« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The U.S. Senate flails about in an effort to save face as the coalition in charge of bombing Libya begins to crack

By: Jeff Emanuel (Diary)  |  June 23rd, 2011 at 11:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In an apparent effort to save face via the provision of ex post facto permission, the U.S. Senate is considering a bipartisan resolution that would authorize Obama to continue prosecuting his war in Libya for up to a year, albeit with a specific prohibition against the employment of ground troops.  The sponsors  of this resolution are, as may be expected, John McCain (R-AZ) and John Kerry (D-MA).  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said the bill likely has enough votes to succeed in the Senate.

If passed, this milquetoast authorization would be yet another example of a governing body trying to have it both ways.  First, the attempt by the Senate to “reassert its authority” over the president’s engagement in hostilities amounts in essence to giving the horse permission to go for a stroll weeks after the barn door has been left open; and second, the authorization of continued air operations while specifically prohibiting the use of ground troops all but ensures the continuation what has already been a lackluster, impotent military effort which unduly endangers civilians, doesn’t have a clear goal, and seems as far as Qaddafi is concerned to be accomplishing little other than giving this tinpot dictator increasing confidence that the coalition is unwilling or incapable of unseating or killing him.

Further, as the Obama administration is doubling down on the war in Libya, thumbing its nose at Congress’s efforts  to exert some form of authority and oversight while continuing to engage in directionless hostilities with the North African nation, cracks are beginning to appear in the NATO coalition that Obama has claimed to be “leading from behind.”  Following on the heels of Norway’s decision to withdraw from military operations, Italy has now become the first participant in the military coalition waging war on Libya to call for a cease-fire, as well as for the consideration of a political settlement that would likely leave dictator Mohmar Qaddafi in power.

Though it was one of the first nations to join the coalition against Libya, Italy dis so “reluctantly,” due to its dependence on Libyan natural gas and oil and its 2008 treaty with Qaddafi’s government.  Despite this fact, and despite Silvio Berlusconi’s declaration that “the mission was limited to enforcing a no-fly zone and protecting civilians” and that “Italian planes flying over Libya were not shooting and would not shoot” (begging the question just how they would be able to help “enforce” a No-Fly Zone), Italian participation has been critical to the air mission due to the proximity of its air bases to the North African state.

According to Reuters:

Italy’s ceasefire call exposed the strain on the NATO alliance, nearly 14 weeks into a bombing campaign that has so far failed to dislodge Gaddafi but is causing mounting concerns about its cost and about civilian casualties.
Qadhafi himself sounded a fresh note of defiance with an audio recording, broadcast on Libyan television, in which he called NATO states murderers of innocent civilians and vowed to avenge their deaths.

It is worth noting that Qaddafi didn’t just “vow to avenge [civilians'] deaths”; he threatened terrorist reprisals against the West for its actions, saying, “You said, ‘we hit our targets with precision’, you murderers! One day we will respond to you likewise and your homes will be legitimate targets.”  It is also worth noting that the Italian ceasefire call is being made in the name of “humanitarianism,” for the purpose of reducing civilian casualties and “opening corridors for humanitarian aid.”  As was mentioned in the comments here yesterday, this purpose runs ironically parallel to the reason for the hostilities in the first place, which were somehow intended — from 10,000 feet and above — to successfully reduce civilian casualties and open corridors for humanitarian aid.

Now, as Qaddafi’s retrenchment continues, the ever-weakening NATO alliance is showing its lack of unity and resolve, and even more importantly is providing an object lesson in why specific goals and measures of success, completion, and victory must be determined before a shooting war is engaged in, particularly if one side (the opposition in this case) has a far greater stake in, for lack of a better term, not losing than the other side does.

According to the AFP:

“The alliance is coming unstuck,” Natalino Ronzitti from the Rome-based International Affairs Institute, told AFP.

“There’s an air of dissent from some members, not only because of the huge cost but also because it’s not clear the recent air attacks are entirely legitimate under the United Nations resolution,” he said.

As NATO admitted to bombing errors in recent days which killed 24 civilians, including five children, Italy — a cautious partner in the Libyan mission from the beginning — said the alliance’s credibility was at risk.

On June 1 NATO decided to extend its three-month mission until the end of September, despite warnings from US Defence Secretary Robert Gates that the alliance lacked assets and was over-reliant on American help.

The 28-nation alliance responded to doubts about the sustainability of the mission on Tuesday, insisting that all allies and partners had agreed to provide the necessary assets for “as long as it takes.”

NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen dismissed the Italian ceasefire request out of hand, declaring that “We will take the time needed until the military objective is reached: end all attacks against Libyan civilians, return armed forces to barracks and freedom of movement for humanitarian aid.”  It bears repeating that two out of three of these objectives are being presented as the reason for Italy’s request to stop the bombing in Libya.

Oana Lungescu, a NATO spokeswoman, unsurprisingly echoed Rasmussen’s declaration, claiming that “There is the commitment, there are the assets in place and time is not on Kadhafi’s side.”  As the “commitment” appears to crumble before our very eyes, it appears that “time” is much more “on Qaddafi’s side” than it is on NATO’s, whatever Rasumssen, Lungescu, Obama, or the post-barn-door U.S. Senate may say to the contrary.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • tjpeco

    ….that it would be that cross dressing freak of a national leader that would lead to the unravelling of an alliance that kept the Soviet empire in check.

    Every day that Qaddaffi lives is more proof to our would-be enemies that we lack the gumption to actually prosecute a war to our fullest extent.

    If you’re going to go to war – go to war. Kill people and break things. Don’t run a war just to prove that you’re more than just a pacifist marxist.

    • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

      …killing Qaddafi. The UNSCR is where Obama is deriving his legitimacy from (I know, it’s tough to say with a straight face), and it speaks only of “all necessary measures” (EXCEPT ground forces) to protect civilians and ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid.

      As I wrote yesterday, with no definition of the mission outside of that nebulous directive, we’ll simply be chasing our tail until we finally come home.

      • audax

        ….so if we get Ga-Daffy,it must have been an error, just like there was an error in the bombing of the “civilians”.

  • johnt

    grand strategist that he is. The mice scramble from behind.
    At the count of three, everybody laugh at George Bush, though it’s getting a little harder to do !

  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    n/t

  • glaucon

    The losers sponsor a loser resolution. Big surprise. If these guys had a shred of integrity, they would have put this to a vote before Obama started the war. They are just trying to cover for Obama at this point.

  • septembergurl

    was not against all wars — just dumb ones (this was in the context of Iraq). He still holds the belief any war he enters (libya) will be a smart war — because Obama and his smart advisers are not capable of a dumb war. Obama always falls back on this (liberals in general do) as if it is self-evident.

    Libya is a perfect smart war — multilateral, leading from behind, no boots on the ground, no possible US interest involved, humanitarian goals, no hostilities so no Congressional approval needed. It’s war as imagined by the faculty lounge.

    In reality, Obama has created a quagmire where none existed. We will now have the slow, rancorous exit of our “allies”, ramped-up resolutions and speeches in Congress (with the House trying to defund or make illegal, and the Senate trying to stay the course). This is the last thing Democraps wanted, as they try to hold down further losses in the House and retain the Senate.

    It will be hard for Obama to run the antiwar campaign he has planned. It’s the only kind he knows, so he doesn’t have much choice. But even his allies in the media are going to find this a tough sell.

    As President, Obama has gone big when he should have gone small and small when he should have gone big (in Afghanistan and Libya respectively). There’s a case to be made for going into Libya the way Bush went into Iraq, which is actually the only way you impose your will on another country — kill a lot of its inhabitants and render its defenses useless, take out the regime and install your own, then try to establish and maintain order long enough to be able to terminate combat and withdraw. Republican war hawks like Marco Rubio and Kelly make this case, If you’re going to take Paris, take Paris.

    That Obama’s advisers viewed non-intervention as a no-brainer is clear from the fact that Gates & Mullen simply assumed Obama had agreed with them after some perfunctory presentations that were pretty much all con.

    But that was before the regime’s Mean Girls — Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton — prevailed on Obama to join the intervention by playing on his vanity about his intelligence.

    Mean Girls: We’ll only be killing bad people! We’ll be defending civilians by bombing them!

    BO: But won’t I be like Bush, invading a country, killing Muslims?

    MGs: Noooo! Bush was stupid! You’re smart!

    BO: Yeah, that’s right. OK.

    At some point Obama will have to declare victory and pull out, as he did in Aghanistan. That will be some speech.

    • septembergurl

      Kelly=Ayotte

    • aesthete

      In point of fact, Obama did go big in Afghanistan – a foolish decision, given how little an increase affected change at the margins, and how un-important Afghanistan is strategically. Escalation in Afghanistan, and intervention in Libya, is based on the same fuzzy minded, idealistic thinking that led the coalition in Iraq to attempt to nation-build with such fervency – the notion being that if we just give our erstwhile enemies goodies and freedom, they’ll be grateful and not belligerant. Unfortunately, the world doesn’t work that way and cultture and society do not lend themselves to change instigated by a grand architect from afar.

