Libyan Civil War Megathread

[Berkut]

It is good to know that Obama and 90 percent of the democrats opposition to Bush was purely partisan and devoid of any true ideological principal.

Those are not the only and mutually exclusive possibilities, thus the incoherence of the NRO op-ed.

While Hansy is just playing turn-about, he is pretty much exactly correct in regards to the dem opposition to Bush and his wars.

The funny thing is that he doesn't apparently realize that his own opposition to Obama being exactly the same (purely partisan and based on no ideological principles) just makes him look like as big a tool.

Of course the radical "Moveon" left's hysteria over Iraq was 90% partisan bullshit - that much is obvious by the fact that they are NOT all hysterical over Obama co-opting the Republican position on Iraq and Afghanistan almost completely.

I don't see how the right turning around and doing the exact same thing in an even MORE obvious manner is going to somehow make them look principled though.

[DGuller]

That statement right there could apply to WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War 2...the list goes on and on and on.

That's not true for some of them, and others undermine your point.  WW1/2 had an exit strategy, we knew it was a fight until the enemy capitulated.  Seems like a clear enough exit strategy to me.  GW1 had a clear exit strategy as well, we were going to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.  For better or worse, we actually stuck to it.

As for Korea, Vietnam, and GW2, we in fact did not have an exit strategy.  That's not exactly a list of examples that should make one jump head-first into the next exit-strategyless war.  All those conflicts were very costly, and left a mess behind.

What does "no exit strategy" even mean? How do you know we have no exit strategy? What if the exit strategy is simply "We will stop bombing the Libyans when they stop attacking the rebels"? Isn't that an exit strategy?

That's no exit strategy, because that leaves a festering conflict.  For better or worse, once the West intervened, the only possible exit from this mess requires Gaddafi's exit.

[Camerus]

Meh, I will say it again.  We shouldn't be involved in this.  We're just going to walk into a shit storm, expend treasure and possibly blood, and get nothing (or worse than nothing) from it.  And in the end, the Arabs will just hate us anyway.

Far better to make pious noises and provide some humanitarian aid.

[Berkut]

That statement right there could apply to WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War 2...the list goes on and on and on.

That's not true for some of them, and others undermine your point.  WW1/2 had an exit strategy, we knew it was a fight until the enemy capitulated.  Seems like a clear enough exit strategy to me.  GW1 had a clear exit strategy as well, we were going to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.  For better or worse, we actually stuck to it.

There was more to the statement then the lack of exit strategy.

And WW1 did in fact leave a "festering conflict" that led to another even worse war a couple decades later.

WW2 left a festering conflict that led to several generations of proxy wars and the Cold War.

And WW2 and WW2 saw the US helping people "we cannot trust" who ended up engaging in horrible atrocities.

As for Korea, Vietnam, and GW2, we in fact did not have an exit strategy.  That's not exactly a list of examples that should make one jump head-first into the next exit-strategyless war.  All those conflicts were very costly, and left a mess behind.

What does "no exit strategy" even mean? How do you know we have no exit strategy? What if the exit strategy is simply "We will stop bombing the Libyans when they stop attacking the rebels"? Isn't that an exit strategy?

That's no exit strategy, because that leaves a festering conflict.  For better or worse, once the West intervened, the only possible exit from this mess requires Gaddafi's exit.

It's not like his exit will guarantee that there wont be a festering conflict. And GF1 did in fact leave a festering conflict that led straight to GW2. This idea that the invocation of the words "exit strategy" somehow keeps whatever mess we are getting involved in from leave "festering conflicts" is false. All your examples of conflicts with "exit strategies" did in fact lead to festering conflicts.

[Berkut]

Meh, I will say it again.  We shouldn't be involved in this.  We're just going to walk into a shit storm, expend treasure and possibly blood, and get nothing (or worse than nothing) from it.  And in the end, the Arabs will just hate us anyway.

Far better to make pious noises and provide some humanitarian aid.

I don't necessarily disagree with this particular situation.

