Libya: the U.S. wants to outsource an intervention too risky.
If it appears obvious that the United States rely on the overthrow of Gadhafi of Libya to bring under American influence, their failures in Afghanistan and Iraq do not allow them to use the intervention direct military. Therefore, to "pull the chestnuts out of fire," the Americans are all for the "dirty work" is done by allies, and particularly by France, whose humanitarian intervention next is complex: how could it take place without military protection concurrently?
And found - in Washington - the same speech, the same arguments, the same procedure above, who is to obtain the consent of the international community and its institutions. There is talk of a dictator. It is about his actions. It is about his dangerousness, especially for his people. It is about to drop for reasons of morality and ethics. Who do we talk? Saddam Hussein ... ? Not at all since it is Muammar Gaddafi who is remembered, in passing, he financed and helped many international terrorism in the old days thing, however, he had been forgiven long ago, U.S. absolution being motivated by the prospect of achieving (finally?) some good deals in Libya.
Yet something has changed, despite the apparent similarity.
It concerns, and acting out , and effective treatment of the situation on the ground .
Obama administration, unlike its predecessors - that of father and son Bush in particular - benefit of historical hindsight and therefore learn from the disastrous military intervention in Iraq. It also is embroiled in a dispute not solved and Afghanistan still faces an uncertain economic situation - because of instability of the dollar and abyss of its budget and trade deficits - lessening its ability to finance new adventures soldiers at risk. All good reasons, therefore, to "pass the chore to others, while trying to pull the chestnuts out of fire, if necessary.
Explanation.
On one stone: outsource to the "Allies" external interventions at risk, ousting the French interests in Libya.
On one stone: outsource to the "Allies" external interventions at risk, ousting the French interests in Libya.
Iraqi
The result is still fresh in their heads to Washington for trying to take direct control over Iraq - as a space + basement strategic oil - by invading and then to military occupation, the United States faced an insurgency unforeseen has become increasingly widespread and they could not overcome despite deployment of forces (and dollars) than a result.
The result is still fresh in their heads to Washington for trying to take direct control over Iraq - as a space + basement strategic oil - by invading and then to military occupation, the United States faced an insurgency unforeseen has become increasingly widespread and they could not overcome despite deployment of forces (and dollars) than a result.
Therefore, considering an analogous situation, that of a country "interesting" because of its geographical position and the riches of his basement, but the people and shows demonstrable ability insurgency, should be maintained the goal, but to change the maneuver. Why put under American influence in Libya must result from an indirect approach, that is to say an ability to influence and condition the minds to make them act according to goal and to reach without the extreme military violence is necessarily used.
This influence comes in three levels.
The first level concerns Qaddafi himself - " We will maintain pressure on Gaddafi until he resigns and allows the Libyan people to express themselves freely to determine their future " said Susan Rice - Permanent Representative of the United States at the UN - worth about programs. Just want the U.S.? The departure of the Leader of the Revolution in the first instance, substituting a power " Democratic-fed milk democratic values such as Washington understands them, that is to say, reflecting a cultural and political vision Anglo-Saxon and particularly pro-American. In this regard, the recent statement by the spokesman for the White House illustrates the point: "We actively contacts with those working in Libya to establish a government that respects the rights of the Libyan people. "Reading between the lines, this means that Washington is preparing to organize and assist in every way possible, opposition to Gaddafi to facilitate a takeover by the latter. This assistance will include, First, to flee the dictator. How? By making him afraid, why Washington concentrated either naval group near the Libyan coast, one with a naval force capable of conducting operations " Air Dominance" - that ie air superiority to control the Libyan airspace to prevent aerial bombardment of the insurrection by anti-Gaddafi Aviation Master of Tripoli - including one that shows how to conduct amphibious operations capable of landing troops to land, "Marines "Here.
The second level concerns the Europeans and NATO - to avoid attracting too much attention should be forward masked. Washington does not want to seem to mind one of the Libyan business. Nothing like to deceive international public opinion to share burdens and responsibilities of the operation control of the airspace with other, knowing that we define the roles, procedures and strategies. To do this, NATO is the ideal platform. The Alliance brings together the strengths of many nations. But ... the U.S. can get many things from their partners, even outside NATO, if necessary, and we think the British are always ready to render service as they did in Iraq.
