Has the international ‘farce’ worsened the crisis in Libya?

Has the international ‘farce’ worsened the crisis in Libya?

Even though the international intervention in Libya was cast as a humanitarian effort to protect innocent people, the ‘farcical’ way it has been carried out has actually worsened the crisis, writes a well-known defense analyst. While everyone else in town today was talking about budget cuts, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies released an explosive critique of the ongoing Libya campaign. He says onetime critics of the Iraq invasion are repeating history with what he calls an ill-planned campaign. The world should have just come out and killed or deposed the Libyan strongman Moammar Qaddafi, Cordesman writes, instead of attempting to use half-measures to deal with him.

“[I]t has become all too clear that gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the coalition had acted decisively from the start and had directly attacked Qaddafi, his centers of power, and the military forces loyal to him,” Cordesman wrote. “The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed, thousands injured, thousands more arrested and sometimes tortured, and hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life.

And yes, the farce is still with us. A weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel forces can only hang on with the present level of air support. Yesterday’s announcement that British and French military advisors are going to help is not going to alter that situation quickly. It will take months more – at a minimum – to properly train and equip them and it will take a radical shift in rebel leadership to give them meaningful unity and discipline.”


Pentagon officials have largely washed their hands of Libya; gone are the earlier daily briefings, since NATO is now running the show, and in their place are brief updates about when American warplanes have attacked air defense targets. DoD did announce today that the State Department has recommended sending about $25 million worth of non-military assistance to the rebels, including food, medical supplies, and binoculars. (Yes, “binoculars” were named specifically.)

That assistance is on top of the “military advisors” that European countries are beginning to send to Libya. Still, official Washington is dead-set against American troops, even “advisors,” joining them. Here’s how White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dealt with the question aboard Air Force One today:

Q: Jay, on Libya, we have Italy, France and UK sending, essentially, boots on the ground.  I was wondering if the administration had a reaction to that and if you’ve changed whatsoever your stance on that subject.

MR. CARNEY:  The President, obviously, was aware of this decision and supports it, and hopes that — believes it will help the opposition.  But it does not at all change our — the President’s policy on no boots on the ground for American troops.

Join the Conversation

This should show everyone that is the good ol’ USA that does the real work while the Europeans take tea.
I am not sure why we have bases in Europe. To protect the Europeans because they are unable and unwilling to protect themselves.

Time to come home soldiers!

We have bases in Europe for forward deployment/staging. Force projection around the world would be considerably more difficult, time consuming and costly without them.

precisely!

We only need forward bases if we intend to occupy a land. We can send missiles to do the work.
We also need to show Europe and Asia that they need to protect themselves.
We can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman.

NATO without the US in a leadership position does not work. The Europeans disagree on too many things to possibly run a combined effort for very long. But the U.S. has to maintain credibility with it’s allies to remain in a leadership role. Something this administration doesn’t seem able or even willing to do. The Libyan’s picked the wrong administration to have their revolution in.

How long are we supposed to keep holding the baby Europeans (or anyone elses) hand? Yes, we can keep doing everything, but while we do, their money is worth more than ours (other countries r gaining, Japan, Korea) and they get to do less while slowly gaining more. When we understand that we will always be the leader when we stand united, small issues like this won’t matter. And no other country should pick US administrations to depend on for billions of dollars worth of bombs and support. Its our administration and tax dollars not theirs.

This so called operation shows that NATO is dead. Any reason for its existence ended with the Cold War. The Europeans have been disarming themselves ever since and letting us carry the burden. We do not need to be in NATO. or any other alliance for that matter. Can we get out of the “chasing dragons” mentality. Nothing going on in Libya even remotely affects the strategic interests of the United States. I agree with the Obama administration on almost nothing except us keeping this fiasco in Libya at arms length.

Strategic positioning, if they really wanted to, they could put a real wrench in the US bound oil tankers that regularly take that route. No one really goes around the Cape for trade. You should agree with the administration on energy that doesn’t need oil. And leave the oil around our country as a last resort in the far-far future. Nothing wrong with not agreeing, but you’re right. Nothing’s over there is what people think, but it is. Its like dope, gotta get off it so we don’t feel the need to go to that neighborhood.

