Just how useless and irrelevant to NATO and the European idea can Germany become? Apparently quite useless.
Deutsche-Presse reported last week that because NATO is taking over the UN mandated no-fly zone over Libya, and that NATO naval forces will patrol the coast as part of the arms embargo, Germany has withdrawn its ships from NATO command because it may be forced to fire a gun. If they are not going to use their military when requested, why don’t they just get rid of it? That would be the logical conclusion and would certainly save the German public significantly in the budget.
I know that Merkel is facing some tough elections – but this is just profoundly stupid on the part of Germany and reveals how rapidly useless they are to NATO or to their place in the West. Even the Green Party has criticized the move. What is more astounding is that Foreign Minister Westerwelle had wanted to vote against UN Security Council Resolution 1973 before Chancellor Merkel managed to convince him that an abstention was a better idea.
German politicians have been remarkably arrogant and not a little obtuse during the past year or two – from their muscle flexing over Greece to the extent suggesting that some Greek islands could be sold to pay for the economic mess and being as unhelpful as conceivably possible regarding the financial crises in the EU to slobbering over Russia and simultaneously irritating Poland and the Baltics. They want to run the EU in their (or Merkel's) image. This latest bit of arrogance should remind Poland, France, Spain and Italy just how contemptuous their neighbor can be of anything proposed by someone else.
To the extent that Sarkozy needs an election lift, comparing French initiatives in foreign affairs to those of the eternally cringing Germans can’t hurt his chances. It also indicates that perhaps other EU members take a hard look at German export centric policy and its foreign policy to the extent it affects its neighbors.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
European Coalition Cracking?
Europe is showing the cracks over the UNSC no-fly zone implementation as the US withdraws from its “leadership” position. Despite the hysterical, and in the case of Dennis Kucinich in the US, downright stupid, comments from US critics of the UNSC mission, the US has performed its stated policy perfectly and will vanish from the news as it has fired its last cruise missile. Now comes the interesting part in Europe.
France wants to continue to lead the charge in Libya and really is aiming to remove Qaddafi, one way or another. It does not want NATO involved as the operational structure of NATO would restrict French military activities – which are bent on regime change. Although a NATO lead would provide significant organizational assets, it would be a political mistake as that would make this purely a Western intervention despite the Security Council resolution. Italy wants NATO because it knows this will slow the regime change meme and result in a stalemate so it could continue to deal with Qaddafi. No one has asked how Qatari or other Arab forces would operate under NATO, whether wise or not, or if they would even agree to that arrangement.
So the maneuvering begins. Germany, as ever, is showing its inability to take part in anything with a combat role – making it more useless to NATO than ever except for base facilities. The German government will be suitably shocked at Qaddafi’s staged atrocities (something al Jazeera has already revealed as fake but credulity - deliberate or not - in some quarters rules). Like Italy, but for different reasons, it would support the lead role for NATO - if for nothing else than putting the brakes on France. As yet, it is unclear what positions Norway, Canada and the Arab League have on who should control the campaign, although in the case of the latter, getting rid of Qaddafi is high on the “to do” list.
Although I think that delivering the command and control to NATO is a bad idea on any number of levels, the decision of who will run the continuing campaign will be decided in a week or so – hopefully giving the French additional time to complete their agenda. If they are unable to take out the regime, and with the Libyan armor and artillery pretty much decimated, the regime will likely revert to an insurgency campaign involving urban terror campaigns and exhibits, when possible, of Western atrocities suitably staged with moveable military bodies dressed as civilians. This would mean a long haul campaign for which many (but not all) Europeans have never had any stomach and which will require a different approach.
Fortunately, very, very soon, the US will be out of the picture. Then little, if anything will be covered in the US because limited activities of logistical support to its allies is not exciting or controversial – unless critics on the left and right feel that support to US allies is not in its foreign policy interests. President Obama’s policy will have worked and other events will receive more play. Faux News can then go back to covering those nasty union people and any other pet anti-democratic project Murdoch and the Koch brothers have on their minds while CNN (in the US, not Europe or Asia) will simply get bored and go back to its normal useless news coverage of the latest flower shows. I suggest that people start viewing al Jazeera for continuing coverage if they so desire.
France wants to continue to lead the charge in Libya and really is aiming to remove Qaddafi, one way or another. It does not want NATO involved as the operational structure of NATO would restrict French military activities – which are bent on regime change. Although a NATO lead would provide significant organizational assets, it would be a political mistake as that would make this purely a Western intervention despite the Security Council resolution. Italy wants NATO because it knows this will slow the regime change meme and result in a stalemate so it could continue to deal with Qaddafi. No one has asked how Qatari or other Arab forces would operate under NATO, whether wise or not, or if they would even agree to that arrangement.
So the maneuvering begins. Germany, as ever, is showing its inability to take part in anything with a combat role – making it more useless to NATO than ever except for base facilities. The German government will be suitably shocked at Qaddafi’s staged atrocities (something al Jazeera has already revealed as fake but credulity - deliberate or not - in some quarters rules). Like Italy, but for different reasons, it would support the lead role for NATO - if for nothing else than putting the brakes on France. As yet, it is unclear what positions Norway, Canada and the Arab League have on who should control the campaign, although in the case of the latter, getting rid of Qaddafi is high on the “to do” list.
Although I think that delivering the command and control to NATO is a bad idea on any number of levels, the decision of who will run the continuing campaign will be decided in a week or so – hopefully giving the French additional time to complete their agenda. If they are unable to take out the regime, and with the Libyan armor and artillery pretty much decimated, the regime will likely revert to an insurgency campaign involving urban terror campaigns and exhibits, when possible, of Western atrocities suitably staged with moveable military bodies dressed as civilians. This would mean a long haul campaign for which many (but not all) Europeans have never had any stomach and which will require a different approach.
Fortunately, very, very soon, the US will be out of the picture. Then little, if anything will be covered in the US because limited activities of logistical support to its allies is not exciting or controversial – unless critics on the left and right feel that support to US allies is not in its foreign policy interests. President Obama’s policy will have worked and other events will receive more play. Faux News can then go back to covering those nasty union people and any other pet anti-democratic project Murdoch and the Koch brothers have on their minds while CNN (in the US, not Europe or Asia) will simply get bored and go back to its normal useless news coverage of the latest flower shows. I suggest that people start viewing al Jazeera for continuing coverage if they so desire.
US Republicans, Galactic Stupidity, Dangerous Future
If anyone needed more evidence of how the US will decline in power and influence (not a bad thing, actually) need only to look at the caliber of intellect in positions of power within the Republican party – which, sadly to say, will sooner or later be in control again. Some opinions of the galactically stupid:
First batter, Representative Alan West (Fl): "But let me close by saying this. The world is going to hell. And I don't know any other way to say it. When you look at what's happening in Libya, I don't care what anyone says; you can't win away from 30,000 feet. I've been on the battle field before. I don't know why we're shooting $567,000 a piece Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya. You know, back two or three weeks ago, we could have taken care of this situation if we had done the exact same thing that Ronald Reagan did back in the early 80's to Muammar Gaddafi, when he dropped the bomb in his back yard. Muammar Gaddafi didn't say a word for the next 30 years."
I won’t go into his military record – abusing prisoners for a start. But, what is he talking about? Reagan launched targeted attacks in response to a terrorist bombing by Libya. I remember the targeting camera film back in 1986 – it shifted from the tent where Qadaffi was sleeping (later confirmed) to the immediate adjacent building. We missed because he changed his location. He did not stay quiet. Lockerbie was two years later (among other things). Strike one.
Second batter, Representative Steven King (NY): "We think that a sovereign nation should have no border incursions. If we have a border incursion, and it's someone who is lined up next to someone else, lined up next to someone else, and they're carrying weapons and uniforms, that's called an invasion. Whether they're wearing uniforms or carrying weapons, or whether they're coming across in orderly ranks, or whether they're coming across at a rate of perhaps as many as 11,000 a night — and that's some data that came before the House Immigration Committee under sworn testimony — you take the annual illegal border crossings and you divide it by 365, and some of that data, under oath, calculates out to be 11,000 illegal border crossings in a 24-hour period, a lot of that taking place at night. When you think of 11,000 a night, and so I ask the question, what was the size of Santa Ana's army? About half that. That, Mr. Speaker, is the magnitude of the illegal border crossings that we're seeing."
Santa Ana’s army was a force of about 4,000 – invading a rebel held territory of Mexico. The same as Mexican immigrants “invading” ? How many – 11 thousand a night??? Illegal immigration (total – not just Mexican) is actually about 500,000 a year. Old , tired and stupid white men – largely Republican – want to run foreign policy for the US and will in the future. Strike 2.
