By committing forces in Libya on behalf of the rebels based in Cyrenaica without quite knowing who they are, what they believe in, or what kind of government they would institute upon achieving power, the NATO allies did something unprecedented in March 2011.
This irresponsible undertaking means that Western forces are engaged in a weird roll of the dice: Moammar Gaddafi may be a monster, but at least he is an isolated one who can inflict relatively little damage on American interests. The Cyrenaica crowd could be Islamist, in which case it might inflict much more damage on those interests.
As we know so little, I propose an unconventional policy which makes sense in these unusual circumstances: Rather than seek to drive Gaddafi from power, let him survive as ruler of Tripolitania (and Fezzan), while keeping him out of Cyrenaica. In other words, let there be two Libyas, one based in Tripoli, one in Benghazi, one ruled by Gaddafi and one by his opponents.
Over time, we can see which is the better of the two. When that judgment has been reached, we can help the better Libya defeat the worse one and assist it to take over the whole country.
Again, I acknowledge that this is an abnormal policy, not to speak of one directly opposed to the current U.S. policy of dispatching Gaddafi, but NATO’s incompetent, amateurish, emotional, and non-strategic policy does push one in an abnormal direction.
This is a joke, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow. How times have changed. When those of us mentioned this about the war in Iraq, we were slapped down, but now that it's a war by a Democratic President, it's ok?
To be clear, I'm not saying it's OK, but I find it fishy, to say the least, that these questions are now being asked. In 2002, I asked these same questions of Iraq, and the influence on Iran, and was parodied for it. So, what has changed? Libya is no different than Iraq, in terms of anti-Americanism. If we're committing the same error, then the entire invasion of Iraq needs to be condemned as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo... we would allow it to reach relative stability, and then plunge the whole place back into civil war? Not counting the toll of the civil war itself, there's no reason to believe that the end result will be even as good as the less-bad half was.
And I'm not sure how a future president is going to go about presenting a doctrine of, "the United States will go to war if there is a clear and present danger to our national security, and also if we made a booboo ten years ago."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLibya is not one of our states. It is a separate country. We have no authority to do anything about anything in Libya. The only correct action is to get out NOW.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusea "humanitarian mission" is guaranteed loser. no definition of success. no exit strategy. we are there because obama's unreasoned hatred of the bush era unilaterlism has mutated into "bomb the hell out of somebody because france wants to".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCryrenica has the oil, Fezzan has the water, that leaves Tripoli gets the Ghadaffi clan. This is not fair to the people of Tripoli and will result in turmoil. Also, Ghadaffis main supply routes of mercenaries runs up from Kufra out of Chad and Sudan. He'll want to keep those.
Here's an idea, how 'bout lets bring 2 battalion of Marines right into Tripoli harbor? Have NATO hold Kufra and Benghazi and we can bring this sad chapter to an end in about 6 weeks time Id say.
This desire to not put boots on the ground has caused no end of disaster. Lets get in and get it over with, or lets prepare to spend the next decade dealing with a wounded cornered lion, who could prove very dangerous indeed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe suggestion offered by Daniel Pipes, while indeed a bit strange, does have the virtue of being an actual plan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmm. I guess if we're going to stick our noses into everybody's business, we might as well go whole hog and pretend we're the Brits, slicing and dicing the corpse of the Ottoman Empire.
Did I say whole "hog"? Maybe I should have said, "whole goat," given the locale we're talking about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewth?? you've gone full biden on us?? hope this is tongue in cheek.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, I'm sure it is. I hope it is. Funny if so. I fear it's a bit too dryly humored, though, and like Rush Limbaugh's praise of Obama the day after the Osama raid, will be taken seriously by some.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI had the same thought about Biden.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I like is the part where Leon Panetta, who hadn't, and still doesn't have, a clue as to who the Libyan rebels are, or know what kind of help they need, or if they need help, or anything else, is being rewarded by being named Secretary of Defense. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't think I like this two Libya idea. Virtually insures either a continuous U.N./NATO peacekeeping presence or continuous clashes.
Besides, we've driven Qaddafi firmly into the "I hate the West" camp with this move. He has to be killed or sent to a Club Med now. This looks like a situation in which every outcome stinks regardless of what we do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the argument I've been making for months now. Italy cobbled together modern Libya from these three states back just before WWI. It's a western-made pastice. "Libya" itself is a geographical term, and was previously never used to describe a unitary nation-state. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, originally speaking of India, "Libya is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than is the Equator".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Pipes, you write: "Moammar Gaddafi may be a monster, but at least he is an isolated one who can inflict relatively little damage on American interests. The Cyrenaica crowd could be Islamist, in which case it might inflict much more damage on those interests."
That first sentence has already been disproven by history. Kadafi has a history of using Libya's oil wealth to foment and export international terrorism, aggressively and successfully, and with the U.S. as its main target. He gave up his WMD program when Saddam was captured, but he is certain to return to it now if he's not removed from power.
If there's any reason why you think an "Islamist" crowd would automatically be, or even potentially be, more dangerous than Kadafi, you haven't identified it here. Perhaps they'd be more generous in sharing Libya's oil revenue with other Islamic terrorists than Kadafi has been lately; but if Kadafi's left in power, why would you think he wouldn't also spread more money to terrorists than he has since 2004?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCertain to return to it(WMD) because of
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseour half-baked war against him. My guess, had we stayed clear of the civil unrest, he'd of been grateful. But putting in our weak effort without any real plan has only antagonized him, leaving us few choices.
Since Qaddafi has already proven he can and will conquer and control all of Libya without our active invovlement, how is this to be achieved?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGoals in Libya?? We don't need no stinkin' goals in Libya. Goals are for the little people. Just bomb both sides until Congress says "Stop. What you are doing is unconstitutional, as well as stupid."
Which could be any minute now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAt least it is a plan. Right now we are sort of just going with it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe are NATO. That their plan is amateurish and not in line with ours speaks directly to our "amateurish" government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse