Hard News: Libya
175 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
That is Obama’s error and that is what will cost him.
We’ll have to wait and see. So far Obama’s done what he said he would do. You seem interested in Obama’s political judgment here. Purely from that point of view, I think he’s got it about right. As I said, if this action broadly works for the best, cynical as it sounds, Obama can say the US played their part. If not, Obama can always say they did their best within the limited mandate they were given.
And getting out of a situation like this is nothing like as complicated as if you have an actual invasion force. If your involvement is essentially firing a few cruise missiles, the exit strategy is pretty simple: stop firing the cruise missiles.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
It’s like you’re brain’s hardwired to a binary
It’s even like he was answering a binary question. Oh wait, he was.
(ETA: oh yes, great cricket match. During the last few overs, even I was a little antsy.) -
It’s even like he was answering a binary question. Oh wait, he was.
It was a rhetorical appeal to the right hemisphere.
-
glennd, in reply to
Actually, while being cynically correct, I think that it will work out well for Hillary rather than Obama. It was her that finally got the USA into action and if it turns out well I would be very unsurprised to see her using it as her "hard-ass international street-cred" in 2012 if Obama's other problems persist as they seem they will. If it goes tits-up (relatively speaking), then she will be nowhere to be found and Obama will carry the can.
Anyhow I don't think that the exit strategy is that simple, once you've engaged in war you can't suddenly stop with no consequence. Reagan pounded the crap out of Tripoli but failed to remove Ghaddafi and that ultimately led to Lockerbie, Machiavelli is dead right, you have to kill the king if you strike at him. Of course someone else might suffer the political consequence of that and not Obama.
However the greatest risk for Obama is that the point where such an exit can be made will pass due to his love of not making decisions until drawn into it by someone else. George W, for all his faults, at least took the decisions and stood behind them. In which case it will drag into an interminable war in all but name like Iraq through the 1990s or the Libyans will be summarily abandoned to whoever emerges from the dust. Either way, it is political gravy for Obama's opponents and rivals to add to his growing list of domestic and international "troubles".
Personally I think that "Obama" should either have gone for a full-scale operation with a unified command, a-la Bush 1990 to crush Ghadaffis forces but finished off with arresting Ghadaffi, or at least have reserved US forces until the French and British had completed establishing a no fly zone and some semblence of a coherent strategy was put in place. Domestically he should have done his level best to delay any images of US action and any hint of going to war, and certainly not at the behest of France without duly notifying the nation. As it is now, I do not believe it is going to end happily for anyone other than perhaps Hillary and whatever disciplined thugs remain when the action stops (although I would love to be wrong and see Ghadaffi slink off to some cesspit and watch Libya overcome its tribal ways and settle into domestic bliss, I just don't get that vibe though).
-
It was her that finally got the USA into action and if it turns out well I would be very unsurprised to see her using it as her “hard-ass international street-cred” in 2012 if Obama’s other problems persist as they seem they will.
Cred in 2012 for what? Her endorsement speech at the formality convention? The Secretary of State can't run against a standing president in the primaries.
-
glennd, in reply to
From what I gather she does not intend to remain Secretary of State. A year is a long time and Obama is making many things look possible. Not certain, but possible and she seems to be laying groundwork pretty well.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
A year is a long time and Obama is making many things look possible.
Yes, he inherited a total disaster from Bush, and has only done slow sensible things to solve it. Since these things take time, he may get the hammer. Or then again, when the alternatives are considered, it might turn out that Republican management still looks as bat-shit crazy as it did when he got elected.
George W, for all his faults, at least took the decisions and stood behind them.
GW's decisions were his faults. Almost everything he did turned to shit. In fact, it was so bad the whole world turned to shit. The Rebublicans still don't have any answers for that. All credibility they had for opposing regime change was totally destroyed by their unfailing support for the ongoing Iraq debacle. Furthermore, what made it a debacle was the awful hamfisted stringing together of a coalition of cronies. This crisis is totally different, Obama is being drawn in quite reluctantly by an internationally led effort to help Libya, and his commitment is only the bit that the US military has always done best - blowing things up from the sky.
As for the economy, which is the thing most likely to sink the Democrats - the Republicans can still be blamed for that, just as Labour is being blamed here. The difference is Labour's actual culpability for the international credit crisis is rather small compared to that of the Republicans.
So I think the guy's still got a decent chance. Once he hits the campaign trail, unless some totally unknown charismatic leader for the American Right rears their head, they're heading for a hiding to nowhere.
-
Looking at it from a dispassionate pov and without, admittedly, knowing all the facts.
The US doesn’t need an exit strategy because this action is a UN action. It is akin to someone asking you to lend a hand, lend the tools and few labourers to a project, you do your bit and move on with little responsibility for the project as a whole.
