danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll be waiting on the retraction.

Yeah, the mighty Eritrea joined up in Iraq. How could we forget the crucial part they played...

As I'm sure the biggest contributor in terms of airpower to the Libya Adventure is . . . the United Arab Emirates.

I know, I know--you hate being wrong. It's called "fact-checking."

It is early yet, but we have allies who previously refused to help in Iraq, and have like France, greater capacity. We are not seeing massive worldwide opposition to the actions, and despite my misgivings, that does suggest that it's not seen as quite so divisive.

Could it be that France had a financial interest in Saddam remaining in power? Could it be that France has an interest in Libyan oil?

Not so divisive? That wasn't the standard you set. You said it was easier to get allies. That is demonstrably false.

Beyond that, Bush went to the UN--and had more authority to do what he did than Obama does. How does a "no-fly zone" morph into attacking ground troops in a few days?

Why don't you quote or reference UN1973? It goes further than a no-fly zone, allowing actions to protect civilians from attack, which was the reasoning for attacking those columns of tanks that had been shelling Benghazi.

There is no way 1973 can cover all the actions the coalition is currently undertaking. Say whatever you'd like, but when Obama is calling for regime change and we are taking the "protecting citizens" doctrine into the empty desert of Libya, you're out on a logical tightrope in a hurricane.

UN1441 does not explicitly allow the use of force. It was a very tedious legal argument as to whether it could, and basically which ever side you fall on determines how you view the law.. UN1973 is explicit.

1441 was the latest of how many UN resolutions? At what point does one enforce them?

1973 does not explicitly authorize all the Coalition is doing too. Please say it does. Please. I will be happy over the next few months to post all the ways we are stretching it beyond recognition. 1973 is a fig leaf to justify removing Ghaddafi. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like airpower alone will get him--as the rebels are in reverse.

Simple fact checking, Steve, and less blather.

Yes, you really should fact-check, Dan, and blather less.

Oh dear, ricky has invoked Yorktown...you go Canada boy.
{ramping up snark}

Perhaps the U.S. should consider maintaining a Democratic president for the long haul. The benefit of the doubt being extended for our actions in Libya is really refreshing. Nobody believes a "just war" pitch from the other side of the aisle. So if there really is a "just war" to be fought...better to fight it with as much support (internal and external) as possible.

It's also useful to establish a baseline for "just wars" going forward. One obviously needs a humanitarian element...but that by itself is not enough. The way lefties pointedly ignore the words "Darfur" and "Ivory Coast" in forums should be enough to prove that. One must be invited to a "just war”, one cannot build a coalition beforehand. What else? Short duration natch.

I’m looking forward to seeing how the aftermath of a well-handled “just war” plays out too. When will we know we’re done? Will the U.S. get a pat on the head from the international community for doing the initial heavy lifting and graciously stepping aside? Will there be onus to help rebuild Libya or will we just do a finger wag to whoever takes power?

I see this as a potential big winner for the Obama reelection campaign. He invoked Jay-Z during the first campaign…now picture a campaign video with a neato montage of Libya warfighting and diplomatic coalition-building set to Montell Jordan’s “This Is how We Do It”. Gold.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:The Israeli ambassador to the US made a similar point in today's WSJ. Qaddafi gave up the bomb because of the US invasion of Iraq.

Did he though? Was he even getting close to having the bomb? Or was there a lot of misinformation about? I have to say I found the whole episode quite odd. Almost as if Gadaffi was lying (say it ain't so!) about his capabilities all along.

Fair point.

However, it is entirely speculative. This seems a balanced view:

It was reported that ElBaradei and U.S. officials disagreed on the status of Libya’s nuclear program. U.S. and U.K. weapon inspectors, who had visited at least ten of Libya’s secret weapon sites during the lengthy negotiation process, reportedly believed Libya’s program to be more advanced than ElBaradei, who described the program as one “in the very initial stages of development” following his preliminary inspection on December 29th. ElBaradei was quoted as saying that “we haven’t seen any industrial-scale facility to produce highly enriched uranium. We haven’t seen any enriched uranium.” Nevertheless, the U.S. and IAEA inspectors have agreed to coordinate their efforts in Libya. U.S. and British specialists charged with dismantling the nuclear program have already begun to ship Libya’s most sensitive materials, equipment and documentation to the United States. The shipments included uranium hexafluoride, missile guidance devices, components for enriching uranium for bomb fuel and a box of documents said to be blueprints for a nuclear weapon. The IAEA teams will certify Libya’s compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Although Libya was able to acquire both the design and the components necessary to build an advanced centrifuge made of maraging steel, and had reportedly built a pilot-scale centrifuge cascade and conversion unit, Libya appeared to be years away from developing a nuclear weapon. However, the fact that Libya could make substantial progress while subject to strict U.N. sanctions, IAEA inspections and, presumably, the scrutiny of U.S. and Israeli intelligence raises serious questions about the ability to deter the spread of nuclear weapons.

