On the Libyan Uprising

on Mar 16, 2011

Daiwa

I'd still take the advice of an actual policy analyst over his any day.

Agreed. Just one of the reasons we have civilian authority over the military - the military's job is execute the mission, not to determine the policy objective. Without question, however, their experience can valuably inform the civilian decision-making process of arriving at an objective. Much as I disagree with Clark's politics, his perspective on the military aspects of something like the Libya situation should not be rejected out of hand, but taken into consideration with that big grain of salt (potential conflict of interest or blinkered view).

This.

32

Scoutdog

on Mar 16, 2011

Without question, however, their experience can valuably inform the civilian decision-making process of arriving at an objective.

I'd say more that they present a specific viewpoint, but also that their information or insight is not by any means unique. To use an analogy that will most definately be taken to mean more than it does, you don't have to have committed a felony to be an expert on crime.

33

Scoutdog

on Mar 16, 2011

And policy analysts do not have a conflict of intrest? If it is like with economist then they are to support a position and were indoctrinated in what ever the prevaling ideology was when they were being educated (and it was based on politics rather than what is proven to be 'best' or even work).

Ideology is not technically the same as a conflict of interest. You can be biased or unbiased with or without a conflict of interest. COI just means that you have a personal connection to the issue that would potentially influence their ideology. You can get civilian analysts biased left, right, and center, but (retired) generals are, by virtue of being generals and thus personally connected, more likely to side with the military.

34

Daiwa

on Mar 16, 2011

To use an analogy that will most definately be taken to mean more than it does, you don't have to have committed a felony to be an expert on crime.

True. But I'd say it helps. In a criminal contest between a felon and a crime expert, the felon will be the safer bet. There's a reason Frank Abagnale still makes good money.

35

Scoutdog

on Mar 16, 2011

True. But I'd say it helps. In a criminal contest between a felon and a crime expert, the felon will be the safer bet. There's a reason Frank Abagnale still makes good money.

Good point. But of course, it's very possible for a civilian to be much more qualified, even ignoring the COI issue.

36

Anthony R

on Mar 16, 2011

It was a perfect chance to get rid of Ghadaffi once and for all. What would it have taken to set up some surgical air strikes to rattle Gadaffi into exile? Just another lost opportunity. Even more hilarious is how the Obama's will be sunning in Rio as Japan meltsdown into the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Obama plays golf and makes his hoops predictions while Japan turns radioactive and the Middle East burns.

37

Gwenio1

on Mar 16, 2011

Scoutdog

reply 33

Ideology is not technically the same as a conflict of interest. You can be biased or unbiased with or without a conflict of interest. COI just means that you have a personal connection to the issue that would potentially influence their ideology. You can get civilian analysts biased left, right, and center, but (retired) generals are, by virtue of being generals and thus personally connected, more likely to side with the military.

Ideology in this case means they were trained to have a specific view that matched that which was politically 'in' at the time. Analyst exist to support a specific view rather than to actually have a good view of the subject. Even if they are not being paid to support one side or the other as that is how it is taught.

The point is, it is far better to find the facts and mke your own opinion that it is to listen to 'experts' when politics are involved.

38

Gwenio1

on Mar 16, 2011

Anthony R

reply 36

It was a perfect chance to get rid of Ghadaffi once and for all. What would it have taken to set up some surgical air strikes to rattle Gadaffi into exile? Just another lost opportunity. Even more hilarious is how the Obama's will be sunning in Rio as Japan meltsdown into the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Obama plays golf and makes his hoops predictions while Japan turns radioactive and the Middle East burns.

About the only thing to do about the power plant is to re-evaluate if we really want to build more nueclear power plants and if so should better standards of safety be enforced? And send aid after the fact of course.

39

Scoutdog

on Mar 16, 2011

Ideology in this case means they were trained to have a specific view that matched that which was politically 'in' at the time. Analyst exist to support a specific view rather than to actually have a good view of the subject. Even if they are not being paid to support one side or the other as that is how it is taught.

The point is, it is far better to find the facts and mke your own opinion that it is to listen to 'experts' when politics are involved.

Well, that just brings up the question of whether "social sciences" can ever be objective...

But I'm more surprised by the fact that I just agreed with a full-fledged conservative.... this is kind of a first.

