What does Egypt and Libya mean for US foreign policy?

One of the lesser covered issues of the Israeli war with Hamas is the reverberations it is having in Egypt.  Secretary of State Kerry has been in Cairo ostensibly to help broker a peace in the Gaza Strip via the Egyptians.  The recent cease fire not withstanding, matters with Egypt could be more concerning than in the Gaza Strip.

First, Kerry has to deal with President Sisi who came to power by overthrowing the democratically elected Morsi (and then throwing him in prison).  Overthrowing a duly elected president, even on who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and widely unpopular, is not something many leaders find appealing.  One of the most vocal Sisi critics is Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan who has called Sisi a "tyrant" and has equated Netanyahu's actions to that of Hitler.  Now the Turks are sending the Mavi Marmara flotilla to aid the Palestinians on the Gaza Strip.  The Mavi Marmara attempted this before in 2010 but failed when it was boarded by Israeli Commandos who killed nine activists.  This time, the Mavi Marmara is being escorted by the Turkish Army.

The other problem for Kerry and Sisi is what to do with all the Palestinians that are fleeing Gaza for Egypt.  The political situation in Egypt has been volatile since the Arab Spring in 2011.  A huge influx of refugees could be destabilizing.  Or Sisi could be driven to try to retake Gaza and repatriate the refugees.  An odd three-way war between Turkey, Israel and Egypt could erupt.

Even if Kerry is successful in keeping Egypt calm, a conflict between Turkey and Israel could still occur.  Israel is the most powerful US ally in the region.  It is also the only Jewish state in the worlds surrounded by Muslim states.  Turkey is also a powerful US ally and is the only Muslim nation in NATO.  Trying to navigate any kind of peace between the two will be beyond the current White House team.

The White House has been jumping from one situation to another before getting resolution.  The latest example is Libya.  Libya was an early entrant into the Arab Spring of 2011.  On Sep 11, 2012, somewhere between 120-150 armed gunmen attacked the US Embassy Mission in Benghazi killing US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors and former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.  The White House team, especially Hillary Clinton, were widely seen as accountable for the deaths since they are alleged to have withheld vital intelligence from the embassy.

Now once again, the US has had to evacuate its embassy in Libya.  While the attention has been on other countries (or even the debacle of US immigration), the central government in Libya has continued to crumble.

"The administration sort of took its focus off of Libya and things have been getting worse for quite some considerable time now," Ed Royce, chairman of the U.S. House foreign relations committee, told CNN on Saturday after news of the U.S. diplomats' departure.--Reuters

It appears the US is now be played more than ever.  As it begins to focus on one event, something else pops up.  Whether those events are random or planned out, it is showing an inherent weakness in the White House.  It can only focus on one thing at a time and cannot stay focused long enough to bring matters to a conclusion.

UPDATE:  Forgot to mention Iran.  The deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (Brig Gen Hossein Salami) vowed revenge against Israel for its ongoing military incursion into Gaza, which has already killed hundreds of Palestinians and dozens of Israelis.  “We will chase you house to house and will take revenge for every drop of blood of our martyrs in Palestine,” Salami said. “and this is the beginning point of Islamic nations awakening for your defeat.”.  So much for whatever good will was brokered between Washington and Tehran over Iraq.

Libya the day after

The commander of US African Command, Gen Ham, has three fears as a result of Libya.  First,  Libya has a large stock pile of shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles.  Second is the large quantities of ammunition.  Third, Libya has many of the components to make chemical weapons (even though Libya does not have chemical weapons).

When the Soviet Union fell, the stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons became available to terrorists and the black market.  Inventory records either were destroyed or never existed so no one really knows what weapons may have found their way out of the former Soviet Union.

Gen Ham's concerns are another example of jumping into a conflict without a clear understanding of the implications.  We do know who will follow Gaddafi as the new leader of Libya.  Whoever that turns out to be will most likely be ousted as they will little traction.  Now analysts are beginning to realize that no Gaddafi means no one is around tending to the store.  The new regime is going to need funds to rebuild after the NATO air campaign.  Selling the missiles and munitions could provide ready cash.

Shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles are low-cost and effective.  You don't need to sneak in operatives and have them take flying lessons.  Now a single operative, who could already be in-country, can now take a shoulder-launched SAM and down an airliner.

