U.S. launches airstrikes on Libya

[Soxbadger]

US cant intervene because there is enormous pressure to stay out. This isnt about Libya, this is about future protests in China, Russia or Saudi Arabia.

 

The writing is on the wall, if there are protests in China and China responds with the most brutal crackdown of the 21st century, China wants to make sure there is no precedent for no fly zones or military intervention from the UN as a result of cracking down on protesters.

 

I discussed a lot about sovereignty issues in the Iraq war, and how would the US respond to another country telling us how to handle our own internal struggles.

 

Its sad, but right now the only way that the US can get involved is by going outside of the UN. Due to the Afghanistan and Iraq issues, the US just does not have the political cache to go against the world community.

 

Its time for some one else to stand up.

[Balta1701]

The U.S. can't intervene because it doesn't want to start a NATO led war against Libya, which is what a no-fly zone entails.

[Soxbadger]

They could set up a no fly zone, the problem is that Gaddafi's significant advantage is on the ground. Libya air force is limited at best, and if a no fly zone was put in place, Libya would most likely just ground their airplanes. The reason why the US hinted at striking ground targets, is that the US knows that to beat Gaddafi they are going to have to take out his armored divisions. Its pretty easy to say that the US destroyed a bunch of anti-aircraft armored unitts, when in fact they were just regular tanks.

 

I think the tide has turned though. Gaddafi's advances towards the rebels position has put the UN in a precarious position. It was easy to sit on the sidelines when it was a stalemate or possible that rebels were going to win on their own. The UN is now facing a possibility that Gaddafi puts down the rebellion and my guess is that there are serious concerns about Gaddafi doing some sort of genocide.

 

If I had to predict right now based on tea leaves Id say that if Gaddafi does not agree to the UN cease fire, the UN will do the following:

 

1) No Fly Zone

 

2) Declare Benghazi a humanitarian protection zone, authorizing direct assistance from UN members to put troops on the ground in Benghazi. They will say that the troops will not make advances in Libya, but that they will prevent a genocide situation in Benghazi.

 

 

That resolution should force Gaddafi to either come to the table to negotiate or attack the UN troops. Either way I do not believe that Gaddafi will end in power in Libya, to many European countries that rely on Libyan oil have come out against him, they cant let him stay in charge of their oil resources.

[StrangeSox]

too little too late.

[Soxbadger]

How is it too little too late?

 

We could roll Gaddafi faster than Saddam fell. Revolutions and Civil Wars can take years. The idea that most countries would fall like Egypt was extremely hopeful at best. When you have multiple countries acting its always going to take time, especially when you are talking about action where its completely within the sovereignty of the nation.

 

Obviously the hope was that Gaddafi would fortify his position, not go on the offensive, but hes forced people's hands.

 

(Edit)

 

To explain why it would be easier to take out Gaddafi, is because of Tripoli and most Liyban cities proximity to the Mediterranean. Unlike Baghdad which is completely landlocked and we had to go through other positions first. In Libya we could immediately threaten Gaddafi in Tripoli, which would most likely force him to give up his forward positions to reinforce the capital.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2011 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

I have no doubt that we could take care of Gaddafi in a night. We won't, and the no-fly zone won't mean s*** in a couple of days. The rebels needed support last week or the week before, not hemming and hawing at the UN.

[kapkomet]

I have no doubt that we could take care of Gaddafi in a night. We won't, and the no-fly zone won't mean s*** in a couple of days. The rebels needed support last week or the week before, not hemming and hawing at the UN.

 

 

There was no interest in taking out Gaddafi but a s*** load of interest in taking out Moubarak. I wonder why...

[StrangeSox]

There was no interest in taking Moubarak out with military force.

[StrangeSox]

probably because mubarak, while doing some awful things, wasn't wholesale slaughtering his own citizens.

[kapkomet]

There was no interest in taking Moubarak out with military force.

 

 

Right, I agree. But why the difference (well, "difference") of what's happening between the two countries?

 

Edit. Just saw your second post - wouldn't it make the argument that Gaddafi should be pushed harder from power then what we've pushed for, as opposed to Egypt?

Edited March 17, 2011 by kapkomet

[StrangeSox]

I'm in favor of stopping Gaddafi from slaughtering Libyans.

[kapkomet]

I'm in favor of stopping Gaddafi from slaughtering Libyans.

 

 

Which means we all should have hoped a little harder 30 years ago when that bomb hit 50 feet beside him, because he's been killing his people for years, it just hasn't gotten any attention until there was an "uprising". This guy and Saddam will be good buddies in hell.

[NorthSideSox72]

Right, I agree. But why the difference (well, "difference") of what's happening between the two countries?

 

Edit. Just saw your second post - wouldn't it make the argument that Gaddafi should be pushed harder from power then what we've pushed for, as opposed to Egypt?

I can't wait to hear this. Should be something about a conspiracy involving Obama, oil companies, and possibly France.

