« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Srebrenica Resurrected

By: streiff (Diary)  |  March 18th, 2011 at 04:10 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA


Today, after some weeks of shillyshallying, President Obama made the momentous decision to sort of do something halfway in response to the revolt against and attempted ouster of Muammar Qaddafi.

The president said Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from key areas of the country, allow for humanitarian assistance to reach Libyans, and make sure his people have access to water, gas and electricity.

“Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable,” said Mr. Obama. “These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences. The resolution will be enforced through military action.”

And as a sop to the MoveOn/ANSWER freaks who populate the Democrat party he added,

But Obama also spelled out that the U.S. commitment in Libya would be “focused” and done in cooperation with coalition partners and that he was not contemplating sending American soldiers into Libya.

“The U.S. is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya,” Obama told reporters in the East Room of the White House. “We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal, specifically the protection of civilians in Libya.”

I suppose we should not be surprised at this administration readily grasping at any straw of a half measure as a means to look like it is doing something when in reality all it is accomplishing is increasing misery. It is especially true in this case because Hillary Clinton allegedly rolled Robert Gates and Department of Defense because she was “concerned that the United States was losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab youth.”

We’ve seen this before in Bosnia and the results of this half-assed effort are readily forseeable.

Phase 1. Hope. The Rebels will pour into a relatively small area thinking they are safe. In reality, this lets Qaddafi concentrate the opponents of his regime in one area and makes his security problems in the rest of the country go away, thus freeing up more troops to crush the rebels.

Phase 2. Starvation. Food, water, fuel, and ammunition will quickly run out as the UN resolution doesn’t call for a sealift of humanitarian supplies.

Phase 3. Destruction. Even without using his air force Qaddafi will close the noose on the the rebels by use of his superior army. The nations who have enlisted to provide aircraft simply don’t have the air frames or, quite honestly, the ground attack skills to enforce a “no drive zone.”

Phase 4. Disaster. As the government forces close in there will be a belated sealift of refugees to Europe.

It’s no secret that I think intervening in this place at this time is a boneheaded decision. But what is more irksome is intervening with no real idea of goals and objectives and limiting your involvement up front so the other side knows what they can get away with.

So here we are. Intervening in a lost cause to make a gaggle of Ivy League foreign policy wonks in the NSC feel good about themselves. The price will be the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of non combatants and more likely than not some allied airmen. Great job, Mr. President. True leadership. Maybe you and Qaddafi can have a drink on how well it worked when this is over.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • aesthete

    since at least Vietnam and Rolling Thunder. I don’t know why anyone would trust Obama to do anything but set the stage for a frakked-up full commitment to bad foreign policy via limp-wristed half-commitment. (Not saying that we necessarily will fully commit, just that it’s one of a set of undesirable outcomes that Obama’s policy facilitates.)

  • expanding_man

    What happens when the rebels keep losing even after a no fly is imposed? Now that we’re involved, do we funnel arms to the rebels. Do we send covert advisors and trainers?

    Have we thought about whether the rebels will end up being friendly after we help them win?

    • donnybrooke

      Or words to that effect.

      • acat
  • msctex

    . . that a “Community Organizer” from the most corrupt metropolitan system in the country, with literally no achievements of any kind to his credit, whose voting record proves only he was in fact in the room at the time of the votes, might well have no idea what he is doing when it comes to waging a war?

    We are seeing less and less of Obama, and I imagine this trend will continue as Dem internal polls continue to indicate the enormity of the liability he has become.

    • acat

      Chicago’s corrupt .. Ilinois has bipartisan corruption .. but most corrupt? Sorry, there’s plenty of other corrupt places that’d give Chicago politicians a run for their money… Newark, NJ comes to mind….

      Mew

      • msctex

        From the Daley Machine, the ’68 Convention and the Mob influence to the fact it birthed our current imaginary President, Chicago is at the top of the list. No doubt some come close, but in terms of overall negative influence I can only hope Chicago tops the list. Scary to think otherwise.

        Comparing Chicago to NJ is like comparing Vegas to Atlantic City.
        Similar, but. . .

