The Mess In Libya
"Restrepo" director Tim Hetherington and photographer Chris Hondros were killed in Libya on April 20. Hetherington’s last tweet read: “In besieged Libyan city of Misrata. Indiscrimate shelling by Qaddafi forces. No sign of NATO.”
I strongly opposed intervention in this conflict, for a variety of reasons. But war supporter (and Ricochet contributor) Matt Continetti gives an excellent summary of the mess in Libya over at the Washington Post, where he's blogging for the week.
He notes that President Obama said we had to get involved to prevent the massacre of civilians and that his goal is a Libya where Moammar Gaddafi does not rule. Obviously both of those things are not going according to Obama's fervent hopes and desires. NATO is feckless and Obama doesn't seem to get that speechifying is not sufficient:
A NATO operation without the full commitment of the United States is a prescription for failure. Look at how southern Afghanistan deteriorated between the onset of NATO control in 2006 and Obama’s surge in 2009. The murky civil war that’s resulted from NATO half-measures in Libya may insulate the president from domestic criticism. But that won’t last. Pretty soon Americans are going to start wondering why Gaddafi remains in Tripoli, why Libyan state television still broadcasts, why NATO is riven by infighting and indecisiveness.
There was an argument for staying out of Libya. Of course, nonintervention would have had costs of its own — a lot of innocents would have died, Gaddafi would have remained in power, most likely the wave of revolutions rocking the Middle East would have been halted. I happen to think the benefits of a Libya without Gaddafi and the hope of a democratic Middle East outweigh the costs of intervention. But Obama’s approach seems to be all costs: U.S. involvement, rebels who feel betrayed, a Gaddafi who’s just waiting for the chance to strike back, a NATO in danger of becoming irrelevant and a prolonged and indeterminate war.
It's infuriating that we got ourselves involved in another messy situation. But the only thing worse than our involvement is our half-hearted involvement -- the worst of all worlds. The Wall Street Journal -- also Libyan war supporters -- have a devastating critique of Obama's management, too.
I'd be inclined to just cut our losses and get out of this disaster. Continetti is arguing for a surge! What do you think?
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: The Mess In Libya
Continetti is wrong. The surge in Iraq worked because we had the leadership of George Bush and the resources to pull it off - as well as some luck.
The 'surge' in Afghanistan has failed because of the man-child Sophomore-in-Chief who knows nothing about life except self-promotion and campaigning, and our shortage of resources.
Libya is another trap that is not winnable without genuine Arab and international co-operation. The Arabs must be made to pay for their cynicism and neglect.
Why shouldn't Arab nations pay for all of their defense? Not just in money, but manpower?
Feb '11
Re: The Mess In Libya
A mess, indeed. I'm inclined to think that once we get involved militarily then we need to be involved, but I don't see what we'd hope to achieve in this case, considering how little we seem to know about the opposition. At this point, if possible, I'd say we should ensure that Gaddafi is removed, and then we should get out of the way.
Dec '10
Re: The Mess In Libya
I am in favor of taking military action in Libya. I don't know if I have a screw lose or what but somehow I keep forgetting exactly who our commander in chief is. Its like having a wish granted by an evil genie. All the words of your wish are technically fulfilled, but the meaning all twisted to give you the worst version of them possibly.
All you people who were anti-Liyban involvement from the start please do me a favor. Next time something like this comes up don't even bother with the arguments about ethics, cost benefits, etc. Just gentle remind the rest of us that exactly who is sitting in the oval office these days.
I can't believe I didn't see this coming *facepalm*
Oct '10
Re: The Mess In Libya
i'm in favor of arranging for Daffy's exile to Saudi Arabia or Venezuela with immunity from all criminal charges.
Nov '10
Re: The Mess In Libya
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.:
I'd be inclined to just cut our losses and get out of this disaster. Continetti is arguing for a surge! What do you think? ·
We stand and fight, dammit! The reason Iraq is a free country right now is because George W. Bush did not listen to the defeatists and cynics who said the war was lost, or that Iraqis weren't ready for freedom. (The leader of that parade of fools was, of course, Mr. John Kerry, but Messrs. Obama and Biden weren't far behind.) Shame on us if we should ever find ourselves on the same side of an argument as they.
Jun '10
Re: The Mess In Libya
Obama could learn a lesson from the Bay of Pigs invasion, and JFK. Part of the plan was using two pre-invasion waves of air strikes (flown by Cuban exile pilots) to take out Castro's meager Air Force. They did one air strike, took out about half of what they needed to take out, and then, JFK called off the second strike because he feared the political repercussions. So, with half of his tiny Air Force intact (just a handful of planes) Castro sank the supply ships for the Bay of Pigs operation, crippled the whole invasion, and won the day. Going half-way is how you lose wars, because going half-way tells the other side that you're willing to lose.
Sep '10
Re: The Mess In Libya
LOL
Oct '10
Re: The Mess In Libya
As with almost any argument about policy, now that we have a manchild in the White House who lives inside of a mind that is antithetical to all things American, we argue in a hostile environment. It seems as though we are all marooned on a ship heading into a sea of icebergs, and are debating the joys of making landfall on an island paradise.
No discussion of American policy or actions, whether Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq or the national debt can be held without making the focus, not what should be our policy on this issue, but rather, how can we predict and defend America from the probable actions of this administration.
My expectation is that the Obama administration will equivocate on Libya while seeking to surrender American sovereignty to an established international body, NATO or the UN, and at that time immunize himself from blame for the ultimate failure to either remove Ghadaffi, or, if successful at that, allowing Libya to descend into an Islamist state presenting a far greater threat to Europe than Ghadaffi ever has.