The general is concerned the cache of munitions could be turned into improvised explosive devices (IED).  The munitions could be used as is to attack soft targets in the United States or embassies abroad.

Finally the components to make chemical weapons means rogue nations could find a ready supply.  Chemical weapons are very difficult to deploy for small cell terrorist groups.  Unless the weapons are manufactured by a qualified maker, the terrorists are at greater risk of being exposed to the weapon than the intended target.

All three of the general's fears are correct.  Imagine had another course of action been pursued (like leaving things alone), this new threat to our security would be less or even non-existent.

Russia, China resist U.N. Syria sanctions

"Russia, China, Brazil, India and South Africa have repeatedly complained that the NATO intervention in Libya has gone far beyond the U.N. mandate approved by the council in March to protect civilians from violence by the government. They say they do not want the same thing to happen in Syria."

There are many more things at play here than Syria. Russia sees US influence on world affairs weakening. The Russians are going to continue to strike down US/European proposals in the future. It also doesn't hurt that Syria is a major buyer of Russian arms.

China continues to be a surging economic threat to the US and with the downgrade of the US bond market, China sees no reason to support a weakening superpower. The Chinese are also building their first true aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, and anti-shipping missiles. The United States debt prevents any real discussion of building weapon systems to counter these threats.

Finally, while France and the US may have no use for Gaddafi the rest of world sees the UN intervening in another country's affairs. We really have no idea what Libya is going to look like in a few years but whatever happens, it will be because of US/NATO intervention. The rest of the world is growing weary of such actions with Russia and China being in the best positions to do something about it.

Reuters

France and the new deal

Reuters is reporting "France and its partners at the United Nations are working on a draft resolution that would enable Libyan assets to be unfrozen and sanctions to be unlocked, a French diplomatic source said on Wednesday.

So European colonial powers (albeit former) are still dictating what happens in North Africa and the Middle East. Perhaps I'm wrong but the European Union has not demonstrated the ability to tell anyone what to do.

Reuters

Libyan numbers

I had been using the number of 1,300 killed and 20,000 injured the siege of Tripoli. However, Breitbart is reporting;

"Four hundred people were killed and 2,000 wounded in three days of fighting between rebels and forces loyal to Moamer Kadhafi in the Libyan capital Tripoli, the head of the rebel council said Wednesday."

These number seem low given the use of airpower to support the rebels. I suspect this may be a downplay on the actual carnage.

Thoughts about Libya and Syria

In our race to liberate Libya from Gaddafi, some Western leaders forgot that Libya (as the rest of North Africa) really doesn't look or act like a Western democracy. Most of the countries of Africa have borders formed not be tribal or ethnic boundaries but by former European powers. Many different groups are confined within these national boundaries (often still harboring decades or centuries old grudges).

Gaddafi and Hussein were brutal in part because they had to get these divergent groups to work together. Iraq consists of three different groups; Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. It was easier to terrorize all equally than to workout out some type of compromise. Gaddafi successfully ran Libya that way for 40 years. Getting rid of Gaddafi does not mean Libya is going to become a democratic utopia in North Africa. Quite the contrary, the factions that were squabbling with Gaddafi will start to squabble with each other.

One of Gaddafi's sons stands to become either the next ruler of LIbya or leader of the revolutionary faction that will topple whoever follows Gaddafi into power. Nothing has really changed and actually Libya may follow Iraq into a destabilized, squabbling mirror of its former self.

Ambassador Rice is now taking Syria to task and wagging her finger at them as is to say, see what happened in Libya? It can happen to you! But there is a difference that the secretary seems to be ignoring. Gaddafi was very much a lone wolf in North Africa subsidizing his regime through supporting international terrorist groups (such as the Provisional IRA). In contrast, Syria is not a lone wolf and very much is under the influence of Iran (which provides funding and arms). Unlike Libya, Syria can deflect at any time its own domestic problems by starting a war with Israel. Israel is already experiencing problems with Egypt and having to deal with issues on two different fronts would be challenging even for the Israelis. Or Syria can pick a fight with Turkey and watch other Middle Eastern nations rise up against NATO.

Change is not always a good thing. Sometimes things change for the worse.

