Gates lays out criteria for Libya action

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Thursday, March 10, 2011 - 12:45 PM Share

One thing I learned as a reporter was that effective defense officials chose their words extremely carefully, especially when they emerged from meetings with allies over the use of force. So take a moment to read this comment, made by Defense Secretary Gates after a NATO meeting in Brussels today: "NATO will only act if there is demonstrable need, a sound legal basis, and strong regional support."  

In case anyone missed the point, old Gates underscored it a couple of minutes later. "We are very mindful of opinion in the region, and that's one of the reasons that one of the three central criteria with respect to any action requires strong regional support.  I think that a number of ministers made clear that we were -- we wanted to put ourselves in a position to assist the Arab League, the African Union or the U.N. in this endeavor, and very sensitive to NATO being responsive to those organizations rather than taking an initiative on its own."

I would say the American position is that it will support NATO action if one of those three entities agrees to take the lead. I suspect that the American position may "stiffen," as Churchill would say, if Qaddafi's forces start slaughtering people. That would be a change in the "demonsrable need" meter. Sound legal basis is easy to handle. So that leaves the regional support for action as the major variable.

This does remind me a lot of Bosnia '94. Makes me miss Holbrooke.

For those who want to do their own parsing of the SecDef, here's the whole transcript.

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD, DISPATCH FROM THE REVOLUTION, LIBYA, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
 

TYRTAIOS

6:18 PM ET

March 10, 2011

Way to go Ike. . .err I mean Bob

This is old political hat we’ve historically seen before back in the 1950‘s, as concerns intervening militarily aboard unilaterally. I have great respect for Gates as a SecDef, (not so much as a former Director, CIA) and I am happy to see him resurrect putting some caveats on military intervention.

It is my bet that Gates and the man he serves in the Oval Office always understood the “three entities agrees to take the lead” approach from day one. . .specifically the Arab League in my mind as the one major entity.

I could be wrong. . .once again, but I think both Gates and Obama knew the likelihood of these conditions occurring relatively soon were remote, giving us realistic and plausible duck and cover we need to sort the situation out for what will be in our best interest not just in Libya, but the greater Maghrib and Middle East region.

In the meantime people are dying? Yep, it’s a sad state of World affairs reality that I find distasteful, just as I did, and still do, that people have died, continue to die, in southern Sudan, and further down south in Africa that makes anything occurring in Libya pale by comparison.

 

JPWREL

7:11 PM ET

March 10, 2011

Right on the money

TYRTAIOS comes up with about as close to a perfect analysis of Gates & Obama’s stratagem that is possible. He should have his own blog at FP!

 

TYRTAIOS

8:28 PM ET

March 10, 2011

Hold that thought

Easy on the blog at FP, until you have me vetted and find out what a war monger I once was, as well as get into my foot locker and read all my hair brained amphibious operation plans for invasions of different countries like Nepal - wait, they don't have a beach do they?

Seriously, I just got an e-mail reminding me of the African Union's failure to carry through with or really implement its 1977 declaration to eliminate of Mercenarism in Africa. The simple fact is, African leaders are some of the biggest users of the merc trade, and they're going to tell the crazy colonel to cease and desist?

Where is Mad Mike Hoare and the wild geese when we need him - don’t you have a state senator with a Scot/Irish name?

 

WHISKEYPAPA

9:39 AM ET

March 11, 2011

Who? Senator Webb?

I hear he is making a career change.

Walt

 

JPWREL

10:16 AM ET

March 11, 2011

Actually, I think TYRTAIOS is

Actually, I think TYRTAIOS is referring to Sen. McCain who thinks himself a reincarnation of Stonewall Jackson. Unfortunately for McCain the comparison falls apart upon close examination in that Stonewall actually possessed a large strategic insight but was hampered by a shortage of resources. McCain on the other hand sees endless resources but is dim of wit, impulsive and un-calculating.

 

JIM GOURLEY

7:24 PM ET

March 10, 2011

What'd I Say About Galvanizing the Arab League?

As long as it's anything that's not Israel, it ain't happening. Egypt can't go. The Saudis know they'd look like hypocrites, Iraq is out and Kuwait doesn't have the infrastructure. You'd have an easier time getting Japan and South Korea to do it.

The African coalitions can't even stop Joseph Kony. Wholesale slaughter in Libya isn't going to bring anyone running. Providing aid to a mess like that isn't a mission, it's mission creep.

Hopefully someone in that carrier battle group has Gloria Estefan on their .mp3 player. "Turn the fleet a-rouuuuund. Love to hear abstention..."

