Wesley Clark lays out his prerequisites for military action, applies them to Libya, and concludes:
Given these rules, what is the wisest course of action in Libya? To me, it seems we have no clear basis for action. Whatever resources we dedicate for a no-fly zone would probably be too little, too late. We would once again be committing our military to force regime change in a Muslim land, even though we can’t quite bring ourselves to say it. So let’s recognize that the basic requirements for successful intervention simply don’t exist, at least not yet: We don’t have a clearly stated objective, legal authority, committed international support or adequate on-the-scene military capabilities, and Libya’s politics hardly foreshadow a clear outcome.
We should have learned these lessons from our long history of intervention. We don’t need Libya to offer us a refresher course in past mistakes.
Exactly right. However, even though I have praised Obama’s caution and restraint so far, in his news conference yesterday he came very close to attaching his prestige and perceived effectiveness to regime change in Libya at a moment in time when Gaddafi appears to have regained the upper hand. It seems even Obama cannot resist the pull that drives America to overcommit time and time again. I hope I am wrong.
Making news?
I doubt it.
The fix has been well in since “departing” SecDef Gates (They don’t “depart,” exactly. They’re just recycled. PermaGov environmentalism at work.) shook his jowls at alla them young 2nd looies in West Point and basically said:
Like dat.
Watch.
You don’t need Wikileaks to know which way the wind’s a’blowin’.
No US troops on the ground. None that we’ll admit to, anyway.
French + British, with US warships hovering around w/in shelling range and US air power at he ready if necessary.
Watch.
Bet on it.
AG
Apparently the Arab League has endorsed no-fly zones. This might somewhat defuse the prospect of them being seen as yet another US/Western invasion. But if no-fly is what the Arab countries want, surely they are capable of establishing them on their own.
Or what exactly has the US been doing selling weapons to Saudi Arabia been about? Or the aid to Egypt? Or whatever we have done in the UAE and Morocco? There is more than enough firepower in the Arab League to accomplish the job. And then there’s our NATO ally Turkey, which is not in the Arab League but might join with an Arab League operation if one is authorized by the UN Security Council.
Once again, the US contribution is likely to be the use of AWACS aircraft to gather information for the Arab League force to use in managing the operation.
This action by the Arab League might make it possible for the US not to be involved.
And given it, it would not surprise me in the least if Russia or China were involved in the operation. Not likely, but now not surprising.
Um, what “prestige and perceived effectiveness?”
Jesus, BooMan, nobody in the upper reaches of the Obama administration read your blog or are going to be looking to hire you.
You just pimp them endlessly, and you vastly overrate their relevance to the events in the middle east.
There comes a time when always being the first to the scene discourages the rest of the team from stepping up to the plate. The rest of the team develops an attitude of ho hum, Mikey will stop ’em. Well, the US may have a history of being the world’s protector but times have changed, economies & militaries have expanded and it’s time for the rest of our allies to start their engines.
“ the US may have a history of being the world’s protector…“
Protector? Are you serious? That might be how Americans choose to perceive themselves, but I assure you that is not how the US is perceived in most of the rest of the world.
You could say Obama attached his “prestige and perceived effectiveness” to a hell of a lot of things. I think I’m being fair if I say the follow through on those various promises has been a mixed bag. Which is reassuring in this case, I guess?
As for the Arab league administering a no-fly zone with Saudi F-15s and whatever the turks have, I can think of one extremely dear and extremely coddled American ally in the region that would probably go absolutely ape-shit about such a thing. Not to mention all the opportunistic racists in the GOP. The media drivel writes itself. So that’s probably not going to happen.
I expect that our “coddled American ally” would be delighted to have the Saudis using their F-15s on the Gaddafi regime instead anywhere in the Levant.
The GOP is going to be opportunistic racists regardless of the reality of the opportunity. They are fully capable of inventing their own opportunities.
And the media drivel? They’ll have a hell of a time deciding who the good guys and bad guys are, but will probably criticize Obama for not intervening forcefully like Bush did in Iraq. They’ll savage him for depending on the United Nations, NATO, the EU, and the Arab League when it was the US that needed to go bust heads.
There is one reason that Saudi Arabia might not act. It would set a precedent if there were a similar wide-scale revolt in Saudi Arabia.
Obama was backing up what the European Union had said this week. They said that Gadaffi must go.
Staying on the same page is useful.
Wesley Clark WAS right, but I don’t think his statement responds to the current situation.
I do not know the real back story, but it seems to me tha the US has been playing a vigorous behind-the-scenes diplomatic role, and the message has been: something’s got to be done about this, but let’s get real. Both the EU and the Arab League know perfectly well that it is insane and impossible, both economically and politically, from both domestic and foreign perspective, for the US to take the lead on this. (Even publicly we’ve been signaling this for weeks, but I’m sure the diplomatic discussions have been more explicit.) So basically, you guys will have to get off your butts and do something yourselves, it’s your bailiwick. Of course we’ll support you, but the ball’s in your court. In the last week France and a timid EU have made at least diplomatic gestures by recognizing the rebel government –and today something much more important occurred, the Arab league OK’d a no-fly zone. That is what the EU and everybody else was waiting for.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-fighting-20110313,0,1357973.story
I share your reluctance to get involved, but there is a pretty wide consensus in both the West and the Arab world that Kaddafy’s got to go. What I don’t understand is the unexamined assumption that the US is the only one that WOULD conceivably do anything, even though of course we shouldn’t. (Therefore Kaddafy wins.) To repeat, nobody but the neocons thinks the USA should get directly involved, but almost everyone wants Kaddafy out. My prediction: Kaddafy’s toast.