Hard News: Libya
175 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Ah yes, the old adage that it's much easier to fight a war if the enemy is a proper noun.
I'd say it's actually usually a harder war, since said proper noun fights to the last drop of blood they can muster. But once won, that's the end of it, which has appeal. Fighting against a mass term, like Rebels or Terrorists or Crime, or Drugs, is probably quite easy, they're basically pretty weak. But stamping them out completely is a never-ending task.
-
glennd, in reply to
Quite, however you still must then stay and rebuild whatever you defeated if it is to mean anything. Which takes time, treasure and will to do the job over many years... most of which are lacking since around the end of WW2. And it is too much like "imperialism" for some.
Going to war against a "mass term" is nothing more than an abuse of the concept of war. A war on crime or drugs is just an absurd concept. A war on terror is marginally better but still dopey. A war against a state harbouring terrorists makes sense. And rebels? Well they are just non-government forces and means you're involved in a civil war really.
Having read Obama's latest speech I still don't see any coherence. Is it a no fly zone operation to protect civilians and supply humanitarian aid? Clearly not, the coalition is giving close air support to "rebel" offensives so in fact the coalition has chosen sides in a civil war. In which case why is he ruling out regime change? It was all rather an after-the-fact justification of skirting US law and spelling out for Ghadaffi that if he can hold on long enough then he can get back to business as usual, with a few sanctions in place. The old fox has been around long enough to know that those are easily skirted. The difference will be that he has been injured and knows for sure that playing nice (internationally) is no longer a profitable venture.
-
glennd, in reply to
Somalia was different to Libya of course, but it failed for the same reasons that Libya, if it fails, will have. No clear political objective, no clear military objective in support of the political objectice, no leadership and only a vague objective about humanitarian protection without the will and power to ensure that comes about in any meaningful sense. In fact Obama's latest speech took multiple options off the table already. It does not matter if the effort is "progressive internationalist", "neocon imperialist" or whatever else, a humanitarian mission will most likely fail if not backed by long-term political and military objectives backed up with proper leadership. I imagine that was part of the reason that the Pentagon opposed action to start with.
Somalia required nation building, something that used to be done but no longer is, and if that had been the honest goal then forces sufficient to the task should have been deployed to clear the warlords, protect and aid civil life and build new institutions. Instead what the Somalis got was forces barely sufficient to disperse some aid and react only to warlord activities. A golden rule of war is to not meet the enemy at the time and place of his choosing, unfortunately these humanitarian missions begin by ceding precisely that point to the "enemy".
-
Have now watched Obama giving his speech and I can honestly say I've never seen him look as unconvinced reading something as he was last night. But the material was reminiscent of something Bush would have been given to read, full of allusions, moral imperatives, short on facts and details with torturous attempts at justification.
It all was an exercise mainly in justifying the exceptional act of taking the US to war without congressional approval but on the President's limited power in the face of a clear and present threat to the US. No matter how he twists it that just wasn't there and even Gates has flatly stated so. He also never said the word "war" and the "opposition" only once. No hint as to who these people are despite the coalition providing them an air arm, and he must know that there are rumours flying about al Qaeda involvement and other islamists but he takes no time to dispel such notions?
But now over the weekend we learn that not only has the US not pulled back but A10s and AC130s have been flying offensive sorties. Aircraft useless to no fly zone enforcement but excellent for tank and armor busting and clearing out dug-in fortifications and troop concentrations. If you stand back now and look at it, what you have is the coalition first gaining air supremacy and now systematically demolishing the tanks, armor, artillery and other fortifications of the Libyan army. I am having a hard time seeing that this is not standard clearing of the field for safe troop deployments, coupled with the benefit of depriving the unknown rebels of capturing tanks and other heavy firepower.
It seems odds on now that troops will be deployed at some stage, and I'd guess they will be an occupation force under the banner of a peace-keeping operation once the Libyan army has been neutralized and the rebels have been effectively deprived of heavy equipment. So someone does have a military objective, the question is what the political objective is.
Whatever Obama said in that speech, it bears little resemblance to what is going on in Libya. Whether he is the organ grinder or not, he is making it ever harder to extricate himself.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
It all was an exercise mainly in justifying the exceptional act of taking the US to war without congressional approval but on the President's limited power in the face of a clear and present threat to the US.
