Help Me Understand Libya?

[packsaddle]

That train left the station in 1945 when Roosevelt made the deal with the king of Saudi Arabia. That agreement has been confirmed by every administration to this day: We get access to oil, they have the benefit of our military to defend that access and, coincidentally, the kingdom. CENTCOM was created by Reagan to maintain that military capability. AFRICOM was created by George the third for largely the same purpose. There were no huge military threats to this country in Africa to counteract, just a lot of interest by other countries like China in those natural resources. We don't need to spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined in order to defend our country. We DO need to spend that much in order to project our access to the natural resources of the rest of the world and, posthumously, to continue to poke a stick in the eye of General-and-President Eisenhower. I think that in different ways, both he and Roosevelt foresaw what could happen. I doubt they would like what DID.

 

Edit: On second thought, I guess that train actually left the station long before, for example when we invaded Mexico in the pursuit of a rather shameless land grab. "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli..."

Somehow, it all actually makes perfect sense.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[CalicoPenn]

If I remember my history right, we fought in Tripoli before we fought in Mexico. Jefferson was President at the time - indeed, it was because Jefferson refused to make a payment of $225,000 to Tripoli that Tripoli declared war on the US (by cutting down the flagpole in front of the consulate - now that's an interesting way to declare war).

[jrush]

OGE, most of them were busy either getting over, putting down or trying to avoid populist uprisings.

 

No Arab country has the modern AF required to conduct the NFZ and air-to-surface attacks without significant collateral damage to the civilian population those actions are meant to protect in the first place.

 

ETA: no to be snide, but that's why we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on our military...it's not just for self defense...we're buying the ability to enforce stability in strategically important regions.(This message has been edited by jrush)

[packsaddle]

Oh....THAT Tripoli Yes, that's right. But I am mostly thinking about THIS Tripoli now.

We've invaded quite a few others as well. I was amused while in Costa Rica when my hosts proudly claimed to have defeated the United States when (so they claimed) we sent the filibuster William Walker and his small force to take over Nicaragua and Costa Rica and enslave the people to form another part of the Southern Confederacy. I guess part of that is right, he DID take over Nicaragua and DID want to take over Costa Rica. And he WAS an American. All I could say to my hosts was...congratulations on a big win!

[Beavah]

Yeh got me, OGE.

 

I find da foreign (and for that matter, domestic) policies of the Obama administration to be ... inscrutable. Lacking in coherence, almost random, even. This is an area where his lack of experience and managerial-style leadership really shows up.

 

I'm old fashioned, eh? Da military is a blunt instrument, and I don't think yeh commit 'em without a clear objective. It's clear that nobody in da administration seems to know what the objective is here. "Make things better, please, so I don't have to deal with this!" seems to be it.

 

Now, I confess that I am cheering for the young people in da middle east who are finding their voice and finally joinin' the chorus for Liberty. And I appreciate that it's always possible for a despot armed by foreign oil money from gluttonous westerners to just murder enough of da people to quell any quest for freedom. Britain might have done it to us once upon a time but for the arms and direct military intervention of France. So I'm sympathetic with the plight of our fellow scouts and scouters in da middle east who hope for a better day for their country, and I'm willin' to help... to a point.

 

But it has to be their fight. Nuthin' would please me more than for the people of Egypt, newly strengthened by their own quest for Liberty, to come to the aid of their brothers and sisters on their border. I think if I were President Obama, I would be encouragin' and helpin' them to do that.

 

But then if I were President and the King of Saudi Arabia sent American-made tanks and American-supported military equipment to crush a peaceful popular protest in a neighboring country that was doin' naught but pushing for (limited!) democratic reforms, I'd be tellin' the 5th fleet to sink the bastards en route before sendin' the Saudi ambassador home with a clear message on the behavior expected from a "friend" and client.

 

As an American, I reckon I appreciate stability and cheap oil. But I stand for Liberty.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

Beavah, I think most Americans would agree with your sentiment on liberty. But our dollars, as you mention, say something else entirely.

[Lisabob]

OGE: Yup. I guess the medium-range result might be stalemate between Gaddafi & his eastern rebels. But I don't see how that's sustainable and one way or another, I think the idea is to put him in a position where he has no choice but to leave (or be killed).

