It looks like Kerry's "global test" for a Libya No Fly Zone has failed.

[beachmom]

Okay, take my quote with tongue in cheek (I actually like Kerry's gaffes -- they're often good phrases). As you guys know, I'm skeptical with getting involved in Libya, and as Karynnj has mentioned, it's kind of getting too late in the game for it to work. Here is a round up from Andrew Sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/who-supports-war-with-libya.html

Germany and Turkey from NATO say no. From writer Larison:

Let’s compare support for action in Libya against the “coalition of the willing.” Today, Italy and Poland are opposed, Australia is not going to be involved, Asian, African and Latin American states are going to have nothing to do with this, and militarily speaking there are hardly any Arab governments that would be able to contribute to military action. If there is going to be a coalition of states in support of war with Libya, it will be even narrower and even more reliant on U.S. and British military power than the “coalition of the willing” that was widely and correctly perceived as window-dressing for a U.S.-British expedition. It doesn’t do supporters of war against Libya any favors to dwell on multilateral backing for invading Iraq, since they are proposing to start a war with Libya that with even fewer governments in support.

Meanwhile, our "allies" the Saudis have invaded Bahrain (another "ally") with a 1,000 troops to put down the protests, yet no one is proposing war there.

I don't think it is going to happen, and frankly, I'm relieved.

[wisteria]

1. The administration waited too long to do this. Now it looks like the Rebels will lose

their battle for democracy, and no country now wants to get on the wrong side of Gaddafi because they will have to suffer along with him and his family's continuing power. If they would have been asked two weeks ago, their answers might of been different.
Frankly, I see this as sad. If there was a dictator that needed to go it was Gaddafi. And, I don't think gaining world support for a no fly zone would have lead to our further involvement, it would have just helped the Rebels more likely achieve their goal of democracy.
Would you have felt the same way if Mubark had not departed with some grace, and America offered further support to the rebel protesters in their bid to oust him from Egypt? You know, many historians would suggest that we would not of won our Independence from England without the help of France, and there were many French leaders who did not want to get involved then to. Is it your suggestion that we turn our back on people asking for our help so they can become free and begin the process of democracy, simply because it might mean we had to get involved?
You also seem to suggest that Senator Kerry was careless in suggesting a no fly zone with global support. And, as I have said before, the Senator is not a careless man, so I doubt he did not give this idea much thought. And, if it would have been acted on quickly, and our Administration would have appeared decisive, we most likely could have persuaded other countries to go along and offer support. Bush didn't have much trouble gaining decent support for his invasion of Iraq, Obama/Clinton/Gates didn't even try, and I have to wonder why. Was it the concern over oil prices? Or maybe they just pick and chose which countries deserve democracies and which dictators should go.

[karynnj]

3. Kerry never suggested the fly zone to guarantee a rebel win

It was SOLELY to avoid a massive killing of civilians. Qaddafi would still have had tanks and other superior weapons. Obama did NOT push for a war PERIOD. The reason was likely the reason in the Hasse piece in the other thread. There is no US interest.

[wisteria]

4. Not directly, but he did say it would benefit them in their quest. At that point,

the rebels were gaining ground. Aren't the civilians in actuality the rebels? So, he wanted to assist the civilian rebels. And, Senator Kerry also suggested that the rebels would likely find the weapons they needed to assist them. Now, they are retreating as Qaddafi regains control. And, no one was pressing for war, Kerry refuted that suggestion as much on Face the Nation.


"(CBS News) The Obama Administration has been torn over whether to intervene in Libya as leader Muammar Qaddafi continues to violently suppress rebel forces. Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., today said setting up a controversial no-fly zone over the country would not cross the line into military intervention.


"The last thing we want to think about is any kind of military intervention. And I don't consider the no-fly zone stepping over that line," Kerry said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday.


