NATO’s leaders are scrambling to find tactics that might force Kadafi to give up: military escalation, aid to the rebels, Russian mediation. They’re contemplating outcomes in which Kadafi might not have to leave Libya or stand trial before the International Criminal Court. “All options are open,” Sarkozy said last month. “We are not saying that Kadafi needs to be exiled. He must leave power, and the quicker he does it, the greater his choice.”
But Kadafi shows little interest in a graceful exit, and NATO may soon face a tough decision. British newspapers have already reported that former British soldiers are on the ground spotting targets for NATO airstrikes, reportedly under contract to an unnamed Arab regime. If the air war stalls, Britain and France will have to consider sending in ground forces as the quickest way to finish the job. Hague has already acknowledged that Britain will probably send peacekeeping troops if and when the conflict ends.
In a contest of wills between NATO and Kadafi, NATO still appears likely to win in the long run.
Don’t hold your breath. This was highly predictable. Point in fact those of us who recognize military adventurism for what it is DID warn that wars are easy to start and generally less so to end.
Worse NATO is being shown to the world as little more than a one nation military alliance. As Secretary Gates noted just the other day in rather caustic remarks, the world’s most formidable military alliance is barely 11 weeks into a bombing campaign against a 5th rate military power that is also a poor, sparely populated and non-industrialized state, and they are running out of bombs and don’t have the intel and logistical resources to carry out even half the number of air strikes they had planned on. They are already coming hat-in-hand to the US asking for more bombs!
The US needs to get out of NATO with all possible dispatch.
[blockquote] British newspapers have already reported that former British soldiers are on the ground spotting targets for NATO airstrikes, reportedly under contract to an unnamed Arab regime. If the air war stalls, Britain and France will have to consider sending in ground forces as the quickest way to finish the job.[/blockquote] But .. but .. how can this be? We have been told repeatedly – REPEATEDLY – that this was only a humanitarian intervention, and that the introduction of ground troops was strictly forbidden. Excluded. Prohibited. Illegal even. Absolutely NOT authorized by the Mysterious Guardians of the Holy Assembly of the United Nations Security Council Who Keep the Sacred Writings of International Law. And yet now we hear murmurings of infantry being sent to Libya. How can this be?
Why it was only in March that we were being assured that Gadhaffi’s regime was on the brink of imminent collapse. The application of a few more bombs would surely cause a regime change. Then the true Jeffersonian impulses of the rebellion would shine through, and 100 flowers would bloom in a democratic Libyan spring. What has happened? How have things turned out badly? Didn’t anyone see this coming?
Besides me, of course. Because I said all this would happen three months ago. It wasn’t rocket science. It wasn’t prophesy. It was just knowledge of the disconnect between the military capability employed and the goals that capability was expected to achieve. A first-year cadet could with a rudimentary knowledge of military history could have predicted this outcome.
carl
And I might add, the US involvement is without any declaration of war from the Congress, which has allowed the President to wield the US Armed Forces as his own private Praetorian guard in an illegal action with no sanction by the people or the US Constitution.
Only prompt impeachment by the Congress can restore the Constitution, but I am not holding my breath.
I am just sick.
Not content with our being in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are now in Libya.
Nice work.
Let’s go ahead and invade Syria and Iran while we’re at it. We have plenty of people and money to spread around the entire Middle East.
We have, in fact, no limits whatsoever.
We’re infinite. Whatever people can dream — we can accomplish. They just have to think it in their heads and it shall be done by the American military and the American economy.
[blockquote] Let’s go ahead and invade Syria and Iran while we’re at it. We have plenty of people and money to spread around the entire Middle East.
We have, in fact, no limits whatsoever.
We’re infinite. Whatever people can dream—we can accomplish. They just have to think it in their heads and it shall be done by the American military and the American economy. [/blockquote]
Sarah
Just give me a little heads up before we start off on this grand empire building campaign. All I need is enough time to get my passport in order and pack a couple suitcases. As an historian I can tell you I have seen this movie before. And I know how it’s going to end.
The article sounds like more journalistic fluff, e.g. the following:
[blockquote] “Obama may be less exposed. He has limited the U.S. role in combat operations, stonily rebuffing French and British pleas to contribute low-flying close-air-support planes, which the Europeans don’t have, to the fight in Misurata. The French and British were forced to commit their own combat helicopters to the task, even though they are more vulnerable than the U.S. planes would have been.” [/blockquote]
The French and British do have “low-flying close-air-support planes”, and attack helos are being used because they are the best weapon for the job – the journalist appears to treat helos as being interchangeable in role with CAIRS – very strange.
Further, I doubt that any ‘pleading’ went on – that is just a Hollywood myth that some Americans like to tell themselves. I expect there was discussion between all interested parties, the British, French, Italians and US about who would do what. The Americans don’t want to bow out entirely because they don’t want to lose influence in that part of the world. Fair enough.
There are already troops on the ground in Libya, none of them US. There may well be more troops on the ground at some point, and again, none are likely to be US. Why would they be wanted anyway?
Carl wrote:
[blockquote] “But .. but .. how can this be? We have been told repeatedly – REPEATEDLY – that this was only a humanitarian intervention, and that the introduction of ground troops was strictly forbidden.” [/blockquote]
No, you weren’t told either of these things. At one point you, Carl, tried to argue that this was only a humanitarian mission, and you had to be repeatedly reminded that such was not the case, and that there were several motives behind different operations going on.
[blockquote] “And yet now we hear murmurings of infantry being sent to Libya.” [/blockquote]
I don’t what ‘murmurings’ you are listening to, but infantry are already in Libya. Most Special forces are infantry (at least in the British and Commonwealth armies). Take it from someone who knows.
[blockquote] “Why it was only in March that we were being assured that Gadhaffi’s regime was on the brink of imminent collapse. The application of a few more bombs would surely cause a regime change.” [/blockquote]
No, no-one assured you of that. Military planners in general do not give “assurances” (at least, the competent ones don’t – you may have been listening to the other type, I don’t know), and aerial bombs cannot bring about regime change, although they may assist in the process if used correctly.
[blockquote] “Then the true Jeffersonian impulses of the rebellion would shine through, and 100 flowers would bloom in a democratic Libyan spring.” [/blockquote]
The Libyan spring is happening and it may well turn out to be democratic, unless western leaders listen to those who don’t believe that arab people are capable of democracy (which sounds rather like racism to me, but who knows?). I also doubt that “100 flowers” is an accurate analogy, given what that actually refers to.
[blockquote] “Besides me, of course. Because I said all this would happen three months ago.” [/blockquote]
What, that Qaddafi would still be clinging to power in western LIbya in 3 months time? I expect that every competent military planner involved would have foreseen this as one of the possible outcomes – so yes, you were on utterly safe ground predicting this, and it is not in least unique or interesting.
[blockquote] “A first-year cadet could with a rudimentary knowledge of military history could have predicted this outcome.” [/blockquote]
I agree. 100%
I believe that the sacred UN resolution that got Europe and us in to this only authorized a “no fly zone” for the purposes of humanitarian relief. Or so we were told. I seem to detect some substantial historical revisionism here.
Br Michael,
The March 2011 Security Council Resolution authorised about nine points of action, only one of which was the establishment of a No Fly zone. One of the other points authorised “all necessary means” to protect civilians and towns, short of foreign occupation.
You may be confusing this intervention with the bombing of Libya authorised by President Reagan in 1986, which was a unilateral action by the US.
Not confused at all.
RE: “No, you weren’t told either of these things.”
Yes, actually, we were, in the many comments on many articles right here at T19. No time for me to go back and scrounge them all up, but yeh — it was “illegal” and terribly wrong for ground troops to enter. Heh. I think you should go back and read the T19 comments from several months ago concerning the Libyan decision.
RE: “No, no-one assured you of that.”