Yes, being able to do that is practically the only reason to have a President. While congress dithers over the best way to stall the US economy and hamstring the establishment, Obama gets to do one of the things he said he would do before getting elected - base his foreign policy on international agreement.
But I will confess that I find the way the US does war alarming at all times. Their ability to kill is astonishing.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Their ability to kill is astonishing.
Their willingness even more so.
-
Angus Robertson, in reply to
"War is a continuation of diplomacy by other means."
I'd say it's actually usually a harder war, since said proper noun fights to the last drop of blood they can muster.
Consequently, "proper noun A" will typically spend an extended amount of time posturing and practicing other means of diplomacy in response to "proper noun B". Classifying your enemy thus is an exceptionally good way of avoiding direct conflict.
Fighting against a mass term, like Rebels or Terrorists or Crime, or Drugs, is probably quite easy, they're basically pretty weak.
It is impossible to practice other means of diplomacy (other than war) against enemies such as these. The windmills aren't going to charge back, but they aren't going to get out of the way either.
-
glennd, in reply to
Not sure what you mean as that being the function of a president. Every other US president in recent years has gone through the legalities of getting congressional approval for any US war, internationalist or not. Obama is now treading a fine line of running an illegal war, giving speeches worthy of GW Bush and generally promising to lead from behind, when it suits, if we feel like it and if we can be "convinced" by our NATO buddies to undertake kinetic military action, not war mind you.
And now the NATO Libya commander is opening the possibility of occupation troops... it'd be funny if it wasn't all so predictable. But it is an international exercise, well a NATO exercise, of which the USA always supplies the supreme commander, and the immediate commander to the Libyan theatre is an American, which is run by a Canadian Admiral luckily so technically the US is not running things.
-
Their willingness even more so.
Well its a pity Obama and Hillary got them into this one in an illegal manner. If Congress was forced to sign-off, chances are good that they'd have refused. Even the Pentagon didn't want to touch it before ordered to.
-
Not sure what you mean as that being the function of a president.
The only reason to have the Commander In Chief reside in one person is because it makes decisive action possible. Practically everything else about the whole idea of a President sucks. But occasionally, very occasionally, it can actually be used for something good, to act fast when fast action is needed.
If Congress decide to stop any ongoing war, I expect Obama will stop, which will be as easy as ordering it so, since that is his power, and there are no Americans on the ground. As Steve Parks said weeks ago, the exit strategy is "stop bombing". It's hardly like it needs to be spelled out.
Every other US president in recent years has gone through the legalities of getting congressional approval for any US war, internationalist or not.
It's the "or not" which brought the presidency into disrepute, not the congressional approval, which was given, and was also very much a fucked idea. Congress can still be dickheads who are wrong about things.
I think you're letting your hate for Obama get in the way of judging the Libya intervention on its actual merits. Perhaps it will damage him politically. If so, shame on America.
-
glennd, in reply to
I don't hate Obama, not any more than I hated GW Bush or WJ Clinton. I am not sure why you think I do, but I am enjoying in a very black comedy way the unfolding clusterfuck this is becoming with the half-truths, backtracking, speeches and NATO merrily carrying on whatever it feels like doing. Every President gives us some (Bushisms, "depends on your definition if it", etc), this is Obama's turn. I am however quite amazed at the politically risky way Obama has been doing this when there are more straightforward means.
Anyway Obama did not get a congressional vote, he can only use his power to act quickly without such a vote if there is a clear and present threat to the USA. Even Sec Def Gates has explicitly stated to the world that such a threat never existed. In that sense, the war is illegal according to US law. There is disrepute and there is law, the two aren't the same. Sure, something of a technicality in the view of some and it is very unlikely he'll be impeached, but if he had got the vote during the couple of weeks he was apparently worried (while the rest of NATO did what they did) then his ass would be iron-clad covered now.
As for no American troops on the ground. Well yes not yet, but NATO is clearly gearing up for that militarily and by the statements of the operation commander now. It is somewhat hopeful to think that US troops would not be involved in a NATO deployment. Obama has 60 days to get congressional approval for continuation of the war, assuming that technicality is also observed, if troops are deployed before that then it is going to be messy politically. But as I said before, I doubt that Congress (well maybe the Kucinich left will hold out to make a statement, but I expect the Republicans will back him by some majority) will screw the President once war is actually engaged and will approve continuation.