Libya

At least 1,300 people have died as rebel forces invaded Tripoli. Another estimated 20,000 have been wounded. Gaddafi's two eldest sons are in custody. President Obama is now calling for Gaddafi to step down. The President has been referring to this as a new age for Libya.

Gaddafi has ruled Libya for 42 years. Ruthless and intolerant of opposition, he also has modernized Libya. Rebel forces (backed by the US and France) decide to overthrow the Libyan government as part of the Arab Spring back in March. This lead to the United States providing air support but the lack of support at home lead to NATO taking over the lead.

So what do we get for all of this? We have yet to hear who will replace Gaddafi. For those who may be too young to remember, the US backed another regime change in Iran resulting in the Shah taking over. This was such a popular decision that the Iranian people, who had grown tired of being tortured and killed by a US puppet, that they stormed the American embassy. The Shah was thrown out and Ayatollah Khoemeni took over setting the stage for a far more belligerent Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.

Gaddafi was no friend of the US but had certainly mellowed since 9/11. Whoever takes over in Libya will be seen as a puppet of the US and Europe. Iraq and Afghanistan are a mess. Iran has become a theocracy with a decided bent towards nuclear weapons. Syria has warned against any outside military intervention as it deals with its post Arab Spring situation.

I just don't see where replacing Gaddafi by backing the rebels was a prudent idea that will produce any strategic gains.

Al Jazeera

What's going on in the world?

I attended a beer tasting event last week put on by Hoperatives. After a couple of porters, a fellow attendee admitted she was not able to keep on what was going on in the world through our local fishwrap. In particular, she asked if we were still involved in Libya.

First the US and then NATO has convinced themselves that a country of 679,362 square miles (source: National Geographic) can be tackled with merely airpower. Even in the 21st Century, aircraft are not a persistent presence and minus that regime change is difficult. Add the large land mass of Libya and airpower alone will not win the conflict.

Libyans have a saying, "mia, mia" which literally translates to "100 percent". They are found of saying that now indicating more of a "everything is just fine" even after months of bombardment to target one man. NATO is claiming "significant advances" according to a CNN article that you can find at the end of this entry.

Pro-Ghadaffi forces have been hammered (along with innocent bystanders) for months. NATO does not have the long logistical tail of the United States and can't keep bombing Libya indefinitely. Victory has to be declared before NATO forces run out of bombs (the British have come dangerously close to running out of cruise missiles). NATO may be wanting to call it a day more than any real gains through its air campaign.

The question still remains who wanted regime change? By all accounts, Gaddafi has done a fantastic job over the last 40 years in preventing even the merest hint of opposition. If Gaddafi is asked to step down, then who has the political infrastructure and savvy to takeover?

Elsewhere as the American press continues to inundate us with pictures of President Obama's bus tour, another Middle Easter nation continues to rip its own throat out. Anti-government protestors have been fired upon by Syrian authorities. Several videos have been put up by CNN showing the attacks and a horrifying image of a young girl killed by a bullet through her eye. If Gaddafi is worthy of a sustained air campaign, certainly Syria is worthy of some kind of military intervention? I've posted a link to Al Jazeera that details the violence from a Middle Eastern perspective. Syria and Turkey are also shooting at each other and the last time I checked, Turkey is still a member of NATO. What happens when the alliance (NATO in this case) gets attacked? Perhaps this is why NATO is trying to quickly declare victory in Libya.

The S&P dropping of the US from AAA to AA+ bond rating caused most news outlets to ignore a truly amazing story. Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell on Wednesday accepted responsibility for two devastating oil spills in the Niger Delta which lawyers say have destroyed the livelihoods of a fishing community. (Source: Yahoo News).

Americans watched in horror as the Deep Water Horizon spewed millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. What most Americans don't know is in 2008 and 2009 there were oil spills off the coast of Nigeria that made ours look like a picnic. Nigeria produces 2.2 million barrels a day (source: CIA Factbook) ranking it as the 14th oil producer in the world. Despite that production, less than 20 percent of the profits produced from oil is received by Nigeria. Most of the profits go right to Royal Dutch Shell.