Yes, actually we were — not only repeatedly in comments here at T19 but also in the news. Repeatedly. Over and over. Maybe you don’t keep track of news media, I dunno.
The eminent collapse due to bombing runs was — as we all knew — a fraud and now that reality has been demonstrated the folks who wanted to invade Libya can move on with other reasons to do so.
RE: ” . . . unless western leaders listen to those who don’t believe that arab people are capable of democracy . . . ”
Oh, all of us know that Islamic people can by majority vote choose sharia law. We all understand that quite well — it’s crystal clear.
Apparently, sharia law is a nice vision of “a thousand flowers blooming” in the Middle Eastern “spring” for naive persons.
That’s fine.
I’m not really concerned about what other nations/countries/people think about the glories of Islamic democracies. I’m concerned about the US — and our getting the right leaders in both the Senate and the Presidency who can make good decisions with our military and economy.
Only 16 more months till we have some hope of that.
[blockquote] “Maybe you don’t keep track of news media, I dunno.” [/blockquote]
I agree that I am not well versed in US newsmedia. Given some of the content in the above article, I guess nothing should surprise me.
Or anything else.
Hi WarrenS — as to whether I am concerned about what other nations/countries/people think about “anything else” — well, it all depends on whether I respect their values, principles, ideas, character, and experience.
There are certainly people out there whom I respect very much — and their opinions are of interest to me.
But as interesting as the topic may be to *you* — let’s not make the thread about your difficulties or irritations with my opinions.
Okay, we’ll just do the usual and make it about what you want it to be.
From the Daily Telegraph…
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8573849/Navy-chief-Britain-cannot-keep-up-its-role-in-Libya-air-war-due-to-cuts.html]Britain is too weak to support Libya operations for long[/url].
Three guesses who is going to get called on to clean this mess up.
7. MichaelA: [blockquote] No, you weren’t told either of these things. [/blockquote] Here, MichaelA, is a convenient list of all the threads from T19 on Libya on which I have commented. You will find ample evidence of the things I claimed in these threads. If you still doubt my word, I will go through the list and excise the appropriate quotes.
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/35490 ]March 18[/url]
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/35492 ]March 18[/url]
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/35517 ]March 20[/url]
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/35559]March 22[/url]
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/35565 ]March 23[/url]
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/35606 ]March 25[/url]
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/35657 ]March 28[/url]
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/35720 ]March 31[/url]
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/35816 ]April 5[/url]
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/35832 ]April 7[/url]
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/35841 ]April 7[/url]
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/36043 ]April 19[/url]
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/36056 ]April 19[/url]
carl
WarrenS at #13, that was a little vicious don’t you think?
Unless it was a playful reference to Professor Higgins in Pygmalion, although I’m really not getting “playful” vibes from your post!
I have gone over the posts linked by Carl. As I suspected, my recollection was correct, and Sarah’s and Carl’s were wrong.
Carl’s initial incorrect assertion that started all this was:
[blockquote] “We have been told repeatedly – REPEATEDLY – that this was only a humanitarian intervention, and that the introduction of ground troops was strictly forbidden” [/blockquote]
I then pointed out that neither proposition was true: i.e. no-one (except Carl) has repeatedly said that this was “only a humanitarian intervention” nor that the introduction of ground troops was strictly forbidden.
The error should have been obvious of course – the UN resolution only deals with the humanitarian issue, as is right and proper. But nations do not need UN resolutions to act, nor are they restricted to following them. If that were the case, President Reagan would never have authorised the bombing of Libya in 1986, and the United Kingdom would not have supported him.
Carl was well aware of this, when I posted the following on 28 March 2011:
[blockquote] “I am sure Isaac can answer for himself, but in the meantime I will supply part of the answer [as to why it is in the interest of the US to intervene in Libya]: Libya is part of the Middle East, it is Arab, and it is an oil nation. That is a combination that is directly relevant to US (and indeed all western) interests.
Secondly, Libya closely borders the EU. It has caused problems there in the past. The US works closely with the EU in many ways and it has an interest in a stable EU.