  • donnybrooke

    This is what happens when modern Democrats make “feel-good” war. *sigh* I can only pray that things will work out for the best.

    PS>(I think you’ll catch flak for this article, Streiff, but keep your chin up!)

  • juumanistra

    To make sure I’ve got the dynamics of the circumstance right, given how this will invariably be played out in the media:
    1) When a Republican president spends six months methodically preparing the diplomatic and political groundwork for an invasion of a state whose only major qualities were a deranged tinhorn dictator and an ocean of oil, including going to the U.N. for multiple resolutions explicitly authorizing said action to make sure every I is dotted and every T crossed despite such being perfectly kosher in response to said nation’s repeated violations of a decade-old cease-fire, it’s an illegitimate and illegal war for oil.

    2) When a Democratic president spends a few weeks splitting the difference and following the path of least resistance in response to calls to intervene in a nation whose only major qualities are a deranged tinhorn dictator and an ocean of oil until his hand is forced by the adoption of a U.N. resolution providing for the use of force, it’s an action to protect American interests and the interests of all freedom-loving peoples.

    It is very much my hope that the Left will demonstrate an iota of intellectual consistency and take to the streets chanting “NO BLOOD FOR OIL” if and when actual enforcement of the NFZ goes into effect. (And that it’ll keep chanting such when, invariably, young Anglophonic men are deployed to prop up the rebel position in Benghazi after the images of human misery in Stages 2 and 3 tug at the president’s heart-strings.) Not that I’m expecting that, of course: The Left’s never been big on intellectual consistency. Or as the Iraq allusion hopefully illustrates, near-term history, for that matter.

    • davesinsanantonio

      They will take to the streets and shout the slogan of the day, and do anything else that they think will further the cause of national and international socialism and win them political points regardless of hypocrisy or even outright lies. They will commit the violence they claim to deplore, they will steal if they think they can get away with it, and they will try to destroy anyone who voices opposition. Their intellectual consistency is that the end justifies the means, rules and such are for suckers, and whatever they do is right in their own minds regardless of real world consequences to others, because only they really count, and the rest of us are just there to pay the bills for their political pipe dreams. To them democracy means do it their way or else, and they are “intellectually consistent” about it!

  • Doc Holliday

    I have made my argument and won’t make it again. It seems I am in the minority here, nothing new about that, but those usually on my side politically are probably the most against this action.

    I clearly put no faith in Obama, the UN, the EU, France, or David Cameron. It is quite possible they will get “played” as they were today. However, your other suppositions are all worst case scenario, you leave no possibility of anything working. If, and it is a big if, the French and Brits acts with a spine, I don’t think it will be as bad as you forecast.

    If the Allies do attack their is no reason to believe “everyone in Libya will move to Benghazi”. It is more likely the flare ups will increase, not decrease. In fact I believe Malta will be receiving a few more Mirage jets if they don’t get blown out of the sky. Furthermore, who said we can only fight MoMos forces outside Benghazi? Any leader with a clue would use the indirect approach and hit them in the rear. A few attacks on Tripoli bases would do nicely to make Ghadaffi think twice.

    You say he will starve his people, but the mandate clearly says he MUST allow food, electricity, etc. You say the rebels are running out of arms but the last I heard Egypt has been sending them ammo and supplies.

    Ghaddaffi is a coward and he does NOT have the people on his side. As soon as they see his power structure exploding, they will turn on him like a pack of wolves.

    I agree the mission seems very unclear to most people. But they are projecting other wars, other situations. This situation is more like the early days of Afghanistan where “we” took Kabul with just our air assets, some sneaky Petes, and a bunch of pissed of Afghans. Sure, we know what happened later, but we should never nation-build again. Ghadaffi IS the mission. We can’t “fix” Libya, nor should we try.

    We can talk about the aftermath etc some other time. I am just pointing out you are on record and so am I. My difference with you is only that I believe it won’t go down as you say IF the Allies do this right.

