I'm going to jump ahead of this train for a moment. Shortly enough, we'll be hearing outrage about Israel's "excessive use of force" or disproportionate use of force or some such nonsense. Which is odd, since I'm sure those people who will use those terms have not thought to condemn the Palestinian use of weapons against Israel over the last few days and the deaths that were caused.
Then again, I don't remember hearing outrage against Palestine's disproportionate use of force when an anti-tank missile was used against an Israeli school bus.
Let me offer a solution to this problem. The Palestinians need to get the hell out of Palestine. Go to Egypt, or Jordan, or Syria, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or wherever you like, but leave Gaza and the West Bank. Cease your rather ridiculous claim to the area. It's not the end of the world. Look at the Irish outside of Ireland, the Africans outside of Africa, or (dare I mention it) the Jews who fled Europe. Prosperity will never follow rocket attacks against children; only incoming fire will follow.
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
The Daily Snark 6/24
This Libya mission continues to be a muddled mess. The House of Representatives shoots down an authorization bill but also votes to not defund the mission. If nothing else, this shows the importance of gaining Congressional approval prior to launching attacks overseas. I have no idea what our goal is in Libya or whether we are following our own laws in being there (though I highly suspect not in that second case).
Not the way "Hope and Change" was supposed to be.
Not the way "Hope and Change" was supposed to be.
Monday, June 20, 2011
The Daily Snark 6/20
Today marks the 91st day since the United States began bombing Libya. This is important, since as of this day President Obama is required by law to have Congressional authorization in order to continue the attack.
He doesn't have that authorization. The attacks are continuing.
To begin with, this law was broken when the attack was initiated. The President may only introduce the use of military force when
To make matters worse, even if the attack began legitimately, the War Powers Resolution does require Congressional authorization within 90 days. We have passed that mark and the President continues his attack with Congressional authorization. Pretty clearly, this law is being broken by the executive branch.
The written excuse put out by the President is beyond contemptible. Basically, the argument is that this is a small conflict, so it doesn't count. Go back to the War Powers Resolution and you'll note that there is no exception made for small conflicts, or those involving low probability of casualties, or not having boots on the ground. If the President wishes to use military force against another nation, he must have Congressional approval. No exceptions are made in the law.
The War Powers Resolution fills a necessary hole in our division of power, as military action may be necessary before the slow gears of legislation can catch up to a national emergency in our modern age. Pretty clearly, Libya was no threat to our nation; if we wished to change their regime or stabilize the region, those are reasonable objects, but they require a national discussion followed by approval from the branch closest to the People. The President's action is nothing more than a naked power grab, which unfortunately will pay off for him. There is no real judicial recourse to end the campaign; no court writ will undo Libyan lives ended by American missiles.
I've pointed out elsewhere that the political and moral reasons for this Libyan intervention are pretty ridiculous as they could just as easily apply to Syria, which the Administration has shied away from. It looked like an easy opportunity to have a rally 'round the flag effect and show the United States supporting purported democracy lovers in the Middle East. Clearly, that has not been the case. That the President is so willing to break the rule of law is most distressing. Some modification to the War Powers Resolution is required in order to give it judicial teeth; if a law cannot be enforced, it is not a law.
He doesn't have that authorization. The attacks are continuing.
To begin with, this law was broken when the attack was initiated. The President may only introduce the use of military force when
- there is an declaration of war
- specific Congressional authorization
- a national emergency in which the United States is being directly attacked.
To make matters worse, even if the attack began legitimately, the War Powers Resolution does require Congressional authorization within 90 days. We have passed that mark and the President continues his attack with Congressional authorization. Pretty clearly, this law is being broken by the executive branch.
The written excuse put out by the President is beyond contemptible. Basically, the argument is that this is a small conflict, so it doesn't count. Go back to the War Powers Resolution and you'll note that there is no exception made for small conflicts, or those involving low probability of casualties, or not having boots on the ground. If the President wishes to use military force against another nation, he must have Congressional approval. No exceptions are made in the law.