The truth is he was farther along than anyone suspected and we don't know precisely how long it would have taken Libya to obtain them. However, for anyone interested in the truth (and not merely at denying any efficacy in the Iraq War), there is an undeniable link between Saddam's fall and Ghaddafi's sudden cooperation.

The invasion of Iraq was to result in a very difficult occupation, thousands of lives lost, enormous treasure expended and...

Nope, that's simply looking at the situation after the fact. At the time it was assumed the invasion would be done fairly quickly and in fact it was faster than imagined, France could have joined that and pulled out after the invasion was over, no one said they had to stay. Instead France protested (while they continued to disregard the embargo) from day one, violation of UN sanctions didn't seem to matter to France in that situation, yet here in Libya France is quick to enforce immediate sanctions with no opportunity to accept any ultimatum.

tom

Nope, that's simply looking at the situation after the fact. At the time it was assumed the invasion would be done fairly quickly and in fact it was faster than imagined,

But the French felt differently and calculated the cost of the occupation as part of their decision. Why do you blame them for avoiding a mistake? They never blamed the US for not getting involved in Algeria.

rickyp wrote:tom

Nope, that's simply looking at the situation after the fact. At the time it was assumed the invasion would be done fairly quickly and in fact it was faster than imagined,

But the French felt differently and calculated the cost of the occupation as part of their decision. Why do you blame them for avoiding a mistake? They never blamed the US for not getting involved in Algeria.

Right. Principle. France?

Doctor Fate wrote:Could it be that France had a financial interest in Saddam remaining in power? Could it be that France has an interest in Libyan oil?

Much better questions than "Why do you blame them for avoiding a mistake?"

Doctor Fate wrote:Not so divisive? That wasn't the standard you set. You said it was easier to get allies. That is demonstrably false.

Having fewer allies doesn't prove that it's harder to get them. Maybe Bush tried very hard, and Obama (who was not really leading the moves on Libya anyway) not much at all.

By the way, the UAE has sent twelve planes to be based in Italy to take part in the operations over Libya. I can't see what Eritrea did at any point in the at 8 years in Iraq. If it's close to twelve planes (plus crew and support), maybe they are comparable. The original list of the 'coalition of the willing' included countries in the Pacific who don't have armies, but clearly they've tidied it up a bit since then.

There is no way 1973 can cover all the actions the coalition is currently undertaking. Say whatever you'd like, but when Obama is calling for regime change and we are taking the "protecting citizens" doctrine into the empty desert of Libya, you're out on a logical tightrope in a hurricane.

You seem to be confusing me with someone who support the intervention, Steve. I was just pointing out that UN1973 is more than just a no fly zone.

1441 was the latest of how many UN resolutions? At what point does one enforce them?

When one says "this is what we will authorise". Israel has defied many UN resolutions, but they didn't authorise force in the even of non-compliance.

1973 does not explicitly authorize all the Coalition is doing too. Please say it does. Please. I will be happy over the next few months to post all the ways we are stretching it beyond recognition. 1973 is a fig leaf to justify removing Ghaddafi. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like airpower alone will get him--as the rebels are in reverse.

The line is moving back and forth along the Bay of Sirte. At one point the rebels were defending Benghazi, since then they made it past Ras Lanuf.

Yes, you really should fact-check, Dan, and blather less.

Well, here's the full text of UN1973 - http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/ ... Resolution

As well as a section on a No Fly Zone it has the following text:

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

Now, we can argue all day about what "all necessary measures" includes, but it seems to be pretty open. Perhaps you can explain how what the coalition is doing is outside that purview?

What is ruled out is foreign occupation and supplying arms (another section deals with the arms embargo). Explicitly so. When someone does those, then they are in breach of UN1973, unless there is a new resolution agreed.

Not sure why you have to be so driven to attack me on this. I tend to agree that the intervention is the wrong thing, and that we are going too far. I'm not convinced, however, that it's all Obama's fault.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Not so divisive? That wasn't the standard you set. You said it was easier to get allies. That is demonstrably false.

Having fewer allies doesn't prove that it's harder to get them. Maybe Bush tried very hard, and Obama (who was not really leading the moves on Libya anyway) not much at all.

That's not the way Obama describes it. Of course, in his world view, nothing good happens that doesn't redound to his credit and nothing bad happens that Bush didn't cause.

By the way, the UAE has sent twelve planes to be based in Italy to take part in the operations over Libya. I can't see what Eritrea did at any point in the at 8 years in Iraq.

