U.N. Tiger Finally Has Some Teeth

[bush_cheney2004]

Awww, poor USA, nobody wants to play nicey, nicey with you anymore so you're gonna cry and pout about it... As always...

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Paul Martin sure knew how to play nicey nicey with Ghaddafi....LOL!

[August1991]

The US provides for assets that do chop to NATO command, but also maintains separate capabilities and missions not under NATO control. For instance, CENTCOM does not seek NATO approval for many routine missions. USN and USAF missions are conducted out of NATO control around the world. US Army operations in S. Korea do not chop to NATO. US forces in Afghanistan do not all answer to NATO, nor does the CIA. You get the picture.

The US military operates abroad under many guises. My point was that since Gulf War I, the US president has sought foreign approval before embarking on any major operation. Obama got UN Security Council approval (with Russia/China abstention) and Arab League approval for this Libyan mission.

In practice however, it is NATO approval that is critical. For the foreseeable future, I don't see any American president undertaking a foreign military mission without de facto NATO approval.

NATO is too reliant on the USA's "unique capabilities" for this to be true. NATO is a treaty partnership when like interests are at stake (e.g. Kosovo); it is not a check when interests are not so aligned (e.g. Iraq 2003).

Here, you raise a slightly different question. Could UK/France/Europe undertake a mission without US support? I doubt it.

Frankly, if it weren't for the positive political considerations, NATO can often be a bigger limitation and pain in the ass than it's worth for US operations and "packages".

Precisely. And no doubt many US presidents have thought the same of Congress and the Supreme Court. Edited March 22, 2011 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

The US military operates abroad under many guises. My point was that since Gulf War I, the US president has sought foreign approval before embarking on any major operation. Obama got UN Security Council approval (with Russia/China abstention) and Arab League approval for this Libyan mission.

Not true....Operation Desert Fox (a major operation) in 1998 against Iraq did not require foreign approval. The UK participated in the action, but did not "approve" it. Ditto several high profile cruise missile attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan also by President Clinton.

In practice however, it is NATO approval that is critical. For the foreseeable future, I don't see any American president undertaking a foreign military mission without de facto NATO approval.

This is a non-starter...NATO does not exercise control in all theatres, notably in the Western Pacific and South America, where US forces have been active for many years. Obviously, US strategic weapons forces and intel missions do not chop to NATO.

Here, you raise a slightly different question. Could UK/France/Europe undertake a mission without US support? I doubt it.

This fact alone often makes NATO approval moot.

Precisely. And no doubt many US presidents have thought the same of Congress and the Supreme Court.

You forget that US presidents can and do undertake such actions without prior approval by Congress or the Supreme Court. The War Powers Act provides for this very circumstance. Unlike George Bush in Iraq or Afghanistan, President Obama did not seek approval before actions in Libya.

[dre]

Yet my "moron" math is better than yours.

The point is obvious....the Americans will bear the overwhelming brunt and cost for this action. Go "team"...LOL!

Meanwhile, back in Canada, they argue about the cost/need for strike aircraft. Can't make this stuff up.

America may bear the brunt but the rest of the world will lend them the money to do it, plus keep giving them hundreds of billions of dollars in global social assistance every year.

[dre]

Here, you raise a slightly different question. Could UK/France/Europe undertake a mission without US support? I doubt it.

True but what comes around goes around. Americans cant even fund the day to day operation of their own government without support from the global community.

[bush_cheney2004]

America may bear the brunt but the rest of the world will lend them the money to do it, plus keep giving them hundreds of billions of dollars in global social assistance every year.

Not the rest of the world...only the high rollers. There are more deadbeats than sugar daddies like the USA.

[dre]

Not the rest of the world...only the high rollers. There are more deadbeats than sugar daddies like the USA.

A "Sugar Daddy" is someone that borrows money to pay the bills? Seems like a "Sugar Daddy" would be the one doing the lending not the begging.

[bush_cheney2004]

A "Sugar Daddy" is someone that borrows money to pay the bills? Seems like a "Sugar Daddy" would be the one doing the lending not the begging.

You don't understand how it works....US foreign aid goes to OTHER nations. The UK finished paying its WW2 debt to America in 2006. It's not a one-way street.