Third batter, Mike Huckabee (presidential wannabe in Israel February): He said that the Israeli established policy - the idea of Israel giving land to Palestinians in exchange for peace is an "unrealistic, unworkable, and unreachable goal." “There are vast amounts of territory that are in the hands of Muslims, in the hands of Arabs. Maybe the international community can come together and accommodate.”
So – move them all to Muslim countries. Transfer them, like rabbi Meir Kahane wanted (even he was banned from serving in the Knesset because of his racism). Mike wants a population transfer and even forcible deportation of all Arabs from Israel, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But then none of the Geneva Conventions or international law make a difference to Republicans. Strike three.
The problem is that a substantial number of Americans go along with or believe all the above. Banana Republic anyone?
First batter, Representative Alan West (Fl): "But let me close by saying this. The world is going to hell. And I don't know any other way to say it. When you look at what's happening in Libya, I don't care what anyone says; you can't win away from 30,000 feet. I've been on the battle field before. I don't know why we're shooting $567,000 a piece Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya. You know, back two or three weeks ago, we could have taken care of this situation if we had done the exact same thing that Ronald Reagan did back in the early 80's to Muammar Gaddafi, when he dropped the bomb in his back yard. Muammar Gaddafi didn't say a word for the next 30 years."
I won’t go into his military record – abusing prisoners for a start. But, what is he talking about? Reagan launched targeted attacks in response to a terrorist bombing by Libya. I remember the targeting camera film back in 1986 – it shifted from the tent where Qadaffi was sleeping (later confirmed) to the immediate adjacent building. We missed because he changed his location. He did not stay quiet. Lockerbie was two years later (among other things). Strike one.
Second batter, Representative Steven King (NY): "We think that a sovereign nation should have no border incursions. If we have a border incursion, and it's someone who is lined up next to someone else, lined up next to someone else, and they're carrying weapons and uniforms, that's called an invasion. Whether they're wearing uniforms or carrying weapons, or whether they're coming across in orderly ranks, or whether they're coming across at a rate of perhaps as many as 11,000 a night — and that's some data that came before the House Immigration Committee under sworn testimony — you take the annual illegal border crossings and you divide it by 365, and some of that data, under oath, calculates out to be 11,000 illegal border crossings in a 24-hour period, a lot of that taking place at night. When you think of 11,000 a night, and so I ask the question, what was the size of Santa Ana's army? About half that. That, Mr. Speaker, is the magnitude of the illegal border crossings that we're seeing."
Santa Ana’s army was a force of about 4,000 – invading a rebel held territory of Mexico. The same as Mexican immigrants “invading” ? How many – 11 thousand a night??? Illegal immigration (total – not just Mexican) is actually about 500,000 a year. Old , tired and stupid white men – largely Republican – want to run foreign policy for the US and will in the future. Strike 2.
Third batter, Mike Huckabee (presidential wannabe in Israel February): He said that the Israeli established policy - the idea of Israel giving land to Palestinians in exchange for peace is an "unrealistic, unworkable, and unreachable goal." “There are vast amounts of territory that are in the hands of Muslims, in the hands of Arabs. Maybe the international community can come together and accommodate.”
So – move them all to Muslim countries. Transfer them, like rabbi Meir Kahane wanted (even he was banned from serving in the Knesset because of his racism). Mike wants a population transfer and even forcible deportation of all Arabs from Israel, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But then none of the Geneva Conventions or international law make a difference to Republicans. Strike three.
The problem is that a substantial number of Americans go along with or believe all the above. Banana Republic anyone?
Yemen on the Brink
Yemen’s political crisis is rapidly escalating. President Ali Abdullah Saleh continues to resist stepping down at a defiant press conference today. But the tone has changed and he is probably severely weakened by defections
The question of what happens in Yemen now that Brig. Gen. Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, Saleh’s half-brother, has defected to the opposition lies in the hands of the Saudi’s. Mohsen is commander the northwestern military zone, has significant influence in Yemen’s old guard and has deployed an armored formation to protect the protester. His armor is surrounding the presidential palace, where Republican Guard units under the command of Saleh’s son, Ahmed, have taken up defensive positions. This could get very messy, quickly and much depends on whether the Saudi’s support Saleh (who has requested their help) is firm or if they decide to throw him under the bus. I’m betting that the Saudi’s will find a way for Saleh to depart the political stage.
The Saudi’s will have enormous leverage to form a new government. From a political standpoint, general Mohsen might not be the Saudi’s first choice, despite his conservative credentials. He was instrumental in defeating the far more secular south during the civil war, something that pleased the Saudi’s, but as a conservative Islamist might not follow Riyadh’s lead. However, he and his tribe have strong ties to some members of the Saudi royal family. So does Saleh.
