These are some random thoughts on Libya.1) Robert Farley posts the results of his wargames on this blog. I think they are useful posts, but blogs are still an untested medium for discussing wargames. If you give this just a little thought, you will note what is taking place in Libya might be the most played wargame in all of gaming theory. Here we have a scenario where a dictator faces a popular uprising, begins committing atrocities to his own people, and comes under UN sanctions with a broad authority to use military power up to the point of no occupation force. There is no definition of "occupation force" so that alone gives the coalition tremendous flexibility for ground operations, should politics demand it be exercised.
Also noteworthy in this scenario, a broad coalition of nations signs up to enforce the UN resolutions, and with that comes several internal political power struggles. The wargame scenario asks the question how Red Cell stays in power and how Blue Cell overthrows the regime. I'm betting hundreds of you reading this post have played this wargame manifested in some similar way - because I have. We really are dealing with quite a few predictable outcomes in Libya, which means we can plan for a much broader set contingencies than most scenarios the US or any military finds itself in. I see evidence in the open source of preparation for those contingencies taking place almost everywhere I look, and if you look closely, you'll see it too.
2) Some have suggested over Twitter that we are seeing the inherent weakness of Offshore Balancing on display in Libya. I would argue that what we are seeing manifest with US military operations in Libya is the result of an intentionally restricted US policy that desires limited sea power and air power footprints. Offshore balancing can scale up or down to meet the requirements of policy. I beleive everything that is being seen by the US military is in line and represents a reflection of the Obama administrations policy.
3) The rifts between France and Italy suggests the EU nations were supportive of military actions for the UN resolution about 24 hours longer than the Arab League. Italy wants NATO to lead, and has threatened to pull out basing support if operational command is not shifted to NATO. France wants operations outside of NATO, and is offering to lead themselves. Turkey does not want NATO to participate at all.
The reason Italy wants NATO is because they know NATO adds an extra layer of political bureaucracy to operations and will almost certainly result in Gaddafi remaining in power. The likely result is an insurgency movement inside Libya, and this becomes a long term stalemate. NATO comes with significant military advantages though, because NATO is organized in a way to seemlessly integrate operations from all the participating NATO members. There is a lot to be said about the high level of C2 NATO enables for military operations.
France on the other hand knows that NATO will restrict the flexibility of nations to act unilaterally in Libya. While this has not been officially stated, France would like to kill Gaddafi, and like the US has a policy of regime change. By operating outside the restrictions of NATO, France can be much more flexible with their interpretation of the UN Security Council Resolution when taking military action. France believes they can reset the security conditions inside Libya by decapitating the government of Libya, and set conditions for Libya towards reforms. I am uncertain why this also wouldn't lead to insurgency, but some very smart French folks I know believe conditions similar to Tunisia and Egypt will emerge once Gaddafi is gone. Their better argument is that it won't guarantee an insurgency outcome like a NATO led operation almost certainly does.
4) President Obama has provided virtually no leadership for his policy, and the support for the military is proportional to the support of the political policy. There is some irony here though, because a lot of political critics of the administration are about to lose their biggest complaint. We are days, if not hours, from the United States dropping their last bomb on Libya for awhile, and the media is going to lose interest in refueling and electronic warfare sorties with no ordinance delivered pretty quickly. US military operations are going to be very long in tail, very short on tooth, and almost invisible from the perspective of Libya.
The question is, when the US disappears out of sight and out of mind in the military activities related to Libya, how will that impact the US 24/7 news cycle? How will that impact public opinion? The political policy rhetoric by the administration is about to be the only visible connection between the United States and Libya. Words, not actions, will be all that anyone in the media can use in the context of the United States and Libya. The Obama administration is not stupid, they know this is about to happen. We have already delivered 90% - 95%, if not all 100% of all US ordinance to Libya that we will for awhile. There will be nothing to see but actions by our coalition partners, and the political support of the administrations policy.
This abrupt change in military activity by the US is going to have a significant impact on the 24/7 media narrative and cycle, and will leave people like Glenn Greewald and Andrew Sullivan and policy critics on Fox News or MSNBC complaining about... what exactly? Our strategic support for coalition partners in the form of aerial refueling?
Red Cell activities and Blue Cell activities (other than those of the US) are about to become the global media narrative for Libya, because the actions of those players is all anyone is going to see to report on. What will Gaddafi do now that all eyes in the world are watching his actions instead of US military actions? What are the British and French going to do to protect civilians if Gaddafi decides, as he appears to have already done, to violate multiple Geneva Conventions? Tell me what the critics will be saying when all the news cycle shows over the next several weeks is limited bombing campaigns by French and UK forces on obvious military targets while Gaddafi attempts to commit multiple massacres with civilian clothed mercenaries?
There are a lot of bumpy roads ahead for Americans specifically because the US is not taking control - conceding that control to our partners while supporting them in their efforts. Right now the President is being criticized for what the US is doing. I suspect by next week he will be getting criticized for what he is not doing - even though everything that is being done and not done was part of the original plan.
The Obama administration is not stupid. They know that all they have to do is exactly what their critics want - stop bombing (which has been the plan all along as I have already posted) - and the combination of events surrounding Libya and the associated 24/7 media narrative will lead to one of several predictable outcomes.
People are acting like what is unfolding in Libya is spur of the moment. It isn't. The political leadership is damn near criminal with its absence, but the military planning driven by clear policy objectives is a lot better than people think and has been going on a lot longer than anyone realizes. Remember, it takes more than 1 week, and often more than 2 weeks notice for military units (like the Bataan ARG) to be moved to a forward theater as part of an operational surge. Libya is only on day 4, so clearly the planning for Libya has been taking place for awhile now.
I suspect over the next two weeks people will actually start to hear the President talk about US policy for Libya. As he discusses the policy and events that have taken place, my guess is that he will find his policy will gain support, even among current critics. That will probably be about the time he goes to Congress.
I am still very conflicted on the President's Libya policy. If this wasn't an operation layered on top of Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be one of the best developed military coalitions we have seen in a long time. As a layer on top of existing priorities, it still seems to be a bridge too far for me. With that said, I do appreciate that President Obama has been honest and open about what the US policy is from the beginning, even if almost no one in America is actually listening to him.
No comments:
Post a Comment