Sunday, March 27, 2011

The Libyan Intervention after the First Week, or a Nation Bushed?


A week ago on FDChief's Desert Rats post I commented:

This intervention is the opposite of Iraq, which I never supported. This one I do support. There is no need for any occupation and we can most likely do it mostly with air power and let the French, Italians or preferably allied Arabs send in a limited number of ground troops to mop up whatever the locals can't. Once MQ's gone, we drop it in the Libyans' lap and it's "see ya'll around" . . .

What is required is speed and right now MQ's on the run. Within a week he might be gone and we'll already be in the stand down phase . . .


I supported then and continue to support the Libyan intervention, in fact it is the first time in ten years that I do support US foreign policy in regards to the use of military force. I am also pleased with the way the situation on the ground is shaping up there. While it would be nice if we could gloat over the fall of MQ today, the fact that he is showing significant signs of wear at this point indicates that things could still fold up relatively quickly, this is the nature of the type of conflict we are involved in, consisting of sub-state groupings, or rather tribes and moral rather than material cohesion.

I also understand that my arguments have been very polemic in nature. I am not relying on strategic theory for this argument for the most part since while some concepts are useful in military planning (such as center of gravity) the overall application is retrospectively analytical, which means it can tell you what went wrong after the fact, but is a poor guide for what will happen in the future, the nature of war being simply too complex.

This post is intended to cover several specific aspects.

First, it seems unquestioningly obvious at this point in time that the US is still somehow traumatized by what happened during the George W Bush administration, we see military intervention/the use of force in exclusively "Bushist" terms, as either supporting or countering Bush policies. That is policy decisions which have nothing to do with GWB are seen solely in his terms, whether supporting his policies or not. It seems that in retrospect we are very much in the George W Bush era and will continue to be for some time, which includes the simple fact that his policies were essentially a series of strategic disasters for this country. We seem to be unable to break the mindset that he has imposed on us. Which is that any additional use of military power is inherently corrupt and done for unsavory reasons and will end up in disaster, thus we have become a Nation, bushed.

Professor Juan Cole, who supports the Libyan intervention (in fact his blog is a good source of information on the campaign) dismisses any similarity with Bush's Iraq war. This notion of a Nation Bushed, of course leads us to the simple fact that we are unable and unwilling to hold GWB or any members of his administration accountable for any of their corrupt and possibly criminal actions. Not to mention it has become politically impossible to put an end to either of his lost wars (Af-Pak or Iraq) and even those who would support an end find themselves supporting the status quo in order to "support the troops". So despite the fact that Americans are scarred by GWB's corrupt polices we lack at the same time any will to confront that reality. Instead we simply abstract those feelings to cover any military action done as part of US policy.

Second, I would like to address the Libyan rebellion itself. It seems that President Obama "turned on a dime" in deciding on intervention in Libya. Both VP Biden and Sec of Defense Gates were against, while Sec of State Clinton was for intervention. The reason?

"This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values," a senior administration official said at the meeting, telling the experts this sentence came from Obama himself. The president was referring to the broader change going on in the Middle East and the need to rebalance U.S. foreign policy toward a greater focus on democracy and human rights.


The opportunity for a new direction in US Middle East policy is well taken, this sends a "mixed signal" - as I commented on FDChief's Desert Rats post - to the various Arab autocrats now dealing with domestic protest. Essentially it tells them we can go the other way, and if you go beyond a certain point in using force, our support is unlikely, at the least.

So why intervene in Libya and not elsewhere? Continued turmoil in Libya destabilizes the entire Mediterranean and exposes our NATO Allies to the backlash of this instability. We have had a significant presence in the Med for a long time and stability in the region is of prime US interest. This in addition to the UNSC resolution, statements from the Arab League and requests directly for support from our ally France. Military intervention rests on specifics and not all cases bring the same result, to expect that would be to expect too much. What is required is a specific constellation of interests/events/contingencies which set the stage for a specific intervention to take place. To argue that we cannot intervene here because we have not intervened someplace else assumes that all conditions are exactly alike which is obviously not the case and precludes intervention at all.

While many rightfully have problems with military operations in support of "humanitarian goals", this intervention has been conducted also to prevent a bloodbath, or "Srbrenica on steroids" as it has been described. MQ's tanks were on the verge of turning Benghazi into a slaughter house with tens of thousands of people killed - a whole different level of repression and done with heavy weapons which we have yet to see even talked about elsewhere in the current Arab countries undergoing protest. The Rebels estimate that MQ has killed 8,000 in Tripoli alone in the areas he has retaken in the capital city. To have sat by and allowed this to happen - while the people in the rebel cities were begging for our help - would have been something I personally and I think many other Americans would not have tolerated. There are times when military intervention becomes a necessity.

So a political decision made "on the turn of a dime" and under tremendous time pressures required quick action. That the command arrangements were chaotic reflects this reality, along with the conflicting interests of the various Allies involved. The Turks for instance had a good relationship with MQ and were not happy about the prospect of France expanding her influence in the region. The Norwegians were willing to participate, but only under NATO command, whereas the French and the Arabs saw NATO has too implicated in the policy disaster of Afghanistan and saw a Franco-British command as preferable. While these conditions have influenced the command structure, the air operations have been adequate to support the main center of gravity which is taking place on the ground.

Third, and following on this, I would like to address the nature of this intervention. Our goal is the neutralization of MQ's regime. The best way to do this would be the removal - either voluntary of forced of MQ and his family. What comes next is not up to us and should be left to the various Libyan interest groups to decide for themselves. Concern about "what happens next" is part of our current "bushed" attitude. We could not positively influence to any significant degree what has happened in Af-Pak or Iraq, and in fact many of the outcomes there have been counter to our interests, so why should we suppose that we can or should enjoy this influence in Libya where our level of commitment is much less extensive? Instead our goals should reflect the purpose of this operation, that is to allow the Libyan people to decide their own future without the mortal threat of a tyrant using the weapons of war against his own people.

In my comments on the earlier thread, I mentioned that the French most likely had a plan of operations for this intervention and we should see how it works out. Surprisingly the French were assumed by many to be incompetent, which is simply another aspect of our "bushed" reality? It would fit that pattern.

The French have a long history of military intervention in Africa, have conducted at least 37 major military interventions there (not counting Algeria) since 1960. The vast majority of these have been successful in terms of supporting French national policy, that is they do know something about the use of the military instrument in support of policy, something that the US has been unable achieve consistently since 1965 (the Dominican Republic). The French are avid students of strategic theory and have their own school of Clausewitzian thought based on the approach of the great theorist Raymond Aron. It is also interesting to note that the most successful foreign commander in North Africa, that is in dealing with the North Africans with a combination of limited military action supported by well-thought out policy is a Frenchman, Marshall Lyautey who pacified Morocco for France from 1912-1925. His influence on French military thinking is great and his approach is still studied by thoughtful military officers, although perhaps not in the US.

The French are thus assumed competent in terms of linking military action to their policy objectives. They are aware of what a center gravity is and is not, and also of the limits and/or lack of applicability of the military instrument, which is why they did not support Bush's war in Iraq in 2003, but did support Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991. They also see this intervention as being all about MQ's political base and dissolving that. This, not the destruction of his military, is the center of gravity of French policy in this intervention imo. Success here will decide the success of the intervention and given the nature of tribal loyalties MQ's support could collapse rapidly given the right set of conditions.

Fourth, and finally, there seems to be a good bit of confusion over my claim that the president could reap "political capital" from a successful military intervention and then use this capital to make some necessary policy changes:

Obama has to win back his base. Ending both of Bush's wars would not only save needed funds, but end two strategic setbacks/disasters (however you wish to describe them). This could be possible given the prestige, political capital such a triumph would bring. This is after all how our republic is expected to function, the mass popular leader waging successful and righteous war in our name and claiming democratic support. This was afterall the message of 2003 when George W Bush went into Iraq.

Why so different now? Could it have anything to do with that big propaganda machine?

So you get a feel for our situation. Currently strategic paralysis, caused in part by two lost wars we're stuck in. We need to get out and to do that we need a shock, or metaphorically another throw of the international and domestic political dice. War does that. (my last comment on the Desert Rats thread)


This view is based on Weberian political theory. I am a strategic theorist after all so it should come as no surprise. Still a more extensive explanation is clearly necessary.

Max Weber sees all states as being based on the monopoly of legitimate violence within a specific territory. This is the basis of the state, everything else rests on this. Now, the key word here is "legitimate". If the people see the state (actually simply the administrative apparatus of rule) as legitimate they will accept this monopoly. As we see in Libya a significant number of its people - probably the majority - do not accept MQ's legitimacy and are acting accordingly and he is forced to use raw violence to subdue them. His lack of legitimacy in turn encourages intervention.

But what of the other end of the equation? Instead of little of no legitimacy, what of increasing legitimacy and what would that achieve?

As Randal Collins writes in his classic Weberian Sociological Theory:
"The most important factor is the interests of political leaders in stirring up domestic legitimacy through success in the external military competition with other states. Internal legitimation is the good to be sought though engaging in the prestige game in the international arena; the prize for the rulers of the 'Great Power' is paid in the coin of internal politics." page 162.


In other words political leaders gain prestige at home by conducting military action abroad. This is nothing new and as old as civilization and states themselves. Bush was well aware of it, but then today, our nation being "bushed" is unable to conceive it, instead see all such things as potential disasters no matter what the specifics?

To conclude this point then, a successful military action in the Libyan intervention (which is of very limited objectives as described above) would provide the president with domestic political capital which he could then use for domestic policy choices. The withdrawal from Af-Pak and Iraq are both domestic political decisions since the strategic rationale for both wars ended some time ago.

Part II is here . . .

117 comments:

  1. seydlitz,
    I cannot/will not accept that military intervention becomes a necessity in scenarios like this. Forget Bush and his crummy wars. Standing alone this intervention offers no greater good, and our use of violence is as reprehensible as is MQ's depredations, except it's his country.
    Military intervention is a luxury, and a corruption. Your arguments can be summed up as Amurican exceptionalism with French dressing and English beer on the side.
    Being exposed to a backlash of instability is a laughable analysis of the justification for bomb/bomb/bomb.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  2. jim-

    You have the right to your opinion, just as I have the right to mine. I have also spent the last week thinking about my comments from before and questioning my assumptions.

    Have you taken a moment to question yours?

    Forget "Bush's crummy wars"? How exactly are we to do that since they are still ongoing . . . which is precisely my point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Seydlitz, I hope you are right. I expect you are not.

    The big issue in my mind is not whether or not MQ was a bad leader/influence (he was and is), it is whether we in the West and the Libyan people in general will be better off when he is gone.

    Saddam was the worst type of leader imaginable, far worse than MQ, until he was overthrown and replaced with basically nothing and the resulting power struggle turned a bad situation into a far worse one.

    You've done your best to address my fears but I don't see anything in your comments that can address this situation.

    This isn't Tunisia or Egypt where the memory of semi-good government had persisted, MQ spent the last 40 years destroying every source of authority except his own. Do not be surprised if Libya turns into a hostile power or a failed state. The tribes have rebelled against MQ but they do not seem to be able to unify on an opposition leader.

    It's one thing to say you hate somebody and destroy things to get him out. It's much harder to build a new government on the wreckage of an old government/economy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm following Pluto both literally ( unless someone sticks in a post while I'm still typing along ) and in support of what he says, although I will say you do make a very strong arguement for your position. In my limited understanding of Military Science and Theory, and history, I have a strong sense that the French DO know what they're doing in NA, notwithstanding their missteps in SE Asia.
    Will Libya go the way of the Balkans after Tito, will they fashion a unifying government, or will they slaughter each other after MQ leaves the scene for a number of years before some sifting out to a point of stability takes place?

    That, I do not know.

    But, you have left out, IMO, a considerable factor WRT US military action in Libya, and that is Economics and The Economy at home.

    For the past year, from Obama to the Republicans, we hear how terrible the deficits are, how we must restrain spending, put all on the table even Social Security, freeze federal workers' wages and take public sector union rights away unilaterally.

    But still there is no hesitation to hare off and dump millions in yet another foreign adventure on the say-so of the president, without Congressional consultation.
    Which, WRT the state of Congress these days, would have been political soap opera at best.

    That's what the "base" of the left is saying as I read it, consideration of the deficit problem vis a vis this new intervention.

    Furthermore, I simply do not trust Obama to do anything positive for the nation with whatever political capital may come his way from successes in Libya. He hasn't done it these past 2 years, for instance, in bargaining away effective health care reform when he had overwhelming public support to do so, failing to hold to account the financial interests in this country for all the damage they have done to our economy and STILL ARE DOING SO, and other items that I could list.

    In conclusion, I believe you are in the right here, you and Dr. Cole, whom I also read. But the feet of your arguement are standing in buckets that you incorrectly describe. It's not so much "Bushed", as economic politics at home that create the criticism against this intervention.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  5. Then there's this, which seems to be true, but eerily reminiscent of the "nurse" before the first Gulf War.

    http://www.americablog.com/2011/03/gaddafi-security-takes-away-woman-who.html

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  6. In all honesty, the only similarity I see between this and the Bush wars is the lack of genuine geopolitical significance in the three places.

    Afghanistan was and should have been a purely punitive expedition. Once the AQ camps were leveled and the malefactors of 9/11 on the run the Bush mistake was to attempt to nation-build where there was and never really had been much of a nation since the invasion of 1980.

