Apres L'America - les deluge!

After America - by Zbigniew Brzezinski | Foreign Policy:

Not so long ago, a high-ranking Chinese official, who obviously had concluded that America's decline and China's rise were both inevitable, noted in a burst of candor to a senior U.S. official: "But, please, let America not decline too quickly." Although the inevitability of the Chinese leader's expectation is still far from certain, he was right to be cautious when looking forward to America's demise.

For if America falters, the world is unlikely to be dominated by a single preeminent successor -- not even China. International uncertainty, increased tension among global competitors, and even outright chaos would be far more likely outcomes.

Good analysis, but the best one I have seen yet is this one:

Lieberman: We should start another war

Senator Joe Lieberman, who was Al Gore's running mate in 2000 and is today independent of either party, says we should attack Syria.



My gosh, what is it with liberals these days? We need to start a fourth war now? Did someone slip some compound into the water system in D.C.?

Rube that I am, I thought we were finished with wars of choice, especially since the administration now admits that our military could still be working Libya for months to come.

Well, Hillary Clinton has already quashed the notion of getting involved in Syria but did a soft shoe about how long we'll be in Libya.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. is not planning to get involved in the recent political turmoil in Syria and evaded questions about the long-term outlook for the military intervention in Libya Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"Evaded questions" - so much for the transparency we were promised. But then, we already knew that the president's promise of unprecedented transparency in government was just a gimmick that wouldn't last.

President Obama has abolished the position in his White House dedicated to transparency and shunted those duties into the portfolio of a partisan ex-lobbyist who is openly antagonistic to the notion of disclosure by government and politicians.

That was last August.

Libya: Mission accomplished?

Many commentators have said that intervention in Libya now is too little, too late (or maybe too much, too late). The presumptive purpose of the campaign is to protect civilian lives against Qaddafi's predations. President Obama said yesterday,

Our military action is in support of a international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Colonel Qaddafi to his people. ...

And in the face of that, the international community rallied and said we have to stop any potential atrocities inside of Libya, and provided a broad mandate to accomplish that specific task. As part of that international coalition, I authorized the United States military to work with our international partners to fulfill that mandate. ...

But when it comes to our military action, we are doing so in support of U.N. Security Resolution 1973, that specifically talks about humanitarian efforts. And we are going to make sure that we stick to that mandate.

[Question about Arab support]

Well, look, the Arab League specifically called for a no-fly zone before we went to the United Nations. And that was I think an important element in this overall campaign. ...

I think it’s also important to note that the way that the U.S. took leadership and managed this process ensures international legitimacy and ensures that our partners, members of the international coalition are bearing the burden of following through on the mission, as well.

Do you see a pattern here? It is that the employment of the American military must have prior international approval. Let's take a look at the timeline. Calls for a no-fly zone began in February. British Prime Minister David Cameron directed his general staff to start working it out before the end of that month.

March 12 -- the Arab League calls on the UN to establish a no-fly zone

March 14 -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes in Paris for intervention talks and then returns the the US.

March 15 -- A meeting of the G8's foreign ministers turns aside from endorsing intervention.

March 16 -- Qaddafi's forces are at the brink of taking Benghazi

March 17 -- The UN Security Council passes Resolution 1973 that calls upon member states to use "all necessary measures" (read, military power) to protect civilians.

March 19 -- Secretary Clinton again is in Paris for resuming the talks. Initially she is non-committal, reflecting a vacuum of leadership in the White House. Yet by the end of the morning, she noted that Arab leaders had "changed the landscape" of the situation by calling more clearly and urgently for intervention. She also said that the Arab Gulf states were "critical to the international community’s efforts on Libya." It is widely reported that she and America's UN ambassador, Susan Rice, together brought President Obama into concurrence.

March 19 -- France initiates air strikes against Qaddafi's army near Benghazi.

What seems to be the bottom line? First, the administration has repeatedly emphasized that American military strikes are authorized by the UN and the Arab League. That only the US Congress can authorize war against Libya seems to be of no concern to the president.

This administration, including Ms. Clinton, has placed American military employment subservient to the United Nations and, most particularly, the Gulf States. Although some US critics have called the Libya intervention a "cowboy" action no different from the (presumed) cowboy actions of G.W. Bush, it's more than obvious that Obama does not see it that way.

Community organizer that he is at heart, this president believes that only the "international community" (of which there is no such thing, but let that pass) can authenticate or authorize military actions by the United States. Since in this case the target is an Arab country, the endorsement of the Persian Gulf states was required. Since the Congress represents neither the "international community" nor the Arab states, then not only is Congress's authorization not needed, it would actually be counter-productive by maintaining the unjust position that America's national self-interest is predominant. This compulsion to subordinate US military operations to the "international community" also explains why the president has vowed to hand operational control of American forces over to a European authority (just who is yet to be determined).

