Green Energy
"Hillary's War" "Obama's War"
I'm going to admit to not being bullish on U.S. involvement in this. Should the people of Libya be free to choose their own leaders and throw out a despotic madman? Absolutely. I believe that deeply in my soul. Our Country was established on just that very principle. You and I know that.
But I don't know that we should become physically involved with troops and aircraft.
In Afghanistan we clearly had national security concerns at issue. We believed we did in Iraq as well, a war I did not support starting, mostly for timing issues (Iran and the NorKs should have been dealt with first) but once we went in I support the troops and the mission and the reasons for it. And spare me the War for Oil bullshit. If oil was the motive we would have gone in, kicked the living snot outn of the Iraqis, not given a damn about collateral or civilian damage and casualties and taken the goddamned oil.
Libya is different. We have no real national security nor strategic interest there. Certainly not their oil. And we have no idea what would replace Qaddafi when he goes which could, although it's hard to believe, be worse thna he. Whether for it's own people or for the rest of the world.
Obama has just said there will be no American boots on the ground. But it's clear there wil likely be planes in the air.
How can he assure that? At what point does he issue his own "Mission Accomplished"? When Qaddafi stops flying sorties against the rebels? Afterall, if it is enforcement of a no-fly zone then that would seem to be the mission. But Iraq started as a protracted no-fly zone and we ended up with boots on the ground there. If he stops flying against the rebels what is to stop his other armed forces from rolling the tanks into Benghazi and slaughtering everyone there, enacting a scorched earth policy with a ground campaign? He's still slaughtering rebels and innocents alike just not from the air. So do we walk away then while it goes on or will we change our mission, commit ground forces in Libya while we still have unfinished business in Afghanistan and Iraq?And at a time when he wants to cut our defense budget?(nothing else, of course, just defense)
It is of our highest ideals to support aid and defend a people oppressed and trying to free themselves. But if we do it in Libya, where we have no interest, will we do it everywhere else, for anyone else who asks? And what if someone who asks is the people of China, or North Korea? Would we help them undert this new Obama Doctrine? Or are we going to pick and choose? And what if some other MENA nation decides to come to Qaddafis aid? Are we going to fight them, too? Many of them are going to be none too pleased with our meddling in yet another Islamic nation.
I realize that even without our intervention what comes after Qaddafi could be far more dangerous than he but IF we're paying attention (and that's a pretty big if) we can hopefully nip that before it blooms.
So I'm not yet sold on this one right now, my inclination is once we start we're going to get sucked in to not only helping the rebels with ground troops but then with nation building. Something the U.S. can ill afford at this time. We have far less at stake here than we do in our two current wars.
I support the idea of a no-fly zone over Libya but also agree with cjk in comments yesterday. Let the Brits and the French handle this one.
What think you?
-
Foreign Policy: Exclusive: Top U.S. admiral admits we are trying to kill Qaddafi The top U.S. admiral involved in the Libya war admitted to a U.S. congressman that NATO forces are trying to kill Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. The same admiral also...
- What, Exactly, Do Drones Have To Do With A No-fly Zone?
Reuters U.S. sends drones to Libya, battle rages for Misrata By Michael Georgy MISRATA, Libya | Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:45pm EDT MISRATA, Libya (Reuters) - The United States has started using armed drones against Muammar Gaddafi's troops, who battled rebels...
- With No Fly Zone Kinetic Military Friends Like These. . .
New York Crimes: NATO Warns Rebels Against Attacking Civilians WASHINGTON — Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the regime of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, according to senior...
-
2,200 Marines Go To Libya, ‘What Happened to No Boots on the Ground’? Just this morning Obama ruled out the possibility of ground troops in Libya. Oh well: In all the reporting on the involvement of US Forces in Libya a report by WCTI Channel...
- Us Marines: “protecting Libyan People Against Qadhafi Forces” ????
By doing what?Camp Lejeune Marines To LibyaWe’ve seen Camp Lejuene marines in Iraq and Afghanistan and now they are joining the fight against Libya. 2200 marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, or 26th MEU will take part. Their mission is to...
