Libyan Quagbump?

The British press has been reporting on Libya more extensively than American outlets, which makes sense considering the greater ongoing involvement of the U.K. in the NATO-led operation.  Two articles suggest that we may, but then again may not, soon need a word other than the scary cliché “quagmire” to describe the intervention.

Paul Smythe in the Telegraph says we should be preparing for the worst:  Victory.  After reviewing statistical and other measures describing what’s been done to Gaddafi’s forces, he offers the following summary:

For Gaddafi’s troops, in other words, this is not a stalemate at all, but a one-sided conflict against an enemy they are incapable of opposing. The devastating recent attacks against Gaddafi’s warships, or the concerted air raids this week against targets in Tripoli itself, provide ample illustration of that. The increasing damage to such cardinal elements of the regime’s infrastructure may undermine loyalty to Gaddafi among senior military officers, as they are a much clearer illustration of the severe and enduring penalty of remaining loyal to the dictatorship. There will also be a limit to how long mercenaries, with only monetary interests in Libya, and Gaddafi’s troops, who lack effective leadership, will keep fighting.

* * *

The real danger, in short, is not of a protracted stalemate, but of a sudden regime collapse: as the campaign goes on, and the capability of Gaddafi’s dictatorship to intimidate the population is eroded, the true extent of support for him among the Libyan people will be exposed. If it turns out to be shallow, the regime could suffer an abrupt end.

His concern is that NATO and allied forces may have not done enough to fill the vaccuum that will arise – and it would hardly be the first time that taking out a big bad boss has led to chaos.  On that note, I’ll share a quote from Andrew Bacevich’s Washington Rules, words from a top general explaining how “we” gave into the interventionist’s illusion of control: “I doubt that anyone appreciated the magnitude of the centrifugal political forces which had been kept under control by his iron rule.”  That’s not some member of the Petraeus generation explaining what went wrong in Iraq, but General Maxwell Taylor, a key figure of the Eisenhower to Johnson era, explaining how the assassination of Diem under JFK, rather than improving the U.S. position in Vietnam, set up a dilemma between major escalation and humiliating withdrawal.

I think Taylor’s maybe-things-never-change observation provides a good background for a second article, this one from the Independent.  Here’s the lede:

The Libyan regime is preparing to make a fresh overture to the international community, offering concessions designed to end the bloodshed of the three-month-long civil war.

The Independent has obtained a copy of a letter from the country’s Prime Minister, Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi, being sent to a number of foreign governments. It proposes an immediate ceasefire to be monitored by the United Nations and the African Union, unconditional talks with the opposition, amnesty for both sides in the conflict, and the drafting of a new constitution.

In contrast to previous messages from the Libyan government, this letter makes no mention of Gaddafi.  Instead, it reads as downright reasonable, or at worst Egyptian – the extract:

We propose that parliament will convene at an extraordinary session to appoint an executive committee which will manage the public affairs and foresee the ceasefire and propose a mechanism for a political dialogue… comprising representatives from all regions and civil society. A committee will be… mandated with drafting a constitution to the Libyan people for adoption which will define the political system in Libya. A process of reconciliation will be initiated which will include amnesty and compensation to all victims of the conflict. We are ready to talk to help mediate a ceasefire and to initiate discussions on the future form of constitutional government… Let us create a road-map to the future. What has occurred in Libya is part of a wider series of events throughout the Arab world. We understand this. We are ready and we know what is required of us

Could be an offer that Obama-Cameron-Sarkozy might want to consider – unless their planning and preparedness are a lot further along than Smythe, at least, believes.  It might be taken as indicating that “Washington Rules” can be progressively improved upon, and would support the argument, contra Bacevich, that that’s what Obama really has been about all along.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

2 comments on “Libyan Quagbump?

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. the offer would sound more reasonable if they threw in the money Gaddafi’s stashed and threw out Gaddafi before setting out to draw a new constitution.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins