Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Is a Second Libya War a Good Idea?
I happen to think it might be. So in one way, I welcome this news:
The US is considering a new campaign of military action in Libya against ISIS, the Pentagon said on Wednesday, amid worries that the jihadist group could seize control of a larger slice of territory in the country.
Peter Cook, Pentagon press secretary, said the US was “looking at military options” for Libya “in the event” that ISIS “becomes more of a threat than it is even today”. Officials said the potential options would include concerted air strikes against ISIS and limited operations by special operations forces.
The new plans for potential military action in Libya come four years after the civil war and subsequent western campaign to topple Muammer Gaddafi. The chaos and instability in the country since then has created space for ISIS and other militant groups to prosper.
Alarm in western capitals about Libya has grown in recent weeks as ISIS, which already controls a long strip of coastline around the city of Sirte, has used heavy weapons to launch attacks against a series of oil facilities. US officials say there has been an influx of ISIS fighters into Libya, partly as a result of the stronger controls on the flow of fighters into Syria from Turkey.
Yes, this is causing alarm in Western capitals — I’m alarmed, and I’m in a Western capital, so I can vouch for that. But I very much hope that the military action they’re thinking about is prudent, because the wrong kind could make this situation worse, not better. The problem in Libya is not ISIS. ISIS is there because of the problem: The problem is that Libya no longer has a functional state.
I assume the Pentagon has asked itself why it doesn’t and drawn wise and appropriate conclusions. If it hasn’t, I hope Congress in its wisdom will decline to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water, raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years, and all the other decisions we naturally expect Congress to make.
But wait …
I know. It’s a joke. But you know, it does happen to be in the Constitution of the United States. Maybe they put it there for a reason? If we go to war in Libya, it will be the second time in four years that we’ve gone to war in Libya without legal authorization from Congress. And the first time was not widely reckoned a success.
Some form of intervention is — in my view — absolutely necessary and prudent, based on what I understand of the situation. (For those of you who’d like to know more about what’s happening in Libya, Jason Pack’s Libya Analysis might be a good place to start.) But that intervention needs to leave Libya with more of a state, not less of one. More importantly, Claire Berlinski’s opinion about whether this is necessary and prudent isn’t the point.
The point is: What happens if the next president, or the one after that, wishes to prosecute an unnecessary or an imprudent war? Is there any special reason, based on the evidence of this election campaign, to believe our presidents will always be wise and prudent enough to make this decision without any check on one man’s power? Or one woman’s?
What’s genuinely the greater danger to us and to the world: ISIS, or the constitutional precedent we’re setting — one that will be with us for generations to come?
Published in Foreign Policy, Military
Yes it is. It has been long past due to put our troops into Iraq and defeat ISIS. In fact we should never have left. But given this imbecile in the Oval Office, I would be very hesitant to allow him to manage this. He doesn’t focus on military and foreign policy. He’s been a disaster. My gut tells me to wait until he’s out and then correct what’s devolved.
But if Obama truly made the case to the public and congress, sure I’d support it, if that means anything. But it ain’t gonna happen.
CB,
Amazingly, we have had some people on the ground all along and they have been up to some mischief. “Reopening” allows this to expand modestly and recognize we have moved assets into place. They DoD knows the WH interpretation of events cannot work and the 600 or so WH advisers are losing the war to keep things bottled up. The greatest concern at the moment is politics – as always. Hillary cannot afford to have news of ISIS taking over Libya in the news this summer. Thus, the WH yields. (They are also yielding with respect to the reality in Afghanistan.)
Manfred is right about the lack of open source information. Reason: open source reporters are vulnerable.
Thanks for the “no-nihilist zone.” What a great way to go to keep up a discussion on something very useful to ponder. I already ate a lemon for breakfast.
You mean combine our military and police forces into one? Yes, that would be more coordinated. Seems to me there’s a word for a government that’s that coordinated.
No, definitely not the police. That would be like that word you’re thinking of.
Combining “State, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security, as well as all the foreign intel agencies, into the DoD”
This is a decent question. One of those 30,000 foot questions.
E.J Hill nails most of the major legal issues, including the trip wires this would trigger in the Constitution. Robert McReynlds details some better ways to go with these departments. But, we should also remember, the DoD is not a panacea. It is a major fail zone itself. Our patriotism should never cloud our objectivity. And, these stand alone departments get fouled up due to political expediency as much as incompetence. Moving them to DoD won’t eliminate that.
Keep DoD as clean as possible. Let it screw itself up as little as possible by concentrating its scope. And never forget, it is probably the best in the big government biz. If it gets diluted, we really are finished.
Not unless the American people demonstrate the resolve to see it through to the end and not delegate it to feckless politicians who are for it before they’re against it depending on how the issue is polling.
Since that hasn’t happened since Pearl Harbor the answer is “no”
Not nihilism, just the hard fact of the matter.
Ari,
I like Klavan’s solution the best. However, others may not be ready for it. So I give you Dr. Mordecai Kedar’s solution. He calls it the eight state solution and that is just for the Palestinians. He reasons that since real loyalties are to tribe/clan in Arab culture and that the successful emirates are literally run by a single large family, the obvious thing to do is go with what works.
