Bomb, Bomb Libya… Not

In 2002, France was denouncing any proposed US led liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein as 'unilateral'. But now suddenly France is leading the call for air strikes against Libyan government forces and what amounts to unilateral action against Khaddafi. In 2002, France demanded a UN mandate for any attack on Iraq. But now France and the media have decided that a UN mandate isn't necessary after all.

---

Now some context, Khaddafi is a madman and a terrorist sponsor, but he's nowhere near as bad as Saddam Hussein was. During the Anfal Campaign alone, Saddam Hussein's forces may have killed as many as 100,000 people. Most of them belonging to minority groups. (This was the sort of thing the media didn't like to discuss in the run up to the war.) There are worries that Khaddafi might use chemical weapons against his people. Saddam Hussein did use them. (As apparently is Turkey's Erdogan in Iraq.) But France which was hostile to removing Saddam, is suddenly gung ho about removing Khaddafi. What's the difference? As usual follow the money. What's more interesting is the media's sudden switch, from skepticism and hostility toward removing Saddam, to an aggressive propaganda push for removing Khaddafi. Again what's the difference? The case for removing Saddam was much better than the case for getting rid of Khaddafi. There's no UN mandate for air strikes or any kind of military intervention in Libya. And all the talk of national sovereignty that was so popular in 2002 has suddenly gone by the wayside. The media has made the emotional case for supporting the rebels. But who are the rebels and who is to say that they are any better than Khaddafi? The Coalition which invaded Iraq at least planned to oversee its transition. There is no such plan in place for Libya. A recent New York Times story admitted that the rebels are a confusing bunch of groups fighting among themselves. France has recognized the rebels as the official government of Libya, based not on any kind of plebiscite or even an actual takeover of the country.

The liberal push for hitting Khaddafi has turned their opposition to the War in Iraq into a joke

The liberal push for hitting Khaddafi has turned their opposition to the War in Iraq into a joke. It's clear that they support unilaterally removing dictators, so long as it's the right dictators, and as long as their man in Washington can claim the credit in time for the next election. The media's eagerness to hit Khaddafi derives in part from their desire to bolster Obama's image. A quick non-war, some air strikes and a mission accomplished banner, and maybe another Nobel Peace Prize. But the problem is that government forces appear to be winning. And even implementing a No Fly Zone is likely to turn into an Iraq situation, if the rebels lose, we end up indefinitely camped out on Khaddafi's doorstep until he finally does something to force us into a war, or we finally throw our hands up and leave. That is what happened with Saddam. Oil prices go up and if Khaddafi survives, he has every incentive to go back to sponsoring terrorism. All a time when US forces are already critically overextended.

Cameron is drastically carving up the UK's air force while calling for a No Fly Zone

Cameron is drastically carving up the UK's air force while calling for a No Fly Zone. There's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance there. To enforce a No Fly Zone, you'll need an air force and you'll have to spend a whole lot of money hitting anti-aircraft targets, radar installations and enemy jets. Each bomb costs money. So does the fuel. For the cost of the entire operation, the UK could just stop cutting its air force and be a world power again. Here's Secretary of Defense Gates' assessment of what even a No Fly Zone would mean

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told a House congressional committee that if the Obama administration orders the creation of a no-fly zone over Libyan air space, the U.S. military can make that happen. But he said it would be a serious undertaking. "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses and then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down. But that's the way it starts," Gates said. Gates also told the panel that at least two U.S. aircraft carriers would need to be in the region to support such an operation.

By contrast UK's Defense Secretary Liam Fox had a convoluted response to the same question in which he tried to have his cake and eat it too, and admitted that there is essentially no actual proposal for how such a No Fly Zone would be enforced. Which makes Cameron proposing one absolutely crazy. Worse yet, Cameron and Fox have overseen drastic cuts to British air power. NCO's in Afghanistan are being fired by email and hundreds of RAF pilots have been let go. 1 in 4 new pilots are being let go and training hours for pilots are being cut back. To understand just how insanely disastrous these cuts have been, read this

Two new aircraft carriers will be deployed without jet fighters after the iconic Harrier jump jet is axed in defence cuts this week. The ships, due to enter service in 2014 and 2016, will operate with no jets until 2018, leaving a gaping hole in Britain's military firepower... Instead the Royal Navy will be forced to use helicopters on the £2.5 billion super-carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The decision has caused anger among defence chiefs. 'It will make us an international laughing stock,' said one. 'Who the hell has ever heard of an aircraft carrier with no jets?' Former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West said last night it would be 'nonsensical' to scrap the Harriers before their replacements, US-built Joint Strike Fighters, were delivered. Lord West said: 'If, God forbid, the Argentinians invade the Falklands, it would be totally impossible for this country, even if we had an Army of ten million, to do anything about it.' The Harriers, the only jet fighters capable of vertical take-off and landing, played a vital part in retaking the Falklands in 1982. The Ministry of Defence denied that scrapping them would render the new carriers useless.