40

Daiwa

on Mar 16, 2011

Just curious: What's your definition of 'full-fledged'?

41

GeneralEtrius

on Mar 16, 2011

If by some miracle the rebels can defend the two cities that are currently under siege (Misurata and Ajabiya. They seem to be doing a good job now but we'll see) and throw out Qaddafi without Western assistance, they will likely have a very bitter taste in their mouth and become anti Western, which we really do not need.

Here are some updates: Britain apparently has RAF and SAS squadrons on standby in Malta, an island close to Libya. Something is telling me that the UN Resolution fails, Britain and France will launch independent attacks on Qaddafi. They have been the ones pushing the no fly zone while Obama fills out his NCAA bracket.

Some people have been debating whether the no fly zone will be effective now. If it happens, Qaddafi will lose his planes, which have still been a major part of his army next to his artillery. Also, some Libyan Air Force pilots have defected to the rebels. Reports showed helicopters pounding loyalist postions, and there have been reports that a Libyan pilot decided to join the revolution mid patrol, and kamikazed his plane into a military compound, severly injuring two of Qaddafis sons and commanders of the Libyan Army.

As for Benghazi, the rebels say they will fight to the death. Almost everyone there allegedly has a gun and have been building fortifications. Qaddafi's supply lines are getting stretched thin in the eastern front. Rebels have captured supplies on ships and have sunk Loyalist navy ships.

42

Dr Guy

on Mar 17, 2011

Well, you could help give a good start if you'd define what you mean by "the left."

That should have been your first question before you decided to create the strawman.

Nearly all the rhetoric I hear and read from 'your side

My "side"? What is "My Side"?

hence our nation's deplorable public health situation

I wonder how the ALE ever got over 78 given that rhetoric.

43

Dr Guy

on Mar 17, 2011

What frustrates me is the simplistic notion, perpetuated ad nauseum by much of what passes for the press here, that the 'correct' position, on virtually any issue, is somewhere in the 'middle' between 'right' and 'left', a view that is completely devoid of consideration of principle. Some of the more important things we tussle over in a representative republic are all or none propositions - you can't be 'slightly' pregnant; sometimes the 'opposing' views are quite incompatible and not subject to the kind of forced 'compromise' the press is so fond of.

Excellent points Daiwa! Indeed, the compromise between the English Driving system and the American one is down the middle! The press would love it! But I doubt many people would.

There are right answers to some issues that can be found through empirical evidence. Compromising with a "down the middle" approach when something is inherently wrong is no solution. Burning half your money is not a compromise between burning none and burning it all.

And as you note in the final clause, there are some issues that there is no middle - just a between void. One such issue is abortion. Anyone believing that abortion is murder is not going to compromise and say "you can murder half of them" or "murder them all half way". And those that do not believe it is murder are not going to agree to ban it on all women with names beginning A-M.

44

GeneralEtrius

on Mar 17, 2011

The UN has just passed the No Fly Zone resolution. A bit late, but still. The early days of the uprising show that Qaddafi has no chance without his planes. The rebels took like 75% of the country before he unleashed his air force.

45

Scoutdog

on Mar 17, 2011

Just curious: What's your definition of 'full-fledged'?

Not a self-identified centrist or libertarian. Many of those don't like to be called conservatives.

Excellent points Daiwa! Indeed, the compromise between the English Driving system and the American one is down the middle! The press would love it! But I doubt many people would.

There are right answers to some issues that can be found through empirical evidence. Compromising with a "down the middle" approach when something is inherently wrong is no solution. Burning half your money is not a compromise between burning none and burning it all.

And as you note in the final clause, there are some issues that there is no middle - just a between void. One such issue is abortion. Anyone believing that abortion is murder is not going to compromise and say "you can murder half of them" or "murder them all half way". And those that do not believe it is murder are not going to agree to ban it on all women with names beginning A-M.

Once again, I find myself agreeing with you.

The UN has just passed the No Fly Zone resolution. A bit late, but still. The early days of the uprising show that Qaddafi has no chance without his planes. The rebels took like 75% of the country before he unleashed his air force.

They can't enforce it without someone agreeing to pony up the planes. I doubt the smidgeon of peacekeeping troops they have could handle the job alone. As I've said before, the UN is designed to be an ineffectual body.