By at least conceptually placing America's interests and the use of its military second or third to the "international community's," Secretary Clinton and President Obama likely believe that their main purpose in this intervention has already been accomplished, no matter the outcome on the ground in Libya.

Update: See also, "Understanding Obama: His One-World View and Foreign Policy."

The Free Libya air force?

Having already argued that the United States' participation in the Libya campaign is illegal and that the president has announced only very muddled aims, I'll not belabor those points again. Instead, I'll respond to retired British Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt's piece in The Telegraph today that "the unspoken mission is to topple Gaddafi."

In this case, the specified task is the protection of civilians, but the implied task – and the end-state to be achieved – must be the removal of Colonel Gaddafi and his regime and the creation of conditions whereby a government more acceptable to the majority of decent-minded Libyans could be put in place.

Given events on the ground and in the air over the last 24 hours, the specified task is proving hard enough, but the implied task is going to be that much more difficult, nevertheless it must be there in the back of the minds of the military planners even if it cannot be on the lips of the politicians.

This is a typically British point of view, where the military commanders offer a nudge and a wink to the politicians, communicating, "I know what you actually said you want, but we understand what you really mean."

Well, the vaunted strategic mastermindedness of the British general staff has been far overrated since the time of Gen. Douglas Haig in World War I. Gen. Dannatt, chief of the general staff from 2006-2009, does little in this article to restore it.

What Gen. Dannatt fails to point out is that the two major problems of the Libya campiagn are:

1. The aims are very limited and are unclear to begin with, and

2. Regime change is in fact merely an implied aim rather than an explicit one - and I would argue that toppling Qaddafi is not even an implied task. US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said explicitly on FoxNews this morning that the mission does not include toppling Qaddafi.

The folly of relying on the UN Security Council for strategic direction is that it makes resolutions that are lowest-common-denominator consensus. The push is to get votes rather than establish clarity and purpose. Meanwhile, the US Congress continues to slumber through America's latest war. What should we do before a quagmire really sets in?

If indeed we want the rebels to succeed in taking over governance of the whole of Libya, instead of the rump state it claims to have established in the eastern part of the country, then the Allies' air forces must play the same role there that the US air forces played in the first months of the Afghanistan campaign: be the air force of the indigenous army to support its offensive operations against the government army.

However, Afghanistan's anti-Taliban Northern Alliance had significant advantages over the Libyan rebels. First, the Northern Alliance had a unified chain of command and years of experience, neither of which the Libyan rebels have. The Northern Alliance was already recognized in the world as the legitimate government of the whole of the country, including occupying Afghanistan's UN seat, while the Libyan rebels have no such advantage or existing legitimacy. The Northern Alliance was Muslim but not in the slightest Islamist; Islamist Talibanism was what they were fighting. And the Libyan rebels? Far from clear.

Nonetheless, now that we've jumped into the deep end of the pool, it's too late to wonder whether we should get wet. Politically and militarily, we're already drenched. Our only choice now is whether to leave Qaddafi in power or not. If, as all the Allies' political leaders are saying, there is no intent to topple Qaddafi, then we should halt operations immediately and go home. Of course, Qaddafi will simply resume attacking the rebels and killing civilians along the way.

But for how many years are we willing to patrol Libyan skies to stop it? As I wrote here: What are the conditions of success in Libya? What must happen before American combat forces are withdrawn? In other words, how will we know when we've won? (Is "winning" even a concept in this operation? It seems not.)

We should be sending special-operations forces to coordinate with the rebel commanders about using the Allies' air forces to support their offensive against Qaddafi. This is a civil war. If Qaddafi is not defeated then he has won. If the rebels do not win, they have lost.

I am extremely skeptical about the nature of the rebel alliance in the first place and have little expectation that if they replace Qaddafi in governing all Libya that they will be any friendlier to the United States than Qaddafi has been. Qaddafi sent a letter to President Obama late last week claiming that he was fighting al Qaeda in putting down the rebellion. Of course, this is typical Qaddafi bluster, but it is still true that eastern Libya, the heart of the rebellion, has been heavily Islamist for years. No Arab country sent more fighters per capita to Iraq to fight the US than Libya, and almost all of them came from eastern Libya.

Even so, we've made our bed with the rebels and now have no choice but to lie down in it with them. "In war there is no substitute for victory," admonished Gen. Douglas MacArthur to President Truman during the Korean War. Truman dismissed his words. So we still station troops in Korea and North Korea, undefeated, is a greater threat to the world than ever.

We cannot afford to make the same mistake in Libya.

But we will.

Libya: You say you got a resolution ...

... well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan.

A rebel fighter shot down near Benghazi

French fighter jets are already flying over Libya.

Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- French fighter jets soared over Libya on Saturday to counter Moammar Gadhafi's military forces who were intent on destroying the opposition as they pushed into the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

"Our air force will oppose any aggression by Colonel Gadhafi against the population of Benghazi," said French President Nicolas Sarkozy, speaking after an international, top-level meeting in Paris over the Libyan crisis.

"As of now, our aircraft are preventing planes from attacking the town," he said. "As of now, our aircraft are prepared to intervene against tanks."

I am perfectly content to let France and the other Euros take the lead here. I'd be more than happy if the US role never included actual, direct military action and was limited to logistic, intelligence and transportation support. It's the Euros who've been propping Qaddafi up all these many years, France in particular. So they can have it.

A FoxNews crew near Benghazi took this video of a rebel jet shot down by mistake by rebel ground fire:



Meanwhile, back in Washington,

After two weeks of playing down the prospect of military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration is on the brink of inserting itself into a third war in a Muslim nation — something the president, who has spent the first half of his term mending America’s relationship with Islam, had hoped to avoid.

The administration’s shift from skepticism to support for military intervention in Libya occurred over a frenetic week of war and diplomacy in Washington and Paris, at the United Nations and inside Libya, where facts on the ground changed swiftly.

However, we have not been told from the administration whether the president's "support for military intervention" includes direct action by US forces.

Having already addressed the fact that any direct-combat employment of US forces against Qaddafi woiuld be illegal absent Congressional authorization, I will here stipulate that the president will go forward with military intervention, approved by Congress or not. And my question for today is simply this: What's the plan?

I don't mean the military operations plan. I mean a comprehensive statement of national strategic objectives and rationale for the intervention, presented to the American people, that explains just what we are trying to do and why.

I frankly don't think that anyone in the administration, from the president on down, has the slightest idea what that could be in any more detail than, "Stop Qaddafi from killing the revolutionaries." But that's not a plan. It's not even a decent objective.

ABC News reported yesterday that in 2007 (while opposing President Bush's "surge" in Iraq), then-Senator Obama said,

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Before a single US plane flies over Libya, the president must explain to the American people the following at a minimum:

1. What is Qaddafi's "actual or imminent threat" to America that justifies combat deployment of US forces on presidential order alone?

2. Absent such threat, what is his legal authority to send US forces into combat without prior Congressional approval? (Congressional approval, or not, may yet be forthcoming.)

3. What is the primary strategic objective that the United States will achieve through military forces that cannot be obtained otherwise?

4. What is the moral imperative that justifies killing and being killed?

5. Apart from opposing Qaddafi, what exactly makes the Libyan revolutionaries worth the expenditure of American lives and treasure?

6. The president is on record as saying that Qaddafi must not remain in power. Does that mean that regime change is a US objective and if so, will US military power be used to achieve it?

7. If not, will a partition of Libya into territories controlled by Qaddafi and the revolutionaries be acceptable, and if so, why?

8. What influence do you expect to have over the political nature of a potential revolutionary government?

9. What are the conditions of success in Libya? What must happen before American combat forces are withdrawn? In other words, how will you know when you've won?

About the moral imperative for war. If no one in the administration can explain what America is trying to do within the context of Just War Theory, which demands specifically to delineate the just cause of war, the just conduct of war and the just ending of war, then there is no justification at all.

If there is a moral imperative to intervene in Libya, presumably to stop Qaddafi's attacks against Libyan civilians, then inquiring minds want to know why this imperatives rules for Libya here when President Obama specifically rejected the very same imperative in warring against Iraq in 2003.

My position hasn't changed. To paraphrase what Bismarck said about the Balkans in 1888, "The whole of Libya is not worth the bones of a single American pilot." It is a war that only a liberal could love, one bereft of actual US national strategic interests.

Update: An obscure report that so far, the president will not send US forces into direct combat except for launching cruise missiles from offshore vessels: "... the US contribution will be logistics and support, including refueling and intelligence, but not represent the pointed end of the spear."

If this is so and remains so, then the president should be commended. But this administration's public communications are the worst in decades, and we the people deserve to know whether this report is true. Why are we still waiting?

Update: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, answering questions in Paris:

Is the goal to protect civilians or to remove Qaddafi from power? Clinton adamantly says it is to protect civilians.

Could Qadadfi remain in power? "Those are all questions that standing here are difficult to answer."

She did rule out use of American ground troops.

Marc Lynch at Foreign Policy - the makings of a quagmire.

Related:

Libya intervention will justify Iraq war

Cameron: shut down Libya's air force

The Illegal Libya War

The Illegal Libya War

The UN Security Council cannot authorize the use of the American military - only the Congress can

So the UNSC has authorized member states to use military forces to enforce the terms of UNSC Resolution 1973 (text here).

