military action against Libya

Neo-Bam

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Well, you don't get it for nothing - not the USA, the UK, France or any other nation. (The discussion in the UK seems to be less, in France nearly one at all - seems, those nations support their troops more.)

The real cost, however, won't be known until months after the operation has ended – and there is no end in sight in my opinion.

0 Replies

Water boy is just whining because of his irrational, obsessive hatred of Mr. Obama.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Nato finally is to take control in Libya after the US, the UK and France reached an agreement.

2 Replies

Interesting take on Fresh Air last night. The host interviewed a Mid-East expert who described the Arab street feel to Western intervention in Libya. His description was basically that the Arab public was so tramatized by Iraq that while they want the West to protect civilians, they are afraid of anything that smells remotely like invasion. Any collateral damage is unacceptable to them if it comes from the US or other Western countries and the whole "assasinate Kaddafi" conversation drives them into conspiracy theories around invasions and oil. It's worth listening if you have 45 minutes.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Good. Someone needs to act responsibly.

0 Replies

Set and Walter are clueless.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Do you have more, better and faster informations than from live tickers? (or live video, like from the budget discussions in the British Parliament, which I follow as well just now)

0 Replies

Anybody said anything yet about the beer and hotdog concessions when the demoKKKrats impeach Bork Obunga over this idiotic ****?

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

Interesting take on Fresh Air last night. The host interviewed a Mid-East expert who described the Arab street feel to Western intervention in Libya. His description was basically that the Arab public was so tramatized by Iraq that while they want the West to protect civilians, they are afraid of anything that smells remotely like invasion.

Likewise PBS Newshour has an interview with experts which has as the take away that NATO is even in the best of times difficult to run because of so many cooks in the kitchen, but trying to run a quasi Nato operation with Arab countries is worse given the bad reputation of NATO in the Arab world. Throw in attacks of Lybian ground forces and it likely becomes impossible. So of course I wake up this morning and the first thing I see is news that we have decided to target ground forces because Gadaffi refused to give up attempts to reclaim all of the country. I further remember that last week his former nurse saying that Gadaffi is not in the least bit crazy, that it is an act. He could not have done anything more smart than to goad the Americians/brits/french to attack, to enter the war even more firmly on the side of the rebels. THe Arab support/cover for the West taking military might to Libya will now be peeled off.

We have been bested by Gaddafi more than once before, Obama seems to have a weak grasp on the history with all of his assuming that a couple of hundred million dollars of military effort is all that is required to be rid of Gaddafi.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Personally I give Obama/Gates credit for not running headlong into this disaster and trying to limit US involvement. Given that France and the UK want to go all in, I'd be happy if the US offered only logistical support. Gaddafi is never going to agree to grant the rebels victory so the West is either going to have to commit to aiding the rebels militarily in a big way or back out.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

Personally I give Obama/Gates credit for not running headlong into this disaster and trying to limit US involvement

hopefully this is tempered with concern that Obama rushed headlong into military operations, and while he made his demand that America not lead for long he also started with no exit plan in place. What makes you so sure that America will be able to off load command and control duties? I'll believe it when I see it. Most likely they will start calling it NATO run but it will continue to be American run, and the Arabs will not be fooled by the con job.

"we did not want to" is not going to make a damn bit of difference to the Arabs, as they like the rest of the world are well aware that American words often dont match up with American actions...

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Yes, it is strongly tempered by that concern. I would have loved for Obama to have told the UK/France that this was theirs, go at it. I can't see any exit strategy, any cohesive understanding of objectives or even any moral clarity about who we should attack and who we shouldn't. Of course, the UK has some of our IOU's over Iraq. We pulled them into a dubious action so they are doing the same to us now. But this was Obama's Suez Crisis moment and he failed.

2 Replies

@engineer,

I'm thinking, mostly because that's just the way I think, Obama's Libya policy is H Clinton's Libya policy which is Bill Clinton's Libya policy.

0 Replies

Problem is, the Rebels have nothing even resembling a cohesive ground force or strategy. So the idea that they would get it together and attack and win, as long as we kept the skies clean, was a joke from day one.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

the Rebels have nothing even resembling a cohesive ground force or strategy

Nor even leadership...

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Nato finally is to take control in Libya after the US, the UK and France reached an agreement.

As I understand it, there was some sort of compromise and NATO will only have control of military operations. Political leadership is going to be handled by a 'committee'.

Anyone want to help out a blonde and explain what this means?

Quote:

Speaking in Paris, Mr Juppe said this role would fall to a committee of foreign affairs ministers from coalition countries taking part in military operations along with the Arab League.

NATO will intervene as a tool for planning and operational action. It will not exercise political leadership," he said.

0 Replies

Uhm . . . i think it means that NATO are a bunch of tools . . . i'd go along with that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Good answer! Thumbs up!

0 Replies

This is interesting, in light of the U.S. wanting to take more of a 'behind the scenes' role in Libya.

ONSLOW COUNTY -- We've seen Camp Lejuene Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan and now they are joining the fight against Libya.

Quote:

About 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, or 26th MEU will take part. Their mission is to help end the violence directed at the Libyan people.

"In Libya right now they are doing exactly what we need them to do. They are doing what they are told and right now that's protecting Libyan people against Qadhafi forces," said Captain Timothy Patrick, a Marine with the 26th MEU.

[...]

Patrick says that marines from the 26th MEU are coming on the end of their deployment. They will be replaced with marines from the 22nd MEU.

The 22nd MEU left for Libya today.

According to Wiki, troop strength of the 22nd MEU is 2,000.

2 Replies

military action against Libya

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know