military action against Libya

So, something as little as a no-fly zone in Libya doesn't really matter.

RAS LANOUF, Libya – Moammar Gadhafi's forces hammered rebels with tanks and rockets, turning their rapid advance into a panicked retreat in an hourslong battle Tuesday. The fighting underscored the dilemma facing the U.S. and its allies in Libya: Rebels may be unable to oust Gadhafi militarily unless already contentious international airstrikes go even further in taking out his forces.
Opposition fighters pleaded for strikes as they fled the hamlet of Bin Jawwad, where artillery shells crashed thunderously, raising plumes of smoke. No such strikes were launched during the fighting, and some rebels shouted, "Sarkozy, where are you?" — a reference to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, one of the strongest supporters of using air power against Gadhafi.

It's just a tiny bit different to the USA's invasion of the “shores of Tripoli” in 1805.

The main problem for Obama/Clinton, and now NATO, is that they were simply wrong that the over whelming majority Libyan people would side with the rebels.

Where did you hear this argument being made? Not even the 3 liberal kooks who supported the Libyan "intervention" on "humanitarian" grounds (by name, Sec. State Hillary Clinton, presidential adviser Samantha Power, UN Ambassador Susan Rice) ever made such an outlandish claim

hawkeye10 wrote:
.. The main problem for Obama/Clinton, and now NATO, is that they were simply wrong that the over whelming majority Libyan people would side with the rebels.

Where did you hear this argument being made? -

March 21, 2011 — Citizens in Africa and in the Arab World who were eagerly waiting for their turn to change their dictators in the Tunisian and Egyptian style might now be reconsidering their planned actions. The choice made by the Libyan demonstrators to arm themselves against their dictator Muammar Gaddafi is a great mistake.

It is clear that the demonstrators were in danger of losing many people to Gaddafi’s forces during their peaceful demonstration, but the mistake is that they have now chosen a side that isolates them in the eyes of the Libyans who initially supported the protest against Gaddafi. Libyans all over Libya who wanted to force Gaddafi out of power were determined to die in the hands of what they believed to be foreign fighters, fighting for Gaddafi only. Such a belief was eventually going to convince the Libyan army to be on the side of the people.

Now, the army is fighting against what they believe to be rebels, not the peaceful demonstrators that they wanted to side with. A large number of women and children who were part of the demonstration will play a minimal role in the current armed rebellion against the Government. Tribes that are loyal to Gaddafi will now defend him because they may perceive the rebels as threats to their tribal interests and identities. Government officials who like a short term regime change will now side with the Government in order to have something on the table for their families.

The international community will also slow down on asking Gaddafi to step down since there are laws that apply to armed rebellion. Armed rebels are not regarded as innocent by the international community. So, those who were planning to support the demonstrators in Libya will now think twice on how they market their support to the members of the United Nations Security Council. One permanent member in the Security Council can veto any military action against Gaddafi’s Government if such action does not convince his or her country. The United States is already stretched to the point where intervention is something its leaders are reluctant to engage in before they free themselves from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Libyan rebels are now on their own. They will have to accept both a defeat from Gaddafi’s forces and end the rebellion, or they will have to plan for a lengthy liberation war. Tough choices.

I once wrote that one should not kick the buttock of an elephant if he knows he is not strong enough. Anybody who sings the song of violent must first check his muscles

.....this is the question: Where did you hear this argument being made? -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
" .. The main problem for Obama/Clinton, and now NATO, is that they were simply wrong that
the over whelming majority Libyan people would side with the rebels."

"I believe that Gaddafi is on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now. We are going to be in contact with the opposition, as well as in consultation with the international community, to try to achieve the goal of Mr Gaddafi being removed from power," Obama said.

the over whelming majority Libyan people would side with the rebels."

Are we even speaking the same language

Quote:

Are we even speaking the same language

Apparently not, as the quote is has been already provided.

Quote:

the over whelming majority Libyan people would side with the rebels."

President Obama delivered a clear message last night: The U.S. military mission in Libya is strictly limited. In fact, it's virtually over.
Then he outlined a series of rationales, goals, and commitments of which the military campaign is just a part.


This won't work. The military campaign will be judged by the commitments the president has laid out. Either he will have to expand the campaign, or, if he halts it short of his commitments, it will be judged a failure.