RSS Feed Menu
So Defense Secretary Bob Gates says the US opposes the division of Libya into autonomous zones.
Yet US war aims do not include overthrowing or killing Qaddafi.
On the other hand, the president says it is US “policy” that Qaddafi must go.
And Gates says US operations in Libya will dwindle over the next days.
Do any of those add up?
Are the real aims undeclared?
Or is it possible this administration is just along for a French-led drive?
John Dickerson makes a very powerful counterpoint, though.
“Certain interventionists in the GOP may be unhappy about Obama’s pace, but most Americans are not anxious for a protracted Libyan intervention. And there’s no Republican challenger whose foreign policy credentials are so sterling that this moment provides a rationale for their candidacy.”
“And the cautious Obama is actually the one voters chose in the 2008 election—a president who would be deliberate, focused on international cooperation, slow to take military action, and wary of a longer commitment. Voters seem to sympathize. Republicans have attacked Obama regularly as weak, but voters give him his highest marks on handling foreign affairs and the war in Afghanistan when asked to rate him on his domestic and foreign policy performance. Republicans criticized his handling of the protests in Egypt, but the voters did not. “
You obviously do not have the capacity to differentiate between military and diplomatic objectives. Often one will not be totally in line with the other. What you can’t achieve by diplomatic means you can often by military and vise versa.
It isn’t rocket science – we don’t want to end up “owning” the country like we did in Iraq.
Egypt and Tunisia threw out their dictators becasue the Army stayed neutral. Not so in Libya, where Gaddafi has the private wealth to buy their “loyalty” and to back them up with foreign mercenaries. A successful popular uprising in Libya would be a massive development – but it would have been snuffed out on Monday if Gaddafi had been allowed to flatten Benghazi.
So, we are committed to knocking out all of their air defenses and their heavy amour and artillery when it is seen advancing on civilians. But if the rebels are going to prevail they are going to have to find it within themselves to finish off the job. We aren’t going to do it for them and then be in a situation where they end up as a dependency.
“Or is it possible this administration is just along for a French-led drive?”
David, this is a bit rich coming from someone who insists that there is a different foreign country that we have to back to the hilt no matter what they do.
Exactimento. The resolution gives the coalition the authority to do precisely what you say. Whether that gets the policy done (remove MQ) or not, that is up to the rebels. Our mission was to give them breathing space and prevent the massacre of Benghazi. That “mission” has been accomplished. The French and Brits can continue with the tank busting. So if the policy ends up a stalemate, that is far more preferable to MQ in charge with many thousands killed. No brainer….
Agree with Watusie!
I personally think that when the President comes back the objectives will be more clear. I cut the guy some slack, once he is back in the USA, he will explain our plan. Isn’t there some sense that things are happening at a very fast pace and objectives are becoming clearer. I would think that this would be the norm with many players involved and I actually believe that he outlined the plan.
I think the point that Frum could make is that we are not leading. If it is about not being the lead, that is a different debate but I don’t think it is always the USA’s role. Political appearance should be set aside.
It’s also US policy to overthrow Castro and destabilize Cuba. But that doesn’t mean we are going to do the Bay of Pigs 2.0.
Of course Obama could lay out grand pronouncements and have the Mission Accomplished Banner being made up ala Bush and then whoops things don’t go as planned and we end up in a debacle.
Given that we are now going forward with this military adventure that has nothing to do with US security – we might has well keep our options open and not be the one left holding the bag if it goes to hell and we end up having to send ground troops in – but I am sure that the Right Wing will start pushing for that any day now – of course they won’t be going themselves – just get another batch of kids to go and die for an event that has nothing to do with protecting the United States.
“So, we are committed to knocking out all of their air defenses and their heavy amour and artillery when it is seen advancing on civilians. But if the rebels are going to prevail they are going to have to find it within themselves to finish off the job. We aren’t going to do it for them and then be in a situation where they end up as a dependency.”