By any reasonable historical standard, in theory and in practice, any nation that carries out military actions in accordance with UNSCR 1973 is waging war upon Libya, or minimally against the Qaddafi-led part of Libya.

In addition to imposing the long-discussed "no fly zone," the resolution authorizes member states "to take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack." This is so open ended that it means that any military action against Qaddafi is authorized, including landing the entire 2nd Marine Division on the shores of Tripoli.

Despite the way the commentati (and I, above) say that resolution "authorizes" the use of military forces against Qaddafi, in fact the UNSC has "authorized" nothing at all. The United Nations has no authority to authorize any kind of use of United States forces. As a matter of legality, this resolution is worth less than the paper it is printed on. At best, it offers political cover only. But the UNSCR has no legal authority regarding employment of US forces.

What I want to know is this: Where is the United States Congress on waging war against Libya?

Only the Congress has the authority to declare war by the United States against Libya. And don't try the old dodge that use of US forces against Qaddafi is somehow not a war. It won't be a "police action," as Truman characterized his illegal war in Korea (36,500 US dead). Even LBJ had the weak cover the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, but the Congress failed to carry out its Constitutional responsibilities in the ensuing years, so 58,151 Americans lost their lives in the Vietnam War.

I am not ignoring that US presidents have ordered many military expeditions with no prior Congressional authorization - in some cases not even Congressional knowledge. President G.H.W Bush ordered a sizable force into Panama in 1989 (lived history for me) with no express Congressional authorization, but the proximate cause was the killing of an American officer by Panamanian troops plus other acts of violence against Americans, including American civilians. And the action lasted only about four days.

This same President Bush did gain explicit Congressional authorization for war against Iraq before ordering the military to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991. In 2001, President G.W. Bush gained Congressional authorization for attacking both Afghanistan that year and invading Iraq in 2003. Some of Bush's opponents claimed that the Congress has never actually "declared war" against Iraq, even bringing suit in federal court. The court rejected the suit altogether, holding that the Constitution doesn't specify how the Congress must declare war and that if the Congress authorizes the use of military force, the Constitution's requirement has been met. As then-Senator Joe Biden said at the time, the Congress has declared war whenever the Congress thinks it has. And he added that clearly it had declared war against Iraq even though the Congressional resolution did not use those words (see here).

Belatedly, some Congressional leaders are awakening to the fact the President Obama seems to think the UNSC has given him all the authorization he needs to start bombing Libya. And the Weekly Standard asks, "Does Obama Think His Oath Is to the United Nations?"

After weeks of failing to provide even strong rhetorical support for the uprising in Libya — an uprising in pursuit of liberty and against a United States adversary — President Obama has now apparently decided that he has sufficient international authorization to act. This begs two questions: Where is Congress on Libya? And does President Obama think he took an oath to the United States Constitution, or to the United Nations Charter?

Obama said today that the United States has moved “swiftly” on Libya (one would hate to see “not swiftly”) and that the United Nations Security Council has now authorized military action. Obama seems to view such U.N. authorization as both necessary and sufficient. In truth, however, it is neither.

In 2007, then-Senator Obama said,

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Two questions:

1. Will President Obama live up to his own words?

2. Will Congress do its duty and authorize (or not) the use of force against Qaddafi, or will it defer once again to an increasingly imperial executive (a trend that far predates Obama's inauguration)?

I predict no on the former and same-old, same-old on the latter.

John Kerry agrees with me on Libya

Well, there's a snowball fight going on in Satan's realm: Sen. John Kerry and I agree on something. The subject is Libya and what to do about shutting down Qaddafi's air force.

He contradicted Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who condemned "loose talk" about a no-fly zone last week, saying it amounted to military intervention. "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defences," Dr Gates told a congressional committee hearing.

Speaking on CBS, Senator Kerry said: "That's actually not the only option for what one could do. One could crater the airports and the runways and leave them incapable of using them for a period of time."

Well, give the 2004 Democrat presidential nominee credit, although a little late to the party. I wrote six days ago.

Crater their runways from one end to the other and the problem is solved. Carriers, while desirable, useful and highly symbolic for long-term commitment, are not necessary to get this job done. Sky park a few Predator UAVs above the airfields so that if Libyan engineers try to repair the craters, we will know immediately - and the Predators can launch disincentives. For that matter, we can crater the runways again and maybe bomb a few pilots' barracks as encouragement.

