Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Tristan Abbey ·
Feb 26, 2011 at 8:41am
A large number of commentators are calling for the US to create a no-fly zone (NFZ) over Libya to prevent the massacre of civilians by what is left of the Qaddafi regime. This, in effect, means that an American aircraft carrier will have to be deployed off the coast to facilitate enforcement of the NFZ.
Over at Bellum, we ask the question: why does it have to be an American aircraft carrier? In short, the Europeans have much more at stake than we do; the Europeans have the capability to do this (multiple aircraft carriers, lots of helicopters, aircraft and support vessels); so, if a situation like this isn't what their military is for, then what is it for?
- Comment (46)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
What another country would call an "aircraft carrier", we would call an amphibious assault vehicle. With great power, comes great responsibility. If there is going to be a military action to defend the skies of Libya, then the US needs to take that lead. We are the ones who preach about the right of the people to choose their government. We are the ones touting democracy over dictatorship. We need to be the ones that make sure the unchosen government does not destroy its people. No one else can fly our flag the way we can.
Jul '10
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
If Kadaffi wants to slaughter his citizens, it's none of our business. I don't want one gallon of aviation fuel devoted to intervention unless it's to protect American citizens.
Jan '11
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Further to your point, Tristan, there's a very large aircraft carrier already there - I think it's called Italy. And Greece (Crete) too! Members of NATO, to boot. I realise the distances are longer than from a carrier in the Gulf of Sidra, but not impossibly.
From Wikipedia: "The Berlin Plus agreement is a comprehensive package of agreements made between NATO and the European Union on 16 December 2002. With this agreement the EU was given the possibility to use NATO assets in case it wanted to act independently in an international crisis, on the condition that NATO itself did not want to act—the so-called "right of first refusal".[6][dead link] Only if NATO refused to act would the EU have the option to act"
May '10
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Tristan Abbey:...so, if a situation like this isn't what their military is for, then what is it for?
Defense.
Jul '10
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Michael Labeit
Tristan Abbey:...so, if a situation like this isn't what their military is for, then what is it for?
Defense. · Feb 24 at 9:43pm
Well said, Michael. And laudably succinct.
Jun '10
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Libya is engaged in a full-fledged civil war. Many in the military and in the police forces in the country are defecting from the regime and joining the revolutionaries. As they do so, their armored vehicles, weapons and ammunition are coming with them. As cities and territory are gained around Tripoli it may only be a matter of days before Gaddafi's regime falls.
The members of the UN Security Council need to make a determination and an assessment on how best to protect civilians caught in the crossfire or who may be being slaughtered by any air assets that Gaddafi still controls. If the members agree that instituting a No Fly Zone would prevent massive bloodshed then the next steps would be that the US and possibly other Navy's and Air Forces would participate in establishing and maintaining it.
Since the US is a member of the Security Council it is logical to assume that we would have an active role. It is doubtful that the US would act unilaterally in this case as direct US interests aren't threatened. The situation would be different if a NATO ally or Israel was threatened.
Edited on Feb 24, 2011 at 10:00pmJul '10
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Brian Watt:
The members of the UN Security Council need to make a determination and an assessment on how best to protect civilians caught in the crossfire or who may be being slaughtered by any air assets that Gaddafi still controls.
Naw, the UN only shows up in time to rape civilians.
Jun '10
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Kenneth
Brian Watt:
The members of the UN Security Council need to make a determination and an assessment on how best to protect civilians caught in the crossfire or who may be being slaughtered by any air assets that Gaddafi still controls.
Naw, the UN only shows up in time to rape civilians. · Feb 24 at 10:05pm
Well, you may right about the UN's lack of commitment to do anything substantial in this case. I think given the quickly changing events and allegiances on the ground they may just wait to see if Tripoli falls first...and then wait to see if they're called in by the revolutionaries to come in with a peacekeeping force until a functional government can be established.
Feb '11
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Tony Martyr: ... Members of NATO, to boot.
To my knowledge, the carrier Turkey is still undergoing a refitting and likely to be out of commission for some time.
Dec '10
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Back in the nineties, when we were pounding Milosevic like cheap veal, I often wondered why it was up to us. I understood the necessity of US intervention after the invasion of Kuwait. Iraq had the world’s fourth largest army and neither Russia nor China was not about to step up. But why could not the Europeans deal with Milosevic?
Dec '10
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
They could have but chose not to. And that problem was in France's, Germany's, and Italy's back yard. Given they wouldn't lift a finger on their own, we should not have gotten involved.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Europeans are not united in fraternal brotherhood in the 21st century any more than they were in the 19th or first half of the 20th. Each country is concerned only with their own security, not their collective security. They would all probably hand Poland back to Russia, again, tomorrow, if it did not directly threaten their own security.
NATO is an empty alliance without the US. Afghanistan was supposed to be a NATO led effort after the Taliban was toppled. NATO failed miserably and handed it back to us.