Okay, so what happens if they *don’t* do the job?
This is the problem. Nobody has defined what constitutes Act 2 of this little play.
What happens? Then Gaddafi says in power and hopefully at least some of the rebels will be able to escape to Egypt. That’s it. We aren’t invading. We aren’t committing to imposing an outcome.
what else happens, though, is if MQ stays in power through stalemate, is a longer-term embargo. eventually the cash he has on hand will run out, and so too then will the mercenaries and then much of his own army. it will be a relatively small cadre of true believers left. the stalemate is not a permanent state and the international community holds all the important cards.
it is this scenario, i think, that unifies all the apparently conflicting points of data DF raised in the original post. and i think it represents a patience, a carefulness and a confidence that us foreign policy has lacked for a long time.
I don’t understand what’s so “muddled” about the policy. Is it really that hard to grasp that we can have both diplomatic and military policy goals? I think the President did an excellent job yesterday explaining the difference between the two. It seems that commentators like DF approach this issue as though we can only achieve foreign policy objectives in the Middle East via our military. The President said our military goals in Libya extend only to helping establish the NFZ in the UN Resolution. After that, we will use diplomatic efforts (sanctions, freezing assets and the like) to achieve our other policy goals. We can “oppose” the partition of Libya without committing troops to stop it – we’re limiting the amount of foreign policy resources we’re going to spend for different aims. DF, is your confusion simply resulting from the fact that you don’t believe that our military mission will remain limited, or perhaps is it that the military must ensure the success of all US foreign policy goals?
David, the Kenyan vacationer has a muddled policy because he could care less.
He wants to enjoy the perks of his office that Democratic useful idiots gave him.
Well that’s a new take. I have heard he is incompetent, then I heard he was an evil genius, but now Smarg is saying he is just plain indifferent. I guess Obama is all things, to all people, all the time.
The correct name for him is Barry Soetoro. Thanks.
No, no, you got it wrong. The President is American. You’ve been tea bagging again?
“Are the real aims undeclared?”
Sometimes it is wise to avoid locking ourselves into clearly-defined positions that become untenable once unforseen circumstances arise. Public ambiguity regarding our ultimate goals leaves room for flexibility, and avoids an irrevocable commitment of U.S. prestige (and honor) in case of a long, drawn-out conflict.
I’m not sure why we should commit ourselves (yet) to ensuring the rebel leaders’ triumph, when we have little knowledge of who they are and where they would take Libya. Intervening to avert a clear-cut victory by Gadhafi (likely followed by a massacre in Benghazi) was an honorable act, and doesn’t commit us to a long-term involvement we might later regret.
The “plan” is not to end up owning the country. Having been cheerleading for weeks for the establishment of a NFZ, Frum’s immediate demand is for mission creep. There’s nothing more neocons like Frum would like than for Obama to occupy another country then they can say “See Bush wasn’t all wrong.” To me it’s a measure of how totally uninterested in US security and purposes or American lives these people are. They couldn’t give a damn. It’s fairly disgusting actually. Fortunately the president isn’t going to oblige them.
America has intervened in a civil war in a tribal society, the dynamics of which America does not understand. And America is supporting one faction, the nature of which it does not know.
Nice try Smarg, but no way are they going to be worse than Gaddafi, and we aren’t putting boots on the ground, so it is worth the attempt.
I agree with Watusie and Traveler, this is just reflexive Republican bashing without any real clear thought.
The UN gave clear authorization to protect civilians and enforce a no fly zone, this is in the process of being implemented.
The US has an additional agenda to get rid of Gadhafi that is NOT part of the UN mission, since the UN mission does not authorize this, however it is perfectly understandable that we can do things outside and apart from this one particular mission.
Like everyone says, is this so hard to comprehend? We have seized 30 billion of his assets, does David have a problem with that? We can also see to it that there is an oil embargo and enforce that no military resupplies come by ship, and I doubt the Tunisians will sell him much outside of the black market.
