U.S. launches airstrikes on Libya

[Balta1701]

Arab League support for the Libyan operation suddenly appears tenuous.

A coordinated attack by Western forces targeting Libyan air capabilities and armor appears to have succeeded in damaging Libyan military installations and armor, but Arab support for the no-fly zone may be waning.

 

Arab League head Amr Moussa told reporters Sunday that the Arab league thought the use of force was excessive following an overnight bombing campaign that Libya claims killed at least 48 people.

 

"What we want is civilians' protection, not shelling more civilians," he was quoted saying by the Associated Press.

[Soxbadger]

While Powell's doctrine may have been good policy 20 years ago, that is like the French building the Maginot line after World War I. The first mistake of military action is to use the principles of the last war. We live in a modern time where the world is changing at a much quicker pace than any point in history. Some people will say that history moves 4x faster, it could be 10x, but regardless the Gulf war criteria must be constantly reevaluated.

 

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

 

And here is where the Powell doctrine loses me immediately. National security interest is not the end all be all. I am not even going to lie and make up arguments that I can call anything a national security risk. (Instability in Libya leads to oil crisis in Europe leads to crisis in US) The reason Im not going to make up fake lie like a politician, is because some times doing the right thing wont help you at all. I do not think that military action is any different than human action, and I do not believe we as humans should only act in our best interest. I mean we can, everyone has that choice, I just choose not to. I choose to try and do things that help other people that may never help me, maybe even hurt me, because I can do something that will make a really big difference in some one else's life at a very small price to me.

 

So I would change #1 to a less self motivated:

 

1) Can we prevent a grave injustice at a small cost and small risk to ourselves?

 

The answer in Libya is yes. American losses will be minimal. Unlike Iraq where we intervened on our own behalf, there is already a nation that is recognized by countries who can take over once Gaddafi steps down.

 

2) Clear attainable goal, of course. Stop the murder of civilians, Gaddafi steps down.

 

3) The answer to this is always questionable. If you were to ask that question for every action since World War II, our record would be deplorable. Do I think that the risks and costs are minimal, yes.

 

4) Gaddafi forced this position by threatening to kill innocent civilians. We tried to get Gaddafi to step down, accept cease fires, but instead he lies and continues to kill people. What more can we do?

 

5) Yes, Gaddafi steps down, transitional Libyan govt turned over to Benghazi govt. Arab League provides ground force protection until govt can take over protection.

 

6) Yes, at least in my view.

 

7) This one is some what questionable. The US people have taken isolationist positions previously that I find unacceptable. If Pearl Harbor never happened and the US never is declared on by Germany, would we accept it as okay if the US never declared war on Germany because the US population was against it? I personally cant agree with that. While I would hope that the American people would always be virtuous and just, unfortunately many seem to be more interested in themselves than trying to help others. As long as there is some support I think you have to weigh the good and the bad.

 

8) We have support from the countries who I trust. When we come out on the other side of China and Russia, 2 countries who see this intervention and worry about what will happen if they brutally crack down on protesters and I know that we are doing the right thing. I question Germany's intention here, I think they are trying to re-establish themselves as an independent actor on the foreign stage and keep distance from US, UK and France. I think they are going to try and use this to their advantage in the future.

 

I admit things because Im not part of any of the US military branches so therefore I have absolutely no direct information on the nuts and bolts of the operation.

 

Its pretty clear from the situation that the revolutionaries had made significant gains without international interference. It was only when Gaddafi started using heavy arms that he made significant gains. The international community has evened the playing field and now it seems that the revolutionaries may have a fighting chance against Gaddafi.

 

This isnt our war, it will never be, but hopefully we gave the people of Libya a fighting chance against Gaddafi, and hopefully they will prove the international community right and make Libya a better place for everyone. There is no certainty in life, all you can do is try and help the most people you can with the limited time you got.

 

Today I support the revolutionaries in Libya, because they stood up to Gaddafi on their own, they died for their right to be free and because they asked for my help.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

It really is amazing how the mistakes of the Iraq war permeate that reply. Refusing to accept the possibility that anything could ever go wrong. Assuming that things will be easy. Assuming that collateral damage doesn't exist.

