-
- Archduke Russell John
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am
18 Apr 2011, 1:29 pm
rickyp wrote:Well, it might also be that they prepared themselves to fight a war where they could use less well aimed munitions. And that most of their munitions aren't particularly useful in close engagement.
Well then I would argue it shows an amazing lack of foresight on the part of B/F since when in the last 30 years has there been a fight that didn't required well aimed munitions or include close air support as part of air power doctrine?
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
18 Apr 2011, 1:54 pm
Is Canada pulling it's NATO weight in Libya?
(BTW, it is 1 frigate, and 2 airlift transports.)
And a squadron of fighter bombers (6).
I have a feeling that the squadron isn't doing a lot of dangerous bombing right now. We're in an election and Harper has likely told the commander to avoid anything that might create an issue at home, till after the voting. You know, accidentally bomb civilians or get shot down...
But we aren't getting alot of daily reports on their activity.
-
- Valsum
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 92
- Joined: 28 Mar 2005, 8:32 am
18 Apr 2011, 1:59 pm
rickyp wrote:We're in an election and Harper has likely told the commander to avoid anything that might create an issue at home, till after the voting.
Is that actually frequent or even possible in a traditional democracy like yours? I mean, here in Spain we're absolutely newbies in the democratic game and it's normal to make of everything a political issue, but shouldn't military efficiency and political "weight" be sepparated? Just asking.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
18 Apr 2011, 2:10 pm
Valsum - shouldn't, no. But that won't stop it happening. In Spain, I believe you are only just away from the military being political (even a few years ago, wasn't it?).
-
- Minister X
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 8486
- Joined: 01 Mar 2002, 9:37 am
18 Apr 2011, 2:38 pm
rickyp wrote:...the US laser guided munitions are not compatible with the French/British.
An aside FYI: one of the original goals of NATO was to avoid exactly this kind of problem, and lip service has been paid to equipment compatibility on and off ever since. I suspect it's one of the reasons the US can't use as much help as our allies are willing to give even when they're willing to give it. In a place like Afghanistan logistics are going to be a huge issue. If each ally needs its own discrete supply line it becomes very difficult to arrange things properly. We've had enough time in Afghanistan to get everything set up, but note that after initial efforts both there and in Iraq to have units from different nations working closely with each other, things evolved to where each major participant was assigned a discrete geographic area of operation. when time counts, the US has to say to it's closest allies: stay on the bench for now - we'll call you when we can afford to. NATO:
keeping the peace in the North Atlantic since 1949, but just barely. Thank God it was never tested.
-
- PCHiway
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: 10 Sep 2002, 10:28 am
19 Apr 2011, 6:50 am
danivon wrote:France has been doing a lot outside of Iraq, mainly in Africa. Seeing as they never agreed to join up on Iraq, and made it plain in advance, there's a bit of a difference.
Indeed. The US has, by and large, followed France's wishes in Francophone West Africa over the years. And France has been content with sending in the special forces once in a while if anything threatens their cacao stranglehold.
Iraq was a serious blow for France. Iraq bought tons of French stuff, not to mention the healthy amount of Oil-for-Food scamola flowing into Gaul. One need only read the pulpit-pounding orations of Chevenement and de Villepin to see just how very badly France didn't want Clinton, and later Bush, messing with Iraq.
But Libya is a problem France can't fix with a few squads from the Legion. So it's a bit of pickle for them. How can they make the US do the heavy lifting but still keep the lion's share of influence in whatever emerges? They shouldn't worry overmuch...
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
19 Apr 2011, 7:21 am
v
Is that actually frequent or even possible in a traditional democracy like yours?
Sure. Stephen Harper doesn't let anyone fart without a say so from the PMO.
(Its only my suspicion though. There is very little reporting on our forces in Libya.)
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
19 Apr 2011, 7:45 am
rickyp wrote:And the Europeans would say that the Americans afford their military on the backs of future generations of American taxpayers?
I would say, "Great point, Europe! So, take care of Libya on your own. We're not spending one thin dime more that rightfully belongs to future generations to support your war."
-
- Valsum
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 92
- Joined: 28 Mar 2005, 8:32 am
20 Apr 2011, 8:48 am
danivon wrote:Valsum - shouldn't, no. But that won't stop it happening. In Spain, I believe you are only just away from the military being political (even a few years ago, wasn't it?).