    • aesthete

      First of all, the UN, leftists, and quite a few conservatives and “conservatives” would never accept military intervention with no successful regime change or power-sharing agreement: it’s unthinkable to them that we could use our military to our advantage without at least some faux-altruism behind it. Either one means boots on the ground, and just like the teenage guy who gets to feel up his girlfriend doesn’t want to stop there, committing air and naval assets won’t be enough for that crowd. There will be an extremely large impetus to get some troops on the ground, starting with SF and ending with either boots on the ground to nation-build or blue helmets to patrol yet another DMZ (both of these are the best case scenarios, btw).

      Secondly, we don’t really know what’s going on. The French wanted King Louie XVI’s head on a plate, but when they got it, it all went downhill. Most revolutionary movements have a way of working out that way, especially those built around opposing a single leader rather than a system or specific actions taken by said leader. I still do not know what the specific grievances against Gaddhafi are on the part of the rebels: are they looking for free speech and right not to be tortured, are they looking for “economic justice” and redistribution, or are they looking for more Islamic laws? The lack of a good answer for this question is as infuriating as the instant jump to action. For crying out loud, I knew more about the rebels in Star Wars 15 minutes into the film than I know about the rebels in Libya even a month after their arrival! The situation, belligerents, and conditions on the ground are fluid, and there is a paucity of information out there that make it impossible for us to even formulate viable endgames and goals, much less defend them!

      • Doc Holliday

        I agree war is the least controllable thing man does, next to the teenager you mention. And when there is a a large coalition, people will be pulling in various directions. I am just saying we “could” do this right, and we could do some things that might help us in the end. If we cripple Ghadaffi’s war machine we give the rebels a chance. What they do with that chance is their problem. No soldiers should be on the ground other than a few FAC’s if needed. Remember, the rebels were gaining for a while, I think Ghadaffi is through if we do the attack right. And by we I hope it is mainly European, let the French ante up for a change, we can fly the AWACS.

        I completely agree we know very little about the rebels. I doubt there are many Jeffersons or even Sam Adams types among them. I place no faith in the Islamic world, if anything “the street” is more anti-American than their leaders in most cases. Having said that, we might just be faced with a whack-a-mole policy in the future.

        We did not want to get involved with these people, they wanted to get involved with us. It might just be that we will have to stop nation building and the entire neo-con philosophy. We might just have a take out our enemies and tell the next guy he will get the same if he acts up. This is a poor plan, but we are not dealing with modern people in most instances. Even with the atrocities by Germany and Japan in WW2, those countries had a cultural norm to fall back on.

        I think Obama’s weakness has invited challenges from all over the world. Also, it is possible the Libyan rebs want to be an improvement. It is early, but Egypt has not come apart yet.

        BTW, no Blue Helmets ever, ever again! Blue helmets = instant loss, failure, and misery for all involved.

        • Doc Holliday

          it is possibly a good sign we don’t know who is leading the rebels. Most famous people in that part of the world are fundamentalist fanatics; just a thought.

          • aesthete

            why not Iran, in

          • aesthete

            Let this serve as a warning to those who post from their iPhones while waiting on an appointment!

          • Doc Holliday

            did I get your point?

          • Doc Holliday

            in this position, we would and should do it. However, we don’t have Iranian ambassadors calling for their own leader to step down. We don’t have tens of thousands of Iranians under arms holding cities. Iran is nuclear and they have ten times the military force Ghadaffi has. Ghadaffi has no one I know of in his region defending him publicly. Hell, Lebanon wants to get some.

            I repeat, in an alternate universe where Iran was in Gadaffi’s position, we would certainly take action.

          • aesthete

            but I was going to add that I would support action against Iran (even — gasp! — unilateral action) precisely because we a) know the broad shape of the resistance movement in Iran (given prior attempts on the part of the urban citizenry to break free), and b) know what we want from Iran (which is, of course, crucial to our interests in the region). I’m not really sure what we want out of Libya: they haven’t really been a significant factor for 30 years, and Gaddhafi has quite the tendency to tuck his little tail in at any sign of threat (as we can see from his temporary ceasefire in the aftermath of the UN mandate and his abandonment of his nuclear program after the Iraq invasion).