 

Great examples:

2) Clear attainable goal, of course. Stop the murder of civilians, Gaddafi steps down.

You think THAT is a clear and attainable goal?

 

5) Yes, Gaddafi steps down, transitional Libyan govt turned over to Benghazi govt. Arab League provides ground force protection until govt can take over protection.

The "Benghazi government"? That's a misnomer if there ever was such a thing. The organization in Egypt looks like a functioning democracy compared to the "Benghazi government". These are the same people who shot down their only jet fighter yesterday because they didn't realize what they were shooting at.

 

If everything goes well, this is still a murky situation. People who aren't organized or well trained taking over a government in an oil-rich state, with lots of opportunities for corruption. And the assumption that everything will go well is no more logical here than it was in Iraq.

[southsider2k5]

It really is amazing how the mistakes of the Iraq war permeate that reply. Refusing to accept the possibility that anything could ever go wrong. Assuming that things will be easy. Assuming that collateral damage doesn't exist.

 

Great examples:

You think THAT is a clear and attainable goal?

The "Benghazi government"? That's a misnomer if there ever was such a thing. The organization in Egypt looks like a functioning democracy compared to the "Benghazi government". These are the same people who shot down their only jet fighter yesterday because they didn't realize what they were shooting at.

 

If everything goes well, this is still a murky situation. People who aren't organized or well trained taking over a government in an oil-rich state, with lots of opportunities for corruption. And the assumption that everything will go well is no more logical here than it was in Iraq.

 

I'm sure they'd be able to defend themselves against Qadaffi...

[Soxbadger]

Where did I refuse to accept that things could go wrong?

 

I 100% percent accept that things could go wrong.

 

But that is an "if". Gaddafi was attacking civilians, Gaddafi was marching towards Benghazi.

 

I guess I just assume that people understand that there are always going to be massive risks involved in any international decision and that despite our best efforts we could make mistakes every single time. But we cant be afraid to make the right decision, just because bad things may happen as a result of that.

 

I do not think that anyone believes that Gaddafi taking Benghazi was going to end well, so if we can try and stop that, Im going to be out there saying we should try and stop it.

 

Furthermore, what does the capability of a civilian govt in warfare have to do with whether or not its a govt?

 

If you took away Obama's generals and military, do you think he could operate anti-aircraft weaponry?

 

Oh so does that mean we arent a govt because we as civilians cant operate weaponry?

[Balta1701]

NBC News's Pentagon correspondent on the contributions of the coalition (of the willing).

But NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski today knocked down the talk that what is going on militarily is a "huge coalition effort." Here's what he said in a remarkable segment this morning:

 

"Despite the White House attempts to make this look like it's a huge coalition effort -- obviously it required coalition political support -- but for now the U.S. military is not only in the lead but conducting almost all military operations, with only minor participation from the French, as you mentioned, even British fighters over night. There's a U.S. commander. And even this morning I talked to senior military officials, when I asked them how soon will the U.S. turn over the command to the coalition -- and the indication is the U.S. military is in no hurry to do that."

[Balta1701]

The biggest takeaway, the biggest foreign-policy fact, of the past decade is this: America has to be very careful where it goes in the world, because the minute it's there—the minute there are boots on the ground, the minute we leave a footprint—there will spring up, immediately, 15 reasons America cannot leave. The next day there will be 30 reasons, and the day after that 45. They are often serious and legitimate reasons.

Peggy Noonan, via this link

[Texsox]

Will we stretch our own resources to the [point where they cannot respond to a threat to the US? How many different countries shall we go into until we are bankrupt and unable to defend ourselves? At least some Russian President can come to the border and tell some US President to teat down a wall lol

[BrenBlackwood]

Will we stretch our own resources to the [point where they cannot respond to a threat to the US? How many different countries shall we go into until we are bankrupt and unable to defend ourselves? At least some Russian President can come to the border and tell some US President to teat down a wall lol

 

 

I wondered the same thing.

[NorthSideSox72]

Fascinating to watch the difference between BushCo and ObamaCo - both of their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The situation in Yemen appears to be eroding quickly.

 

[BigSqwert]

The situation in Yemen appears to be eroding quickly.

Well we better go and help out there too. We can't have innocent people die like that.