      • septembergurl

        agree with me is kind of annoying.

        Read my post again, especially the part where I say that Obama went big in Afghanistan when he should have gone small. Your riposte is that you don’t agree with me because Obama actually went big in Afghanistan, which is exactly what I said, only I said it first and frankly, much more intelligently.

        • aesthete

          Thank you for clarifying — I wish you’d done so with less vitriol, but it is nonetheless appreciated. After re-reading, I disagree that we should have gone big in Libya: there is little at stake for the US in Libya, and that will be the case no matter what the outcome of our expedition. Worse, almost none of the possible endgames is particularly advantageous for us from any standpoint (moral, economic, realpolitik, etc). I do, however, agree that we should have maintained a low profile in Afghanistan — one even more minimalist than the one that the coalition ultimately charted.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      Mean Girls: We?ll only be killing bad people! We?ll be defending civilians by bombing them!

      BO: But won?t I be like Bush, invading a country, killing Muslims?

      MGs: Noooo! Bush was stupid! You?re smart!

      BO: Yeah, that?s right. OK.

      ——————-

      That’s what happens when you believe your own BS! Well-written.

  • PubliusII

    or it will sustain a total and unmitigated defeat, and so will the United States.

    Now there is great force to the argument that the UK and France, backed by the United States, should never have entered Lybia in the first place. Unfortunately, they, and we, did enter the Lybian civil war. We are in now, like it or not.

    Having entered the war and committed themselves to killing (ahem, removing) Qaddafi, the UK and France, and the United States, will sustain a major defeat if Qaddafi survives. This would be a disaster for us, and even more for the UK and France, and even more for NATO. Note well that Qaddafi feels confident enough now that he is threatening the European countries. Does anybody doubt he won’t follow though?

    I concede that the Congress is wrong to let Obama slide on the War Powers Act, although the fault is more Congess’ than Obama’s. After all, every President has tried to ignore the Act and only complies when forced by Congress.

    But the defeat the West faces is a far greater danger to us than any dispute over the War Powers Act. If the West loses, all of our enemies around the world will be emboldened, and the weaker European countries (e.g. Italy) will try to cut the best deal they can with the dictators. Our friends in bad neighborhoods will feel even more isolated and will also abandon the West and cut the best deal they can with the local nearby thug state. The thug states will feel liberated to do whatever they like, because there will be no powers for order to stop them.

    Qaddafi MUST lose. If Qaddafi wins, this will be a terrible turning point, sort of like Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia and getting away with it in 1935. The foundation of security in Europe and elsewhere, NATO, will be proven to be impotent.

    • acat

      When did the official position of the U.S. become “bust a cap up in Gadaffi” ?

      As for the war powers act, it’s clearly unconstitutional, but so useful to politicians of both parties that nobody with standing is going to make the needed challenge. Even in that case, every president forward will cite the Obama precedent – invade first and tell the congresscritters after the fact….

      As for the defeat of the west .. I seem to recall hearing and being swayed by similar arguments for staying the course in Afghanistan .. a war I supported. At this point, I am no longer convinced our troops on the ground are what’s needed.

      I certainly don’t think the argument stands up for Libya. Either take the velvet gloves off and *take Tripoli*, or pack it in.

      Mew

    • JSobieski

      (1) NATO is already irrelevant. It is essentially a security guaranty by the US. We gain nothing from NATO except an excuse for close ties with the boundary countries of NATO (places like Poland).

      (2) If Qaddafi is killed, it is far more likely to turn into Iran than it is Turkey. Turkey is the best case scenario, and frankly Turkey aint all that and a bag of chips. Qaddafi was in his box. We can easily keep him in his box.

      There is admittedly a hit on US prestige when we say something and don’t follow-up, but those folks know Obama is a tool anyway.

      Why fight to replace a dictator with a likely worse theocracy?

      • acat

        the real reasons why we’re in Libya are .. what, again?

        Humanitarian purposes, was it? Gadaffi’s a terrorist, was it?

        My pet favourite is that Gadaffi had something like 6% of the money in Italy’s banks and, if he’s dead or out of power, the potential taxes make the Italian financial situation much *much* better….. and right now, they’re following Greece into the crapper…

        Mew

    • JSobieski

      (1) NATO is already irrelevant. It is essentially a security guaranty by the US. We gain nothing from NATO except an excuse for close ties with the boundary countries of NATO (places like Poland).

      (2) If Qaddafi is killed, it is far more likely to turn into Iran than it is Turkey. Turkey is the best case scenario, and frankly Turkey aint all that and a bag of chips. Qaddafi was in his box. We can easily keep him in his box.