While looking up data on Nigeria, I discovered the the world leader in oil production is....not a Middle Eastern country (or even Venezuela). The world leader in barrels per day of oil is Russia. A little known story is the amount of oil that is produce in Azerbaijan. In 1898, the Azerbaijani oil industry exceeded the U.S. oil production level. At that time, approximately 8 million tons were being produced. In 1901, Baku produced more than half of the world's oil (11 million tons), and 95 percent of all Russian oil.

This long history may explain why Putin has decided to pursue a Eurasian economic union. Basically it is a re-imagined Soviet Union based on capitalism. There are good to be traded and Putin is rightly concerned, in my opinion, about the emerging Chinese economic juggernaut. The American and European economies are stalling and Putin knows he has the one thing China needs, oil. Creating a Eurasian economic union is the only way to keep Russia relevant economically relevant in the future.


Libya

Syria

Nigeria

Russia

Air Force and Navy flying thousands of missions over Libya as Obama says U.S. is only playing a limited role

First, a correction. I've been referring to the air operation over Libya as "Odyssey Dawn" but since NATO has taken over the correct title is "OPERATION Unified Protector". Odd how after weeks of reading about Libya this was the first article (at least that I've read) that made a point of using the correct name.

According to the Mail Online, 'Since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties...Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.'

The Obama administration will take great pains to point out how few were actually strike sorties. What will get overlooked is the cost associated with maintaining that kind of OPSTEMPO (while still maintaining air operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan plus all of the air refueling missions to support aircraft transiting between the states and the AOR). The numbers also show that with the United States, NATO has some serious gaps in their ability to perform air suppression and ISR missions. Air suppression requires specialized aircraft and munitions so these relatively low numbers may in fact be much more expensive. The ISR or intelligence-surveillance-reconaissance missions are primarily flow by drones but the US has only a limited number of these aircraft. Most are deployed in Afghanistan. Being unmanned does not mean these are inexpensive to operate. The sensors and downlinks are quite expensive to operate and maintain. Having a drone auger into the ground is a very costly risk, especially for a non-US operation.

The taxpayer may never know the true cost of "Unified Protector" but as the old saying goes, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.


Mail Online

Gates Blasts NATO, Questions Future of Alliance

Gates' comments only reinforce what has been know for sometime. NATO is nothing without the US military. The sham of "NATO" commanding Odyssey Dawn is only as good as the US carriers and drones supporting the operation.

NATO is a self-protection pact formed after WWII to protect Europe from a Soviet invasion. At that time, NATO consisted of 16 countries and relied heavily on US military bases for defense. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO's role was in question but despite an ambiguous future its membership climed to 28 including former Warsaw Pact nations.

NATO assumed a more expeditionary war during the global war on terror. Most of the Eurpean nations were against sending forces outside the continent. However, pressure from Washington and London resulted in NATO troops being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

It also shows how the US has come to depend on NATO to provide the illusion of broad support when in reality it is just another US military operation.

With the demise of the Soviet Union and advent of the European Union, does there still need to be a NATO instead of a European defense force?

FoxNews.com

Cost of Operation Odyssey Dawn

According to the Air Force Association Daily Report, the USAF has spent $270 million on air operations in Libya (as of May 22nd). Officials are still trying to figure out how to pay for all of this. For the time being, "Libya operations are being cash-flowed internally,"Air Force spokesman Andre Kok told the Daily Report. At the same time, the Department of Defense intends to cut $400 billion over the next 12 fiscal years. The need to reduce government spending would seem to argue against continuing operations in Libya, especially since this is a NATO operation. The United States flew 1,206 of the 1,990 sorties during Operation Odyssey Dawn—the term for the air operation before NATO took control on March 31. However, US forces (both Navy and USAF) continue to support operations. As of mid May, total costs for Odyssey Dawn to the United States is $750 million.

Cautioning that federal spending had a way of getting out of control, Senator Dirksen observed, “A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."

The 101st is returning from Afghanistan and commanders are struggling with their troops doubts (and their own) if their sacrifices made any difference. Their poignant introspection seems to apply equally to Libya. What did we get for the $750 million? Even if Qaddafi steps down or is killed, who takes over? What does the change in Libyan leadership mean for the US and rest of the world?

War Powers Act

The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval.

Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.

The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days.