Unlike the senator, I am not gung-ho about the mission - my post was about the military problem itself, not on whether it would be wise to do it. In fact, I would not support that action for reasons I outlined here:

Bombing Libya, even as comparatively "gently" as merely cratering its bases' runways, is also unambiguously an act of war, period. It absolutely places the United States on the side of the rebels, in coercive opposition to their foes. But who are the rebels? Frankly, we just don't know enough about them to be confident that once they gain power they will be much of an improvement over Qaddafi. The "rebel alliance" (sorry, Mr. Lucas!) is mostly an inchoate alliance of convenience among a number of anti-Qaddafi groups. But once Qaddafi falls - if he does fall - who will replace him and what will they be for? ...

Libya is embroiled in civil war. While there is certainly no reason to shed a tear for Qaddafi's passing, if he does, I see no particular reason to align ourselves with his potential successor(s), whomever he/they turn out to be. Despite the breathless media characterizations of the demonstrators and newly-formed rebel force as "pro-democracy," there is no evidence that that is what they are. They are justifiably anti-Qaddafi, but that sure doesn't make them democrats (although one may hope).

If the US and its allies are not willing to go all the way and actually effect regime change in Libya, a no-fly operation is pointless. But downfalling Qaddafi will be harder than we might think and require more commitment of treasure and blood than we should be willing to make.

Senator John McCain weighed in, too,

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, agreed that sending in ground troops would be an inappropriate display by the U.S., but implementing a no-fly zone would not be difficult because Libya's air defenses "are somewhat antiquated."

Speaking on ABC's "This Week," McCain said it would send a signal to the embattled Qaddafi "that the president is serious when he says we need for Qaddafi to go. And also, it would be encouraging to the resistance, who are certainly outgunned from the air."

McCain is clearly endorsing using military violence mostly as a symbol: to "signal" Qaddafi. His comments are  a ringing endorsement of halfway measures (if even halfway) that surely our experience of the last decade should convince us not to do.

At Foreign Policy, Thomas Ricks has some read-worthy posts. Start with, "Six considerations for discussing the imposition of a Libyan no-fly zone," which posits some very good questions that should be answered before launching the first airplane.

The read, "What Obama needs to do with Libya -- and with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, today," which looks at other options.

No-Fly for Libya goes a-glimmering

There are some serious issues that need to be faced before the United States or its allies establish a no-fly regime over Libya by that country's air force. Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron called for such a regime to be established just this week, but rapidly beat a retreat when US President Barack Obama did not join the chorus and the proposal drew tepid endorsement, at best, from Britain's military chiefs.

Britain has backtracked from its belligerent military stance over Libya after the Obama administration publicly distanced itself from David Cameron's suggestion that Nato should establish a no-fly zone over the country and that rebel forces should be armed.

As senior British military sources expressed concern that Downing Street appeared to be overlooking the dangers of being sucked into a long and potentially dangerous operation, the prime minister said Britain would go no further than contacting the rebel forces at this stage.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified to a Congressional subcommittee,

"Let's call a spade a spade," Gates said at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing. "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses."

He added that it couldn't be done by a single aircraft carrier off the coast.

"It's a big operation in a big country," Gates said.

On top of that, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the same subcommittee that the Pentagon has no confirmation that Libyan strongman Muammar al Qaddafi is using his air force to kill civilians.

Adm. Mullen seems unaware that Moammar Qaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, has confirmed air raids against rebels at Brega.

In an interview with Sky News, Saif said: "First of all the bombs (were) just to frighten them to go away. Not to kill them."

Well, okay then!

I do not understand why Secretary Gates told Congress that major, sustained attacks against Libya's air defenses and associated infrastructure would be necessary. Perhaps he envisions a mission of destroying Libya's air force and/or constant patrolling above Libya in the same way we and the UK patrolled above Iraq for almost 10 years after the Gulf War. But that would be insane, frankly.

No, if I was the Commander in Chief, my mission assignment to DOD would be simply stated: "You will employ the air forces of the United States, in coordination with allied forces, to prevent the Libyan air force from using its aircraft to attack Libyan opposition forces or civilians."

That's it. I believe that if the mission is so stated, the military problem of rendering Libya's air force incapable of attacking Libyan rebels and demonstrators actually is not very complex.

Crater their runways from one end to the other and the problem is solved. Carriers, while desirable, useful and highly symbolic for long-term commitment, are not necessary to get this job done. Sky park a few Predator UAVs above the airfields so that if Libyan engineers try to repair the craters, we will know immediately - and the Predators can launch disincentives. For that matter, we can crater the runways again and maybe bomb a few pilots' barracks as encouragement.

Or turn the runway-neutralization mission over to the US Air Force's 509th Bomb Wing with its B2 Stealth bombers. I think Libya's air defenses threat would be pretty much nil.

However, the military problem is not the main one. As with most employments of the blunt national instrument of military force, the real problem is, "what next?" Joshua Keating explains succinctly that simply immobilizing Libyan jets might accomplish very little in suppressing Qaddafi's murderous operations against his own people.