I'm sure the UAE is right in the thick of the action.

You seem to be confusing me with someone who support the intervention, Steve. I was just pointing out that UN1973 is more than just a no fly zone.

Fine.

1441 was the latest of how many UN resolutions? At what point does one enforce them?

When one says "this is what we will authorise". Israel has defied many UN resolutions, but they didn't authorise force in the even of non-compliance.

Right. Then we get back to the ceasefire Saddam broke and all of that. Yada, yada.

All the UN resolutions regarding Israel prove to me is what an anti-Jewish institution it is.

As well as a section on a No Fly Zone it has the following text:

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

Now, we can argue all day about what "all necessary measures" includes, but it seems to be pretty open. Perhaps you can explain how what the coalition is doing is outside that purview?

I'm kind of old-fashioned. If the Ghaddafi forces are out in the desert, away from civilians, I don't see how this can possibly justify attacking them.

Furthermore, this could end with MORE civilian deaths than we allegedly prevented. What happens when/if the rebels get to Tripoli? Airpower won't save any lives inside the city.

What is ruled out is foreign occupation and supplying arms (another section deals with the arms embargo). Explicitly so. When someone does those, then they are in breach of UN1973, unless there is a new resolution agreed.

Yet, it appears the President has been flirting with arming them since even before the resolution. Time will tell, but I wonder if he has violated 1973 what his supporters will make of it?

Jon Stewart explains the President's policy and gives a helpful history lesson on American foreign policy.

Meanwhile, could it be we are losing Saudi Arabia as a friend--a result of the President's "smart power?" According to Tom Brokaw, noted Obama critic , that may be the case:

After remarking on the difficulty of establishing democracy in the Middle East, Brokaw said that Defense Secretary Robert Gates “will face some tough questions in this region about the American intentions going on now with all this new turmoil, especially in an area where the United States has such big stakes politically and economically.”

“And a lot of those questions presumably will come from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia,” reported Brokaw on the Nightly News. “I was told on the way in here that the Saudis are so unhappy with the Obama administration for the way it pushed out President Mubarak of Egypt that it sent high level emissaries to China and Russia to tell those two countries that Saudi Arabia now is prepared to do more business with them.”

We're so "lucky" to have a President like this! His deft handling of foreign affairs has resulted in a safer world wherein countries love and respect us again.

George Will cuts the quick:

Several weeks ago, when President Obama reportedly assured congressional leaders that America's intervention in Libya would involve "days, not weeks," skeptics mistakenly worried about mission creep. They should have feared mission gallop.

Or perhaps mission meander. At about this point in foreign policy misadventures, the usual question is: What is Plan B? Today's question is: What was Plan A? When Obama inserted America into what was, and ostensibly still is, a pre-emptive war to protect Libyan civilians from Libya's government, he neglected to clarify a few things, such as: Do the armed rebels trying to overthrow that government still count as civilians? . . .

The Libyan venture is coinciding with a humanitarian disaster in the Ivory Coast, where corpses are piling up by the hundreds and the fighting is producing displaced persons by the hundreds of thousands. They will have to make do with U.N. and French interveners until America's humanitarian imperialists can get around to them.

Obama's inability, or reluctance, to say clearly why we are involved in Libya or under what conditions the mission might be said to have been accomplished has occasioned comparisons with Iraq. A more apposite comparison is to Jimmy Carter's invasion of Iran -- a nation twice as large as France -- with eight helicopters. This became emblematic of a floundering president out of his depth.

As Calvin Coolidge, who knew his depth, was leaving the presidency in March 1929, he said, "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business." Before an administration can do that, it must define its responsibilities and competence with sufficient modesty to acknowledge that some things are not its business.

One can hope for a good outcome, I do. I am not optimistic, but I hope it goes well.

No one can make a coherent presentation of what we are doing, why, and how this action might inform future (or current) situations.

george will

The Libyan venture is coinciding with a humanitarian disaster in the Ivory Coast, where corpses are piling up by the hundreds and the fighting is producing displaced persons by the hundreds of thousands. They will have to make do with U.N. and French interveners until America's humanitarian imperialists can get around to them.

I wonder why Will assumes that there will be American intervention? If there is not, will he credit Obama for not getting involved or count the lives lost in Cote D''Ivore against Obama because he didn't intervene?
And I wonder why he doesn't also include Reagan's intervention in Lebanon as an aborted intervention, since it is far more comparable? Carter was attempting a rescue mission. Period.
Reagan was asserting force into Lebanon with Marines. When the barracks were bombed he bailed....
As per usual Will is uneven.
Steve:

No one can make a coherent presentation of what we are doing, why, and how this action might inform future (or current) situations

Certainly not George Will. Its obvious Steve that facts on the ground changed the situation in Iraq weekly. Even daily. The rationale,. the plan and even the objectives changed daily.
That you can't remember that I'll put down to selective memory.
Every military plan and every grand strategy is faced with reality. And changes. Thank your lucky stars that the grand plan in Libya is still below that of Reagan's plan in Lebanon and no where near Bush's plan in Iraq.

