Libya, Will Gaddafi prevail?

[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 Spexxvet

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.

[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.

[ZenGum]

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.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

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.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Spexx, I do not believe you can call what you do thinking. Not exactly.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

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?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

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.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

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.

[footfootfoot]

I often wonder if they have the same puppet master(s)

[TheMercenary]

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.