As with Libya, So Also with Iraq

A recent exchange between intrepid reader Bill F. and myself reminded me of our other war. You know, the one that has most vanished from the front pages. Here is a Washington post article I had to search to find:

BENGHAZI, Libya — Moammar Gadhafi's forces rocketed the main fuel depot in Misrata on Saturday, intensifying a two-month siege on the rebel-held city that has claimed many civilian lives and prompted warnings of a humanitarian crisis.

Government forces sent Grad rockets slamming into the depot, which contains vital stores of fuel for cars, trucks, ships and generators powering hospitals and other key sites in a city left darkened by electricity cuts, residents said.

There are three plausible outcomes of U.S., excuse me, NATO policy in Libya. One is that the various attempts by NATO nations to kill Gaddafi and/or weaken his regime succeed and the rebels win. Right now that seems the least likely of the three.

The second outcome would be that the rebellion collapses in spite of all NATO efforts, and Gaddafi restores his regime over all his territory. That is by no means certain, but it is looking more likely.

The third outcome would be that the constant armed conflict fizzles out and gives way to a stalemate sustained by the permanent protection of the rebel held areas by NATO airpower. I cannot judge the likelihood of that. It remains unclear whether the rebels can sustain themselves even in the absence of a final push by the regime. I only note that, if I am right about the slim chances for number one, number three is the only alternative to a Gaddafi victory.

What strikes me now is that we have seen all this before. Contrary to what Bill and many others have said, George W. Bush (43) did not "start" a war in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies were at war with Iraq for twelve years after George H. W. Bush (41) pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. We maintained no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq and occasionally dropped a few bombs and launched a few missiles. That is war, plain and simple.

Largely by inattention, President Clinton allowed the Iraq war to settle into exactly the kind of stalemate contemplated in Libya Outcome 3 above. One of the benefits of that war is that the Kurds were able to build a largely autonomous regime in the North of Iraq, while the Shiites in the South were afforded similar protection. That put us in the position that we could not remove our protection without allowing Saddam to do what Saddam would do to those populations. What Bush 41 did, for better or worse, was not to start a war but to end one.

Unfortunately, Bush 43's invasion of Iraq foreclosed any public deliberation on the policy we were actually pursuing before the invasion. The question "should we have invaded?" allowed everyone to escape the question "what should we have done about the war we were already in?" I think Bush takes the lion's share of responsibility for this in making the case for the invasion. But President Clinton, both parties in Congress, and the Press deserve their share.

Had we faced that question back then, we might not be in the same situation now. Maybe the Gaddafi regime will collapse. It just doesn't look like that right now. A Gaddafi victory would at least put us and the rebels out of our collective misery, though in a less dire sense in our case than theirs. That would also be a very embarrassing defeat for the U.S. and the rest of NATO. We would have succeeded only in prolonging the violence.

That leaves option 3. The best we could hope for is a mostly quiet, indefinite stalemate. Of course, the situations are only roughly analogous. Recent reports suggest that rebel control is very limited. We have mostly handed over the air campaign to our European allies, and they seem to lack enough spare parts to keep their planes in the air. It is very unclear whether the Europeans will be able to sustain a no-fly zone for very long.

It is easy enough to blame President Obama for this situation but it's only fair to say that in this, as in almost all his foreign policy making, he is only falling into established patterns. Blaming Obama, like blaming Bush, can be a lot of fun depending on your political orientation. It can also excuse you from doing what you most need to do in foreign policy: consider the options available. Of course, other options would become available if this or some future President decides to change the rules.

Ps. We really need to convene an international council to decide how to spell Gaddafi, or is it Gadhafi, or Kadafi?

Comments

[Fernando]

We really need to get the hell outta there.

[Billl Fleming]

Very interesting and relevant discussion, starting with a redefinition of terms. KB, you seem to want the broadest definition of 'war' possible. Can we agree then that that all war is a function of failed diplomacy? If so, perhaps we can move to clarity of policy from there. If not, I fear I may not have much to add to the dialogue here beyond what I have already contributed.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I really cannot see much broadening of the concept "war" to include patrolling the skies and occasionally bombing people out of their socks.

