Lugar: Libyan "Conflict" lacks exit strategy, clear purpose, & US Senate approval to engage in war

US Sen Lugar (R-IN) has criticized Obama for deploying U.S. forces without a clear exit strategy, repeatedly called the conflict a “war” (a term the White House rejects), and said the president violated the Constitution in intervening without a formal authorization from Congress.[1]

Barack Obama left the Senate after two years there for a presidential run, making few close friends in the chamber because of his short tenure. But before he left, Obama cultivated an unlikely bond with a Republican US Senator 29 years his senior: Richard G. Lugar. Lugar was the former Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and negotiated the START Treaty. Many Democrats have floated Lugar's name as a possible Sec of State replace to Sec Clinton - not now, not after his remarks about Libya. Talk has shifted to Sen John Kerry.[2]

“The president still has not clearly stated what our goals are or what would constitute success. He has not stated whether the United States would accept a stalemate in the civil war, nor has he put forward a plan for ending Gaddafi’s rule,” Lugar said.[3]

The intervention in Libya is to oust an enemy of the US, create a new market for American energy companies (currently Libya has been dominated by Italian, British, French and Turkish Energy companies, which is anti-competition), use blow-up missiles so the US can purchase new ones (which helps the American Military Industry), and support the US allies in the NATO and the Arab League. Oh yes, and justify the war (my bad, “conflict”) with a UNSC resolution and calling the action one of humanitarianism. The US should be a pro at these things, they practiced in Iraq.

The senator’s criticisms of Obama’s Libya policy are similar to those of other members of both parties. Lugar is obviously one of those old anti-war, pro-rule of law, anti-humanitarian and anti-capitalistic Republicans. He should be ashamed of not seeing the potential economic benefits of Libya and the potential of killing an enemy of the US - Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi.[4]
____________________________________

[1] Landler & Shanker. "Gates and Clinton Unite to Defend Libya Intervention, and Say It May Last Awhile" The New York Times 28 March 2011 p A9
[2] "US public, Congress remain skeptical of Libyan mission" DEUTSCHE WELLE 1 April 2011 accessed 3 April 2011
[3] Bacon, P. "On Libya, former ally takes on Obama" The Washington Post 2 April 2011 accessed 3 April 2011 [4] Shanker & Cooper. "Doctrine for Libya: Not Carved in Stone" The New York Times 30 March 2011 accessed 3 April 2011

India, Pakistan & American foreign intrests

At times I become frustrated by American foreign policy, as it is like a violinist who picks up the interment with his right hand, but plays with his left. During the Cold War, Pakistan was a loyal allied of the United States, though in the 21st Century we have elected to ease friendship ties in support of Pakistan’s arch rival, India. Securing more trade with India, a nation previously supported by the Soviet Union and on the verge of becoming one of the most populous nations on Earth, is brilliant in terms of opening more markets and advancing American commercial interests. The frustration comes from the US not doing more to strengthen security efforts with Pakistan. The Surge, which occurred back in July saw a massive influx of NATO military forces, but led to a tsunami of anti-western dissidents fleeing into the mountainous regions of Pakistan. The evacuation of Afghanistan by the majority of al-Qaeda and the Taliban to Pakistan has led to a de-stabilization in parts of that nation.

Peshawar, Pakistan is the home of one of my good friends. I was with her the day she learned her aunt had been killed by a suicide-bomb in one of the market places. Her brother-in-law is a professor of terrorism studies at the university and I learned a lot from them about life on the ground as it were. Abandonment in Pakistan and a focus solely on Indian trade and economic policy is a risky move for Pakistan. From a US perspective, the shift in support and trade advantages to counter that of China and secure vast markets for goods, services, labour and capital did not come soon enough. Pakistan is quite insignificant in an economic sphere of influence. Those who are strong Indian supporters argue that Pakistan is one of the most corrupt States in the world and that constantly having military leaders is an indication of the weakness of the democracy. These assertions whether true or not are probably closer to fact, than fiction.

What can be done about Pakistan? The US has a reputation for failing to think about unintended consequences and I am proposing using history as a means for not repeating cyclical errors. Pakistan is ripe for further destabilization and angering the population by using statements, such as “militant”, which are tantamount to asserting the Pakistani State is recklessly out of control and in the realm of what a previous American president would have called “evil”. Pakistani officials realized that President Obama had to talk tough in order to win the support of India and secure trade advantages in the Far East. Proposing a UN Security Council permanent seat for India is a step towards diluting the voting power of China and Russia along with France and the United Kingdom on some issues. Pakistan is too small a political power to ever be seriously considered for an expansion seat. If any American foreign policy team can persuade the UNGA and the UNSC to amend the charter to add India to the ranks of the permanent five, then it will be President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, both of whom the world seems to view in more divine terms, as opposed to political actors on a world stage.

Considering history, the US always abandons good ideas long before the relevance becomes empirical. The US should begin transfer funding to Pakistan’s educational system to ensure al-Qaeda and the Taliban do not brainwash weakening allies into becoming our enemies. NATO and Pakistan should work on creating a joint security plan for alleviating the major security risks. In light of changing policies, the UK and US should retract proposed plans to restrict Pakistanis travelling to their respective sovereignties. Continuing a culture exchange to break down looming societal barriers will serve the west well in years to come.

The weaknesses of my argument concern the lack of political will, a shift in policy from Pakistani based to Indian based, and being a bit idealistic in proposing aiding Pakistan’s educational system and calling for a NATO security arrangement.

Indian trade security and the potential for new markets for goods, services, labour and capital is a major advantage in the east, especially as China is beginning to flex its economic muscle. Fear of China moving off of the dollar as it’s hedging currency could further devalue the US dollar. India is not without its flaws, as it has a rich heritage of class divide, corruption, domestic crime, and governmental and omissions human rights abuse. Pakistan is a nation in peril, as it went from a relatively save country at the beginning of the War in Afghanistan to being a very dangerous State today. Strong support for Pakistan’s neighbour and calling the state “militant”, and not making a distinction between radical Islam and the Religion of Islam are good methods for losing the allegiance of a now questioning Pakistani society. The situation is summed up best by saying, “That's Maciavelli”.