    Iraq was just a mess, as basil and Pluto point out, which we made worse by knocking the Saddam cork off the bottle without thinking about the Shiite genie inside.

    This one? Its just a nullity; an insignificant piece of desert valuable only for the petroleum under it, and that largely to the Europeans. Our involvement in this is a luxury, the luxury of military hypertrophy, but Great Powers are allowed luxuries that regional powers and small nations are not. Even a worst-case scenario (a long-lasting Gaddafi loyalist insurrection accompanied with the realization that the TLC [or whatever government the rebels produce] is as venal, brutal, and arbitrary as what preceded it) is unlikely to do much damage to the Obama Administration, assuming that the U.S. commitment goes no further than it has.

    But.

    That assumes that the U.S. commitment WILL go no further. I think the crucial elements here are the resilience of the existing regime, which is unlikely to be high but might be expected to be somewhat similar to the Baath regime in Iraq - which does NOT bode well assuming that the second element - the competence of the TLC/rebel forces - appears to be as low as it appears now.

    Right now I think your example depends on everything "breaking right"; Gaddafi is killed or flees, his people just fold, the rebels take over and immediately prove relatively competent. That's a gambler's mindset. Political gamblers, if they are shrewed (which you are) and the dice fall their way, CAN keep playing. But, as Hitler and Bush found out; if you're relying on throwing that natural every time you're in trouble even if you make a point. The first break that doesn't go your way can derail the whole scheme.

    (con't)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Before I go on, let me just add this; letting "the Libyan people...decide their own future..." would have meant letting Gaddafi defeat the rebels. Good people fight and lose civil wars all the time; Kerensky in Russia, the Republicans in Spain, the Shia/Sunni rebels in Bahrain, the democratic factions in Ivory Coast; the Chechens, the Tibetans. If you're going to make the case that the U.S. needs to intervene because every revolution is a special snowflake, well...you'll have Krauthammer and Hitchens in your corner. That's all I'll say.

    But - let's assume that this is all good; that this intervention was needed to keep the Arab Spring going, that it will all work out, that everything goes well, that the U.S. role stays strictly limited, and that Obama gets credit for both statesmanship AND military success.

    Why the FUCK would you, or anyone, think that military success would lead to increased political capital? In general, war persidents outside the First Imperial Period (1880-1940) payed for their adventures in political blood.

    Polk won the Mexican War. Result? We was defeated by a Whig who was one of his generals.

    Truman had won the Korean War by 1952 (as much as it could be won short of war with China). Result? Eisenhower kicked his ass.

    Bush 41 presided over as thorough a whipping as any U.S. force has ever produced in the Second Gulf War. He "raised taxes" and got handed his head in 1992.

    Clinton never got any sort of political boost from the relative successes of Bosnia and Kosovo.

    The real kicker is Bush 43. You say "...Bush was well aware of (this purported domestic empowerment from foreign military success), but then today, our nation being "bushed" is unable to conceive it, instead see all such things as potential disasters no matter what the specifics."

    It is the lesson of Bush that military success uncoupled from geopolitical sense, is meaningless, a hollow gong, an empty vessel. With Bush the U.S. learned the lesson that Germany learned from Hitler; it doesn't matter if you have the coolest tanks and the toughest troops. If your goals are unachievable, or if achieving them proves insufficient to get you the political result you need, then getting 95% just ain't enough.

    So people see the shambles of the Libyan rebels and see the hokey Iraqi expats and their mook "leader" Chalabi. They see raggedy muj led by SF on horseback and see the Northern Alliance. They see the same promises going in...and fear the same failures coming out.

    Because you're wrong; Bush THOUGHT he "knew this", thought he knew that strutting around in his flightsuit made him Supreme Commander Codpiece, wielder of the mighty political sword of commander-in-chiefyness. But instead his failures made him look weak, stupid, mislead, and misleading. By the end, he looked a fool, and his foolery rebounded on his party.

    (con't)

    ReplyDelete
  8. And you also need to reflect on this; the narrative runs against Obama and will continue to do so, robbing this act of any significance politically. If things go badly, his enemies will flay him. If they go well, he will he dismissed as just another Defeatocrat who was forced into acting the man for fear of his GOP rivals. I predict he will get no political credit for this, however it turns out.

    Look at the record. The banksters and financial fraudsters rooked this country for billions. Obama then gave them everything they asked for, merely suggesting a few minor changes in the way that Wall Street gets to gamble with the nation's economy. Result? He is being pilloried for those minor changes.

    Obama passed a health care bill that contains billions of dollars in profits for the insurance and medical industries, does little to rein in costs, while increasing the coverage for people who were getting raped before (the sick, those with preexisting conditions, the middle class). He basically passed a bill that could have been written by Blue Cross. Result? He's getting hammered for "socialized medicine".

    So - no, sorry. If "political capital" is a reason for doing this, it is a mistaken and a nonfunctional reason.

    And - I should note - Obama could easily have ended both Afghanistan and Iraq. The public largely hates them. The only real support they have is inside the Beltway. They are going nowhere at the moment and show no sign that they WILL go anywhere; the political realities of the locals are completely antithetical to our supposed war aims.

    The fact that Obama has not ended either one any more than he has tells me that he BUYS the Beltway "wisdom". He was not going to use this nonexistent political capital in that way regardless.

    No, I liked your humanitarian and local-political (Save the Arab Spring!) arguments. And those may, in fact, succeed, and I hope they do. Because...if this thing turns into a Bush-style clusterfuck...well...

    ReplyDelete
  9. I just went back to the original "Desert Rats" post and responded to one of Al's comments, and realized that I needed to append this, too. Here's what I said (Al had commented that other peoples, and other countries, had felt that it was important to intervene to help their neighbors) -

    "And in the case of nations like France, have gone to the length of recognizing the TLC as the "government" of Libya.

    So what's our problem? The Libyan rebels seem like people with a good cause. Why not go all in, sign the goddam treaty, and then we could land my artillery unit to fire off the runway in Benghazi if we wanted to in all good faith?

    The thing I'm sick of, Al, is these goddam backstairs, backdoor, weaselly cabinet wars. And I'm tired of us bankrolling these damn Arab dictatorships and kleptocracies in secret so they can bitchslap us in front of their publics.

    Like I said; I think this is the Libyan's civil war to win or lose. I think that "rescuing" the poor helpless bastards will just put them in position to be raped by the NEXT ruthless son of a bitch who takes over their country. I think they need to fight and win their own revolution, as we did and the French did and the English did (a couple of times, if I recall).

    And I especially think if they want our help, they need to man the fuck up and ask for it like we did with the French in 1777.

    That way then they have to stand up to their Arab pals and say, yeah, see these Yankees? They're here because WE FUCKING INVITED THEM, they're our allies, they're helping us defeat our dictatorial enemy, and fuck you very much, Saudis, jihadis, Palestinians, who sat there on their ass spouting anti-American rhetoric.

    THEN maybe this whole thing would be worth fighting for BOTH the Libyans and us. Instead, I see us getting nothing but the usual crap."

    And I think that also goes a long way to explain why I don't think Obama, or the U.S., will get any credit for this. Because we're NOT "helping" them, or, at least, we're helping them the same way that Lady Bountiful helps the poor by throwing a coin or two to them as she passes on the way to Ye Olde Daye Spa.

    The day when we treat one of these Arab nations as a genuine partner, AND they treat us as one...then maybe I'll buy it. But right now they want it both ways; they want our bombs, but they don't want to have us standing there, all infidelly and shit, and have to put their arm around us and call us "brother".

    ReplyDelete
  10. He hasn't done it these past 2 years, for instance, in bargaining away effective health care reform when he had overwhelming public support to do so

    Uh, yea, the goddamn government doesn't have the authority to force me into anything. Its because of government intervention into the economy we have inflation (doubly so in the medical industry). Asking the goddamn government to fix the fucking mess IT made is like asking the goddamn Mafia to only beat the shit out of you twice a week instead of three times.

    failing to hold to account the financial interests in this country for all the damage they have done to our economy and STILL ARE DOING SO

    Jesus Fucking Christ! Did you NOT pay attention to who his fucking backers were? The name Goldman-Sachs ring a bell? Why the fuck is anybody surprised that this scuzzy fuck gave a pass to Wall Street? They were the ones who got him elected. He voted FOR TARP last time I checked. Acting surprised either shows you didn't pay attention or you have Cognitive Dissonance.

    I'm sorry, but why are you SURPRISED?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "this intervention has been conducted also to prevent a bloodbath, or "Srbrenica on steroids" as it has been described. MQ's tanks were on the verge of turning Benghazi into a slaughter house with tens of thousands of people killed"

    A complete myth based on regurgitating western political/media talking points. MQ's forces "cleansed" Brega of armed gangs. Show me the genocide in Brega. Otherwise, stop repeating it, it's total crap.

    ReplyDelete
  12. FDChief: The thing I'm sick of, Al, is these goddam backstairs, backdoor, weaselly cabinet wars. And I'm tired of us bankrolling these damn Arab dictatorships and kleptocracies in secret so they can bitchslap us in front of their publics.

    No argument here, Chief. My point was simply that the bulk of our NATO (and many UN) "partners" have a vastly different view of "humanitarian" behavior. Some of it is probably rooted in their having lived through the devastation of war on their home soil. "Away games" are not the same as "home games" in warfare. Even those of us Americans who have served in combat have done so on someone else's turf. It was their homes that were destroyed, not ours or our family's. In short, it's a totally different perception. Thus, most of Europe was not interested in GWB's grand Iraq adventure to initiate war and suffering where it was not currently taking place.

    Who among our robust crew lives where his neighbors remember the uniforms of foreign, hostile occupiers? Can you visit, within a short distance of our home, a house pock marked with bullet and shrapnel scars? Did you or your parents live two years under the horrible burden of Henry Morganthau's goals?

    In short, I am trying to see the "humanitarian" aspect through other than American eyes and experience, and I can see where our friends wish to come to the aid of the Libyan people, now that they have tried to take matters into their own hands. I'm not so sure that "National Interests" alone are driving the train over here, but perhaps a smattering of real human kindness.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Al, you make a strong point there about how the Euros would view this situation, but they are now stuck in Libya and will need to see this through to the end where MQ will not be ruling the country.

    They can't diddle the guy with a red-hot poker the way they're doing now and leave him functional. I can't see how they can, and if the Euros have sense they know this too. The crux lies with the rebels, if they fold even with all the help they're getting now. There have been diplomats who jumped the Ship MQ and who have publicly asked for help for the rebels, and there we might see some new leadership emerge and something concrete to rebuild Libya with.

    And, one might ask, is this a "just" war?

    Hello, BRL. There isn't a need to to put fucking and Christ together to emphasize a point, some of us do have some sensibilities about that.

    A brief history of my politics.

    I supported John Edwards in the 2007-08 primaries and before that Howard Dean. I did get behind Obama when it was between Hillary and him. Not that it mattered that much really, I'm in Kansas which went for McClown and the SnowBillie.

    Yes, I believed what the candidate Obama was saying, I wanted what he said he wanted. Yes, I know the financial industry supported Obama, but they also sent money to the other side as well.

    After January '09, began the 2-year step by step process that showed me what kind of leader Obama is. He fucking fucked us over by pursuing the fond hope of bipartisanship with the Forces of Evil at the expense of those who believed in his campaign.

    His governing philosophy was based upon "I can't do that shit I promised because the Republicans won't like it. We need to achieve bipartisanship or nothing can happen."

    He refused to fight for principle. He fucking lied.

    Christ says that's not such a good thing to do. See, I separate "Christ" and "fucking" with at least one word.

    As for governments making you do stuff, they do it to us all the time. It's in the fucking US Constitution, "We the people . . . . blah, blah blah . . ." It's the price we pay for living in civilized society, where we can live comfortably and in the knowledge that most of the time, most things will work for us.

    If I can get some kind of assurance from my government that medical bills that my wife and I may acquire at a reasonable price, and not some fucking Robber Baron healt insurance company, yeah, that's acceptable to me.

    'Cause I fucking don't have that now, from either government or Robber Barons.

    bb

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  14. Something else about me. No matter I preview and read, EDIT!!

    Too many "b"s and "I may acquire can be paid for by some kind of insurance made available at a reasonable price, and not from some Robber"

    .

    ReplyDelete
  15. BRL,

    I also supported Obama in the vain hope that he would be able to some sort of positive change to Washington. I knew that McCain was going to be George W's third term so it only made sense to vote for the opposition.

    Quite a few people on this blog, particularly the Chief, pointed out that Obama lacked the experience and sharp administrative elbows to enforce his views on Washington. They were right. There's no point in flogging the dead horse, particularly because, as bb eloquently points out, Obama needs to circle back and listen to the disillusioned left wing of his party in order to win in 2012. And, as bb indicates, that is going to be a far harsher experience that anybody outside of the Democratic party could possibly inflict on Obama. Only family can drive you crazy...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Al,

    As usual, you make an excellent point about the Euro view. I highly commend them for at least trying to put actions to their words and hope that they succeed.

    But, as you point out, this is a Euro view, not an American view. So why are the American taxpayers spending billions (I'm sure we're up to at least 1 billion by now) on this Libyan adventure? Wouldn't it make more sense for us to sit this one out and marvel at European competence in running this operation by themselves? Or perhaps with only token assistance from us?

    So far we're the main drivers here and will probably continue to be the guys that foot 90% of the bill for the foreseeable future, which could extend to years, depending on how squeamish we are about accidentally killing civilians in Tripoli with air strikes.