By creating many small emirates the need for tribal identity is affirmed. This would probably shore up the situation in Libya too. Still I do find Andrew Klavan’s idea interesting. At least, one could be assured of finding a really good Kosher restaurant.
You can’t have everything.
Regards,
Jim
You probably have seen the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) situation reports on Iraq and Syria. I wonder how they get funded? I expect they will start covering Libya soon and we’ll will get maps and stuff… I like maps… and stuff.
Yep, that is what Stratfor and other such companies do. Don’t know how profitable they are though. Peter Zeihan got his start there. Now he’s a rock star – sort of.
” I like maps… and stuff.”
Chuckle, chuckle. Funny. Yet, it is true. Keeping the terrain straight requires maps and if you have ever done any security work, including working as a guard at the mall, the first thing you want is a map to figure out who is where and then who they really are – good, bad, unreliable, uncertain, uninvolved, and then how many, their leadership, disposition, training, supply, situation, etc. Maps, charts and stuff make it easier to grasp. So put me down for more maps and stuff.
And free is a good price.
No, I do not want the US involved in any war as long as the Democrats have any power. They are the enemy as much if not more than anybody we actually fight. Time after time I have watched them give away and spend the victories and lives our youngest, brightest and bravest sacrificed for our country. No more. Libya can go up in flames and take all the middle east and Europe with it for all I care. It is time for others to fight their own battles. A pox on all their houses.
Various foundations:
DoD contractors:
As well as individual donors.
I wonder if there’s a stretch of Libyan coast where someone could try establishing a city of refuge like iWe has discussed (http://ricochet.com/archives/time-to-save-the-world-and-the-arab-world/)? Get permission from the leaders of whatever tribe dominates that territory, bring in some portable generators and desal, and provide security to start off with.
Howdy! Not Nihilism. Just offering a State Department-approved rationale for sending people places and not backing them up.
oooh, oooh, oooh. Come to think of it, ISW or Stratfor would be great places for Ms. B to moonlight. (the dull thumping sound you hear is me patting myself on the back.). I bet she could get those maps and stuff produced pronto!
When I fantasize about me becoming POTUS (happens more frequently than I care to admit), I imagine directing the US military to carve out mini territories along the coast in Libya (near border with Egypt I already determined has very few inhabitants) as well as on East Coast of Sudan (which has even fewer folks.). We would use these bases for many purposes, bases to launch attacks against jihadists, to conduct community organization/development of the nearby native civilizations, force a wedge into Muslim societies designed to help them acclimatize to the West, offer up sanctuaries for beleaguered and persecuted Christians and Jews in Muslim countries and, finally, remits us partial compensation for all the injuries inflicted by Islam on the West over the years. However, different from iWe’s idea, these would be non-Muslim enclaves exclusively, principally Christian.
So….vote for me…., and not iWe. (<- just because it rhymes, silly!)
I’ll put up a lawn sign.
Awesome! Maybe you can be my huckleberry. I need someone to shepherd the flock, if you know what I mean. Here’s what I was thinking in the way of a sort of short bio on my life, to inspirit the spear carriers, if you know what I mean. Think it will sell?
Except when the President orders them (National Guard) into action to force States to integrate.
I have always thought of DHS as part of the program of nationalizing the police forces that used to operate at all levels of government. This began under Bush the Elder, accelerated with Clinton’s crime bill, got a big boost with the establishment of the DHS under Bush the Younger, and accelerated even more under Obama.
But I understand that Obama has reversed this trend on one front, and has started to claw back some of the military weapons he had provided to local police forces. Good for him, even though I wouldn’t trust his motives. And on other fronts, the old trend to take over local police forces, e.g. in Chicago, has continued.
I strongly oppose consolidating much of this, and any of it under DoD. There are issues, as folks have pointed out. A phrase nearly as Orwellian as “NCR” is “federal assets,” which is why your local public library is on the short list to be the next government entity to sport a SWAT team.
The federal government is planting “federalizable” assets throughout all levels of government, and yes, DHS integration is how they’re doing it.
Now I’ve know Fred all my life, and he ain’t never done nobody no wrong, but dangit, as the library security guard, I’ve been mobilized as a federal asset due to the training, equipping, and integration program, so I work for the President now, not the Mayor. And the president don’t trust Fred. Federal protocol says I gotta don body armor and show up at night, armed for my protection, to inquire about missing library books.
Nah. We have tons of reporters who would do it if they were paid. We have tons of journalists very accustomed to working in tougher environments than Libya. It’s lack of demand for the product. This I know for sure. There are plenty of good journalists in Libya, but the only outlet willing to pay them is Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera’s English-language coverage has become excellent (although it’s very different from their Arabic coverage, which serves Qatar’s foreign policy aims and nothing more). The reason the English-language coverage is so good now is because that’s where all the American and British reporters — the ones who’d been covering the Middle East for years — went when the English-language media stopped paying!