Oh, my mistake. I inadvertently placed this two-year-old video of Sen. John McCain and his Republican buddies (Senators Joseph Lieberman, Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham) going to stroke Qadaffi's - ah, ego - to get him to purchase US military systems for his country. I really like the little bow that McCain gives to Qadaffi. He must have had a stroke and forgotten this visit when he  recently traveled to Libya to tell the rag-tag Rebel Alliance how great they were, and how THEY should be getting America's weapons. Similarly, Sen. Lindsey Graham calls for increased NATO bombing of Tripoli on CNN's "State of the Union."

Oh, but I forgot, it's the retired generals and admirals who are the problem in the defense industry...  at least I don't see them selling weapons to both sides of a conflict. Hat tip to Steve Benen.

I just don't get Tony Cordesman at times. Here he is mocking the short-term vision of the US, British, and French politicians relating to the fighting in Libya in an article he titles, "Will the Farce Stay With US?"

American connoisseurs of schadenfreude can take some comfort in the parallels between this course of action and the equally naïve and dangerous approach used by the Bush Administration in Iraq. After all, watching a French President,  a British Prime Minister, and a Democratic President of the US repeat the Bush Administration’s failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, fail to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict  outcome is not without irony and touches of black humor. And as for historians, the whole thing is yet another demonstration that they have the world’s easiest profession; all they have to do is wait for history to repeat itself.

And then he gets into his great recommendation - escalate the bombing campaign to a deliberate attrition operation in support of the Rebel Alliance. This is a better solution?

France, Britain, the US and other participating members of the Coalition need to shift to the kind of bombing campaign that targets and hunts down Qaddafi’s military and security forces in their bases and as they move – as long before they engage rebel forces as possible. Qaddafi, his extended family, and his key supporters need to be targeted for their attacks on Libyan civilians, even if they are collocated in civilian areas. They need to be confronted with the choice between exile or death, and bombing needs to be intense enough so it is clear to them that they must make a choice as soon as possible.

This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage. The Coalition will also need to avoid the trap of blundering into some kind of ceasefire, where Qaddafi’s forces and unity will give him the advantage. This will be a “peace” that simply becomes a war of attrition and terror campaign by other means.

Really? You want to double down on the number of Muslims who are going to hate the West? Do you really think this is going to result in a stable state, short of a decade of occupying and rebuilding that country? Yeah, really a great idea, Tony - if you want to dramatically increase the amount of post-conflict pain after we "win" the war. Here's a crazy idea. Walk away. Make the rebels negotiate with Qadaffi or let them run to Egypt for shelter. The Cordesman solution is no solution to follow.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues its mission creep deeper into Libya with "nonlethal aid"... Yes, the Rebel Alliance will at least look better when they are fighting while wearing US military uniforms. They won't win any battles, though.

National Defense magazine reports that President Obama has recognized that our defense program is way overextended, and it's now time to develop long-term strategic objectives for national defense. Tweets Sandra Erwin, "Obama calls for fundamental review of DOD missions a year too late. The 2010 QDR was supposed to do that." Serious military analysts are skeptical.

“Without a change in strategy, cuts in spending are worse than doing nothing,” said Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

The absence of “strategic choice” is the reason why decisions about where to cut defense spending have been nearly impossible to make, said Gordon Adams, American University professor and former director of the Office of Management and Budget. Cutting the defense budget should not be about doing the same with less, Adams said. 

A serious strategic review would have to determine what missions to scale back, so the military could be downsized accordingly. Only then can major cost savings be achieved, Adams contended. “At the end of the day, it’s about policy makers restraining their impulse to use the military in the reckless way it’s been used in the past 20 years.”

Meanwhile, the right wing will flip out over any proposed cuts in defense. Faced with Obama's announcement of cutting $400 billion over a ten-year period, Thomas Donnelly loses it and accuses the president of "gutting defense."

Indeed, it will be very difficult to ‘do it again’ on the modernization accounts; there’s not too much left to cut or stretch out. And further reductions in the size of the force, particularly among American land forces, is a way of asking those in uniform to again to more with less.