    Why should I pay to make the Euro's feel better about the world? This is even more annoying because I don't get even a token vote and I think they are going to fail.

    ReplyDelete
  17. seydlitz,
    I don't feel that anything i said was a personal atk on you.
    Yeah, you are right , i pulled my comments right out of my ass. I'd expect this from Lang, but not milpub.
    Any action that kills people to keep other people from killing people, while encouraging those being protected to kill those that we are bombing is literally insane.And as BB says, we're borrowing 40% of the cost from another repressive regime.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  18. Pluto-

    --"The big issue in my mind is not whether or not MQ was a bad leader/influence (he was and is), it is whether we in the West and the Libyan people in general will be better off when he is gone.

    Saddam was the worst type of leader imaginable, far worse than MQ, until he was overthrown and replaced with basically nothing and the resulting power struggle turned a bad situation into a far worse one.

    You've done your best to address my fears but I don't see anything in your comments that can address this situation."--

    Thanks for the kind words. My first point is that Libya was in crisis no matter what, the future of MQ and what would replace him an open question. Our intervention has not created this situation, whereas our intervention in Iraq in 2003 did create the situation there.

    What comes next is up to the Libyans and as Juan Cole has pointed out there is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to this rebellion. Once MQ is out of the picture it might not be impossible for most of his former supporters to suddenly realize they were "resistance fighters" all along. We'll have to wait and see, a common "national struggle" gives birth to national sentiment, which as you mention did not exist in Libya before. In any case I doubt that the post-MQ government will quickly forget the role of Western support in their cause.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gwynne Dyer has another good take on Libya

    ReplyDelete
  20. basil-

    --"But still there is no hesitation to hare off and dump millions in yet another foreign adventure on the say-so of the president, without Congressional consultation.
    Which, WRT the state of Congress these days, would have been political soap opera at best.

    That's what the "base" of the left is saying as I read it, consideration of the deficit problem vis a vis this new intervention.--"

    Very clear comments as to your views.

    I don't see much to the finance argument at all. Iraq and Af-Pak are burning through sooooo much more, so following this logic where is the drive to stop those gapping wounds? There is none. Essentially the "Left" is as exhausted intellectually as what remains of the conservatives, I won't even mention the Nihilist Radical Right, which is an intellectual trainwreck.

    So, on the one side we have Af-Pak and Iraq both budgeted for $170.9 billion for this year. I doubt if this includes all the costs of operating in Pakistan as well. On the other side we have the Libyan intervention which involves air and naval forces only. The 6th Fleet is in the Med anyway and our aircraft in Italy would be flying in any case as well. So the actual additional costs of the Libyan invention are only a portion of the usual costs we would be incurring anyway for having forces already deployed. This is not the case btw for Af-Pak and Iraq.

    I would also mention the possibility that a grateful Libyan successor government might be amendable to reimbursing the Allies for the costs of their operations. No chance of this in either Af-Pak or Iraq and the Iraqis could even ask us for reparations . . .

    Here I would also mention another important point, the rationale for the entire Global War on Terror has been riped to shreds by the Great Arab Revolt of 2011. Where is the supposed rising caliphate that the Neo-cons and their lackeys have been warning us about? AQ has gained nothing, is essentially non-existent in this, the "Islamist threat" shown not to have ever really existed . . . What the Arab people want is dignity, freedom, a say in their own future and an end to the corrupt authoritarian weasels who have been running things up to now.

    In the Libyan intervention, we are, for once, on the right side of history . . .

    ReplyDelete
  21. @basilbeast

    As for governments making you do stuff, they do it to us all the time. It's in the fucking US Constitution, "We the people . . . . blah, blah blah . . ." It's the price we pay for living in civilized society, where we can live comfortably and in the knowledge that most of the time, most things will work for us.

    Spare me the goddamn Social Contract bullshit. Its as fucking ridiculous as Original Sin. There is no 'price' to pay for civilization. That is horseshit invented by murderers, thieves and other associated sociopaths to rationalize their evil. And, btw, you MIGHT want to read that Constitution again cause I see the 9th and 10th Amendment says 'the People's' rights are unlimited.

    If I can get some kind of assurance from my government that medical bills that my wife and I may acquire at a reasonable price, and not some fucking Robber Baron healt insurance company, yeah, that's acceptable to me.

    'Cause I fucking don't have that now, from either government or Robber Barons.


    Well you can thank the fucking government for the fact that you HAVE high medical bills to begin with now. Fucking involving them MORE into medical affairs is only going to lead to higher prices and shittier quality. Who the fuck do you think gets 'corporate welfare' in this country? Throwing money at a problem DOESN'T solve it. It leads to corruption, lack of quality control and other shit. Why the fuck do you think it is the Pharmaceutical Industry wants the government to mandate vaccines for every citizen? It sure as fuck has to do with unloading stocks of shit they have sitting on their shelves and nothing to do with any fucking altruistic 'herd immunity'. Acting like the corporations are evil when they act alone but are righteous when they work with government is called cognitive dissonance.

    ReplyDelete
  22. FDChief-

    I thought a lot about what you've posted. Your arguments are clear and well-reasoned and I have had to ask myself, did I let my passion get ahead of my intellect here? This is of course one of the great things about this great blog that we share. In many instances we do achieve a dialectic and learn more through this process than we would have without it.

    So, I gave it a few days and the result you see in this post and the following comments . . .

    To begin, you comment:

    --"Right now I think your example depends on everything "breaking right"--"

    Right now, I would say that things do seem to be breaking right. The Rebels are on the road west, picking up necessary equipment and force as they advance. MQ's looking weak. His forces appear extremely "brittle" to use Colonel Lang's term. Political consolidation of the opposition to MQ continues. NATO and Allied air operations continue . . . we'll see how it looks in another week . . .

    "Before I go on, let me just add this; letting "the Libyan people...decide their own future..." would have meant letting Gaddafi defeat the rebels."

    So allowing the madman in the tent sack Benghazi is "letting the Libyan people decide their own future"? Kerensky collapsed because he had no support and that was due in large measure to his own poor decisions. The Bolshevik Revolution required a whole set of events/contingencies in order to succeed and Kerensky unwittingly played a key role.

    What MQ had before the intervention was heavy weapons and enough followers to man them, he did not have popular support otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now.

    --"Why the FUCK would you, or anyone, think that military success would lead to increased political capital?"--

    Look at the picture at the top of this post. This was meant to be an icon of the age . . . So, what could have led them to think such a thing?

    Which is my point. They got part of the equation right, the domestic political side, but misread the rest of it, were in fact totally clueless as to the region, the complexities, the use of military force to achieve actual applicable political aims . . . instead they thought in terms of ideological-based delusions as the Neo-cons and the roaring drunk you mention still do.

    Compare 2003 with DS/DS in 1990-91, GHWB had gained a military victory and was confident that he was a shoe-in for 1992, but the elections only came a year and a half later and in the meantime, the economy took a turn south. Still his military victory was secure since he has waged what is perhaps the most Clausewitzian war in our history, strategically speaking a superb use of the military instrument for attaining limited policy goals. The problems that came were due to the follow-up, not the military operation/war itself.

    So GHWB lost, but due to the relatively weak economy and the simple fact that Ross for Boss took 19% of the vote, mostly from the GOP side. Bush had every reason to believe in mid 1991 that he would be looking at another four years after 1992 . . . due in large part to the domestic capital provided by a success military adventure.

    I would only add that this is currently Sarkozy's assumption as well . . .

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Pluto

    I also supported Obama in the vain hope that he would be able to some sort of positive change to Washington. I knew that McCain was going to be George W's third term so it only made sense to vote for the opposition.

    Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, last time I checked. There WERE other choices: Nader, McKinney, Baldwin, Barr...and fucking MICKEY MOUSE if ya have to.

    ReplyDelete
  24. seydlitz: No argument that the Libyan "government" of MQ is the 2011 equivalent of Franco's Nationalists or Lenin's Bolsheviks. We're on the side of the angels, or at least as close as anyone can come in Libya today. That's not my objection and never has been.

    And I agree with you and Al that "human interest" has a lot to do with driving this train, and that many of the people who are in favor are in favor because of the humanitarian problems with the Gaddafi gang.

    My concerns are fundamentally practical: the under-the-table way this is being handled in the U.S., the lack of competence in the rebel ground forces, the whole "give-a-man-a-fish" aspect of Western air forces handing them a victory and the implication it has for their future rule of the country, assuming that will happen, the complete lack of formal Western-rebel (especially U.S.-rebel) cooperation, allowing the Libyans to take the help and still remain free to join the chorus of hate-the-Yanks Arab governments when they want to.

    Hopefully this goes perfectly. But, as Dubya's experience shows us (which is the whole point of the "bushed" business); making military plans based on everything going right not only defies commonsense but is contradicted by every military operation since Cain ambushed Abel.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "They got part of the equation right, the domestic political side..."

    But they even got that wrong. They got the tremendous political capital from being the victims of the 9/11 attacks, which made any opposition to their military adventurism seem like defeatism and cowardice. The Dems and the peaceniks were rolled before the first airstike hit the Talibs. They then proceeded to squander that capital by sheer incompetent clusterfuckery and a mistaken reading of the local situation in the places they invaded.

    For all that everything seems to be going right so far, you still haven't convinced me that the Obama team has gotten the local politics any better in this one than the Bushies got Chalabi and Karzai right, mostly because we really know fuck-all about this TLC other than that most of its functionaries seem to be former Gaddafi people. That, in itself, is not reassuring.

    Anyway, I hate forensic masturbation. This one is going forward regardless of what I say or do here, so I might as well shut up and soldier. But I'd like, for the record, to make the following predictions.

    1. I think that the U.S., and Obama, will get absolutely zero political or military capital out of this. If it works, it will be treated like Kosovo was, or Gulf II was, and will be overwhelmed by domestic events.

    2. I think the rebels will turn out to be more shambolic, less competent, and more vicious that we think. I think Libya will, in the long run, turn out to be the same mess it has been since independence. In other words, I think that all this will mean a cup of warm spit (see above).

    3. I think the very best that will come of this is that some people who would have died won't. But that's a very dim prediction, and it might just end up the other way around, if Gaddafi's people turn out to be more tenacious, and the rebels more vituperative, than they look right now.

    That's it for now. I really have nothing more to add unless something on the ground or in the air over Libya changes significantly. I hope things keep going well, for everyone's sake.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Seydlitz,
    I disagree with you on one profound reason that disabuses your points.

    We, that we being the almost United States of America, cannot afford [read: We're flat ass broke] any form of military interventionism no matter how noble or ignoble.
    No matter how "limited" US involvment is in this crap, the fact of the matter is that when France fails, and they will fail, and when England falters, and they will falter, it will be up to US [double entendre intended] to unfuck the upcoming goat-screw that will become Libya.
    We cannot afford to be involved in another goat-screw...we can't. We're already fracturing financially, one more cost on us will crack us for good.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Chief,
    Let's add 1 more prediction to your list- the American dupes will benefit naught.
    There are no wins in this equation.
    I will add that it's preferable imho for Libyans to kill Libyans,as this takes the focus off outside considerations. Let their violence be inner directed. That's a win .
    Sheer,
    It's a comfort to hear your viewpoint.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  28. FDChief-

    Could be that you're right on the money and the rules of politics and successful wars no longer applies. Obama of course has nothing of the propaganda machine behind him that Bush enjoyed in 2002-3. This would only prove to me what I already suspect, that being that we truly are a Nation bushed.

    sheer-

    Your scenario requires that MQ suddenly turn into Super Man. He's looking pretty weak at this point and when he's gone the Libyan government falls with him and the intervention can end. If we decide to then get involved in "nation building" in Libya that would be far beyond the policy I support in regards to the intervention, would be a new policy.

    How do you explain the fact that Af-Pak and Iraq continue given the state of us being "flat-ass broke"?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Al-

    "I'm not so sure that "National Interests" alone are driving the train over here, but perhaps a smattering of real human kindness."

    Well-spoken. Agree.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Seydlitz -
    "What comes next is up to the Libyans and as Juan Cole has pointed out there is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to this rebellion."

    No, there are TRIBAL dimension here, which can be just as bad as sectarian or ethnic dimension. I'm afraid that my opinion of Juan Cole as any sort of expert has pretty much died over the last 10 years. He's a nice guy and knows some stuff but he's got a pretty poor record as a predictor of current events. We all do when it comes to the Middle East but we don't all pretend to be experts.

    Your comments about MQ being on the run are seriously rose-colored. Yes, when we bomb him the rebels advance. The further west the rebels get the less likely we are to bomb the pro-MQ civilian population and the more difficult time the rebels will have. Our lack of willingness to bomb MQ's innocent civilians is likely to upset the rebels and turn them against the West.

    Read this article for the beginnings of an understanding on what is going on in this stupid scuffle:
    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2061600,00.html

    Time has an even better article in this week's magazine (can't find the online reference right now) on the rebels. They have absolutely NO training, absolutely NO command structure, absolutely NO logistics, absolutely NO idea on how to use the weapons they capture, and virtually no willingness to cooperate with each other.

    I agree with you and Al that real human kindness is probably involved in the European willingness to get themselves involved but the Middle East rarely rewards the hand that feeds it in any way other than biting it off.

    ReplyDelete
  31. BRL,

    "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, last time I checked. There WERE other choices: Nader, McKinney, Baldwin, Barr...and fucking MICKEY MOUSE if ya have to"

    Yes, I could have voted for one of those candidates. In fact, Obama was the first mainstream candidate I have voted for since 1992.

    But, if you hadn't noticed: Nader etc. can't win. Furthermore they couldn't govern if they did win.

    Calling Obama "evil" is useless in my opinion. I'm interested in positive change while working within the system, not in revolution. Furthermore, I think you'll find that most of the Milpub strongly agrees with me. These are mostly ex-military guys who have seen first-hand what revolution looks like.

    Revolution is an ugly business that gets a lot of people killed and leaves scars that last multiple generations. The business in 1776 turned out pretty well primarily because we had a foreign group intervening in our country and we had a rare set of bright people who were determined to try something new.

    The Tunisians and the Egyptians have a chance right now to do something similar but past history suggests it isn't likely to work out very well.

    Most revolutions look like Iraq does right now: a half-ruined economy, a burned-out infrastructure, simmering resentments that could explode again at any moment, and a government in charge that got there more by good luck than skill and may yet self-destruct.

    The last real revolution this country had ran between 1861-5. The scars from it are still with us 150 years later.

    The Milpub is in large part about reasoned mature argument. Seydlitz, for example, hosts some interesting commentary about how applicable Clauswitz is to modern times (turns out the old boy can still show us some tricks).

    Please show me your reasoned arguments, quote academic papers from well-respected news outlets supporting your positions. Then I will have more respect your opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  32. One last thing, tho; this is worth ruminating over.

    "In accepting the Nobel prize, President Obama declared that military force was justified on humanitarian grounds and that the defense of human rights was in the national interest. Now he has set the precedent of waging war for third tier interests beyond the narrow scope of national security. In so doing, he has compromised the nation's security interest in non-proliferation. The key lesson that states like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will draw from the military intervention in Libya is to keep a nuclear development program if you have one and go get one if you do not. One has to believe that Qaddafi is now tormenting himself at night with the question: "Why did I ever agree to give up my WMD programs?"

    (from http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/22/has_the_us_forgotten_how_to_pass_the_buck - h/t to Jason at Armchair Generalist)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Pluto-

    What you describe is true, but that does not mean that the rebels won't succeed. Force is a relationship, they only need more force than the MQ side to come out on top and they are doing quite well so far. In the last week they have recaptured all of what they had lost and are half way to Tripoli. The Allies are their artillery, it's probably better for them not to try to use MRL's and such since they are more likely to kill civilians than MQ's troops.

    Bernard Levy who is an advisor to Sarkozy was just on the BBC and said that he had met the Libyan rebels that the French are working with and that they are representative of all of Libya and include MQ's own and allied tribes.

    I don't think I'm being too rosy here, just that I don't overestimate MQ's power base, if it in fact were so secure the rebellion would not have developed the way it has. If Sirte, MQ's birthplace falls, and the rebels are just outside of town, this will be an impressive victory for them . . .

    ReplyDelete
  34. FDChief-

    --"The key lesson that states like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will draw from the military intervention in Libya is to keep a nuclear development program if you have one and go get one if you do not."--

    This was already obvious after the 2003 Iraq war . . .

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Please show me your reasoned arguments, quote academic papers from well-respected news outlets supporting your positions. Then I will have more respect your opinions."

    I'm not sure who this is being addressed too, but I believe I am staying on topic.


    Seydlitz,
    "Your scenario requires that MQ suddenly turn into Super Man.

    No, actually, it doesn't.
    What it requires is US being involved in another fruitless effort.

    Look, it really doesn't matter, our fucking hat is in the goddamn ring, we're in, our ante is in, so us backing out is not an option no matter how much sunshine is blown up our asses or how many rainbows shoot forth from same orifice.
    So the issue is no longer, "If so and so makes a resounding come back" because that isn't issue.
    The issue is we, us, the United States, is flat ass broke.
    And to employ a whole shit-load of snark, if you hadn't notice, military operations are, in the parlance of economists, free-riders, who don't produce a goddamn thing to offset their costs, which brings us to the cost of said operations.
    Flying a plane costs money.
    Fuel, a lot of money.
    Munitions, a lot of money.
    Parts replacement, a lot of money.
    Money, money, money....money, we, the United States does not have.
    We're borrowing money to pay off the borrowed money from yesterday.
    Which doesn't even addressed the money we borrowed to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Which, oddly enough, brings us to your question of...

    "How do you explain the fact that Af-Pak and Iraq continue given the state of us being "flat-ass broke"?

    We're borrowing for that too.

    There is reason they Republicans and the White House are having a bitch-slap fest about the budget...because to truly bring it into balance we would have to stop all military operations, up to, and including our involvement in Iraq and Afgahnistan...and Libya.
    Completely shutdown all entitlements and other programs...probably for a couple of years...all because we.don't.have.the.money.anymore.

    When the government borrows against the future, and continues to borrow against the unknown future without restraint there comes a time of reckoning, a time when the bill collector comes a knocking, and it all falls apart.

    We are nearing that point.

    And all it takes is one crisis...just one, measly little crisis...that at any other time would have been little more than a "oh, that, here, we have this and this in place to take care of that" but instead because a problem of epic proportions.
    One little problem...like Katrina...or we have our own little tsnumai...all it takes is one problem...and our house of cards comes a tumbling down.

    It's all about the money, Seydlitz, nothing about grand strategy, and nothing about what is good and noble...we are now at the point in our history as a nation when we just don't have the resources to do what we should.

    This is how we are broke. We're borrowing money to pay for money we have already borrowed, and we're still sinking deeper, and deeper into debt.

    ReplyDelete
  36. But it never pays to keep reminding your potential enemies what their most fruitful strategic course of action is. They might learn from it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. sheer-

    I understand your rational argument. But does not the US enjoy certain "advantages" that the other players have every reason see continue? Living in Portugal where the whole political system is in crisis brings that home. Where is the talk in the US of the IMF coming in and maybe never leaving? Al probably has lots to say in this regard pertaining to Greece . . .

    Exactly who is going to require that the USA suddenly live within it's means? Who will refrain from pressuring the Japanese not to call in all that $$$ debt paper they hold to help pay for the reconstruction of their country? Who exactly is going to stop the machinations of the Federal Reserve?

    The Republican Party in Congress? President Obama? If the US starts now to play by different rules, ya'll probably will end up losing the farm. I think many outside the US know that. I think very few expect it to happen. The system now, for what it is, is based completely on "trust". Start to fiddle with that and you might bring the whole house down . . . but then I'm just a country boy.

    ReplyDelete
  38. A good read . . .

    http://mondediplo.com/openpage/libya-a-legitimate-and-necessary-debate-from-an

    ReplyDelete
  39. I think you are catching on to the enormity of hte issue.
    Libya...is just a sand flea on the back of a dragon.
    The real problem here is that we are so, unbelievably broke that everyone in government is scrambling to protect their little own kingdom...their slab of bacon if you will, because the reality is this: The butchers knife is out, and whole sides of fat are going to get trimmed, and unfortunately, some meat is going to get sliced as well.

    The US has been putting this problem off for far too long, and the crux of the issue is that Wall Street is thinking it can continue to rape and pillage at will, so long as their muppets in the government do as they are told.
    And from the sounds that come from Cantor and the House...yeah, the muppets are all scrambling about...which is why you're hearing about cutting NPR...fucking pennies, but that is where we're at now...this is full blown partisan budget war, and the Republicans are playing for keeps...and I think they'll go for a government shut down.
    Which...in the long run, may be the very thing this nation needs to wake it up to how badly enthralled our government has been to the wealthy plutocrats.
    But the key thing here is that the US is already being threatened with credit downgrades.

    ReplyDelete
  40. sheer-

    I understand your argument, but people were saying the same thing years ago. If our political elite cannot summon the moxie to call quits to Af-Pak and Iraq, then how can you expect them to start making real cuts to the Defense budget?

    I'll believe it when I see it . . .

    In the meantime, on to Sirte!!!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Pluto:

    I agree with you and Al that real human kindness is probably involved in the European willingness to get themselves involved but the Middle East rarely rewards the hand that feeds it in any way other than biting it off.

    I wonder what their stereotypical image of the US is? Something nasty, no doubt.

    seydlitz:

    I don't see much to the finance argument at all. Iraq and Af-Pak are burning through sooooo much more, so following this logic where is the drive to stop those gapping wounds? There is none. Essentially the "Left" is as exhausted intellectually as what remains of the conservatives, I won't even mention the Nihilist Radical Right, which is an intellectual trainwreck.

    There is a regular effort to defund AfPak, although it's just not the thing mature political "grown-ups" do, you know, so it's hardly reported.

    This push-back from the left on Libya is another new method of attacking the endless war-mongering we have going on.

    I would like to hear further comment about what you think the intellectually exhausted "Left" is. There is plenty intellectualizing and plenty of fight left where I sit on this Democratic Donkey.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  42. seydlitz: I would argue that the ideas of the "Left" have, as someone once said of Christianity, not been tried and found wanting, but been found difficult and not tried. I don't think the issue is the exhaustion of ideas but, rather, the exhaustion of the boy who kept crying wolf, watched the wolves descend on and gobble up the national treasury and the national honor, and got nothing but accusations of treason and appeasement for his pains while he saw the wolves growing fat on government sinecures and think-tank revenue.

    IMO, political opinion within the Beltway is and has always spanned the breadth from Hard Right to Moderately Hard Right, with a smattering of Slightly Right. The outliers like Kucinich and Dean don't really count; they have never and will never have a power base inside the Washington Rules.

    ReplyDelete
  43. basil-

    Who were the last three Democratic presidents you've elected?

    Two Southern conservatives and Obama. The one before that was also a Southerner . . . although probably the most "liberal" of the lot who would not pass the Left's "smell test" today, actually didn't really then . . . Do I need to mention that JFK and Truman would also be a bad fit in sooo many ways to the assumptions of your side, post-Vietnam?

    So where exactly is the "Left"? Reduced essentially to "pro-choice", identity politics and gay marriage which only provides the flip side of right wing stooge politics?

    Living in Europe, it's difficult to see much of a Left in the US at all.

    Not that I don't respect your views and goals, as I mentioned on my Rauschning threads the country needs both the conservative and progressive sides to prosper. And I find the conservatives to have botched the whole deal much worse . . . given the birth of nihilism they have ushered . . .

    Still, glad to see you still full of fight, since you will need it . . .

    ReplyDelete
  44. FDChief-

    --"IMO, political opinion within the Beltway is and has always spanned the breadth from Hard Right to Moderately Hard Right, with a smattering of Slightly Right. The outliers like Kucinich and Dean don't really count; they have never and will never have a power base inside the Washington Rules."--

    That would actually explain my comments to bb. The rise of the National Security State after WWII making Leftist national politics impossible . . .

    ReplyDelete
  45. Little bit of history, for those now apparently in position to repeat it..?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12882213

    ReplyDelete
  46. seydlitz: There have certainly been "leftist" NSS's. I think, rather, it was the refusal of the Democrats to become a "Labor Party" and, instead, continue to harken to their Southern roots (as you noted).

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I also understand that my arguments have been very polemic in nature."

    Really?

    Seydlitz, while you're at it, why don't you enlighten us as to the president's constitutional authority to engage in your excellent Libyan adventure? And no, War Powers Act won't cut it, unless Mr. Qaddafi attacked us while I wasn't looking. We all know the Constitution is so yesterday, but it would be nice to think that maybe this guy who promised that he would be the anti-Bush, the guy who was a Constitutional lawyer to boot, might actually give a little thought to that old, ragged collection of paper.

    Seydlitz, you could have a thousand great reasons why we should do this, but the one "aw-shit," meaning the Constitutional hurdle, trumps them.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Publius:
    "why don't you enlighten us as to the president's constitutional authority to engage in your excellent Libyan adventure?"

    Sorry to say this, but the AUMF is still in effect and so the President DOES have the right to do this as long has he can claim to foresee any sort of potential for future terrorist activity coming from Libya as a result of the current unrest. Hopefully the Republicans will finally shut down yet another of our vestigial Bush-isms.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Pluto, that's just horseshit and you know it as well as I do.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Well, the reason why the left's ideas don't get much traction is because they only comprise perhaps maybe 20% of the population.

    Anyway, on to the topic at hand.

    Seydlitz,

    It shouldn't come as any surprise that I don't share your optimism about where this is going. While I acknowledge that you may indeed be right and that everything will work out as nicely as you say, I cannot ignore that there are very serious and real risks that could throw a wrench into how you expect things to go. I think your arguments, on the whole, tend to minimize the consequences of intervention and maximize the consequences of failing to intervene. Now that we’ve intervened I don't think there is much point in debating coulda-shoulda-woulda's, so I'm going to concentrate on the future and focus on the potential consequences of this intervention.

    To begin with, there is M. Qaddafi. For your scenario to work out he has to go, and indeed you state that is the goal. It is not a given he will actually go and tonight the President specifically said that overthrowing MQ was not part of our military mission. The President isn’t the only one who doesn’t share your goal – several NATO members and others do not believe that assisting the rebels in toppling MQ is a legitimate or even legal goal. From an operational standpoint, how can the coalition simultaneously pursue a purely humanitarian intervention as well as an aggressive one aimed at regime change? While it’s understandable there are bound to be divisions within a coalition assembled on such short notice, these differences are not operationally or strategically immaterial IMO.

