Moral Side: Libya

What is the justification for war in Libya that the Obama administration has stated or that is implicit in its statements? Do these three look to be adequate justification?

Repression of its civilian population;
United Nations authorization;
The necesity to remove the current regime from power and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

If you agree that these are appropriate justifications for the United States to intervene militarily in Libya, then you have also agreed with three of the justifications for the military intervention in Iraq.

Please read below from Text of the Joint Resolution for the Authorization of Military Force against Iraq of 2002.

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq , including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994) ;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

I have listened to President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Secretary Gates (though Mr. Gates has been conspicuously silent since the decision to take action in Libya - you remember, that he advised against it). I watched the agonizingly uncomfortrable press conference with General Carter Ham (commander, US African Command - "AFRICOM").

It was obvious to me that General Ham was uncomfortable with the vagueness of what he is supposed to do with whom and for whom in Libya. Are we taking sides or enforcing a no-fly zone? Who is in charge, or at least direting traffic? Are we seeking a regime change or just trying to make the fight even or protect civilians - just the rebels or ALL citizens of Libya? Are we invading, attacking, enforcing, intervening, or ______________ (circle as many as apply)?

I encourage President Obama to read what every Marine Second Lieutenant has read ... FMFM 1 - "Warfighting." It is a quick read. It won't even take up the entire flight to Brazil.

I would also suggest that the President take a look at the Principles of War that are taught and followed by the US military. These principles are:

Objective
Offensive
Mass
Economy of Force
Maneuver
Unity of Command
Security
Surprise
Simplicity

This action in Libya has violated at least six of the nine principles:

Objective (or Mission) – Direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive and attainable objective. Can anyone state the mission? It seems that the French, British, and Americans have separate missions.
Offensive – Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative. Offensive action is the most effective and decisive way to attain a clearly defined common objective. Offensive operations are the means by which a military force seizes and holds the initiative while maintaining freedom of action and achieving decisive results. This is fundamentally true across all levels of war. We cannot go to war (or whatever this is) by playing for a tie. We must play to win and defeat the enemy. In war there are no umpires - the nation that seeks to be an umpire will always be drawn into the conflict - usually on the weaker or losing side.
Mass – Mass the effects of overwhelming combat power at the decisive place and time. Synchronizing all the elements of combat power where they will have decisive effect on an enemy force in a short period of time is to achieve mass. Massing effects, rather than concentrating forces, can enable numerically inferior forces to achieve decisive results, while limiting exposure to enemy fire. Measured responses or playing even gets people killed and extends involvement. Overwhelming and preponderant force lowers casualties and leads to a swift conclusion. We will need to introduce ground forces to end the conflict between the Libyan rebels and the Libyan regime. We may have mass in the air in Libya, but not on the ground. In the meantime, massing forces in Libya drains our forces in Afghanistan.
Economy of Force – Employ all combat power available in the most effective way possible; allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts. Economy of force is the judicious employment and distribution of forces. No part of the force should ever be left without purpose. The allocation of available combat power to such tasks as limited attacks, defense, delays, deception, or even retrograde operations is measured in order to achieve mass elsewhere at the decisive point and time on the battlefield. This principle is paired with MASS. The Libyan involvement does not economize military force for what needs to be the primary effort in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Unity of Command – For every objective, seek unity of command and unity of effort. At all levels of war, employment of military forces in a manner that masses combat power toward a common objective requires unity of command and unity of effort. Unity of command means that all the forces are under one responsible commander. It requires a single commander with the requisite authority to direct all forces in pursuit of a unified purpose. Does anyone know who is in charge. No-Fly Zones are complex operations. There are multiple military forces involved. There needs to be at minimum a traffic controller. This issue was illustrated recently when rebel ground forces shot down a rebel aircraft. President Obama says we are not in charge...who is?
Simplicity – Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and concise orders to ensure thorough understanding. Everything in war is very simple, but the simple thing is difficult. To the uninitiated, military operations are not difficult. Simplicity contributes to successful operations. Simple plans and clear, concise orders minimize misunderstanding and confusion. Other factors being equal, parsimony is to be preferred. This principle is related to Unity of Command. There are so many moving parts - including what nations are/will participate. One commander with a simple mission statement would make things a lot easier.

So, what is the Moral Side? I want to support the President. We have all seen the damage that can be done by undercutting the President as Commander-in-Chief. I do not want us to repeat what was done to President Bush. I want to be a part of the loyal opposition.

I am concerned that taking military action to "protect the citizens" of another nation from its own government is a dangerous expansion of the use of military force. Still, I am support the President because he is the President. That is the best way to insure the security and effectiveness of our military personnel.

President Obama appears to be attempting to wage war while at the same time not tarnishing his Nobel Peace Prize.

I plead with the President to listen to his military advisors, to give heed to the Principles of War, and to be a decisive Commander-in-Chief.

--Respectfully submitted, Lt. Colonel JW Slider, USMC (ret)