Framework
The intervention in Libya is a reminder of why we need a framework for interventions that can bring about solutions to a humanitarian crisis and not prolong it indefinitely. This is something that the international community lacks and we are paying for it every day along with millions of others that we try and protect. A plan needs to in place, one that focuses on not only the surface but the deep issues that are forcing these interventions to fail. Here are some of the deep issues that need to be addressed.
1- Humanitarian interventions are a new form of security reasoning. You see it in the discourse of the leaders in the international community as they stand in front of the world and use terms like crisis, disaster, and catastrophe to describe the conflict in Libya. The conflict in Libya is no different than probably eight other conflicts in the world right now and normally it would have been ignored but the discourse is changing because of what these conflicts represent. The spillover of the Libya crisis is what got Europe off its ass and into the game. France didn't want boat people showing up in Europe. Humanitarian crises are now part of the security discourse and it is certainly getting people motivated.
2- Motivated but not prepared. The solution for Libya was to implement the Kosovo air strategy and force Qaddafi to the table. It worked on the Serbs so why not Qaddafi? The thing is that everyone in the West seems to think everyone else is stupid and when they do something that isn't "drive tank into airstrike" we get confused. The Libyan army is digging in near cities and only moving in bursts to avoid NATO strikes. They simply "hug the belt" of the rebels and nullify the power of NATO. You want to protect civilians? You put boots on the ground.
3- Avoid putting boots on the ground. Let me explain what I mean here. Currently we lack a military force that is comprised of the essential elements we need to win these conflicts. We lack cultural understanding, historical background, a general understanding of the people. The enemy we fight in these scenarios is ourselves and our failure to adapt to the changing security environment. Better training is needed and unfortunately more sacrifice from our soldiers to minimize the damage that we cause. Less reliance on firepower, which is too indiscriminate for these operations. This is not to say armies are not being retrained. Since the end of the Cold War there has been shifts away from the "fight the Third World War" mentality of modern forces to the "wars of the Third World" approach.
4- Stop fucking around. Make your message loud and clear. Use the ICC to indict the people who commit these catastrophes and get rid of them. If Qaddafi attacks his people then indict the fucker and go get him. At least make a legal precedent so we can use it in the future. But do something with this operation so it doesn't turn into a farce. The unwillingness to engage in the conflict directly, and by this I mean boots on the ground, has sent the operation into a limbo. Uncertainty as to what to do is again hurting the legitimacy of this intervention and is going to make it harder to get anyone on board if it just fizzles out.
One thing I can say about this intervention is that it got started early which is marked improvement over other interventions. The message that the world would help protect the people of Libya was a nice reinforcement of the humanitarian discourse even if it was done for selfish reasons. Of course it has turned into the typical clusterfuck that all humanitarian interventions tend to but we may just learn something from it. Maybe. Please?
1- Humanitarian interventions are a new form of security reasoning. You see it in the discourse of the leaders in the international community as they stand in front of the world and use terms like crisis, disaster, and catastrophe to describe the conflict in Libya. The conflict in Libya is no different than probably eight other conflicts in the world right now and normally it would have been ignored but the discourse is changing because of what these conflicts represent. The spillover of the Libya crisis is what got Europe off its ass and into the game. France didn't want boat people showing up in Europe. Humanitarian crises are now part of the security discourse and it is certainly getting people motivated.
2- Motivated but not prepared. The solution for Libya was to implement the Kosovo air strategy and force Qaddafi to the table. It worked on the Serbs so why not Qaddafi? The thing is that everyone in the West seems to think everyone else is stupid and when they do something that isn't "drive tank into airstrike" we get confused. The Libyan army is digging in near cities and only moving in bursts to avoid NATO strikes. They simply "hug the belt" of the rebels and nullify the power of NATO. You want to protect civilians? You put boots on the ground.
3- Avoid putting boots on the ground. Let me explain what I mean here. Currently we lack a military force that is comprised of the essential elements we need to win these conflicts. We lack cultural understanding, historical background, a general understanding of the people. The enemy we fight in these scenarios is ourselves and our failure to adapt to the changing security environment. Better training is needed and unfortunately more sacrifice from our soldiers to minimize the damage that we cause. Less reliance on firepower, which is too indiscriminate for these operations. This is not to say armies are not being retrained. Since the end of the Cold War there has been shifts away from the "fight the Third World War" mentality of modern forces to the "wars of the Third World" approach.
4- Stop fucking around. Make your message loud and clear. Use the ICC to indict the people who commit these catastrophes and get rid of them. If Qaddafi attacks his people then indict the fucker and go get him. At least make a legal precedent so we can use it in the future. But do something with this operation so it doesn't turn into a farce. The unwillingness to engage in the conflict directly, and by this I mean boots on the ground, has sent the operation into a limbo. Uncertainty as to what to do is again hurting the legitimacy of this intervention and is going to make it harder to get anyone on board if it just fizzles out.
One thing I can say about this intervention is that it got started early which is marked improvement over other interventions. The message that the world would help protect the people of Libya was a nice reinforcement of the humanitarian discourse even if it was done for selfish reasons. Of course it has turned into the typical clusterfuck that all humanitarian interventions tend to but we may just learn something from it. Maybe. Please?