In any case, while a no-fly zone could presumably prevent Qaddafi's planes from firing on protesters or rebel forces, it would do nothing to stop his ground forces and mercenaries from continuing their assault. Given the limited utility then, the U.S. and its allies must now decide if all the trouble involved in setting up a zone -- including inevitable questions of legality -- are worth the risk.

That is indeed a problem, but not the only one and not really even the main one, which is this, I think:

Bombing Libya, even as comparatively "gently" as merely cratering its bases' runways, is also unambiguously an act of war, period. It absolutely places the United States on the side of the rebels, in coercive opposition to their foes. But who are the rebels? Frankly, we just don't know enough about them to be confident that once they gain power they will be much of an improvement over Qaddafi. The "rebel alliance" (sorry, Mr. Lucas!) is mostly an inchoate alliance of convenience among a number of anti-Qaddafi groups. But once Qaddafi falls - if he does fall - who will replace him and what will they be for?

It could be argued that if our use of force makes it possible for the rebels to prevail, then we will have truck with the next Libyan government that will enable us to shape its nature. My response: Well, Herr von Bismarck, I thought you died long ago and took Realpolitik with you. Such an expectation is the triumph of naive hope over centuries of experience in northern Africa. To wit:

Dubai: The Libya Revolution Council in Benghazi on Monday warned the US against interfering in the political future of the country and said young revolutionaries will consider hostile any act or attempt to dictate to them who the future leader of the country should be.

"There are indications about US efforts to find a new leadership for Libya that is close to the west or accepted by them. Libyans inside the country and abroad will consider such attempts hostile acts against Libyans and attempts to shape the political system in the future will not be tolerated," Ahmad Al Bara'asi, head of media at the newly formed revolutionary council, told Gulf News.

Who, exactly, is the "Libya Revolution Council?" We don't really know. However, today the imperative to intervene (if there ever really was one) may have passed. Qadaffi and his Venezuelan soulmate, Hugo Chavez, have apparently come up with a plan to end the war.

The Venezuelan plan would involve a commission from Latin America, Europe and the Middle East, along with talks between Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi and opposition forces. 

"Libya accepts the proposal to work for a negotiated end to the conflict accompanied by an international commission. Venezuela will continue its contacts in the Arab world and elsewhere to find formulas for peace in Libya," Venezuela's Information Minister Andres Izzara tells Reuters.

Al-Jazeera reports that the plan was struck between Qaddafi and Chavez.

Unsurprisingly, "the chairman of the rebel National Libyan Council rejected proposed talks with Qaddafi," according to reports, whose spokesman said, "We will never negotiate with him."

Libya is embroiled in civil war. While there is certainly no reason to shed a tear for Qaddafi's passing, if he does, I see no particular reason to align ourselves with his potential successor(s), whomever he/they turn out to be. Despite the breathless media characterizations of the demonstrators and newly-formed rebel force as "pro-democracy," there is no evidence that that is what they are. They are justifiably anti-Qaddafi, but that sure doesn't make them democrats (although one may hope).

If the US and its allies are not willing to go all the way and actually effect regime change in Libya, a no-fly operation is pointless. But downfalling Qaddafi will be harder than we might think and require more commitment of treasure and blood than we should be willing to make.

"Washington turns on Obama"

Cameron: shut down Libya's air force

Where are the carriers? It doesn't matter.

British Prime Minister David Cameron: "I have asked the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff to work with our allies on plans for a military no-fly zone."

The point of a no-fly zone would be to prevent by force the Libyan air force from continuing to attack civilians demonstrating against the country's dictator, Moammar Qaddafi (see, "Libyan jets armed to kill").

But where are the carriers?

US Navy: No carriers in the Mediterranean Sea.

Royal Navy: Britain has only a single aircraft carrier left in service, HMS Illustrious. Well technically, HMS Ark Royal will be on the active roll until 11 March, but its decommissioning work is completed. However, Illustrious is of "ski-jump" design and has no aircraft assigned to it, nor are any even available anywhere in the UK's arsenal. Harrier jets, the only type Illustrious can handle, are no longer in service there.

HMS Illustrious with US Marine Harrier jets conducting interoperability training in an undated photo. Britain's armed forces no longer fly the Harrier, the only type jet that the carrier can launch or recover.

French Navy: France has one carrier, Charles de Gaulle. Larger than Illustrious, it is smaller than American carriers but of similar design. Hence it can launch and recover conventional fighters and attack aircraft.

USS John C. Stennis, top and USS John F. Kennedy, bottom, flank the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, which is leading Britain's assault ship, HMS Ocean (a helicopter platform), in this 2002 photo.  

