement action†. . . ”
Lol. What a sophistic — and false — statement. Let a 100 cruise missiles be launched at England and then say “oh no, it’s not an air invasion.” Simply a silly response, PM, and desperate.
But, as expected, mission creep has already occurred. And will continue to occur. Truth is, you don’t care if it does, either.
RE: “Noted Sarah, and presumably stemming from what you see as your Christian duty . . . ”
Of course.
RE: “If we do not stand up for the widow, the children, the oppressed and those at risk of genocide, what is the purpose of being a Christian?”
Huh? Completely irrelevant as to the use of State military action. A bit like Jesus saying “of course the Roman government should give money to folks — that’s what Christians do” or “if the Roman state does not “stand up” for the widow and the oppressed what is the purpose of being a Christian.”
RE: “Meanwhile whatever we may think of the action now under way, we should now support and pray for our forces and their safety without reservation.”
Thanks for the pointless and unneeded lecturette. Feel free to pray all you like and please don’t tell me how I should pray, since you and I do not share the same political or patriotic values or worldview and you wouldn’t know how I should pray or what I shall be praying for. I have no need to share that with you either.
Thanks Sarah
Well, I too will leave aside the “fluff” but a few points:
It is the view of the American military in their briefings I listened to last night and today, that the allied action has been effective in saving Benghazi from the bombardment it was under and the genocide which appeared to be about to take place. This is to the credit of the international coalition including the US.
2012 is a matter for the US and I won’t comment on internal US politics.
[blockquote]Furthermore, your “rosy view†includes 1) opinings about the glories of the UN and “international law†as well as 2) opinings about the possible alternatives to Kaddafi’s reign and the makeup of the “rebels.†And that composite rosy view is what Carl was responding to.[/blockquote]
The UN and International Law just IS, and part of the world I have grown up in. I am not sure I would extol its glories, but neither will I ignore it as if it didn’t exist.
We will have to see what the alternatives to the current regime and makeup of the free Libyans is, but that is a matter for the Libyans themselves to work out. One has a fairly low base to start from to produce anything worse than the current regime, but again that is a matter for the Libyans to work out.
[blockquote]Lol. What a sophistic—and false—statement. Let a 100 cruise missiles be launched at England and then say “oh no, it’s not an air invasion.†Simply a silly response, PM, and desperate.[/blockquote]
The distinction between an illegal “invasion” and a legal “enforcement action” in support of a UN resolution is important, although as you say, some of the actions taken may be similar in either case, but it remains important that we stay inside the law.
[blockquote]But, as expected, mission creep has already occurred. And will continue to occur. Truth is, you don’t care if it does, either.[/blockquote]
I am not sure mission creep has already occurred, although there is some unwise talk, including some unhelpful contradictory talk within my own government. The only action authorised or which is permitted is that set out in UNSC Resolution 1973. Mission creep might well destabilise the international coalition, and would be outside the terms of what is permitted and I don’t support that, and I do care about it.
[blockquote]Thanks for the pointless and unneeded lecturette.[/blockquote]
I was responding to your assertion about whether humanitarian need was a valid reason for action, and I looked at it both for countries and for Christians, and the support we should give our military once it is engaged in action, although we take different views on this it seems.
RE: “It is the view of the American military in their briefings . . . ”
No, PM, your “rosy view” of the things I have already detailed above is *not* the “view of the American military.” As you are well aware Carl was not combatting the view of yours that the military would be capable of establishing a “no-fly zone” — he was combatting far larger rosy views. You can substitute, of course, the rosy view which he was addressing with the simple “no-fly zone” and then claim that the US military was affirming that “rosy view” that Carl was combatting. But it’s transparently obvious what you are doing and it is beneath you.
RE: “I am not sure mission creep has already occurred . . . ”
Well of course it has — we’re now conducting airstrikes on Llbyan forces — something that is well outside of the scope of the resolution.
RE: “the support we should give our military once it is engaged in action, although we take different views on this it seems. . . . ”
You wouldn’t know, because I chose not to respond to the hectoring and smugly self-righteous lecturette.
Nor shall I, since I’m indifferent as to whether you like my prayers about the US military or not.
