The Libya Gamble Part 1: Hillary Clinton, "Smart Power" and a Dictator's Fall by Jo Becker and Scott Shane, New York Times
By the time Mahmoud Jibril cleared customs at Le Bourget airport and sped into Paris, the American secretary of state had been waiting for hours. But this was not a meeting Hillary Clinton could cancel. Their encounter could decide whether America was again going to war.
In the throes of the Arab Spring, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was facing a furious revolt by Libyans determined to end his quixotic 42-year rule. The dictator’s forces were approaching Benghazi, the crucible of the rebellion, and threatening a blood bath. France and Britain were urging the United States to join them in a military campaign to halt Colonel Qaddafi’s troops, and now the Arab League, too, was calling for action.
President Obama was deeply wary of another military venture in a Muslim country. Most of his senior advisers were telling him to stay out. Still, he dispatched Mrs. Clinton to sound out Mr. Jibril, a leader of the Libyan opposition. Their late-night meeting on March 14, 2011, would be the first chance for a top American official to get a sense of whom, exactly, the United States was being asked to support.
In her suite at the Westin, she and Mr. Jibril, a political scientist with a doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh, spoke at length about the fast-moving military situation in Libya. But Mrs. Clinton was clearly also thinking about Iraq, and its hard lessons for American intervention…
Comments
Your post is truly helpful…
Your post is truly helpful to understand the gambling rules in it. Gambling is an excellent activity that entertains and makes you win, but it negates its purpose when losing happens. That is why many people are trying to find ways to make money in gambling. Gambling can be profitable if you know how to play accordingly and for this, you can use this link to play in casino and became so attractive in the 21st century. Thanks!
Using the Old Cold War as our example, then an argument might be made that (a) it is indeed "about us" and that (b) it is indeed about us "getting it right."
Thus, and as this Old Cold War argument goes, it is:
a. As per "our" (rather than "their" contrary) wishes and
b. Via "our" (rather than "their" contrary) Cold War efforts that
c. We find such great nations as Russia and China today being organized, ordered and oriented (to one extent or another and to one degree or another) more along modern western lines (to wit: as per our Old Cold War grand political objective).
It is in this light (that it is indeed about "our" rather than "their" wishes, and that it is indeed about "our" rather than "their" efforts to achieve same) that we might view our failures in the Greater Middle East, and elsewhere, today.
Herein to suggest that the contrary wants, needs and desires of other governments and/or other populations, in the Old Cold War light offered above, these -- back in the day -- were seen simply as the "normal" things that we were expected to overcome.
Where everything post-the Cold War, and re: our recent efforts in the Greater Middle East and elsewhere, went wrong is that we came to believe, via such concepts as "universal values" and "the end of history" (the western versions), that:
a. "Normal" (see "contrary" above) no longer existed and, thus,
b. "Normal" (i.e, "contrary") no longer needed to be overcome.
Today, however, and via the "school of hard knocks," we have come to understand that this was totally wrong, that "normal" continues to exist and that, accordingly, we must reorganize and regroup -- more along Old Cold War lines (think political warfare, unconventional warfare, etc.) -- this, so as to address and overcome what was "normal" in the past and what is, sadly, still very much "normal" today.
Attempting to shape the outcome in Syria (soft regime change through proxies) is how we go ourselves into one of our messes in the Middle East. And outright regime change would have been suicidal. If Assad goes, what comes next?
Russia didn't weaponize the situation, everyone has by picking a proxy and suppling money, weapons, whatever. Europe has a combined GDP that is bigger than the US and many of the Eastern European countries make more money trading with Russia in terms of percentage of GDP than they spend on defense. We have no business saber rattling on a border of a country with that many nukes trained at our cities. Anyway, if it's little green men, why is no one interested in the borders and only interested in big money contracts and weapons? General Breedlove is dangerous. Better to keep your mouth shut as you prepare, a news hound helps no one.
Sorry, I just used your comment as an excuse to pontificate. Our shaping is a disaster, 99 percent of the time.
What strikes me most about these articles, and many others on similar subjects, is a plaintive, almost childlike conviction that outcomes in places like Libya, Iraq, and Syria are all about US, and that if America could just somehow "get it right", a clean, painless transition from dictatorship to democracy would somehow follow.
This is, of course, complete nonsense.
It's not about us. The nation where the transition is happening can "get it right". Tunisia has, to a large extent. Egypt has, to a lesser extent: the transition is anything but clean and attractive, but the nation has not collapsed into anarchy. That's not up to us. It's up to them.
It's easy to play the retrospective hypothetical game, and pretend that Libya, Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan would be on a better course if only America could "get it right". Of course nobody knows what "getting it right" would have been, or how it could have been achieved, and any given alternative course could just as easily get it wrong.
Leaving a dictator in power in the face of a popular challenge can have devastating consequences. Removing a dictator can have devastating consequences. Aiding a rebellion can have devastating consequences. There is no sure recipe for a positive outcome, and in many cases there is no "getting it right". It's just not up to us: there are many other forces in play, and many other internal and external actors, and things can easily go completely wrong no matter what the US does.
Is anyone reading? I think it's over for SWJ, really, and has been for a long time. I disagree with others that say there is nothing here, younger people always need some outlet for writing and smaller places are good for practice.
But there are other places to place propaganda (War on the Rocks) or contractor pieces that better police the comments sections which is what influence agents want. And the relationship between British academia and American military institutions is interesting. If I were British, I'd want to pay more attention to this, I think it negatively impacts your foreign policy as does the almost lock hold the Saudis have on it. No conspiracy theorist here, it's just a facet of the Deep State that people shy away from for some reason.
The only way to survive is to link truly academic pieces in peer reviewed journals which should encourage the more interesting articles that appear here from time to time, such as the articles about women in combat and whether there should be an unconventional warfare command, etc.
Otherwise, it's just over. Too bad. I always liked some of the articles by the veterans that detailed a personal experience, especially many of the younger veterans that tried to make sense of their own experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You can't help someone that doesn't want to help himself, though.
Madhu,
You are certainly "on form" here.
For readers Madhu refers to: 'Ryan Evans of War on the Rocks "proudly" linked some talk by David Kilcullen and a former Red Cross official'. The link is: http://warontherocks.com/2016/02/special-live-stream-event-david-kilcul…
It appears on the Kilcullen thread, which has 137k views over ten years: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=12934
Her second reference is: 'Look, he could be a good guy but he's a marketer for war, just like Dr. Linn talked about in that Gresham College talk. Funny, Dr. Linn talked about Evans as someone to listen to even as he brought up the need to understand how war is marketed'.
The link is: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-american-way-of-war-in…
It appears in a stand alone thread, with 1891 views and no responses: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=23543
What's new here? Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, was utterly clueless outside of domestic political pandering with an eye of the Presidency, as if focus group phrasing helps in international affairs:
<blockquote>In a 2010 email chain, Clinton’s aides debated the use of the phrase “do more” in the context of US comments and remarks about Pakistan’s counter-terrorism measures.
.
Whenever the US uses the phrase “do More” to ask Pakistan to do more on terrorism, Pakistanis use it, a state department official said in the mail, to tell their people that, “After so much cost and so many losses and so many bombs in our cities, the Americans are telling us we're still not doing enough.”
.
“This negative interpretation is used by the PakMil (Pakistan’s military) to convince Pakistanis that the US is a malign influence and to avoid taking the steps we seek.”
.
<strong>So, the aide suggested that Clinton should be briefed to “avoid literally using the words ‘do more’,” but “Do not hesitate to specify what we want them to do.”</strong></blockquote>
http://www.hindustantimes.com/world/what-hillary-s-emails-say-about-us-…
Middle East, China, NATO, it's all the same. She's deeply ignorant as are all of the people in that world. She asks staff for papers to read and her politicized staff sends dumb Foreign Policy articles to her according to the emails.
It's over. The Deep State wants a Clinton presidency because she can be easily maneuvered and persuaded. She, like most American politicians, is deeply ignorant of the outside world and knows only personal connections as a political operative, as the wife of a President, etc. She will keep the party going, keep the money to contractors flowing. Trump is a wild card and erratic and Sanders has an actual record of not voting for war from time to time to go on.
It doesn't matter. The Borg will win. I don't regret many things in life because life is to be lived and supposed to be messy and complicated but I do regret ever coming across any of the bloggers that I did because I have spent years unlearning things, and then relearning how morally corrupt the Deep State is with its ugly McLean houses, etc.
Ryan Evans of War on the Rocks "proudly" linked some talk by David Kilcullen and a former Red Cross official -- who is now a contractor too. All without pointing out any financial disclosures.
If he did ask for them, he'd be dropped so quickly he wouldn't know what hit him. Look, he could be a good guy but he's a marketer for war, just like Dr. Linn talked about in that Gresham College talk. Funny, Dr. Linn talked about Evans as someone to listen to even as he brought up the need to understand how war is marketed.
One way might be the hesitance of people to criticize if they personally like someone. Just because you are a nice person doesn't mean you are doing the right thing.
Hillary Clinton is easily outmaneuvered because she doesn't care and neither do her tribal supporters. Any foreign intelligence agency can get at her by supplying the opposition to a regime she doesn't like with all kinds of planted information.
She doesn't know anything. Who thinks that talking differently to the Pak mil would get them to change course. How dumb do you have to be? But everyone wanting a position in her admin will still kiss her ass. I expect Andrew Exum or David Killcullen--or who knows, even a future rehabilitated John Nagl-- to discover her unique brilliance. They could be nice people in real life for all I know but it doesn't matter. Actions count.