Libya, Will Gaddafi prevail?
For a moment I thought the rebels might have a shot at ousting Gaddafi, now I'm not so sure. I think they are well and truly hosed.
France is so far the only nation to step to the plate and acknowledge the Rebels legitimacy. Everyone else seems to be doing a lot of hand wringing and wait and see.
The French seem to like demonstrations and revolutions, they certainly pitched in when it came to ours.
For a moment I thought the rebels might have a shot at ousting Gaddafi, now I'm not so sure. I think they are well and truly hosed.
It would have been a miracle for the rebels to be successful without major parts of the army defecting. Posted previously was a very important point that all should have understood. The difference between Egypt and Libya. Egyptian army had been educated by or was informed of western principles that have been standard in the US since sometime well after 1920. Libyan army has been trained in the extremist rhetoric promoted by their 40 year glorious leader. They have no concept that an army serves it people. Under Kaddafi training, the people are something that must be kept caged like wild animals in the zoo. Libyans army is trained to think like a Medieval army that only serves it king.
Same is part of recent Latin American history. Only the army was 'smart enough' to know what is good for the people. Need we cite Chile, Argentina, or most of Central America as classic examples?
Without the army, that rebellion was at risk.
2) A guerilla war means people can hide. Ambush. Do what the American colonists did to the British Army. What Vietnamese did to the French. But Libyans have a geography that is ideal only for tanks and planes. The rebels have no such equipment.
3) Worse, rebel troops want to run to the fight like firemen did in the WTC. Like British rebels did to attack a massively smaller Roman Legion only to have maybe one million massacred. These rebel soldiers have no idea of discipline or strategy. Apparently have few if any leaders who can properly lead them.
4) Kaddafi's son is wise. He let the rebels extend themselves foolishly until ambushed just outside of Sirt. Surrounded and devastated the people of Missaru (just east of Tripoli). And literally took apart rebel cities in the west only when ready. These massacres may have been grizzly. He waited for his tanks and munitions to be ready. Used desert in a 'rope a dope' strategy.
5) No nation can move in until the most responsible neighbors decide what is best. Responsibility falls firstmost on Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, and Sudan. If they do not call for international intervention, then nobody has any right to intervene. Even if it does become a bloodbath. Welcome to hard reality. Only other honest way for international intervention is a full approval by the UN Security Council or General Assembly. And that will not happen.
6) Damning weeks ago were conversations heard between rebel Generals and their political leaders for more supplies. Political leaders were so concerned about Kaddafi’s so successful propaganda as to not even beg for massive military aid. (ie a British diplomat and 8 SAS soldiers 'captured' and sent home because they would feed into Kaddafi’s propaganda). So they doomed themselves.
Conclusion: the only question is whether the rebels can last long enough to finally learn basic military concepts. Until they do, they will not succeed. And since the world so much needs Libyan oil (thank you Chevy and its crap Camaro as one example), welcome to a deal with the devil.
hey don't forget ford and their mustang.
you make some good points but fuck bro....look at what you're saying
will kadafi prevail? no he wont. period. hell i;ll offer to off him if need be. i;d do it out of general principal. why? he;s a jackass. and if you disagree then step in line after him. i;ll squash you too.
I hate it, but that's about what I came here to say, too.
I read years ago the point that revolutions only succeed if a large proportion of the security forces - army, police, etc - will support it, or at least refuse to fight it, as happened in Egypt. KQGadddafffi has enough loyal troops, plus foreign mercenaries, to do the job.
Option A: Suppose we (the rest of the world) impose a no-fly zone. Then what? Gadafi still has tanks, artillery, logistics, and crucially command and control structures, troops that have trained to act together. The rebels have toyotas with machine guns on them, belief in their cause, and knowledge that they will get no mercy if they surrender or are defeated. This isn't even a fair fight. A no fly zone would merely slow the inevitable.
Option B - A no-fly zone, plus air strikes on the Libyan army. Done heavily enough, it would equalise the terms of combat, and maybe scare a lot of the mercs into going home. Then what? A protracted civil war? Whoopee. Add to that the collateral damage our airstrikes would do, the propaganda card this would hand gadafi, the friendly fire losses... Gadafi has the logistics and command structures to win, and as TW points out, the terrrain isn't too suitable for guerilla tactics.
Option C: Full scale intervention with air and ground forces. See option B, with more casualties. Replay Iraq at best, Afghanistan or Somalia at worst. Hands up who wants to do that? Now check your wallet. Still keen?
I'm tring to come up with an option D. We buy off Gadafi's mercenaries - having choked off G's supllies of cash, give money to the rebels, they can buy the Merc's services. It has happened before. Meanwhile, seditious propaganda among the regular Libyan military encourages them to defect, and discretely supplied weapons help the rebels hold their own on the battlefield.
I don't see it working. Gadafi has a Stalinesque grip on his army. The mercs are good for dirty work like killing civilians, but not that important in battle. And all this would take time, which the rebels don't have.
What really pisses me off is that this will break the momentum of the Arab revolt, which can only be sustained by popular belief that they will win. All the other Middle-eastern tyrants must be secretly very pleased by Gadafi's victories, so I expect tehy will oppose any foreign 'meddling'. The message is getting through - try a revolution, you get massacred.
Welcome to another decade or two of repression.
Fuck it, I hope I'm wrong. :(
Plthijinx ... feel free, but you'll have to take out his sons (plenty of them) and several hundred other wannabe tyrants too. And their body guards.
Better take Chuck Norris with you.
