Minister X wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:...how passive the Obama administration is being right now.

Up in Massachusetts we used to say "if you don't like the weather just wait 24 hours". This morning's news is that the the US has forwarded a draft resolution at the UN which "contains controversial language authorising all necessary measures to protect civilians, which some interpret as permitting strikes against government ground forces if civilians are under attack." The Russians are apoplectic.

Did the Obama admin simply change its tune, was prior reporting misleading, or is it that this administration operates on a sort of chaos/emergence principle whereby disorder reigns (with everybody voicing their own opinion as if authoritative) but eventually (after enough positive and negative feedback from outside) the fittest idea survives and stands alone? ("Fitness" in this case might mean almost anything.) In any case it might just be that the USA is displaying at least a flicker of the leadership RJ had hoped for. Now how will everyone react to it?

Literally, you are correct. It is glorious outside here in Massachusettes; the sun is shining and the thermometers are hitting 60, which they haven't done in a long time.

Figuratively, I hope you are right, but I'm not optimistic. It seems that we are keeping all our options open and we are just posturing. But there is a glimmer of hope ...

Well, I spoke too soon. The UN will approve and the US and England will be assisting the rebels before we wake up tomorrow. I've also heard reports that Egypt has already been providing light arms to the rebels, which makes sense given their large border.

I'm pretty shocked. I agreed with X when he said "I wouldn't want to be us." There are many good reasons not to get involved, but if this is a legit intervention, it is the "right" thing to do. But it also makes me think of the saying "No good deed goes unpunished."

Ray Jay wrote:A few posts back I indicated my disgust that the US is not intervening to help the Libyan rebels. I know that Danivon suggested that we should not get involved, and no one else has shared my view that the US needs to step in here. Yet the more that time goes on, the more convinced I am of my posiiton.

So... go help them.

Guapo wrote:So... go help them.

I really don't understand this school yard level taunt. I don't believe that people should take the law into their own hands when they live in a Democracy.

So far, so good. Whereas yesterday Ghadafi was talking about going house to house (and presumably doing something in the range from killing the rebels to ethnic cleansing) he is now calling for a cease fire. Who knows what happens next? Had we acted earlier, perhaps Ghadafi would have fallen; now we may have a stalemate. I'm not smart enough to know whether that is good or bad, but it sure is better than ethnic cleansing.

I do see the political benefit of having the Arab League, French, British, and others asking for US support. It's also good to see that the Chinese and Russians rolled over. The world complains when the US leads, but then complains just as loudly when we don't. It's actually the burden of all leaders, large and small.

To Min X and Geojanes point of not wanting to be in that situation, I hear it, but sometimes that's just the way it is. You have to embrace leadership or abdicate it. With power comes responsibility. It's not so bad if you are confident about your own position and motives, which we should be in the case of Libya.

By the way, sometimes unintended consequences are positive.

RJ

x

And of course every bomb will be on target and no civilians will be killed, and no one will accuse us of cowardice, or of using illegal munitions. And as a Canadian you will of course contribute since a single smart bomb costs more than you make in a year. (?) Or will it be US taxpayers footing the bill?

I guess we're going to find out...and since Ghaaffi has declared a "ceasefire" maybe the final effect was arrived at on the cheap?
I'm sure you'll be interested to note that the air fleet committed includes planes from the US, UK, France and Canada. And that italy is providing bases.
This may have been a tortuous route to get the UN and Arab League blessing and Russian and Chinese acquiesence but it sure seems to provide a large seal of approval and extensive political cover for the exercise. Which is a major diplomatic success for Obama I'd say....
Let's hope there is an equally successful military component.

Given the 40 protesters killed by snipers in US supported Yemen, and the brutal crackdown in Bahrain where US command forces are stationed, this Libya thing seems to be purchasing some much needed moral capital.

Neal Anderth wrote:Given the 40 protesters killed by snipers in US supported Yemen, and the brutal crackdown in Bahrain where US command forces are stationed, this Libya thing seems to be purchasing some much needed moral capital.

That's weird ... I agree.

rickyp wrote:...since Ghaaffi has declared a "ceasefire" maybe the final effect was arrived at on the cheap?