"We don't want troops on the ground. don't want troops on the ground. That would be counterproductive," Kerry told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. But he said that the U.S. ought to be prepared to set up a no-fly zone (although there would be no grounds to implement it until asked by U.S. allies)."

Schieffer noted that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has been skeptical of a no-fly zone, saying it is harder to implement than one might think. " says basically that's going to war, because he says if you're going to have a no-fly zone, you've got to go in there and bomb their anti-aircraft installations there, that you're going to be bombing the country," Schieffer said.


"That's actually not the only option for what one could do," Kerry replied. "One could crater the airports and the runways and leave them incapable of using them for a period of time." He said a no-fly zone would not amount to war, or even military intervention."

Kerry also believes the spirit of reform and rebellion happening across the Arab region is in the strategic national interest of the U.S., especially in the fight against terrorism.


"If we have emerging democracies - people who come out who say to al Qaeda, 'Look, we didn't have one suicide bomber, we didn't have one violent, sort of explosive acts against the West or somebody to make a dramatic statement - we took matters into our own hands with respect to our own government and we have produced change.'


"I think if these countries do reform and they do give a greater voice to their people, and there is greater opportunity - economic opportunity - and people are enfranchised as a result, Bob - that is an enormous consequence to all of us with respect to relationships in the Mideast, to the War on Terror as we have known it and it might be defined in the future," Kerry said."

Now granted, my opinion is based mostly on this interview, but I read nothing in it to suggest that Senator Kerry was only more concerned about the civilian death tolls. As a matter of fact, while Kerry suggests that helping the rebels in their quest for democracy would be in the best interest of the US, it is McConnell who suggests otherwise. And, Senator Kerry states there are ways to go about a no fly zone, without getting further involved and getting in the middle of another war.

So, if you have something to reference that allude to Senator Kerry just suggesting a no fly zone to stop the killing of civilians, please provide a link. I would like to read it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/06/ftn/main20039797.shtml

edited to add link

[wisteria]

5. England has a superior army and Goliath had superior weapons and protection.

Yet, we won the war for freedom against England and David won his war against Goliath with no more than a sling and stone. So, you seem to be suggesting that rebels were never going to win anyway.

[beachmom]

6. No idea how you get I'm saying Kerry is careless. Just the opposite.

He said ONLY get involved w/ international support. Since that is NOT going to happen, I can't see him supporting this by going even more alone than in Iraq.

As to the rest, no, I do not want to commit America's forces to YET ANOTHER WAR in the Middle East. And, yes, a No Fly Zone is war -- it starts with bombing airports. France had many strategic reasons for backing the colonists against the British Empire. We do not in Libya.

[wisteria]

8. Well, Sen. Kerry was/is urging quick approval, and you seemed to suggest that Web

was more prudent and wise to wait. That to me suggested you had more respect for Webb where this matter was concerned. And, IMO, a no fly zone DOES NOT MEAN "YET ANOTHER WAR"!

[beachmom]

10. Basically, most of the opinions I read for going into Libya come from right wing

neoconservatives. All the usual suspects who backed Iraq.

In addition to Senator Webb, Gen. Wesley Clark also is opposed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR2011031103244.html

In March of 1974, when I was a young Army captain, I was sitting in a conference on civil-military relations at Brown University. Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.) was onstage expounding on the lessons from Vietnam about military interventions. He then stopped and looked right at me and the four West Point cadets at my side. "You, the young officer and cadets sitting there - never in your lifetimes will you see us intervene abroad," I recall him saying. "We've learned that lesson."

For all his brilliance, Aspin couldn't have been more wrong.

We have launched many military interventions since then. And today, as Moammar Gaddafi looks vulnerable and Libya descends into violence, familiar voices are shouting, once again: "Quick, intervene, do something!" It could be a low-cost win for democracy in the region. But before we aid the Libyan rebels or establish a no-fly zone, let's review what we've learned about intervening since we pulled out of Vietnam.