What’s also likely to be in the ‘do it again’ category is the pace of military operations.  The president pretends he will conduct a “fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities and role in a changing world” as though he can alter fundamental facts about the international system – the world, for better or worse, will not function in the same way as American military power wanes – like an investment portfolio. Nor has he, in the White House, acted much differently than his predecessors.

Yes, the defense budget has doubled in ten years, but Donnelly only sees an anemic shadow of the former war machine that took Iraq and Afghanistan down. Despite huge operating costs and spiraling acquisition costs, all must be maintained, nay, more money spent. He would believe that the world will still force the US military to invade its regions to maintain Freedom and Democracy for America, and Democrats are the only ones who live in an illusion as they plan out military budgets. What a world. 

SHORTER Lindsey Graham: "If we don't use American military power to overthrow Qaddafi, then the Iranians will never take us seriously about our threats to bomb their nuclear weapons infrastructure."

Unbelievable. And I'm not even going to get into John McCain's selective memory.  Republican politicians think there is only one source of government power - military - and that diplomatic, economic, and intelligence tools are just not serious options. That is, unless there's a Democrat in the White House. What maroons.

Hat tip to Justin Elliot.

Add a crashed F15E Strike Eagle to the bill of attacking Libya. It wasn't shot down, but rather "mechanical failures" are being blamed. I was just thinking, can you imagine the reaction if an F22 fighter had gone down? Oh, the agony of losing a $120 million plane instead of this aging $30 million plane. And of course, the cost of "overseas contingency operations" will continue to rise, stressing both men (and women) and machines to the breaking point. The good news being, of course, that this means the US government can't possibly afford to cut defense funds now.

I had an interesting comment on a previous post: "Who is suppose to be in charge of this war, non-war, no-fly zone, whatever?" That's right, it's not NATO or the EU, that would really complicate getting authorities to actually bomb something. It's not USAFRICOM, there is no Coalition Air Force command here. Best I can tell is that this is a loose multi-lateral coaltion between France, UK, and United States, with potential involvement by other supporting nations. That is to say, the United States is in the lead (despite comments to the contrary by SecState Clinton), and may someday soon hand over responsibility to a joint Franco-British coalition. You know, after we run out of legitimate ground targets.

Some conservatives don't like that. "America, F--k Yeah!" they holler. Fortunately we have Adam Serwer to counter the brainless yells.

Most of the arguments for why the U.S. should be seen as “taking the lead” seem to hinge on little more than the fact that so doing would be emotionally satisfying to those who have been agitating for intervention in Libya since hostilities began. On the other hand, Ross Douthat takes a different tack,arguing that the U.S. multilateral approach facilitates a “caution that shades into tactical incompetence.” But since the U.S. is still extricating itself from President George W. Bush’s unilateral invasion of Iraq, which didn’t exactly amount to “tactical competence,” this too is less than persuasive.

There are several reasons why the U.S. shouldn’t be seen as taking the lead. For one thing, the U.S. is already occupied with the aftermath of one war in Iraq and attempting to bring a more than decade-long operation in Afghanistan to its conclusion. The U.S. does not have unlimited military resources, and other countries that demanded intervention should take responsibility and offer contributions rather than free-riding off of the United States. The statements from the Arab League — which asked for intervention but then wavered when operations started — suggest that there really is a short shelf-life for the legitimacy for this operation in the Arab world, even though intervention initially had global support. If the operation goes badly, or takes far longer than advertised, it’s frankly in the U.S. interest not to be seen as having led the attack on a third Muslim country.

Of course we are, in fact, leading the attack on a third Muslim country, and the interesting thing is that there were those on the National Security Staff who warned the President that there were no vital national security interests in Libya and that we really didn't understand what the rebels would do or expect after the fighting stopped. No, our government went into Libya because of remorse from a few key players that we didn't send military troops into Rwanda to stop the genocide there. Not that there's any remote connection between Rwanda and Libya, but hey, they reasoned, at least there's a better case for international intervention than the Bush administration had. Because "Better than Iraq" is the new low bar that all of our foreign policy adventures are now judged.

It ought not to be surprising that the neocon community, who only just sent a memo to the President three weeks ago calling for a no-fly zone over Libya, are now escalating the bid to call for a regime change in Libya. Again, from the FPI:

On Saturday, the Arab League endorsed Libyan opposition calls for a no fly zone.  We call on you to urgently institute a no fly zone over key Libyan cities and towns in conjunction with U.S. allies.  We also call on you to explore the option of targeted strikes against regime assets in an effort to prevent further bloodshed.  The United States should also immediately recognize the Libyan National Transitional Council and take all necessary actions to support their efforts to unseat the Qaddafi regime.

As Tom Ricks points out, yes, in fact the cheerleaders for the preventive invasion of Iraq and eternal presence in Afghanistan are now asking for your support to go to war against Libya. And not that there's any significant national security interests in Libya, we're supposed to go to war because of the Libyan people's cries for freedom. It's all about exporting the moral imperatives of democracy and freedom, moving the American culture by any means possible into other countries. I'm sure that they think it won't cost more than a few billion and will only last less than a few months, tops. Just like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just in case you think I'm exaggerating, take a look at Max Boot, one of the signatories of both FPI memos. He's calling for direct support to the rebels in the form of special operations troops on the ground in Libya, "the same combination that proved so effective in toppling the Taliban in 2001 and ousting the Serbs from Kosovo in 1999." Really, Max? Aside from the lack of success in Afghanistan, we still have US and NATO troops in the former Yugoslavia. You really think military power is the only tool in the US government, and that those cases are your basis for action in Libya?

These people really frighten me.

There's nothing so dramatic to illustrate the point that neoconservatives think along the same lines as liberal interventionists than this case of arguing about intervening in Libya's civil war. On the right, we have this joker Paul Wolfowitz, who wants to illustrate that his political ideology of using military force to spread democracy and liberty throughout the Middle East is in fact a good and just one.

The answer to the first of these questions can only come after establishing direct contact with the new authorities, but the delivery of supplies should not be such a problem, either through the many ports along the Libyan coast or across the Egyptian border. Nonlethal assistance could be important, including basic supplies such as food and medicine. So could broadcasting assistance to discourage Gadhafi's forces from fighting. The concern that American weapons might end up in the wrong hands must definitely be considered before supplying shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, but other weapons pose less of a risk—particularly accurate antitank weapons. In any case, forcing the Libyans to turn to other countries for arms would repeat the mistakes of Afghanistan in the 1980s and Bosnia in the 1990s.

It is only in the context of a larger assistance strategy that a no-fly zone should be considered. It would be different from the prolonged and largely futile zones imposed over southern Iraq from 1991-2003 or over Bosnia from 1992-1995. Intended to stop the genocides of the Marsh Arabs in Iraq and of the Muslim population of Bosnia, they did neither. Critics accurately point out that the massacre of 11,000 Muslims in Srebrenica took place under a NATO-imposed no-fly zone. But the situation in Libya would be very different if the Libyan people are properly armed.

Yes, the Clinton administration's policies were certainly ill-considered, look how many people didn't get killed and how many countries weren't invaded. But this jackass, this mad joker, doesn't want to be concerned about the fallout of any US military aid to Libya. I recall seeing mention that the Libyans who came to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight against the American occupation over the past few years came from the eastern side - where the rebels are. What do you think they're going to do with those anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons after the civil war ends, Mr. Wolfowitz? As MoDo correctly asks, does this guy know when to shut the hell up?

Now we have the clowns on the left to deal with. Ann-Marie Slaughter, former Director of Policy Planning in the Obama State Department and now political professor at Princeton, slams President Obama for not doing enough to intervene on behalf of the Libyan rebel force.  "It is time to act," she demands, in the form of a no-fly zone.