          • Doc Holliday

            And he might still back down, or the Europeans might find a way out of this. The French said the rebels are the legitimate government there. That is quite a leap of faith, but when they said that, they had to act. The president said Ghadaffi must step down. He did not have to say anything, but when he said that, US prestige was on the line. The people in London, Paris, and DC are making the calls, not I.

            I said I support action led by the Europeans because Ghadaffi is a terrorist, he has murdered Americans. He blew them up over Lockerbie, he murdered them in West Berlin, and he funded terror groups int the USA with designs on killing President Reagan.

            There is a War on Terror going on, it still rages. What would President Bush do in these circumstances? Would he decide Libya is not worth it, or would he say “you are with us, or with the terrorists”?.

            I care about innocent lives as much as the next guy, hopefully more so. But my support of action here is to take down a terrorist and enemy of the United States. Also, as I said in my first post on this subject in another thread, we will be destroying Libyan arms, Libyan power. Even if the next leader there turns out bad, he won’t have much of a military left if this is done right.

            Look, there are likely no “good” outcomes here. I don’t have faith in the rebels, I don’t know anything about them. My support is to end Ghadaffi. I can’t see into the future and I don’t know how this will end. But the Europeans say they are taking the lead, if they want to do it we can offer some help. Too bad France would not help us when we asked them to do so.

            I just pray that all NATO servicemen that risk their lives there come home safely. History of full of folly, because history is made by men. This operation could be folly or it could at least take one sworn enemy of the USA out of the picture. I am sure others will pop up in Libya and around the world. Such is the world we live in, such a sad state of affairs, that has been going on since our race graced this planet.

          • aesthete

            but at the same time it is perverse to have our guys die because the President shot his mouth off at the nearest TV camera — I sure hope the President doesn’t say that *all* of Africa’s dictators must go, for that would put quite the strain on our military! :) Seriously, though, I don’t think that anyone really believes Obama about anything anymore: I don’t, and neither do most citizens, so why should dictators? IMO, the fact that we’re stuck with an idiot who likes him some mellifluous and high falutin’ speechmaking is no reason for us to try to keep up with his rhetoric (which is a liability, as you note). Given all the garbage he’s already said, I think it’s best if we lay low and do damage control, rather than enable his messianic speechifying. I guess we’ll see how it all turns out, but for the future, I hope and expect that we won’t have a Republican president stupid enough to shoot his mouth off without knowing the details, and that our State Dept won’t be as schiziophrenic as it has been under The Smartest Woman In The World.

          • Doc Holliday

            piece of dung I have ever heard! I don’t think Churchill or Patton need to worry too much about Hillary. If they are going to fight, like she spoke, this will end badly. Was this a “We Will Fight on the Beaches” or some hands across the world retro Coke commercial?

            And that chick was laughing, what if Bush did that before he sent men in harms way?

          • Doc Holliday

            and a few others, I really think I have nothing more to add about my initial support of action, if it is done right. Any more would just be repeating the same thing. I might link my two main posts to others who question me about it again.

            Aesthete, buddy, I really don’t expect a lot of American casualties. After the Obama speech, and the Hillary disaster in Paris a few minutes ago, I don’t even know if Americans will be showing up at this point. But seriously, it is to the point that many news reports say Obama wants NO American combat involvement.

          • Doc Holliday

            and that “if” is not even 50-50 yet in my mind, maybe 40-60.

          • aesthete

            I think that you are right that there will not be many American casualties — that said, it would not surprise me to see us escalate our commitment. At any rate, I oppose the action on its own merits, as well: we just don’t know enough, and the region has not been important to American interests for 30ish years. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one (and I agree about The Smartest Woman In The World’s awful speech).

      • donnybrooke

        As much as the news media has reported on the groups opposing Qadhafi, they seem to have failed miserably in getting into the details of just what they are fighting to achieve. I’ve done some searching through past news stories, and all I can seem to find is that they are determined to over-throw Qadhafi. That’s it.