Fuck it, I hope I'm wrong. :(
i respect you. you know this. now this.....libya needs to be taught a lesson that it forgot over 10 years ago. 2 percent of the oil? fuck em. go in and rape their ass. and at the same time why not drill more here? not gonna happen, why? because too many people think that we should not tap our recourses. hmmf. 5 dollar a gallon gas prices are in the near future. they already are in avgas.
libya forgot about being bombed before.
We - well, you guys, technically - bombed them in I think 1986.
It didn't work. Gadafi lived and stayed in power, and replied with the Lockerbie bombing.
What was the lesson again?
I like your motivations and agree with your desired outcomes, but this shouldn't be decided by emotion, but thought through so we can at least visualise some path to success before we start.
Tell me the story, that starts from where we are now, and progresses by plausible stages to a satisfactory outcome. Please.
Worse, rebel troops want to run to the fight like firemen did in the WTC.
lolwut? Horrid comparison there dude.
We - well, you guys, technically - bombed them in I think 1986.
It didn't work. Gadafi lived and stayed in power, and replied with the Lockerbie bombing.
The purpose was not to defeat him militarily. Air power cannot create any military victory. The attack very successfully changed his international agenda from overt terrorism to trying to becoming an African power broker. At least that was his attempt.
Subpoint - notice how ineffective carriers were to a nation whose infrastructure and most all population were exposed on the coast. Most of the attack had to be launched from Britain using one of America's worst planes, the F-111. Carrier's mostly performed protection for those F-111s. This paragraph is about what everyone should have known even that long ago. Carriers are not a massive weapons. Are mostly hyped by myths to be feared.
Air power cannot defeat anyone. The Libyan attack is best considered a diplomatic foray. It successfully changed his political aspirations. Nothing more. It was a powerful diplomatic message. Nothing more should have been expected from those attacks.
you make some good points but fuck bro....look at what you're saying
I will never speak politically correct at the expense of honesty.
Emotion only appears after all conclusions are done. Then I ask how I feel about it. Well, I feel I do not like what I posted. Not for one minute. But I also understand how trivial (irrelevant) those lives are because of the situation they are all in. My feelings also say that grizzly conclusion is necessary.
BTW, anyone who does not like what I posted should be posting four letter descriptions of Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Chad, Sudan, and the Arab League. That is where any international response should be coming from. Like most European nations during the Balkans, those nations should be embarrassed. But they aren't. Many of those government are / were just as guilty.
If you have any anger, that is where most of it should be directed. And also with the pathetic European response in Bosnia until Clinton kicked them in the ass. If any Europeans are insulted, I still do not care. Honesty based in hard facts that say why always trumps emotions.
Like I said, I do not like it. But a grizzly massacre may be necessary if something extraordinary is not initiated by the governments, institutions, and rebel leaders most responsible.
Horrid comparison there dude.
Yes. But again, that and the resulting chaos was a reality. A contempt for how fire fighters should operate remains a reality during 11 September. Combined with another adversarial police vs fire department relationship. I can appreciate what fire fighters did due to their emotions. But discipline must always trump emotions. Same problem exists with rebel soldiers. One reason why so many did and will die.
That is affects your emotions should be irrelevant. I posted that to make the point - bluntly. Including the part about how decisions combined with any emotion can only make situations (and death rates) worse.
We are discussing war no different then 11 Sept. Welcome to how the ruthless are so successful. And, BTW, notice how someone so ‘liberal’ (according to UG) is instead so brutally honest. How this nation's response to Libya must be; so that extremist rhetoric does not do more harm.
Provided were five points why a grizzly massacre might occur all over Libya.
With all the media focused on the earthquake in Japan, it might be a very bad couple days for the rebels in Libya...
We would certainly have more flexibility if Bush had not gotten us involved in Iraq.
Somebody should fly a plane full of Libyans into GQ's palace. :rolleyes:
We would certainly have more flexibility if Bush had not gotten us involved in Iraq.
Somebody should fly a plane full of Libyans into GQ's palace. :rolleyes:
What do you have against men's fashion magazines?
What do you have against men's fashion magazines?
lol. Sorry, I meant "KQGadddafffi's";)
Anyone whose name has that many spellings should be shot straight off, just for making it so damn hard for reporters.
European governments "completely puzzled" about U.S. position on Libya
Britain, France and the Arab League all demanded that KQGadddafffi go, and are now confused as to why the US isn't acting like the big boss for them on Libya.
Now they look like the impotent lip service players they really are, which is embarrassing for them.
Clinton's unwillingness to commit the United States to a specific position led many in the room to wonder exactly where the administration stood on the situation in Libya.
"Frankly we are just completely puzzled," the diplomat said. "We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States."
On the same day, Clinton had a short meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in which Sarkozy pressed Clinton to come out more forcefully in favor of action in Libya. She declined Sarkozy's request, according to a government source familiar with the meeting.
Sarkozy told Clinton that "we need action now" and she responded to him, "there are difficulties," the source said, explaining that Clinton was referring to China and Russia's opposition to intervention at the United Nations. Sarkozy replied that the United States should at least try to overcome the difficulties by leading a strong push at the U.N., but Clinton simply repeated, "There are difficulties."
Sarkozy told Clinton that "we need action now" and she responded to him, "Fill your boots."
As things go, Kaddafi will be in Benghazi next week.
The resolution is worded interestingly. Protect civilians. Not protect rebel soldiers. Wonder how that will be interpreted?
To have an effective military response will take almost a week. Rebels may not even have Benghazi by then. May be desperately holding out in Tobruk.
Nevertheless, by the time I posted that, United Nations Authorizes Strikes in Libya
Slippery Slope.
We should let France do it. They are closest.
We should let France do it. They are closest.
YES! Let's send the French!