The third level concerns the French - for several years, Americans lead the whole continent of operations to oust the French positions and locations, be they political, military and / or economic. Clearly, the U.S. wants to turn France and take his place. Pierre Pean, in his book Carnage . The secret wars of the great powers in Africa, made the perfect demonstration, highlighting, with the case of Rwanda but also in explaining what happened in Zaire, Americans for the acts to destabilize the French interests in particular by way of discrediting and Indictments of complicity in genocide. More recently, the dumping of criticism about the procrastination of the French diplomacy in relation to events in Tunisia and Egypt attended the same pattern, especially as many voices were raised to congratulate top U.S. diplomat for encouraging people to free themselves as having had a "real" dialogue with the opposition to Ben Ali and Mubarak. This logic to challenge the French zone of influence also applies to Libya, collected by the U.S. as a (too) large customer and consumer of French weapons systems and as a too big oil exporter to Europe. To change this, it should put the French in difficulty. To achieve this, two methods:
1 - urging them to act militarily on the ground just taken their responsibility in this area of influence that sought to deprive them.
2 - insist on the humanitarian catastrophe now taking place in Libya because of the influx of refugees on its borders. And ... it works.
Sarkozy and Fillon swallow the bait and put a slippery slope.
This pressure therefore produces results.
To realize this, one must bear in mind the words of François Fillon at the microphone Monday RTL it. The Prime Minister said two things. First, that France was putting up a massive humanitarian operation, it knows a beginning execution with the dispatch of two aircraft carrying medical personnel and equipment to be delivered until Benghazi. Then, several options were - and not "would " - in the study. Among them there are, of course, possible action on Libyan air space, which corresponds to a flight ban over Libya. But there are also envisaged "(...) all solutions to ensure that Colonel Qaddafi understands he has to go. (...) I know that evokes military solutions, these solutions are evaluated by the government French .
This last point is crucial. Because the concept of a military solution in the plural is a global net that includes all options, including the use of the land force projection and deployment on Libyan soil.
What amply satisfy Washington.
When Juppe pretends to believe that we can deploy massive "humanitarian" without protection.
Some might argue that this Tuesday, March 1, Alain Juppe, interviewed on the evening news 20 hours TF1 excluded - a priori - any military action, including any action which would not be debated and mandated by the UN.
Yes, probably, but ...
Except it will have to explain how we will organize a massive humanitarian operation - and thus deploy massively personnel and unarmed civilians - in the middle of a country plagued by insurrection, instability and chaos, without asking, and treat the issue of protection of the device?
After all, Mrs. Clinton Has not said " In the coming years, Libya can become a peaceful democracy or face a war civil or descend into chaos. ? The risk is obvious. It comes from Qaddafi's thugs. It also comes from turnovers, and caprices movements of crowds one day can cheer the humanitarian and the other to devote to public obloquy and especially want to plunder their equipment, food, etc.. This kind of events took place repeatedly, especially in Somalia in the mid-1990s.
The problem therefore does not suffer any challenge: the French will find themselves in an area where they can be exposed and will raise the issue of their protection. We see incorrectly set by the Libyan authorities "interim" from the insurgency and whose organizational skills and military are blurred. Therefore, an armed presence on site is an assumption more than serious.
So when Alain Juppe excludes any French military intervention in Libya, he ignores (presumably forgetting his former capacity as Minister of Defence) that the massive presence of humanitarian amid chaos politics as violence prevails, and correspondingly imperative, the presence of a security force. He pretends to ignore that if the humanitarian presence is French, it is unclear how the security could not but be at least partly French ...
Ultimately, the humanitarian involvement of France in Libya - sought by Sarkozy - carries within it the seeds of its future military involvement that is to say its discredit in the eyes of the people, hope that all ultimate goal cherished by Washington.
Remembering the past and its lessons: "Working for the King of Prussia."
This leads us to remember the War of Austrian Succession and its conclusion: it only benefits King of Prussia at the time - Frederick II - who drew only, chestnuts from the fire, receiving, by way of annexation of territory, the effects of a strong French military intervention in human and financial cost for the kingdom of Louis XV who, himself, did not profit anything.
attributed to Voltaire's phrase " work for the King of Prussia " evoking, in the mocking, the external intervention without any consideration for the kingdom of France, nor in terms of territorial or financial benefit nor in terms of prestige.
This risk of repetition in Libya when France could work for and instead of Uncle Sam, but his greatest political advantage in the medium and long term. Wanting to forgive his diplomatic procrastination various uprisings against the Arab, Sarkozy will have to heart to redeem himself by doing humanitarian work and then the "stabilization." He simply forgets that, first the French will then be at the forefront of managing the unmanageable that is to say an insurgency and all its consequences, on the other hand, the U.S. will recover and denigrate it, then The situation for themselves by providing, then assistance and intervention, not humanitarian but economic (and oil-refundable) once the hardest has been made by the French.
Conclusion: nothing is gained to be subcontractors of foreign policy Americans. Sarkozy may learn the hard way. We also, unfortunately ...
Jean-Louis Pence - Tribune
0 comments:
Post a Comment