Ron Mars
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,194
- Reaction score
- 170
- Location
- Central Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Russia NATO envoy warns of full-scale war in Libya....Russia NATO envoy warns of full-scale war in Libya | Reuters
I could care less what Russia thinks about NATO. They are not a member nation.
Why don't we have to declare these things anymore?
The Coalition has no business helping out in Libya militarily until the situation stabilizes and the intentions of the opposition groups become crystal clear. The Coalition could very well be helping the next Iran come into being.
Are you willing to gamble?
Which puts you on the same side as......
Keith Olberman. Politics does make strange bedfellows, doesn't it? :mrgreen:
Which puts you on the same side as......
Keith Olberman. Politics does make strange bedfellows, doesn't it? :mrgreen:
I could care less what Russia thinks about NATO. They are not a member nation.
not a double stardard those places didn't have oil flowing benieth their feet.You should. Russia is a powerhouse (supplying arms)
How did our interference in Bosnia help the US? Answer that, Ron.
You can make the argument that we were opposing genocide, i.e. no more Nazi holocausts. But we didn't intervene in Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge slaughtered 1/3 of the population and we didn't intervene in Africa when one tribe decided to slaughter another.
A double standard???
Finally, in this case, Russia's concerns are valid. There is an elevated risk of a civil war in Libya should the Gadhafi dictatorship be driven from power. The regime still enjoys significant popular support. Tribal rivalries are real. The anti-Gadhafi elements had shown poor political and military skill prior to the international air support being provided to shift the battlefield situation. It remains to be seen whether those elements, largely agreed on Gadhafi's ouster but not much more, could form a broad-based transitional government that would provide stability in the face of the power vacuum that would exist following the departure of Gadhafi's regime. Such a transitional government would need to include much more than just the anti-Gadhafi elements and that would be a tall order. Mistrust or worse would exist on both sides.
It is Corporatism that makes strange bedfellows. It's getting all that OIL into the Big Energy Corporate Distribution Network named Total, Exxon/Mobil, BP, ETC. They pay big money to get the politicians they own to do their bidding. We are abserving bidding. Sort of like an auction, don't you think?
not a double stardard those places didn't have oil flowing benieth their feet.
Again, Libya's oil exports are negligible when Saudi Arabia ups it's production to compensate
Trying to guide or direct the outcome of a revolution serves what purpose?
Cheap oil has gone the way of the dodo bird. Where's all that green energy that politicians have been promising? As for Libya's oil, do you really believe that there is no correlation between war in Libya and the rising prices of gasoline here in the US?Saudi Arabia’s ability to boost oil production much above current levels is questionable and the country’s overall crude reserves may have been overstated by up to 40 percent, American diplomats in Riyadh warned in confidential cables written between 2007 and 2009. The dispatches were released by Wikileaks and published on Tuesday by The Guardian newspaper in Britain.
One cable written during the 2008 oil shock, when crude prices spiked to nearly $150 per barrel, warned that Saudi Aramco, the Saudi state oil company, no longer appeared to have the ability to raise production sufficiently to affect global oil prices.
Most countries in the Middle East have some kinda mixture of Shi'a, Sunni and whatever. They aren't completely one or the other. All that aren't monarchies now, were monarchies before they became republics/dictatorships/president for life. You simply cannot ignore that
Correct. But U.S. interests are not spread evenly across the region. What happens in Iran or Saudi Arabia is far more important for the U.S. than what happens in Libya.
According to Gates yesterday when asked if Libya were a "Vital Interest" of the US, he replied "No".... Now make the case how Obama didn't overstep his powers via the War powers act by not consulting congress.
Clearly he thinks Congress is neutered, and only the UN matters.
j-mac
You should. Russia is a powerhouse (supplying arms)
How did our interference in Bosnia help the US? Answer that, Ron.
You can make the argument that we were opposing genocide, i.e. no more Nazi holocausts. But we didn't intervene in Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge slaughtered 1/3 of the population and we didn't intervene in Africa when one tribe decided to slaughter another.
A double standard???
While the response is probably correct that NATO should plan and implement its operations according to the needs, cicumstances, and goals involved, even if Russia might disagree, one should not dismiss Russian concerns. Russia currently feels that the mission is extending beyond the parameters of UNSC. Res. 1973. IMO, the language is sufficiently broad to allow for the close-air support that is, in fact, being provided for the anti-Gadhafi forces. The resolution allows for "all necessary measures... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya..." The rationale for close-air support can be as follows: (1) Libya's armed forces have had a history of indiscriminate bombardment against civilian areas (among other abuses); (2) Protection of civilians requires destruction of such forces to the extent that they no longer pose a threat to civilians; (3) Destruction of those forces requires targeting their equipment and personnel until their capabilities are significantly degraded. No explicit mention of close-air support needs to be made. The rationale serves the same purpose. Not surprisingly, the mission is not just a no-fly zone. It has evolved into providing close-air support. Russia's being "surprised" on the turn things have taken is really not credible.
Having said that, the U.S. can ill afford to ignore Russia's critical interests. There, Russia can and will act to safeguard those interests. Georgia's failed attempt to use force to resolve its own internal dispute provides one lesson that Russia will act when it feels its critical interests are impacted. Russia's near abroad is considered vital to Russia. With respect to the Libya situation, Russia's strategy going forward could involve a number of measures aimed at "punishing" the U.S./West. Those measures could include, among other things:
1. A guaranteed veto of any future UNSC resolution that does not provide specific limits on what is authorized e.g., a resolution would need to authorize a no-fly zone, define what that means, and actions beyond those required for to implement and maintain it would be barred e.g., attacks on armor that have nothing to do with the NFZ would be barred.