The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto.-- N.Y. Times

Libya is the latest example of a President ignoring the War Powers Act. Turning command of Odyssey Dawn over to NATO seemed to imply US forces would be pulling out. Now National Security Advisor Tom Donilon has stated that US will continue military operations so long as Qaddafi continues attacking his own people. The statement does not even try to pretend the US is in a supporting role, it makes very clear the US is leading the way. It is almost as though killing Osama bin Laden has fueled the Obama Administration's desire to take out another terrorist leader (albeit one who also happens to be the rightful leader of a Muslim nation).

The problem is what happens after Qaddafi is either killed or steps down? We see with al Qaeda an almost renewed zeal in their commitment to attack the United States. We discover later that killing Osama bin Laden only solidified al Zawahiri's position as the undisputed leader. Getting rid of Qaddafi may allow an ever more despicable despot to have access to Libya's oil and wealth. The US track record for picking and supporting new regime leaders is unimpressive at best. From the Shah of Iran (backed by the US and implementer of the SAVAK) to the ineffectual Hamid Karzai, the US seems unable to understand the situation and find the right leader. Many would argue that is because the US is more concerned with how they will get along with the leader versus his domestic policies. No, that wasn't a politically incorrect statement. The US has not backed any female leaders of countries to replace ousted despots (at least not that I know. If you know of one, please post a comment about it).

The War Powers Act was in response to Nixon and his execution of the Vietnam War. In short, the WPA is an attempt to curb the President's ability to leave forces engaged in combat for extended periods of time costing the taxpayers money and using up critical military resources that may be desperately needed elsewhere.

Killer Combo of High Gas, Food Prices at Key Tipping Point

Early this week, we saw the first gas prices at $4.00 in Northern Kentucky. Rising gas prices effect all consumer goods as it costs more to ship those goods as fuel prices increase. Any consumer good that requires petroleum as a raw material or in the manufacturing process also increases.

Fuel prices were first predicted to rise as a result of the Libyan conflict. According to a ranking of oil producing countries on the Huffington Post, Libya is ranked 17th. NATO forces, including the US, are spending millions of dollars on a no-fly zone to assist the rebels with no real indication of success. The media has been covering the Libyan conflict since the start but they have largely ignored the war going on in Nigeria. President Goodluck John, who is a Christian from the oil producing Delta region, is battling Muhammadu Buhari who is the former President. He is also a former military leader from the Muslim north. Nigeria is also the 12th ranked oil producing nation in the world. Why aren't we engaged there?


CNBC

NATO

NATO has taken over command of the no-fly zone. However, US aircraft are still very much involved according to this report from the Air Force Association:

While NATO is now in charge of air operations over Libya, US military aircraft continue to play a critical role in the mission of protecting Libyan civilians and enforcing the no-fly zone, said alliance officials Tuesday. Alone on Monday, a US fighter aircraft destroyed two of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi's surface-to-air missile sites near the Libyan capital of Tripoli, they said. This is in addition to the daily aerial refueling, ISR, and command and control sorties that US assets fly. Since NATO took over command responsibility for the Libyan mission, now called Operation Unified Protector, on April 1, US military platforms have flown more than 800 of the nearly 2,900 total air sorties. Of those 800, more than 150 of them have been to suppress Qaddafi's air defenses. In eight of those, the US aircraft dropped ordnance, according to the officials.

The more cynical amongst you might conclude NATO's role is merely to replace the US as NATO lacks the depth to truly replace US forces. Those same cynics might also point out the most vocal opponent to Qaddafi is France which is not a member of NATO. At over $680 million and counting, I'm not sure what the United States has gotten out of Odyssey Dawn.

The Devil You Know

Back in February, protesters demanded Mubarak step down. The world rallied around the protesters and before long, Mubarak was forced out. This was initially seen as a good thing and the army would install a provisional government. I've always liked that word, "provisional" which means serving for the time being. Provisional has no real time-limit and reminds me of another word, "interim", which usually means something that stays around longer than it should. Apparently the Egyptian army is not quite the benevolent provisional government and reports are surfacing of protesters being tortured.