      There is admittedly a hit on US prestige when we say something and don’t follow-up, but those folks know Obama is a tool anyway.

      Why fight to replace a dictator with a likely worse theocracy?

    • aesthete

      The US has cut their losses in plenty of conflicts in the modern era. We eventually withdrew from Lebanon, the Philippines, Vietnam and refused to assist in other struggles that potentially involved us. In the case of the Philippines and Vietnam, we arguably had a national interest or other involvement that made us lose much more prestige than would be lost by retreating from Libya. In none of those cases did the US begin an inevitable decline in world affairs — they were setbacks, to be sure, but did not lead to anything akin to the state of affairs that prevailed when Italy invaded Ethiopia. Our departure from Afghanistan after 10 years of ambiguous policy is a much greater hit to our prestige than leaving Libya quickly would be: doubling down in foreign policy errors, as in gambling, simply exacerbates the problem. NATO has been irrelevant for years, and it does not necessarily say much that an inexperienced President without the support of the legislature or the populace made a poor decision. If we continue in Libya as we have been, we will eventually fail, anyways. If we win for the rebels, we will be held responsible for their inevitably terrible decisions and human rights record going forward. Investing in Libya when none of the players affords us anything is a bad idea any way you cut it.

      Any of our potential enemies that believe that this move indicates America’s weakness are stupid and short-sighted enough that we need not worry.

  • ag8tor

    McCain which party he is a member of? He spins a tough conservative line about illegals in Arizona a week ago and then turns 180 degrees and sides with the same iddiot he lost to in 2008. You’d think he’d get it by now. Whether this resolution has any teeth or not it should show once and for all that this senate had no stones and that their leader Reid is even more worthless than was first thought. What a hand puppett. Let’s all give the good people of Nevada a round of applause for putting this clown back in the senate. What were you thinking?

    • edintexas

      Maybe many of the NV voters were thinking “If I cross the union on this vote, I will lose my job – or worse.” Without the union involvement in the election (on behalf of that Senator with the sparkling personality), I think it would have been unlikely that he would have won. We know the unions bussed groups to the polls. And we know they required casino operators to provide lists of employees, and make sure the employees were “available” to be bussed to the polling place by the union. IIRC, employers were also told to annotate the lists with which employees voted. Not to mention the money in advertising for Reid the unions spent.

  • edintexas

    On noting Italy’s official position that their aircraft over Libya would not engage in attacks, Jeff posits the question “(begging the question just how they would be able to help ?enforce? a No-Fly Zone)”.

    The answer is quite simple. Once we destroyed the Libyan Air Force, Air Force bases and Libyan Air Defenses (I believe that occurred essentially on the first day – except for ManPADS (Man Portable Air Defense Systems – Stingers, etc.), and we discovered that the Libyan Army had no flying tanks, there was never a reason for Italian (or any other country’s) aircraft to engage in ground attacks to enforce a “No-Fly Zone”.

    In other words the “No-Fly Zone” was Bravo Sierra from day two. Gee, are we surprised that this Administration, NATO and some of the NATO national governments would lie to us? I guess they decided it was better to lie than tell us they planned on overthrowing a legal (no matter how despotic) government for the rebels, and – Oh, by the way, we don’t have a clue who constitutes the rebels to whom we wish to give the country. Though we are aware some of them at least have ties to Al Queda, if they aren’t Al Queda members.

    JSobieski is absolutely correct. Quaddafi WAS in his box. He was even cooperating with the “War on Terror” against Al Queda as he could. Can’t have that, now can we?

    • gekster

      it was the popular thing to do.
      Obamanures’ thoughts were if we help them, then they would love us.
      How’d that work out for us in Iran.
      We helped to overthrow the Shaw, and now Iran is our
      biggest best friend in the Middle East, arn’t they now.

  • carolynr

    Obama did not go to the Congress per the Constitution…HE WENT TO THE UN. Now…WHEN IS BOEHNER AND USELESS MC CONNELL GOING TO CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT OF THIS GUY.

    This Libyan Dictator can be taken out real easy…Can anyone say Daisy Cutter on the entire compound. Or..How about Seal Team 7

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      Stick to stealing content from websites where the content is wrong. You’ll do less damage.

      The very last thing we want to do is unite the country behind Obama with an impeachment proceeding that will absolutely fail. One, the votes aren’t there in the House and two, they certainly aren’t there in the Senate. The Senate won’t even defund the operation, what in the world makes you think they would vote to impeach?

      In the world of absolutely stupid strategy, this one is King.