*doubles over laughing*
France, Italy, Spain, hell even Egypt should be in on it. If we get dragged in militarily anyone who voted for Obama has no right to bitch about Bush's military exploits. This is a mistake.
Srsly, though, the world can't have it both ways.
we should stay OUT of Libya. OUT OUT OUT.
For real. It's time for some of these things to be Not Our Problem(TM).
Send in the French? Made me laugh almost as much as when I heard GQKDFii had announced an "immediate ceasefire". Yeah right.
The most interesting piece I've heard lately is that weapons are flowing in from (or more likely via) the Egyptian army. This, plus the no fly zone, might give the rebels a bit of a chance, but in reality, no-one can become proficient with a new weapon in a few days. Practice and training are needed.
I still think the rebels will lose, unless the "no-fly zone" is interpreted to include "no tanks or artillery either, or we'll bomb them".
I hope, somehow, the rebels win. Get the momentum for this Jasmine Revolution going again.
The French are survivors. They have my respect.
We're a tiny nation who likes to punch above its weight - the French have more land but not many more people. Neither the UK or la belle France have enough resources to do this alone.
I'm not saying America should be involved.
The situation in Libya is complex and we can't intervene every time a country murders its own citizens. But I completely understand why no-one has currently engaged without US backup.
Cameron is going to see Prince Sarkozy today.
Hope he brings back some duty free.
Are you seriously saying that the UK can't kick Libya's ass in a fight because it lacks resources?
Silly national stereotypes aside, the French can handle this with a little communication assistance from us.
srsly. It's Libya we're talking about, not all of Africa, or China.
MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...
MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...
If you voted for Obama you should never say another bad thing about Bush and his attacks on Iraq.... Obama basically just stuck his foot in another trap and used US forces to attack another country based on a UN mandate.
Merc, I voted for Bush twice, and against Obama, and am generally the most conservative guy in any given room. That aside, you have to admit that these are not parallel situations - only the rhetoric is the same.
I would agree...there is no parallel at all.
Until such time as Obama authorizes the invasion and occupation of Libya with 100,000+ ground forces w/o a UN resolution, as was the case of Bush's actions.
A more appropriate parallel would be towards Bush I and the Iraq no-fly zone.
smoothmoniker- what you fail to understand is merc is a one trick pony.
Are you seriously saying that the UK can't kick Libya's ass in a fight because it lacks resources?
UK has been so severely depleted with unnecessary wars that the UK cannot even supply fighter aircraft for (what will be) their only remaining aircraft carrier.
UK is so severely depleted as to fear risk to even one Tornado aircraft (at maybe $300million per platform).
Libya is first and foremost a problem addressed by the local nations. France is acting because other closer nations who should be taking more responsibility (Tunisia, Algeria, Chad, Niger, Sudan, and Egypt) are not or cannot.
An example of the new world order that George Sr defined (despite extremist naysaying from his own party). How long is required for world people to learn lessons from history? Slowly, the world will mock extremists and ostriches by learning fundamental lessons from history. Learn from history that define responsibility and the requirements of government. These lessons are mostly and still unknown. Too new to so many people. Even 70 years ago, the American government would do to their people what is today called political corruption. These social ethic and international responsibility are concepts very new throughout the world – even in America.
The French are simply doing what most nations (and people) in the world have not yet learned. A nation has certain responsibilities to citizens in neighboring states.
Americans are only a support function. Tiny destroyers and submarines launched cruise missiles. What Clinton did in the 1990s to (we later learned) completely defang Saddam (because Saddam was a threat to no one). What Reagan did to Kaddafi. What Ford did in Cambodia. What George Sr did in Panama. What Reagan did in Lebanon. What Clinton did in the Balkans. What Carter attempted in Iran. What George Sr did in Somalia. Where is any of this similar to an unjustified invasion of Iraq? What Obama did was simply support France, in part, because so many other nations did not (ie Italy) or could not.
US has been so severely depleted with unnecessary wars that the US should not supply fighter aircraft for (what will be) their only remaining aircraft carrier.
Fixed it.
Fixed it.
Your editting makes no sense. The UK is down to its last aircraft carrier. And may need even French fighter pilots and planes to arm it.
Your editting makes no sense.
Your entire life makes no sense. And 99.9% of your posts.
So there.
Nyah.
From the Washington Post of 20 Mar 2011:
Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya
The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya on Sunday and said he would call a new league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention.
Moussa said the Arab League's approval of a no-fly zone on March 12 was based on a desire to prevent Moammar Gaddafi’s air force from attacking civilians and was not designed to embrace the intense bombing and missile attacks—including on Tripoli, the capital, and on Libyan ground forces—that have filled Arab television screens for the last two days.
"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said in a statement on the official Middle East News Agency. "And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians."
As noted previously, interesting will be how that UN resolution is interpreted. In part, because some Arab governments may view it as also justifying attacks on their nation. And may make future necessary interventions impossible.
Also is a question of where was the Arab league when it came to being a responsible neighbor? Again, these concepts are extremely new. The world is so far away from learning about responsibility, ethics, respect for citizens, the purpose of government, etc. Good thing mankind is maybe 100 years from spreading to other planets. This world is still dominated by barbaric thinking. Basic social and ethical concepts are so new and so little understood throughout the world. The galaxy does not need contamination by Neanderthal and Cro-magan barbarians.
But so far only the Western-oriented Gulf emirate of Qatar has announced it would participate despite Western efforts to enlist Arab military forces into the campaign.
Maybe we did not let things get bad enough. Maybe there have not yet been enough massacres so that other nations finally learn what they and most of the world has not yet learned. Responsibility, social ethics, and the purpose of government. These concepts did not even widely exist in the US 70 years ago.