-
I am however quite amazed at the politically risky way Obama has been doing this when there are more straightforward means.
Yes, perhaps he has a conscience.
but if he had got the vote during the couple of weeks he was apparently worried (while the rest of NATO did what they did) then his ass would be iron-clad covered now.
You're talking about those weeks during which the entire world had not made up its mind? There's a reason that didn't happen - there was not enough information.
But as I said before, I doubt that Congress (well maybe the Kucinich left will hold out to make a statement, but I expect the Republicans will back him by some majority) will screw the President once war is actually engaged and will approve continuation.
Indeed. It's what he himself did, despite opposing the Iraq war verbally. America backs its troops, anything else causes a strange (to a foreigner) sense of guilt and shame. For once, it might even back them to do something good.
-
Yes, perhaps he has a conscience.
Well I would have attributed it most likely to the fighting between Clinton, Gates, the Pentagon, the CIA and so on and Obama not stamping on them for a couple of weeks. Not that this precludes the existence or otherwise of a conscience, please note.
You're talking about those weeks during which the entire world had not made up its mind? There's a reason that didn't happen - there was not enough information.
I think that is a little generous, there was a couple of weeks of Clinton doing her thing pushing for intervention. The UN and NATO were busy ramping up. It'd have been fairly straightforward to line up Congress in preparation for a vote if needed. Still, I am not going to go ascribing motives to anybody or second-guess what people were actually thinking. Just saying that it could have been a whole lot more "legal" and simple for Obama, which I think points to the disunity in the various factions which Obama did not control initially (or even now).
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I think he's probably also a bit conflicted, which doesn't help. I'm conflicted myself - not entirely convinced that Libya will be better off without Gaddaffi to the point that it's worth the destruction involved in getting rid of him.
But that's the annoying thing - some choices are binary - you have to either go all in, or not at all. On balance, Gaddaffi has to go, means hard military action, and no-one but the US can mobilize that fast enough to make a difference (in this case). Obama did what he thought necessary. He will seek approval after the fact, most likely, and probably get it.
But only time will tell if the action will help Libya. There is no certainty in this matter. Yes, someone who actually aspires to being a war president knows how you go about it, all the beating up support, demonizing the enemy etc that is supposed to go on to sell a war. But I don't think Obama does aspire to that. He simply feels the responsibility that comes with his enormous power.
-
glennd, in reply to
Ahh but listen to Obama's speech. Regime change via the required military action is not what is going to happen, Gadaffi is not the target. Personally I do not believe that, but that is what he said. When Gadaffi is killed, or NATO troops are deployed, then we will see yet another interesting speech about why the first speech was not actually what was meant.
Actually I think Obama would have given his right arm to remain outside this conflict, regardless of what he professed in his speech. His initial indecision was finally broken by the State department faction winning over the Pentagon as well as pressure to look good internationally. But still, a full scale war needed to remove Gadaffi quickly and limit civilian blood would be political suicide right now but then again he needed to triangulate between that and, having committed to some sort of war, not pissing off the party leftists who are furious about any sort of war now. Thus his speech which was full of contradiction and vagaries. It is similar in a way to the Honduras diplomatic mess but on a far larger scale. Being a war leader isn't about chest thumping and demonizing (not that Gadaffi is undeserving of being called a demon), it is about leadership, something which in these contexts is not one of Obama's strengths unfortunately.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Being a war leader isn't about chest thumping and demonizing
Then why is that all they ever do?
Regime change via the required military action is not what is going to happen, Gadaffi is not the target. Personally I do not believe that, but that is what he said.
Presumably because the UN resolution did not authorize that. And it is still possible for foreign forces to withdraw the very minute that the UN, or the Libyan people, or the Arab league, asks them to. But I agree, what possible point is there in dragging out the conflict without taking a side? It seems fairly clear to me that everyone involved wants regime change - but they want the rebels to do it, so that it has "legitimacy". But they're not strong enough. Yet. They might never be. And yet, they might.
-
glennd, in reply to
Then why is that all they ever do?
