US participation in a Libyan no-fly zone should result in rewards for America. by James Luko
(centrist)
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Why would we help a region of the world which is the source of terrorism against America? The anti-Ghaddifi rebels we seek to help today will be the group of people to let Iran and El Qaeda take lead roles in their country in the near future. If anything, we should support moderate elements of the military to establish a military government until such time that a civil society can be phased in over several years. A moderate military junta would rule in consultation with a wide spectrum of political and religious interests in a "consensual" form of government. This will provide stability while a civil society can be established. Elections- does not a democracy make ! Civil society takes time and a stable free environment in which to develop.
In terms of the U.S. aiding or leading a no fly-zone, why would we be influenced by the requests of the EU ? The EU abandoned us in Iraq and France and Germany have insisted in keeping their Afghan contingents in the safest parts of that country. It's the US, UK and Canada which have borne the brunt of casualties in Afghanistan. If the EU wishes a no fly-zone, let France and Germany conduct it. The only reason why France and Germany are now squawking about a no fly-zone is because they are overly reliant on Libyan oil. Now, let them pay the price for their disloyalty over Iraq and Afghanistan.
If, however, the U.S. leads the no-fly zone, in this case its' time for the American military to reap its just rewards. We are under financial constraints and we are expected to help a region with loathes America and sends terrorists against our nation? If the Libyan provisional government wishes the U.S. to aid them, then we require exclusive oil contracts for American companies. As we did the bulk of the financial and human sacrifices in Iraq, it was France and China that was awarded lucrative oil drilling and exploration contracts there, among others. It's China in Afghanistan that is negotiating contracts to build pipelines to traverse Afghanistan to Pakistan to deliver Mid-East oil to China in the future. Why are we allowing this?
Americans are suffering at the gas pumps in America, OPEC is uncooperative, there is talk of opening our strategic oil reserves to ease the situation and we would risk American pilots and expensive aircraft to aid rebels who will open Libya to the control of Iran and El Qaeda? This is the time for "realpolitik" NOT "altruism." The American taxpayer needs to be paid back for their sacrifice made to the mortgage companies and Goldman Sachs for financial ruin of America. Low gas prices are the minimum the Libyans and Saudi's owe America now if they wish our support.
Nation's Dependency on Libyan Crude Oil
As a percentage of that nation's total oil imports
Italy 23% France 16% Germany 8% USA 1%
We have no dog in this fight unless we get exclusive contracts for future oil deliveries at a set and moderate price- with upper price limits and guaranteed volume.
From this chart above you can see why the EU and France, Italy and Germany are pushing for a no-fly zone and assistance to the rebels and provisional government. Without a payback for America, the US should give ZERO assistance.
(China contributed almost NOTHING to the stabilization efforts in post-war Afghanistan yet America allowed the Afghan government to award hundreds of lucrative contracts to China. The biggest being China's 3.5 BILLION dollar investment in the world's LARGEST copper field- Aynak.)
The views expressed
in this article are those of James Luko only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
James Luko is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: March 10, 2011 07:14:51 AM
So what you are suggesting is that the US should forget NATO, ignore the EU and the UN and unilaterally engage in an air campaign in Lybia if and only if we will be granted exclusive rights to Lybian oil.
So you really think that the new US foreign policy should reduce itself to being a band of mercenaries who are willing to fight for the highest bidder? You really want us to screw our most reliable allies on the European continent, send their economy into crisis and generally piss them off to the point where we're expelled from NATO? Do you really want to give American miliatry rivals in Russia and China a good reason to go to war with us?
Contrary to what you may believe about American military diplomacy, US military commanders generally do not see themselves as "thugs for hire". While I generally feel that NATO should take the lead in any no-fly zone over Libya, there cannot be any quid-pro-quo agreements for doing so. Adding such an agreement, explicit or implied, would only work to further destabilize the region, add to the number of civilians killed, give terrorists a rallying point, and threaten the flow of oil completely.
Posted By: jamesluko
Date: March 10, 2011 06:58:36 PM
Bill, thanks for your comments. Indeed the brevity of my article may give some misleading points.
