[helene_t]

so will that be their election slogan next time? Vote for the socialists, vote for more fuel-price lowering wars?

[luke warm]

 helene_t, on 2011-March-24, 04:32, said:

And as for the significance of the fact that US happens to have a democrat president at the moment: Until a week ago Obama was very reluctant to getting involved. He may have been the last person on this Earth to make his mind up. Not blaming him for that, just saying that he can't have influenced many, certainly not outside the US, and certainly not influencing people to be in favor of the war, as he was reluctant while his allies were more pushy.

you made some excellent points, especially this last one... anger over our involvement shouldn't be directed toward obama who, as you pointed out, didn't seem real sure about what he wanted to do

[helene_t]

 Fluffy, on 2011-March-24, 06:23, said:

Also, ain't nobody surprised that every day about 10x people on Ivory coast are dying compared to Libya and nobody is saying anything about intervention there?

Well, Libya is closer to Europe. This means that Europe-based war jets can reach them. It also means that Libya is more relevant to Europe (boat refugees in Malta and Italy). Of course, the oil makes it more relevant, too. Personally, I am more concerned about the impact on the cocoa prices from the civil war in the Ivory Coast. I don't drive but eat lots of chocolate. But that's just me.

Also, in Libya it is pretty much the people against the dictator. If Gadaffi falls, one might hope that the situation will become reasonably stable, at least to the point that international peacekeepers won't be required for decades. Of course, this may be too optimistic. I don't think anyone can predict how much violence there will be in a post-Gadaffi Libya, how much the tribal division means. But in the Ivory coast, the conflict is between the muslim North and the Christian South, and that division will remain.

In Libya it makes some sense to target Gadaffi's heavy weapons. Not sure what could be targeted in the Ivory Coast.

In the Ivory Coast, the internationally recognized president is from the Muslim North. It might be prudent for an international force to recognize him as the leader of the whole country, but on the other hand, to achieve peace, at least in the short run, it may be more practical to accept the division of the country. Sorta similar situation to Cyprus, where the UN peacekeepers safeguarded a division of the country while UN doesn't recognize Northern Cyprus. Of course, Libya might turn into the same deadlock, with a UN-recognized government in Benghazi only controlling the Eastern half. Then again, it might not.

Also it is not a good lesson to teach other Arab dictators (Syria, Yemen, Bahrain) that if you are just brutal enough then you can stay in power while if you largely limit the use of power to tear gas (as in Tunisia and Egypt) you will be ousted.

Maybe more to the point, for whatever reason there was much more media attention to Libya than to the Ivory Coast already from the beginning. Some politicians are afraid of being the ones who did nothing while thousands of Libyans got slaughtered. I don't think they are afraid of voters who blame the Ivory Coast tragedy on them.

Btw, thanks for your kind words, Jimmy. FWIW I find it strange that Obama (while not a military expert he is an expert in the US constitution) failed to seek the congress' approval which seems to be required by the constitution. I wonder how much weight that issue has in the US debate.

[PassedOut]

The world does need a regular way of dealing with oppressive governments. Eventually acceptable standards will be codified by an international body -- perhaps the UN -- with an enforcement system to match. I won't live to see that happen. But until it does, dealing with these situations will always be fraught with ambiguity.

I do see a big difference between launching a full-scale invasion of a country to overturn its government and establishing a no-fly zone (with the attendant explosions) to protect folks from a military assault by an oppressive dictator. There is no guarantee that the action in Libya will end well, but that's ambiguity for you. It should not be permitted to evolve into an invasion.

I do appreciate the way Obama has handled this, without pretending that he has some simplistic ready-made answer for resolving difficult and ambiguous situations. Better to think things through and cooperate with other governments in a well-defined action than to cowboy up. It will be interesting to hear his rationale for acting without a specific congressional resolution. But it's likely that quite a few more lives would have been lost while congress was "debating."

Nicholas Kristoff described the reactions of the Libyans who cared for the US airman whose plane crashed: Hugs From Libyans

Quote

This may be a first for the Arab world: An American airman who bailed out over Libya was rescued from his hiding place in a sheep pen by villagers who hugged him, served him juice and thanked him effusively for bombing their country.

Even though some villagers were hit by American shrapnel, one gamely told an Associated Press reporter that he bore no grudges. Then, on Wednesday in Benghazi, the major city in eastern Libya whose streets would almost certainly be running with blood now if it weren’t for the American-led military intervention, residents held a “thank you rally.” They wanted to express gratitude to coalition forces for helping save their lives.

The citizens of any country bear the primary responsibility for overturning a regime that becomes oppressive. I understand that this responsibility becomes difficult to exercise in the face of money and arms supplied to the regime from the outside, and the US makes a huge mistake whenever it contributes to propping up oppressive regimes.

When the people do rise up, it seems fair to lend them a hand to neutralize some of the imported firepower -- even when some of that imported firepower might have come from my own country.

