Late on Tuesday, France’s president Nicolas Sarkozy announced that he and president Barack Obama had reached an agreement to transfer from the United States to Nato the command of the military campaign in Libya.
Libya military action, March 21-22 (BBC)
The statement said, “The two presidents have come to an agreement on the way to use the command structures of NATO to support the coalition,” without giving any additional details, according to the BBC.
For several days, Obama has been seeking such a command transfer, to occur as quickly as possible. The administration has indicated that it does not want the U.S. to have a leadership role in the third simultaneous invasion of a Muslim country.
This demand has led to something of a political circus in Brussels, as Nato ministers from different countries jockeyed with one another to demand that Nato take or not take command of the Libyan invasion.
Turkey is a member of Nato, and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has led the way in opposing Nato involvement the invasion. Hurriyet quotes him as saying that the distribution of humanitarian aid in Libya is acceptable, but nothing more:
“We do not want Libya to become a second Iraq … A civilization in Iraq collapsed within eight years. More than a million people were killed there.We will not participate with our fighting forces. It is impossible for us to think that our fighters would drop bombs over the Libyan people.”
Sarkozy has also been opposed to a Nato command, saying that it would send “the wrong message” to the Arab world. British prime minister David Cameron has been the strongest supporter of a Nato command. Thus, Sarkozy made a proposal early on Tuesday to have Britain and France jointly command the Libyan action, leaving Nato out of it.
And so Sarkozy’s evening announcement was quite a surprise. Sarkozy would like to take the lead in action on Libya because he’s running for reelection next year, and has been suffering ruinous poll ratings, according to Reuters. Still the announcement of Nato involvement seems to indicate a defeat for him.
Additional details on the Nato agreement were made available by the Guardian. According to the article:
- Nato will assume the day-to-day military command of the no-fly zone, using the alliance’s usual military structures. The operation could be run by Admiral James Stavridis, the US supreme allied commander in Europe, who works from the Nato’s military headquarters in Mons, Belgium.
- Political oversight will be provided by members of a new coalition, which would include Arab countries such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, that are outside of Nato.
However, the circus may not be over, since this plan has to be put to a vote by all 28 members of Nato.
A couple of commentators have pointed out something I hadn’t realized: President Obama started the action in Libya exactly 8 years, almost to the day, that President George Bush started the action in Iraq. There must be something in the White House water that causes Presidents to go to war exactly 26 months after entering office.
In January 2003, I wrote my “first article” for the Generational Dynamics web site. At that time, I was very tentative, and it was before I’d developed the forecasting methodology, but I wrote the following to describe one set of forecasts being put forth by economists in those days, just prior to the Iraq war: “Those who believe that once we do our quickie, no-pain, one-to-two-week war in Iraq, the stock market will rebound to its 1999 levels, up above 11,000.”
This comment was meant to be sardonic without going too far out on a limb, since I was just starting out.
Now, eight years later, I’m much bitchier, much more cynical, much more paranoid, and I don’t particularly trust anyone or believe what anyone says any more. But I still can’t go too far out on a limb, because Who Knows? Maybe the Obama administration has a real plan that we don’t know about. Or maybe Gaddafi will step down, or maybe someone will shoot him and blow his brains out.
So, let me say the following, BASED ON THE INFORMATION I HAVE AT THIS MOMENT:
- Hopes and expectations for the Libyan action are waaaaay over the top unrealistic.
- As soon as anything goes wrong, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, China, Germany and many other countries will turn against the U.S. very vocally.
- This Nato leadership debacle appears to be a total farce.
- There is no apparent credible plan or objective for the Libyan action.
- There has been no credible explanation for whether or not a coalition “victory” would leave Gaddafi in place. (This was a huge issue for Saddam Hussein in both the 1991 and 2003 Iraq invasions.)
- There is no credible explanation for whether a no-fly zone would have to be kept in place forever, if Gaddafi stays in place and the fighting stops.
- There is no credible explanation for who will govern Libya’s tribes if Gaddafi is gone. (Once again, this was a huge issue after Saddam was driven from office in Iraq.)
- The US and Mideast are in a generational Crisis era, meaning that people are “attracted to” conflict and war, so that one problem can lead to a chain reaction of problems.
I’m not one of those people who wish the United States or its President ill just because I don’t like some of his policies. I sincerely hope that, either through skillful planning or through sheer unadulterated luck, President Obama pulls us through this crisis successfully, with our heads held high. But based on the information available today, I don’t see how that can happen.
Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.