Well, our democracy dates back from 1978. However, the Minister of Defense has a good deal of chances to make of the Armed Forces a political instrument -just as I see it-, via appointments (High Command, etc.) and via decrees. But the military themselves, for the most part, stay out of politics.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
26 Apr 2011, 11:11 am
I heard Kissinger say we should invade. Sadly, I think we need to either quit or send in a few thousand troops to go in, find Ghaddafi, and put an end to this.
Hitchens explains:The special forces of almost any NATO state—most certainly those of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France—are more than equal to the task of taking him out on their own. If he can't be arrested, he can certainly be killed. This doesn't seem to me to violate the letter or the spirit of, say, the official prohibition on assassination of foreign leaders first promulgated during the administration of President Gerald Ford. Qaddafi is now the commander and symbol of a depraved armed force with which we are engaged in direct hostilities. Like Mullah Omar or Osama Bin Laden, he is a legitimate military target and, if only the international courts would not also be so laggard, a legitimate legal and political one as well.
I have heard it argued that the pursuit of Qaddafi runs the risk of civilian casualties, as I presume in theory it must do. But the failure to target him most certainly means a steady and continuous and increasing flow of civilian deaths. To refuse to soil our hands with this homicidal lunatic is an odd way of keeping them clean.
The status quo is not only ridiculous, it risks the lives of many we claim to be interested in protecting.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
26 Apr 2011, 3:36 pm
Valsum wrote:Well, our democracy dates back from 1978. However, the Minister of Defense has a good deal of chances to make of the Armed Forces a political instrument -just as I see it-, via appointments (High Command, etc.) and via decrees. But the military themselves, for the most part, stay out of politics.
Didn't some general threaten to intervene when Catalonia was being given more devolved power a few years ago? I believe the King told him to stay out of it and it all calmed down pretty quickly.
Steve - so are you now agreeing with Kissinger and Hitchens and want to press for more involvement? Or would you prefer a pullout?
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
26 Apr 2011, 3:46 pm
danivon wrote:Valsum wrote:Well, our democracy dates back from 1978. However, the Minister of Defense has a good deal of chances to make of the Armed Forces a political instrument -just as I see it-, via appointments (High Command, etc.) and via decrees. But the military themselves, for the most part, stay out of politics.
Didn't some general threaten to intervene when Catalonia was being given more devolved power a few years ago? I believe the King told him to stay out of it and it all calmed down pretty quickly.
Steve - so are you now agreeing with Kissinger and Hitchens and want to press for more involvement? Or would you prefer a pullout?
I am agreeing with Hitchens that killing Ghaddafi would be the easiest ending. I think we ought to either do whatever it takes to accomplish that or get out. What we are likely to see, imo, is a slow escalation. That is the worst possible approach because it gives Ghaddafi time to adapt.
My attitude here is not much different than in Afghanistan. You either do what needs to be done to accomplish the mission permanently (as permanently as is possible) or you get out. Period.
Someone will surely object to the amoral nature of Hitchens' position. I think he framed it rightly: which is the worse moral offense--killing Ghaddafi or allowing the war to drag out and have many more innocent Libyans die?
This President prefers the middle ground.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
27 Apr 2011, 5:17 am
Can you not answer the question? We all can see you oppose the current policy, and prefer two others. I asked which of those you would advocate, no to simply restate yourself.
-
- GMTom
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 11284
- Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am
27 Apr 2011, 6:07 am
It was asked before and it seems like an even more important question now,
Why the intervention in Libya but not Syria?
The supporters here claimed Libya was nothing but humanitarian support of the rebels who would be slaughtered. Odd, that's happening now in Syria but we don't seem to care? Every reason for supporting this Libyan intervention would apply to Syria but we hear nothing but crickets on that issue. The similarities between Iraq and Libya were pointed out and the liberals here claimed the two were vastly different yet in Syria it is identical yet they remain silent, if Libya is the "right thing to do" then it follows (by the liberal logic, not mine) that we must also intervene in Syria.
And Bahrain, and Yemen, and ......
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
27 Apr 2011, 8:27 am
danivon wrote:Can you not answer the question? We all can see you oppose the current policy, and prefer two others. I asked which of those you would advocate, no to simply restate yourself.
I know your game. You don't care what the answer is. You just want something to dissect.
I note you're not taking a position on which, if either, you prefer. Are you indifferent?
I'm not entirely ambivalent, but I would support either. What I can't support is simply maintaining the status quo.
