Dear Senator Kerry: Learn From Your Mistakes

By Steve Hynd

Over the weekend, John Kerry proved he doesn't learn from his mistakes by joining Republicans Mitch McConnell and John McCain in calling for a U.S.-imposed no-fly zone over Libya. Thus, Kerry declared himself for a war with Libya before he would be inevitably against it.

I say "inevitable" because any form of U.S. military intervention there would be disasterous, an Iraq level quagmire. Look at the history: from Bosnia to Iraq to Afghanistan, the military and arms manufacturer lobbyists have always pushed for escalation of any involvement - from a beginning of no-fly zones or special forces units all the way up to 100,000+ troops on the ground - and cowed politicians have always given it to them. The Iraqi no-fly zones required 200 military aircraft, 19 naval ships, 22,000 U.S. military personnel - at a total cost of $14 billion. (Although the bill then was picked up by the Saudis, they're highly unlikely to do so this time - they're not even keen to be involved in U.S. gunrunning to the Libyan rebels.) And that was followed by the $1 trillion travesty of the Iraq invasion and occupation. As Bob Gates told everyone:

�Let�s just call a spade a spade,� .... �A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That�s the way you do a no-fly zone. And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down. But that�s the way it starts.�

That's an act of war and the United States has a poor record of extracting itself from wars that turn into quagmires. A war in Libya would be a quagmire because, as Arnauld deBorchgrave notes:

Gadhafi has 227 Russian and French warplanes and batteries of SAM-2 and SAM-6 antiaircraft missiles. Many of the planes can't fly and those that can could easily be shot down. But it would be a miracle if a U.S. aircraft didn't get shot down by a salvo of missiles, which would quickly escalate the conflict.

Gadhafi's retaliatory capabilities aren't harmless. They would have to be neutralized before a NFZ could be initiated.

And because yet another U.S.-led war on a Muslim nation, in a region already in turmoil, would be Bin Laden's wet dream - allowing Al Qaeda to retrench elsewhere while using this new aggression to fuel recruiting as well as possibly turning every revolt in the Middle East a more Islamist hue. 

Such a war would take resources away from Afghanistan, for certain perpetuating that quagmire well beyond 2014 - something Gates and others have already set the scene for in any case - as well as create an oil price crisis which could severely impact the global economy. Oil is already trading at over $106 a barrel on Middle East unrest and analysts say it is not expected to drop in price markedly for the rest of 2011:

"We assume that output disruption is maintained through the second quarter," Citigroup said in a report. "Output disruption, or at least the threat of, will support a fear premium for the rest of 2011."

U.S. military intervention in Libya would undoubtedly push oil prices even higher. At some point over $110 a barrel and before $150 a barrel, the global economy begins to break down as it becomes too expensive to ship goods to Western markets from those nations where manufacturing jobs were long-ago offshored to. One set of analysts, the commodity team at Nomura Bank, is predicting a possible rise well beyond that threshold.

"We could see $220 a barrel should both Libya and Algeria halt oil production. We could be underestimating this as speculative activiites were largely not present in 1990-1991," said Michael Lo, the bank's oil strategist.

Former head of the Indian intelligence service Vikram Sood recommends a piece from Asia Times that says, baldly:

Whatever the outcome of the protests, uprisings and rebellions now sweeping the Middle East, one thing is guaranteed: the world of oil will be permanently transformed. Consider everything that's now happening as just the first tremor of an oilquake that will shake our world to its core.

...[the] old oil order is dying, and with its demise we will see the end of cheap and readily accessible petroleum - forever.

A U.S. military intervention in the region would only hasten that collapse. The major winner would be Russia.

Russia, which pumps more oil than Saudi Arabia, is reaping a windfall from the steep rise in global energy prices sparked by instability in oil regions of the Middle East and North Africa. Riding the high oil prices, the Russian ruble has risen faster against the dollar this year than any other currency...

...Last week, the prime minister, Mr. Putin, sat down for a televised meeting with Russia�s finance minister, Aleksei L. Kudrin, which was nationally televised on state news channels for the public�s enlightenment as the two discussed, just short of gloating, the benefits to Russia of a global oil panic.

�Mr. Kudrin, budget revenues have become considerable,� Mr. Putin said matter-of-factly.

Mr. Kudrin agreed, noting that if prices hold Russia will be able to resume contributions to its sovereign wealth funds for the first time since the summer of 2008, when the global recession began.

One of those sovereign investment vehicles, the Reserve Fund, could reach $50 billion by the end of the year, Mr. Kudrin reported. Just a few months ago Russian officials planning the 2011 budget had anticipated the fund would be depleted.

�Good,� Mr. Putin responded to Mr. Kudrin�s account, nodding with satisfaction.

Guess what Russia would spend that surplus on.

Armed intervention in Libya or any other Middle Eastern nation, even if it began with a no-fly zone or just a few special forces teams, would begin a process which would enmire the U.S. in another expensive foreign quagmire, provide a windfall to Al Qaida and destabilize the world economy with only a few non-optimal exceptions. John Kerry may be for such a thing now but in the fullness of time he would certainly do another flip-flop and be against it.