In an amazing show of bravado, a group of forty political analysts, including more than a dozen former officials of former President GW Bush, have posted a letter in the Foreign Policy Initiative website calling for President Obama to bring some "American exceptionalism" in the form of gunboat diplomacy to Libya. It really is amazingly idiotic drivel for such Very Serious People to voice.
Therefore, we recommend the United States, in conjunction with NATO allies, take the following specific actions immediately:
1) The United States should call upon NATO to develop operational plans to urgently:
- Establish a presence in Libyan airspace to prevent the continued use of fighter jets and helicopter gunships against civilians and carry out other missions as required.
- Move naval assets into Libyan waters to aid in evacuation efforts and prepare for possible contingencies. Establish the capability to disable Libyan naval vessels used to attack civilians.
2) Freeze all Libyan government assets in the United States and Europe.
3) Consider temporarily halting importation of Libyan oil to the United States and Europe.
4) Make a clear statement that Col. Qaddafi and other officials who order and participate in massacres of civilians will be held accountable for their crimes under international law.
5) Provide humanitarian aid to the Libyan people as quickly as possible.
Yes, because our military was so successful in combat operations against Iraq and Afghanistan, why not just add another Arab nation to the list of "people we really didn't like anyway, and oh yeah, damn the massive projected spike in oil prices, full speed ahead." You will not be surprised to see that the list of characters is very similar to the original PNAC crowd, the ones who thought in 1998 that overthrowing Iraq through US unilateral force was such a great idea. What jackasses.
In the interest of academic fairness, it would be good to know who the FPI signatories believe we should help in Libya. Should we just drop boxes of automatic rifles and ammunition on the beaches near Benghazi? There are no carriers in the Med, should we divert one or two and station it off the coast? Do we shoot down the defecting Libyan air force pilots as well as those straffing the cities? What if the Libyans see our actions as an attack against them and not just the regime? The rest of the world seems to be capable of getting their own citizens out of the country without the use of force.
It is a good thing, however, for these villains to sign their names so freely. It's important to know who the people are who would so freely loose violence upon the world for the sake of their false ideology, spilling US blood and treasure without any thought of the potential fallout on civilization.
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/11/incarcerate-warmongers.html
Posted by: S O | 28 February 2011 at 04:17 PM
"The United States should call upon NATO..."
More abuse of an alliance?
Posted by: van D | 28 February 2011 at 05:13 PM
Hoping to prevent bloodshed is more like it!
Posted by: courtneyme109 | 28 February 2011 at 06:26 PM
American Neocons might be the first, for the usual reasons, to speak out loudly about these suggestions. But I am rather sure that pretty much exactly the same points are being raised behind closed doors in a number of European capitals. They just dont show their hand so blatantly.
If the current situation were to continue without significant gains for the rebels/revolutionaries/folks against Gaddafi, its quite possible, such steps come to pass. Personally I think, present developments might render any such thoughts redundant rather sooner than later.
Posted by: para | 28 February 2011 at 06:33 PM
And the worst part of the entire nonsense is that Gaddafi or his successors could then use the U.S. show of force as "proof" that the rebels were in league with the Great Satan all along. I remember that the Iranian dissidents practically begged their U.S. supporters to back our government down because any overt show of force would make the mullahs' case.
And even assuming we did this and it helped precipitate the fall of Gaddafi, the other real problem is, after Gaddafi, who? Libya is in many ways as messed up as Iraq is, and there's no real assurance that whatever comes after Gaddafi will be any better. I've used this analogy before, but it bears repeating; if you'd asked most Russians in 1918 about the Revolution they would probably have told you that regardless, nothing could be worse than the Tsar. And at the very moment the man who would become Josef Stalin was busily working away in the boiler room of the CCCP...
These dumb fuckers just don't seem to get it.
Posted by: FDChief | 28 February 2011 at 06:41 PM
"I am rather sure that pretty much exactly the same points are being raised behind closed doors in a number of European capitals."
It looks to me as if Europeans (less UK and Italy, which are still confused) prefer a route through the UNSC.
To bomb civilians is next to genocide pretty much the only thing that a government can do to push the UN towards intervention in domestic affairs.
Posted by: S O | 28 February 2011 at 07:17 PM
@FDCHief
Pretty weak.
China has sortee'd her Xuzhou, a Type 054 Jiangkai-II class missile frigate, from the ongoing seventh PLAN anti-piracy task force deployment off Somalia to steam to Libyan coast to provide support and protection for the ongoing evacuation mission there - with a contingent of Peoples Liberation Marines on board.
Great Britain has launched several SAS pantie raids to evac her ppls.
And State rents a ferry that can't move for 36 hours?
Worrying about what certain elements may or may not say about a particular event seems shamefully like a hostage mindset.
Thanks to real time communications - any cries about any Great Satan league could easily be lol'd, disproved or deflected. After all - where is Aegypt's mighty mighty military? They can't even sortee a reinforced mechanized brigade to protect and evac innocents?
After Colonel Khadaffy? Who cares? After Colonel Khaddaffy will have much to contemplate about modern statecraft and R2P Clause - and a very cool reminder that Great Satan is just over the horizon...
Posted by: courtneyme109 | 28 February 2011 at 09:19 PM
"Worrying about what certain elements may or may not say about a particular event seems shamefully like a hostage mindset."
Actually its a simple principle of international relations.
Unlike the "storm in, shoot, ask questions later"-attitude, that you suggest and that has worked so_well for the US in the past ten years.
No offense...
Posted by: para | 01 March 2011 at 12:01 AM
There is a sense the current British response (special forces, daring c-130 landings / escapes, reports of frigates and destroyers sailing across the Med, today talk of Typhoons to interdict Libyan airspace) are all really just political points-scoring from the Coalition government stung by criticisms they acted too slowly initially. I expect a similar response eventually by the USA - our media is reporting the USS Enterprise and a Marine amphibious force repositioning off the Libyan coast?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8353559/Libya-West-ready-to-use-force-against-Col-Gaddafi-amid-chemical-weapon-fears.html
Saying that, 3 Hercules, 150 special forces and 2 warships is pretty much the entire British military these days ... !
Posted by: elizzar | 01 March 2011 at 04:52 AM
FD Chief is right to point out that there's no stable government to take over. The political state is the key.
Afghanistan is an example.
If there were, we'd be out of there by now.
Posted by: Ray | 01 March 2011 at 06:47 AM
Speaking of Neocons, former SecDef Rumsfeld will be signing copies of his book today in the Pentagon. I'll just wait until the book hits the bargain bin at Target... Maybe four months?
Posted by: Neo Book | 01 March 2011 at 11:22 AM