danivon wrote:

GMTom wrote:in Syria it is identical

Is it? Here's how I understand the situation in Libya had developed before we intervened:

1. People started to demonstrate
2. The regime tried to stop them with force
3. Demonstrations continued
4. The regime responded with harsher force
5. Parts of the regime decided that this was going too far, and joined with the demonstrators
6. The government responded by treating it as civil war
7. As part of that civil war, the government (and perhaps others) attacked civilian targets indiscriminately
8. The rebels looked like they may lose the civil war

And in Syria, we are at about stage 4.

Ok, on another board that I post to one of the other guys has family in the middle east, included Syria. He said the news coming out is that the Syrian Army's 5th Division just mutinied when told to attack Deraa with it's leaders being arrested by the people. Further, the 4th Division has been sent in to take care of them. al Jazerra seems to be confirming so apparently we are now up to stages 5 & 6.

Taking it all in ... this is really scary stuff. We seem to be embroiled in wars in Muslim lands from Libya to Afghanistan. There is just a never ending conflict with brutal dictators, artificial nation states, no semblance of Democratic or even what we would all recognize as modern institutions. There's a population that is resentful and violent, and generally seeing life in a way that we just don't recognize.

Per today's WSJ, the Pakistan PM is urging Afghanistan to adopt a more pro China and anti U.S. foreign policy. How many billions do we give to Pakistan? How many lives have we given to Afghanistan?

Maybe it would be cool if Syria lost the Assad dynasty. The father killed 10,000 to 20,000 people in the town of Hama because they are Sunni and started to revolt many years ago. Everyone had been scared ever since, until now. They are an Iranian client; it is a cruel government that supports Hezbollah and Hamas, and has destabilized Lebanon. But I wouldn't be surprised to see Syria go through an Iraq-like civil war with different factions and rounds of terrorism. I see Syria as an even tougher challenge than Iraq, and that's been no bargain.

I think Libya is challenging enough and would recommend extreme caution before getting involved in Syria.

Ray Jay wrote:I think Libya is challenging enough and would recommend extreme caution before getting involved in Syria.

What does that even mean?

In what way did the West 'inhibit' the peaceful revolutions of Egypt and Tunisia, Neal?

Tunisia got the jump on them, but they are actively persecuting the Western elements that assisted Tunisia, namely Manning, Wikileaks, and Anonymous.

Egypt, well you're asking me to point out the obvious, so what's the point? The US supported Mubarak early on and ostensibly upped the stakes for the Egyptian protesters. Or do you think it's generally safe to oppose US backed dictators?

It's a lot safer to oppose US backed dictators than the other dictators. Iran, Syria, and Libya have done incredible evil to their people. The rulers of Egypt and Tunisia have shown restraint which is why they are out.

neal

Tunisia got the jump on them, but they are actively persecuting the Western elements that assisted Tunisia, namely Manning, Wikileaks, and Anonymous.

Yes, I clearly remember the Tunisian protestors chanting Manning Manning Manning...

Good lord man. The Arab awakening has very little to do with the West, other than the desire for the rights and liberties that democratic nations have...
And Ray, when you say, We seem to be embroiled in wars in Muslim lands..." Who's we?
Is this written from a western or American view point? Or as a citizen of the world?
Westerners are involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. And in a limited fashion in Libya. But not really involved anywhere else and thats probably a good thing.

There is nothing to suggest that anything the West could actively do would positively affect anything in Syria, or Oman, or most nations. A full scale invasion of any of these nations, would require resources that no one has anymore. And which have proven to have limited effect when recently engaged...

Libya represented an opportunity to use superior weaponry and resources to allow an organized group resisting Ghaddaffi in a somewhat traditional military confrontation. His troops were lined up and ready to start the destruction of Ben Ghazzi.There was a claear demarcation of "line" at that point. And still, is to a large extent. The intervention quite obviously stopped a genocide and gave life to that resistance. That it didn't create an immediate surrender by Ghaddaffi I think isn't unexpected. What makes anyone think that war is all 6 days and done?

That makes Libya different enough that the limited involvement there makes sense. With Ghadaffi now facing death from Cruise missile, and seeing his family die, it seems to be shaking his resolve... Perhaps there is a light at the end of this tunnel...?

I don't know if anyone is paying attention, but Ghadaffi is down to two functioing loyal brigades according to the recently defected Libyan army officers the Italians paraded before the media the other day...
So, how has the policy of limited intervention by the West gone so far? For the Libyans? For the West? For obama?
I'd say it seems to be working out.
Good Lord, this couldn't be another feather in the cap for that noted Socialist Obama?

rickyp wrote:I don't know if anyone is paying attention, but Ghadaffi is down to two functioing loyal brigades according to the recently defected Libyan army officers the Italians paraded before the media the other day...
So, how has the policy of limited intervention by the West gone so far? For the Libyans? For the West? For obama?
I'd say it seems to be working out.
Good Lord, this couldn't be another feather in the cap for that noted Socialist Obama?