[nigel_k]

I really don't accept these arguments along the lines of 'We shouldn't intervene in Libya when we didn't do anything about [insert other totalitarian shithole here]'. There just aren't enough military resources to go around so why not apply them first where there is some benefit, such as reducing oil prices? If a chocolate factory and a broccoli farm are on fire and I only have one hose, then I feel sad for the farmer but my decision is an easy one.

I agree with PassedOut that we need a standard, agreed way of dealing with oppressive governments. My view is that law and relationships between nations are not analagous to law and relationships between individuals. It's more of a Wild West situation and needs similar solutions. There should be a special form of UN resolution where the leader of a country is basically declared an outlaw and has one week to hand themselves over to the International Criminal Court. Otherwise any nation, group or individual who wants to can kill them and claim a reward. Many people might find this distasteful but IMO it is fast, cheap and practical. It would be strictly limited to the leader and anyone protecting them. If they hand over power to someone just as bad you need a new resolution.

[luke warm]

 helene_t, on 2011-March-24, 08:01, said:

FWIW I find it strange that Obama (while not a military expert he is an expert in the US constitution) failed to seek the congress' approval which seems to be required by the constitution. I wonder how much weight that issue has in the US debate.

i'm not an expert by any means and i'm sure someone will correct me if this is wrong, but i believe the war powers act (or resolution, or whatever) gives the president some length of time to notify congress of military action and a set length of time to carry out that action (unless congress in the meantime passes legislation "legitimatizing" it)

[blackshoe]

The President has 48 hours to notify Congress, and can commit troops for sixty days (plus a 30 day withdrawal period) without Congressional approval.

I've always viewed the Navy and Marine Corps as the President's "actions short of war" tool. But the problem is exacerbated by the end run our government has made against the establishment of a standing army. By that I mean that the Founders envisioned that there wouldn't even be an army unless we were at war, or about to go to war, and attempted to prevent the establishment of a standing army by limiting appropriations to support one to two years. The end run is that Congress has basically rubber stamped renewal of the appropriations every two years, thus keeping the army active in perpetuity — the standing army which the Founders described as "the bane of liberty".

[Winstonm]

 Fluffy, on 2011-March-24, 06:23, said:

Also, ain't nobody surprised that every day about 10x people on Ivory coast are dying compared to Libya and nobody is saying anything about intervention there?

People are expendable; oil is not. How much oil is underneath the Ivory Coast?

[kenberg]

Probably our government is not operating exactly as Madison had in mind. Times change.


I got a question here. This 30 billion we just blocked or froze or seized or whatever. We can do this why? And what can we do with it? Save Social Security? Throw a really big party? More seriously, can we redirect it, some of it, to the rebels?

The whole thing makes my head spin. As I get it, Libya was suppose to pay a big penalty, maybe 1.5 billion or so, for the Lockerbie-PanAm business. So they pressured some US and European companies to come up with the cash. So, through higher prices, we, not Qadaffi, paid the penalty. Anyway, through this and that, Qadaffi et al ended up about thirty bil plus. Pretty much with our (well, not my) knowledge and cooperation. But now we are grabbing it. If this money was, as it sounds, obtained basically by strong arm tactics against businesses, with the costs passed on to the consumers, could we launch a class action suit to get the money back to us? Oops, then the lawyers would get it. Oh well.

30 billion here, 30 billion there, it could add up. Yeah, Ev Dirksen beat me to this observation.

[helene_t]

I have been wondering about those frozen assets also. Hopefully Libya will have a legitimate government within a few months and then we (well, not me) can just release the money. OTOH if Gadaffi "wins" the war, or if Libya gets divided, I am not sure which laws would apply and which court should settle the issue about who gets the money.

[luke warm]

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-24, 16:31, said:

The end run is that Congress has basically rubber stamped renewal of the appropriations every two years, thus keeping the army active in perpetuity — the standing army which the Founders described as "the bane of liberty".

 kenberg, on 2011-March-24, 20:12, said:

Probably our government is not operating exactly as Madison had in mind. Times change.

yes times change, but were the founders right about this?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Anyway, I suppose this is a bit off-topic, but I think filtering everything through left/right is a mistake.

When it comes to U.S. foreign policy, there seems to be only one party - the party of eternal hangers on, i.e., the national security party. One would think that the same people who encouraged and pushed for the Iraq invasion would have lost their country club privaleges, but it appears they still have the same lockers and occupy the same seats at the dining room table.

[kenberg]

Quote

yes times change, but were the founders right about this?

I can well imagine that the founders, like sensible people anywhere anytime, would prefer that we not be in a perpetual state of war. Peace with the British king, peace with the Indian tribes, peace with the Barbary pirates, peace with Mexico, all good objectives, achieved with varying degrees of success. But then there was this Manifest Destiny stuff also. Fifty-four forty or fight, remember the Alamo, etc, albeit after the days of the founders had passed. I was born in 1939, the days of Fortress America, let the Brits and the French fight their own battles with Germany, and who gives a crap about whether Italian trains run on time, or who is fighting which bull in Spain, anyway it's not our concern. Times indeed change.