2. Reduced cooperation on the Iranian issue. There are limits to how far Russia could proceed on this front, barring a political development that allows Russia to accept a nuclear-armed Iran (still quite unlikely).
3. A greater degree of resource nationalism. Russia has demonstrated in the past that it will use its resources to pursue what it perceives to be national interests (actually, this should not be surprising, as resources offer a dimension of power).
4. Further deepening of relations with China. There are broad common interests (especially economic/resources) that are driving a tightening of the relationship. Balance-of-power objectives could gain prominence, especially if Russia is able to appeal to China's wariness about outsiders interfering in the internal domestic affairs of states (China has issues concerning the Tibet region and Taiwan that it views as vital internal domestic matters).
On issues of mutual benefit to the critical interests of the U.S. and Russia, progress is not likely to be blocked. Hence, if the U.S. and Russia were to pursue further nuclear arms reductions, the technical details not Libya would present the greatest challenge.
Finally, in this case, Russia's concerns are valid. There is an elevated risk of a civil war in Libya should the Gadhafi dictatorship be driven from power. The regime still enjoys significant popular support. Tribal rivalries are real. The anti-Gadhafi elements had shown poor political and military skill prior to the international air support being provided to shift the battlefield situation. It remains to be seen whether those elements, largely agreed on Gadhafi's ouster but not much more, could form a broad-based transitional government that would provide stability in the face of the power vacuum that would exist following the departure of Gadhafi's regime. Such a transitional government would need to include much more than just the anti-Gadhafi elements and that would be a tall order. Mistrust or worse would exist on both sides.
If one recalls, pre-war military planning for Iraq all but ignored the extreme risk of civil conflict there. The pre-war narrative was simply that once Saddam Hussein fell, Iraq would 'live happily ever after in peace and stability.' In short, that narrative ignored both Iraq's history and the general risks associated with the emergence of power vacuums in states with longstanding ethnic rivalries. A long period of insurgency and violence followed, something that General Zinni had warned about in his 1999 Desert Crossing exercise, but was ignored in the run-up to the 2003 war.
While I do not believe Libya is going to evolve into another Somalia--Libya has substantial valuable resources that can readily be produced (especially oil) that could provide for growth that would benefit all parts of the country, unlike Somalia's essentially zero-sum framework from fewer resources able to be produced/famine risk from a combination of climate and bad policy--tribal rivalries, secular-Islamist divide, and signficant divisions among Libya's people could lead to at least a period of post-Gadhafi violence, perhaps civil war. The coming international conference on Libya does not assure that that risk can be managed. Such an approach proved inadequate in the face of the challenges in Afghanistan, though I believe Libya's risks are lower than those in Afghanistan, which remains fundamentally a highly decentralized society.
Does NATO have a plan to assure a broad-based transitional government? Does NATO have a contingency plan should violence begin to materialize following the departure of the Gadhafi dictatorship? Does NATO have a plan to prevent wholesale purges of those suspected to support or sympathize with Gadhafi? Those are real questions that need to be resolved.
In any case, it is those dangers and the absence of a critical U.S. interest in the outcome that led me to oppose anything more than a strict NFZ. I do not support the current approach of providing close-air support, even as I hope that the anti-Gadhafi forces will prevail. As previously noted, I believe the revolution should be waged, won, or lost by Libyans. That is not the case today by any stretch of the imagination. NATO air power is playing a decisive role in the battlefield outcome. Objectively, if the revolution is won, it will have been won largely by non-Libyans.
According to Gates yesterday when asked if Libya were a "Vital Interest" of the US, he replied "No".... Now make the case how Obama didn't overstep his powers via the War powers act by not consulting congress.
Clearly he thinks Congress is neutered, and only the UN matters.
Three quick points:
1. I strongly agree with Secretary Gates. I have not been able to identify any critical national interest at stake in Libya.
2. IMO, military action should be limited to situations where critical U.S. interests or those of critical allies are at stake. Having said that, I do not believe the War Powers Act offers such explicit instruction (§1547 provides sufficient latitude for the current operation). IMO, should the mission remain one of providing offensive air support for the anti-Gadhafi forces--a form of direct military intervention in Libya's civil war--I believe Congress should exercise its authority under the War Powers Act to wind things down beginning in 60 days from the start of such operations.
3. While UN support might be viewed as helpful, the reality remains that the source of U.S. military and foreign policy authority is the Constitution. No UN resolution can substitute for the Constitution.
it serves the purpose of giving the world back to the people instead of the oil companys.Again, Libya's oil exports are negligible when Saudi Arabia ups it's production to compensate
Trying to guide or direct the outcome of a revolution serves what purpose?
it serves the purpose of giving the world back to the people instead of the oil companys.
it serves the purpose of giving the world back to the people instead of the oil companys.
What happens in Iran or Saudi Arabia is far more important for the U.S. than what happens in Libya.
Gulf Arab monarchies including Saudi Arabia denounced Iran”s “flagrant interference” in regional affairs and said Tehran was destabilising their countries, at a ministerial meeting overnight Saturday. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers said in a statement they were “deeply worried about continuing Iranian meddling” in their region. In addition to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait, the GCC groups include Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.
Police and armed men in civilian clothes opened fire on anti-government demonstrators in the Yemeni cities of Taiz and Hudaida on Monday, witnesses said, as a drive to oust President Ali Abdullah Saleh gathered pace.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?