Is all war the result of failed diplomacy? Only if you interpret "failed diplomacy" very broadly. Neville Chamberlain didn't "fail" in his efforts to keep the peace in Europe. He got snookered. No diplomacy could have succeeded there.

[larry kurtz]

Not marching on Baghdad after reversing Saddam's incursion into Kuwait; that, and choosing Dan Quayle a second time (yes, I was a Fascist once in a six-figure household) drove me to support Clinton, who, I believed would exercise the .308 Solution more vigorously.

The Bushes are wimps: If you don't have the cojones to adhere to the Powell Doctrine, 9-11s occur. It's just that simple. Libya is an accidental country; the opposite of Israel. The Saudis lied about their oil reserves, peak oil is closer than originally believed.

Mr. Obama, pull the trigger again.

[Billl Fleming]

No, Chambarlain didn't fail, KB. Hitler did, diplomatically speaking. Unless of course you insist on blaming the victim. That, and playing the victim seem to be two favorite GOP political positions of choice lately. Kind of pathetic, actually.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I am sorry, but if you are arguing a position here, I fail to perceive it. You seem to make a point and then promptly forget it. Attacking a country that is no threat to us (Iraq) is a bad move, except when its a good one (Libya). All war is a failure of diplomacy, except when it isn't. All these are Fleming positions, it would seem.

What you don't do is make any attempt to confront the question. We were stuck in Iraq. Dubya got us out. Maybe there was another way, but you'd have to recognize the dilemma before you could attempt to resolve it. As I say, no one ever really did this. Now President Obama has us stuck fast in Libya in exactly the same way. Do YOU have any idea how to get out of this? If you, you haven't let on.

[Ken Blanchard]

Larry: whaaaaaaat?

[Donald Pay]

KB has joined the loony left!!!! The only people who have ever framed US policy as KB has are the "peace and justice left." They view all changes and nuances in policy toward Iraq over each successive administration since the middle of the term of Bush 41 as very small changes in tactics in a overall war against Iraq.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: Like Groucho, I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member. Apparently, I and the looney left agree on something. Obama's policies are quite consistent with those of his last three predecessors. I would note that, by Donald's standard, almost all conservatives have joined the looney left. Are you with us, Donald?

Now, does the Left, looney or otherwise, have a way to get out of Libya without feeding the rebels to Gaddafi? Bush-Obama (insert morphed image) may have pulled that sort of thing off in Iraq. But that, of course, required troops.

[Billl Fleming]

Like I said, KB, if you continue to equate war and diplomacy, there is no answer to your question. If on the other hand you agree that war is the complete absence of diplomacy, then a conversation is at least possible. in other words, your question is curiously not unlike the answer to it.

[larry kurtz]

bearcreekbat posted the section in the code where the US does not assassinate. If the US doesn't torture, either, it seems to me that President Obama is within the law to do whatever it takes to preempt or shorten a period of "boots on the ground." IMHO that's right as long as the executive is working in concert with the UN Security Council. The Bush43 regime fabricated intel to act in Iraq then serially lied to the world.

The signal sent by the erasure of Mr. bin Laden is still blasting Pyong Yang, Tripoli, and Caracas.

I have been made responsible to ensure that Zefram Cochrane has what he needs in 2063. Terran dictators should face extinction.

[larry kurtz]

It occurred to me that you haven't seen this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/05/08/136112743/peak-oil-and-wikileaks-story-that-got-away

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: if you prefer to argue semantics instead of options, then indeed we have nothing to say to one another.

Larry: I have seen the peak oil movie many times. It has appeared every four or five years since the first world war.

[larry kurtz]

Mexico for Statehood: http://americasmexico.blogspot.com/2011/05/mexicoblog-editorial-mexicos-march.html

[Bill Fleming]

Alas, when it comes to language and discussion on blogs, "semantics", like it or not, KB is the only game in town.
When you extend the meaning of a word to include it's opposite, you cancel everything you have to say out. Great for mystics and poets, not so hot for philosophers and logicians.

http://mattblint.posterous.com/violent-logic-moral-semantics-and-wittgenstei

[Jimi]

"Terran dictators"

Holy Crap! Is that a reference to StarCraft?