This only serves to amplify the fact that DEMS won’t fight for anything. They have no fundamental convictions that allow them to commit military forces in a meaningful way, even to kill this nut job Libyan. Instead, they dribble away US prestige and money by backing a half baked effort they only embarked upon to make themselves look good. This entire campaign is not going well because the administration does not know what they are doing, and what they are doing they don’t really believe in anyway. As soon as any of the Euro’s bails on this effort, the whole thing will collapse. As soon as a European soldier is killed inaction, this thing will be done.

we have naval aircraft Carriers which can force project, marine expeditionary groups all reality ei am not sure any more why we have forces permanently stationed there if they want rotate forces there occasionally other wise navy and marine corps can do most of the force projection

at least japan help pays for our deployed forces… Korea is suppose to all but replace our troops yet Europe still lags behind in both initiative and capability

European nation also pay Host Nation Support. Not sure if the total amount adaquetly reimburses our outlays, but there is substantial HNS.

Any intervention has the potential to make things worse, at least in the short run.
– In the short run, the United States was far worse off as a result of the Revolutionary War.
– One can arguably say that Kosovo is worse off now than it was before we took action. They have a kleptocracy in charge, ethnic cleansing (of Serbs this time) is a reality, and their future looks bleak.
– In Iraq there was probably more people killed in the civil war since the overthrow of Saddam than would have been killed by Saddam although it is hard to argue the long term future of the country is worse or that anyone, outside of the thugs that were in charge, wants to go back.

Its always easier, and safer, to submit to the Tyrant than to fight for independence. Frankly, if the rebels are unable to attract enough popular support to overthrow Qaddafi, they don’t need to be in charge. Handing the country over to the rebels didn’t work so well in Kosovo, maybe this is a better way, even if it takes longer and gets messy, we’ll see.

Because carriers and sea basing is vastly more expensive.

Of course it’s worse, military operations tend to work better when you plan them and move sufficient assets into place to make your plan happen. We did pretty much neither with Libya. The whole thing could be over with some simple leadership and decision making. Every day we have to read about NATO whining it’s hard to target Qaddafi’s forces in close to the rebels in Misrata and such. I’ve got a suggestion NATO and Obama, bomb Tripoli, no rebels to worry about, and nice big Momo compounds, easy to hit.

just imagine if all european country get out of afghanistan, and say? why we would help another time USA?
Don’t come with WW2 argument, the situation have changed, change your brain to.Every time read USA save europe, yes but germany destroy it before and when russia losing 25 millions people and defeating germans, that’s just one good occasion for USA to take position.

Text quote: “The world should have just come out and killed or deposed the Libyan strongman Moammar Qaddafi, Cordesman writes, instead of attempting to use half-measures to deal with him.”

Because that worked oh so well in Iraq and in Afghanistan, didn’t it? Yet 8 years later, here we are again, despite all pious pledges from our politicians to end the last two “successful” experiments with régime changes… Just for your information: Even the Lybian Résistance itself expressly warned all Western countries NOT to invade Libya!!! Read it in any newspaper. Meaning: Even persecuted, bombarded Arabs DO NOT want to be “liberated” again by any Westerners! But “somebody” seems to be deaf to the voices of the same Libyans he vowed to “save from a massacre”…

As Mr. Byron Skinner aptly said: Our Western, “Freedom”-loving “Democracies” live in a state of permanent war. Like Oceania in George Orwell’s “1984”…

We have become the enemy that needs to be defeated.

Less Muslims. Less problems.

The problem is that when you get rid of one of these despots you have 10 waiting in line. The issue is jobs and security. Where you don’t have these, or they are not provided, than you have a lot of unrest. Sooner or later, people begin to look at the wealth amassed by these dictators and their own social problems and become unhappy. This goes on in the good ole US of A in the political arena except that things are not allowed to deteriorate into street riots. When that happens the coffers are opened.

But how many bases do we need? In the whole of Europe I think we should only have 3–5 airbases / deployment areas.

That is a problem that should have been taken care of early on. Now it is to late. Those people can’t stand up against his force’s. They should have been taken out.

NATO was never willing to do the right thing. They were hoping that the United States would step up and finish the job. But Obama is a weak person and is not willing to do the right thing. I support what the people of Libya are trying to do. But I feel it is to late.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement