-
The Perils of Intervention in Syria
May 7, 2013 | 37 comments
-
America on Welfare
April 25, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Thursday Is Tax Freedom Day
April 17, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Time for Real Federalism
April 8, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Stalin Died 60 Years Too Late
March 29, 2013 | 73 comments
A Further Perspective
Whiners at War
The Europeans’ Libya campaign has stalemated. Now what?
(Page 2 of 3)
The Obama administration was reluctant from the start, insisting that Washington would quickly turn operational responsibility over to NATO. When the administration actually followed through, Paris and London complained. One unnamed French official told the Financial Times: “We had a concern, which the [United Kingdom] shared, that it wasn’t the best signal to send to Gaddafi and the rebels.” What really bothered the two countries was the fact that America’s withdrawal forced France and Britain to put their airplanes where their politicians’ mouths were.
Exhibiting unusual prescience, Germany, a non-permanent member of the Security Council, abstained on the UN authorization. Poland and Turkey also opposed the Franco-British Mediterranean adventure. Other members of the alliance were no more enthusiastic, contributing little or nothing of value.
The Netherlands and Spain are patrolling the “no-fly” zone, even though Gaddafi’s air power was always marginal. The Swedes, who do not belong to NATO, also have sent planes only for air patrols. Reminiscent of World War II, Italy’s aircraft will neither open fire nor drop bombs. The Norwegians target airfields, not army units. Only six of 28 alliance members are currently engaged in air-to-ground operations, and only France and Britain place no restrictions on their pilots.
After a few days of “turkey shoots” on the ground, Gaddafi’s forces adapted, with soldiers stripping off their uniforms and abandoning their heavy equipment. The rebels proved largely incapable of concerted military action. As Gaddafi recaptured lost territory, his opponents naturally blamed the West for failing to provide sufficient air support.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen — who says there is no military solution to the conflict while leading a military alliance in war — responded that the alliance is “doing its utmost to fully enforce the U.N. mandate around the clock” and “conducting its mission with vigor and determination, supported by countries stretching from the Arctic Ocean to the Arabian Gulf.”
It brings a tear to one’s eye. Or many tears, in the case of Messrs. Sarkozy and Cameron.
In fact, a tone of frustration verging on desperation has emerged in Paris and London. French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé complained other allied nations are not doing enough: “NATO absolutely wanted to lead this operation. Well, voilà, this is where we are.” British Foreign Secretary William Hague said it was imperative to “maintain and intensify” military operations. Prior to the recent gathering of NATO foreign ministers, Prime Minister Cameron flew to Paris to plot strategy — primarily hectoring — with President Sarkozy to wring more support from reluctant allies.
In fact, the new Entente Cordiale has turned whining into an art form. France and Britain are carrying “the brunt of the burden,” complained French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet. Oh-la-la. So very unfair!
Why aren’t other European nations, which never wanted this war, doing more? Why aren’t the Germans, who refused to back the mission in the UN, sending aircraft? Why aren’t Poland and Turkey, which opposed the operation, helping out? And why isn’t Washington, busy defending rich allies like the Europeans and the rest of the world, doing more?
“The Americans have the numbers of planes, and the Americans have the right equipment,” said François Heisbourg at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. Washington’s switch from a combat to a support role has made it impossible “to loosen the noose” around the besieged city of Misrata, said Longuet. Why won’t the Americans fight Sarkozy and Cameron’s war? That was, after all, the original French and British plan.
The better question is: Why does the Obama administration continue to go along with a policy notable only for its deceptive objectives and incompetent execution? Publicly, at least, the administration continues to defend the status quo.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said: “The president and this administration believes that NATO, and the coalition of which we remain a partner, is capable of fulfilling that mission of enforcing the no-fly zone, enforcing the arms embargo and providing civilian protection.” State Department spokesman Mark Toner emphasized the president’s intention that America’s “role would diminish as NATO steeped up and took command and control of the operation” and “that’s what happened.”
Well, kind of.
Washington originally said American forces would be on call, but would not conduct regular operations. In fact, air-to-ground strikes have continued, though in fewer numbers and against Libyan air defense systems. To its credit, however, the administration refused to lend more U.S. military assets to the Napoleon and Churchill wannabes. Rather, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded to French and British demands: “Gaddafi is testing our determination. As our mission continues, maintaining our resolve and unity only grows more important.”
Resolve and unity. That will defeat Gaddafi!
About the Author
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (Transaction).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (56) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Doug Bandow
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/19/whiners-at-war
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
K962| 4.19.11 @ 6:31AM
NATO has turned out to be a weak sister. It really begs the question whether if NATO countries could even protect themselves.
JimH| 4.19.11 @ 8:24AM
They can but won't as long as Uncle Sugar foots the bill.
richard ryan| 4.19.11 @ 12:59PM
What's all the concern about? China and Russia are in an all out military build up. I'm sure humanitarian missions are what they have in mind. NATO will soon be unnecessary.
George S| 4.19.11 @ 1:54PM
They could; but without NATO they would have to pay for their own defense. I think NATO is a French acronym for Americans Defend Us So Francs Can Be Spent on Socialism.
blackwatch| 4.19.11 @ 7:22PM
Bingo! You nailed it.
The Local| 4.21.11 @ 3:37PM
You miss the fact that "francs" do no longer exist and that France has only recently re-become a NATO member. ("France withdrew from the integrated military command in 1966 to pursue an independent defence system but returned to full membership on April 4, 2009.")
Michael Tomlinson| 4.19.11 @ 6:46AM
Time to end Obama's invasion of a foreign country without consultation of our Congress.
Then to cut the DOD budget we should announce that we are leaving NATO and by this time next year begun withdrawing troops from occupied Europe.
Occam's Tool| 4.19.11 @ 1:29PM
In case anyone is wondering why the Israelis don't trust any other country with their security...
James| 4.21.11 @ 4:06AM
Occam's Tool,
This has to be the most stupid statement I have heard in a long time. Please tell me you are joking or being sarcastic.
Kenny| 4.19.11 @ 6:50AM
To K962, Europe most surely cannot defend itself.
davelnaf| 4.19.11 @ 8:03AM
Several years ago there was some discussion of the US drawing down its troops in Europe and sending them elsewhere, i.e., ‘where they are really needed,’ which is another way of saying providing protection for other rich countries that have a similarly mysterious inability to come up with the money to protect themselves. But once a US government programs gets started it is hard to kill or even modify it; and, apparently, the same goes for NATO et al. As the author says, we should have quietly disengaged ourselves from the continent two decades ago. Getting out now, with the European part of NATO displaying pathetic weakness, would actually cause us more harm than good.
On a somewhat brighter note: Does anyone have any creative ideas on how the Bamster might spin his latest failure?
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.19.11 @ 8:29AM
Davelnaf,
I have several, but I would rather watch him stew.
CharlieEcho| 4.19.11 @ 10:58AM
It was out of his hands. I seem to recall Mr. President was out of the country and could not even claim present once the call to action was made. "It's all Hillary's fault" I hear him say. Or we may be able to blame him for leaving it up to his staff.
Michael Tomlinson| 4.19.11 @ 11:36AM
He's literally saying, "the mission was successful we prevented a slaughter of civilians." Truth is the only people Ghadafi promised to kill were armed rebels even those folks were told if they lay down their weapons they will receive mercy or allowed to go to Egypt.
The Local| 4.21.11 @ 3:43PM
"Getting out now, with the European part of NATO displaying pathetic weakness"
The US MIC will never ever allow this. You might have noticed that NATO is being enlarged eastwards [in complete violation of the understanding between Baker and Gorbachev: "If Germany were to there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for
forces of NATO one inch to the east."], thus making the Russian bear sweat, was used to do Yougoslavia, is used to do Afghanistan, is looking into taking up Georgia of all things [risking a serious altercation with the Russians] and is used to push missile defence on subsidy-hungry "New Europe".
john dubose| 4.19.11 @ 9:05AM
It is gut check time for Britain France etc. If they are not able to properly bomb one weak country just across the water, how can they handle much of any war. We are running out of money and will have to pull back in a few years regardless. The fate of the world depends on these guys growing a pair.