Green Energy
For What It's Worth
"Hillary's War" "Obama's War"
I'm going to admit to not being bullish on U.S. involvement in this. Should the people of Libya be free to choose their own leaders and throw out a despotic madman? Absolutely. I believe that deeply in my soul. Our Country was established on just that very principle. You and I know that.
But I don't know that we should become physically involved with troops and aircraft.
In Afghanistan we clearly had national security concerns at issue. We believed we did in Iraq as well, a war I did not support starting, mostly for timing issues (Iran and the NorKs should have been dealt with first) but once we went in I support the troops and the mission and the reasons for it. And spare me the War for Oil bullshit. If oil was the motive we would have gone in, kicked the living snot outn of the Iraqis, not given a damn about collateral or civilian damage and casualties and taken the goddamned oil.
Libya is different. We have no real national security nor strategic interest there. Certainly not their oil. And we have no idea what would replace Qaddafi when he goes which could, although it's hard to believe, be worse thna he. Whether for it's own people or for the rest of the world.
Obama has just said there will be no American boots on the ground. But it's clear there wil likely be planes in the air.
How can he assure that? At what point does he issue his own "Mission Accomplished"? When Qaddafi stops flying sorties against the rebels? Afterall, if it is enforcement of a no-fly zone then that would seem to be the mission. But Iraq started as a protracted no-fly zone and we ended up with boots on the ground there. If he stops flying against the rebels what is to stop his other armed forces from rolling the tanks into Benghazi and slaughtering everyone there, enacting a scorched earth policy with a ground campaign? He's still slaughtering rebels and innocents alike just not from the air. So do we walk away then while it goes on or will we change our mission, commit ground forces in Libya while we still have unfinished business in Afghanistan and Iraq?And at a time when he wants to cut our defense budget?(nothing else, of course, just defense)
It is of our highest ideals to support aid and defend a people oppressed and trying to free themselves. But if we do it in Libya, where we have no interest, will we do it everywhere else, for anyone else who asks? And what if someone who asks is the people of China, or North Korea? Would we help them undert this new Obama Doctrine? Or are we going to pick and choose? And what if some other MENA nation decides to come to Qaddafis aid? Are we going to fight them, too? Many of them are going to be none too pleased with our meddling in yet another Islamic nation.
I realize that even without our intervention what comes after Qaddafi could be far more dangerous than he but IF we're paying attention (and that's a pretty big if) we can hopefully nip that before it blooms.
So I'm not yet sold on this one right now, my inclination is once we start we're going to get sucked in to not only helping the rebels with ground troops but then with nation building. Something the U.S. can ill afford at this time. We have far less at stake here than we do in our two current wars.
I support the idea of a no-fly zone over Libya but also agree with cjk in comments yesterday. Let the Brits and the French handle this one.
What think you?
-
Foreign Policy: Exclusive: Top U.S. admiral admits we are trying to kill Qaddafi The top U.S. admiral involved in the Libya war admitted to a U.S. congressman that NATO forces are trying to kill Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. The same admiral also...
- What, Exactly, Do Drones Have To Do With A No-fly Zone?
Reuters U.S. sends drones to Libya, battle rages for Misrata By Michael Georgy MISRATA, Libya | Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:45pm EDT MISRATA, Libya (Reuters) - The United States has started using armed drones against Muammar Gaddafi's troops, who battled rebels...
- With No Fly Zone Kinetic Military Friends Like These. . .
New York Crimes: NATO Warns Rebels Against Attacking Civilians WASHINGTON — Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the regime of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, according to senior...
-
2,200 Marines Go To Libya, ‘What Happened to No Boots on the Ground’? Just this morning Obama ruled out the possibility of ground troops in Libya. Oh well: In all the reporting on the involvement of US Forces in Libya a report by WCTI Channel...
- Us Marines: “protecting Libyan People Against Qadhafi Forces” ????
By doing what?Camp Lejeune Marines To LibyaWe’ve seen Camp Lejuene marines in Iraq and Afghanistan and now they are joining the fight against Libya. 2200 marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, or 26th MEU will take part. Their mission is to...