The actual invasion of Iraq was a solid success, it was done fast, per planned and with minimal losses. The problem with Iraq was the assumption the people there would welcome freedom and form their own government and get along with living. In and out.

That part was not so well thought out but the invasion most certainly was SOLID to say the least.

So what have we learned?
We now have a sort-of invasion plan, one that supports the rebels without us getting "boots on the ground" this "plan" is sloppy and ill conceived. We have no idea who the good guys or the bad guys are, NATO just shot up rebel tanks and killed innocents by accident. This is nowhere near the precision planning we had in Iraq.
OK, but what about Iraq AFTER the invasion, you know, the part the lefties like Rickyp kept complaining about "poor planning"?

In Iraq we had no clear idea of who would rule the country
so we know that now right? We learned that lesson?
Ooops, no, we don't know that either.

In Iraq we had different groups all fighting each other yet all were united against the allied forces.
We learned a lesson and that certainly will not happen in Libya right?
welllllll, Libya does not have the different factions (shia, Kurds, etc..) but what about the loyalists vs the rebels? Do we have any clue if they will continue to fight each other? Since we have no boots on the ground, why do we assume things will suddenly turn peaceful? Seems to me this is in fact ill conceived and not wel planned, it seems to me like we have learned nothing from the Iraq (or Afghan) mess. The liberals were oh so against Iraq (and they had their valid points I may not have agreed with but they at least stuck to their supposed principles) why are they so for this very similar yet in some ways far less planned "intervention" I honestly don't get it at all. Where are the concerns they had before, or gee, maybe it is and was simple partisan politics and they can't find it possible to agree with Conservatives or to disagree with Obama?

You know what, I think I just stumbled upon the only thing that makes at least some sense!?

Tom, as a 'liberal' who does not support the action on Libya (I understand it, I don't believe it to be illegal, but I have grave doubts as to the wisdom), I agree with most of your post.

Right up to where you attacked 'the liberals' as being partisan on the issue, obviously. There were 'conservatives' who before intervention were bemoaning that Obama was doing too little (and of course had he not, and Bengazi had been razed by vengeful government forces, I daresay many on the right would say that was Obama's fault). There are 'liberals' who oppose the action.

I so much want to agree with the essential position that you and Steve and others are taking on this, but some of the rhetoric is rather putting me off (as did some the of wilder rhetoric of the anti-Iraq people).

tom

We now have a sort-of invasion plan, one that supports the rebels without us getting "boots on the ground" this "plan" is sloppy and ill conceived.

Exactly why do you claim this is sloppy and ill conceived? Is it because there are no troops involved? Is it because it didn't stop carnage in Ben Ghazi? Is it because you can't be certain of an out come? Is it because there were "friendly fire" incidents? (By the way most of the British soldiers killed in the invasion of Iraq died under friendly fire... )
The original goals were to stop a genocide in Benghazi. Achieved.
The second goals announced were to enable the rebels to advance. Some success...
The third goal (announcd by some in NATO) is to help the rebels topple Ghaddaffi... Ongoing.
The fourth goal is to do all of the above without having to invade. So far so good.

If you remember the invasion of Iraq completely... the goals and objectives changed constantly. One lesson learned in Iraq was that the local populace is best left to self determination, and that therefore an occupation is an undesirable exercise. HAsn't this lessons been applied?
I'd say that the other lesson of Iraq is that moving ahead without major allied support left the US majorly carrying the can. In Libya, that's not the case...
The one success in Iraq was that the government is at least a somewhat democratic institution. That it has been friendly to Iran is a negative for American interests, but it provides the lesson that people given the ability to determine their own affairs won't always agree with you.
Not knowing who will win out in Libya, or what the nature of the government that succeeds Ghadaffi will OR must be is actually a pre-requisite- - if one believes in the right of self determination . After all, if one already knew the disposition of the government because it was being imposed upon the people, you- by definition - wouldn't be supporting self determination.

Perhaps the biggest lesson of Iraq was that things are never as simple as one thinks they could be... And for that reason, instead of jumping in with both feet, the US and NATO are being cautious.
It ain't perfect, but its a lot easier to deal with than a full scale invasion and occupation. And if it doesn't go well, a Reagan in Lebanon can always be pulled. Cut one's losses and leave. Once you've occupied a country thats not so easy.