[Harry]

Jack: Exactly … all these western politicians are involved … the resources of western countries are being used … show me one common man … just one … only “one” common man that has benefited from these wars. What was the benefit for the common people in Mica, in Isdon or in Firco from the war on Ruka? What was the benefit for the common people in these western countries?

Read something similar here:

http://godinthejungle.com/index.php/the-story/372-wednesday-april-27-2011.html

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: if a bear is stalking you, it doesn't matter what you call the bear. What matters is how to deal with the bear. So I don't think semantics is the only game in any town on earth.

I don't think it makes sense to say that "war is the complete absence of diplomacy". If that were true, then diplomacy could never end a war. Diplomacy is the attempt on the part of one nation to change the behavior of another by means of communication. The state of war exists when one nation is prepared to change another by means of military force and/or is perceived by the other to be so prepared. The actual use of military force is enough to establish the state of war. Diplomacy and war are thus hardly mutually exclusive.

I am still unclear what our argument about meaning means to the present question. What we are doing in Libya is surely "war". What we did in Iraq for 12 years was just as surely war. Bush ended the war in Iraq by ending Saddam's regime. How do we end the Libyan war?

[Billl Fleming]

it's perhaps your own definitions that are confounding you, Ken. They certainly are confounding me. My recollection is that we were trying to protect Iraqi citizens from further massacre and oppression by Saddam while at the same time trying to encourage and support them in revolt. I.e we were trying to get them to do what the Egyptians did... A people's revolt. We're trying to support the youth in Iran and to some degree China in the same way, but I wouldn't say we are at war with those nations.

We went to war with Iraq because we were convinced (apparently foolishly) that The Saddam Regime was actively developing nuclear weapons and posed an imminent threat to our national security.

The long and short of it is that Iraq was not in a state of civil war when we invaded them, disbanded their army and occupied their country. Libya's rebellion is already underway. To me, those are two completely different scenarios, and I'm surprised by your efforts to equate them semantically.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I will try one more time to state the question. I did not argue in favor of Bush 43's invasion of Iraq. I only pointed out that, prior to that act, we were stuck in a permanent war in Iraq. We were enforcing a "no-fly" zone over Northern and Southern Iraq. Our military aircraft were regularly invading Iraqi airspace. Occasionally we bombed Iraqis out of their socks. If you are confounded by a definition of war that covers that, you are easily confounded. We couldn't just stop, because to do so would have left the Kurds and the Shia to be slaughtered by Saddam.

Now we are in a similar position in Libya. Maybe the rebels can triumph and maybe that will be a good thing. If they can't, then we are stuck again. We can't leave without leaving the rebels to the mercy of Gaddafi. How are we going to end this thing?

To say that these are "completely different scenarios" is just plain stupid. From our point of view, they are exactly the same scenario. Maybe Bush was wrong to invade, but what were the alternatives? Permanent occupation of Iraqi airspace? If the Gaddafi regime doesn't buckle, there are only two ways our Libyan adventure ends. We give up the rebels to slaughter, or we elect a Republican who puts boots on the sand. I just think we have to think about this. Sorry if it confounds you.

[Billl Fleming]

So the paradox of your question essentially remains, Ken. In essence, you're asking, 'How do we get out of this war? Do we go to war or what?' With reasoning and language like that, you should be careful who you call 'stupid', professor.

[Bill Fleming]

The situation in Libya is more parallel to that in Egypt and Tunisia than it is to pre-war Iraq.

I think we may be able to agree on a few things KB, if you'll bear with me.

1. Ken Blanchard is not authorized to declare war in Libya.

2. Barack Obama is not authorized to declare war on Libya.

3. Only Congress can declare war on Libya.

4. Congress can only declare war on Libya with the consent of the American People.

5. The American people are not up for a war with Libya.

Ergo:

Neither the United States Government nor the people of the United States of America is at war with Libya.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I didn't call anyone stupid. You said something stupid, and I pointed it out. The situation we are in in Libya is precisely the same situation we were in in Iraq between the two invasions, in the respects that I laid out. No, the situation in Egypt is not more parallel. We have not yet put air power into Egypt and there is no body of persons we are protecting with that air power. What is it about this that you can't understand?

