I'm still undecided about whether we should have acted or not tbh. On the one hand we now face what could be the woprst of both worlds, with Gaddafi crushing the rebellion after we've already burned our bridges with him leaving a hostile pariah state on the borders of Europe and in control of the oil. On the other hand though, we may have dodged a bullet here. You can be sure the one overriding question that will have totally dominated all strategic thinking on this (and which probably paralysed the Obama administration) was 'what do we do if it happens in Saudi?' There's absolutely no way the West would ever even contemplate intervention against the House of Saud no matter what they do to their people. Any kind of interruption to the flow of Saudi oil would send the entire global economy into meltdown. This being the case, do we really want to be seen as arch hypocrites by intervening in one conflict while sitting around doing nothing in another ? How would that serve our strategic interests ? It's really not a simple question to answer. certainly I can't do it, and I suspect neither can Hillary Clinton.

Ray Jay wrote:...disgust that the US is not intervening...

On an emotional level I'm with you, but there are, perhaps unfortunately, more things to be considered. I draw your attention to THIS article in this AM's New York Times. Note first of all that the USA is very unlikely to act unilaterally in this matter, and that in the UN Security Council "China, Russia and Germany [are] expressing reservations" about a no-fly zone and other measures while the US has two quite reasonable concerns: 1) intervening militarily in yet another Muslim nation (can you spell i-m-p-e-r-i-a-l-i-s-m? I know lots of people who can), and 2) stretching already-thin resources that have been stretched now for years.

As regards item #1, the USA has expressed a strong desire, if any military action is to be taken, for the participation (i.e. blame-sharing) of Arab nations. This is not unreasonable, though hardly a guarantee that the Arab street would support such an action since the legitimacy of these US-friendly regimes is everywhere questioned. Nevertheless, the "Arab League called for a no-flight zone, but did not specify that its members would participate in implementing one." That's from THIS other article in the NYT this morning, and I'd suggest you read it as well.

France and Germany don't want NATO involved. Russia, knowing that their regime is not really any more legitimate than Ghaddafi's, hates all moves that set precedents for "interference" in another country's internal affairs. China, likewise, is having none of it. The French FM admits "Europe is impotent." That is not the fault of the USA. None of this is, but you and everyone else want the USA to do something about it. When the USA has "done something about it" in the past with less than 100% unanimous and enthusiastic support from the entire UN it's not always worked out so well, and many of those who support an action have shown themselves to be quick to denounce it when it later suits them. Memories are short. Those USA-led interventions have been deemed "huge failures of American policy" (as you put it). You're saying a failure to act would be a huge failure. Can you honestly guarantee that acting wouldn't later be deemed a huge failure?

I find your post to be a marvelous reflection of attitudes that cause the USA conundrums. For instance, you write: "I've always preferred Obama's softer touch relative to GWB. However, this touch is so soft that we will be reviled in the Arab world." Obama? Who's kept Guantanamo open, escalated in Afghanistan, failed to meet Iraq timetables, and in general acted much less pacifistic than he pretended to be during the campaign, is "so soft"? It seems to me that the band of appropriate US policy firmness must be extremely narrow. Bush and Obama aren't really all that far apart yet one is way too firm and the other way too soft. The truth is, there is no possible policy the USA could adopt, no possible attitude or ideal or set of values, that would permit it to escape being "reviled in the Arab world" (and lots of other places, too).

Well... whatever the proper focus and position of US international affairs might be, your emotions (and mine!) are probably not the most reliable guides. I thought that after the Cold War the USA might impose a Pax Americana. That's essentially what you're proposing here. We'd have been reviled. More recently I've proposed that the UN security functions be minimized and the USA form a league of like-minded nations that can act even if Russia or China are made unhappy. If we tried that we'd be reviled. If we intervene in Libya we'll be reviled. If we don't we'll be reviled.

I wouldn't want to be us.

ray

However, this touch is so soft that we will be reviled in the Arab world.

You mean EVEN MORE REVILED?
How bad could it get?
Until the US is energy independent from Saudi Arabia, its going to be real tough to act to support morality and democracy in the region . (Words are another thing) Notice that Saudi troops went into Bahrain yesterday. Think they informed Washington first? Probably, seeing as an American fleet is based in Bahrain.

RickyP is right. We need to be energy independent. What would that entail? In my opinion in would require the following:

Increase domestic production in ALL areas to the maximum production levels
Increase Natural Gas production to maximum in all domestic areas.
Build new Nuclear plants
Dam more rivers
Increase clean coal production to the max
Place solar farms and wind farms in productive locations without government restrictions
Remove government restrictions on the building sites for ecological impact

This would remove a major source of revenue to the Arab world, and would increase jobs in America. Venezuela would lose income as well. I am all for the "energy autonomy" RickyP advocates. What would your plan for independence be? Are you willing to take the needed steps to make it happen?

We need to increase our production or decrease or usage. Will the drop in usage that could be done be enough to allow for the loss of foreign oil?

We get our oil from Canada and Mexico, oil however is traded on a global basis and arbitrage plays a role in it as well. Which means if Germany's usual oil sources dried up they would be bidding against us for N American oil. The reason we are vulnerable is because we facilitate a global market, so us producing more does nothing except add to the global supply base. The US also gets important currency trading benefits. There's the vast corporate interests as well. Not to mention the necessities of empire to control such important things as energy and food.

rickyp wrote:ray

However, this touch is so soft that we will be reviled in the Arab world.

You mean EVEN MORE REVILED?
How bad could it get?
Until the US is energy independent from Saudi Arabia, its going to be real tough to act to support morality and democracy in the region . (Words are another thing) Notice that Saudi troops went into Bahrain yesterday. Think they informed Washington first? Probably, seeing as an American fleet is based in Bahrain.

Well, we aren't that reviled because the Arab League is asking for us to help them, and they know that no one else can. I couldn't find the specifics of the vote, but as I understand it, about 20 countries (inlcuding Saudi Arabia supported a no fly zone in Libya and only 3 opposed (Syria, Algeria (which is scared), and ?). Of course, these aren't democracies, so we don't know how the street exaclty feels, but I think that in this case the current view is pretty clear -- intervene to prevent the blood bath. We liberated Kuwait without similar Arab League formal backing.

In other words, the differences between Libya 2011 and Iraq 2003 are so large that the vast majority of relatively uneducated Arabs can see it.

Min X, to your well considered points, I'm not saying the US should act unilaterally. Certainly the French and Brits would join in, and maybe a few Arab countries as well. I also don't think this is imperialism. Sure, someone can write an editorial that notes similarities. But the differences are stark. Was Kuwait imperialism? Was Kosovo? We didn't have 100% support for either of those, by the way. At some point, leadership is doing what is right and your success will be followed. You can't lead by consensus.

Finally, I'm not suggesting a Pax Americana. I'm saying that in this particular case, we can act, the people in the region want us to act, it is the right thing to do to act, and the consequences of inaction are severe.

As to your resources argument, I'm under the impression that Libya is a fifth rate power. This is well within our abilities with our hands tied behind our back, which they sort of are

Sassenach wrote:I'm still undecided about whether we should have acted or not tbh. On the one hand we now face what could be the woprst of both worlds, with Gaddafi crushing the rebellion after we've already burned our bridges with him leaving a hostile pariah state on the borders of Europe and in control of the oil. On the other hand though, we may have dodged a bullet here. You can be sure the one overriding question that will have totally dominated all strategic thinking on this (and which probably paralysed the Obama administration) was 'what do we do if it happens in Saudi?' There's absolutely no way the West would ever even contemplate intervention against the House of Saud no matter what they do to their people. Any kind of interruption to the flow of Saudi oil would send the entire global economy into meltdown. This being the case, do we really want to be seen as arch hypocrites by intervening in one conflict while sitting around doing nothing in another ? How would that serve our strategic interests ? It's really not a simple question to answer. certainly I can't do it, and I suspect neither can Hillary Clinton.

Sas, I think the difference is that the Arab League hasn't requested that we intervene in Saudi Arabia. The reality is that all countries are hypocrites. You have to juggle political, economic, and moral concerns. It is always complicated and decisions must be made by weighing all of the inputs.

Was Kuwait imperialism?

The invasion and liberation of kuwait made kuwait safe for a monarchy. Not democracy.
It was a blow for the status quo of dictators. Not for the ideals of freedom and democracy. It was certainly popular with the existing governments threatened by Iraq...But it also lead to the militarization of the midlle east which gave birth to resentment and the birth of the fundmentalist movements (Al Queda) targeting the US. And the street, didn't see it as a blow for democracy.

The invasion of Iraq, was a blow for democracy. And it was horribly unpopular with the Arab street. Then the end product govenrment that the people chose in Iraq has aligned itself fairly closely with Iran.
Unintended consequences seem to be the rule when treading in the middle east.

Perhaps the simplest solution in Libya is a concerted bombing campaign against Ghaddaffi's forces and arming the rebels... Of course there's no guarantee that could suceed but it would keep involvement to a less risky minimum.

Ricky, I'm with you on those options. It's not lost on me that you are suggesting a more militaristic path than the US Secretary of Defense. That gives me a sense of how passive the Obama administration is being right now.

RJ: I agree with the motives behind what you're saying, but it looks like you're choosing to ignore certain facts.

Ray Jay wrote:Certainly the French and Brits would join in, and maybe a few Arab countries as well.