    Secondly, MQ may be weak compared to the US and European forces, but compared to the rebels, he's still quite strong. The comments from Sec. Gates and operational commanders on the rebel force do not inspire confidence in their capabilities and suggest that they may need their hands held all the way to downtown Tripoli. What happens should MQ prove more resilient that you believe? Does this remain a limited operation if MQ fails to fall as you expect?

    Third, there are obviously big differences between this war and Iraq. Juan Cole lists every conceivable difference, but an honest accounting requires looking at the parallels as well as the differences. I would also suggest that one shouldn't simply look at 2003 since there is an important history going back to 1991. Many of the same factors that led to a decade-long stalemated NFZ in Iraq (a NFZ that was also intended to be limited and also began for humanitarian reasons) could come into play today. Additionally, as I noted before, there is a case history of humanitarian interventions and all of them (that I'm aware of) turned out to be much more difficult, enduring, and complex than was believed at the beginning of the intervention. That is a history that should not be ignored when looking at potential pitfalls for this intervention. That does not mean this operation cannot succeed in the manner that you suggest, but the historical record should make one cautious in assessing the chances that events will turn out as one might wish. Ideally, it should also form a basis for contingency planning to prepare for contingencies, but also to aid us in keeping on the ideal course. No one (that I’ve read) who strongly supports this intervention seems willing to deal with such questions. To me, that is setting the stage for and enduring intervention and potentially a de-facto partition of Libya not unlike what occurred in Iraq in 1991.

    (cont)

    ReplyDelete
  51. Fourth, should MQ fall, there is tremendous uncertainty about what would happen next. It’s frankly disappointing that you dismiss this concern by calling it a “’bushed’ attitude.” I could not disagree more - indeed I take the opposite view: Failing to consider the question “what happens next” is actually a charge I would aim squarely at the Bush administration. Their lack of concern and, consequently, lack of interest, knowledge and planning for a post-Saddam Iraq was disastrous for us and the Iraqi people. The last thing we should do is repeat that mistake in Libya. The notion that we can simply drop the entire matter into the Libyan’s hands once MQ is gone – regardless of the circumstances - is not a credible promise given all the uncertainties involved. At this point, no one knows what will happen - maybe Libya will quickly unite and get behind a leader or party, or maybe Libya will descend into a multi-polar civil war as factions battle for power. We just don’t know. It's easy to say that whatever transpires is for the Libyans to figure out but it's much harder to sit on the sidelines if things go horribly wrong, especially when our mandate is ostensibly to protect civilians. Would we really stand by and let the Libyans sort things out for themselves if that sorting involved reprisals against civilians or more civil war?

    Lastly, you seem to have a lot of confidence in the French. I don’t know their capabilities so have no basis to dispute that except that they don’t have a lot of experience running large, multi-national military operations. As I said before, there’s no time like the present to let them pursue their strategy and hand them the reins. Since Benghazi is no longer under threat the only role I see left for the US is transitioning the entire operation to the French or whoever else will take it. I see no advantage for the US in pursuing regime change – if the Europeans want to take that on, I am perfectly fine letting them take the credit or blame for such an endeavor, as the case may be.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Another comment in the spam folder :(

    ReplyDelete
  53. Publius,

    The administration has taken great pains to avoid the use of "war" when referring to this operation. Some of the euphemisms are pretty impressive, even for politicians. My favorite is, "time-limited, scope-limited military operation." So you see, Publius, Congressional authorization isn't required because it's a "TLSLMO" and not a W-A-R. Of course, I'm being snarky here.

    ReplyDelete
  54. seydlitz:

    So where exactly is the "Left"? Reduced essentially to "pro-choice", identity politics and gay marriage which only provides the flip side of right wing stooge politics?

    Living in Europe, it's difficult to see much of a Left in the US at all.


    It may be reforming as a Labor movement, possibly. Michael Moore continues to push a prod through his work. Frank Rich and Bob Herbert are striking out on their own, to what effect, to be seen.

    Online media is starting to find their feet and to make their presence known. I think Manning's story is a glimpse of more such to come. A lot of Americans will get a very good dose of extreme right-wing Republican CuckooNebuloPolis, and those who have experienced it, overwhelming majorities don't seem to enjoy it.

    So possibly there maybe some resurgence of virulent populism, with enough force to shatter the BeltWay Bubble Chief mentioned.

    Looking back at you from here, Portugal is in the news again, some governmental musical chairs and financial ups and downs.

    Do you do pix?

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  55. Again, I would offer that we are wrestling with the "tension" created by (1) using military force to achieve humanitarian goals and (2) searching for a "traditional" U.S. national or political interest in a primarily humanitarian action. Doing what is right, with no reasonably guaranteed return to self, is not the way we typically approach the world. Hell, we don't approach domestic affairs that way, either. If we did, punishing a patient with "pre-existing conditions" would not be the norm.

    It would be nice to be able to approach this from the standpoint of "What's best for the people of Libya", but since we haven't done that in the past, how can we, or any other actor on the world stage, frame the problem in such terms. We are victims of centuries of egocentric actions. Thus, even humanitarian missions are burdened with the inevitable question of "what's in it for us".

    I've just reached the point that if the people of Libya come out of this one iota better off than before, it was worth the effort and cost, even if just on general principles. My principles, that is.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Al,

    What nation doesn't operate on a "what's in it for us" basis?

    I look at it a bit differently. On the question of "What's best for the people of Libya" that isn't something that we, as Americans, can answer. Taking on that paternalistic mantel is also something the US has a history of doing with decidedly mixed results. Chief mentioned the old adage, "give a man a fish" and I think that's an apt analogy here.

    Anyway, I hope this does end well. If the "the Libyan people" end up better that would be a good thing. I remain skeptical that we have the ability to produce that outcome on our present course.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Couple of things I find interesting in the MSM and in this discussion:

    1. As I stated in the previous post, we all seem to be very narrowly focused on Libya and what the US has to gain in this specific piece of desert. From my optic, Counter Terrorism is on the forefront of every decision maker, and there are CT gains to be made by supporting the French efforts. As I stated before, there is considerable perceived threat (legit or not I won't argue) about AQ franchises in the wastelands of subsaharan Africa and North Africa. Places the US has no influence (but the French have considerable).

    2. Look at Yemen. How much is President Saleh watching events in Libya, as US leaders ask him to step down and not escalate to violence. How much is Libya impacting Saleh's decisions?

    3. Money? While some of the arguments, such as cost of jet fuel are somewhat legit. Although if our jets weren't flying over Libya, they would be flying somewhere. Pilots have to maintain proficiency and they are slaves to minimum flight hours and crew rest policies. I would be surprised to learn that the cost in flight hours has increased significantly as result of this expedition. Instead of carelessly and politically throwing out $$$'s of the costs of flight operations, let's do some comparative analysis of intervention flight ops vs. steady state.

    The cost of TLAMS? This is a silly argument that should have been made a decade ago. Why? Because the money allocated for procuring the TLAMs used today was programmed and spent 10 years ago. Here is a fact that isn't out there in the media. What is the cost of maintaining those aging TLAMs? Probably not significant, but there is a cost.

    And what kind of TLAMs are we using? Not the top of the line, I promise you that. There is a whole inventory of TLAMs that the military can not use for precision targets for technical and capabilities reasons. My bet, we are using aging inventory on Libya. I know jim, that doesn't make it right, I am just arguing that the finance argument doesn't hold a lot of water.

    One last piece about the cost of TLAMs, where did those millions of dollars go 10 years ago when they were procured? To defense contractors and US workers. Just saying.

    Here is the real question in the "finance" argument I would have for the POTUS. As we exhaust the inventory of these aging TLAMs, are we programmed to buy more to replace them as a result of this event? If the answer is yes, than the finance argument does hold some weight because we are talking about future spending. If the answer is no, we are crying over spilt milk.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Publius -
    "Pluto, that's just horseshit and you know it as well as I do."

    Not arguing with your intent, only noting that Congress essentially gave away the authority to declare war (everything is a terrorist threat these days) and doesn't seem to want it back. Plausible deniability?

    You should read Fabius Maximus' series on the death of the Constitution the last couple of weeks. It is pretty sobering stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  59. bg,
    Your spilt milk argument is scary.
    Of course the shit was paid for in the past, and are you suggesting it won't be replaced with a new improved version?
    In my life, i used munitions in 1969/70 that were made in 1944. That's what i call war on the cheap, and what u say indicates we're still on the same sheet of music.
    I'm not arguing, and i understand your point.
    My point is that words are as cheap as old ammo, which we're always inclined to fire downrange.
    I must say that i hate to discuss morality and humanitarianism and all that good stuff. Bombs and morality are not a mix. If we were really moral we'd drop Baptist deacons on them and goodness would result. Hell throw in a few Chaplains. Yes i'm being snarky, but i stress that saving lives is not a military mission when bombs are utilized. Peace keeping PKO IS LEGIT if it is impartial .
    I must ask- are the bomber pilots gonna get HUMANITARIAN SERVICE RIBBONS for their actions?
    If not life is so unfair.
    I am zinging , but it's hard not to when so much craziness is being branded as policy.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  60. Sorry to go off-topic, but - Andy, the Right - the Hard Right, the real wingnutty Right - is probably about the same proportion as the hard Left, no more than about 20-25% of the U.S. population, if you use the "positive" numbers Dick Cheney still gets for the base number.

    And yet, how come we have Congressional hearings about Scary Muslims and not radical right-wingnuts and Christian identity triumphalists? How come we had the notion of throwing Social Security at the banksters and tax breaks for billionaires taken seriously but ideas like increasing the limit for FICA taxation and "single-payer" get laughed at?.

    We kept hearing questions about Clinton's dope smoking and Obama's birth certificate taken up by the national media in a semi-serious way, but Bush's Guard dodge and McCain's Keating Five days? Not so much.

    We're here discussing a new war - oh, sorry, a "Time-limited Random-bombing Thingie" - and not a peace-dividend 20% reduction in DoD funding.

    Why is that?

    My observation still stands; the Left may be a quarter of the U.S. political scenery, but it is and has been completely ignored when its not mocked. And the Right? The same percentage as the other side of the aisle...but WAY more access to being heard and to power.

    Sorry, but I just don't buy the rationale that it's because there's only this teeny-tiny little group of Lefties in Conservative America; I suspect that it has a lot to do with the coincidence between the National Greatness meme that empowers the Powers The Be in D.C. and the national greatness theme that plays with the Right. Truly veering left would mean that lots of people who currently wax fat on our political system would be dinged, and it would mean leaving behind a lot of cherished illusions. It'd be hard, and, as we know, if it's hard to do and forces people out of their comfort zone, it doesn't happen in D.C.

    ReplyDelete
  61. seydlitz, THIS is the sort of thing that makes me uneasy about all this fighting for peace:

    "The...UN, Nato, the African Union, the Arab League and others met in London to discuss the way forward for Libya.

    Opening the talks, British Prime Minister David Cameron said those attending wanted to "help the Libyan people in their hour of need" and enable them to create a "future free from violence and free from oppression".

    UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said a transition to democracy in Libya would "take time and the support of us all" while US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the military action would continue until Col Gaddafi complied with the terms of the UN resolution.

    The rebels' Transitional National Council was not invited to the conference...


    (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12892798)

    How the fuck can you throw a party and NOT invite the birthday boy?

    This entire business seems to involve either ignoring or wishing away the actual people most directly concerned with the business, and I just can't imagine that's a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  62. A few quick comments-

    I think Al's got a good handle on the problem. Basically what got us in was the humanitarian angle, but I doubt that is what mainly got the French in, although that played a part.

    The center of gravity is MQ's political base, essentially his capacity to resist. If that goes his government falls.

    Andy's point is that we don't know what will follow, but that was uncertain in any case. Let me thank Andy for his well-thought out comment and yes I am making a whole series of positive assumptions concerning the intervention. I have also attempted to explain my rationale for them. These comments and post provide a record of my own thought at specific times and I will be interested to see how it pans out, where I was both right and wrong. In fact that will be interesting for all of us.

    But what of the Libyan future? Had MQ been able to lay waste to Benghazi and Tobruk would that have ended the resistance or just triggered the next phase of a very long protracted civil war? Defeating open resistance and destroying cities are one thing, subduing a seething population is something else. We have learned that, right?

    My "bushed argument" pertains to how we see military force in general, but is not limited to that. I would include our inability to come to terms with the - what I see as - continuing legacy of GWB. I include myself in this btw, since I have found my own attitudes influenced by wishing to be "counter-Bush".

    Obama has not included "regime change" for obvious reasons. We're already hearing for US military intervention in Syria from Radical Right Senators and had Obama endorsed this for Libya he would be in a jam. He will continue to be vague here, but the Brits and French are openly talking about preparing for Post-MQ Libya, so that is the policy imo. Much will ride on how the rebel alliance develops and I think the Allies hesitant to unveil them too quickly, since this could influence how things are developing within MQ's own base (remember THAT is the center of gravity). Also the Alliance is made up of competing interests and it is necessary to gain consensus before the new (or potential) Libyan leadership is unveiled.

    More to come . . .

    ReplyDelete
  63. Publius-

    Yours are actually for me the most difficult comments to respond to. For the simple fact that we hold essentially the same values, the constitution was what we swore our oath to . . . How do I respond to your comment?

    I'm working on this . . . The constitution is not arbitrary law, nor a deathpact, it either holds for all or not. Bush II getting selected by the Supremes, how exactly does that fit within our constitutional framework? Bush II trashed the constitution in so many ways and many of us called him on it repeatedly. Obama has in many ways done much the same, adding the patina of legitimacy to his actions.

    So why support this intervention? Because, simply for me to stand by and say nothing, to allow what was going to happen, happen without at least the token resistance that this medium provides, would have been intolerable. That is the reason why I have been so open with my views, posting here, on SST and on fb my support for this intervention. I think Al's right, it is actually essentially about humanitarian goals, but we are loathe to say it openly, must provide the rational instrumental element as well, which is not all soooo hard to find . . . and being a Clausewitzian it isn't difficult for me.

    The question thus for me is, where do we as a republic go from here?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Sorry, Seydlitz, I can't help you here. I'm certainly aware of the old saw about the Constitution not being a death pact, I know about clear and present danger, and although I've never seen it, I even know about the premises of the popular TV program, "24," where I guess the ticking bomb scenario is omnipresent.

    If any scenario such as the above actually presented itself WRT Libya, then I might be tested on my insistence that the Constitution is what matters the most when it comes to the affairs of our state. But sad to say, this one's a no-brainer, Seydlitz. You may have the old Prussian to buttress you when you write approvingly of this Libyan adventure; I have the Founders. You may even have Mother Teresa on your side; I have 222 years of our republic.

    Seydlitz, you ask, "where do we as a republic go from here"? I say that absent the Constitution which presidents and other elected officials continually ignore, we are no longer a republic. You may choose to accept that by going along with the crowd—after all, who doesn't enjoy putting the wood to a nasty dictator?—but I don't find myself able to do so.

    This republic is going nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  65. And to expand what Publius said: what was the hurry?

    It could have all been done on the Friday before this kicked off. Call the Congress into special session. Put the reasons for intervention to them just as Obama did on Monday. Open the floor to debate for six or eight hours. Close debate. Vote.

    If your case is as strong as you believe it is, then it's a slam-dunk; 400+ votes for a treaty of alliance with the TNC and a military assistance pact. IF not, oh, well; sometimes the good guys lose in a democracy.

    But this way, the same Washington Rules that Bush used (and Clinton used, and everybody on back to Truman used) keep on pushing us further towards the sort of executive monarchy the Founders feared, and specifically wrote Section 8 of Article I to prevent...

    ReplyDelete
  66. Gentlemen-

    Where exactly is the "crowd"?

    The goal of the GOP today is to regain total power - the executive, both houses and the courts. They are not interested in compromise or doing what is in the interests of the country at least as I see them. In order to have a republic we need republicans and they are damn few on the ground in Congress. If it were otherwise we would not have seen what we have over the last ten years.

    Recognizing the Libyan rebels as the formal successor to MQ is not viable at this point due to the need to both collapse MQ's political base and the necessity of keeping an alliance of opposing goals together imo. This is a real alliance, not a cabinet war, but an actual conflict involving a very wide range of interests with significant popular support(even if not in the US). The US is just one of the main players, not able to dictate to the rest. We could do that in 2003 because GWB had essentially bribed them to come on board.

    ReplyDelete
  67. A couple of more points:

    Publius, while you have the founders behind you, you don't have much of the current US government. Outside of a handful of diehards, nobody in an elected position seems to have much problem with the direction the country has been going. Many of us were shocked when Obama simply followed in GWB's footsteps, I suppose in retrospect we shouldn't have been.

    FDChief, Obama is correct in retaining the war powers in his own hands imo. Given what is going on in Syria how long will it be before our own Likud clammers for intervention there? Their "fiscal worries" will simply vanish into smoke . . .

    Finally, Clausewitz cuts both ways. Andy's take on this is as Clausewitzian as mine. I enjoy no advantage in using strategic theory which is retrospective in any case. This is very much a polemic.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Recognizing the Libyan rebels as the formal successor to MQ is not viable at this point due to the need to both collapse MQ's political base and the necessity of keeping an alliance of opposing goals together imo. This is a real alliance, not a cabinet war..."

    ?????????

    This seems to contradict itself.

    If this is a real alliance, the formalities of treaties and declarations would proceed from it naturally. Allies sign treaties, nations go to war for their allies, all the usual diplomatic niceties. How is doing this on the downlow "collapsing MQ's political base"? Right now he has to see this hedging as the typical weaseling of foreign great powers unsure of who will win and not wanting to cut themselves off from him in case HE does. A formal alliance, and a declaration of war, would make it clear that he has the same options that Hitler or Tojo did; surrender, or die.

    Right now, if I'm Gaddafi, I figure that the U.S., at least, is still hedging its bets, looking to just play this for whatever is in its "interests"...

    (for the record, I tend to agree with you that it's really driven by emotion and guilt, but I suspect he doesn't think that way)

    ...so he SEES it as a cabinet war...

    (which, at this point, it is. You can argue realities ("...you don't have much of the current US government...") all day and it doesn't change the fact that this is EXACTLY the sort of thing that the Founders warned against, and that we have allowed to assist in pulling us closer and closer to an oligarchic executive autocracy and further away from the original republican goal)

    ...and that, in turn, makes it MORE sensible for him to hold on and try and win it, believing that the biggest dog in the pack attacking him will come around to dealing with him, just as it did before.

    And as for war powers, this damn presidential war powers nonsense is one of the most pernicious bits of business involved in the death of our republic. The original idea was to let the Chief Executive respond to an immediate attack or a minor crisis, not wage entire wars on the cuff.

    It's past time to repeal the damn AUMF, too.

    If the GOP wants war in Syria and has the votes for it, well, yeah, that's democracy. We all know their "fiscal worries" only appear when a Kenyan usurper is in office. We all bitched because Dubya used his war powers like a frigging Emperor; I don't see any virtue in recommending that Obama do the same just to keep the Teatards out of Syria.

    If the system is THAT broken, well...maybe it deserves to die and us with it.

    ReplyDelete
  69. To all,
    Contrary to Seydlitz's contention i do think about things, without them having been translated from German.
    After 68 cmts istm that this entire thread boils down to a simple concept. Either one believes that this venture is harmful/purposeless, OR that America has the right/responsibility to stick their nose and bombs where ever /whenever they see fit. All the talk about morality, humanity and all the other buzz words are all just window dressing.
    Personally i see all the viewpoints here, and clearly understand soldierly thoughts, but that just doesn't cut it anymore.
    I for one have come to believe that killing people for any reason is not a democratic ideal.
    It just feels good, and that ain't good enuf.
    Andy,
    I don't always agree w. you, but i admire your thought development process.
    Publius,
    Sophistry will get us both in the end.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  70. To all;

    I'd like to make a personal cmt that is OT, to my way of thinking. Call me petty. I just got my new glasses from the DVA and it took over 2 months and 4 trips running them down.

    OK- so what.

    We can start a whole new war in the flash of a bomb, but old DAV's wait for their benefits. Of course, the current servicepeople being thrown in harm's way are the priority. If they survive, and have their sight, they will be lucky to wait 2 mos. for glasses.

    Shouldn't this formula of delay be reversed?

    jim

    ReplyDelete
  71. Jim -

    Our goal should be to make the VA extinct by doing away with wars and making veterans archaic. But I think that is not going to happen. At least the part about doing away with war is not going to happen. But making the VA extinct may well happen if we keep electing Republicans.

    I did not have the problems that you had with the VA here in Washington state. I go to pick up my hearing aid Saturday. Yes, it will take three trips altogether, maybe four. One for testing and one for fitting, which I have already done. This Saturday's will be my third trip, and possibly a fourth in the future for adjustment. But I am happy with that. I first went to a local hospital, but choked when I heard the cost (>$4K). And it would have taken the same three, or four, or more trips there also. CostCo could not do much better. The audiologist there advised me to go to the VA and said that they (the VA) pioneered the new digital hearing aid technology, and that the hearing aids available at the VA were as good or better than what was available at her shop or anywhere else. Could it have been done quicker than the VA did it? Possibly, but then my case was not an emergency.

    I know that Senator Patty Murray of WA has done a lot of petitioning back in DC for funding of our state's VA hospital and health centers. My sister-in-law who used to work at the VA hospital in Upstate NY told me that when Hillary was Senator there that she did the same. I hope Senator Nelson is doing something similar for FLA vets.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Flash:

    The Rebels have lost nearly all the territory they had gained, since the Air strikes began.
    Silk Purse From Sows' ears??????

    The Quatffites have ditched whatever Mech/Motorized Menkey model Sov bagatelle remaining, in order to modernize with pickups and SUVs'. I predict their new tactic will be to hang on to the rebel belt buckle, thus making the airedales unable to distinguish between good wogs and bad wogs...tsk,tsk

    Sarko's in a bind, cuz he threw the dice. Only the legion can halt the MQ warriors now.

    As we speak, Jomo Kenyatta is gathering his unctuous courtiers, in order to have them splain' to him what all this means, .... by all means .....Kings of the road ....NOT!!

    Is this a great planet, or what?

    ReplyDelete
  73. FDChief-

    How exactly do you define "cabinet wars"? My definition concerns absolute monarchies and would not have any place for public opinion . . . which is the opposite of what you describe in regards to the USA. The countries that are involved in this intervention are already our allies (NATO) for the most part, but that does not mean that they all share the same interests (France versus Turkey for example) in regards to the future of Libya.

    As to the "founders", well they would have been arguing against stuff we have been doing for some time, but would have seen bombarding Tripoli as somehow making sense, right?

    The next week is shaping up to be very interesting . . .

    ReplyDelete
  74. jim-

    "Contrary to Seydlitz's contention i do think about things, without them having been translated from German."

    "After 68 cmts istm that this entire thread boils down to a simple concept. Either one believes that this venture is harmful/purposeless, OR that America has the right/responsibility to stick their nose and bombs where ever /whenever they see fit. All the talk about morality, humanity and all the other buzz words are all just window dressing."

    --

    How did I deserve that? All I asked you jim was a question . . . and now I'm a (foreign) American exceptionalist . . . in spite of everything I've posted and commented over the years?

    And after what I've said about France on this and FDChief's thread . . . ?

    I was interested in carrying on, but I'm taking a break. This is going in a wrong direction and will probably only get worse, contrary to Libya fasteddiez which could still turn around.

    See ya'll later.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Well, it doesn't matter anymore...we're hip deep in the Libyan shit now.
    Obama has okayed arming the rebels...brilliant-fucking-idea...who else did we arm long time ago...sure, that was then, this is now, but sure enough we're having to deal with that crap over, and over again. And do we learn?
    Do we?
    Nope.
    No way, no how.
    Five bucks says "advisors" will be inserted to "train and advise" the rebels within...oh...say...three months. Of course, their probably part and parcel of the "arms" package, but like everything else, we won't find out the truth till much later on.

    History...it has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Seydlitz,
    In my defense-I WAS NOT LAYING THAT ON YOU. I was just playing off your cmt that asked if i think about my cmts. I was a little smart-ass since i was put off by the cmt asking if i think. I shouldn't play around here, but just cmt w/o defensiveness.
    I say again- my little summary statement is a general reflection and WAS NOT A BANG ON YOU. I stand behind my general statement.

    Mike,
    The DVA has been ok with my tinnitis , hearing aids etc, but the contractor dropped the ball on my glasses.I was just trying to say that it's strange that it's easier/faster to start a war than it is to get glasses from a DVA contractor.
    BTW- Army CRSC wouldn't give me combat relatedness for tinnitis which is a common combat related injury. I wrote arts on this comedy of errors.
    Again Seydlitz, hope you roger my point that i wasn't shooting at you.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  77. Contractor? Is the VA outsourcing now? I understand they do not manufacture glasses and hearing aids themselves - but what is going on there?

    ReplyDelete
  78. mike,
    Correct. The contractor has been there for years.
    They have ofc space right next to the Eye guy.
    If you want VA glasses they are the only source. This is where it gets funny- i paid for a set of glasses and they had them the next week. The VA funded glasses were delivered about 2 months later. Strange days.
    BTW the glasses are made in Louisiana. FWIW.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  79. sheerahkhan:

    Well, it doesn't matter anymore...we're hip deep in the Libyan shit now.
    Obama has okayed arming the rebels...brilliant-fucking-idea...who else did we arm long time ago...sure, that was then, this is now, but sure enough we're having to deal with that crap over, and over again. And do we learn?
    Do we?
    Nope.
    No way, no how.
    Five bucks says "advisors" will be inserted to "train and advise" the rebels within...oh...say...three months.


    Have you been watching, or ever watched Ed Schultz's show weeknights?
    He's been doing a fine job on the Wisconsin protests and the other R. governors riling their states, but he's all for the arming of Libyan rebels. He had Jeremy Scahill on last night, who is opposed, but he was busy interrupting him, not letting him speak his piece.

    From LOTR:

    Elrond: Our list of allies grows thin.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  80. No, I never watched him...in fact never heard of him.
    For me...I'm a student of history, remember, I was a miltiary history major before I said, "i'm kind of done with the whole war thing." back in the first gulf war...didn't like, changed my entire perception about the subject I thought was cool to study.
    No...no, I saw this coming not because I'm some sort of prophet or clairvoyant, I saw it because it's part and parcel of our national MO.

    ReplyDelete
  81. bb, what is your source that O has authorized arming the rebels?
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  82. As yet another aside:

    Tip of the hat to:
    The Kings of War blog, whose authors reference this year as being the 100th anniversary of aerial bombardment: drum roll please!