 

Re: Arab League, I think this is one of those "be careful what you wish for" moments.

 

An actively interventionist Arab League (in whose control?) would raise all kinds of alarms in the region, some of which could prove even harder to manage. (see concerns re: Bahrain.) The Arab region hardly speaks, or acts, with one voice; there's a lot of internal jockeying for position & power as it is. And what about when the Arab League intervenes in ways that we disagree with? You can't have it both ways. Maybe we're better with a weak Arab League that seeks help from the UN, than not.

 

Joebob, I am not downplaying Libya's decision in 2003 to surrender its nuclear research program (in fact I listed that). I also see little point in rehashing the Iraq war here. The two may very well be linked, not denying that either. I recall Gaddafi making statements in 2003 that clearly suggested this link.

 

However I was dismayed then, and still today, that we thought the time was right to re-establish "normal" relations with Libya. That's all. This doesn't need to be an ideology thing. I just thought Bush was wrong to do it. I'd have thought any Democrat doing the same thing was wrong too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JoeBob]

LisaBob,

 

I can't say that I disagree with you.

 

http://www.france24.com/en/20110321-libya-arab-league-amr-moussa-backtracking-split-ranks-again

 

Ain't no telling which way this will go.

 

Ironic circle: it was while fighting the Barbary Pirates off Tripoli that the Marines earned the nickname 'leatherneck'. Hard leather collars were laced around the neck to hinder throat slitting.

[jrush]

Beavah, keep in mind, the military isn't a blunt instrument. The purpose of a military (any military) is to enforce the political will of it's controlling body. In our case, the military exists to enforce the political will of the electorate of the United States, controlled by elected entities...the House, the Senate and the President.

 

So, view any use of the military through that lens.

 

Not to put a damper on things, but we support most of those Arab dictators specifically because they a) are strategically motivated to sell us oil and b) have little use for extremist islam, neither of which might be true of these populist movements. The US is going to be very careful about supporting popular uprisings in the middle east...that whole "be careful what you wish for".

 

Democracy isn't universally a good thing.

[OldGreyEagle]

Awhile back I read Stendhals "The Red and the Black", I got an appreciation on why some would oppose Democracy, or government by the masses

 

So, the reason why the US, Britain, France, and the rest are pursuing military action against Libya is because of the UN Resolution to provide Humanitarian Relief. The US Administration has consistently said Khadaffi has to go, that Regeime change is required but that we cannot go outside our UN mandate. I am not sure what Humanitarian Relief was effected by the strike at Khadaffi's living quarters but that's ok, I dont ask to understand all military actions

 

If the Arab League was concerned about the citizens of Libya, where is the concern for the citizens of Dafur? Why has not the UN resolved to help those people, allowing for the use of the military in order to provide Humanitarian Aide?

[Beavah]

Beavah, keep in mind, the military isn't a blunt instrument.

 

Yah, jrush, just gotta disagree with yeh. I'm with Colin Powell and the entire international policy community on this, eh? Military force is an extremely blunt instrument, incapable of any sort of precisely managed or nuanced outcome. It is an important tool of policy, but it's a hammer, eh? Yeh don't use it for surgery.

 

Not to put a damper on things, but we support most of those Arab dictators specifically because they a) are strategically motivated to sell us oil and b) have little use for extremist islam, neither of which might be true of these populist movements.

 

LOL! What are yeh smokin'? The Saudis are probably the number one funder of extremist Wahhabi Islam on the planet. It wasn't the Iraqis or da Iranians who flew jets into buildings, eh? Most of those folks were Saudis, funded by an expat member of the Saudi royal family.

 

That's the danger of havin' a naive strategy of supporting temporary stability with dictator "friends" from the House of Saud to Muammar. Our money goes to the pockets of those who are opposed to everything we believe; our dollars are used to oppress people who quite naturally become our sworn enemies. OPEC is not benevolent, eh?

 

Again, I'm an old fashioned sort. I believe in doin' the right thing, not doin' what's right for me. The young folks in the Arab world are on the right side of history, and more importantly are on da right side of liberty and justice.

 

The US is going to be very careful about supporting popular uprisings in the middle east...that whole "be careful what you wish for".

