military action against Libya

Imposing a no-fly zone on Libya could lead to an all-out war, a senior U.S. military figure warned today.

America and Britain have been discussing closing the skies above the crisis-torn country to prevent Moammar Gaddaffi carrying out air strikes on opposition forces.

But General James Mattis, commander of U.S. Central Command, said today: ‘It would be a military operation – it wouldn’t be just telling people not to fly airplanes.

'You would have to remove air defence capability in order to establish a no-fly zone, so no illusions here.'

Good news for Obama is that the vast majority of Americans support his actions in polling

For us opinion poll junkies, it's the logical gaps and inconsistencies that are most revealing. In a CNN poll released on March 21, 70% of Americans favor imposing a no-fly zone in Libya. When CNN last polled, on March 11 - 13, only 56% approved. How to explain that jump in just one week?

Here's my guess: A week ago fully 14% of respondents said they had "never heard of" Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi! By now, you can bet nearly all of them have heard of Gaddafi. And what they've heard is hardly complimentary. Add those 14% to last week's 56% who wanted a no-fly zone, and you've got exactly this week's 70%.

If the Pew Research Center finds anything like 70% support for the no-fly zone in its next poll, that will be a much bigger change in public opinion than what CNN found. In Pew's poll taken March 10-13, only 44% supported a no-fly zone. But speaking of logical inconsistencies, in that same poll a paltry 16% approved of "bombing Libyan air defenses." So nearly two-thirds of those who supported a "no-fly zone" had no idea what the term means. They wanted to do the impossible: impose a no-fly zone without bombing air defenses. There's no reason to think the CNN sampling, which gave higher support for the no-fly zone, was any better informed.

It's not news to discover that the public is ill-informed and illogical. It would be something new, though, to understand what does shape public opinion. As a historian of religions, my answer is summed up in a single word: myth.

The numbers have been all over the place, you should take no comfort in them until they firm up...

You should also take note that according to one poll 70% of Germans want Germany to take part, yet their leader has decided to go the other way. One has to wonder about why Merkel, who's party is in political trouble, feels so free to disregard public opinion and also to let down the major long term alies of France and the US.

BUT THE central problem with the intervention in Libya is its lack of a goal. It is not about killing Gaddafi: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said it would be “unwise” to kill him, and UK Gen.

Sir David Roberts claims his country hasn’t targeted him because the UN does not permit such action.

It is not about helping the rebels: Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said there could very well be a stalemate in the aftermath of air strikes, and both President Barack Obama and British MPs have said there are no plans for ground troops. Justin Crump, a contributor to Al Jazeera on military affairs, correctly notes that airpower is not a panacea, and will almost certainly not be enough to tip the balance against Gaddafi.

The rebels seem incompetent. So unless the world is incredibly lucky, intervention there seems to be a recipe for a big mess. Unending conflict in Libya is not in the interest of anyone. With uncertainty already casting a pall over Egypt, Tunisia and increasingly over Yemen, Syria and Bahrain, and chaos having given rise to Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and Gaza, it can’t possibly be good to have a long stalemate in Libya which, until a few months ago, had the highest GDP per capita in North Africa, at around $14,000 (Israel’s is $29,000). Egypt and Morocco were less than half that.

Plunging a relatively wealthy country back into the dark ages, akin to Saddam’s Iraq between 1985 and 2005, is not good either. And getting Libyans hooked on foreign aid, like Kosovo, East Timor, Haiti, Gaza and some African countries, will also spell trouble.

The dish being prepared in Libya needs to be tossed out in favor of a more positive future.

The writer has a PhD from Hebrew University, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies

but I'd have to ask you to provide evidence, because you have a bad habit of lying.

I thought the generals were going the other way, advising against intervention

Quote:

but I'd have to ask you to provide evidence, because you have a bad habit of lying.

It was in the quote and the link......try reading next time, as it helps the process of communication along immensely..

Maybe next time you should post the correct passage with your post, instead of screwing up and including the text from the Jpost by mistake. Which you did and then went back and fixed after I made my post. You posted the wrong link the first time as well

You are grasping at straws in an all-too-obvious attempt to defend the indefensible and blame everyone else for what the administration has said and done.

I can sympathize with Obama's situation and the caution that led him to temporize. However, he has made the serious error of remaining ambiguous in a situation that no longer permitted it. Now he (and we) are being driven by events and can no longer control the terms of our engagement.

I totally agree with this, but it doesn't speak to my point at all. Republicans have been very critical of this effort, in large part because they are going to criticize ANYTHING that Obama decides to do. And they feel free to criticize whatever choice he makes, no matter what they previously said.

Good news for Obama is that the vast majority of Americans support his actions in polling. Bad news is that there's no clear endgame. His only real hope of salvaging our involvement in this is to make sure we do not in fact deploy ground troops.

Cycloptichorn

In effect you are saying you know their motives & intentions (you don't) and they are all both bad and deceptice.

A remarkable conclusion with respect to a very volatile and fast-changing matter. Moreover you have presented no evidence to support your categorical assertion.

We were driven by these events from the very beginning, and the idea that intervention a week earlier would have changed that in any way is a foolish one.

Answer a question for me: are you not prepared to criticize Obama on this no matter what happens? Do you feel that Republican politicians and media members are going to criticize him no matter what happens?

Cycloptichorn

It was Obama who had argued the necessity of formal action by the UN and extensive coordination with allies; now it appears that this process consumed the time during which the "intervention light" he is willing to undertake would likely be effective.

Quote:

In effect you are saying you know their motives & intentions (you don't) and they are all both bad and deceptice.

Don't tell me what I don't know! I've watched Republican politicians lie with abandon for my entire adult life, George. Every single leader in your party and media regularly states falsehoods and intentionally attempts to deceive voters, on every single issue they speak about. Every one. It's a critical part of the Republican electoral strategy.

I hardly expect you to agree and really don't care if you do. You have a vested interest in protecting your party's leadership and can't be relied upon to make objective judgments about them. What more, I could post evidence all day - including today, when Boehner and McConnell lied with abandon regarding the HC Reform, in separate opinion pieces - but you don't care about evidence either, so why should I bother?

You aren't able to meaningfully defend the flip-flops of your own party's leaders on this issue, so instead you turn to attacking me. You don't even address what I've brought up in the slightest. I don't think anyone here is deceived by your attempt, however.

Quote:

A remarkable conclusion with respect to a very volatile and fast-changing matter. Moreover you have presented no evidence to support your categorical assertion.

My statement regarding public opinion on the matter is based on polling data. My judgment as to the future is mine alone.

The rest of your paragraph is boring.

Cycloptichorn