    Coincidentally it was the Italians very own invention of shock and awe upon where the hapless wogs Of ????? .... Libya were the guinea (guinea not being an idle adjective here), pigs in 1911.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Jim, here are a few of the news sources that Obama has authorized arming the rebels:

    ABC News
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/president-obama-authorizes-covert-libyan-rebels/story?id=13259028

    Reuters
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/uk-libya-idUKLDE71Q0MP20110330

    al Jazeera
    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/03/2011330221232408172.html

    ReplyDelete
  84. Pluto,
    Thanks. Yahoo news has not caught up yet.
    I'll read your sources.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  85. jim-

    Apology accepted. You can call me a lot of things but you can't call me stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  86. You're probably wondering why I called you here.

    It seems that we are all here due to a shared interest in an event in Libya, that nobody had seen coming at the beginning of the year. In fact the last thing anyone wanted was another war . . . instead we all called for reform at home.

    This revolt and its reaction suddenly presented itself and an intervention began.

    I have supported this intervention from the beginning and I'm not about to stop doing so now. This support is virtual, I have no contact with any Allied government, no access to special information, am in no position of power at all. Too old to fight, I'm essentially a free-lance war propagandist of "rational propaganda". At this point the question of who was right or wrong is academic or moral in the long-term view of things, if you will. Fact is that we are in a shooting war with MQ in Libya . . . which at the same time FDChief, sheer, Andy and just about everybody else has been warning and arguing against.

    I understand that. We can get into all the details about that after the war.

    It started for me as simply a Humanitarian response, but it has become much more than that. At this point in time imo we need to get beyond the smoke and mirrors, the delusions and scams, the same old worn-out divisions of guys wearing white and black hats. Action! It has to start somewhere. So why not here and now? Rather war than slow decay, "internal exile" or whatever you wish to call it hoping for the founders "to come home"? We start with MQ and then take care of the problems at home. This perspective remains a polemic.

    Some of my assumptions are as follows:

    1. The French plan has obviously collapsed. There is no why that it included being chased back across the desert. Rather MQ was to get on a jet most likely. I suspect it was a highlevel Humint source, like they had in Iraq, but it's just a guess. Their center of gravity remains his political base, but they have obviously misread their own capabilities. Still there are probably ongoing moves in the regard. Impossible to gauge effectiveness.

    2. MQ's military strength is that he has enough capable officers upon whom to call to lead his forces. Money and cannon fodder there must be more than enough of, but dedicated officers? His is able to adapt quickly enough, but remains "brittle". How long can he stand up to attrition?

    3. Colonel Lang thinks that Obama is a source of weakness in this. I have no idea. However it is necessary imo that the president see this as a task of working with our Allies and not "dealing" or playing games with our Allies. The Chinese are coming out loudly against . . .

    4. Rebels need help quickly which requires escalation and more involvement on the ground. More I could say, but rather questions: What is the best approach to their situation? How should they be best trained/assisted?

    I will post again on this next Sunday. In the meantime let's watch events and consider this reality. If there is interest in Libya, someone ought to post an open thread and we can talk about it. Better that it not be me given my position.

    Now it's not about why but how . . .

    ReplyDelete
  87. I'm very sorry to hear your rationale, Seydlitz.

    ReplyDelete
  88. From Congressional hearings yesterday: "I know that I am preoccupied with avoiding mission creep and avoiding having an open-ended, very large scale American commitment in this," said Gates. "We are in serious budget trouble."

    We have much more than budget troubles, but still, thank heavens for accountants.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Seydlitz -
    "What is the best approach to their situation? How should they be best trained/assisted?"

    I'm certainly no military genius, but given the performance of the rebels the last few days, I'd say the most cost-effective way to resolve the situation is to send in the French Foreign Legion (if it still exists) with plenty of air power.

    You made a comment on the competency of MQ's officer corps. I doubt they are very competent. The big issue is that the rebel officers, such as they are, are totally incompetent for pretty much any military task.

    Creating competent troops takes maybe 3-6 months of reasonably quiet time. Creating competent officers takes years.

    Furthermore, in order to be effective, they need a competent civilian government behind them. Don't see any signs of that either. Near as I can tell, the residents of Benghazi are living in a true Marxist (not the Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist revisions) worker's paradise. Either that or they are running on momentum and when that runs down... Well, it could get kind of ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Publius-

    In terms of the propaganda perspective, I think the US Government would be following roughly this line I've described if they were interested in removing/forcing MQ out. That they are going in the opposite direction only goes to show me that we have lost the ability to use military force at all, or even be a reliable partner in a coalition. Robert Gates - why was he not removed in 2009? - will be more than happy to concentrate on his two lost wars instead of having to deal with one we could win.

    It's only a matter of time before our "republic" or the hollow shell we see about us, collapses.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Pluto-

    Competency would be relative. By "officers" I mean small unit leaders who can operate independently, have the respect of their men and show initiative. Also consider that they have stood up well enough to Allied air attack. I remember how Marc Bloch wrote about the effect of being strafed by German planes much worse in his view than being under artillery fire. The type of tactics they are using now requires competent small unit leaders, of which they seemingly have enough.

    It wouldn't years to develop this on the rebel side, but starting with what you have build on that. Actually, this is all just guessing since I know little about training troops like this, still I'd refer to SST on training . . .

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2011/03/libya-de-oppresso-liber-an-update.html#tp

    ReplyDelete
  92. seydlitz.
    It's a strange assumption that we can build a rebel army when we were unable to do build effective militaries in AFGH/IRQ.
    Why are these rebels so remarkable. Are they wearing capes instead of towels?
    I never called you stupid, nor would i ever do so, but i still think it laughable to say that a cause of war is the perception that EU folks are being exposed to a backlash of instability.
    That's a mouth full of mush, as we say in red neck Florida. I 'm not saying you are stupid, i'm saying that is a stupid reason to fight a war.
    I don't care if they are a bundle of instability- they can come and see instability in the lives of Americans here in the Homeland.
    From now on i'm calling Commandate O by the moniker-OBOMBA. Now that's stupid , but i'll live with it.
    By the way , smart people say dumb shit all the time. This is not a cmt about you, i'm just sayin'.
    All wars that we've fought lately are et up with the dumb shit description. Libya included.
    As Dylan said- only time will tell who has fell and who'se been left behind.
    The only real losers i see in this mess are the good old stooges called the American taxpayer.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  93. "That they are going in the opposite direction only goes to show me that we have lost the ability to use military force at all, or even be a reliable partner in a coalition."

    Or, perhaps...that we have no real significant national interest in this other than a sort of vague desire to have the back of the Franch and British, who were all over this.

    That's nice, but, as someone said earlier, not worth the bones of a single Maryland grenadier. You disagree, but the very tippy-toe caution that the OBOMBA Krewe has shown over this suggests that THEY don't, and have no interest in committing maneuver elements to this Kosovo-without-the-Kosovars.

    If you want to really come up with a "bushed" scenario, it's this one; a poorly-outlined, badly managed, over-optimisticly sold clusterfuck in an Arab country. I don't think that has any real bearing on the U.S.' ability to use its military power for a genuinely articulated, truly obvious national interest. If Obama had dragged one of the TNC mooks up to the Capitol and had him beg for help, explained the bennies we could get from it, signed a treaty...well, I'd still disagree. But it would have gone a long way to getting a lot more Americans on board. As it is, this is just one more "What is a "win" and what do WE get out of it..?"

    My understanding is that the Libyan government troops aren't particularly good at all, just still in formed units led by their officers, and they have apparently resorted to van Riper tactics, ditching the tanks for technicals and mixing with the civvies to evade airstrikes. They have the advantage in that the rebs are largely civvies themselves and their leadership is worse.

    As far as training the rebs goes, it's not that it takes time to train troops but, as you said, what takes time to train is troop UNITS and the officers needed to lead them. It's a hell of a lot quicker when you start with a good officer; that's why Western mercenary commanders were getting good results with native troops going back to "Chinese" Gordon.

    But, again, the problem is that you have to risk your SF officers and removing Gaddafi just isn't worth the downside of getting Americans killed for some worthless piece of desert.

    I gotta go with jim on this one. It's just a mess, and all we're going to get out of it (unless the Administration grows a brain soon) is a bill for replacement parts and new ordnance...

    ReplyDelete
  94. Chief,
    I was awonderin' that if MQ is such a bad actor who in the heck sold him all the aircraft that we are now forcing not to fly?
    Did Libya build these little guys? Or did someone sell them to him?
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  95. To all,
    Nobody has ever satisfactorily explained to me how a democratic Middle East benefits the US taxpayers?
    It's all word play, and like Economic theory, or so called strategic thought, nothing can prove or disprove any of the rhetoric. It's all supposition.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  96. I wish to thank all for their participation on this thread. It has been an interesting discussion and I have gone off into areas I have not in the past: this being a case of having been confronted with certain choices. I regret nothing, and I hope ya'll feel the same.

    FDChief-

    --"If you want to really come up with a "bushed" scenario, it's this one; a poorly-outlined, badly managed, over-optimisticly sold clusterfuck in an Arab country. I don't think that has any real bearing on the U.S.' ability to use its military power for a genuinely articulated, truly obvious national interest.--"

    First off, there was never much of an attempt to sell this to the public. My last attempt was to show what an actual propaganda campaign of escalation would look like . . . sorry if I offended anyone, but I do feel very passionately about this and it has soooo much to do with the direction our country is going.

    Second, the intervention had to operate in real time, had to react against the grain of what was going on which was honestly non-intervention and stalling, until Obama "turned on a dime" or the French called his bluff, whichever you prefer. Nobody was talking about this a month ago, there is no relation to the slow-burn quality of the Iraq war.

    Third, we can't get involved in Libya since we have to focus on our two lost wars in Iraq and Af-Pak . . . How many good people have died for essentially nothing, or is anyone here going to argue that either of these were a success? How much $$$ have we sunk into these pits? Bob Gates still as Sec of Def says it all. Please, don't consider that anyone is actually noticing that the US comes out a paper tiger in this Libyan deal while it stumbles off back to its two quagmires. Quite impressive that! I'm sure the Chinese are very pleased with themselves.

    Fourth, "a genuinely articulated, truly obvious national interest", I suppose you're referring to Saudi or is it Syria or Iran? I'm sure the above three points will be noted and there will be a very compelling reason for our future intervention. It seems that what you require demands premeditation, but would that not be a problem?

    ReplyDelete
  97. jim-

    "It's a strange assumption that we can build a rebel army when we were unable to do build effective militaries in AFGH/IRQ.
    Why are these rebels so remarkable."

    What's the difference? We went into Afganistan and Iraq, overthrew their governments and then set up our own with little local support. In Pakistan we have done much to undermine the Pakistani government and then there is the whole question of their last presidential elections . . . We've been in both places for years with ever diminishing returns.

    In Libya the people in the east were begging us to come save them. Intervention happened and now we're ready to pull the plug . . .

    See a difference?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Seydlitz,
    Indeed a good discussion.
    Thanks.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  99. "First off, there was never much of an attempt to sell this to the public. My last attempt was to show what an actual propaganda campaign of escalation would look like . . . sorry if I offended anyone, but I do feel very passionately about this and it has soooo much to do with the direction our country is going."

    First, don't apologize; that's what this forum is about - we bring our ideas in and let the rest of the world smack them around like a tetherball. If the ideas hold up, if people start to see them as wisdom, well, maybe we're on to something. You brought the smoke, but, like a big chunk of the rest of the U.S., the crux of your argument isn't selling, and I think a lot of it has to do with the very Bushie way Obama has done this.

    You say "the intervention had to operate in real time, had to react against the grain of what was going on which was honestly non-intervention and stalling, until Obama "turned on a dime" or the French called his bluff, whichever you prefer. Nobody was talking about this a month ago, there is no relation to the slow-burn quality of the Iraq war."...but the overall hurry-hurry-we-have-to-do-this-NOW part is what sounded so very, very Bushie.

    We never got a chance to hear from the people we were supposed to be fighting for; all the assurances and promises and caveats came from the usual Western suspects - which had been wrong about the Middle East before - and lent the whole business a "SSDD" feel.

    I see only one way this goes differently;

    Obama calls a joint session of Congress to hear an address from the Foreign Minister of the Libyan TNC, who stands up in the House Chamber and pleads for our help, presents a treaty of alliance for us to sign.

    What's so fucking HARD about that?

    It would have taken, what, a day or so? We could have let the French and Brits fly top cover for Benghazi whilst we voted on a military assistance pact, complete with formal end-state conditions.

    I'll say this again; NOT going through traditional diplomatic channels fucked you and Obama on this. Admittedly, it would have taken some extra time and risked a Congressional no. But doing it this way means you stepped in the Bush Iraq turd. Now it looks no different than any fucked-up Bush Middle East scheme, with their wogs bitchslapping our gormless idiot wogs. Feh.

    What a fuckstory.

    ReplyDelete
  100. (contined from above)

    "Please, don't consider that anyone is actually noticing that the US comes out a paper tiger in this Libyan deal while it stumbles off back to its two quagmires. Quite impressive that! I'm sure the Chinese are very pleased with themselves." No more than they are pleased to see us stumbling around in the Middle East talking loudly and showing that our stick is quite small indeed.

    Those of us who opposed this opposed this mainly because it is really immaterial to U.S. interests. But I also opposed it because I had a bad feeling that it would end like this; slowly wading into the sump. We could have either gone all in, or stayed out. The former would have made us look opportunistic but clueless, the latter geopolitically prudent but
    callous. Either one would have been better than the way we're looking at the moment, opportunistic AND callous.