 

I'm looking forward to the reinstitution of the draft.

[Balta1701]

Well we better go and help out there too. We can't have innocent people die like that.

 

I'm looking forward to the reinstitution of the draft.

We don't need to draft missiles. We just need to buy more.

 

Anyway, we built the weapons being used by 1 side in that conflict. We're not goign to side against them.

[bigruss]

I signed up for auto alerts on safety levels for tourists in Morocco from the US Govt, and got one a few days ago saying that there would be protests in almost all major cities during the time I will be there. Im sure hoping it stays civil and the situation doesn't explode while Im there. The email did advise that it is fine for tourists to still go there, but to avoid the protests, because even though they are planned to be civil that violence could always breakout.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I signed up for auto alerts on safety levels for tourists in Morocco from the US Govt, and got one a few days ago saying that there would be protests in almost all major cities during the time I will be there. Im sure hoping it stays civil and the situation doesn't explode while Im there. The email did advise that it is fine for tourists to still go there, but to avoid the protests, because even though they are planned to be civil that violence could always breakout.

Its generally a good idea in any foreign country, to avoid the mobs. Avoid any sort of civil conflict situations. I ended up accidentally being in the middle of the Indian equivalent of a flash mob once - apparently a construction worker was killed (not unusual, safety there for such things is a joke), and so all the other workers decided to take to the street and stop traffic, and pile up bricks and rocks everywhere, yelling and screaming. I made a quick exit from the area.

 

[bigruss]

Its generally a good idea in any foreign country, to avoid the mobs. Avoid any sort of civil conflict situations. I ended up accidentally being in the middle of the Indian equivalent of a flash mob once - apparently a construction worker was killed (not unusual, safety there for such things is a joke), and so all the other workers decided to take to the street and stop traffic, and pile up bricks and rocks everywhere, yelling and screaming. I made a quick exit from the area.

Yea, I would of course avoid all situations like that, I know that I could easily become a target since I will stand out pretty well, and I just don't want to deal with any complications like that. Im there as a tourist, and I just want to see the sights and explore the city (Marrakech), hopefully I will have a trip without any complications (it is only for 3 nights).

[southsider2k5]

Its generally a good idea in any foreign country, to avoid the mobs. Avoid any sort of civil conflict situations. I ended up accidentally being in the middle of the Indian equivalent of a flash mob once - apparently a construction worker was killed (not unusual, safety there for such things is a joke), and so all the other workers decided to take to the street and stop traffic, and pile up bricks and rocks everywhere, yelling and screaming. I made a quick exit from the area.

 

to be fair, I am doing the same thing here in the United States as well!

[Balta1701]

to be fair, I am doing the same thing here in the United States as well!

I thought you went to a tea party gathering or two?

[Balta1701]

By the way, I know we're not allowed to talk about it because blowing people up is free we'll pay any price for freedom (under a long list of circumstances), but between launching a couple hundred tomahawk missiles, flying and operating B-2's from Missouri, extra jet fuel/combat pay for the planes involved, and simply moving the resources into the area, this operation has cost at least half a billion dollars so far.

[southsider2k5]

I thought you went to a tea party gathering or two?

 

I was even at a union rally in the last month.

[Balta1701]

I was even at a union rally in the last month.

How much weight did you have to gain to pull off that disguise?

[southsider2k5]

How much weight did you have to gain to pull off that disguise?

 

I brought a crowbar.

[BigSqwert]

Fun Fact of the Day: Your Tax Dollars At Work

 

A Tomahawk Missile cost $569,000 in FY99, so if my calculations are correct, they cost a little over $736,000 today assuming they are the same make and model. The United States fired 110 missiles yesterday, which adds up to a cost of around $81 million. That's twice the size of the annual budget of USIP, which the House of Representatives wants to de-fund, and is about 33 times the amount of money National Public Radio receives in grants each year from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which the House of Representatives also wants to de-fund in the name of austerity measures.

[Balta1701]

Fun Fact of the Day: Your Tax Dollars At Work

That amount is probably dwarfed by the costs of using the handful of B-2's that were deployed.

[BigSqwert]

The Lesson the U.S. Is Teaching the World in Libya