Yes it is true that the US and the rest of the world for that matter, have tolerated Gadaffi since he promised to be good, he is not a stupid man, he saw which side the bread was buttered and capitulated to the whims of the West, they needed the oil, he needed the cash.
The rolling demands for freedom and democracy throughout the Arab world have ignited the rebels and gave them an almost ecstatic belief in the possibility of victory which was fanned by the West. After that, the West had a moral obligation, as well as a desire, to aid the rebels in their cause.
War, however, is its own enemy, it never ends well.
Let us hope that the outcome is not so horrendous that it fails to justify the means. -
glennd, in reply to
Whether Obama/the US is being drawn into an international effort reluctantly or wholeheartedly is somewhat beside the point. Somalia was a similar effort but is remembered in the popular psyche as a massive US embarassment, blackhawk down and a huge propaganda tool for Islamists.
I still contend that this whole internationalist thing will be beside the point for the American electorate if there is a blackhawk down type of incident or other debacle in which bodybags are prominently brought home or if Obama is yet again "reluctantly" drawn into more intensive operations, even more so if there are still two on-going engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't participate in a war of any dimension and then only claim minor responsibility, the opponents never see it that way.
But you are right in that once he hits the campaign trail and can start reading from the script again then his chances will improve. But if anything goes wrong between now and then in terms of American deaths then no amount of hopey changitude or "it was an international operation" is going to put a bandaid on that. Still he might get lucky and Ghadaffi might backdown, you never know.
As for the domestic politics, I think that is for another thread but of course Obama will try and blame Bush and the Republicans for whatever problems persist whether it is fair or not. He's been doing that consistently anyway. His grasp of leadership doesn't seem to extend to taking the good with the bad in terms of legacies.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Somalia was a similar effort but is remembered in the popular psyche as a massive US embarassment, blackhawk down and a huge propaganda tool for Islamists.
Yes, it was rather strange that the loss of one helicopter caused such a furore. It told me at the time that their hearts were totally not in it. Since they've now lost thousands of lives in Iraq, perhaps they've realized once again that war is dangerous. They don't let the media at bodybags any more.
Still he might get lucky and Ghadaffi might backdown, you never know.
Or the rebels could seize power, and he could dress up in some military gear and host a "Mission Accomplished" party.
But the real source of his ongoing chances will be when the Republicans hit the campaign trail, and their total lack of script comes into sharp focus.
-
chris, in reply to
Beyond this vicarious living through the president of presidents and the nation to end all nations, is there any solid indication that if the rebels actually seize power the country at stake will be any better off?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Or then again, when the alternatives are considered, it might turn out that Republican management still looks as bat-shit crazy as it did when he got elected.
They’re actually much crazier. When Michelle Bachmann is hinting at a run for the White House, you know you’re through the looking glass.
-
The Turks might help everyone else out now by defining a conclusion:
The Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has signalled that Turkey is ready to act as a mediator to broker an early ceasefire in Libya, as he warned that a drawn-out conflict risked turning the country into a "second Iraq" or "another Afghanistan" with devastating repercussions both for Libya and the Nato states leading the intervention.
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Erdogan said that talks were still under way with Muammar Gaddafi's government and the Transitional National Council. He also revealed that Turkey is about to take over the running of the rebel-held Benghazi harbour and airport to facilitate humanitarian aid, in agreement with Nato.
Not that Erdogan has any great democratic credibility, having recently had 27 journalists jailed on what look like dubious charges.
-
it was rather strange that the loss of one helicopter caused such a furore.
Two, to be pedantic. The Battle of Mogadishu cost the US a total of 18 soldiers dead and 73 wounded over the course of around 36 hours. Which made it the bloodiest/costliest battle the US had fought since Vietnam.
Although it has been argued that it wasn't so much the loss of life as the fact that America woke up to TV pictures of the corpses of US soliders being dragged through the streets that caused the furore.
-
Juan Cole (one of the few people who seems to consistently get it right on Middle Eastern and North African politics) has written An Open Letter to the Left on Libya:
I would like to urge the Left to learn to chew gum and walk at the same time. It is possible to reason our way through, on a case-by-case basis, to an ethical progressive position that supports the ordinary folk in their travails in places like Libya. If we just don’t care if the people of Benghazi are subjected to murder and repression on a vast scale, we aren’t people of the Left. We should avoid making ‘foreign intervention’ an absolute taboo the way the Right makes abortion an absolute taboo if doing so makes us heartless (inflexible a priori positions often lead to heartlessness).
It's an extremely comprehensive piece, even if you don't agree with his conclusions.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Although it has been argued that it wasn't so much the loss of life as the fact that America woke up to TV pictures of the corpses of US soliders being dragged through the streets that caused the furore.