You ask if I’m suggesting that the US “forget” NATO ? No, not at all, but NATO’s primary function is deterrence and “collective self-defense.” To my knowledge no NATO country has been attacked by Libya. NATO Out-of-Area operations are based on mutual consent- therefore NO obligation for the US to participate at all in this case, just as NATO refused to participate in Iraq.
There have been a few limited out-of-area operations, notably in the Former Yugoslavia. However, out-of-area operations are not obligatory for NATO members to participate in. In the case of the largest out-of-area operation- Afghanistan, NATO members were “obligated” to assist the US because of the invocation of Chapter 5 which says” an attack on one member is an attack on all.” Libya is not such a case.
You ask if I suggest ignoring the EU- no, not at all, just decline to participate as the EU declined to participate in Iraq. In the case now with Libya, the ONLY reason the EU is jumping to the lead is because a majority of its major members, France, Italy and Germany rely heavily on Libyan oil and have multi-billion dollar cross investments. These countries mentioned, however, have very limited power projection and cannot match the capabilities of the US in suppressing radar and offensive ground to air weapons. In this case of Libya, those EU members require US participation if they were to mount a solid no-fly zone.
So all I’m saying is that since we have no strategic interests in Libya, and a miniscule reliance on Libyan oil- less than 1% of our oil imports, in the light of our lead roles in Afghanistan and Iraq, we need to conduct a cost-benefit analysis right ? So why would we participate in Libya if there is not a strategic or later to-come financial interest ? Do you think France, Germany and Italy are asking for a no-fly zone out of “altruistic” reasons ? Normally the EU is totally flaccid when it comes to military action out-of-area but all of a sudden they are jumping at the ready guns blazing. This is about their oil dependency on Libya and massive investments, they (the EU) made no such moves regarding recent events in Egypt as they had no interests specifically other than the world’s reliance on keeping the Suez Canal open.
If the UN mandates action, offer food and humanitarian assistance, my article focuses on US military participation in the proposed no-fly zone.
Should U.S. foreign policy reduce itself to being a band of mercenaries you ask- no this would not be the correct wording- it’s a cost-benefit analysis for a situation which is not a strategic interest of the U.S. Somalia was a big mistake for Bill Clinton and after the black hawk down incident he realized the U.S. had no strategic interests in Somalia and it was not worth “any” of the possible “benefits” (almost none) which would be garnered there by continued American presence in Somalia. The case of Libya is no different no ?
You ask if we would “screw” our most “reliable” allies ? Well, in this case, France and Germany are our most “unreliable” of our NATO allies. France and Germany turned America down over Iraq and even with their obligatory participation in Afghanistan- they insist on patrolling the safest areas of Afghanistan and hence have lost the least number of troops- hardly reliable ? Have you ever seen French and German military participation up close ? I have, for 15 years in Bosnia and Kosovo. Their participation is lackluster and their aid to those operations were paled by much smaller countries like Canada.
So, I for one, wouldn’t mind “screwing” them over their oil dependency in Libya as a lesson to be learned for their weak support of American interests now and in the past.
You say we, the US, would be “expelled” from NATO ? For what ? As I explained, this is not a case of Chapter 5 wherein NATO members have ‘any’ obligations. We did not expel France and Germany for not participating in a non-NATO out-of-area operation such as Iraq- which was MUCH more a strategic operation than Libya is. So why would the US be expelled ? Not at all Bill, we have NO NATO obligations regarding Libya.
Bill, you imply that Libya would give Russia and China a good reason to go to war with the US ? I’m completely perplexed at that statement ? First, I have seen NO areas of contention regarding Libya between the US and Russia and China. Second, Russia has agreed to ban arms exports, for now, to Libya. Third, Russia and China have VERY limited power projection capabilities and could hardly fight a war with the US over Libya. This is out of the question, there is no contention regarding Libya vis-à-vis Russia and China. In fact, the latest news indicates China’s compliance with an agreed joint-international decision over Libya- so your statement sounds out of hand.
You say NATO should take the lead in a Libyan no-fly zone ? Why ? Let the EU and their major members who need Libyan oil handle it, if not, why should we participate to protect investments and oil dependency of “unreliable” partners like France and Germany ? If we participate, let the benefits “flow” to the US, otherwise, we have other higher priorities at the moment no ?
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: March 11, 2011 06:43:41 AM
Hi James,
Being that I have never been in the military myself and my knowledge of international politics is limited to what I can read and hear from the media, you can understand my ignorance on certain areas.
That said, I would like to clarify and respond to some of your comments.
The world has changed a lot since the end of the Cold War. So much so that military and non-military threats are cropping up all the time, each one leading to economic disruptions that are felt in all markets. Therefore, NATO as it currently exists has outlived its usefulness. For the last 30 years, the United States has taken the lead (often without much help) at ensuring that goods and services can flow freely throughout the world, especially when our own economic interests are at stake. As a result, we spend more per capita on our military than Russia, China, and the EU combined! This has to change.
After listening to Defense Secretary Robert Gates talk about imposing a no-fly zone over Lybia, you could hear it in his voice that his heart is not in it. Not only would such an operation be dangerous, but extremely expensive, and with two other wars going on and a Congress that has no appetite for increasing spending, and no real economic interest at stake, going ahead and leading the charge will only give the appearance of the United States imposing its military empire where they have no business doing so. If a no-fly zone is to be imposed, it has to be the EU that does it because, as you said, they are the ones with the economic self-interest, not us.
When I mentioned Russia and China, I was speaking more long-term. We already know that China is working on building up its military and Russia is making a gradual slide back to a totalitarian state. In the event that the USA can no longer sustain its military, which may come sooner than we think, it is likely that those two nations will want to fill the vacuum as the world's policeman. In that event, it is likely that they would work to protect their own economic interests and it's also likely that they will not be as interested in protecting human rights and providing humanitarian assistance as the US Military has. In addition, China holds a large portion of US debt, and as many have said before, "don't piss off your banker!".
The reports coming out of Lybia are heartbreaking. The rebels are starting to lose ground against Qaddafi's air and sea power and they cannot understand the very difficult position they have placed us in. If we get involved, we may be finding ourselves in another Iraq situtation where we helped topple a dictator and then found ourselves in the middle of a counter-insurgency. If we don't get involved and the rebels lose the war, thousands of innocent people will be killed and our remaining prestege as the protectors of Democratic ideals will be gone.
I honestly think that the EU is hoping that the US will impose the no-fly zone on their own in order to save them the trouble of doing it themselves. That way when things go wrong, they can blame "US Unilateralism" while still benefiting from the renewed flow of oil.
Posted By: Ed from New Mexico
Date: March 13, 2011 12:06:03 AM
I understand that Italy is the largest buyer of Libyan oil. What are the Italians doing? Nothing! We as America have no business getting involved in Libya. We already are involved with Iraq and Afghanistan. Our resources are very limited. We now sent two carriers to help Japan with their eartquake/tsunami.
I thought it was pretty screwed up the fact that Obama sent a chartered civilian ferry to evacuate US Citizens from Libya to Malta, but then sent a US carrier to evacuate Egyptians and all sorts of African foreigners from Libya. What the hell?
Remember people, when this whole Libyan uprising started, Obama through the Department of state was scared to call Ghaddaffi a dictator. As soon as Obama thought that Ghaddaffi was going to be overthrown then he and others started calling Ghaddaffi a dictator. I don't know what Obama is going to do if Ghaddaffi wins this civil war. Obama is going to have to eat his own words, shut up and buy the 5% of Libyan oil that we in America get from Libya.
My theory on all of this is that Iran is involved with all these uprisings. You can tell because they are using the strategy of trying to stretch America to the point that we are unable to operate and/or respond militarily because we will be too involved with too many things at once.
America needs an energy policy where we can rely on our own drilling in America and off shore drilling. If we don't do this, America will keep being hostage to the middle east.
I don't like Ghaddaffi, I despise him, but Ghaddaffi hates Iran/Al Quaida/Taliban because he knows they are involved in these uprisings. With this in mind, let's go back to that saying... "The enemy of my enemy is..... my lesser enemy?" (certainly not my friend).