Your second argument above is even dumber. You are restricting war to actions in which Congress has actually declared war. By that definition, neither the Korean War nor the Vietnam War ever occurred! You just got George W. off the hook for starting the Iraq War, for Congress never declared war so no war ever happened. Great semantic work there, Hoss. I would also point out that your item #4 is flatly false.

[Billl Fleming]

s per my very first installment, KB, that's exactly what happens when you refuse to define your terms. You are the one insisting that every time our military acts, we are 'at war.'

[Billl Fleming]

as for point #4, I should have added 'via congressional representation'. my intent was to convey the sense that if 'We the People' don't collectively and continually support a war effort or other military action, there won't be any. In short, I still believe that WE are the Government.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I defined my terms carefully. Yes, I think that when we occupy a nation's airspace or bomb somebody, that is an act of war.

As for point #4, it still looks false to me. Was the public support for an intervention in Libya? Did the Iraq or Afghanistan Wars end when the public turned against them? We ARE the government. What counts, however, is how we use our power in the next election, now how we feel about something in the meantime.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I would note that I have had to confess to my own stupidity in a subsequent post. I hope it is true that neither of us is stupid. I appreciate your participation in this blog.

[Billl Fleming]

thank you, Ken. I enjoy our conversations here as well.

[Bill Fleming]

...and yes, I agree, elections are the way We the People make changes in government. Unless of course a situation becomes so malignant so quickly that waiting for the next election becomes intolerable. Then we do it in other, more chaotic (and messy) and sometimes dangerous ways.

[Alejandra]

AFGHANISTANDuring coup central bank of Libya inlsetlad (privately owned), and Oil contract to Qatar with use of CIA operatives, SAS under humanitarian aid and help of US created Al Qa'ida. Possible 8th largest gold reserves to get from Gaddafi NEXT TARGETvenezuela put in central bank and get better oil interests after failed coup .Syria Iran Cuba North Korea Sudan Install central banks, oil interests and install military industrial complex in bases like North Korea and Cuba for base

[Reevkah]

good video. You're putting the peeics together. Look at what they're doing now to condition and indoctrinate our children. That poor kid at the airport. George Soros the ambassador to auschwitz and his stealth TSA/Nazi grand plan. The old lizard is masterfully playing the Nazi game 70 years later and this time it appears fete de complete. (The NWO puppet masters) are perfectly diabolical.Screw them! You have every right to say whatever you want to. Check out Wayne Madsen on AJ yesterday.

[Red]

FIRST STAGE: economic hatimnCIA/NSA operative working for corporations as consultants) who try to corrupt regime for cheap oil and other interests, IF THIS FAILS SECOND STAGE: jackalsstage coup or assassination, if this failsLAST STAGE: send in militaryOBJECTIVES: get a central bank privately run (rather than state owned) to loan money to country, loan is to big to pay after time, country has to refinance and corporations get cheap oil and other interestsControl of oil fields etc

[Nhai]

that humanitarian aid has fielad? the warmongers!general public (80% of brainwashed people turned into sheeple) should understand that in a capitalist society everything is profit driven . including all wars! sheeple hear humanitarian policy fielad, now let's bomb them! and they buy this lame directive propaganda without confronting it . simply by asking a question : What exactly have you done to solve the conflict diplomatically? details vs general bla bla

[Uche]

SUMMARY OF LEADERSHIP IN ORDERINTERNATIONAL BANKERS in charge of fnnniciagCORPORATIONS (which are helped my intelligence agencies like CIA for OIL and other interests in MIddle EastMILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX e.g. government contractors for reconstruction and weapons manufacturersMASS MEDIA bought by financiers and corporationsGovernment (bought for and paid by Bankers, Corporations and Military Industrial Complex) to set agenda and use propogandaMANIPULATE POPULATION