However, Charles de Gaulle has had its operational-readiness problems.

As President Nicolas Sarkozy prepares to use a historic London summit to announce the use of RAF jets off the Charles de Gaulle, his naval chiefs have told him she is no longer seaworthy.

Presumably the problems with the carrier's propulsion systems have been fixed, as de Gaulle just completed combined exercises with USS Abraham Lincoln.

Nonetheless, absent American carriers, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce a no-fly zone over the long term if the model is the no-fly zones the US and Britain enforced over most of Iraq after the Gulf War. Those years involved constant patrolling and substantial commitment of airframes and crews.

The reason for the difficulty is that the closest Allied air base to Tripoli is Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily, about 350 miles away. This is not next door for flying high tempos of air interdiction. The next closest is Aviano Air Base in northern Italy, more than 900 miles from Libya.

However, Britain and the US (and France and Italy?) need not institute constant patrolling to shut down Qaddafi's air force. A fair number of these BLU-107 Durandal cratering bombs will do nicely:



Developed by the French and type-adopted by the US Air Force in time for 1991's Gulf War, the BLU-107 creates enormous craters even in concrete runways. The Brits once used an even more diabolical cratering bomb, the JP233, that not only made a huge honking hole, it also scattered 215 anti-personnel mines around the crater as a disincentive to repair the runway. However, this bomb was withdrawn from service, mainly because the Gulf War proved it was dangerous to the bombing aircraft.

However, chasing down individual Libyan fighters, while technically quite possible, is pointless. Crater their runways from one end to the other and the problem is solved. Carriers, while desirable, useful and highly symbolic for long-term commitment, are not necessary to get this job done. Sky park a few Predator UAVs above the airfields so that if Libyan engineers try to repair the craters, we will know immediately - and the Predators can launch disincentives. For that matter, we can crater the runways again and maybe bomb a few pilots' barracks as encouragement.

Putting Libya's air force into no-fly status is not all that challenging and it does not require aircraft carriers to do.

Update, March 2: Libyan air defenses would have to be dealt with, of course:

Option 1: Turn the runway-neutralization mission over to the US Air Force's 509th Bomb Wing with its B2 Stealth bombers. I doubt Libya would be able to counter them.

Option 2: Notify Libyan AF's high command that we are going to crater their runways but will not attack personnel or other facilities. Make it clear, however, that if they resist in any way all our gloves come off and Libya will not have an air force left.

USS Kearsarge, now on station offshore, can mount combat search and rescue missions in support. An aircraft carrier would be nice but is not necessary for this mission.

This is not to say I support such an action; I have serious reservations. But simply as a military action, it would not be terribly difficult.

Endnote: The toothless Illustrious is due to leave service in 2016. It's replacement, Queen Elizabeth, will not enter service until 2020 at the earliest. QE and its later sister ship, Prince of Wales, however, will be super carriers rivaling the US Navy's and will be the largest warships ever for the Royal Navy. Curiously, both predecessor ships of the same names were battleships sunk in World War II.

Related: To be clear, I do not think that doing this would be a good idea.

Letter Home: We're doing just fine

I got one of those frantic letters from my 92 year old mother: "what's going on in Israel? We only hear about Egypt--nothing about Israel? Are you guys okay? Are you still there? "

Well, we are still here and doing just fine. But, that IS the question to ask right now--what ABOUT Israel? With all of its neighbors being shaken to the core, Israel remains calm. That's what's going in Israel right now. In fact, for the first time in Israel's experience, it is no longer the center of attraction. Suddenly the screed that Israel is the source of all that's wrong in the Middle East is silent. And for good reason. Because it has never been true. Ever.

Let's say it again: ISRAEL HAS NEVER BEEN THE PROBLEM IN THE MIDDLE EAST. That's the point. Bush was right. It's about Democracy not puppet states and extortionist regimes. When Israelis are asked from where did this meme appear, they point directly to the culprits. The Clintons (and I voted for him twice and campaigned for him in 1992) and Carter (I voted for that charlatan, too--I am so ashamed) have done more damage here than all the years the British mucked up the region AND India. When the dust settles, perhaps some real work can be done.

It's not over by any means. The US State Department and intelligence has zero ability to read this area. It is an empirical question if the country does not slip into the Iranian model. There are no strong candidates except the fundamentalists. The Army is THE power and they certainly do not want to go the Turkey root, the other loose cannon in the region. In fact, as I write this, the Egyptian Army just shut down the national assembly, suspended the old "constitution", and annouced a new one with elections in 6 months. The risks of recession and a post Shah disaster in Egypt is simply too great. Egypt has become too western and too secular to permit that sort of fundamentalist nonsense.