A. C. Santore| 4.19.11 @ 9:37AM
Finally! At last! Someone got it right, thank you Mr. Bandow.
Surely now we must realize that the only thing we have ever learned from History is that we NEVER learn from History.
And the slowest learners are in charge of the White Asylum.
Wayne | 4.19.11 @ 11:32AM
It was a fool's errand from the start, but at least it exposed the neo-cons still in the GOP, who supported the damn thing.
WilliamInWien| 4.19.11 @ 12:10PM
Messrs. Sarkozy and Cameron have nothing to complain about, they were able to parlay their thoughts with BHO via a shared commentary piece. What more could they ask for? It is just taking a little time for BHO's gift to hold sway in Lybia or maybe it just does not translate well into Arabic. The Rebels sure need assistance in community organizing, a possible opening for the current administration.
ABNCP| 4.19.11 @ 1:04PM
I wonder if when we pull out of NATO things will happen like when the Romans pulled out of Britaln and Gaul you know the Dark Ages and all? I mean you know just asking.
Occam's Tool| 4.19.11 @ 1:30PM
Yes, ABNCP. Western Europe is a dead man walking.
A. C. Santore| 4.19.11 @ 2:05PM
I respectfully suggest that you have your cause and effect analogy wrong. Leaving Britain and Gaul did not cause the Dark Ages. Nor was that anything like our leaving NATO.
play nice| 4.19.11 @ 2:18PM
Slings? Arrows? Rocks R Us.
SugartownSuper| 4.19.11 @ 2:11PM
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. OK, so when did the North African littoral end up on the Atlantic? I'm just asking...
blackwatch| 4.19.11 @ 7:27PM
with my government school education I can barely follow the current of your thesis...
The Local| 4.21.11 @ 3:32PM
Probably since Afghanistan was found to actually be connected to Western Europe.
morris wise| 4.19.11 @ 2:22PM
Nationalism in Northern Africa has got to go, it just produces headaches. Real Democracy will install mediators, the job of the elected mediator will be to help keep peace among the various tribes. Outside investors will be welcome in this new order, no nationalistic warlord will stand in their way.
Old Soldier| 4.19.11 @ 2:36PM
The delicious irony of the Brits crying about their lack of aircraft while the HMS Invincible is towed right past Libya on its way to the Turkish scrap yard. If you don’t want a military, fine – don’t start wars.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....pyard.html
ABNCP| 4.19.11 @ 3:06PM
A.C. Santore. Lighten up my friend. That comment wasn't intended to be a history lesson. Just having a little fun.
Akaky| 4.19.11 @ 3:47PM
You know, not too long ago here at TAS there was an article about the French Foreign Legion, an organization that seems to have missed out on the great nancification of Europe. If Sarkozy is serious about getting rid of Qaddafi, he has the men to do it, unless the whole point of the war was to get the US involved and then pull out, criticizing the way the US was running the war. Of course that last bit would never happen in real life; it's just me being cynical.
Interested Conservative| 4.19.11 @ 4:01PM
This may be overstating it a bit:
"War in Libya makes no sense. It is a waste of money. And it is Europe's problem."
Historically, war in that area has made sense for millenia, and for the United States, since our founding. This particular war (though even that misstates the events) is certainly of little interest to us, yet still has aspects worthy of our attention.
Of course, all of this is yet another glaring example of a situation requiring nuance which our very nuanced leader is handling with silent, blundering inexplicability.
Interesting that the Australians have no role here. That says a lot.
Rick Z| 4.19.11 @ 4:08PM
This was all a misunderstanding due to a garbled phone conversation.
Mr. Obama was talking with Michelle about healthy school lunches when the call came in.
He thought they wanted a No-Fry zone .
There is no national interest for the US to be in Libya. The long term effect will be to engender hatred from nations in that area, as they would see us as a bully.
England and France remain willing to fight to the very last American.