In a few days the bombing will stop and it will be nothing but a no fly zone. The UN’s will will be enforced.
The rebels have proven themselves quite adept so far, without air support, resupply lines, communications for Gadhafi’s forces in the east I imagine it will be only a short time for the Rebels to roll up to Bin Jawwad.
How long before Gadhafi runs out of money and supplies? I imagine the coalition has taken out a lot of his munitions supply sites.
Long term I imagine the East will enjoy a great deal of autonomy like the Kurdish region in Iraq. Why is this a bad thing?
“What happens? Then Gaddafi says in power and hopefully at least some of the rebels will be able to escape to Egypt. That’s it. We aren’t invading. We aren’t committing to imposing an outcome.”
I think you greatly underestimate how much pressure will be put on Obama to expand the scope of this war if that happens. I certainly don’t see how that outcome would be viewed as a positive one for our interests by anybody, whether or not they supported this action. Do you? Really?
“no way are they going to be worse than Gaddafi”
How many despots and evil regimes have we propped up in the past using that rationale?
“I think you greatly underestimate how much pressure will be put on Obama to expand the scope of this war if that happens. ”
By whom? The discredited neo-cons? They will be ignored. The Republicans? Well, all that needs to be said to shut them up is “we can’t afford it.” The Democrats? Well, since they aren’t happy about even the idea of the NFZ, they aren’t really going to arguing for all-out invasion, are they?
If the attempted revolution fails, then it fails.
Repeat: Obama is smart enough to rule out attempting to impose an outcome.
““no way are they going to be worse than Gaddafi -How many despots and evil regimes have we propped up in the past using that rationale?”
None.
“By whom?”
By pretty much everyone. You can argue that they will be ignored, and I hope you’re right and I’m wrong, but I am highly skeptical. Because I am pretty sure Obama didn’t want to do even this, and think they should have been ignored *last week* too.
“Repeat: Obama is smart enough to rule out attempting to impose an outcome.”
We’ll see.
“None.”
So you’re claiming we have had nothing to do with the rise and maintenance of power of despots and dictators like Saddam, the Taliban, the House of Saud and so forth? That’s… fascinating.
How much do we really even know about these rebels we’re helping? Or is the only standard we need that they hate Qaddafi? Again — that hasn’t worked out too well in the past.
I’m pretty sure Obama didn’t want to do this as well, becasue he hoped the rebels would suceed on their own, as they did in Egypt and Tunisia. But when it became apparant that Gaddafi was ready willing and able to flatten city after city to kill them all, and when he knew the Arab League and the UN Security Council including, tacitly, Russia and China, were willing to endorse a limited action in aid of the rebels, he was willing and able to change his mind.
And no, I’m not claiming that “we had nothing to do with the rise and maintenance of power of despots and dictators like Saddam, the Taliban, the House of Saud and so forth?” I’m claiming that we never failed to offer limited assistance to a credible popular rebellion against one of the world’s worst dictators on the grounds that the rebels might turn out to be even worse.
Watusie: If the attempted revolution fails, then it fails.
At this point I don’t see how it can. Gadhafi has already lost a great deal of his offensive capability, he has no means of resupply, no aircover or communications. At worst we will have a defacto partition of the country, but don’t forget that even today Misrata is still in the rebels hands, as are a host of small cities and towns in the west.
How long can Gadhafi hold out in Tripoli?
The east will be supplied with unlimited ammo and basic provisions and they have the far greater support of the people.
I just don’t see any winning strategy for Gadhafi.
I certainly hope you are correct – but I’m not taking it as a foregone conclusion. If the rebels can’t organize and attack and force a conclusion, then probably they also weren’t ready and able to run the country. So long as we do not invade and make Libya a defacto dependency, then I’m sanguine about the outcome.
TRS: “US intervention in Libya (or anywhere) is risky. I don’t trust Obama.”
Watusie: “US intervention in Libya is necessary and proper despite the risks. I trust Obama.”
pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it?