This is not Bahrain – with an easy land bridge to cross – so sending troops to Saana, if that is the decision in Riyadh, is likely not an option. Furthermore, the army is split, has tribal loyalties and should not be compared to the Egyptian military. The Saudi’s need to tread carefully since a bad outcome would destabilize the southern border – and stability is what Riyadh is all about.
The question of what happens in Yemen now that Brig. Gen. Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, Saleh’s half-brother, has defected to the opposition lies in the hands of the Saudi’s. Mohsen is commander the northwestern military zone, has significant influence in Yemen’s old guard and has deployed an armored formation to protect the protester. His armor is surrounding the presidential palace, where Republican Guard units under the command of Saleh’s son, Ahmed, have taken up defensive positions. This could get very messy, quickly and much depends on whether the Saudi’s support Saleh (who has requested their help) is firm or if they decide to throw him under the bus. I’m betting that the Saudi’s will find a way for Saleh to depart the political stage.
The Saudi’s will have enormous leverage to form a new government. From a political standpoint, general Mohsen might not be the Saudi’s first choice, despite his conservative credentials. He was instrumental in defeating the far more secular south during the civil war, something that pleased the Saudi’s, but as a conservative Islamist might not follow Riyadh’s lead. However, he and his tribe have strong ties to some members of the Saudi royal family. So does Saleh.
This is not Bahrain – with an easy land bridge to cross – so sending troops to Saana, if that is the decision in Riyadh, is likely not an option. Furthermore, the army is split, has tribal loyalties and should not be compared to the Egyptian military. The Saudi’s need to tread carefully since a bad outcome would destabilize the southern border – and stability is what Riyadh is all about.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Discussion Rules
I find this extremely useful – and something that should be the basis of comments on blogs (particularly the comments that appear on Washington Note which are mostly inane, illogical and break the first three rules in this chart all of the time).
H/T to zenpundit for this:
Someone Please Rid Europe of Lukashenko
Image via Wikipedia
Libya's Civil War - What Happens Next?
Image by شبكة برق | B.R.Q via FlickrAl Jazeera (which has the absolutely best coverage) reports that the “Arab Street” is not protesting and doesn’t really care. It is Qadaffi, after all – and he is hardly anyone’s favourite dictator in this region. They are outraged, for example, of the slaughter of protesters in Yemen last Friday where over 40 were killed by snipers firing into a crowd. But, they also know that Qadaffi has killed thousands and that his tanks, once inside a city, indiscriminately fire on civilians, apartment buildings and generally cause massive destruction and death. There is no comparison.
Not to beat a dead horse, but now that the initial assault is over and the Libyan air force, air defence and its command and control centers have been obliterated in 36 hours – something only, by the way, the US could do – now what? Assuming that the US now fades into the background and hands the intervention over to Europe, what is Europe going to do since one outcome may be that Qadaffi stays in power?
Although the European nations contributing to the effort include Denmark, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, Greece, Norway and the UK, it is clear that future control will be handed to either France or the UK. The contributions of Qatar (which makes me a little nervous since I am sitting here) and the UAE are important, but the European coalition needs to engage and bring in Egypt, at the least, Algeria and perhaps Turkey (although its economic interests and Erdogan’s instincts about military intervention may make Turkey’s involvement problematic). This will become even more critical if, as may very well happen, talks are opened with Qadaffi. In that case, under no circumstances should Europe (much less the US) be seen as removing him from power.
Qadaffi may be removed by his own military at some point for self-preservation. That still leaves a divided country with a self-proclaimed government in the east which, without European firepower, would probably have been decimated this past weekend. It still has no military resources or organizational capability to cross the desert and take Sirte, much less Tripoli, so the prospect of some sort of game changer – removal of Qadaffi by supporters – is important to prevent the prolongation of what is really a civil war. If that does not happen, then Europe must enlist the Arabs into more substantial support.
From the reports of al Jazeera, it is has become abundantly clear that there are rivalries within the rebel camp that are maneuvering for power. Europe also needs to tread carefully here since Libya is tribal by nature and a slight of one group could lead to increased violence. Again, it will be necessary to draw in Libya’s neighbors to avoid internecine fights in whatever new government is formed.
Assuming Qadaffi and his family do not go down with the ship, what happens to them? Does anyone have a strategy for the improbable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)