Too Many Tims| 4.19.11 @ 4:26PM
"The West's war in Libya well illustrates Lord Acton's dictum that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lack of power tends to corrupt as well.
CT Yankee| 4.19.11 @ 4:40PM
All this is discussion of America's involvement is moot.
Section 2 of the War Powers Resolution (WPR) exactly details the necessary conditions which must be satisfied pursuant the President carrying out his role of Commander and Chief in the introduction of US Armed Forces into hostilities or circumstances that suggest hostilities are likely.
Forgot the misinformed references concerning reporting requirements found much later in the WPR in Sections 4 and 5.
Section 2 must first be complied with before reporting requirements have any relevance. As with most laws, WPR must be applied using a flow chart fashion. Does a certain condtion exist; if yes then proceed. This process is carried out until all applicable sections of the law are accounted for in the intended sequence.
Section 2 essentially says one of three conditions must exist before the President can introduce armed forces into hostilities.
1 formal declaration of war
2 statutory authorization
3 national emergency cause by an attack (or threat of an imminent attack) against:
a The US
b US territories or
c US armed forces
The presidents executive order declaring Libya poses "a serious risk to its stability, thereby constituting an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat" is first of all laughable, but more importantly, it does not even meet the WPR's threshold for a national emergency in order to exempt the president from receiving statutory approval from Congress in advance.
In simple terms; the actions are unlawful.
History prof | 4.21.11 @ 10:35AM
CT Yankee: Your observation lacks one thing. The War Powers Act & U.S. Constitution were trashed by the previous administration. Our so-called leadership no longer considers their implications.
C Smith| 4.20.11 @ 1:24AM
Our president so time ago affirmed that he is " a Christian by choice" and that his public service is part of an effort to express that "faith," but how can we know if his unilateral decision to initiate war with Libya is of God?
There is a very disturbing video circulating on YouTube, of a nature I cannot bring myself to watch. Reportedly, it graphically displays our Libyan "allies" committing atrocities against Gadhafi regulars clothed in dark green standard issue. War is war, but this savaging of Islamic brother by Islamic brother is something far more barbaric than war.
So, how can we know if Our president's unilateral decision to initiate war with Libya is of God? Mathew chapter seven provides the litmus test:
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.... every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Mathew 7:15-23).
"... wisdom is justified of her children" (Mathew 11:19 ).
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....ldren.html
6000LBS electric winch | 4.20.11 @ 4:17AM
Excellently written article, if only all bloggers offered the same content as you, the internet would be a much better place. Please keep it up!
Richard Baker| 4.20.11 @ 3:40PM
So exactly WHY are we still in NATO?
The Local| 4.21.11 @ 3:30PM
Umm.... because NATO _is_ the US military presence in Europe? [The SACEUR is always a US guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....rs_Europe]
There is a separate organization called WEU which was meant to replace NATO with something local but it never came to anything, probably because neither the US nor the Europeans wanted it to.
Tom in Michigan| 4.20.11 @ 4:24PM
When I first met my Mexican wife; I asked her what we were celebrating on Cinco de Mayo and, she told me, "We defeated the French," to which I replied, "Well, who hasn't?!" (We still celebrate Cinco de Mayo, of course).
By the way; for those of you who don't know, the Mexican victory was short-lived and, the French returned. With the U.S. Civil War over in 1865, the U.S. was now in a position to aid Mexico to expel the French. Of course, you never learned THAT in your Howard Zinn/Bill Ayers history courses, did you? You only learned what imperialistic bastards we are.
Now the French can add the Libyans to the long, sad list of those who've beaten them.
For all you anti-Americans out there; think about that next time to disrepect America. Who's gonna bail you out next time some horde rolls across your border? The French? The Chinese? Oh, wait. They might actually supply the horde.
Let's have a rousing cheer now, "NO BLOOD FOR OIL! US OUT OF LIBYA!" (Key; "evil laugh!").
The Local| 4.21.11 @ 3:47PM
Leaving out totally the fact that the French helped the US revolutionaries....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....ionary_War
Yes, the US has selective memory and freedom fries. Great stuff.