The United States should immediately ask the Security Council to authorize a no-flight zone and make clear to Russia and China that if they block the resolution, the blood of the Libyan opposition will be on their hands. We should push them at least to abstain, and bring the issue to a vote as soon as possible. If we get a resolution, we should work with the Arab League to assemble an international coalition to impose the no-flight zone. If the Security Council fails to act, then we should recognize the opposition Libyan National Council as the legitimate government, as France has done, and work with the Arab League to give the council any assistance it requests.

Any use of force must be carefully and fully debated, but that debate has now been had. It’s been raging for a week, during which almost every Arab country has come on board calling for a no-flight zone and Colonel Qaddafi continues to gain ground.

Except that many senior military analysts have pointed out that establishing a no-fly zone will require bombing radar sites and anti-aircraft sites in Libya, and then what? If that's not effective, do we then target the tanks and loyalist forces? And then do we send in peacekeepers to hold the ground while a new government is formed? Where does this end? Matt Yglesias remembers a more prudent Slaughter talking about the Iraq occupation, in which she argued for a more rules-based global order that wasn't based on active military operations. But she was in favor of invading Iraq, just like all the other liberal interventionists. There is no limit on pointless, expensive wars in which we can engage.

The smart thing to do would be to contact Qadaffi and say, "look, man, your day is done. We can get you a plane out and into any country that you want with a million dollars in unmarked bills. Or you can stay here, and if you thought Libya was isolated between 1988 and 2003, well, you haven't seen 'isolated' yet." No, instead we're going to hear from the European Union and the Arab League as to why U.S. warplanes need to intercede over Libyan skies. Hey, guys, you want peace that bad, send your own planes. Ours are busy over Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, Europe, and along the borders of the United States.

The Four Wise Men - George Schultz, Sam Nunn, Henry Kissinger, and William Perry - are in the Wall St Journal telling us how they believe we need a new doctrine for strategic deterrence in the post-Cold War era. It's a strange argument - it calls for both reducing the US and Russian nuclear stockpile while retaining nuclear weapons for deterrence against nuclear-weapon states, but everyone else needs to stand down and work out their regional issues. Or as Cartman on South Park would say, "You nah, me nah. Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Fourth, as long as nuclear weapons exist, America must retain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear stockpile primarily to deter a nuclear attack and to reassure our allies through extended deterrence. There is an inherent limit to U.S. and Russian nuclear reductions if other nuclear weapon states build up their inventories or if new nuclear powers emerge.

It is clear, however, that the U.S. and Russia—having led the nuclear buildup for decades—must continue to lead the build-down. The U.S. and its NATO allies, together with Russia, must begin moving away from threatening force postures and deployments including the retention of thousands of short-range battlefield nuclear weapons. All conventional deployments should be reviewed from the aspect of provocation. This will make America, Russia and Europe more secure. It will also set an example for the world.

Fifth, we recognize that for some nations, nuclear weapons may continue to appear relevant to their immediate security. There are certain undeniable dynamics in play—for example, the emergence of a nuclear-armed neighbor, or the perception of inferiority in conventional forces—that if not addressed could lead to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and an increased risk they will be used. Thus, while the four of us believe that reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective, some nations will hesitate to draw or act on the same conclusion unless regional confrontations and conflicts are addressed. We must therefore redouble our efforts to resolve these issues.

It's a complicated story. I think it's a careful clarification from the Four Wise Men's perceived earlier "Global Zero" endorsements (see 2007, 2008, and 2009). At best, it's a careful retreat from "Mutual Assured Destruction" but not a commitment to give up threatening other countries with nuclear weapons under the concept of "strategic ambiguity."

It's hard to read "Beltway" rhetoric sometimes, but I'm going to call this the "Cartman strategy. We got our nukes, you got no nukes, let's reduce the chance of conflict in which nukes might be used (or where Teh Terrorists might get one) and leave it at that. You nah, me nah.

I'm trying to absorb the news in the NYT today that "NATO" helicopters (probably Army Apaches) shot up a group of children who were picking up firewood near a forward operating base that was under fire by insurgents using a mortar. This FOB was in an eastern province on the border of Afghanistan, a dangerous area in which to operate. ISAF promptly owned up and apologized for killing "nine civilians." Civilians? That's a pretty bland term for a group of kids aged 9-15.

