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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.co...ay-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.

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..."

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

Rewriting history.

Bush never had a UN mandate to invade Iraq.

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.

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.

I would have to give you that much.

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.

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.

How is the attack enforcing democracy? If anyone thinks a democratic government will be the end results of this they are extremely optimistic.

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.

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?

Nice.

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.

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....

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?

Because of our HUGE military spending? Thank the R's.
:rolleyes:

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.

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:

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