Don't count your ceasefires before they hatch. Muamar's offer of one was dependent upon certain "technicalities" being met. Besides, they guy isn't really all that trustworthy. His latest ruse is to say that he's observing a ceasefire when in fact he's doing no such thing. (Well... he personally has shot off no guns for the last hour or two.)

QUESTION: what do we do if/when Ghaddafi and his loyalists surrender and the rebels start fighting each other for control of the country?

Minister X wrote:

rickyp wrote:...since Ghaaffi has declared a "ceasefire" maybe the final effect was arrived at on the cheap?

Don't count your ceasefires before they hatch. Muamar's offer of one was dependent upon certain "technicalities" being met. Besides, they guy isn't really all that trustworthy. His latest ruse is to say that he's observing a ceasefire when in fact he's doing no such thing. (Well... he personally has shot off no guns for the last hour or two.)

QUESTION: what do we do if/when Ghaddafi and his loyalists surrender and the rebels start fighting each other for control of the country?

Or, what if the current fighting either abates or settles into some kind of "sitzkrieg?" Do we simply enforce the "no-fly zone" in perpetuity?

This is yet another potential quagmire.

I think we have to be very careful about mission creep. The key is to not send ground troops.

A no fly zone in perpetuity is a better answer than either what we find right now in Iraq or Afghanistan, or the massacre that Ghadafi would have unleashed.

Asked if American officials feared whether Colonel Qaddafi could open a new terrorism front, Mr. Brennan said: “Qaddafi has the penchant to do things of a very concerning nature. We have to anticipate and be prepared for things he might try to do to flout the will of the international community.”

Among the threats the United States is focusing on is Libya’s stockpile of deadly mustard gas, he said

x

Well... he personally has shot off no guns for the last hour or two

.

Thats his story, and he's sticking to it.


steve

Or, what if the current fighting either abates or settles into some kind of "sitzkrieg?" Do we simply enforce the "no-fly zone" in perpetuity?

Why not? What would this cost? Considering that the bases and weapons are being maintained and used in training anyway ... there doesn't seem to be a great deal of additional cost. Its kind of like an ongoing training exercise.
And the cost is being shared by a fair number of nations who actually have contributed. Poland, and a couple of Arab nations perhaps, and definitely Norway, Denmark Italy, Canada France Britain Spain and the US
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... yan-crisis

The no-fly zone in Iraq was maintained from 1991 through to the start of the iraq invasion. I don't remember anyone complaining about the high cost of that intervention.
The huge advantage politically with this aliance is that the US isn't seen as a leader of imperialism in the middle east. And it gives time to learn exactly what the Libyan rebels are all about. Amongst the factions that are included on the rebel side are Al Queda affiliates who fought in Afghanistan. It might be that not all of the rebels represent freedom and liberty of the type we in the West would recognize.

Seems to me like this is a pretty good solution for the moment. as the situation changes the next move can be calculated. You'd have to agree Steve, that Obama has been particularly adroit in this crisis. He truly is the non-Bush.

rickyp wrote:The huge advantage politically with this aliance is that the US isn't seen as a leader of imperialism in the middle east.

You've got to be kidding. The Iraq alliance was much larger. Your premise is based on a belief that the Arab Street is sensitive to the niceties of international multilateral collective security. It's also based on a belief that your perception today of what constitutes legitimate use of force will remain everyone's perception of it tomorrow. You're already being proven wrong in this. Witness:

CAIRO, March 20, 2011 (AFP) - The Arab League on Sunday criticized Western military strikes on Libya, a week after urging the United Nations to slap a no-fly zone on the oil-rich North African state.

"What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians," Arab League secretary general Amr Mussa told reporters.

Gee, who could've guessed?

The US was criticized for not having the foresight to see how the invasion of Iraq might lead to a nasty situation of internal hostilities which we'd have difficulties controlling. I asked above: "QUESTION: what do we do if/when Ghaddafi and his loyalists surrender and the rebels start fighting each other for control of the country?" The only semi-direct answer so far is Ricky saying: "as the situation changes the next move can be calculated." That's precisely what US military planners were saying to each other before Iraq.

Min X, to answer your question, we only intervene if a) one side tries to institute some form of crimes against humanity or b) Libya threatens to become a terrorist state. Other than that, we recognize our limitations, both military and financial.