 

If we do hold back, which we might, then I reckon it shows our inherent cowardice and lack of conviction. We are the Land of the Regulated and da Home of the Fearful these days. Can't buy a ladder without regulatory warning stickers, and can't support our own values for fear that something bad might happen if another people become free instead of being held at gunpoint by despots and lunatics.

 

Shame on us for such cowardice and hypocrisy. What do yeh suppose is goin' to happen when these young people win? Demographics and time are on their side. Are they goin' to remember us as the people who supported 'em in their quest from afar, as the people of Poland do? Even today yeh can't travel in Poland without feeling welcomed as an American, because we were unwavering in our support for their liberty. Or are the young in the middle east to remember that it was American-made guns and tanks that shot their brothers and sisters and sons and daughters, with our quiet approval?

 

Which do yeh suppose is in our "strategic interest?"

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[eisely]

Beavah,

 

If I were Polish I would be offended at the comparison.

 

Returning to the original question, I get the impression that the unrest in Libya has more to do with tribal differences than anything else. Apparently Libya has more tribal groupings than any other country in that part of the world. A powder keg waiting for a match.

 

When one looks at where the oil facilities are located and where Qadaffi's tribe is located, one cannot overlook the desire of others within Libya for a better share of the oil wealth.

 

I agree that we cannot simply assume that a bunch of enlightened democrats will step forward to form a government. We have no real idea what will follow if the current regime truly goes away.

 

It is difficult to be too cynical about the Arab League. I was struck by the fact that the Arab League got in front on this issue at all. It is a measure of how much Qadaffi is disliked outside of Libya. It also does not surprise me that the Arab League is now saying something different.

 

Well we are in it now. In for a penny - in for a pound.

[jrush]

Beavah, maybe this angle of looking at the military will make it easier to understand: the job of the military is to do what the people, speaking through the government, tell it to do. If they *want* it to be a hammer to force a foreign government to do what we want them to do, it will be a hammer. If they *want* it to hand out bottled water and MREs to hurricane victims, it will be a relief organization. If they *want* it to assist the DEA and BP with capturing drug mules crossing the border, it will be eyes and ears. Sorry, but it's not *just* a hammer. What Colin Powell and other politicians have said is that when you tell the military to do a certain job, it has to be that tool appropriate for the job.

 

Next, you are confusing parts of the population of Saudi Arabia with King Saud. Yes, there are wahhabi fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't mean King Saud is funding them...quite the opposite, they have the stated goal of overthrowing the king by violence, and the king publicly executes every one of them he catches. Further, they don't oppose EVERYTHING we believe...if they did, they would shut off the sigot and return to living in a tent with their goats. They want the prosperity provided by swapping oil for dollars. Note they don't demand gold or euros or yuan...they want US dollars.

 

As far as what values we export...well, everything we have regulated today is based off of clauses in the Constitution that were put there by the founders...such as the "necessary and proper" clause. Think about that...the founders said the federal government can do or regulate anything that can be considered a "necessary and proper" use of federal authority. As far as democracy and our democratic values? Beavah, we're not even a pure democracy ourselves. We don't trust Joe Blow to act for the "greater good". We allow him to elect a lawmaker to act on his behalf. Not even the founders thought the masses were capable of self-governance.

 

Our strategic interest in the middle east? Stable (note I did not say "nice") leaders who will export the most oil and the least terrorism. Compare the ME to Poland. In their case, it *did* make a lot of sense to support Democracy. The Poles could be reasonably trusted to form a government friendly the US. They might want even want to join NATO and give us military ally right on Russia's doorstep, which they did.

 

In a nutshell? Supporting democracy will be based on a cost/benefit analysis, and we've been doing that ever since we refused to get involved in the French Revolution. I know, that smacks of hypocrasy, but even the founders knew nations don't function on idealism.

[Beavah]

Nah, jrush, I'm still with General Powell and those who understand the military, eh? Yep, the "people" can through their elected president order the military to do whatever. Much like da people of California can order their government to have mandatory tax caps and mandatory expanding services in a dozen areas. How's that workin' out?