On the one hand, we don't really know what is going to happen - there isn't any good indicators about what the rebels, if they win, are going to do that would make them better.

On the other hand, our investment is pretty cheap. We aren't going to be putting boots on the ground, there is no apparent need to try to do any nation building ala Iraq/Afghanistan. So far, it just amounts to some bombs and missile to help the rebels win. So it's not a huge investment.

So the risks are low, the costs are low, and the rewards are largely unknown.

However, in the context of the overall situation outside Libya, with waves of pro-democracy revolts and protests happening across the Middle East, I think there is an opportunity here that the West should not miss. The problem is that exploiting that opportunity is very, very difficult to do well - there is a real danger that we just screw the entire thing up by taking TOO active a role.

Maybe helping the rebels in Libya is a pretty "hands off" and low risk way of making a statement about where the West stands without over-committing and making it look like we are trying to force things?

[The Minsky Moment]

I think we're saying, if you're going to violate the principle of state sovereignty in the name of impartial protection of civilians, you undo your own case when you pick a side in a civil war and then suddenly find they're committing murder and reprisal.

Interesting hypothetical, but not really applicable to Libya c. 2011.

State sovereignty is not at issue in Libya because the institutions of the state have disintegrated with many key components either joining the rebels outright or retreating into ambiguity.  What is left is basically a extended Mafia-style family and their hired goons who are using force to systematically loot or destroy the remaining assets of the state on the ground.

[Martinus]

It is good to know that Obama and 90 percent of the democrats opposition to Bush was purely partisan and devoid of any true ideological principal.

Those are not the only and mutually exclusive possibilities, thus the incoherence of the NRO op-ed.

While Hansy is just playing turn-about, he is pretty much exactly correct in regards to the dem opposition to Bush and his wars.

The funny thing is that he doesn't apparently realize that his own opposition to Obama being exactly the same (purely partisan and based on no ideological principles) just makes him look like as big a tool.

Of course the radical "Moveon" left's hysteria over Iraq was 90% partisan bullshit - that much is obvious by the fact that they are NOT all hysterical over Obama co-opting the Republican position on Iraq and Afghanistan almost completely.

I don't see how the right turning around and doing the exact same thing in an even MORE obvious manner is going to somehow make them look principled though.

I disagree. As I already said, the way invading Iraq was sold by the Bush and Blaire governments was that it is to prevent Saddam from finishing his WMD programme - which turned out to be a lie (not just falsehood, but a lie).

The "he was also bad to his own people in the past" was never used as a main cause for the invasion, especially as it would not have been enough - just as it wouldn't have been enough if we wanted to invade Libya two months ago in order to depose Qaddafi for his past crimes.

[Martinus]

Meh, I will say it again.  We shouldn't be involved in this.  We're just going to walk into a shit storm, expend treasure and possibly blood, and get nothing (or worse than nothing) from it.  And in the end, the Arabs will just hate us anyway.

Far better to make pious noises and provide some humanitarian aid.

I don't necessarily disagree with this particular situation.

On the one hand, we don't really know what is going to happen - there isn't any good indicators about what the rebels, if they win, are going to do that would make them better.

On the other hand, our investment is pretty cheap. We aren't going to be putting boots on the ground, there is no apparent need to try to do any nation building ala Iraq/Afghanistan. So far, it just amounts to some bombs and missile to help the rebels win. So it's not a huge investment.

So the risks are low, the costs are low, and the rewards are largely unknown.

However, in the context of the overall situation outside Libya, with waves of pro-democracy revolts and protests happening across the Middle East, I think there is an opportunity here that the West should not miss. The problem is that exploiting that opportunity is very, very difficult to do well - there is a real danger that we just screw the entire thing up by taking TOO active a role.

Maybe helping the rebels in Libya is a pretty "hands off" and low risk way of making a statement about where the West stands without over-committing and making it look like we are trying to force things?

I know it's an unpopular position to take, but notwithstanding the cost-benefit analysis, the intervention may also be a good idea because preventing the mass slaughter of a civilian populace at the hands of a madman is simply the right thing to do.

Even if the said populace may turn out to be a bunch of ungrateful pricks in the end.

[Berkut]

Meh, I will say it again.  We shouldn't be involved in this.  We're just going to walk into a shit storm, expend treasure and possibly blood, and get nothing (or worse than nothing) from it.  And in the end, the Arabs will just hate us anyway.

Far better to make pious noises and provide some humanitarian aid.

I don't necessarily disagree with this particular situation.

On the one hand, we don't really know what is going to happen - there isn't any good indicators about what the rebels, if they win, are going to do that would make them better.

On the other hand, our investment is pretty cheap. We aren't going to be putting boots on the ground, there is no apparent need to try to do any nation building ala Iraq/Afghanistan. So far, it just amounts to some bombs and missile to help the rebels win. So it's not a huge investment.

So the risks are low, the costs are low, and the rewards are largely unknown.

However, in the context of the overall situation outside Libya, with waves of pro-democracy revolts and protests happening across the Middle East, I think there is an opportunity here that the West should not miss. The problem is that exploiting that opportunity is very, very difficult to do well - there is a real danger that we just screw the entire thing up by taking TOO active a role.

Maybe helping the rebels in Libya is a pretty "hands off" and low risk way of making a statement about where the West stands without over-committing and making it look like we are trying to force things?

I know it's an unpopular position to take, but notwithstanding the cost-benefit analysis, the intervention may also be a good idea because preventing the mass slaughter of a civilian populace at the hands of a madman is simply the right thing to do.

Even if the said populace may turn out to be a bunch of ungrateful pricks in the end.

The irony of your two posts is ossum.

[Berkut]

I disagree. As I already said, the way invading Iraq was sold by the Bush and Blaire governments was that it is to prevent Saddam from finishing his WMD programme - which turned out to be a lie (not just falsehood, but a lie).

The actual existence of WMDs on the ground being the sole and only reason for the war only became the Pravda of the left after it became clear that there weren't any. Prior to that, it was largely ignored as a reason because everyone, including the left, largely assumed they were there.

The "he was also bad to his own people in the past" was never used as a main cause for the invasion, especially as it would not have been enough - just as it wouldn't have been enough if we wanted to invade Libya two months ago in order to depose Qaddafi for his past crimes.

Of course it was used as one of several reasons. It was not more the "main" reason than the idea that Saddam was sitting on stockpiles of WMDs *right now* was the main reason. You have this weird need to grossly over-simplify things - on the one hand, to claim that there was only one reason (which turned out to be incorrect), and then on the other hand to dismiss reasons that are actually valid.

Hmmm, almost like your motivation is not to really understand what was going on, but rather to just figure out how to make sure you can defend your "partisan" position.

[Malthus]

Meh, I will say it again.  We shouldn't be involved in this.  We're just going to walk into a shit storm, expend treasure and possibly blood, and get nothing (or worse than nothing) from it.  And in the end, the Arabs will just hate us anyway.

Far better to make pious noises and provide some humanitarian aid.

I don't necessarily disagree with this particular situation.

On the one hand, we don't really know what is going to happen - there isn't any good indicators about what the rebels, if they win, are going to do that would make them better.

On the other hand, our investment is pretty cheap. We aren't going to be putting boots on the ground, there is no apparent need to try to do any nation building ala Iraq/Afghanistan. So far, it just amounts to some bombs and missile to help the rebels win. So it's not a huge investment.

So the risks are low, the costs are low, and the rewards are largely unknown.

However, in the context of the overall situation outside Libya, with waves of pro-democracy revolts and protests happening across the Middle East, I think there is an opportunity here that the West should not miss. The problem is that exploiting that opportunity is very, very difficult to do well - there is a real danger that we just screw the entire thing up by taking TOO active a role.

Maybe helping the rebels in Libya is a pretty "hands off" and low risk way of making a statement about where the West stands without over-committing and making it look like we are trying to force things?

The fear is that, like the parable of the camel's nose and the bedouin's tent, getting involved this much will lead to more fulsome involvement down the road - for example, if in spite of these air attacks, the rebels nonetheless appear likely to lose. Will the UN simply shrug its collective shoulders and go home?