The War Powers Resolution fills a necessary hole in our division of power, as military action may be necessary before the slow gears of legislation can catch up to a national emergency in our modern age. Pretty clearly, Libya was no threat to our nation; if we wished to change their regime or stabilize the region, those are reasonable objects, but they require a national discussion followed by approval from the branch closest to the People. The President's action is nothing more than a naked power grab, which unfortunately will pay off for him. There is no real judicial recourse to end the campaign; no court writ will undo Libyan lives ended by American missiles.
I've pointed out elsewhere that the political and moral reasons for this Libyan intervention are pretty ridiculous as they could just as easily apply to Syria, which the Administration has shied away from. It looked like an easy opportunity to have a rally 'round the flag effect and show the United States supporting purported democracy lovers in the Middle East. Clearly, that has not been the case. That the President is so willing to break the rule of law is most distressing. Some modification to the War Powers Resolution is required in order to give it judicial teeth; if a law cannot be enforced, it is not a law.
Monday, April 25, 2011
The Daily Snark 4/25
Remember when Iraq War opponents said we need to keep our eye on the ball in Afghanistan? Swing and a miss, I suppose.
Here's what I had to say about that argument back in September. Still seems pretty valid to me.
Here's what I had to say about that argument back in September. Still seems pretty valid to me.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Musings on the Obama Doctrine
Last night, President Obama addressed the nation in the hope of clearing up both our role in Libya's civil war and the principles guiding the President concerning foreign policy. Coming up with a coherent foreign policy is difficult to an extreme; I am yet to find a truly convincing theory of international relations. Most tend to gloss over certain problems in order to purchase support for a few clearly stated ideas. Obama's doctrine (or so it is being called) lacks the clearly stated ideas but failed to prevent the glossing over of injustices or incorrect facts. In fact, it is difficult to really nail down just what it is the President even meant last night, but since he is in the driver's seat for the next two years, it is important to parse out what information we can.
The text of his speech can be found here.
Should the President be initiation conflicts without Congressional approval?
For starters, Obama has yet to gain approval for this use of force from Congress. While many liberals disliked the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nobody can deny that President George W. Bush received Congressional approval prior to the initiation of hostilities. There is a great deal of legal entanglement concerning the use of force, particularly with the War Powers Resolution, but even then a strong case can be made that Obama should have Congressional approval first. That Act gives the President the use of force under three circumstances:
1. A declaration of war. That does not exist in this case.
2. Specific statutory authorization. This is hard to distinguish from a declaration of war; regardless, it also does not exist in this case.
3. A national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. An extremely weak case could be made concerning attacks on our troops in the 1980's, but this argument has not been put forth. The United States is not under attack.
Simply put, Obama has no real authorization to launch these attacks without Congressional approval. As a general rule of thumb, unless we are being attacked, Congressional approval should be required before hostilities are launched against another nation. The President did not address this point last night, a very disturbing sign.
Can other nations or the United Nations send our forces into war?
The President largely relied on the United Nations Security Council's Resolution 1973 to provide justification for the use of force. The United Nations is a questionable source of authority; until recently, Libya was on its Human Rights Council. Regardless, the right to use force resides with the federal government of the United States, not with the United Nations Security Council. Only a Constitutional Amendment may change that fact. We may use force at our discretion with or without United Nations approval.
Furthermore, the argument that N.A.T.O. taking over leadership improves America's position is ridiculous. America will provide the men, the muscle, and the money, but generals from other nations will lead it. Having the leadership is not the burden; paying for the muscle work is. The former is shared, the latter is not, and honestly cannot be, as most nations lack the ability to provide the hardware and soldiers for a sustained campaign beyond their own borders.
When may the United States overthrow dictators?
The President lacked clarity on this point. During his speech, he said
Obviously, we need some criteria. No such criteria are really put forth, however, that are consistent with Obama's past actions as President. There is the prospect of violence and civilian casualties, but the same can be said of Iran in 2009. There is supposedly a popular uprising in Libya; there was just as much evidence for one in Iran in 2009 and Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria today, yet we have not intervened there. We have an "international mandate" that includes opposition from Russia and China. A broad coalition, but not one nearly as broad as that which invaded Iraq in 2003 (often derided as "going it alone").
With much of the Middle East in turmoil, the question Americans want answer is: why are we intervening in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, or Iran?
Where does this end?
This is the big question. We have a confused strategy of seeking Qaddafi's removal but tying our hands behind our backs concerning the means of doing so. Qaddafi will not leave voluntarily, the rebels cannot remove him by force, and we will not do so. This leads to a permanent stalemate. The longer the stalemate exists with us as Qaddafi's active enemies, the longer he has to strike back at us via unconventional warfare or terrorism. That leads to the very real risk of a ground war we cannot afford right now. It is not certain that the rebels will win, even with N.A.T.O. air cover.
Even if the rebels topple Qaddafi, there is hardly anything we can do to plan for the aftermath. Yes, the rather unknown council semi-leading the rebels could claim control, but there is no certainty that they could keep it or prevent infighting from splintering them and leading Libya into a protracted civil war. There are people loyal to Qaddafi; will we protect those citizens should rebel forces attack them?
Make up your mind.
The President attempted to lay out a clear plan to let the world know when the United States will intervene even if it is not directly threatened. He failed miserably in that attempt. Furthermore, our commitment and goals in this particular case remain vague. If we wish to help the rebels, air strikes alone are insufficient; Qaddafi must go. But we will supposedly be bound by the U.N. resolution limiting our action to protecting civilians. Does creating a protracted civil war protect civilians? Spending ten days waiting while Qaddafi's forces overran the rebels and then suddenly striking Libyan forces out of the clear blue is hardly decisive leadership.
Creating a consistent policy for the use of force is insanely difficult and no ideology, left, right, or otherwise, should pretend it is not so. While the first two sections I wrote are rather limited to the President's theory, the following two certainly could (and were) applied to the neoconservative efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The benefit of previous policies was a clear cut goal that provided some benefit despite the other problems inherent in the theory. President Obama's plan lacks these clear benefits but maintains the inconsistencies; if it is to be considered a theory at all, it is one that should be rejected.
The text of his speech can be found here.
Should the President be initiation conflicts without Congressional approval?
For starters, Obama has yet to gain approval for this use of force from Congress. While many liberals disliked the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nobody can deny that President George W. Bush received Congressional approval prior to the initiation of hostilities. There is a great deal of legal entanglement concerning the use of force, particularly with the War Powers Resolution, but even then a strong case can be made that Obama should have Congressional approval first. That Act gives the President the use of force under three circumstances:
1. A declaration of war. That does not exist in this case.
2. Specific statutory authorization. This is hard to distinguish from a declaration of war; regardless, it also does not exist in this case.
3. A national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. An extremely weak case could be made concerning attacks on our troops in the 1980's, but this argument has not been put forth. The United States is not under attack.
Simply put, Obama has no real authorization to launch these attacks without Congressional approval. As a general rule of thumb, unless we are being attacked, Congressional approval should be required before hostilities are launched against another nation. The President did not address this point last night, a very disturbing sign.
Can other nations or the United Nations send our forces into war?
The President largely relied on the United Nations Security Council's Resolution 1973 to provide justification for the use of force. The United Nations is a questionable source of authority; until recently, Libya was on its Human Rights Council. Regardless, the right to use force resides with the federal government of the United States, not with the United Nations Security Council. Only a Constitutional Amendment may change that fact. We may use force at our discretion with or without United Nations approval.
Furthermore, the argument that N.A.T.O. taking over leadership improves America's position is ridiculous. America will provide the men, the muscle, and the money, but generals from other nations will lead it. Having the leadership is not the burden; paying for the muscle work is. The former is shared, the latter is not, and honestly cannot be, as most nations lack the ability to provide the hardware and soldiers for a sustained campaign beyond their own borders.
When may the United States overthrow dictators?
The President lacked clarity on this point. During his speech, he said
It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right.
Obviously, we need some criteria. No such criteria are really put forth, however, that are consistent with Obama's past actions as President. There is the prospect of violence and civilian casualties, but the same can be said of Iran in 2009. There is supposedly a popular uprising in Libya; there was just as much evidence for one in Iran in 2009 and Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria today, yet we have not intervened there. We have an "international mandate" that includes opposition from Russia and China. A broad coalition, but not one nearly as broad as that which invaded Iraq in 2003 (often derided as "going it alone").
With much of the Middle East in turmoil, the question Americans want answer is: why are we intervening in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, or Iran?
And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.Unless we are talking about Iran. Or Bahrain. Or Yemen. Or Syria. The goal is noble enough, but our President has not refused to wait for such images before.
Where does this end?
This is the big question. We have a confused strategy of seeking Qaddafi's removal but tying our hands behind our backs concerning the means of doing so. Qaddafi will not leave voluntarily, the rebels cannot remove him by force, and we will not do so. This leads to a permanent stalemate. The longer the stalemate exists with us as Qaddafi's active enemies, the longer he has to strike back at us via unconventional warfare or terrorism. That leads to the very real risk of a ground war we cannot afford right now. It is not certain that the rebels will win, even with N.A.T.O. air cover.
Even if the rebels topple Qaddafi, there is hardly anything we can do to plan for the aftermath. Yes, the rather unknown council semi-leading the rebels could claim control, but there is no certainty that they could keep it or prevent infighting from splintering them and leading Libya into a protracted civil war. There are people loyal to Qaddafi; will we protect those citizens should rebel forces attack them?
Make up your mind.
The President attempted to lay out a clear plan to let the world know when the United States will intervene even if it is not directly threatened. He failed miserably in that attempt. Furthermore, our commitment and goals in this particular case remain vague. If we wish to help the rebels, air strikes alone are insufficient; Qaddafi must go. But we will supposedly be bound by the U.N. resolution limiting our action to protecting civilians. Does creating a protracted civil war protect civilians? Spending ten days waiting while Qaddafi's forces overran the rebels and then suddenly striking Libyan forces out of the clear blue is hardly decisive leadership.
Creating a consistent policy for the use of force is insanely difficult and no ideology, left, right, or otherwise, should pretend it is not so. While the first two sections I wrote are rather limited to the President's theory, the following two certainly could (and were) applied to the neoconservative efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The benefit of previous policies was a clear cut goal that provided some benefit despite the other problems inherent in the theory. President Obama's plan lacks these clear benefits but maintains the inconsistencies; if it is to be considered a theory at all, it is one that should be rejected.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Current State of the Afghanistan Conflict
I am about to pick up The Soviet-Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost at the Owego library. This book was written by the Soviet General Staff to analyze their performance during the conflict. Given the situation we find ourselves it, it seems like an appropriate book to read. Before I do, I want to jot down a few thoughts I have about the state of the conflict.
We find ourselves at war with a terrorist band rather than a nation state. It has similarities to what the Romans faced trying to purge the Illyrian pirates but with far greater international and internal pressure to reduce unnecessary violence, even against the terrorists themselves. This enemy has already proven themselves capable of striking at us and striking hard; there is no reason to believe that, left unmolested, they could not perform even worse feats against us.
This war also has parallels to the Punic Wars. There, tribes and cities would routinely switch sides to whichever power appeared to be the strongest at the present moment in time. Tribes and factions throughout the Muslim world, not to mention individuals, are far more likely to join Al Qaeda if Al Qaeda has the appearance of winning the conflict. It is imperative that we never allow such an impression to be made.
Afghanistan is one of the worst places we could be fighting such a conflict. Iraq was far better. Guerrilla insurrections survive by not fighting pitched battles but rather operating with hit and run tactics, always preserving their fighting force from the militarily stronger opposition. This means the guerrillas need a place to operate from that either cannot be located or operated in by their stronger enemy. There are generally two places to hide: the terrain and the population.
