11th hour intervention in Libya

[flintlock]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

I think the no-fly zone was initially being sold to the public as just that. They know that no one reads the fine print.

Interesting link c1ue, on the ugly side of the revolution. This is the kind of stuff I was talking about. Wars like this are always ugly. With people forced to pick sides who really just want to live their lives. I just hope this intervention doesn't prolong the war.

[flintlock]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp

Instead of dissecting the UN resolution could someone explain to me how President Obama's actions are legal? Above is a link to the wording of the War Powers Resolution. It's about a one minute read.
Can anyone read it and still tell me that what we're doing is legal?
Do you think they bypassed debate because the great unwashed are getting a little tired of war. Polls indicate that up to 3/4's of the American people are not on board with this.
They've fired over a hundred cruise missiles at 600,000$ a pop. That's over 60,000,000$ in just cruise missiles.

Think of it as stimulus spending. All the jobs created!

[Ghent12]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Think of it as stimulus spending. All the jobs created!

I think it's a bit different than that. Tomahawks are not exactly the same as bullets. Likely it was the older models used where possible against the various targets, and they would not be replaced at the same cost they were built because the inventory is already presumably large with older and newer models.

In any case, to answer BigBagel's question: no, nobody can explain how President Obama's actions are legal. The very term itself has lost objective meaning. The Constitution is no longer the legal foundation of the country--it has been supplanted and replaced by a precedent-based system where the Supreme Court can determine anything to be legal or illegal using any justification whatsoever, often by changing the definitions of words used in the Constitution and therefore having "Constitutional" justification. Congress has long abdicated its full measure of Constitutional duties and now serves as an advisory board or a public opinion barometer, rather than as outlined in the Constitution.

The real answer is, "it is legal because it will not be successfully challenged on legal grounds," even though it is blatantly illegal.

[BigBagel]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

I think it's a bit different than that. Tomahawks are not exactly the same as bullets. Likely it was the older models used where possible against the various targets, and they would not be replaced at the same cost they were built because the inventory is already presumably large with older and newer models.

In any case, to answer BigBagel's question: no, nobody can explain how President Obama's actions are legal. The very term itself has lost objective meaning. The Constitution is no longer the legal foundation of the country--it has been supplanted and replaced by a precedent-based system where the Supreme Court can determine anything to be legal or illegal using any justification whatsoever, often by changing the definitions of words used in the Constitution and therefore having "Constitutional" justification. Congress has long abdicated its full measure of Constitutional duties and now serves as an advisory board or a public opinion barometer, rather than as outlined in the Constitution.

The real answer is, "it is legal because it will not be successfully challenged on legal grounds," even though it is blatantly illegal.

Thank you. I don't want to be like the type of Roman who was running around worrying about the role of the Senate when Caesar Augustus took to wearing the purple. Republics are like people. Once they die they don't come back and wishing otherwise does not change things.

We've taken a giant leap down our new path because now they don't even care to pretend.

[GRG55]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

I'm still unclear why this matters.

Whether it is covered by the UN or not - the UN is not in any position to supervise what American and French planes do. There are no UN observers over Libya, or on the ground. Nor, I am sure, was the UN allowed supervisory targeting approval over the 112 or whatever Tomahawks launched...

LOL. Do you really expect the US or French would ever give anyone else, including the UN, "supervision" over their own troops and armaments? How many US or French citizens do you think would support something like that?

I've never yet seen even an attempt at an investigation to see if 'No Fly Zone' ordinances in Iraq or in Yugoslavia were in fact adhering strictly to the 'law'...

The "law"? Maybe that's the problem here...talking heads in NY who have never been anywhere near a combat zone actually think you can create "rules" for war...

[flintlock]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

I think it's a bit different than that.

Sorry for my bad attempt at humor. Of course it's not stimulus spending. My thoughts mirror yours exactly. A) this is of questionable legality and B) Its expensive and we are broke.

I certainly hope we don't need those missiles for a real war anytime soon. We are spread thin enough as it is. And I assume its not like you can just run off a production batch of those in a week or two to replace them. Neophytes are running our country. It used to be you could just assume adults were running our country and they knew what they were doing. Now I have less faith.

[flintlock]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

The "law"? Maybe that's the problem here...talking heads in NY who have never been anywhere near a combat zone actually think you can create "rules" for war...

Hell yeah. Problem is, a lot of those making the decisions also have the same mentality. People don't read history anymore? We are so freaking detached from reality sometimes, its scary.

Qaddafi is just going to just sit tight and wait things out. Certainly the UN action has stopped his offensive against the rebels. Libya is ideally suited for air interdiction like this. So in that regard its a success. He really has no other choice. You can't move tanks and artillery across distances in that terrain without detection. But you can hide them in cities among the civilian "human shields". Like I said, this is probably just prolonging the misery of the Libyan civilians. I'm sure Libya has stockpiled weapons to prolong any ground war indefinitely. Only an all our air effort will bring about a rebel victory I'm afraid. Or a coup of some sorts. But how likely is that? Not for at least several months I would think.

Lakedamonian, what are the chances Egypt gets involved? I know they have their own problems now with organizing a new government, but they could easily tip the balance. Would they even want to?

[GRG55]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

From the BBC:

The UN Security Council has backed a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" short of an invasion "to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas".

The UK, France and Lebanon proposed the council resolution, with US support.

Meeting in New York, the 15-member body voted 10-0 in favour, with five abstentions.

The news reports seem to be confirming that the real objective of the military actions is to eliminate the good Colonel once and for all.

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

The news reports seem to be confirming that the real objective of the military actions is to eliminate the good Colonel once and for all.

I don't think anyone had any doubt of what the real objective was once the UN passed its resolution.