That works for me. TRS will have to speak for himself.
IMHO – shouldn’t the endgame have been defined clearly prior to missiles being launched and bombing runs started?
I know that lots of people were yelling for the bombs to start dropping, including this site, so I guess some folks just want to start the bombing without any real plan in place…
Unless that insane leader capitulates – I would not be surprised if we don’t start seeing calls for Ground Troops from certain sectors, possibly including this very site. (I hope I am wrong…)
Rob,
The resolution was the endgame as far as most of us see it (except perhaps TRS). The devil will be in the details. We will finish the NFZ in the west by tomorrow, after which intervention against armor there will start to happen. This means we are going to bomb MQ’s massed tanks outside Misrata. Likely by the French, not us. Once that happens, watch for mass defections. Then the end game gets closer. What it is and how it finally plays, is another matter. But I seriously doubt that the general forces will stick around him. Only the last hard core thugs who know their fate will continue to resist. Then it will get down to some nasty fighting, and we will be bystanders.
I don’t think there is a single poster here that wants or expects ground troops. But I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t already have special forces already doing a little training and liason.
Or he can get a mulligan on “Ghadafi has got to go”, eg,,
Obama: I didn’t say that. What I actually said was “God, Lindsey is such a ho”
Rob_654
Can you explain to me how Gadhafi can possibly win? How can he resupply his forces? How long can his money last? I think the endgame is, at worst, attrition as he loses bits and pieces of Libya until he is holed up in Tripoli. Hussein, at least, had the support of the Sunni Muslims in Iraq. What is the basis for Gadhafi outside his own tribe, and they are in Sirte.
As to what happens after Gadhafi goes, well what happened to Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. after Milosevic went?
After reading two articles on the Libya issue I can only come to the conclusion some people need to do their background work. Like maybe read info on the UN resolution…
From Stratfor:
The U.N. Security Council resolution clearly authorizes the imposition of a no-fly zone. By extension, this logically authorizes strikes against airfields and related targets. Very broadly, it also defines the mission of the intervention as protecting civilian lives. As such, it does not specifically prohibit the presence of ground forces, though it does clearly state that no “foreign occupation force” shall be permitted on Libyan soil. It can be assumed they intended that forces could intervene in Libya but could not remain in Libya after the intervention.
Here is the entire article from Stratfor. Its about a 5 – 10 minute read.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110321-libya-west-narrative-democracy?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110322&utm_content=readmore&elq=0b86bfa370e54bde8f4a2dd220563b6b
I don’t understand the “confusion”. The President did what he set out to do: form a coalition as an initial solution to Libya. (When President GHW Bush did it for Kuwait, it was seen as a brilliant strategy) I’m expecting that some other country (Italy or France) will assume “command” after the suppression of Air Defences and Libyan Air force. Are there “ground forces” there right now ? We’d all be naive to think there aren’t any Spec Ops people there providing “advisory” support.
Reading the many postings, the general consensus seems to be we are doing it right . I realize its not “bombing them back into the 9th Century”, but it seems to be helping the opposition. And… its in accord with the UN resolution.
However, some here are angry that we didn’t go into the situation like “Yosemite Sam on Red Bull”, bomb the crap out of them, send in a Marine Task force and declare victory. Sorry that’s not the real world. To conduct a campaign you need to secure your bases. In this case you also needed to secure “approval” from the Arab League to insure you weren’t seen as “attacking another Muslim country”. Getting approval after the fact would not work. This one action insured any AlQueada commentary or actions against the coalition would be blunted by the simple fact other Muslims approved of the No Fly Zone.
Traveler,
I hope you are right about the will to take out Gadhafi’s armor. Unfortunately a lot of it is already in Misrata and when that is finally liberated I am afraid of the horrors we will see that are being inflicted there now.