In Iraq, the terrain is not particularly well suited to hide guerrilla bands. Large areas are fairly open; forests are few and mountains are primarily located to the north in Kurdish territory. The population was initially not hostile towards Al Qaeda or other insurgent groups. Ironically, the setbacks we faced in 2006, when Al Qaeda was left in charge of large segments of the population, proved to be beneficial for the United States. Strict Islamic law was applied; Iraqis, who have a long history of living in a quasi-western civilization, were appalled. At the end of 2006, the United States declared their intention to see the conflict through to the end, launching "the surge" and increasing the number of troops on the ground by tens of thousands. Al Qaeda was never strong enough to take on the full power of the United States military and after alienating the local population found themselves having no place to hide. Since 2008, casualties in Iraq have plummeted despite America having less than one third of our troops remaining in country.
This was a great win for us. Al Qaeda had declared that Iraq would be their central front in their jihad against us, but in the end Al Qaeda was largely annihilated! We should be proclaiming those two facts throughout the Muslim world to show we are more than capable of beating this enemy. As I said, and as ancient and modern history show, the side that appears to be winning is the side that people join while the other suffers desertions.
Unfortunately, political considerations got in the way. Our current administration declared that the Iraq war was "stupid" and that the surge would increase rather than decrease violence there. Afghanistan was the good war, the area we needed to be fighting in. Perception is what determines whether a person or tribe will join Al Qaeda; our performance in Iraq would be a great piece of propaganda, especially concerning Al Qaeda's boast that they would win there, but this administration will not use it because it would undermine their earlier ardent opposition to the liberation of Iraq.
So instead we sent a surge of troops to Afghanistan, put General Petreaus in charge, and gave them a two year deadline to achieve the impossible. Afghanistan is mountainous and borders Pakistan, a country that isn't hostile to the Taliban/Al Qaeda message. The people of Afghanistan are different from the people of Iraq; they do not have a long history of living a semi-western lifestyle and sharia law is more acceptable there. Our enemies can hide in the terrain and the population with far greater ease than they could in Iraq.
Moreover, this administration is blatantly putting political goals ahead of the military situation. Our generals flat out told the President that a timetable for withdrawing from Afghanistan is merely giving the enemy a countdown to victory, creating the impression among the locals that they cannot trust our commitment and driving them towards the enemy who will be there long after July 2011. If the Taliban remain then (and they will), communities will not want to explain why they helped the Americans to those brutal warlords. Best way of not having to say sorry is to not piss off the warlords in the first place.
Mr. Woodward's recent book quotes the President as creating the July 2011 deadline because "I [Obama] can't lose the whole Democratic Party." This has absolutely nothing to do with the military situation. More of our troops have died this year in Afghanistan than in any previous year; Obama's reelection should not be a reason American soldiers die.
I need to remind the readers that Obama had absolutely no military experience prior to coming into office; there is little evidence he has studied warfare, either. It almost appears that his decision to send a "surge" of troops and put Petreaus in charge comes from the fact that those combination of things worked in Iraq (despite Obama's vocal opposition at the time). As I've pointed out, the terrain and people are very different in Afghanistan than they are in Iraq. From what I have read, it seems our President was shocked he could not get an exit strategy out of his generals. This was a common complaint against Bush by the Left. Wars are not fought with exit strategies; you pick your goal and then you beat and kill your opponent until they accept those terms or are no longer physically able to resist them.
We find ourselves at war with a terrorist band rather than a nation state. It has similarities to what the Romans faced trying to purge the Illyrian pirates but with far greater international and internal pressure to reduce unnecessary violence, even against the terrorists themselves. This enemy has already proven themselves capable of striking at us and striking hard; there is no reason to believe that, left unmolested, they could not perform even worse feats against us.