Your entire life makes no sense. And 99.9% of your posts.
These are topics for adults. You should not be reading what is too advanced for you.
Kisses, tw! you make my day -as always!
:lol:
I'm appalled by the cowardice of the Arab League. After asking for Western intervention to declare and defend a no-fly zone, they are now
condemning the military action need to enforce it.
Did they think that KGQuiddaffi's air defenses would be gently removed with unicorn kisses and rainbow sprinkles?
These are topics for adults. You should not be reading what is too advanced for you.
Then recuse yourself at once, or publicly confess that you are a grotesque hypocrite, wholly incapable of politics, and have never enjoyed an adulthood. You are the very last person to be talking about "topics for adults."
I KNOW how babyish you get when you are crossed. So does everyone here. I shall demonstrate it by crossing you now, you amateur twit. Your entire mentality is designed and constructed to elicit the contempt of the virtuous, and owing to your posts, my contempt for your mentality is nine times bottomless, and nine times beyond that.
TW, you are carefully, systemically worthless, and if you were a horse they'd've shot you.I'm appalled by the cowardice of the Arab League. After asking for Western intervention to declare and defend a no-fly zone, they are now condemning the military action need to enforce it.
Apparently what they heard is not what they were told. The UN resolution was worded to permit interpretation. Attacks were implemented without support for Arab nations. So many were invited to participate and rejected the invitation. Could not make a decision fast enough.
Appreciate Sarkozy's position. Benghazi would have been conquered in days had the French not pushed for action. Tobruk also probably conquered. The Arab league did not care. Sarkozy did not have enough time to rally Arab support.
Ironically, it was Kaddafi's own words (threatening a massacre) that may have gotten the UN resolution approved. But that did not give Arab nations enough time to appreciate a problem.
~snip!
If you voted for Obama you should never say another bad thing about Bush and his attacks on Iraq.... Obama basically just stuck his foot in another trap and used US forces to attack another country based on a UN mandate.
ORLY? I think I can vote for someone and not agree with everything he says or does. You and your ilk may think that we are all blinded to the savior, but that's just rhetoric poppycock.
Did YOU agree with everything Bush did. I don't think so, or so you professed. Part of being an informed patriotic Amurkin, right?
At any rate, I'll still laugh and point at Bush.
ORLY? I think I can vote for someone and not agree with everything he says or does. ...
Yeah! Some people can think for themselves. Not repubicans.... but some of us others can!
I wonder if the attack on Gaddafi’s compound was nothing more than a near miss.
I find it far too convenient that an administrative building gets bombed within Gaddafi's compound when journalists repeatedly report that location has no "command control capabilities." Additionally, the responses from the allied side seem less than genuine. Some telling quotes:
neither Gadhafi nor his residence were intended targets of the bombing late Sunday.
A coalition military official
then another from the US Commander:
"We are not targeting his residence."
U.S. Vice Adm. Bill Gortney
While the US denied targeting Gaddafi, whose whereabouts were unknown yesterday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague refused to rule it out, saying it depended on "circumstances at the time".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@smooth - Thats what they have done for ages - they speak from both sides of their mouths. They never actually say anything definitive. They have always played both sides. Thats why they cannot be trusted.
TW - it's hard to see their reversal as more than political pandering to their own populace. They want Kadafi gone, but they also know there is political capital to be gained at home by being "anti-western".
The courageous act would be to stand up and say "The arab world and the west hold the value of human life in common, and we act together to protect that value. This is a model of cooperation to be respected" even if there is a political cost to that action.
I find it far too convenient that an administrative building gets bombed within Gaddafi's compound when journalists repeatedly report that location has no "command control capabilities."
From what it seems, the quickest way to end this conflict is just to put a bullet in Gaddafi's head. The military hierarchy is very unstable, by design, so there is a good chance everything will fall apart if Gaddafi is taken out. But, publicly acknowledging this would send out a shit storm that Obama, and the US military in general, really doesn't want right now. The response he is getting from both sides right now is ridiculous.
I know! Let's get SADDAM! Mission accomplished!
:bolt:
End the conflict as in "needed" UN or US involvement. Nothing we can do to stop Libya from going into a bloody civil war. But, hey, at least everyone would then be on more or less equal footing...
I know! Let's get SADDAM! Mission accomplished!
:bolt:
Troll.
From what it seems, the quickest way to end this conflict is just to put a bullet in Gaddafi's head. The military hierarchy is very unstable, by design, so there is a good chance everything will fall apart if Gaddafi is taken out. But, publicly acknowledging this would send out a shit storm that Obama, and the US military in general, really doesn't want right now. The response he is getting from both sides right now is ridiculous.
No government is going to agree to kill a leader that still has nominal control of their country! Talk about opening the floodgates. Oh, bye Obama! Bang-bang, now you're just like JFK. Oh sorry David (actually too dull to assassinate).
You do not set up a mandate for assassination, no matter how psychotic they are.
And if "we" killed Gaddafi, wouldn't we then be responsible for the mess left behind? This is a dictator who has personally acted as Libya's government for
FORTY TWO YEARS. The world was a very different place in 1969, and Gaddafi has hardly been interested in sharing progress in infrastructure and development with his country. Oh sorry, I mean outside of his own family.
About the only thing Libyan society is replete with is spies and censorship. Do we really want to be captain of this ship? The choice for the next leader of Libya has to come from the Libyans, once
they have overthrown him. And yes, it's going to be messy. We aided the Mudjahadeen in getting the Russians out of Afghanistan. And left the door open for the Taliban. Let's try not to get too involved this time.
No government is going to agree to kill a leader that still has nominal control of their country! Talk about opening the floodgates. Oh, bye Obama! Bang-bang, now you're just like JFK. Oh sorry David (actually too dull to assassinate).
Of course not. That is why the US is saying they are not targeting any command centers but I do not see the US passing up an opportunity to bomb a building that Gadaffi might be in if they can make it look like they are not purposely targeting him.
As for the rest of your post, no we will not have any responsibly in cleaning up any mess. The reason the UN and US are bombing Libya is not to forcefully overthrow Gadaffi to but weaken Gadaffi so the rebels can do it themselves. Assuming all goes well, Gadaffi and his supporters will be forced out of any administration position so it really doesn't matter whether he is killed today or whenever the rebels take control.
I am against any further action against Libya, namely sending in ground troops or giving the rebels weapons, because of the reasons you stated. The next few years do not seem too bright for Libya regardless of the actions that are taken by Western nations and we do not need to make it any worse.
Yeah! Some people can think for themselves. Not repubicans.... but some of us others can!
Spexx, I do not believe you can call what you do thinking. Not exactly.
It is often a sign of brainlessness for a Democratic partisan to use the term "repubican." Avoid these signs, or you shall garner not only no respect for your, ah, thoughts, but your esteem falls into negative numbers.
I am against any further action against Libya, namely sending in ground troops or giving the rebels weapons . . .
Havering of this kind does not exactly suggest you want the obstacles that establishment tyrants place in the road to liberty cleared out, Pierce. It's readable as an example of how you do not believe, deep down, in democracy, liberty, the casting off of oppressors' chains, or indeed anything that makes life worth living.
I am never against taking any imaginable measures to obliterate a tyranny -- this one came in by military coup -- and replacing it with the one legitimate sort of governance: that power that stems wholly from the electorate.
Repeat: any measure imaginable. Call me a fanatic if you want, but remember I believe in liberty and say so. Am I wrong in this?
I wonder if the attack on Gaddafi’s compound was nothing more than a near miss.
American military spokesmen were very quick to state that Kaddafi was not a target.
Most interesting is the building that was hit. Visitors wait there before meeting Kaddafi. Sound strangely like a message to Kaddafi and anyone who might meet with him.
Mostly I am thinking: what the #$%& have we just gotten ourselves into?
I say "we" because although Australia is not sending forces (err ... yet ...) we're allies and this will have global consequences.
The mission creep has been spectacular. We've gone from a no-fly zone, through air strikes on tanks and mobile artillery pieces, to "Gaddafi's got to go", in barely three days.
The conflict on the ground could go three ways: Gaddafi wins, stalemate or rebels win.
Suppose Gaddafi is winning despite the air strikes. How close support are we willing to provide? A-10s? Helicopter Gunships? Advisors?
Suppose they fight to a stalemate, the rebels holding some cities, G-man holding others. How long do we maintain this protection? It was over a decade in Iraq. How much will that cost, in lives, money and goodwill?
Suppose the rebels win. I hope they behave themselves when they take the capital, but after a regime like Gaddafi's, the end will come with payback. Then what?
What of the rest of the Arab world? Does this tell the other Arab leaders that mass force will bring international reprisals? Will other Arab people's movements expect similar help? Or will Gaddafi win the propaganda battle and convince the middle-east that the west is seeking to recolonise them?
There are so many ways that this could go wrong, and relatively small payoff even if it goes well, that it seems to me our leaders have decided with their hearts as much as their heads. The situation was urgent and time was short and we have acted. That is not always a bad thing.
Now that we're in, we should press this home as effectively as we can and try to end it and leave. I am not hopeful that this will be as soon as we would like. Interesting times.
In the end it will cost nothing whatever in goodwill in any palpable sense, not least because life must be gotten on with. The money spent too will be forgotten, except as a footnote on the price of either freedom or the removal of tyranny, as you will. Lives -- those are not so readily forgotten, as any ANZAC monument could remind you.
I agree especially with your last two paragraphs, though.
Spexx, I do not believe you can call what you do thinking. Not exactly.
It's readable as an example of how you do not believe, deep down, in democracy, liberty, the casting off of oppressors' chains, or indeed anything that makes life worth living.
Do you really think this kind of shit persuades people, UG? Or are you so deep into the kool-aid that you think this is reasonable thinking?
There are so many ways that this could go wrong, and relatively small payoff even if it goes well, that it seems to me our leaders have decided with their hearts as much as their heads. The situation was urgent and time was short and we have acted. That is not always a bad thing..
The biggest difference I see between this and our previous two wars is the tone the UN and US, mainly US, are using to justify action. In Afghanistan and Iraq our action was meant to free those people with a fairy tale ending. In Libya, I have not seen any of that.
There are multiple goals with Libya but the main one seems to be just making sure Gadaffi isn't allowed to commit genocide on his own people. It isn't to free anyone or create this new democratic government but preventing something from happening. The main drawbacks from this are that Libya can descend into a bloody civil war and the stated goal can still be accomplished and we will never know if we made the situation better or worse.
Attacking Libya also draws a line in the sand. We are not obligated to help other protest movements but it might prevent other dictatorships from killing their own people like Gadaffi because they know no consequences will come to them.
As long as the UN and US stick to their stated goals I don't think this will inevitably turn into a bad situation but there are a lot of slippery slopes which we can fall down.
Do you really think this kind of shit persuades people, UG? Or are you so deep into the kool-aid that you think this is reasonable thinking?
Are you trying to tell me pro-despotic thinking of that kind is something
anyone has any business at all thinking? That is the Left's great big fuckup, and one they cannot escape without ceasing to be leftist whatsoever -- God speed the day.
Less-than-democracy is bad for human beings and human affairs. Tolerance of it suggests a fascistic strain in one's values.
ORLY? I think I can vote for someone and not agree with everything he says or does. You and your ilk may think that we are all blinded to the savior, but that's just rhetoric poppycock.
Did YOU agree with everything Bush did. I don't think so, or so you professed. Part of being an informed patriotic Amurkin, right?
At any rate, I'll still laugh and point at Bush.
And I will continually point at the duplicity of complaints about Bush and show you how screwed up Obama is as he does the same thing while the media never jumps his ass. Obama is a total failure.
I often wonder if they have the same puppet master(s)
Ya got to wonder. It is all such a goat screw. But it does remind me of Bosnia in a big way. Not that we would want to bomb a country into Democracy or anything, but isn't that what everyone bitched about Bush in Iraq? Obama is proving to me and many others he is nothing more than a tool. Now that his buddy left to Chicago I don't see the same person ala Cheny that pulled Bush's strings, so I guess Obama gets all the blame. I am cool with that.
Not that we would want to bomb a country into Democracy or anything, but isn't that what everyone bitched about Bush in Iraq?
My complaint with Bush in Iraq was not his technique, it was that he chose Iraq at all. The US had no reason to go into Iraq. We have not benefited in any way, and it was clear from the very beginning that there was nothing to gain by going into Iraq. Bush had a hard-on for Iraq for reasons I have never understood. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was not a threat to the US or its neighbors. Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed many of his own citizens, but that was not our problem. So my complaint with Bush had nothing to do with dropping bombs. In fact, if you are going to be foolish enough to invade a country for no reason, I strongly encourage you to bomb the shit out of it first to soften it up.
I voted for Obama and I mostly support him, but getting involved in Libya is similarly stupid. We really should have let France take care of it. We have nothing to gain.
Bush had a hard-on for Iraq for reasons I have never understood. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was not a threat to the US or its neighbors.
The purpose of war is to take the conflict back to a negotiation table. In WWII, the conditions for the peace table were clearly defined before most hostilities started. Unconditional surrender.
During Desert Storm, the powers that be in Washington were supposed to be planning for the inevitable peace table. And planning for the peace. When Swartzkopf went to accept the Iraqi surrender, he asked politicians in Washington for those plans - the political settlement. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfovitz, Feith, Rove, etc had done nothing. Did no planning for the surrender or planning for the peace.
What resulted was directly traceable to those who did not do their job. Those people would go done in history as having protected Saddam. Making possible the 20,000 massacre in Basra. They were extremists more worried about their legacy. They screwed up big time.
Military attacks on Iraq had been ongoing long before 11 September. Using the no-fly zone as an excuse, fighter bombers were attacking military targets even up near Baghdad - well outside the no fly zone. Using any tiny reason to attack any military facilities. Removing Saddam was planned that much in advance. To change how history would record their first screw up during Desert Storm.
There were other lesser issues. But their legacy - their screw up - was a primary reason for Mission Accomplished.
Once Baghdad was taken, they assumed everything was fixed. But again, they did nothing to plan for the surrender or to plan for the peace. So a third war - a rebellion - erupted. How many times must one make the same mistake before they finally learn a lesson?
Their politics said, "America does not do nation building." So they kept making same mistakes rather than learn flaws in their rhetoric. Did no planning for the peace. Then invented more wars to fix their mistakes.
BTW, you see UG posting that same rhetoric about fixing the world with military adventures. Extremists understand everything in terms of brute force. Never even learn the purpose of war. To take a conflict back to the negotiation table. Plan for the peace which our extremists did not do in Desert Storm.
My complaint with Bush in Iraq was not his technique, it was that he chose Iraq at all. The US had no reason to go into Iraq. We have not benefited in any way, and it was clear from the very beginning that there was nothing to gain by going into Iraq. Bush had a hard-on for Iraq for reasons I have never understood. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was not a threat to the US or its neighbors. Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed many of his own citizens, but that was not our problem. So my complaint with Bush had nothing to do with dropping bombs. In fact, if you are going to be foolish enough to invade a country for no reason, I strongly encourage you to bomb the shit out of it first to soften it up.
I voted for Obama and I mostly support him, but getting involved in Libya is similarly stupid. We really should have let France take care of it. We have nothing to gain.
Agreed.
Just a quick thread-bump.
The "no-fly zone", extended to include very low flying tanks, artillery pieces and even low-altitude trucks full of soldiers, has been effective so far. In the last few days the rebels have retaken or taken four or five towns. As far as I see, Gadaffi has Tripoli and a few other towns left.
However, we're not doing airstrikes in the cities. Too many civillian bodies, looks bad. In a few cases the rebels were stopped by tanks already in cities, but it seems they have dealt with them, presumably with shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons.
The real question is whether the rebels will be able to take Tripoli and give GKQDFi the bum's rush. They can't expect any close air support, but I have recently seen (on TV) quite a few tanks driving about with the rebel flag. Either deserters or captured weapons, I guess.
The real payoff from this operation is that it has restarted the overall Arab revolt. Yemen is developing, Syria is getting quite interesting. Bastards in Bahrain called in fellow Arabs to put down the rebels, but the Libya bombing might deter them from great brutality.
It seems you are allowed to use ground troops against dissidents, but using artillery and air stikes is considered bad manners, and gets you bombed.
Hilary Clinton and Robert Gates on Sunday Talk Shows.
http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/videos-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-on-the-sunday-talk-shows/
A good interview for Clinton and Gates in my opinion. There didn't seem to be any bullshit or logical missteps involved. The biggest challenge for them, and Obama tonight, will be justifying the attack without congressional support when they themselves admit that US national security is not at risk.
I have never heard of a "No Fly Zone" that targeted tanks or other ground equipement and troops. And the UN mandate does not include such attacks. They are trying to cover their asses. Obama punched the Tar Baby.
He may still be able to get out of it. It remains to be seen. Passing off control to NATO is a good first step.
We are deeply involved in NATO and have always been so. I am not sure it will have the desired effect other than to deflect attention from the uninformed. This reminds me of Bosnia. But unlike Bosnia the whole area is on fire with unrest and acts of despots on the civilian population. How he can be best buddies with Libya one month and the next month supporting a populist overthrow with the support of US military, all the while with a history of slamming Bush on Iraq, which btw had a UN Mandate, as well as Congressional approval, and on the next overstepping his bounds and doing the same thing is beyond me.... I fear that he (we) have just opened the door to the most opportune chance for an extremist to take the place of an evil, the worst of the evils may take over.
I have never heard of a "No Fly Zone" that targeted tanks or other ground equipement and troops. And the UN mandate does not include such attacks. They are trying to cover their asses. Obama punched the Tar Baby.
The UN Security Council resolution is not limited to the No Fly Zone. It also authorizes the naval blockade to enforce an arms embargo, and taking "all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas..."
He may still be able to get out of it. It remains to be seen. Passing off control to NATO is a good first step.
IMO, the US response has been restrained and acceptable.
The US unilatterally freezing $32 billion of Khaddafi's assets in US was certainly reasonable. And acting on a US mandate, but through NATO, further limits the US role, particularly with the lastest developments of forcing NATO to take the lead on the No Fly Zone and the naval blockage/arms embargo
..Bush on Iraq, which btw had a UN Mandate, as well as Congressional approval...
Rewriting history.
Bush never had a UN mandate to invade Iraq.
The UN Security Council resolution is not limited to the No Fly Zone. It also authorizes the naval blockade to enforce an arms embargo, and taking "all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas..."
That is BS. Tanks running down a highway are not directly endangering the civilian populated areas. Nice try.
That is BS. Tanks running down a highway are not directly endangering the civilian populated areas. Nice try.
Hey. I'm just pointing out that you were wrong when you suggested the UN mandate was strickly a No Fly Zone.
It was not. It was much more.
Rewriting history.
Bush never had a UN mandate to invade Iraq.
The mandate was on compliance on with the 10 years of previous mandates which they failed to comply with. The point here is that Obama stated repeatedly that he would not attack another country to enforce democracy. He failed.
The mandate was on compliance on with the 10 years of previous mandates which they failed to comply with. The point here is that Obama stated repeatedly that he would not attack another country to enforce democracy. He failed.
Nope. The last UN resolution on Iraq was specifically worded so as not to authorize (prohibit) an invasion of Iraq.
If the US were to invade Libya with ground forces, I would agree with you.
The
UN resolution on Libya
Two weeks ago, I would have voted that Gaddafi would have crushed the rebellion and brutalized thousands of more civilians as a means of reinforcing his power.
Now, I give the rebels a fighting chance, leading to the question of "what next" and is the Libyan National Council a true democratic movement or more likely a rag tag collection of disparate interest groups.
Nope. The last UN resolution on Iraq was specifically worded so as not to authorize (prohibit) an invasion of Iraq.
I would have to give you that much.
Two weeks ago, I would have voted that Gaddafi would have crushed the rebellion and brutalized thousands of more civilians as a means of reinforcing his power.
Now, I give the rebels a fighting chance, leading to the question of "what next" and is the Libyan National Council a true democratic movement or more likely a rag tag collection of disparate interest groups.
Cool, when are we going to invade Syria, Yemen, Qutar, etc?
...
Cool, when are we going to invade Syria, Yemen, Qutar, etc?
This is/was not an invasion of Libya.
We should not invade Syria, Yemen, Qutar, etc.
But, if the violence against protestors is those countries escalates to levels of random and ongoing excessive government brutality against civilians AND IF the UN were to mandate a response AND IF that response had the support of the Arab League AND was carried out by NATO, then I MIGHT support a limited US role, depending on circumstances.
This is/was not an invasion of Libya.
We should not invade Syria, Yemen, Qutar, etc.
But, if the violence against protestors is those countries escalates to levels of random and ongoing excessive government brutality against civilians AND IF the UN were to mandate a response AND IF that response had the support of the Arab League AND was carried out by NATO, then I MIGHT support a limited US role, depending on circumstances.
It is duplicity. Why didn't we do that in Egypt? Are you going to defend what happened in Egypt where the violence against protestors is those countries escalated to levels of random and ongoing excessive government brutality against civilians?
Stop trying to cover Obama's ass. It is a crock of shit. We lost a good airplane over that crap. Good thing we didn't lose the pilots. It is a boonedoggle and Obama screwed up by letting us get involved, as Gates said, we had no dog in this hunt and what contribution we did make could easily have been done by the French and British.
The point here is that Obama stated repeatedly that he would not attack another country to enforce democracy. He failed.
How is the attack enforcing democracy? If anyone thinks a democratic government will be the end results of this they are extremely optimistic.
Cool, when are we going to invade Syria, Yemen, Qutar, etc?
Do you really think the circumstances in those countries are even close to being the same? The Ivory Coast is the only country that is even close to Libya in terms of systematically killing political opponents but the emotional outcry will never be as loud or intense as it is for Libya.
I think part of the difference is whether or not the 'protesters' or 'rebels' in these various countries ASKED for help. Did they organize enough to contact the UN and NATO and ask for someone to intervene on their behalf? Were/are there enough powerful people and organizations supporting the uprising to influence the neighboring countries and other organizations?
The African Union, the Arab League, the European Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Group of 8 all were asking for a no-fly zone. This wasn't something Obama or the US did all by themselves, nor spearheaded. But once it became a mandate, I do agree with our participation. We claim to be all about the human rights and supposedly we abhor violence against innocent citizens, so declining to aid when someone is asking for help defending against those very things is unacceptable, in my opinion.
How is the attack enforcing democracy? If anyone thinks a democratic government will be the end results of this they are extremely optimistic.
I know what you mean.
op·ti·mis·tic   
[op-tuh-mis-tik]
–adjective
1.
Unbelievably high.
"Dude, I tried out my roommate's new bong and after 3 hits I was so optimistic I couldn't stand up. It was great."
2.
reflecting optimism: an optimistic plan.
3.
of or pertaining to optimism.
Isn't Spexx an optimist by trade?
I know what you mean.
Nice.
How is the attack enforcing democracy? If anyone thinks a democratic government will be the end results of this they are extremely optimistic.
It is not about enforcing democracy. It is about the same thing that caused British Marines to make that valiant and successful stand in Liberia. Same as what the French did years ago in Ivory Coast to also rescue hundreds of Americans.
America had no military interest in Libya. That was until Benghazi was but days from being overrun. And Kaddafi said he intended to massacre rebels by the tens or hundreds of thousands. Benghazi is a town of 450,000 to be massacred.
So everything changed. Kaddafi's speech was his undoing. Pressure to avert a massacre was especially strong from the French. African Union, Arab League, numerous European nations, and even Russia and China became very concerned.
The resulting UN resolution (that may be been passed in record speed due to events in Benghazi) authorized a no-fly zone. And forbid Kaddafi from continuing his attacks. Kaddafi said he would abide. Destroyed were tanks, amour, and other vehicles that continued attacking in violation of a very loosely worded UN resolution.
Remember, a no-fly zone in Iraq also forbade Saddam from doing same with his army.
America ended up in this war because no one else could provide sufficient force with sufficient speed. It had to be done in days. For example, the US launched over 130 cruise missiles. The British launched a full four. The French launched everything they had. Zero. The Italians launched all zero planes.
Criticism should be at so many European nations who are really as toothless as they were during the Balkan massacres. The British are the only European nation that has demonstrated any military power. Britain will now lose most of it due to too many wars too far away. The rest of Europe (other than France) can only deploy token forces.
A problem that Clinton addressed bluntly by what he did in Bosnia. And that a president after Clinton completely undid by his international diplomacy.
Why is Europe so toothless? The world only had a few days to respond to Kaddafi's threat. Or enjoy pictures of a premeditated massacre. Tens or hundreds of thousands. Which choice should the world have made? America basically got pushed into this mess because nobody else could on such short notice. The response had to be that fast.
So many here are ignoring the reason why America is the only nation that could respond. A nasty criticism of our European dwellers who should have been asking these embarrassing questions long ago of their own politicians.
Democracy has zero to do with events in Libya. Massacre is the only relevant word.
You quoted the wrong guy dude. I was asking a question.
You quoted the wrong guy dude. I was asking a question.
And that question is what I was answering. I really don't care who asked it. Addressed is the only thing relevant. The question.
And then asked is the far more important question. Why are so many European nations so toothless?
Obama is a GD idiot. If Bush would have invoked AQ in the first sentence of his opening statement people would have called that "fear mongering". So far he is failing big time. IS the US now a tool of the UN? 2012 can't come soon enough....
How is the attack enforcing democracy? If anyone thinks a democratic government will be the end results of this they are extremely optimistic.
We are choosing sides in a Civil War. One side is the oligarchy, the other is a pipe dream of hope for a demoncratic society which will never happen.
"The US cannot turn a blind eye to atrocities...." BULLSHIT again! how about Darfur asshat?
Nothing in the UN mandate says, "Assist the opposition." Nothing....
Wow.... Ivory Coast. How many people have died there in a civil war just like Libya?
So many here are ignoring the reason why America is the only nation that could respond.
Because of our HUGE military spending? Thank the R's.
:rolleyes:
"The US cannot turn a blind eye to atrocities...." BULLSHIT again! how about Darfur asshat?
Because Bush failed to prevent a slaughter (as Clinton before him in other regions in Africa) seems like a pretty feeble reason for not preventing one now, with little risk to American lives.
[YOUTUBE]x4PgpbQfxgo[/YOUTUBE]
Yes, Saddam brutalized and murdered his political enemies, but the worst mass atrocity in Iraq was probably the gassing of thousands of Kurds before the first Gulf War (or maybe it was Iran who did the gassing, or both). Reagan armed both Iran and Iraq (not with the gas).
The subsequent No-Fly Zone in the northern provences effectively ended Saddam's attacks against the Kurds and Shias in the region.
Obama seems to be finding a middle-way between reckless interventionism and isolationism. This makes him unpopular with two kinds of Republicans and with the Newt who apparently is both kinds. The Turks will oppose boots on the ground so in this case the use of a coalition may be a good thing.
From today Press Secretary Jay Carney:
Carney confirmed that American officials met with members of Muammar Qadhafi's inner circle over the weekend to tell them that the Libyan colonel “must leave power.” He added, “That message was heard.”
Bump.
Well, that seems to have gone pretty darn well, for the first stage. Gadaffi is in hiding and his forces in tatters, almost all of the country is now under the effective control of ... ah ... yes, that's the second stage.
I'm doubtful about what will happen next, but the 'remove Gadaffi' stage - given that a lot of the military stayed with Gadaffi and fought for him - really went about as well as it could have.
Reminds me of the Underwear Gnomes.
Steal underpants + ? = profits