Edited March 22, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

A "Sugar Daddy" is someone that borrows money to pay the bills? Seems like a "Sugar Daddy" would be the one doing the lending not the begging.

The US has a Suggar Daddy, that daddy is called China.

[GWiz]

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Paul Martin sure knew how to play nicey nicey with Ghaddafi....LOL!

How sad, an ex navy man that doesn't even know how to fish... You need a lesson?

Maybe Ron Paul can teach you...

- In attacking Muammar Gaddafi while ignoring the atrocities committed by the House of Saud, President Obama continues the longstanding U.S. tradition of condemning one dictator while shaking hands with another. This is not the change we voted for in 2008. It is business as usual. No wonder he didn't want the issue to go before Congress, where lawmakers like Ron Paul could have engaged in a public debate over the rationale for going to war in Libya. If the past ten years of the War on Terror have taught us anything, it should be that these types of decisions should never be made behind closed doors. -

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979150061

Unbelievable, there are still people in this world that believe there's such a thing as a "war on terror" while at the same TIME wanting Gaddafi, the world's #1 proven terrorist, be let off the hook once again...

I guess "damned if you do, damned if you don't" knows no bounds as the Bush Legacy...

[bush_cheney2004]

Unbelievable, there are still people in this world that believe there's such a thing as a "war on terror" while at the same TIME wanting Gaddafi, the world's #1 proven terrorist, be let off the hook once again...

Well we know that Paul Martin sure did...and all those Canadian oil service contractors!

"Get Ghaddaffy" screams the Liberal-Paul Martin pretender...get him with somebody else's army!

[GostHacked]

Well we know that Paul Martin sure did...and all those Canadian oil service contractors!

"Get Ghaddaffy" screams the Liberal-Paul Martin pretender...get him with somebody else's army!

Apparently that is the case. NATO's army.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Get Gaddaffy...TAKE HIM OUT!" Oh wait...that means somebody else...errrr...ummmm....not so much Canada...because...well...see...Liberal budgets were light on defense spending...and...well...you know...having all those Tomahawks and B-2 Spirits and all...we thought...well...you could just do it and we would help join in the celebration!

Paul Martin will even take Ghaddaffy off of his Christmas card list....promise!

[GostHacked]

"Get Gaddaffy...TAKE HIM OUT!" Oh wait...that means somebody else...errrr...ummmm....not so much Canada...because...well...see...Liberal budgets were light on defense spending...and...well...you know...having all those Tomahawks and B-2 Spirits and all...we thought...well...you could just do it and we would help join in the celebration!

Paul Martin will even take Ghaddaffy off of his Christmas card list....promise!

You are rambling now. Take a couple deep breaths. Focus .. now what were you trying to say?

[August1991]

Not true....Operation Desert Fox (a major operation) in 1998 against Iraq did not require foreign approval. The UK participated in the action, but did not "approve" it. Ditto several high profile cruise missile attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan also by President Clinton.

Such actions will be fewer in the future, and these were hardly major military operations.

You forget that US presidents can and do undertake such actions without prior approval by Congress or the Supreme Court. The War Powers Act provides for this very circumstance. Unlike George Bush in Iraq or Afghanistan, President Obama did not seek approval before actions in Libya.

B_C, I think you understand my point. Only the US Congress can declare war and the US Supreme Court can overrule a president.

The world (and the US) are in the process of determining who has a veto on western military action. I think that it will eventually become NATO in some way - the club of rich, democratic countries.

The case of Libya is interesting because it appears that France and the UK are more anxious to intervene than the US.

[GWiz]

You are rambling now. Take a couple deep breaths. Focus .. now what were you trying to say?

Nothing, absolutely nothing, as usual...

[bush_cheney2004]

Such actions will be fewer in the future, and these were hardly major military operations.

Agreed, but there will be times when American interests require unilateral action(s).

B_C, I think you understand my point. Only the US Congress can declare war and the US Supreme Court can overrule a president.

The US Congress has not declared war in a very long time....the very notion is antiquated and often overcome by events. The Congress has shifted to managing conflict funding instead.

The world (and the US) are in the process of determining who has a veto on western military action. I think that it will eventually become NATO in some way - the club of rich, democratic countries.

NATO struggled to find its post Cold War role....and still does. American military and economic power causes an imbalance, and ultimately, competing interests.