 

The military is a policy tool, and a blunt one. Yep, yeh can try to use da military as a relief agency, but what yeh get is a bunch of 20-somethings with little real relief training, no understanding of the language or culture or local economy, and little comprehension of the medical needs of indigenous populations. For relief in an area, yeh want the NGOs. Yah, sure, with support from the military because they're good at shippin' stuff in bulk.

 

If the military were a precision tool, then those fellows flyin' the pickup mission for the downed U.S. pilot would have understood Arabic and French, would have known that they were in a likely friendly area of Libya, and would have recognized that a bunch of folks from da village were coming out trying to help the downed pilot themselves. That way they wouldn't have gunned down a 4-year-old friendly.

 

If da military were a precision tool, we would have had Bin Laden back in Tora Bora in '02, and we wouldn't have to deal with monthly accidental drone strikes on weddings or a group of over-enthusiastic 20-something soldiers erasing 2-3 years of hard work with smiling pictures over the bodies of dead civilians. Anybody seen NGOs or diplomats smiling over dead civilians recently?

 

None of that is faulting the military, eh? That's all ordinary fog of war and behavior in war stuff. But it illustrates the point. Yeh call the military when yeh want to blow something up, and explosions are blunt. Even from precision-guided munitions.

 

So, quite simply, no matter what yeh tell the military to do, it isn't the right tool for most jobs. It'll salute and go try, but it just isn't capable.

 

As for da rest, it's King Abdullah and the House of Saud, by the way. And his family most definitely does fund what any rational person would call Wahabbi religious extremists. If he were really serious about reigning that in, he'd execute some of them, eh? But that's not the way the Kingdom works. Bin Laden was pretty far down the family tree, and even him they only exiled.

 

'Fraid I lost yeh when yeh went off into "necessary and proper" and all that.

 

But I did pick up on the last bit, that we should play realpolitik and support friendly dictators against their own people. The devil is "stable" and gives us oil and all that, so it's best to make bargains with the devil.

 

How'd that work for the Soviets?

 

How'd that work for us in Latin America?

 

How'd that work for us in Iran? in Iraq? in Egypt?

 

Demographics and time are on the side of the protesters in the mideast. So is what's just plain right. What yeh propose as realpolitik is really just a lack of strategic understanding. It's in our national interest to encourage freedom. And it's contrary to our national interest to support murder and oppression.

 

Nobody is proposing direct democracy in middle eastern nations. Given education levels and da lack of a sizable middle class, representative democracy will be quite a stretch for them. Heck, it's becomin' a little shaky for us.

 

What we're supportin', though, is self-determination. Or, in realpolitik terms, we're supportin' those with the stronger hand. Da young folks in these countries have the stronger strategic hand, and there's no sense in supportin' octogenarian dictators now when the young are the future.

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[jrush]

Beavah, I think you're misunderstanding Powell's statements regarding use of the military. I'm speaking as a field grade officer in the military, repeating what is getting taught by the military to field grade officers as part of their military education. You can say "the military is a blunt tool" all you want, but that's not what the military thinks.

 

If you want to talk about diplomats, we can bring up state department security contractors making videos of themselves driving down the highway randomly shooting at people. Every organization attracts people who will invariably cause international incidents. We can also talk about how much experince the NG has with humanitarian relief, even compared to NGOs.

 

All of the dictators in the region are routinely executing terrorists. Al Qaeda, specifically, has "overthrow the House of Saud by violent means" as a stated goal. Specifically the House of Saud, and specifically by violence. So, no, the king of SA isn't funding the people who are actively trying to blow him up. It's a popular urban myth, but it belongs in the bin with President Bush arranging 9/11 and KBR causing Hurricane Katrina.

 

My "necessary and proper clause" bit is my standard response to any statement that we're over-regulated, over-taxed, over-governmented, etc. We elected delegated who approved a Constitution that said the government can do anything it deems necessary as long as it doesn't conflict with anything else in the document.

 

In closing, I didn't say we *should* support every dictator just because they control the oil spigot or strategically important real estate, but I recognize that's what we do and why we do it, even though it never works in the long term. Personally, I think we're just trying to keep the lid on the ME until they run out of oil.

 

I'll agree with you, the younger generations in those nations are the future, no matter what we do.