But you know, I'm open to being wrong. By all means post an article for intervening in Libya and I will read it, Wisteria. Frankly, John Kerry is the only leader I am aware of who supports this (I call it No Fly Zone Lite in that he wants ducks in a row internationally first) who I respect. Everyone else is people like Bill Kristol, and this crowd:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/experts-urge-obama-act-libya_554622.html

Stephen E. Biegun
Max Boot
Ellen Bork
Paul Bremer
Scott Carpenter
Elizabeth Cheney
Eliot Cohen
Seth Cropsey
Thomas Donnelly
Michele Dunne
Eric Edelman
Jamie Fly
Reuel Marc Gerecht
William Inboden
Bruce Pitcairn Jackson
Ash Jain
Robert Kagan
David Kramer
Irina Krasovskaya
William Kristol
Tod Lindberg
Ann Marlowe
Cliff May
Joshua Muravchik
Michael O'Hanlon
Martin Peretz
Danielle Pletka
John Podhoretz
Randy Scheunemann
Gary J. Schmitt
Dan Senor
William Taft
Marc Thiessen
Daniel Twining
Ken Weinstein
Leon Wieseltier
Rich Williamson
Damon Wilson


Ah, Paul Bremer, that brings back memories . . . .

[wisteria]

12. I am not discussing going in, I am discussing assisting the rebels in their quest for democracy.

And, to be honest, I don't can what Webb or Clark say. I think Senator Kerry is closer to the situation than either of them.

[karynnj]

2. I agree with what you say here

I also saw an article in one of the other forums, that what the Libyan rebels want is - in addition to a no fly zone - the assassination of Quadafi and western strikes on his forces! This is far from what JK spoke of - which was to create the ability to stop a one sided massacre.

As to a "global test", the circumstances that JK spoke of as the requirement to actually do something have not been met. (One other problem is that is assumes that countries consider the moral action - and they don't. ie After the fact, there is consensus that Rwanda was genocide, but I would bet that something like Sullivan's paragraph could have been written about that too - same for Pol Pot's Cambodia - I seriously doubt the US in the 1070s would have wanted another war in Asia. We would not even let a boat load of Jews enter the US much less would we have fought Germany if the Holocaust was the issue.)

I never considered that phrase to be a gaffe - it's meaning was well explained by JK when he suggested it. After the Pepperdine speech, it was clear that he was thinking of the concept of "just war", but likely did not want to state a Catholic (Christian ?) concept because of seperation of church and state. Oddly, it might have been a case where simply stating that he thought St Augustine's criteria was a good starting point in determining when it was right - and expanding as he did at Pepperdine, putting the words he used millions of times into that context, would have been harder for the Republicans to mock. It would have been Nixon can to China like - as Democrats, unlike republicans, avoid religion. It could have won him many Catholic - and possibly evangelical votes. The lefties were still whining that he was not Dean and speaking of holding their noses. The religious tone would have bothered them, but it would have been a strong anti- Iraq war comment.

[beachmom]

7. Totally agree. I love "global test". It doesn't mean every last

country has to support what you are doing. It just means a great global consensus that it's the right thing to do. France and Germany have split on this matter, but what Angela Merkel said resonates with me:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/15/germany-blocks-libya-no-fly-zone

His comments echoed the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who told an EU summit last week that the no-fly zone idea was potentially dangerous. "What is our plan if we create a no-fly zone and it doesn't work? Do we send in ground troops?" she said. "We have to think this through. Why should we intervene in Libya when we don't intervene elsewhere?"

The EU summit failed to endorse a no-fly zone. So, too, did a meeting last week of Nato defence ministers.

[karynnj]

9. I think what Merkle says makes sense if the goal is to help the rebels win

I think that Kerry wanted them to win too - and he was very clearly disappointed in today's speech. He was pretty clear earlier that the ONLY circumstance under which he was recommending the no fly zone was if people were being bombed by planes. This actually did not happen to the degree that would be called "huge" - at least from what I read.