 

[kapkomet]

I can't wait to hear this. Should be something about a conspiracy involving Obama, oil companies, and possibly France.

 

 

And maybe Quebec. Maybe. Blame (French) Canada.

[StrangeSox]

Which means we all should have hoped a little harder 30 years ago when that bomb hit 50 feet beside him, because he's been killing his people for years, it just hasn't gotten any attention until there was an "uprising". This guy and Saddam will be good buddies in hell.

 

I was talking with someone stationed on the Nimitz during that mission today who said pretty much the same thing.

[Soxbadger]

I wasnt around 30 years ago so im not going to get into moral equivalencies.

 

I hope that we as a human civilization try and learn from our mistakes and hope for a better future. Maybe the UN should have gotten more directly involved sooner, but its hard to tell what the facts are, and cases like this where its entirely within the sovereign nation are a very slippery slope.

 

The UN has a lot of different voices and not all of them are on board with Democratic revolutions. We do what we can with the hand we are dealt. I dont see any other nation doing more than the US, we cant always be the only ones.

[Balta1701]

Ok guys...if you all are so gung ho about military force here...

 

First, where do we get the tens of billions of dollars to pay for it? I know it's fun to pretend that military spending is free, but seriously, stop playing that game. Which do you want to cut to pay for it, the nuclear regulatory commission, the tsunami warning network, or both?

 

Second, where do we get the ground forces to move against Quadaffi's ground forces? The number of examples of air strikes alone failing to change the situation on the ground without ground participation is more than I can count on my hands. If I were in Quadaffi's seat and air strikes began, I'd order my ground forces to do everything they could to level Benghazi, because that's the only way I could fully break the opposition, and because I could just blame the airstrikes. Exactly what happened in Kosovo.

 

Third, who takes responsibility (financially) for rebuilding the country whose defenses we just shattered? Have y'all learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

Fourth...how much blood is it ok to spill in the airstrikes?

[southsider2k5]

Ok guys...if you all are so gung ho about military force here...

 

First, where do we get the tens of billions of dollars to pay for it? I know it's fun to pretend that military spending is free, but seriously, stop playing that game. Which do you want to cut to pay for it, the nuclear regulatory commission, the tsunami warning network, or both?

 

Second, where do we get the ground forces to move against Quadaffi's ground forces? The number of examples of air strikes alone failing to change the situation on the ground without ground participation is more than I can count on my hands. If I were in Quadaffi's seat and air strikes began, I'd order my ground forces to do everything they could to level Benghazi, because that's the only way I could fully break the opposition, and because I could just blame the airstrikes. Exactly what happened in Kosovo.

 

Third, who takes responsibility (financially) for rebuilding the country whose defenses we just shattered? Have y'all learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

Fourth...how much blood is it ok to spill in the airstrikes?

 

It is interesting you have come to the conclusion that some peoples lives are worth less than others.

[Balta1701]

It is interesting you have come to the conclusion that some peoples lives are worth less than others.

Do you disagree?

 

(Anyway...on principle, I simply reject the concept of a "Humanitarian war" in all but the most extreme cases. The only case in the last 25 years I think genuinely would qualify is Rwanda, and really, the scope of that wasn't understood until most of the damage had been done. You go into Libya with guns blazing, you kill plenty of people anyway.).

[Soxbadger]

1) Its not free, but I am not going to put a price on stopping a potential genocide. If you think billions arent worth spending to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people, that is a perfectly legitimate view. I disagree, I think that lives are more valuable than money. As for where we will get the money, same place we always do, borrow it.

 

2) This isnt true. Military has said a "No Fly Zone" wont stop Gaddafi, but I assure you that if we start bombing tanks and Gaddafi's troops, this war will end quickly. Libya fighting the US is the equivalent of the rebels fighting Libya. Theyll be at a gun fight with sticks.

 

3) Rebuilding financially? Libya has billions of assets that will be turned back over once Gaddafi steps down. Further they have a lot of oil. The air strikes arent gong to destroy infrastructure, its just going to prevent Gaddafi's troops from moving into the cities. Libya is wide open area between cities, it will be extremely easy to destroy military positions that are not in cities. Libya's army isnt big enough to hold the cities, so most likely they will retreat from their advance positions to Tripoli. Or many will defect knowing that the end of Gaddafi is soon.

 

Allegedly this is going to be part of the UN resolution (if passed);

 

"Authorises member states ... to take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign

occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory...;

 

Basically its going to green light every form of attack besides for actual ground troops.

[Balta1701]

1) Its not free, but I am not going to put a price on stopping a potential genocide. If you think billions arent worth spending to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people, that is a perfectly legitimate view. I disagree, I think that lives are more valuable than money. As for where we will get the money, same place we always do, borrow it.

 

2) This isnt true. Military has said a "No Fly Zone" wont stop Gaddafi, but I assure you that if we start bombing tanks and Gaddafi's troops, this war will end quickly. Libya fighting the US is the equivalent of the rebels fighting Libya. Theyll be at a gun fight with sticks.