How an we get congress to force us out of Libya now? Enough damage has already been done.
Mar '11
Re: The Mess In Libya
Mr Obama is sending in the Drones, so everything will be fine. It's the Liberal way of waging War, err, Kinetic Military Action, from 30,000 ft - now the pilots do not even have to leave Las Vegas. All they have to do is find some targets that are not hiding behind civilians.
The Achilles heal of the US military is its commander in chief - I'm not sure the Founders took the possibility of someone like Mr Obama into account when they came up with the Constitution. Actually, I am sure they didn't!
Oh, and is't Mr Obama supposed to ask for the approval of Congress? Not for Kinetic Military Action from 30,000ft, via. Las Vegas, I guess.
May '10
Re: The Mess In Libya
I would be in favor of deposing Qaddafi, if we had the martial vigor necessary to the task. But, Obama has no resolve or ability to do the job. This is really heading fast into quagmire country.
Good thing the media isn't covering any of this in detail, or we might be upset about it!
Apr '11
Re: The Mess In Libya
Get out now. Should never have gone in. It was always a European interest. Hand it off to NATO then leave NATO, ;-)
Feb '11
Re: The Mess In Libya
We have no reason to believe that any replacement to Gaddafi will be nicer or better liked by the people of Libya. Can anyone dispute this statement with informed arguments?
Now we - in the US - are at best fighting for EU access to Libyan oil. Does anyone dispute this statement?
Aug '10
Re: The Mess In Libya
The 'surge' in Afghanistan was presented to the President as a series of choices based on risk. Risk in this context is not the probability & severity of a particular outcome, but is rather couched as the probability & severity of two outcomes (risk to mission success & personal risk to forces)
The 'Low Risk' option required 80,000 troops. This meant that the mission is nearly assured and the risk to troops would be low.
The Medium Risk option was presented as 45,000 to 40,000.
The High Risk option, meaning it was the absolute minimum to get the job done, would entail the most personal danger and the outcome would still be in doubt was 20,000 troops. President Obama chose 30,000.
He chose a high-risk option that not succeeded for a couple of reasons, beginning with command relationships among our NATO allies and an insufficiency of force. The drone attacks into Pakistan means that Biden was prescient when he proposed his "magic ninja" plan.
Aug '10
Re: The Mess In Libya
I found out Thursday that one of my buddies in the office is Chris Hondros' cousin. We spent some time looking through his photos from this and other conflicts.
Aug '10
Re: The Mess In Libya
If President Obama had not 'rushed to war' or if he had 'consulted congress' a better strategy might have been developed or required for American involvement.
You cannot get 'regime change' out of a 'no fly zone'.
The terrible way NATO is set up (from a chain of command and ROE perspective) means it is wholly unsuited to waging war (Thank God the Russians are only finding this out now).
This time-limited, scoped-limited kinetic military action is now entering the 2nd month (remember "days not weeks") with only two outcomes in sight.
Obama did succeed in his primary objective though...
Aug '10
Re: The Mess In Libya
Steven Zoraster: We have no reason to believe that any replacement to Gaddafi will be nicer or better liked by the people of Libya. Can anyone dispute this statement with informed arguments?
Now we - in the US - are at best fighting for EU access to Libyan oil. Does anyone dispute this statement? · Apr 22 at 11:55am
We also have no reason to believe that any replacement to Qadaffi will be meaner or less liked by the people of Libya. So yes, I dispute your statement - due to a lack of information either of 4 outcomes is possible, based on your stipulations (the Mean-Nice scale and the Liked - Liked Less scale).
We are fighting for EU access to Libyan oil. I dispute your qualifier - does it refer to the best motive for fighting or the best outcome of fighting?
Feb '11
Re: The Mess In Libya
Instugator
Steven Zoraster: We have no reason to believe that any replacement to Gaddafi will be nicer or better liked by the people of Libya. Can anyone dispute this statement with informed arguments?
Now we - in the US - are at best fighting for EU access to Libyan oil. Does anyone dispute this statement? · Apr 22 at 11:55am
We also have no reason to believe that any replacement to Qadaffi will be meaner or less liked by the people of Libya. So yes, I dispute your statement - due to a lack of information either of 4 outcomes is possible,...
We are fighting for EU access to Libyan oil. I dispute your qualifier - .. · Apr 23 at 5:40am
Provide evidence that a Gaddafi replacement is likely to be nicer. Show me some - any - and we can talk.
"best" means the EU gets some of its oil supply at our expense. My opinion: Let the EU fight its own oil wars.
Aug '10
Re: The Mess In Libya
Steven Zoraster Provide evidence that a Gaddafi replacement is likely to be nicer. Show me some - any - and we can talk.
"best" means the EU gets some of its oil supply at our expense. My opinion: Let the EU fight its own oil wars. · Apr 23 at 9:45am
Uh, noooo - I was actually pointing out how useless your first assertion/ plea for challenge is. QED
If 'at best' we are fighting for EU oil, what do you think the 'at worst' is?
Nice opinion you have there, by the way.
Feb '11
Re: The Mess In Libya
Instugator
Steven Zoraster....
"best" means the EU gets some of its oil supply at our expense... · Apr 23 at 9:45am
Uh, noooo - I was actually pointing out how useless your first assertion/ plea for challenge is. QED
If 'at best' we are fighting for EU oil, what do you think the 'at worst' is?
Nice opinion you have there, by the way. · Apr 23 at 10:48am
Another random Obama war. At best he believes he is protecting innocent civilians. I doubt there are any.