Hopefully this one will work out better than Iran, and Iraq, and Afghanistan, etc etc.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Hell yeah. Problem is, a lot of those making the decisions also have the same mentality. People don't read history anymore? We are so freaking detached from reality sometimes, its scary.

Qaddafi is just going to just sit tight and wait things out. Certainly the UN action has stopped his offensive against the rebels. Libya is ideally suited for air interdiction like this. So in that regard its a success. He really has no other choice. You can't move tanks and artillery across distances in that terrain without detection. But you can hide them in cities among the civilian "human shields". Like I said, this is probably just prolonging the misery of the Libyan civilians. I'm sure Libya has stockpiled weapons to prolong any ground war indefinitely. Only an all our air effort will bring about a rebel victory I'm afraid. Or a coup of some sorts. But how likely is that? Not for at least several months I would think.

Lakedamonian, what are the chances Egypt gets involved? I know they have their own problems now with organizing a new government, but they could easily tip the balance. Would they even want to?

I would agree that Libya's topography and weather lends itself towards easier(if not easy) aerial interdiction.....at least compared to former Yugoslavia...but as always......to hold ground, it has to be seized.

And while surveillance sensor technology has dramatically improved since the last couple of NFZs, deception measures can still make life difficult for effective enforcement.......and aircraft cannot loiter indefinitely, especially so far from home basing.

It's also worth mentioning that a cocktail napkin accounting for this Op is not going to be cheap......those unbudgeted flight hours X several hundred aircraft(tactical air, tanker support, recon/surveillance, CSAR rotary wing, transport, etc.) cost BIG money...plus all those deployed peeps manning/supporting those aircraft, as well as a decent sized fleet in the Southern Med......big big money.

If UK/French/US/NATO boots have to go in on the ground, I do suspect it will be far lower in cost than Iraq/Afghan.....the topography, outside of the urban areas in my opinion, presents an easier(but again not easy) job with lower overall risks than Iraq or Afghan.

But I don't think ANYONE (UK/France/US) WANTS to put overt boots on the ground.

That's why I mentioned the possibility of Egypt's involvement.

The US could place considerable pressure on the Egyptian government and military to take a more assertive role regarding it's neighbour's instability.

But the possibility exists Egypt may not even need prompting to explore the use of it's capabilities in promoting a stable Libya or to develop a friendly/maleable buffer between itself and Qaddafi/instability.

With Egypts long-term problems, I wonder if it's possible Egypt could look to Libya much as numerous African nations have looked at Congo in recent decades....keen to join in on the looting.

Egypt has history of foreign intervention.....Yemen in the 1960s......border conflict with Libya in the 1970's...and has been taking on a more assertive role regarding Nile water with its upstream neighbours.

Maybe the question is will Egypt NOT get involved?

This is probably where GRG55 comes in....sounds like he has a pretty good understanding of Egypt and the region.....and I'll defer to his thoughts on Egypt and it's LIKELIHOOD of covert/overt intervention....I'm just an interested amatur student of the region.....the closest I have ever come to Libya is sweating to avoid internal African flights on Libya's national carrier that would have routed me through Tripoli...a big NO NO.

My GUESS is covert......heavier Egyptian, lighter US/UK...but overall a light total footprint........mostly "diplomats with guns" Special Forces elements, spooks, civil affairs, psyops, and dedicated diplomats to put some backbone and glue into the nebulous opposition...to give the world something to work with after Qaddafi.

Just under 10 years ago the US effectively seized, but didn't hold, Afghanistan in a matter of weeks with only 100-200 people on the ground......so a clear precedent and proven capability is there to do something similar in Libya....

In my opinion, any US/UK/French physical presence on the ground in Libya would have to be performed tactfully, quietly and in partnership with Arabs/North Africans...or avoid the media glare......I think Egypt makes the natural partner due to it's high level of military capability(compared to Libya) and close military compatibility with the US......France could possibly rely on it's relationship with Chad to the South...possibly Algeria as well.

Just my speculations....but I would think that the comments coming from Cameron/Sarkozy/Obama kinda confirm the Tiber River being crossed....I doubt Qaddafi can be magically rehabbed again....and I doubt US forces are NOT already working in Libya thru Egypt.

I would be quite keen to hear GRG55's speculations on Egypt and Libya....from a Machiavellian perspective, I would think the prospect of Egyptians doing the heavy lifting of regime change could be potentially VERY lucrative for them....as well as potentially VERY expensive in terms of human, financial, and political capital costs.

Just my 0.02c

[lakedaemonian]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

While I think it's relevant and related to this topic, I don't know how important it is....but NIGER just turned up in Google Trends Hot Searches.....the only search term in the Hot Search top 10 that doesn't seem to be part of the entertainment industry....

[charliebrown]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

After a more extensive google search it appears that Libya does not have the sunburn. It is limited to russia, china, and iran. I first assumed that since Libya was cozy with the chineese and russians, they may have gotten their hands on a few.

Looking backward, Ghadafi was a fool not to pick up a few of these. If I was acrack-pot leader with oil in the middle east I would be on the phone right now trying to pick up a few. I've seen some estimates that they are roughly 1Mill a piece. Walking around money for just about any dictator.

[flintlock]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Thanks for the keen insight LD!

I just see any potential stalemate as an expensive and politically unacceptable situation. Egypt seems to me to be the logical people to break it. They can be seen as merely exporting the revolution vs just another stoolie doing America's dirty work. Under Mubarak I think they'd catch more flack.

One thing I heard this morning made me chuckle. The Arab league is saying one thing in Arabic ( crusaders, etc) and then another in English when the Western cameras are rolling.

[don]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

No 10 says Gaddafi's removal legal if required to protect civilians





the fuzzy-wuzzies throw themselves against the English line at Omdurman ....

[flintlock]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya



Hey, they were just trying to protect civilians from the Dervish!