Because they are crap leaders usually. Leadership is hard, particularly when you must kill people. On the other hand, hand-wringing and dithering is barely much better.
but they want the rebels to do it
Yes, but when the rebels demonstrate absolutely no military prowess, leadership or discipline (quite apart from strength) then you're on a hiding to nothing and are only kidding yourself that it is going to end happily. It'll just end up with Gadaffi gone and the place disintegrating in tribal fiefdoms ruled by whoever is organized enough to band some thugs together, like Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal or maybe even Somalia. No one even knows who these rebels are, it'll be highly f*ing embarassing if there turn out to be a lot of al qaida or muslim brotherhood men in there. I can't imagine that the French want all that on their doorstep though so there will be troops deployed at some stage.
-
It'll just end up with Gadaffi gone and the place disintegrating in tribal fiefdoms ruled by whoever is organized enough to band some thugs together, like Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal or maybe even Somalia.
That's a possible outcome. Another is that a protracted war actually leads to the rebellion becoming much more organized. Another is that the remaining power groups decide to organize themselves along less dictatorial lines, perhaps a council or even a parliament. Another is that there is a coup and an alternative dictator to Gaddaffi is set up. This person would probably be more careful not to share his fate. Another is that the neighboring countries opt to step in. Another is that the country is split up, which might actually make sense if people's allegiances are only to tribes. Another is that a foreign led invasion does happen, and a government is installed. Another is that Gaddaffi actually capitulates completely and promises to be a good boy, and holds elections. Another, the one you seem to prefer, is that the foreigners give up, and the rebels are slaughtered, and Gaddaffi shows that crushing rebellion in the Middle East is business as usual, after which every other place with a bit of rebellion going on will see no reason at all not to do just the same thing or worse.
-
There are many possibilities. At the moment I think that, despite any speeches to the contrary, there will be NATO troops on the ground some time soon enforcing some sort of peace with the country either partitioned or Gadaffi assassinated or driven into exile.
My prefered solution would have been a total commitment to overthrowing Gadaffi and rebuilding a new state or two over a decade.
My fear is that Gadaffi will survive and exploit the peace as Saddam did, or that the international effort will give up and Libya will dissolve into a criminal state as Afghanistan did after the Soviet campaigns.
My expectation is that this will turn into "Iraq 1990-2000".
Where it lands I can't say now, but I'd keep a bob each-way on fears vs expectations.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
My expectation is that this will turn into "Iraq 1990-2000".
Yes, I was thinking this also. And I think that one of the things that made Iraq such a balls-up was that Saddam wasn't finished off quickly in the first place, but instead squeezed for 10 years first. Ultimately this was because of a number of factors - Bush followed what the UN authorized.
It's hardly surprising that the UN can never agree to regime change, though. They would not have lasted as an institution if that had been how it worked - some of the superpowers would have withdrawn as they did from the League of Nations.
-
Every other US president in recent years has gone through the legalities of getting congressional approval for any US war, internationalist or not.
For very limited 'recent years'.
-
-
And a bit of levity in a dark world:
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Hugh Laurie's brave anti-American stance.
-
glennd, in reply to
Yes, I was thinking this also. And I think that one of the things that made Iraq such a balls-up was that Saddam wasn't finished off quickly in the first place, but instead squeezed for 10 years first. Ultimately this was because of a number of factors - Bush followed what the UN authorized.
I would agree with you there and I regard that as the most fatal element of UN "war making", that is that it never goes to war properly and ends up with half-way solutions dependent on good-luck as an endgame.
But one scenario I had discounted (perhaps in my arrogant western way) and maybe shouldn't have was that Ghadaffi could win outright. Even now the Libyan army is adapting its tactics and reducing the impact of air power and has turned the rebels to mass retreat again. It's all just a well publicized "mistaken air-strike on a wedding in Tripoli" away from a PR nightmare. If, somehow, Ghadaffi manages to pull-off the play of the century it's going to be a political nightmare in NATO. If that happens then there are a few politicians needing the sack.
Some are speculating about arming the rebels but it seems a little useless when they lack the discipline and organization to face the Libyan army and assorted mercenaries. Even NATO is not united on doing so anyway and the UN resolution includes and arms embargo! If it isn't one giant f**kup then I'd be speculating about why the rebels are being used in this way.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.