Why?

Special Forces are on the ground. If we'd done that in the beginning, this would have taken hours, not months.

ABC News:

President Obama told a bipartisan group of members of Congress today that he expects the U.S. would be actively involved in any military action against Libya for "days, not weeks," after which he said the U.S. would take more of a supporting role, sources tell ABC News.

The White House meeting with 18 lawmakers came as Obama delivered an ultimatum to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi that he must immediately implement a ceasefire in all parts of Libya and allow international humanitarian assistance, or risk military action against his regime.

"Moammar Gadhafi has a choice. . .

Ever notice how much this Administration uses this? You know, Assad still has a choice? Iran's government had several choices, and they still do. No matter how many times they say "no," Obama still offers a choice.

Of course, if he told Richard the end of the world was this Saturday, Richard would be renting buses to declare the end. It doesn't matter how many times Obama is wrong, Richard has faith!

Steve

Special Forces are on the ground. If we'd done that in the beginning, this would have taken hours, not months.

I assume you are talking about the targeting officers who are coordinating with the air forces to try and accurately target Ghaddaffi forces. That they should be on the ground is expected. The air forces generally trust their own on the ground :spotting forces" before any other intelligence. And its standard tactics to try and place these forces "on the ground".
Why do you think this is a recent event? Did Bill O'Reily just discover this? (You have a source?)

As for Obama's "days not weeks, I think if you scroll through this board 's earlier comments, I was wondering why everyone expected a sudden military solution in Libya.
Its a little childish to expect a foreign intervention that can magically end a military dictatorship with a modicum of effort and no sacrifice, and an immediately wholy functioning competent democratic administration at the ready to take over. ... But that seems to be the expectation from some of you.
Obama has managed to avoid any American casualties, a limited involvement, and the end goal of a Ghaddaffi removed from power seems very close to reality. remartkably, with the frozen assets of Ghaddaffi available to a new regime, Libya may need only a little outside aide (mostly expertise) to rebuild.
Is your head exploding Steve?

rickyp wrote:Obama has managed to avoid any American casualties, a limited involvement, and the end goal of a Ghaddaffi removed from power seems very close to reality. remarkably, with the frozen assets of Ghaddaffi available to a new regime, Libya may need only a little outside aide (mostly expertise) to rebuild. Is your head exploding Steve?

Don't count your chickens' before they're hatched. Also, it is quite reasonable to be against such intervention while still hoping that it turns out for the best. That's not an exploding head, it's more a sigh of relief, but again, no reason to feel relieved yet.

geo

Also, it is quite reasonable to be against such intervention while still hoping that it turns out for the best

.
Aye.
But you'll note that on this issue Obama took heat from being 1) too timid (from the likes of mCCain and Gingrich.)
2) too involved (Notably ALSO from Gingrich from this direction.)

On this board posters have strained to find reason to criticize... And to either justify past failed adventures or current failures to engage (Bahrainfor example) with linkage between Libya and the other events. Some of this may be fair, but judged upon its own merits, the Libta project looks to be closing in on complete.
remarkably, Obama, on Libya, seems to have drawn a careful middle position and looks to be coming out smelling like a rose... Now, Ghaddaffi could survive for a while yet, but I think the Colonels chickens are coming home to roost. (to continue your poultry metaphor)

You just don't want to be roosting under a banner saying "mission accomplished." Signs look good, I admit, but we've learned that things are often more complicated after the mission is accomplished.

rickyp wrote:Now, Ghaddaffi could survive for a while yet, but I think the Colonel's chickens are coming home to roost. (to continue your poultry metaphor)

So you are suggesting that Obama has done a finger licking good job?

geojanes wrote:Don't count your chickens' before they're hatched. Also, it is quite reasonable to be against such intervention while still hoping that it turns out for the best. That's not an exploding head, it's more a sigh of relief, but again, no reason to feel relieved yet.

|Indeed - I was against British involvement in Iraq (and the US invasion) in 2003, but that doesn't mean that I didn't hope it would turn out well. I was against UK involvement in Libya, but that doesn't mean I don't hope it works out for the best.

Certainly having (SAS?) forces on the ground helping to identify targets is not the same as 'occupation'. It's not against the letter of the UN resolution, and we could argue for ever if it against the spirit of it. It would be likely to reduce errors that result in civilian deaths, so I don't see why - having decided to use airstrikes - it is worse to send people in to help target them.

Now, looking wider afield, I would say that Syria has started to cross the line to being in the same kind of thing as Libya. Yemen certainly has. Bahrain... not yet. But none of the countries and uprisings are directly comparable. Which is kind of why the precedent of sending forces against Gadaffi was warned against.