This creeping involvement could turn "hands off" and "low risk" into "hands on" and "high risk".

[Berkut]

Meh, I will say it again.  We shouldn't be involved in this.  We're just going to walk into a shit storm, expend treasure and possibly blood, and get nothing (or worse than nothing) from it.  And in the end, the Arabs will just hate us anyway.

Far better to make pious noises and provide some humanitarian aid.

I don't necessarily disagree with this particular situation.

On the one hand, we don't really know what is going to happen - there isn't any good indicators about what the rebels, if they win, are going to do that would make them better.

On the other hand, our investment is pretty cheap. We aren't going to be putting boots on the ground, there is no apparent need to try to do any nation building ala Iraq/Afghanistan. So far, it just amounts to some bombs and missile to help the rebels win. So it's not a huge investment.

So the risks are low, the costs are low, and the rewards are largely unknown.

However, in the context of the overall situation outside Libya, with waves of pro-democracy revolts and protests happening across the Middle East, I think there is an opportunity here that the West should not miss. The problem is that exploiting that opportunity is very, very difficult to do well - there is a real danger that we just screw the entire thing up by taking TOO active a role.

Maybe helping the rebels in Libya is a pretty "hands off" and low risk way of making a statement about where the West stands without over-committing and making it look like we are trying to force things?

The fear is that, like the parable of the camel's nose and the bedouin's tent, getting involved this much will lead to more fulsome involvement down the road - for example, if in spite of these air attacks, the rebels nonetheless appear likely to lose. Will the UN simply shrug its collective shoulders and go home?

This creeping involvement could turn "hands off" and "low risk" into "hands on" and "high risk".

True enough. It is hard (impossible?) to back off once you start. Especially against such a low rent tool as Qadafi. On the other hand, it seems like it is pretty trivial to make sure that he loses. His military forces are paltry, and he does not appear to have great support that isn't paid for - and that kind of support tends to disappear once it becomes clear that you aren't going to get to spend all your time shooting up poorly armed civilians, and are going to be getting your ass handed to you by forces well beyond your ability to oppose in any fashion.

But you certainly do have a point - you never know once you get involved where it is going to end up.

[KRonn]

The fear is that, like the parable of the camel's nose and the bedouin's tent, getting involved this much will lead to more fulsome involvement down the road - for example, if in spite of these air attacks, the rebels nonetheless appear likely to lose. Will the UN simply shrug its collective shoulders and go home?

This creeping involvement could turn "hands off" and "low risk" into "hands on" and "high risk".

I expect this mission creep to happen. When I looked at it from the start it just seems logical. I don't really like it but I can understand that once we take a side we will be in the mix. I just hope that being in the mix is more like the U.S.  limiting its involvement to mainly helping the new government get set up. That kind of thing. But it could be a lot more, especially if this goes on for a while. We've helped "kick the hornet's nest" and consequently we'll own some of how things progress. And we may want to own some, in the way of helping shape the outcome and new government - if Gaddafi is even ousted.

I am a bit annoyed at the Obama bashing, some of which is gratuitously political, on both the right and left. But nothing new - we lived with it with Bush for eight years. I'm mostly supportive of Obama, even if I have misgivings at how he may have been more dragged into this, if he was. Doesn't seem like he led. But getting the Arab League to sign off, (though they're backtracking now - duh), to get nations to abstain in the UN rather than veto the action, seems like some strong back channel discussions were done. No idea if that was the US doing or French and UK, but likely the latter given those nation's strong desire to get into this anyway.

[Berkut]

I do hope that the US can back away from an active roll as much as possible. Qadafi is kind of pathetic, and the regional powers should be more than capable of making his regime non-sustainable.

[Ed Anger]

I do hope that the US can back away from an active roll as much as possible. Qadafi is kind of pathetic, and the regional powers should be more than capable of making his regime non-sustainable.

One sub is already being withdrawn. I'm assuming it is the USS Florida.