So now how exactly does Cameron plan to enforce the No Fly Zone? With helicopters. Of course it's a lot easier to get to Libya, than it is to the Falklands. But then shouldn't the UK's priority be to protect the Falklands, rather than Libyan rebels? Unless of course what's really being protected is the UK's oil deals. Blair and the Duke of York who serves as trade representative were very close to Khaddafi. Cameron made the strategic decision to dump Khaddafi in the expectation that the rebels would win. But if the rebels don't, then Cameron is screwed. Every government that made the decision to back the rebels is now in it to the end. If Khaddafi survives, then there will be economic fallout. Not just the kind that hurts drivers paying more for gas, but the kind that hurts the big boys and girls who really matter. The ones who cut the dirty trade deals and pocket the money. The ones who let the Lockerbie Bomber return to Libya as the world's least plausible humanitarian gesture. But Cameron's problem is that Germany is as unready to back action under Merkel as under Schroeder. But while Schroeder was a pawn of foreign governments, Merkel is just being pragmatic. That leaves the UK and France with few options. They either have to work through the UN, which won't happen due to Russia and China, or NATO, which will be difficult over German opposition. NATO vessels are already on the spot, with warships and minesweepers there, but short of an accidental or not so accidental incident, that isn't going to lead to war. That just leaves them with one option, they have to drag the US into another coalition action. That means another unilateral coalition of the willing. Except this time with media backing. But the US is overcommitted in Afghanistan and Iraq, and potentially Iran. US Sec of Defense Gates hasn't said no, but unlike Fox, he's been very honest about what this would involve. He has said that a No Fly Zone would be an act of war. And that it would involve an extensive commitment of resources. He hasn't said, no. That's in Obama's hands. And if Obama's advisers convince him that intervening in Libya is a sure path to reelection, then he'll go ahead. For now Obama has been unable to make up his mind. The big zero is even more inexperienced than Cameron, completely out of his depth and surrounded by too many advisers. No wonder he can't make up his mind. In today's press conference, Obama said nothing of substance, aside from the expected rhetoric about sanctions, nonsense about "tightening the noose on Qaddafi" and isolating him internationally, said that military options include a no fly zone are on the table, without actively endorsing them.

Going back to the Qaddafi question, as I said before, it is in the United States' interest and the interest of the people of Libya that Qaddafi leave. And we are going to do a -- we're going to take a wide range of actions to try to bring about that outcome. When you say is it ever acceptable, I think what you're asking is are we going to do -- engage in any potential military action to make that happen. And as I've said before, when it comes to U.S. military actions, whether it's a no-fly zone or other options, you've got to balance costs versus benefits. And I don't take those decisions lightly.

When you have a decisive answer like this, what can you say really. Absolutely nothing.

But obviously we're going to have to look at what develops on the ground on a case-by-case basis. I don't want to generalize right now and say that's what's happening and we're prepared to step in. It's going to require some judgment calls, and those are difficult ones. But we have sent a clear warning to the Qaddafi government that they will be held accountable, particularly when it comes to assaulting civilians. And some of the rhetoric that you've seen -- for example, the idea that when Qaddafi said that they'd be going door to door hunting for people who are participating in protests -- that implied a sort of lack of restraint and ruthlessness that I think raises our antenna. But, as I said before, what I've got to do is make sure that we're monitoring the situation and matching our actions with what we think will be helpful on the ground and also sustainable, and we've got to do so in consultation with the international community.

Say what you will about him, but Obama can talk for entire paragraphs without saying a single thing. Which is why no one really cares what he has to say on this issue. But ironic takeaway of the conf

Number one, the United States believes in the right of peaceful protests and the ability of ordinary people to express their grievances to their government.

Except when they're Tea Party members. Con Coughlin at the Telegraph highlights the hypocrisy of the situation

What I find particularly amusing about this debate is that many of those now calling for a no-fly zone in Libya were the same people who bitterly opposed the invasion of Iraq to rid the world of another brutal dictator--Saddam Hussein--who had brutalised his people for decades. But what, pray, is the difference between invading Iraq with ground forces and invading Libya's air space with warplanes? As Robert Gates, the U.S. Defence Secretary, has pointed out, in order to impose an effective no-fly zone you need first to destroy all of Gaddafi's anti-aircraft missiles, as well as the Libyan air force, which is tantamount to a declaration of war. And as Gaddafi has made abundantly clear in his latest television rant, he would respond in the same way as any other nation that is attacked by foreign forces, and declare war on his aggressors. Apart from cutting off oil and gas supplies to the West, Gaddafi would no doubt--like Saddam before him--order his goons to take Westerners hostage. Within the space of a few days the whole situation would escalate to the point where we had no option other than to dispatch the 5,000 troops David Cameron has ear-marked for active service in Libya, and we would be in a similar position to the spring of 2003, with British and American troops fighting their way to Tripoli to overthrow an evil dictator.

Now I personally would love to see Khaddafi pay for his crimes, but unlike Saddam, the madman of Tripoli does not currently appear to be funding terrorism against us or holding WMD's. Which means that taking him down would not be a matter of self-defense or particularly in our interest. And on a human rights level, Khaddafi is not the worst in the region. If we were going to take out tyrants for human rights violations, we would be headed to Sudan instead. (Where despite genocide, there was never a No Fly Zone enforced.) The appeals for hitting Khaddafi are emotional, but not contextual, and that's where the skepticism kicks in. Why should we act to remove Khaddafi but not so many other dictators? Why were all the liberal critiques of War in Iraq suddenly invalid in Libya? Do we pay attention only to some human rights violations, but not others. Color me skeptical when Turkey's Islamists use chemical weapons against Kurds, but their leader is cheered in Europe-- while Obama boasts of rolling through the quickest sanctions ever against Libya, and Cameron and Sarkozy cry for a No Fly Zone. The Kurds might appreciate one of those too.