The situation in Egypt caused the West to become giddy with excitement when North Africa's number on bad boy, Gaddafi, started to see protesters in Libya. Unlike Egypt however, Gaddafi controlled the military and Libyan rebels did not fare as well as the Egyptians. Enter the United States and NATO to save the day with the establishment of a no-fly zone. Except somebody like Gaddafi who has remained in power for over 40 years is not easily removed by having his aircraft grounded. His army was still able to kick the snot out of the rebels and take back areas formerly controlled by the rebels.

The United States got to fork over $680 million (and counting) for our part in the no-fly zone. By the way, contrary to reports by President Obama and NATO, US aircraft are still flying missions over Libya. Seems no one else has Hogs (A-10s) and Spookys (AC-130U) which are excellent out taking out ground targets but begs the question, wasn't the mission a no-fly zone? If Libyan jets and air defense are out of the picture, what is left to do?

Gaddafi has made his point and is now willing to negotiate. He promises to stop using the "dark side" on the rebels and in return the US and NATO promise to stop shooting big holes in all of his ground forces. For $680 million, the US and NATO has achieved status quo.

The whole matter got me thinking about what would happen if there were a rebellion in the United States? To say it is far-fetched neglects our own history. The Civil War was a rebellion with Confederate States secession from the Union.

Who would support such a operation? Well BRICS would be a good candidate. This is a fairly new economic council akin to the G20 but consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. China is on track to become the second largest economy and would have a huge say in the G20, United Nations and BRIC. What if they decided to train and fund a US based rebellion?

If the federal government was ousted in some way, the United States would continue as a regional conglomerate of states governments. The state governments would rise to fill the void (which is sort of what the Constitution is all about). Medicaid, Social Security, and federal pensions would be the toughest to supplement. Otherwise, I'm not sure states such as California, New York and Texas would even notice. There would be a throw back to each region printing its own currency. G20 and BRICS would be quick to start partnering with these new economies (Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Alaska, all produce oil).

Would we see a military provisional government? Perhaps and perhaps not. Unlike Egypt or Libya, each branch of the US military has a fairly large staff of senior officers. Getting all branches to cooperate under such circumstances would be difficult. In most countries, the Army is usually is the largest branch. While the US Army is large, so is the US Navy. There would be a lot of in-fighting. The Air Force and Marine Corps are too small to usurp the other two but they are large enough to be disobedient. They might also be distracted by Russia or Chinese military maneuvers. I don't see a no-fly zone since we have nuclear weapons, but the threat of some kind of attack could keep the US military spread too thin to focus on running the country.

The other problem would be all of the police and sheriff departments. While no match for the military, they could form their own smaller fiefdoms. The combined US military would deplete itself dealing with all of the large metropolitan police departments or sheriff's offices. Not to mention, the governors would still have their National Guards. Unlike active duty, the National Guard is local and would be much more inclined to protect their homes and families than to follow the orders of the active duty (under this scenario). The Tenth Amendment would ascend all others.

I know the above is highly unlikely and there are dozens of reasons why it would not happen. But I think to dismiss it outright ignores the lessons that we are seeing in the Middle East. Turn about, after all, is only fair play.

NATO Asks U.S. to Continue Libya Air Strikes

A student asked me last in week in class why the US is involved in Libya which is a NATO operation? He was trying to make a point that both NATO and UN have a large collective military capability when you take into consideration all members collectively. In theory, this makes sense but in practice reality does not match theory.

Case in point, NATO is asking the US for more airstrikes because only the US has the aircraft that can accurately strike in all weather conditions. Specifically, NATO needs US A-10 and AC-130 aircraft to remain on-station. NATO lacks these types of close air support that can strike Libyan forces that are in close proximity to civilians.

Apparently NATO is skittish after one of their airstrikes last week left 40 civilians dead.

The US is turning into Michael Corleone in The Godfather III when he says, "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!"

ABC News

Syrian Cabinet resigns amid huge protests

Out of all of the conflicts going on in the Middle East and North Africa, the United States decided to get involved in Libya. The decision has cost the United States $600 million dollars so far. The decision is also likely to cause Gaddafi to return to terrorism. In the meantime, Syria has erupted and now the government has resigned. Lebanon and Israel are now both at risk.

I listened to the President's speech and just can't help but think if Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco or Syria had oil we would be involved there as well. I am also troubled by President Obama's decision to take military action while outside the country and waiting more than a week to explain his decision to the voters.

