Conquer Club

If you compare the consequences of Libya to Iraq and Afghanistan, then it's clear that the US intervention in Libya was less expensive* (so far) than in Iraq and Afghanistan.

*As in (1) the monetary price that US taxpayers pay/will pay, (2) loss of US lives, (3) loss of non-ISAF nationals' lives, etc.


Since it's clear that Libya is less costly than the other wars and their post-war reconstruction efforts, and if the US wants to intervene in a country, then is not the Libyan model the optimal approach?

BigBallinStalin wrote:If you compare the consequences of Libya to Iraq and Afghanistan, then it's clear that the US intervention in Libya was less expensive* (so far) than in Iraq and Afghanistan.

*As in (1) the monetary price that US taxpayers pay/will pay, (2) loss of US lives, (3) loss of non-ISAF nationals' lives, etc.


Since it's clear that Libya is less costly than the other wars and their post-war reconstruction efforts, and if the US wants to intervene in a country, then is not the Libyan model the optimal approach?

it would be awesome if in every war we could only use some airplanes and not have an actual invasion!

Or Congressional approval

If you miss Congressional approvals, then I've got a nice used car--specially priced, just for you!

yeah if you can find a ton of locals willing to put their lives on the line to fight their own government then it is a very cheap and effective method of intervention. However that situation isin't exactly dime a dozen.

It's going on right now in syria. Likely with a libya style intervention assad wouldn't last much longer. However unlike Qadafi, Assad has got some friends willing to back him up. Its unclear how far those friends would go, but the risk make the potential costs a lot higher.

Baron Von PWN wrote:yeah if you can find a ton of locals willing to put their lives on the line to fight their own government then it is a very cheap and effective method of intervention. However that situation isin't exactly dime a dozen.

Iran, 2010 or so during that row on the election.
The Arab Spring (so pretty much all of the middle east)
Syria (for the past year)
Afghanistan (1990s to early 2000s, with Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban---US did nothing significant)


But those (in my opinion) are more spontaneous as oppose to centrally planned (i.e. the result of foreign active measures). In the past 10-20 years, the US has had the opportunity to engage in the Libyan approach, so it can't be the case that these situations are a dime a dozen.

Besides, if the Libyan model proves most effective, then the US could gear up their hum int and implement active measures which would result in riots/etc. in the foreign country that they wish to change.

Baron Von PWN wrote:It's going on right now in syria. Likely with a libya style intervention assad wouldn't last much longer. However unlike Qadafi, Assad has got some friends willing to back him up. Its unclear how far those friends would go, but the risk make the potential costs a lot higher.

How do you know the risks and costs would be higher? Because Qadaffi had plenty of friends (who were apparently bought or were not agitated by a foreign occupation--e.g. Iraq and AFG).

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:yeah if you can find a ton of locals willing to put their lives on the line to fight their own government then it is a very cheap and effective method of intervention. However that situation isin't exactly dime a dozen.

Iran, 2010 or so during that row on the election.
The Arab Spring (so pretty much all of the middle east)
Syria (for the past year)
Afghanistan (1990s to early 2000s, with Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban---US did nothing significant)


But those (in my opinion) are more spontaneous as oppose to centrally planned (i.e. the result of foreign active measures). In the past 10-20 years, the US has had the opportunity to engage in the Libyan approach, so it can't be the case that these situations are a dime a dozen.

Besides, if the Libyan model proves most effective, then the US could gear up their hum int and implement active measures which would result in riots/etc. in the foreign country that they wish to change.

Baron Von PWN wrote:It's going on right now in syria. Likely with a libya style intervention assad wouldn't last much longer. However unlike Qadafi, Assad has got some friends willing to back him up. Its unclear how far those friends would go, but the risk make the potential costs a lot higher.

How do you know the risks and costs would be higher? Because Qadaffi had plenty of friends (who were apparently bought or were not agitated by a foreign occupation--e.g. Iraq and AFG).

Most of the Arab spring didn't require foreign intervention, or would not have been helped by foreign intervention. In places such as qatar where opposition was too weak. Iran was like that too, sure there were big protests and a lot of opposition. Were they willing to go all out to civil war? no. If a foreign power were to intervene there it would be more like Afghanistan.

US didn't do anything before 9/11 because frankly why bother? Even after 9/11 you have to wonder why the US decided to go the full out occupation route.

I'm suspicious of the ability of active measures to stir up serious discontent. The soviets tried it for decades, they never got anywhere other than in places were locals actually had grievances, even in those places the most trouble it caused were drawn out rebellions. These situations occur organically and cannot be manufactured. Once it occurs a foreign power can help it along significantly but it has to occur first.

as to why syria could potentially cost more.

Russia has been stepping up to bat for them in the UN. China is even stepping in somewhat. Russia is already selling arms to the Syrian government. Iran is no doubt keeping a close eye on things. Assad seems to have a lot more friends internationally than Qadafi did.

Louis XI used to bribe the Flemish to rise up against the Burgundians, and future generations carried on the tradition, even after the Netherlands passed from Burgundy to Austria and from Austria to Spain.

Only took 350 years before it worked!