        About 40% of them are ex-military, with some generals on a guiding council. The remainder are recruits and people caught up in the spirit of the moment. While no one doubts they are fighting for “freedom” and “liberty”, it is still up in the air about what those terms mean to the rebels. The Libyan government has claimed that they contain al-Qaida and foreign security services (whatever those are – Iranians?). No one knows. If Qadhafi is over-thrown, there is no one person or group to take over the government. Personally, it appears that boots on the ground (not necessarily US boots) will become more and more necessary if there is to be a resolution to this conflict and Qadhafi ousted.

        If anyone has any further information, I would be happy to read it.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    or was it Tibet? Maybe Syria? Anyway…

    I guess since the government in Yemen is now firing on protesters, Obama will expand the no-fly zone to that country. Perhaps we can include Egypt and just make the entire Middle East a no-fly zone?

    Meh, sovereignty is so yesterday.

  • Jesme

    I remember how so many lefties seemed to revel in every setback in Iraq because they hated GWB and wanted him to fail. The heck with the lives of American troops or the success of American arms. I remember how people on the right rooted for failure in Kosovo because they hated Clinton. Again, the heck with the lives of American troops or the success of American arms.

    Don’t let’s be like that, folks. I’m not at all convinced this is a good idea. But when time comes for the USA to drop the hammer, I know who I’m rooting for, and I don’t give a damn who’s president. Go get ‘em, USA.

    • Marcus_Traianus

      So I am pretty sure we won’t “fail”, whatever that means.

      Plus I missed where people were cheering for troops to die and all the other horrible crap we put up with from liberals during Iraq.

      And I would love a cite for where the “right” was “Cheering” for Clinton to fail in Kosovo. Again, that would be akin to the tone from liberals in Iraq.

    • Doc Holliday

      I just could not believe the near hatred of Clinton spilled over to the military action. I thought my Republican friends had gone bonkers. I won’t compare it to the left and Iraq, but it was of the same genus.

      Yes I supported Kosovo too, I guess I am a war monger. No, I heard Tony Blair out, even taped his interview, and I believed it was the right thing to do. It was not Clinton’s war, it was Blair’s war, he was the one pushing it and fully invested in it.

      I think taking out this terrorist in Libya who has killed Americans for decades is the right thing to do. And supporting our troops and our allies when they fight for us IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

      • Marcus_Traianus

        That includes the success of any mission whether Kosovo, Somalia, Panama, Iraq or Libya. I will also add that men who serve in the military never die in vain. Never. They die serving their country, for honor, for freedom and with valor. Often, it is the only decent, honorable part of these conflicts. But that perspective is quite different from the left.

        Certainly you remember the “baby-killers” chants from Vietnam or the other horrible things liberals said about men serving in Iraq and other places? Again, I would like to see a cite where that type of vitriol came from the mainstream Right on Kosovo or even Somalia.

        But that is a separate issue than not supporting adventurous, unwise intervention which has nothing to do with our national interest. Especially when that action is the product of a Presidents parochial ideology and gets good men killed.

        We (The US) had zero interest in supporting the KLA which was/still is a terrorist organization (and taking sides, remember Holbrooke with the KLA?). Nor did we have any business participating in matters that Europeans let fester and should have handled on their own, then submitting to a ridiculous command structure that put our troops under their control. That entire paragraph is a Presidential failure of the highest degree.

        I don’t support Gaddafi, but I also don’t support the terrorist organizations which largely make up the “rebels”. But their is no national interest for us in Libya, which is a sovereign, civil war. It is the Left’s favorite type of conflict for which others always seem to pay the price.

        As for your friends, I refer to my first paragraph. That comes from the heart of a man having family that either served or never returned from many of our country’s conflicts.

        • Doc Holliday

          I have no doubt at all you always support the troops. I never have implied, nor will I imply anyone on this site, or any generic Republican does not support the troops or does not want them to succeed in combat.