These things happen in war. So I still think the point is that their hearts weren't in it. It may well have been the costliest since Vietnam, but when you consider that they lost around 50,000 soldiers in Vietnam, many of whom suffered far worse than some posthumous indignities, it makes you appreciate how much their taste for war had declined since Vietnam. Also, conversely, how much it has risen again, since Bush.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
I don't think we're disagreeing, but to blame it on the loss of one helicopter is, I think, an inaccurate way of characterising it.
-
Fair enough, indeed that was rather what I was saying - the Black Hawk Down incident became a focal point for a very general disinclination to even be involved in Somalia. I doubt a similar event in Libya would cause such a reaction. Nor would it happen anyway - for starters because they don't use helicopters to enforce no-fly zones.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
Although it has been argued that it wasn't so much the loss of life as the fact that America woke up to TV pictures of the corpses of US soliders being dragged through the streets that caused the furore.
It was also the collapse of the fantasy. The US Marines came ashore in Somalia to waiting CNN and network news crews who had filled the beach with lighting and reporters. It was bizarre, but after the 'dream' wars of Desert Storm, Panama and Grenada (although the last one was a military disaster - in a grand tradition they just rewrote the whole story and claimed victory and battle honours) the public had come to expect grandstanding with a happy ending,
It was when that came crashing down.
-
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Erdogan said that talks were still under way with Muammar Gaddafi’s government and the Transitional National Council. He also revealed that Turkey is about to take over the running of the rebel-held Benghazi harbour and airport to facilitate humanitarian aid, in agreement with Nato.
Not that Erdogan has any great democratic credibility, having recently had 27 journalists jailed on what look like dubious charges.
Despite those dodgy credentials, I’m glad to hear this Russell. While my grandstanding may paint a picture of one who is anti everything and lacking a consistent pov, diplomacy is where it’s at for me, and I’d far rather diplomacy headed from within the region by those with greater local cultural mana, empathy and shit at stake than the exalted US posturing.
In essence it’s important to make the distinction between brokering peace and setting up a democracy, that they are not the same, and that at this time one certainly takes priority over the other. Democratic credibility is not a necessary prerequisite to successfully broker peace deals.
Harking back to the North Korean comparisons, I think it’s remiss to discuss that issue without due consideration of the diplomacy performed, not so much by the US, but by neighbouring countries (democratic or not).
-
glennd, in reply to
True one does not use helicopters to enforce a no-fly-zone, which is why I said "type of incident". You can easily imagine downed airmen getting in the same situation, or other captured personnel. It also rather depends on if it remains restricted to a no-fly-zone.
My main point was that Somalia was the same type of internationally lead operation against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the security of the US (or much anyone else) but the cavalier leadership and careless lack of an objective saw it devolve into farce from day one with the rather pissed looking marines landing to face flood lights. God knows what would have happened if a fire fight had erupted there.
Nevertheless, according to US law Obama must go to Congress after 60 days and get authorization to continue the war. He played fast and loose with getting into the war by not consulting Congress so it is difficult to see he will push his luck too much. Chances are they will extend it since the Republicans will probably end up backing a "war president" to maintain the tradition. On the other hand it may be used to effect a withdrawal from all operations.
-
glennd, in reply to
The difference compared to Desert Storm and Just Cause is that in both those once the executive decision was made to go to war the military was given its necessary freedom to conduct operations according to the defined goals with more than adequate forces. They had both no doubt been heavily war-gamed to death in prior years as well. Mogadishu was one of those nebulous peace-keeping exercises with no clear objective for commanders or men on the ground, generally insufficient committment of forces and a fragmented leadership. While the US lost a "relatively" large number of men in Mogadishu, they in turn inflicted casualties on the Somalis far out of proportion to their number. So if it had been part of a wider "proper" war it'd have been a hard won victory after a command f-up. But there was no proper war as such, so it was treated in isolation and becomes a defeat... not strangely the public reacts to that, not out of deflated egoism but they can pick up just as well when a cause not being prosecuted properly. After all, the UN pulled out altogether as well, not just the US. I'm sure the US military schools have many a contingency plan for Libya but I doubt they'll be dusted off in this situation. Just keep your fingers crossed the military *and* political lessons of Somalia have been learned.
-
Somalia was quite a different situation, because there was no clear fight - it was a bunch of warlords going at it. In Libya, everyone knows who the source of their misery is.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Somalia was quite a different situation, because there was no clear fight - it was a bunch of warlords going at it. In Libya, everyone knows who the source of their misery is.
Ah yes, the old adage that it's much easier to fight a war if the enemy is a proper noun.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
Ah yes, the old adage that it’s much easier to fight a war if the enemy is a proper noun.
The proper noun in this case being "to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi"?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.