According to what I just posted, both the Brits and French have said NATO shouldn't be involved and that they have nothing in the way of military resources to help. (Maybe I've overstated it; but good luck finding them saying something to the contrary.) No Arab nation has voiced any willingness to get involved. Your "certainly" is totally unfounded and even your "maybe" is optimistic. As for "leadership is doing what is right and your success will be followed," it's a very poetic line but "the age of leadership" (to coin a phrase) is over. Short of overwhelming and enthusiastic support from the international community, any act that you or I may see as "leadership" is going to be seen as an act of unilateral superpower self-interested empire construction. Do you really think France is happy when the USA leads? Russia? Indonesia? Pakistan? China? There are many countries that are happy to see us stick our necks way out, but that's not the same as them wanting us to actually lead.

It's amazing what you can read here...

Ricky wrote:Perhaps the simplest solution in Libya is a concerted bombing campaign against Ghaddaffi's forces

And of course every bomb will be on target and no civilians will be killed, and no one will accuse us of cowardice, or of using illegal munitions. And as a Canadian you will of course contribute since a single smart bomb costs more than you make in a year. (?) Or will it be US taxpayers footing the bill?

RJ, you are assuming that we're the good guys.

We were recently discussing how the skids got greased for the Lockerbie Bomber to return. People were quite happy to do business with Gaddafi.

x

And of course every bomb will be on target and no civilians will be killed, and no one will accuse us of cowardice, or of using illegal munitions. And as a Canadian you will of course contribute since a single smart bomb costs more than you make in a year. (?) Or will it be US taxpayers footing the bill

?
You're right There are no perfect options.
As for who does the bombing? I think everyone would prefer someone else... Frankly I'd think Italy has the most to gain since Libya is their primary source of oil. But you're right, everyone is waiting for the US to stick their neck out. To a certain extent, the waiting and fudging by Obama has made this abundantly clear. And thats a good thing from the US stand point.
By the way, not that its a big deal but a Canadian frigate is patrolling off Libyas coast with the US aircraft carrier in the Med. Apparently we're ready to throw down with the big dog and risk life and limb. Preferably in a clerical capaciity.

Minister X wrote:RJ: I agree with the motives behind what you're saying, but it looks like you're choosing to ignore certain facts.

Ray Jay wrote:Certainly the French and Brits would join in, and maybe a few Arab countries as well.

According to what I just posted, both the Brits and French have said NATO shouldn't be involved and that they have nothing in the way of military resources to help. (Maybe I've overstated it; but good luck finding them saying something to the contrary.) No Arab nation has voiced any willingness to get involved. Your "certainly" is totally unfounded and even your "maybe" is optimistic. As for "leadership is doing what is right and your success will be followed," it's a very poetic line but "the age of leadership" (to coin a phrase) is over. Short of overwhelming and enthusiastic support from the international community, any act that you or I may see as "leadership" is going to be seen as an act of unilateral superpower self-interested empire construction. Do you really think France is happy when the USA leads? Russia? Indonesia? Pakistan? China? There are many countries that are happy to see us stick our necks way out, but that's not the same as them wanting us to actually lead.

You are right on the details, but I don't think you are right on leadership. As any leader knows, there will always be people who grumble from the sidelines. For example, it's hard to imagine any action that would satisfy the diverse views of Neal, Steve, Tom, Ricky, and Danivon, let alone France, China, and Russia.

We've had a dry spell in leadership, but that doesn't mean it's over. It's over until it's not. History will move forward and at some point the right person will be in power at the right time, and s/he will lead, and many of us will be happy right away, and many others will appreciate it in hindsight. Russia and China will complain, and France will snub their nose, but they will go along and either follow or at the very least get out of the way.

I'm sorry to see that Mr. Obama does not have that stuff. More than anyone on these pages, I thought he might.

Neal Anderth wrote:RJ, you are assuming that we're the good guys.

We were recently discussing how the skids got greased for the Lockerbie Bomber to return. People were quite happy to business with Gaddafi.

It's a cute bit. I actually read your post while my daughter was practicing for choir: "Oh beautiful for spacious skies ..." You had to be there.

I'm (almost) as cynical as you are, and the release of yet another Arab terrorist was not lost on me. But you compare the West to your idealistic vision of what governance should be. Spend some time in a totalitarian, or fascist, or Islamic, or Communist country and then you'll see that we really are the good guys, relatively speaking.

Ray Jay wrote:...how passive the Obama administration is being right now.

Up in Massachusetts we used to say "if you don't like the weather just wait 24 hours". This morning's news is that the the US has forwarded a draft resolution at the UN which "contains controversial language authorising all necessary measures to protect civilians, which some interpret as permitting strikes against government ground forces if civilians are under attack." The Russians are apoplectic.

Did the Obama admin simply change its tune, was prior reporting misleading, or is it that this administration operates on a sort of chaos/emergence principle whereby disorder reigns (with everybody voicing their own opinion as if authoritative) but eventually (after enough positive and negative feedback from outside) the fittest idea survives and stands alone? ("Fitness" in this case might mean almost anything.) In any case it might just be that the USA is displaying at least a flicker of the leadership RJ had hoped for. Now how will everyone react to it?