Yonatan| 4.21.11 @ 4:18AM
Europe is to the US as US is to Israel.
Joseph Harriss| 4.21.11 @ 6:52AM
"Deceptive objectives and incompetent execution." That says all we need to know about the Libyan fiasco. Thanks to Doug Bandow for one of the most clear-sighted analyses of this that I have seen to date.
Bj Muller| 4.21.11 @ 7:11AM
Real men at war, busy with spreading freedom and democracy: http://www.rollingstone.com/po.....m-20110327
m baechle| 4.21.11 @ 10:59AM
Very well stated. We could have anticipated the current situation by appreciating that "no-fly zones" accomplish little in any case, and that neither strategic nor tactical air power has ever won a war. People--including our glorious leaders--seem to forget that in Vietnam the American air force dropped more tonnage of explosives than were dropped in WWII (see Operation Rolling Thunder), and that we used constant bombardment of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in an attempt to stop enemy movement of men and supplies into South Vietnam, utterly without success in both instances. Bombing an strafing a sandpit like Libya is a waste of time unless it is used to destroy the economy, which thanks to Libyan oil, nobody actually wants. Plus, "protecting a civilian population" by blowing it off the map harks back to the famous dictum in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the city to save it". Silliness!!!
donna| 4.21.11 @ 11:22AM
Do we need further proof that western leaders are the dumbest of the dumb, despite their Ivy League education and patrician heritage? Any truckdriver could have told them that Libya would be no cakewalk and that aerial bombing never wins a war. We have so many precedents for disaster--from Vietnam to Afghanistan--that only a fool would have, well, been fooled again. Time to apply an intelligence test in all elections...being rich just isn't enough.
Claus-Erik Hamle| 4.21.11 @ 12:55PM
So, it wasn´t to save civilians, what´s the real reason then. And the grave danger: Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge-www.plrc.org-wrote on the missiles to be deployed on ships in the Black Sea in Bulgaria and in Romania and Poland by 2015: "Whether they are on ships or land, they are still a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike". The Russians will respond by Launch On Warning and Nuclear War may happen by mistake/accident because the Pentagon aims to achieve an unanswerable first strike capability. Maybe "only" for Blackmail, but the result is the same, i.e. suicide. Bob Aldridge realized this and resigned.
The Local| 4.21.11 @ 3:21PM
Don't be too hard on the foreign minister of Luxembourg. Even among locals, he is known as something of a loose tongue, jack-in-the-box and Mr. Bean combined. Not to be taken too seriously though he does burn through quite some cash on frequent trips abroad.
http://news.rtl.lu/sonndes/revue/71309.html
caroline | 4.21.11 @ 5:56PM
Obama has now ordered armed drones to Libya. Everyone told me not to worry about this when they initially went in and started bombing more people. I was right again. It was never going to be a short little 'ol Humanitarian effort. Lets face it; The United States does not indulge in Humanitarian efforts. If we did, there would be more concern for the people of the U.S.
This is all about the same little group of people running the US, Most of Europe, Israel, and several of the Middle East countries (ME countries that are authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia).
ali| 4.21.11 @ 10:35PM
You have to bring ass to take ass. Europe is a mess. They better stick to harassing African immigrants. Europe must have got their chest puffed up from all that sunbathing they have been doing in Afghanistan. This article is the truth.
Drew| 4.21.11 @ 10:39PM
Good article as far as it went. No mention of how Europe basically bit itself in the rear as Gaddhafi unleashed a wave of African carpetbaggers just as he had warned he would. He had kept them pent up. Now they were allowed to head for Italy in rickety boats. Then overwhelmed Italy sent a trainload of them to the French who certainly deserved them for their foolishness in Libya and the French had the chutzpah to turn them back at the border. It's the once controversial but prescient novel "Camp of the Saints" (The story of the final, tragic end of European civilization which falls, like all great civilizations, by its own hand) coming to pass in real life, a wave of black unassimilable immigrants forcing themselves into and swamping Europe.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:08PM
is good