[blockquote] “It is, simply, a “humanitarian†issue. I don’t believe in expending blood and treasure for “humanitarian†reasons. That is not the purpose of the US Military, nor is it practical” [/blockquote]
I don’t think it is “simply a humanitarian” issue, and I doubt that any of the politicians or military chiefs involved are naive enough to think it is either (although of course I cannot speak for them).
Of course the humanitarian aspect is very important in this case – Qaddafi’s behaviour has put it in the spotlight. It cannot be ignored by anyone involved.
But that doesn’t mean that it is the sole aspect, or even the main reason for being there.
#38 Sarah
The UNSC Resolution 1973 covers more than a no fly zone and includes:
[blockquote]The Security Council…
1. Demands the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians
…
Protection of civilians
4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory;
…
6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;
…
8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary[/blockquote]
Thus there are two actions being undertaken, although they are related:
1. The imposition of a no fly zone to protect civilians; and
2. The taking of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi
The US military have been briefing on how these two aims are going:
On 21st March General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command said:
[blockquote]Over the past 24 hours, coalition forces have continued operations to implement the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. U.S. and British forces launched 12 tomahawk land attack missiles targeting regime command and control facilities, a scud surface-to-surface missile facility, and a reattack of an air defense site which had previously been attacked.
Coalition air forces from France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, and the United Kingdom flew missions to sustain the no-fly zone over Benghazi to protect civilians from attack by regime ground forces and to conduct further reconnaissance. Coalition naval vessels sustained their maritime patrols in support of the UN Security Council Resolution direction to prevent the illegal shipments of arms to and from Libya.
I assess that our actions to date are generally achieving the intended objectives. We have not observed Libyan military aircraft operating since the beginning of coalition military operations. Libyan naval vessels have returned to or have remained in port.
Since the initial strikes, we have detected no emissions from regime long-range air defense radars.
Air attacks have succeeded in stopping regime ground forces from advancing to Benghazi and we are now seeing ground forces moving southward from Benghazi. We will, of course, watch these ground force movements closely. And through a variety of reports, we know that regime ground forces that were in the vicinity of Benghazi now possess little will or capability to resume offensive operations.[/blockquote]
on 22nd March Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, III, commander of U.S. Naval Forces – Europe and Africa said
[blockquote]Now, let me address operations under UN Security Council Resolution 1973. International forces have been authorized to use all necessary measures to protect civilians that are under threat of attack from forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar al-Qadhafi.
On March 18, the coalition forces began a graduated sequenced campaign against the government of Libya to establish a no-fly zone in order to protect innocent civilians.
Following initial operations in Benghazi by our French partners, United Kingdom and U.S. cruise missile attacks accompanied by significant coalition air strikes, rendered Qadhafi’s long range air defenses and his air force largely ineffective, thus enabling the coalition to establish a no-fly zone, and opening the door for international and non-governmental organization humanitarian assistance efforts.
We continue to expand the effectiveness of our coalition no-fly zone and our other coalition capabilities.
It’s my judgment, however, that despite our successes to date, that Qadhafi and his forces are not yet in compliance with the United Nations’ Security Council Resolution due to the continued aggressive actions his forces are placing on the civilian population.[/blockquote]
I think that far from being rosy, my assessment of the action taken so far was not rosy, but pretty accurate and in accordance with what I said in #6
[blockquote] I have to say I am mightily relieved that there is now some prospect of these million people in Benghazi being safe, and very thankful for the efforts of my government, the French, US and others for acting to protect them.
…
At least now a shameful tragedy and massacre may have been avoided, and I am sure that we have all done everything we can to protect these people. May God look after and protect them and our military putting their lives on the line to protect them, and may he also soften the hearts of the Libyan regime.
[/blockquote]
And in the circumstances I do believe that we have done “everything we can to protect these people”, to which carl took exception.
The scope of the UNSC resolution as quoted above also covers why
[blockquote]we’re now conducting airstrikes on Libyan forces—something that is well outside of the scope of the resolution.[/blockquote] is in fact covered by the UNSC Resolution as they are covered by the “all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi” and does not constitute mission creep.
You may also remember that after the passing of the resolution and prior to the actions of the last four days, the coalition partners sent a detailed memorandum of what was required to comply with the resolution to Libya. It required Gaddaffi not only to cease military action but to withdraw his forces from the threatened towns, neither of which he did or has subsequently done, and that I imagine is why his military forces have been hit, and continue to be hit as he continues his aggression on civilians.