We've had too much bullshit talk about "population-centric" operations that are supposed to ensure we befriend the Afghan population and target the violent extremists. I get the theory, I get that the Taliban insurgents are causing a good deal of civilian casualties as well. I know who the bad guys are. I just have to wonder when the US Army - and the White House - is going to understand that they are really not suceeding in this strategy.

Our role in Afghanistan - assuming one believes we need to be there, as the president does - ought to be one of advising, training, and equipping the Afghan security forces. The Afghan government ought to be leading the operations to secure its own country with its own forces. Now we know this government can't do that, it's too corrupt, its security forces aren't motivated or inclined to do their jobs, so the impatient American response is "well, then we'll do it for you." Guess what? Doing combat operations for the host nation is not the point of counterinsurgency operations.

I'm tired of hearing the bullshit excuse that "we have to be in Afghanistan because Pakistan has nukes and Teh Terrorists might get them." Guess what? Both the Taliban and AQ are in Pakistan already. Fighting them in Afghanistan does NOTHING to secure that objective. Giving Pakistan billions of dollars in military aid every year should ensure that country's ability to secure those weapons, don't you think?

So instead, Karzai is going to get some free publicity by bashing his main ally, the United States. The Taliban are going to have a field day, trumpeting how US forces are killing Afghan civilians. And our Congress and White House are going to stoutly resolve that we've got to stay there for four more years before thinking about pulling combat forces out of Afghanistan. When will the Obama adminstration stop acting like a bunch of blood-thirsty neocons and admit that its Afghan strategy is a failure?

Following up on Heather's post about McCain and Lieberman's desire for action against Libya, the neocons are starting to chant for more action. In an amazing show of bravado, a group of forty political analysts, including more than a dozen former officials of former President GW Bush, have posted a letter in the Foreign Policy Initiative website calling for President Obama to bring some "American exceptionalism" in the form of gunboat diplomacy to Libya. It really is amazingly idiotic drivel for such Very Serious People to voice.

Therefore, we recommend the United States, in conjunction with NATO allies, take the following specific actions immediately:
 
1) The United States should call upon NATO to develop operational plans to urgently:

• Establish a presence in Libyan airspace to prevent the continued use of fighter jets and helicopter gunships against civilians and carry out other missions as required.
• Move naval assets into Libyan waters to aid in evacuation efforts and prepare for possible contingencies. Establish the capability to disable Libyan naval vessels used to attack civilians.

2)     Freeze all Libyan government assets in the United States and Europe.

3)     Consider temporarily halting importation of Libyan oil to the United States and Europe.

4)     Make a clear statement that Col. Qaddafi and other officials who order and participate in massacres of civilians will be held accountable for their crimes under international law.

5)     Provide humanitarian aid to the Libyan people as quickly as possible.

Yes, because our military was so successful in combat operations against Iraq and Afghanistan, why not just add another Arab nation to the list of "people we really didn't like anyway, and oh yeah, damn the massive projected spike in oil prices, full speed ahead." You will not be surprised to see that the list of characters is very similar to the original PNAC crowd, the ones who thought in 1998 that overthrowing Iraq through US unilateral force was such a great idea. What jackasses.

In the interest of academic fairness, it would be good to know who the FPI signatories believe we should help in Libya. Should we just drop boxes of automatic rifles and ammunition on the beaches near Benghazi? There are no carriers in the Med, should we divert one or two and station it off the coast? Do we shoot down the defecting Libyan air force pilots as well as those straffing the cities? What if the Libyans see our actions as an attack against them and not just the regime? The rest of the world seems to be capable of getting their own citizens out of the country without the use of force. 

It is a good thing, however, for these villains to sign their names so freely. It's important to know who the people are who would so freely loose violence upon the world for the sake of their false ideology, spilling US blood and treasure without any thought of the potential fallout on civilization.