This war also has parallels to the Punic Wars. There, tribes and cities would routinely switch sides to whichever power appeared to be the strongest at the present moment in time. Tribes and factions throughout the Muslim world, not to mention individuals, are far more likely to join Al Qaeda if Al Qaeda has the appearance of winning the conflict. It is imperative that we never allow such an impression to be made.
Afghanistan is one of the worst places we could be fighting such a conflict. Iraq was far better. Guerrilla insurrections survive by not fighting pitched battles but rather operating with hit and run tactics, always preserving their fighting force from the militarily stronger opposition. This means the guerrillas need a place to operate from that either cannot be located or operated in by their stronger enemy. There are generally two places to hide: the terrain and the population.
In Iraq, the terrain is not particularly well suited to hide guerrilla bands. Large areas are fairly open; forests are few and mountains are primarily located to the north in Kurdish territory. The population was initially not hostile towards Al Qaeda or other insurgent groups. Ironically, the setbacks we faced in 2006, when Al Qaeda was left in charge of large segments of the population, proved to be beneficial for the United States. Strict Islamic law was applied; Iraqis, who have a long history of living in a quasi-western civilization, were appalled. At the end of 2006, the United States declared their intention to see the conflict through to the end, launching "the surge" and increasing the number of troops on the ground by tens of thousands. Al Qaeda was never strong enough to take on the full power of the United States military and after alienating the local population found themselves having no place to hide. Since 2008, casualties in Iraq have plummeted despite America having less than one third of our troops remaining in country.
This was a great win for us. Al Qaeda had declared that Iraq would be their central front in their jihad against us, but in the end Al Qaeda was largely annihilated! We should be proclaiming those two facts throughout the Muslim world to show we are more than capable of beating this enemy. As I said, and as ancient and modern history show, the side that appears to be winning is the side that people join while the other suffers desertions.
Unfortunately, political considerations got in the way. Our current administration declared that the Iraq war was "stupid" and that the surge would increase rather than decrease violence there. Afghanistan was the good war, the area we needed to be fighting in. Perception is what determines whether a person or tribe will join Al Qaeda; our performance in Iraq would be a great piece of propaganda, especially concerning Al Qaeda's boast that they would win there, but this administration will not use it because it would undermine their earlier ardent opposition to the liberation of Iraq.
So instead we sent a surge of troops to Afghanistan, put General Petreaus in charge, and gave them a two year deadline to achieve the impossible. Afghanistan is mountainous and borders Pakistan, a country that isn't hostile to the Taliban/Al Qaeda message. The people of Afghanistan are different from the people of Iraq; they do not have a long history of living a semi-western lifestyle and sharia law is more acceptable there. Our enemies can hide in the terrain and the population with far greater ease than they could in Iraq.
Moreover, this administration is blatantly putting political goals ahead of the military situation. Our generals flat out told the President that a timetable for withdrawing from Afghanistan is merely giving the enemy a countdown to victory, creating the impression among the locals that they cannot trust our commitment and driving them towards the enemy who will be there long after July 2011. If the Taliban remain then (and they will), communities will not want to explain why they helped the Americans to those brutal warlords. Best way of not having to say sorry is to not piss off the warlords in the first place.
Mr. Woodward's recent book quotes the President as creating the July 2011 deadline because "I [Obama] can't lose the whole Democratic Party." This has absolutely nothing to do with the military situation. More of our troops have died this year in Afghanistan than in any previous year; Obama's reelection should not be a reason American soldiers die.
I need to remind the readers that Obama had absolutely no military experience prior to coming into office; there is little evidence he has studied warfare, either. It almost appears that his decision to send a "surge" of troops and put Petreaus in charge comes from the fact that those combination of things worked in Iraq (despite Obama's vocal opposition at the time). As I've pointed out, the terrain and people are very different in Afghanistan than they are in Iraq. From what I have read, it seems our President was shocked he could not get an exit strategy out of his generals. This was a common complaint against Bush by the Left. Wars are not fought with exit strategies; you pick your goal and then you beat and kill your opponent until they accept those terms or are no longer physically able to resist them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)