Merkel's question is an excellent one - and there is no real code that defines when the world needs to intervene in a civil war in an independent country. It seems something the UN may have tried to come up with policy on, but I've never heard of it. Most things deal with problems between countries. Yet, looking at the atrocities I mentioned, a lot of pain would have not existed if there was intervention, but that gives more power to a "world" government than many would be comfortable with.

One observation is that many adamantly against going to war are the first to blame people for not stopping Darfur, Rwanda etc. It is very complicated and it seems each side is a problem.

[beachmom]

11. Oh, do you have more details as to what Kerry said today?

Whose speech was he disappointed in?

[karynnj]

13. He was disappointed that no action was yet taken on Libya

- my sentence was horrible. It was his Middle east speech where he spoke of his disappoint - eitehr in the speech or in response to a question.

[elleng]

14. I agree with your skepticism, and I'm not the only one. Thanks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x592604

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x641471

[beachmom]

15. Hi Elleng. I apologize if you've been here before & I missed you, but ...

Welcome to the JK forum!! Glad to hear a new voice, and thanks for the links.

[elleng]

16. Thanks, beachmom. Haven't been here before,

been a Clarkie forever and wanted to share with all you JKers!

[beachmom]

17. Oh, it's war alright & it's going to start any time after 6 PM today. Geez.

I am totally opposed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/libya-no-fly-zone-united-nations

British, French and US military aircraft are preparing to protect the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi after Washington said it was ready to support a no-fly zone and air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's forces.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/17/libya.civil.war/index.html?on.cnn=2

Apparently, it looks like the resolution will pass which calls for MUCH MORE than a No Fly Zone. It will involve bombing. Basically everything short of ground forces.

Oh, joy, now we have a THREE front war.

[beachmom]

18. U.N. Resolution:

http://twitter.com/#!/benpolitico/status/48490403414028288

RT @joshrogin: RT @blakehounshell: Clean copy of the final draft text (pdf) of the resolution http://bit.ly/i6UUz7

Watch U.N. live:

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/index.html

What is most amazing? My Twitter feed is not really lighting up that much about this. NPR defunding, NYT Paywall, and Japan's nuclear emergency getting more play than this new war.

Resolution yes.

No idea what this Twitter feed is but Barack Obama follows him, and it is showing military plane movements:

http://twitter.com/#!/FMCNL

[Inuca]

20. I honestly do not know

whether to applaud or decry... I don't... the gut feeling is to applaud, but it's the beginning of something and there is no way of knowing what the end will be (and when).

This is, unfortunately, a very intersting time.

[Inuca]

21. Just saw the list of the countries that absatained

Russia and China, of course, but also India AND Germany. Forgot who the 5th was...

[karynnj]

19. I am not sure either way

I think it will be another war (which I hope is a small intervention). I hope that the Arab league and Europe will primarily take the lead on this.

I don't see Qaddafi stepping down - he thinks he is justified and he seems out of touch with reality. I have been thinking of Burns' opinion that he would revert to supporting terrorism - it seems logical, but obviously, you can't attack over something he MIGHT do. The point is that he has been bombing his people.

[wisteria]

22. We don't know that it is war, it was not voted on as being war. But, Gaddafi has been toying with

the world, watching to see how much he could get away with, and he has taken his need to stay in power way too far. No one can stand by and ignore what he is doing to his own people- the rebels and the civilians. I don't want war either, but I am hopeful it will not have to go that far.

[beachmom]

23. I assume you feel the same way about Yemen & Bahrain.

Also, the Congo, Burma, and so on. I'm just saying there is no consistency going on here. And I don't believe in bombing every time a dictator behaves badly. We are not the police of the world.

[wisteria]

24. I agree with you on this point., and as I think you said in another thread, our current involvement

has something to do with our dislike of Gaddafi and what is in the best interest of the US. But, our SOS and our President should be publicly condemning the atrocities going on elsewhere.