Meanwhile, the Tokyo Electric Power Company continues to come up short in containing the radioactive waste from the Dai Ichi power plant. When will the Obama Administration realize that this tragedy is going to effect the United States? Unless the Japanese decide to exercise the Chernobyl option (boron and concrete), the radioactivity will not be contained. On the heels of this comes a report from ABC news indicating that there have been 56 different violations amongst the 104 nuclear power plants in the United States in the past 4 years. These violations include missing nuclear material.

We don't need to be focused on Libya, we have plenty to worry about right here.

World news

NATO takes over no-fly zone

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was originally created to "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down", at least according to the first NATO Secretary General. NATO was more a political association than a military organization. The in-fighting between European members and the US caused the French to pull out in 1966 and create their own nuclear deterrent.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and subsequently the Soviet Union, the relevance of NATO began to wane. The Balklands war in the mid 90s led NATO to involve itself in matters beyond the member nations. Former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Republics were allowed to join.

The Berlin Plus agreement is a comprehensive package of agreements made between NATO and the European Union on 16 December 2002. With this agreement the EU was given the possibility to use NATO assets in case it wanted to act independently in an international crisis, on the condition that NATO itself did not want to act—the so-called "right of first refusal"

The September 11 attacks caused NATO to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter for the first time in its history. The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty. In 2003, NATO took command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. For the first time in its history, NATO would take over a mission outside the NATO area of responsibility.

In 2009, NATO deployed warships in support of Operation Ocean Shield battling Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean.

Given this history, it is no surprise the AFA Daily Digest had this report:

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced Sunday that, effective immediately, the alliance would assume the lead role from the United States for all UN-sanctioned air and sea military operations in and around Libya. "This is a very significant step, which proves NATO's capability to take decisive action," said Rasmussen. This means the alliance will be in charge not only of the no-fly zone over northern Libya and the arms embargo, but also the air strikes meant to protect Libyan civilians from attack by Muammar Qaddafi's regime. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press that, within the next week, the United States "will begin to diminish [its] commitment of resources" to the Libyan mission. "[T]he idea was that, over time, the coalition would assume a larger and larger proportion of the burden," he said. He added, "Our air power has significantly degraded [Qaddafi's] armor capabilities, his ability to use his armor against cities like Benghazi." As of March 25, US aircraft had flown 529 sorties, coalition aircraft 346, since the air campaign began on March 19.

NATO involvement in the Balklands, Afghanistan, Libya, the Gulf of Aden, and Indian Ocean seems to eerily parallel European colonialism. Coalition campaigns make it easier to get approval for military operations but the implications for recovery become complicated at the least. For example, if Gaddafi steps down there is no obvious follow-on leader as the colonel has successfully suppressed any opposition for nearly 40 years. A NATO backed government in Libya could set-off an even bigger conflict in the Middle East.

The limitations of airpower

Today the headlines are full of news of the United States wanting to add more firepower to Odyssey Dawn. Wait, I thought we were just establishing a no-fly zone? Now that the Tomahawks have flattened all of the SAMs and associated radars and the combat air patrols (CAPs) have either shot down or grounded the Libyan aircraft, we still need to add more firepower?

And not just any firepower, the Obama administration wants to add the AC-130U (pictured above) to the fray. Gunships are not about denying the enemy the use of their aircraft, gunships are all about destroying the enemy's ground forces. But I thought this wasn't a war?

The Obama administration is not the first to become enamored of airpower only to find it does have limitations.

I have been involved in and studied airpower for over 30 years. The Holy Grail of airpower during WWII was daylight precision bombing. However, technology at allow precision bombing was still some 40-50 years away. The lack of precision bombing is one of the reasons the United States and Britain resorted to fire-bombings Tokyo and Hamburg.

During the Vietnam war, laser-guided bombs began to make an appearance. However, fighting guerilla warfare (or as they now say "asymmetric" threat) with modern technology usually gives the advantage to the guerilla fighter.

In both WWII and Vietnam, airpower was used to support ground conflict. Ground troops were still expected in both conflicts to concur and occupy territory.