I expect we need a standing army. I don't like it, but I expect we need it. But people who think we maybe should not be fighting everyone everywhere every time certainly have a point. It's a subject in need of serious thought.

[blackshoe]

 kenberg, on 2011-March-25, 06:32, said:

I expect we need a standing army. I don't like it, but I expect we need it. But people who think we maybe should not be fighting everyone everywhere every time certainly have a point. It's a subject in need of serious thought.

Indeed it is. Why do we need a standing army? And how big should it be if we do?

[hrothgar]

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-25, 06:47, said:

Indeed it is. Why do we need a standing army? And how big should it be if we do?

Much like everything else, warfare has become a high technical discipline, requiring specialized skills that take long time to master.
Equally significant, modern weapon systems take enormous amounts of time to design and build.
I think that this is the most important point that dictates a professional standing army.

There are also polical considerations. Vietnam demonstrated that middle class American doesn't like to get its hands dirty with wars.
Life is ever so much more pleasant if we can foist the casualities off on the underclass...
(I don't think that many people who state that out right, but I think that its true)

With respect to size: I think that the US military is grossly oversized and the force structure seems designed to defend against the wrong types of threats...

[blackshoe]

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-25, 07:29, said:

Much like everything else, warfare has become a high technical discipline, requiring specialized skills that take long time to master.
Equally significant, modern weapon systems take enormous amounts of time to design and build.
I think that this is the most important point that dictates a professional standing army.

It's a good point.

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-25, 07:29, said:

There are also polical considerations. Vietnam demonstrated that middle class American doesn't like to get its hands dirty with wars.
Life is ever so much more pleasant if we can foist the casualities off on the underclass...
(I don't think that many people who state that out right, but I think that its true)

With respect to size: I think that the US military is grossly oversized and the force structure seems designed to defend against the wrong types of threats...

It's called "last war syndrome", and I agree we need to overcome it and structure the military for the current threat. It's a tough uphill political battle though.

I would say that the Army is grossly oversized, and the Navy is improperly structured for the current threat (it may or may not be oversized, that's harder to say). We need more littoral combatants, and we probably need to put Marine detachments on them.

[PassedOut]

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-25, 08:42, said:

It's called "last war syndrome", and I agree we need to overcome it and structure the military for the current threat. It's a tough uphill political battle though.

I would say that the Army is grossly oversized, and the Navy is improperly structured for the current threat (it may or may not be oversized, that's harder to say). We need more littoral combatants, and we probably need to put Marine detachments on them.

I agree with you and Richard.

The US needs highly trained professionals in all the services, but an oversized army is only needed for foreign invasions -- which the US should not be doing. The presence of a large army only encourages foolish actions by politicians. We certainly don't need a large army to defend against invasions -- the US has the capability to detect and destroy an invading army long before it gets here.

The politics are tough, though, because so many livelihoods rely upon maintaining the status quo. Politicians who act in the interest of the nation as whole risk the votes of those affected by change.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-March-25, 10:37, said:

The politics are tough, though, because so many livelihoods rely upon maintaining the status quo. Politicians who act in the interest of the nation as whole risk the votes of those affected by change.

that's why any change would have to be part of a long-term plan... i have a (perhaps naive) confidence in technology, i think most 'conflicts' can be thwarted/won using it... you'd have to have someone with the will to phase out the army, or a large portion of it, over time... as people die or retire, don't replace them... done correctly, it shouldn't be that big a political challenge... same for the irs, but i digress

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-March-25, 15:57, said:

you'd have to have someone with the will to phase out the army, or a large portion of it, over time... as people die or retire, don't replace them... done correctly, it shouldn't be that big a political challenge...

But a lot of folks who are not in the army also rely upon it for their livelihoods: suppliers of food and equipment, store owners near army bases, and so on. Every time the military tries to close a base, an outcry arises. Every time the military tries to stop the manufacture of things that have become unnecessary, politicians fight tooth and nail to save the jobs in their districts.

I think we agree on what should be done, but I do see a big political challenge.

[blackshoe]

 PassedOut, on 2011-March-25, 17:31, said:

Every time the military tries to close a base, an outcry arises. Every time the military tries to stop the manufacture of things that have become unnecessary, politicians fight tooth and nail to save the jobs in their districts.

I think we agree on what should be done, but I do see a big political challenge.

To be fair, the military doesn't try to stop manufacture, they simply argue that their money should be spent on other things — and politicians then tell them "no, you must buy this obsolete (or whatever) junk".

It is a huge political challenge, and one most politicians, including Obama (indeed, including just about every past President as well) are unwilling to take up.