The US has propped up all the dictators in the area since before the war. EVERYONE is on notice with the way the US treated Mubarak. Egypt is not alone. Jordan, the Emirates, Saudis, Turkey, Algeria, Yemen, Dubai--they are all just dominoes. Even Syria is rocky. The King of Bahrain is so sacred that he's handing out $2700 bribes to each and every family in his country in order to stave off getting the bum's rush. Good luck, dude.

Where there is no more turmoil than usual is Israel and the West Bank. The most disasterous event here in the last ten days is the IKEA store in Netanya burnt to the ground--a significant omen for the Oslo accords if there ever was one. Here we have the usual static but real peace. Now building is going on (can you imagine the fallout if US domestic policy was to halt housing construction for ANY REASON?), employment is way up.

The best source of peace here, which is an everyday reality, is MONEY! EVERYONE is building now. Commercial goods are flowing into the West Bank and there are only smiles from Jews, Christians, and Muslims at the local shopping mall. When the rain clears, I'll continue my astronomy lessons to the Muslim watchmen at the Kibbutz vineyards (they want to be ready for Ramadan).

It is interesting to note that Abbas and his henchmen just took out Jordanian citizenship! They, too, and read the writing on the Wall (over here that's a literal thing, you know) and want to get out of here while they can. So, they're jumping ship--just exactly where do they think it's safe to run?

The real Snake in the Grass in this mix has been Carter. Jimmy Crack Corn. His policies are complete post Southern Reconstruction. His screed has been nothing but separate and unequal. Whenever he shows up, we all notice that he ONLY supports and talks to those who discriminate against Jews, Catholics, and Christians (and Blacks) and whose strong arm thugs wear masks (black Nike masks instead of white sheets). Sound familiar? It is absolutely scandalous that after two generations of Civil Rights that American Foreign Policy has promoted dictators, bigots, terrorists, murders, and rapists. This is to be surpassed by callously abandoning their clients and puppets when the winds turn.

So, when Condi piped up about Birmingham and racism, I was appalled. I, too, remember the Cracker South. Well, my Mizrachi brethren from the Arab World lived in a racist world that makes the South look good. The parallel construction of the South with the Middle East is the Jews=Blacks. Period. Add the Christians of all stripes to the mix as well. All at the bottom of the heap, all with special badges, all paying special infidel taxes, all subject to brutal pogroms simply because they were Christian, Jewish, or non-Muslim. It was truly pathetic--even more than Jimmy.

So, you ask about Egypt.

About time.

But it ain't over by any means.

Peace will come, however, when the Americans and the Europeans shut up, stand back, and stop enabling the racists and extortionists whether right or left.

IN SUM, the entire fiction of the Middle East has split asunder. The problems here are not due to Israel. That screed has only been the classic means to deflect local anger from where it matters most--the domestic inequalities of extortionist Ancient Regimes and are finally imploding. It is time the US and the Europeans stop fanning those flames. The people who must bear the cost for this distorted view of foreign policy are the poor schnooks who have to bear the burden of the despotic yoke of servitude and extortion.

Ironically, it will be the oil that will bring these states down. In the punitive arrogance, the OPEC states have raised the price of oil too much. Economies around the world are strangling and the costs of shipping are so high that ships are simply being laid up or scrapped. The Oil States depended on that revenue for their larder and livelihood. They built their empires on the assumption that the West is addicted to oil and will pay and pay ever higher prices. Well, that ain't true. Now, their economies are in trouble, too. Their domestic troubles are growing as well and all of it is backed up on their US Lackey covering their security problems.

Ah, but Mubarak--the loyal retainer. Couldn't even wait until he's dead from cancer.

So, the price of oil will be their ultimate undoing. It is the contradiction to their mode of production.

Finally, it does show that Israel's economy and social structure is more stable than its neighbors. It is like Reagan's gambit in the 80's--like the Russians, Israel's enemies simply cannot maintain the economic infrastructure to support a constant war against Israel and continued monetary extortion from their local people. The Gulf States make tons of money but they have the worst infant mortality rates and greatest wealth inequalities in the world. They depend on outside talent for ALL their technological development since they dare not educate their masses. They are dependent on foreign goods and talent. When Bechtel pulls the plug, the Gulf states will be through.

The real question will be in the next several months. The lessons of Revolution, as my Old Man would say, lie in the aftermath, the Thermidor. The Army did not fare well in France nor in Iran. We shall see about Egypt. At this point, nothing is clear anywhere in the region. The best that anyone can do is to wait cautiously. This is not a disco or LA or a football game. There's a lot of mist in the woods right now. It's best to wait and see.

If there is no war this summer, then there won't be for a while simply because the Revolution will have spread to Syria, Jordan, and parts East.

A new dawn indeed.