The case of Libya is interesting because it appears that France and the UK are more anxious to intervene than the US.

I think history will show that France and the UK fronted for the operation at OBama's request. Squabbling over NATO command and control continues today as the US seeks a "hand off" to Europe that is not going so smoothly. It is far easier when the big dog just leads the pack as usual.

Edited March 22, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

The case of Libya is interesting because it appears that France and the UK are more anxious to intervene than the US.

Because the humanitarian crisis that was quickly coming to pass was only a hop, skip and a jump from Europe, not to mention that Libya is a useful non-Russian source of oil.

For the US, the benefits of stomping on Gaddafi's regime are more indirect, and that is, in large part, why Obama was probably reluctant to intervene. I imagine for the US the greater concern was a regional one, of increased instability in North Africa and the Middle East.

[ToadBrother]

The US Congress has not declared war in a very long time....the very notion is antiquated and often overcome by events. The Congress has shifted to managing conflict funding instead.

I think, in general, the notion of declared wars is largely an anachronism from an age when near-equal powers were direct belligerents (ie. Franco-Prussian War and the two World Wars). Since it's hard to conceive any of the modern Powers actually directly attacking each other (with the possible exception of India and Pakistan), it's difficult to imagine where these nations would find the opportunity for a declaration of war. Take a look at the Korean or Gulf Wars. These were UN actions. Where in either of them was there room for a declaration of war. Technically the countries involved in both conflicts could not use the age-old justifications of threats to territorial integrity, neutrality or trade. Besides the entire notion of the UN, that an international body should have some control over the use of military force has rather made formal declarations redundant anyways.

[GostHacked]

Because the humanitarian crisis that was quickly coming to pass was only a hop, skip and a jump from Europe, not to mention that Libya is a useful non-Russian source of oil.

For the US, the benefits of stomping on Gaddafi's regime are more indirect, and that is, in large part, why Obama was probably reluctant to intervene. I imagine for the US the greater concern was a regional one, of increased instability in North Africa and the Middle East.

Seems like it is creating more instability, which is the desired outcome.

[GostHacked]

Agreed, but there will be times when American interests require unilateral action(s).

That's something we have not seen in a long time. What changed?

The US Congress has not declared war in a very long time....the very notion is antiquated and often overcome by events. The Congress has shifted to managing conflict funding instead.

Or allowing the banks to rape the US.

NATO struggled to find its post Cold War role....and still does. American military and economic power causes an imbalance, and ultimately, competing interests.

This is why the CIA created and helped Al-Queda to be the pain in the ass it is.

I think history will show that France and the UK fronted for the operation at OBama's request. Squabbling over NATO command and control continues today as the US seeks a "hand off" to Europe that is not going so smoothly. It is far easier when the big dog just leads the pack as usual.

At Obama's request? Is the guy too chicken to front the operation himself? Needs to use proxies? And you call that leadership?

[ToadBrother]

Seems like it is creating more instability, which is the desired outcome.

How would formal declarations of war decrease instability? Even when they were a fixture of international relations, those desirous of war could always find some justification. The Franco-Prussian War was pretty much a creation of Bismarck, for instance.

Edited March 22, 2011 by ToadBrother

[GostHacked]

How would formal declarations of war decrease instability? Even when they were a fixture of international relations, those desirous of war could always find some justification. The Franco-Prussian War was pretty much a creation of Bismarck, for instance.

They don't. The reason for this war is not to free the people of Libya from Qaddafi. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. What does 'stable' look like in those countries? It's all part of a bigger plan that will involve other countries. Instability in the middle east and north Africa has been in the works for some time. It's all part of the plan.

[ToadBrother]

They don't. The reason for this war is not to free the people of Libya from Qaddafi. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. What does 'stable' look like in those countries? It's all part of a bigger plan that will involve other countries. Instability in the middle east and north Africa has been in the works for some time. It's all part of the plan.

And where exactly do I buy one of your tinfoil hats?

[ToadBrother]

At Obama's request? Is the guy too chicken to front the operation himself? Needs to use proxies? And you call that leadership?

So let's get this straight. When GWB sent out the Legions without building broad-based coalitions, that was bad. So when Obama won't send out the Legions until he has broad-based coalitions, that's bad too.