There is plenty of reason for intervening in Libya. The nature, extent and duration of that intervention is a complex question depending on many factors.” [/blockquote]
Carl later replied:
[blockquote] “… If the interest is oil, that would best be served by letting Gadhaffi win. The fact that Libya is an Arab country, and in the Middle East is true but irrelevant. Zimbabwe is a Christian country in Africa. What has that to do with defining vital interests? The fact that Libya borders Europe is the true answer, as I have said many times. I don’t see any reason to aid the Europeans in a war that is being fought simply to keep Libyans in Libya. The Europeans are a big continent. They shouldn’t need US help. …” [/blockquote]
Carl was in absolutely no doubt that other posters were NOT alleging that this was “only a humanitarian mission”, and he believed that the west’s actual motivation went beyond humanitarian.
The same goes for “introduction of ground troops”: Even the UN resolution allows for introduction of ground troops to achieve its ends (I suggest anyone disagreeing with this actually read its terms before responding) and ground troops have been known to be in Libya for many weeks now.
RE: “WarrenS at #13, that was a little vicious don’t you think?”
Nah — he’s just bitterly trolling. I understand — he can’t really feel good about his exchanges on his ideas, after all.
RE: “As I suspected, my recollection was correct, and Sarah’s and Carl’s were wrong.”
Heh.
I’ve only looked at the first two links of Carl’s — and I didn’t bother to get to the end of the second comment thread because, voila:
[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.[/blockquote]
So not only is MichaelA’s recollection all wet — but he doesn’t research so well on these things either, if indeed he looked through all the threads.
So.
To repeat:
[blockquote]Yes, actually, we were, in the many comments on many articles right here at T19. No time for me to go back and scrounge them all up, but yeh—it was “illegal†and terribly wrong for ground troops to enter.[/blockquote]
Ad hominem comment about another blogger deleted by elf.
Of course – I wouldn’t have expected anything different. Only “certain” bloggers are allowed ad hominem comments.
Sarah,
You are misreading Pageantmaster’s post. He was responding to Carl’s posts on that thread, including #2. Carl asserted that the only response to the Libyan issue (apart from his preferred option of leaving Qaddafi to indulge in mass torture, rape and slaughter) was a full-scale invasion of Libya followed by “nation building” i.e. occupation.
Pageantmaster pointed out that (a) the Libyans had not asked for that; and (b) the Security Council resolution did not sanction it. In both of these points, he was 100% right. Here is the relevant extract from UN security council resolution #1973:
[blockquote] “[Member states are authorised] to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack … while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory…” [/blockquote]
Note the words, “foreign *occupation* force”. That does not prohibit ground forces per se, if they are there to do a job and then leave, but it does prohibit what Carl was advocating back in March. I don’t read Pageantmaster’s post as saying anything more than that.
Now let’s look again at what Carl wrote above on this thread:
[blockquote] “We have been told repeatedly – REPEATEDLY – that this was only a humanitarian intervention, and that the introduction of ground troops was strictly forbidden†[/blockquote]
“The introduction of ground troops”. It was an absurd thing to say, because western ground troops (at least the British and Italians, and I would guess the French as well) have been in Libya for weeks, and not just a section or two either.
Pageantmaster in the post you quoted was not saying that the UNSC resolution prohibited the introduction of any ground troops at all (which it doesn’t), but the introduction of an occupation force (which it does).
Not that its my job to defend PM of course – he can look after himself!
As well as the special forces already there, the British, French and Italians could also introduce regular infantry, artillery and armour if they chose, and still be consistent with the Security Council resolution, so long as those troops are not an occupation force, i.e. they leave when the humanitarian job is done.
[If they don’t do that, then they are not necessarily illegal but, like Reagan’s bombing in 1986, they lack the special legal protection of a UNSC mandate].
I, like you and Carl, hope that American ground troops are not sent to Libya, although for rather different reasons. If they had a commander with the understanding and ability of Petraeus, then fine; but you have too many of a different sort.