 

WALKING WOUNDED

9:20 PM ET

March 10, 2011

Kings, as a rule, oppose regicide

... 'cept when a threatening limb of their own family tree needs lopped off. But seeing some saddam's head on a pike in neighboring countries sets a bad example at home. A brother oligarchy turning the armored cavalry loose on the peasants... that my friends is a teachable moment.

Lotta Arab 'kings' in the Gulf 'states' (few exceptions to arab despotry anywhere), applying the democratic 'one king, one vote' rule in the Arab League. And in the UN.

I'm beginning to think JPWREL's 'smart weapons' solution has the charm of being direct and relatively simple. Inshallah.

 

CANADA

11:25 PM ET

March 10, 2011

Love the photo possibly cant quite figure out why though !!

In all seriousness though having another entity take the lead seems more then reasonable though i would say that arab league asking for a no fly zone is probably the best out of the 3 Gates has laid out I think the best option is to lunge a couple of tomahawks at the government arms depots if there locatable and crater the runways in a similar fashion and call it a day if it comes that supplying rebels who will eventually turn on eachother in all likelyhood seems like a bad idea

 

BEARCAT

10:34 AM ET

March 11, 2011

Clarion Call to the EU

Arvay

THIS is not directly involved? When do we cross that threshold when we issue the order to "Fix Bayonets!" ??
"we can't and shouldn't. . . be directly involved. Intelligence, supplies, helicoptering wounded rebels to one or more hospital ships -- and particularly weaponry -- could be decisive." A

All that good stuff about Italy and the EU sounds like a Clarion Call to Italy and the EU. There is nothing about Libya that makes US indespensible, France can whup the COL, Italy can whup the COL, the EU can whup the COL. Why do we let the EU say Sic Em and "Cry Havoc and Loose the US Dogs of War!

Getting rid of the COL stabilizes NOTHING. The only thing that provides stability is an open ended mission w a large ground contingent. I am just peeing my pants, this is too good an opportunity to miss!

 

BEARCAT

1:02 PM ET

March 11, 2011

Arvay Don't even have deniability fig leaf?

I'm glad you defined directly involved.

Don't try to do that kind of stuff in a bank heist or some kind of civil tort and think that you are off the hook!!! The law will probably think you are involved.

Since we are the American Hegemon and have the deepest of deep pockets, if we do as much as you laid out, "hiding in plain sight" we are GOING TO OWN THIS PROBLEM. The only thing that creates stability is a large stability force on the ground.

Where is the Cost/Risk Benefit Analysis? Without ground component We can't even see our way forward to a minimal ugly looking endstate.

 

MCNULTY

11:19 AM ET

March 11, 2011

Another great play by Gates

Stuff like this is why I wish Gates could have a J. Edgar Hoover like tenure at the Pentagon.

 

WALKING WOUNDED

5:20 PM ET

March 11, 2011

You want Gates to take up gambling and blackmail, like J. Edgar?

In keeping with your idea of Hoover-inspired improvements at the Puzzle Palace, I suggest renaming it the McNamara-Rumsfeld Building, after our two most memorable (and longest serving) SecDefs, whose names and shared hairstyle are coincidentally closely associated with our longest wars.

"Lest we forget" could be carved in stone below their bespectacled marble likenesses.

I bet Bob Gates remembers both of his luminary predecessors, in their legacies, every day.

 

BUTCH BRACKNELL

11:58 AM ET

March 11, 2011

Sound legal basis

Not so sure this is "easy to handle." Three options -- self-defense (not applicable, even through a tortured application of anticipatory self-defense); UNSCR (not a foregone conclusion, given Russian and Chinese historical opposition to almost any use of force contemplated by western powers, particularly the US), or the controversial and criticized doctrine of humanitarian intervention as a basis for use of force.

UNSCR 1970 of 26 Feb 11 does a few things:
1) refers the situation to the ICC;
2) imposes an arms embargo;
3) imposes a travel ban;
4) seizes assets;
5) demands an end to violence;
6) urges the Qaddafi regime to exercise restraint and act responsibly;
7) encourages member states to cooperate in evacuation of foreign nationals;
8) establishs a new sanctions committee;
9) calls for humanitarian relief; and
10) declares the UNSCR to remain "seized of the matter" (a commitment to stay engaged).

It does not authorize armed intervention, under any liberal construction of the resolution.

So, unless NATO is willing to go out on an international law limb and resurrect the Kosovo doctrine of armed intervention on humanitarian grounds, or unless it can convince P5 member states Russia and China not to obstruct a new UNSCR authorizing the use of force, I don't see this as an easy kill.

 

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

Read More