Libya, Will Gaddafi prevail?

[smoothmoniker]

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?

[tw]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

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.

[classicman]

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.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

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.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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?

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

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.