          I said I personally witnessed friends and even family members lose their heads about the idea of the Kosovo air conflict. Remember, that is all we did, we flew some very, very high sorties. But combat is combat and their were casualties.

          I thought the de rigeur Demcrat president rules of engagement were a joke. But in the end, Milosovich the terrorist was captured. And yes, some in Kosovo were terrorists and some grew up to be terrorists.

          I also agree with you that the US makes a lot of international relations mistakes. I actually have more confidence in French Intelligence in Libya than I do in the CIA. Yes, no one can spy from space like we do, but we have crap on the ground since the libs decided we can’t talk with men of questionable character.

          And yes, war is “old men talking and young men dying”.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • Marcus_Traianus

            I suspect as much as we debate, we probably agree on a lot more than not.

            Frankly, there are many conflicts where I can not see our national interest. Nonetheless, I find it extraordinarily hard to support the adventurism which seems to define Democrat Presidents. By that, I mean support from a political standpoint, Militarily, is a completely different matter.

            However, in the end, when they make the call those in the military “serve”. You and I know exactly what that means. It is not some throwaway line in a speech. Nor is it simply part of a “thank-you” sentence. It means you serve the office of the President, Commander in Chief who makes decisions on behalf of the American people. That is our tradition and Constitution which we as American’s respect.

            I believe Libyan intervention is a very poorly grounded, politically motivated decision. We have a known terrorist running the country, but we also have rebels, many whom are not Libyan and a vast majority of the leaders who are either LIFG or AQIM. This is a civil conflict and has not crossed national borders. There is no definable national interest for us. Thus all the talk about “protecting civilians”, Yeah, I guess they shot down that Libyan plane this morning, you know those unarmed civilians. Nonsense.

            The European’s have been dancing with the devil for some time now. They have been stepping up commerce and trading in Libyan oil. Then when things hit the fan, once again they come looking for us. The whole thing stinks.

            But I will support my brothers. Period.

          • Doc Holliday

            The only thing I want accomplished is the end of Ghadaffi and capture of the Lockerbie Bomber. You are right about the Europeans playing nice with Ghadaffi lusting after his oil, maybe they are doing this because they feel like he made them into chumps.

        • silentcal2012

          The atrocities perpetuated against the Serbs by both Bosnians and especially Kosovars were often ignored and underestimated, while many of the Serbian atrocities were exaggerated. The politics and history of that region is extremely complicated.

          I still don?t understand how helping a Muslim terrorist organization get a foothold in Europe was in our national interest, and how KLA atrocities against Serbs were never properly reported.

    • aesthete

      If we’re going to get involved, I’d certainly like to see success. I guarantee you that you will see more conservatives praying for our troops and sending them care packages than liberals: we remember ‘Nam and how politicized the outcome and participants were, and have no interest in a repeat. That said, hope, prayer and well-wishing aren’t a plan — not even close. As Marcus notes, you need to have a goal before you can want it to come to fruition. To add to that, you need to have a side before you can cheer it on: if, as the interventionists are saying, the rebels will be fighting the ground war, we need to know that our interests and theirs match.

      For my part, I hope that the US doesn’t lose a single airman, but I know that they probably will. I want to know what makes the probable casualties we’ll suffer worth it. For Clinton, the best part of intervening in Kosovo was that we had nothing at stake: for me, that was the worst part of it. As far as I can tell, Libya is going to be another Somalia, another Afghanistan “surge”, or another Bosnia: I hope that it is not, but I have been given no reason to believe that this impression is errant.

  • bobojake
  • mspector

    He talked about a no-fly zone, but my understanding is that no US aircraft will be involved in establishing or enforcing it. Plus, he says we will put no troops on the ground in Libya. Have I missed something? And if not, what exactly are we committing to?

    • Doc Holliday

      The combatants will use our bases in Italy and we will do air traffic control. I hope there are no translation problems because I doubt many of our servicemen speak French AND Norwegian.

  • Wayne

    As a diehard Constitutionalist, beyond economic sanctions I say we stay out of it. And if I have criticism for Obama it’s his inability to articulate a specific reason we are not going to engage in military intervention. All I’ve heard so far is political mumbling and rhetoric.