A little known USAF colonel named Jack Warden had a different idea. Warden created a theory of five rings based on five levels of system attributes. The idea behind Warden's five rings was to attack each of the rings to paralyze their forces, an objective also known as physical paralysis. To optimize a strike attack the attacker would engage as many rings as possible with special emphasis on taking out the center ring, which is the enemy's leadership.

By attacking the rings, as opposed to say ball-bearing plants, the enemy's decision cycle would be interrupted. If the attacker is faster than the enemy's ability to react and counter-attack, the attacker should.

Warden's Five Rings sat pretty much ignored at Maxwell, AFB at the Air University until Operation Desert Storm. Warden's Five Rings became the doctrine for the air campaign. Coalition forces flew 100,000 sorties dropping over 88,000 tons of explosives. Unlike in previous air campaigns, guidance technology finally caught up to where is was now possible to guide a 2,000lbs Mk 84 down an airshaft of an underground bunker if needed.

USAF pilots discovered a new role for the diminutive GBU-12 (500lbs). Precision guidance had advance to the point where the pilots where able to drop a 500lbs bomb right through the turret of Iraqi tanks. No amount of armor on a tank could withstand that strong of a blast. Perhaps that is why in part Army planners admonished USAF planners for the use of the term "tank-plinking".

Warden's Five Rings finally gave airpower the legitimacy it been seeking since the first pilots in WWI dropped hand grenades on ground troops. Tomahawk missiles were the preferred method of the Clinton administration for dealing with terrorists attacks. It made a statement without actually deploying ground forces. You didn't need to worry about long-term strategic objectives or exit strategies. Someone attacks just launch a few dozen Tomahawk missiles, or later some GPS guided bombs, and call it a day.

Unfortunately no matter how advanced your airpower becomes, you still need ground forces to capture and occupy territory the same way armies have been doing such ancient times. Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom both required large number of ground forces. The ground forces weren't there because airpower had suddenly become irrelevant, they were there to occupy territory. It is simple physics, if your troops occupy territory then your enemy can't. Occupy more of his territory than he does and you win.

Gaddafi's aircraft and air defenses have been neutralized but he is still going strong. The Obama administration and NATO now face the question of what else can they do to make Gaddafi surrender (because remember we aren't trying to kill him). Introducing the AC-130 to mix keeps it an air campaign but the targets have changed.

Ground forces have the bad habit of engaging with their targets at close range. Shooting at Gaddafi's ground forces drastically increases the possibility of hitting civilians by accident. Social media sites will fill with images of wounded or dead civilians hit by coalition weapons. How will a war-weary US public deal with such images?

One last point, this has never been a pure air campaign to establish a no-fly zone to protect the rebels. Remember the British SAS that were captured towards the beginning of Odyssey Dawn? Besides identifying targets for the airstrikes, they were also there to gather intelligence. If the British special forces were there, I guarantee US and French special forces were also on the ground. All of which means we knew weeks or even months before the start of Odyssey Dawn that were going to launch some kind of attack.

If we already have ground forces in-country, don't be surprised if we start seeing Marines or Army units being called upon to support the rebels. Remember though, this is not a war!

Who Sold Libya Its Supermissiles?

The super missile is the SA-24 Grinch shoulder launched surface-to-air missile (SAM). The "who" would be our friend Hugo Chavez.

"The U.S. government calls it the “one of the most lethal” weapons of its kind — an advanced, portable missile, designed to knock planes out of the sky. A variant of it just showed up in Moammar Gadhafi’s army and nobody seems to know how exactly it got there. But diplomatic cables, unearthed by WikiLeaks, suggest one potential culprit: the Chavez regime in Venezuela.

Aviation Week’s eagle-eyed reporter David Fulghum spotted a Russian SA-24 Grinch surface-to-air missile mounted on a Libyan army truck in recent cable news footage. And that’s a cause for concern: The SA-24 is more accurate, longer-flying, and more lethal than than earlier models of surface-to-air missiles. It also has a dual-band infrared seeker and is more difficult to jam than older systems.

The missiles “reportedly have counter-countermeasures that may be difficult for planes with just flares to counter,” Matthew Schroeder, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Arms Sales Monitoring Project, tells Danger Room. ”Overall it’s just a much more capable system.”

Wired.com