However Gadhafi is massing outside of Zittan. Gadhafi seems to want to take as much as he can and hold the citizens hostage in these cities (those he does not massacre). That could work against us sending in ground forces, (which we have no intention of doing anyhow) I don’t believe for an instance it will deter Benghazi who are right now trying to retake Ajdabiya.
Do you know the disposition of his forces? How many Tanks and APC’s does he have?
Frumples,
My only decent source is Al Jezeera:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201132292210533490.html
I agree once he gets inside a city, all bets are off. My bad, it is outside Zintan that they were massed as you note. Misurata looks like it will be a bloodbath.
Traveler, thanks. I see different spellings of these smaller towns, hard to keep track.
“And no, I’m not claiming that “we had nothing to do with the rise and maintenance of power of despots and dictators like Saddam, the Taliban, the House of Saud and so forth?” I’m claiming that we never failed to offer limited assistance to a credible popular rebellion against one of the world’s worst dictators on the grounds that the rebels might turn out to be even worse.”
Okay, that’s not what I was going for either.
My point was that we have a bad track record of “offering limited assistance to credible popular rebellions” that turn around and bite us in the ass. We did it in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in both cases made enormous messes that we are still paying for. Given the reports of fighters from eastern Libya being involved in al Qaeda, I do not see any evidence that we have learned from these mistakes, and I find that distressing.
Did the Bush Administration actually at any time amongst their many other lies say or imply that we were offering limited assistance to credible popular rebellions in Afghanistan and Iraq? If so, it has completely slipped my memory.
Obama said the US is NOT leading mission Operation Dawn.
If the US is not leading, then it is following. France and England get to make the decisions. The US goes along- Obama gets to say the US was present. Just like he voted in the Illinois legislature so many times.
“Public ambiguity regarding our ultimate goals leaves room for flexibility, and avoids an irrevocable commitment of U.S. prestige (and honor) in case of a long, drawn-out conflict.”
Nebraska Admiral + 1 as a virtue, controlled ambiguity seems often underestimated
“Did the Bush Administration actually at any time amongst their many other lies say or imply that we were offering limited assistance to credible popular rebellions in Afghanistan and Iraq? If so, it has completely slipped my memory.”
I’m talking about what we did well before Bush, the actions we took when the mujahadeen and Saddam were “on our side”, during the 80s.
When ppl demand an end-game in Libya, it’s pretty clear what’s on their mind. They want some sort of full-scale invasion spelled out in no uncertain terms or just political bombing against Obama. So what’s the end-game when there’s a domestic dispute & the police intervene ? Do the police throw 1 spouse into jail just bcos they don’t want it to happen again ? This is not full-scale Iraq with all the disastrous scratch marks of our strategic meddling & influencing. This is a humanitarian mission to prevent Gaddafi’s disproportionate firepower to be used on his ppl. If you’ve been following, it’s no coincidence it’s also started at a juncture when Gaddafi’s forces are massed at the gates of Benghazi seeming to carry out his annihilation threat just hours ago. Now of course the preferred final outcome will be his ouster bcos we can’t sustain a NFZ forever & let it end up like Iraq once again. But, at the same time taking a lesson from Iraq, we should not be the executioner either. The firepower against Gaddafi is only 1 of a range of actions designed to squeeze Gaddafi including blockades, sanctions, freezing accounts, etc. But this time, unlike Iraq, we also hv an active rebellion against Gaddafi not only from the eastern parts but also in the traditionally pro-Gaddafi western parts. They’ll be the ones who will see Gaddafi out of Libya.
Poor President Obama, a likable man forever tied to comparisons with GWBush, useless and pointless as they are! His election was historic and overdue (as would have been Hillary Clinton’s), but his time in office has unfortunately not changed my first impression of him from the time he hit the campaign trail: an educated airhead.
The HSA Coalition » Harnden: 10 Things Libya tells us about The One // Mar 28, 2011 at 8:01 am
[...] 10. Obama is prepared to go to war with muddled military objectives and no plan for the end game.” [...]