    "Fourth, "a genuinely articulated, truly obvious national interest", I suppose you're referring to Saudi or is it Syria or Iran?"

    No. I'm referring to, say, the seizure of the Panama Canal, a cross-border invasion in Korea, or a Sino-Indian War. I could give two shits about Syria; that's Israel's problem and they're welcome to it. Our national interests re: the Saudis is to develop a reliable non-petroleum engine so we can flip them off and they can go back to buggering camels and virgins, whatever. And Iran? Iran is the regional power in southwest Asia. We should be cultiaving a wary neutrality towards her with an eye towards trying to rope them and the Pakis into a trans-Afghan stability arrangement.

    In short, the is NO reason for our future intervention in the region. Our interests in the Middle East are petroleum, which we should be weaning ourselves off NOW, not 50 years from now when the bastard is $10.00/gallon, and transit through Suez, which is an Egyptian issue. Everything else is best done at a remove. We need to get over this notion that we HAVE to stick a finger in everyone's internal affairs. We're not that strong, we're not that rich, and we're not that smart.

    We have troubles right here at home we need to be tending; you've probably noticed...

    ReplyDelete
  101. "In Libya the people in the east were begging us to come save them. Intervention happened and now we're ready to pull the plug . . ."

    No. A resounding No. The rebels were fleeing in panic with Gaddafi's loons beating their ass with a slapstick. They had time, if they had wanted to, to plead with the Great Satan to save them from the little devils. They didn't - THEY STILL HAVEN'T!

    As usual with the ME, we went in on our own time and with our own reasons. We may have wanted to "help", but it wasn't on their terms, it's on ours, and if you can't see why that makes a difference you are heading for a surprise as rude as when Dubya found out that Shias and Sunnis couldn't be friends.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Dam, Seydlitz, a hundred plus comments, and you took a few hits in the process.
    But herein is the key difference here...I saw a lot of topic discussed, and yeah it got passionate, hell, even I was breaking out.
    But the thing is...it didn't get personal.
    That is the difference here...the difference is that we can call bullshit on the subject, but the person is left alone.
    Sure you defended your pov, and rightly you should, but I didn't see it get personal when some of us said, "I disagree."
    Anyway, my two cents.
    Keep on keeping on!

    ReplyDelete
  103. Ranger: "All wars that we've fought lately are et up with the dumb shit description. Libya included.
    As Dylan said- only time will tell who has fell and who'se (sic) been left behind.
    The only real losers i see in this mess are the good old stooges called the American taxpayer."

    Can't argue with anything there, Ranger.

    Seydlitz, why is it when I'm reading your very well written and persuasive prose, our old term "WASF" springs to mind?

    ReplyDelete
  104. FDChief-

    --"No. A resounding No. The rebels were fleeing in panic with Gaddafi's loons beating their ass with a slapstick. They had time, if they had wanted to, to plead with the Great Satan to save them from the little devils. They didn't - THEY STILL HAVEN'T!

    As usual with the ME, we went in on our own time and with our own reasons. We may have wanted to "help", but it wasn't on their terms, it's on ours, and if you can't see why that makes a difference you are heading for a surprise as rude as when Dubya found out that Shias and Sunnis couldn't be friends."--

    I don't see "in on our own time and with our own reasons", rather the opposite and that explains much of the command/political confusion.

    I guess it comes down to how we define "they". I saw a report here where people in Benghazi had a big French flag up and they said, "If the Americans come, we'll put up an even bigger American flag" . . . but who were "they"? Were "they" the sort of new fangled Libyan government with whom we could sign that treaty of friendship you demand? Or were "they" - and we are talking about thousands - simply very scared people who wanted help? People who thought that they could suffer a very nasty and brutal death? And we had to act quickly or not at all . . . A "Yugoslav moment" . . .

    ReplyDelete
  105. Publius-

    "WASF"?

    Haven't we had enough of that? Personally, I think I'm getting beyond that finally. I see this as a significant turning point where we could make a difference, take back our own country maybe by giving the Libyans theirs???

    You can understand this Publius: Recently I was asked to give several talks about the bad ole days in Berlin, what we did there, you know overt strategic Humint interrogation . . . I brought in some old docs and pics to show the students. Started with a PP history of the divided city to provide the political context . . . all intelligence collection is very much influenced by that.

    Most of the questions came down to what I thought about torture as a means of getting information . . . ?! That's where we've come to. It's time to stop digging the hole and start thinking about climbing out, about regaining what we were as a nation, just my opinion have you . . .

    ReplyDelete
  106. "Or were "they" - and we are talking about thousands - simply very scared people who wanted help? People who thought that they could suffer a very nasty and brutal death? And we had to act quickly or not at all . . . A "Yugoslav moment".

    Let's parse this out.

    First, the rebels had a sorta-kinda government on the end of February. Here's the Wiki entry: "The National Transitional Council (Arabic: المجلس الوطني الانتقالي, al-Majlis al-Waṭanī al-'intaqālī) was established on 27 February in an effort to consolidate efforts for change in the rule of Libya. The Benghazi-based opposition government has called for a no-fly zone and airstrikes against the Jamahiriya."

    The French recognized the TNC on 10 MAR, the airstrikes began a whole nine days later, three weeks after the formation of the TNC. The U.S. didn't come in until the next day.

    Seydlitz, I'm not going to argue with you about the pros and cons of killing people to stop them killing other people. We disagree, but that's all; your arguments for stepping in between the Bad Guy and the weak victims are reasonable, I just don't agree that they're worth the blood and treasure. You do. That's just disagreement

    But this was not a heart attack, there was no Golden Hour that had to be used or would be lost and the rebellion with it. THAT I will deny. I think you're wrong, and I think that's a hugely important point, because it's THAT wrongness that shoves this down the Bush hole.

    First, the Gaddafi people have shown their ruthlessness against the rebel leaders, but there's no evidence of the mass graves of Bosnia. There's no evidence of Rwanda style genocide. Yes, it would have sucked for the TNC leaders. But that's the chance you take when you throw the dice of revolution. Lives, fortunes, remember..?

    Second, these people - in the form of the Council that represented all these "frightened" people - had two weeks to officially ask for help. They didn't. They STILL haven't. They want the help, mind you, but they just don't want to ASK for it.

    So, again, - this looks just like Iraq. Nobody inside Iraq asked for our help, any more than anyone inside Libya did. We have no idea what this will entail or who will emerge afterwards, anymore than we did with Saddam. We keep hearing things that are almost immediately contradicted by events...just like Iraq.

    So there IS NO WAY this will "take back" our country, any more than crossing the street against the light to beat up a mugger will take back the public's respect for traffic laws. IT was the Bushie argument that the danger of the mugger's smoking guns and mushroom clouds that demanded breaking the traffic laws in the first place.

    And neither you, nor I, nor Obama, nor Santa Claus, nor the Sugar Plum Fairy, can GIVE the Libyans their country. When you are "given" something you are a child. When you grow into man's estate you earn what you want, or build it, or take it. No one "gets" a country. They make it themselves, or take it by force.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Ranger:

    On the Libyan Air force: It's mostly Commie Shit.
    Were you thinking it came from the US???

    They have/had few Mirages (Designed in 1960's fielded in 1973); no threat there.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Chief said:

    "Those of us who opposed this opposed this mainly because it is really immaterial to U.S. interests. But I also opposed it because I had a bad feeling that it would end like this; slowly wading into the sump. We could have either gone all in, or stayed out. The former would have made us look opportunistic but clueless, the latter geopolitically prudent but callous. Either one would have been better than the way we're looking at the moment, opportunistic AND callous."

    That's basically what I was getting at when I wrote this at Lang's site immediately after the UN resolution passed two weeks ago.

    IMO, right now we are in a bad place - we've failed to meet our objectives while suffering all the consequences of intervention. Although the situation remains in flux, in my judgment a military solution to Qaddafi is increasingly unlikely. The hope for a quick collapse of some sort has faded.

    It's also pretty clear that the US has reached the limit of what we will do. The President has consistently promised there would be no ground troops and Sec. Gates came right out today and said it wouldn't happen as long as he's secretary, which many people are interpreting as a pretty clear threat to resign.

    In my judgment there is very little chance the rebels can win without at least some SF and combat controllers to integrate air power with the rebels. Already Libyan government forces are changing tactics to diminish the effectiveness of air power. Coordination with a ground element will be required for a variety of reasons. Hence, in order to win militarily, the President will have to violate his pledge and potentially suffer the political cost of Gates' resignation. So it looks to me like there was a big game of chicken going on in the administration and Gates appears to have won. He said today that the Europeans would be taking over the ground attack missions and that our attack aircraft would be held in reserve. This indicates to me that he's serious about the US only playing a supporting role while forcing Europe to the front. Operational constraints required the US to initially "kick the door in" once the decision to intervene was made, but now that's done the Europeans and whomever else can prosecute this war as they see fit. As I said before, I'm more than happy to let them take the credit or the blame (as the case may be). Also, I personally don't have a problem with us providing support for their effort as long as it's their boys on the ground and their pilots dropping most or all the bombs. I think we owe Europe at least that much considering all we've asked of them in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they need to be front-and-center on this.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Seydlitz, Another thought provoking art. Thanks. Apr. 1, @ 3:05 you wrote....

    "In Libya the people in the east were begging us to come save them. Intervention happened and now we're ready to pull the plug . . .

    See a difference?"
    Actually i don"t, but, i'm simple. Seems since 1st gulf war,we had the Shia/Kurds "begging" us to come in. In Afgh. we had the N. Alliance stew "begging" us to come in. In S.east asia we had the S. Viet........

    ReplyDelete
  110. After all is said and done, I do think the Bush years have jaded us, as well as the rest of the world. Following the lunacy and waste of one ill-prosecuted and one ill-prosecuted and totally unjustified war, it is definitely difficult to gin up any interest in a possibly humanitarian action. "WASF" is indeed the state of affairs, but we brought it upon ourselves, and will shower ourselves with more until the populace pulls their heads out of their asses, which ain't gonna happen any time soon. If Know Nothings and the quasi-anarchist Tea Party is the best response to SSDD (Same Sh*t, Different Day) we can come up, we are in for a rough ride.

    I weep for my descendants.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Aviator47, mar28,1:31am, writes, of the spiritually transcendent Euros., "In short, I am trying to see the "humanitarian" aspect through other than American eyes and experience, and I can see where our friends wish to come to the aid of the Libyan people, now that they have tried to take matters into their own hands. I'm not so sure that "National Interests" alone are driving the train over here, but perhaps a smattering of real human kindness" Yeah, that & the fact they rely on Libyan oil.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Wait a minute here, Obama has already pledged covert aid to the rebels. What form will it take?

    Giving them weapons is one thing but the rebels will need training on how to use the weapons. That implies we will need to put feet on the ground as "trainers." From there it is a small step to send "evaluators" to watch the rebels use the weapons in combat. This will expose the rebel supply deficiencies may well force us to send in "support staff" which, of course, will need ground troops for "insurgent suppression." And before you know it, we're leading the rebels into battle (ala Chinese Gordon) and calling in US aircraft and artillery for support.

    Oh well, at least the war will probably end quickly. The peace, on the other hand, could be a lot harder to win. Tribal politics are messy!

    ReplyDelete
  113. fasteddiez,
    Nice to hear from you.
    If it's all old and obsolete then why even bother trying to enforce a no fly zone.?
    Incidentally this was not a no fly zone thing, it was a direct assault in support of rebels. THIS IS NOT PEACE KEEPING OR HUMANITARIAN.
    To all,
    How can we say that the rebels could've come to us officially and asked for intervention when they have absolutely no official standing? Of any sort. Until the are successful they are only rebels.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  114. Andy, Pluto: One way that the interventionist community here in the U.S. could finesse this would be to hire the mercs that have become our Fifth Column in Iraq and the 'Stan for this. A lot of the guys working for Xe, Executive Solutions and the like have US combat experience but would be "deniable". I suspect that the so-called "CIA" people on the ground are probably something like that.

    Anon: Gaddafi was perfectly happy to supply petroleum to whoever wanted to buy it. The most cost-effective way to reopen the oil pump would have been to help him crush this quickly and completely. You can accuse the Euros of gullibility and poor judgement, and I do, but the whole "blood for oil" canard just doesn't fly here.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Chief,
    Why don't we organize a A Lincoln Bde?
    I'm sure they'd need strategic thinking planners.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  116. FDChief, "Anon: Gaddafi was perfectly happy to supply petroleum to whoever wanted to buy it. The most cost-effective way to reopen the oil pump would have been to help him crush this quickly and completely. You can accuse the Euros of gullibility and poor judgement, and I do, but the whole "blood for oil" canard just doesn" fly here" Ok,it"s "humanitarian", just like Irag was. Cuz, Obama, the dems/euros care more. It"s the opposite of Rush/Hannity/fox news,repubs-bad, dems/Obama good. I agree, any ascendent thug will sell us oil. I was just attacking a mind set.

    ReplyDelete
  117. "If Know Nothings and the quasi-anarchist Tea Party is the best response to SSDD (Same Sh*t, Different Day) we can come up, we are in for a rough ride." Greece in particular, Europe in general, allong with the US, is in an unstainable world of sh*t.. And it ain"t cause of "quasi- anarchist tea party," principles. That"s not the model that got us to this state.

    ReplyDelete