    No faith should be invested in an Islamic country’s desire to have a “democratically elected” representative government. Islam is the opposite of that. Unless one considers that the Islamic religion and its populous to be a “peoples representative government”. Then one must look at an Islamic government like (Libya, Iran, well you know the group) as the opposite of what this country is willing to stand for and defend.

    Only our national interest should motivate our foreign policy. If we have no “national interest” (don’t make me define our national interest in this post), though I can say man’s unjust treatment of his fellow man does not reflect my definition of “national interest), then let the internal affairs of sovereign nations play themselves out.

    Are their “national interests” I am unaware of regarding Libya? As far as I’m concerned, let the entire Middle East be protected by the powers that benefit most directly from their relationships with them. Certainly, America as a whole does not benefit from our relationship with the Middle East. If Chevron and other large oil giants want to protect their investment, let them hire their own mercenaries to do their dirty work, not the US. Marines and American Youth.

    Any free American that wants to support one side or the other can go to Libya and join those forces. I prefer to keep American boys away from an undefined, undisciplined military action without clear agreed upon ultimate goals supported by universally agreed upon national interests…

    My two cents..

  • horizon3

    Historically Obama has done 180 degrees opposite of what he says on 99.99% of his statements about things “He’s NOT going to do”.

    Given that track record, his saying that “We will not use US troops on the ground” says to me that we are.
    That is a very disconcerting option.

    I worked in Libya in the early 80s, in fact I was there working when Reagan pulled his little bomb Qaddafi stunt, and had to sneak out through the desert to Egypt in order to escape.
    Unlike Iraq we have no friendly staging area to marshal an armored assault like we did in the 2 Iraq wars. So that means to put boots on the ground, we will have to take and hold a port city IN Libya.
    This will not go over too well with anyone, least of all our own people.

  • kenchely

    The British and French are quite capable of destroying Libyan army formations from the air. The point of the Cruise missile strikes is that they have eliminated Libya’s ability to interfere with such air raids. The Brits and French have perfectly fine fighter-bombers with which to blast ground units. Already, the French have mangled the force Qaddafi sent to Benghazi. Now it’s time to relieve Agedabia and clear everything out as far as Ras Lanouf.

    Once the Libyan Army is driven out of Cyrenaica, a government in Benghazi can declare its independence from Libya, having most of Libya’s oil in its control. All it will take is a couple of wings of British and French fighter planes and perhaps a battalion of Royal Marines stationed at Ras Lanouf, and the war in Cyrenaica is over.

    What the West cannot and should not do is what Bush swore he wouldn’t do and then did in Iraq and Afghanistan–”nation-building.” Western troops have one mission–to crush Qaddafi’s forces. What the people of Libya, and especially of Cyrenaica, do after that is up to them.

  • myron_j_poltroonian

    If, after helping the people of whatever nation is involved overthrow their oppressive, terrorist supporting leadership, they revert to the very same support of terrorism, I have an idea: Instead of “Nation Building”, after throwing out their terrorist supporting regimes in the Middle East and/or the so called “Tribal Areas”, let us try (preemptive) “Nation Renaming”. Yes! Lets let them be known as “NukeStan” (pronounced: Nuke’-Es-Stan), only until or unless they change their evil ways, of course. Two or three examples should be enough. If not, then reduce to molten glass those places they hold most dear.?(Mecca, Medina, etc. .. .)

  • uselogic

    Got in late but this is one of the reasons I joined RedState. Thank you for your insight, Streiff. And thank you to all who commented in response.

    I’ll leave things at that except for a quick note…Did you notice that none of the folks arguing the case for and against the no-fly zone (and any subsequent escalation) in Streiff’s Foreign Policy link had any military experience at all….. except Robert Gates? (He was against the action.) All the other National Security Council members mentioned were previously lawyers, journalists or campaign hacks… including the Pres. Interesting, too, that Susan Rice’s hubby is Cass Sunstein. Doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in their decision-making abilities along national security lines.