 

3) Rebuilding financially? Libya has billions of assets that will be turned back over once Gaddafi steps down. Further they have a lot of oil. The air strikes arent gong to destroy infrastructure, its just going to prevent Gaddafi's troops from moving into the cities. Libya is wide open area between cities, it will be extremely easy to destroy military positions that are not in cities. Libya's army isnt big enough to hold the cities, so most likely they will retreat from their advance positions to Tripoli. Or many will defect knowing that the end of Gaddafi is soon.

Wow...the repetition of arguments from Kosovo and Iraq is staggering.

[BigSqwert]

Wow...the repetition of arguments from Kosovo and Iraq is staggering.

Agreed. Apparently the term "history will repeat itself" is not one that many people remember.

[Soxbadger]

im not going to get into moral equivalencies.

 

If you do not agree that the UN should help the people of Libya, that is fine.

 

But I dont see how this has any relevance to Kosovo or Iraq. This is not history repeating itself, this is the UN potentially creating new history. If anything the US reaction to Libya has been entirely based on our previous engagements and trying not to go down the same path again.

 

This has nothing to do with Iraq, Iraq was attacked for reasons that had nothing to do with revolution. It was attacked as a scape goat for a terrorist attack on 9/11. The first war in Iraq was over Iraq's engagement with Kuwait.

 

Both of those situations are entirely distinguishable.

 

As for Kosovo, as soon as there is a clear indication of genocide, Im not sure what you want the world community to do. It sounds like you guys want to leave the people to be exterminated, but I do not agree with this position. We are post World War II, our neighbors problems are our problems. Furthermore, unlike Libya, Serbia had Russia support which goes back to the days of panslavism and the entire messed up nature of the Balkans.

 

So no, I remember the term "history repeats itself", I just dont use it when its not apt, nor do I use it as a shield to hide behind making tough decisions.

 

Not to mention anyone can use it, I can say that you apparently dont remember the term "history will repeat itself" based on what has happened in other instances when other countries did not intervene. I could name countless genocides where the world stood idly by. But I dont try and fit square pegs into round holes. If you study enough history, you realize that while there may be repeatable themes, that almost every situation is unique and must be treated as such.

 

I am of the belief that we must treat our decisions with a fine pen, not a broad sweeping brush. We must tailor our response to Libya, based on Libya.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

Do you disagree?

 

(Anyway...on principle, I simply reject the concept of a "Humanitarian war" in all but the most extreme cases. The only case in the last 25 years I think genuinely would qualify is Rwanda, and really, the scope of that wasn't understood until most of the damage had been done. You go into Libya with guns blazing, you kill plenty of people anyway.).

 

Honestly I feel that if you aren't willing to save people's lives in desperate situations, the argument for social entitlement programs loses all of its muster. Protecting people from genocide should come before my unemployment check.

[Balta1701]

In Kosovo, there was a searing ethnic conflict that dragged on for months. However, it was at a very low intensity; some people were being killed, but not enormous numbers. The U.S. and its allies tried diplomatic means to stop the killing and failed.

 

Then, Bill Clinton launched his air campaign. It started off targeting Serbian military positions and quickly also began working to degrade Serbian infrastructure.

 

The campaign, like all air-only campaigns, dragged on for weeks. Nothing seemed to happen. Except on the ground in Kosovo, where things got much, much worse.

 

The forces that were in Kosovo, instead of showing restraint, turned everything loose. The death tolls went up by factors of 100 or more. Meanwhile, despite all the U.S.'s efforts, it really failed to significantly degrade the Serbian military capacity in Kosovo. The U.S. was forced to focus more and more of its efforts on the morale of the Serbian people...bombing civilian targets. Eventually, once Milosevic felt like he had broken the back of the armed Kosovar rebels, and once enough of his own people had died, there was a mutual agreement to end the bombing.

 

According to casualty estimates on the Serbian side, the number of civilians killed in the U.S. led bombing campaign was nearly 1200. Furthermore, a huge majority of the people in Kosovo who were killed by the Serbian army were killed after the beginning of the bombing campaign, not before. The bombing campaign intensified the violence on the ground. Hundreds of thousands of people became refugees from Kosovo after the bombing began.

 

This campaign is the first one where I was old enough to pay attention to it, and it rapidly convinced me that humanitarian war is a contradiction in terms. More people died because of the bombing campaign than were saved by it. I'd imagine that the infrastructure of Serbia is still suffering to this day. On top of that, the Kosovar rebels committed their fair share of ethnic cleansing, killing a thousand or so ethnic Serbs as well. Finally, talking in raw dollars, the cost of the campaign was somewhere between $5 and $10 billion dollars, in 1999 dollars.

 

If that's not a parallel setup to what we'd be looking at by taking sides in a Libyan civil war, I don't know what is.