If the Europeans won't do something about Libya without us then so be it.
Further, Egypt has 200 F-16's. Egypt could impose a no-fly zone. Their Arab brothers are being slaughtered next door and they chose to stand by and watch.
If Europe and Egypt will do nothing without us, why should we get involved?
Dec '10
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Nickolas
Further, Egypt has 200 F-16's. Egypt could impose a no-fly zone. Their Arab brothers are being slaughtered next door and they chose to stand by and watch. · Feb 25 at 6:03am
Egypt also has over 1000 M1 Abrams tanks. They could go over and rescue their Arab brethren, but would that be good?
Jul '10
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Brian Watt
Kenneth
Brian Watt:
The members of the UN Security Council need to make a determination and an assessment on how best to protect civilians caught in the crossfire or who may be being slaughtered by any air assets that Gaddafi still controls.
Naw, the UN only shows up in time to rape civilians. · Feb 24 at 10:05pm
Well, you may right about the UN's lack of commitment to do anything substantial in this case. I think given the quickly changing events and allegiances on the ground they may just wait to see if Tripoli falls first...and then wait to see if they're called in by the revolutionaries to come in with a peacekeeping force until a functional government can be established. · Feb 24 at 10:13pm
Our ambassador to the UN has bigger fish to fry. There's a very important sustainability conference in South Africa she's attending.
Jan '11
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
I suspect Egypt's military has its hands full at the moment...
Jul '10
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
I am appalled by the atrocities ongoing in what has become a Libyan civil war. But while I disagree sharply with Kenneth and Michael on the underlying philosophy of a no in this instance, looking at this war from all angles and reading everything I can find, I find no shred of evidence that American intervention in Libya is in America's interest. The sides are an over-the-top murderous tyrant and his army, brutal, murderous Islamists, apparently to include a new al Qaeda emirate in Derna, and no clear sign of anything more sympathetic to cozy up to.
The Libyan army has fractured, the breakaway cities appear to have different ideas on what should happen post-Ghaddafi, this thing may be going to be going on awhile.
Find me a faction worth supporting and we can talk from there.
May '10
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Agreed, but look at what happened to Europe while we ensured their security. The last thing we need to do is signal to the Middle Eastern peoples that we'll guard them all as well; especially since the lot of them are enemies.
We're already occupying two nations in the region. If we send our jets into Libya, we might as well tell the entire Middle East we've come to conquer them all. Any rookie propogandist could sell that story.
Meanwhile, our financial situation is abysmal. We have no business being charitable with other people's money.
Waiting for bombs to be dropped on American soil is a poor defense strategy, but I agree with Kenneth that the U.S. should scale back its military interventions. And the only way Europe will learn is if we stop doing their dirty work for them.
Oh, and abolish the U.N.
Jun '10
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Aaron Miller
Agreed, but look at what happened to Europe while we ensured their security. The last thing we need to do is signal to the Middle Eastern peoples that we'll guard them all as well; especially since the lot of them are enemies. · Feb 25 at 11:42am
Well we did have peace in Western Europe for 50 years after WWII and counting and Western Europe remained for the most part capitalist. Of course, had we not kept the peace they could have been Communist states and part of the Soviet Bloc. I always thought that keeping the peace in this instance was a pretty good idea. But then that's how some of us old fogies think.
Jan '11
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
When you want something done, you have to do it yourself.
But enough with comic book cliches. I don't think it's going to cost us significantly more to just park a carrier group in the Mediterranean, if we don't already have one. We've got a group for just about every other time zone.
They're constantly doing drills and we might as well have them light a fire under some dictator so he doesn't do anything we don't want him to do -- especially to American expats in Libya working the oil there.
Ultimately, it's going to depend on whether or not you want these uprisings to continue. After the first Gulf War, the Iraqi people revolted with the expectation that the US was going to come in and take out Saddam. That potentially bit us in the behind ten years later. It's not a perfect analogy, but if you want stuff like this to continue in the ME, and you're optimistic about the results, then we should at least show some nominal support for it. And I don't think it's going to cost us that much.
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
It may nonetheless be in our interest to help shape the successor regime. The protection of American citizens requires on our part a concerted and never-ending effort to shape the international environment. Standing for "human rights" is one of the weapons in our arsenal. I would agree, however, that prudence must govern our use of force. We must ask, "What good is it in our power to do for ourselves (and, incidentally, for others as well)?" When the elder Bush went into Somalia, my thought was: "no good." I often wonder about Afghanistan. Libya is another matter. The population is small, and the oil resources are considerable. The trick is to figure out how to do well and to do good.
Re: Of Aircraft Carriers and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi
Kenneth
Michael Labeit
Defense. · Feb 24 at 9:43pm
Well said, Michael. And laudably succinct. · Feb 24 at 9:47pm
But this may be a part of defense. Keep in mind that Gaddafi has killed many an American. Do not forget Lockerbie.
Edited on Feb 26, 2011 at 9:14am