Ask Jimmy Carter how a miltary mission goes when planned "on the fly"

What a shocker. The Arab nation wants the western world to intervene and then sits on the sidelines. Like the oil using suckers we are, we're literally blowing billions of dollars in Libya without any Arab help. Where's this might coalition and Arab support?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/24/arab-countries-sidelines-libya-campaign/

Except for the small Persian Gulf nation of Qatar, which is expected to start flying air patrols over Libya by this weekend, no other members of the 22-member Arab League have so far publicly committed to taking an active role. The U.S. has sold many of these countries, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, billions of dollars in sophisticated military gear over the past decade to help counter Iran's power in the region.[LEFT]

[/LEFT]

It's quite one thing for them to offer moral support. To actually join in the military action against one of their Arab neighbors would kill their arguments against the imperialistic West. They'll give lip service, but precious little else.

ptown_trojans_1;722273 wrote:
Thom Ricks on FP had a pretty good argument today saying that in today's world, it is nearly impossible to describe a mission endgame as a situation always changes and what you think is the endgame may not be once operations occur. So, all the politicians calling for an endgame are missing the point.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/22/libya_you_want_clarity_here_it_is

And yet the US continues to stick their noses into affairs that have absolutely no bearing on our national security. Doesn't matter if it's Bush...or Bush Lite...or should I say Bush "dark" .... haha.

Finally, on the War Powers Act, if you can get a Congressman to support it and enforce it and then get a court to uphold it, good luck.
From the quick snippets of the politicians I have seen responding to it, it is all political BS and no real substance.

Good luck? Good luck with what exactly? I watched it unfold quite nicely....as the Office of Special Plans took snippets of CurveBall and one other disgruntled Iraqi defector, and then sell 1 billion gullible people on the " defacto necessity" in disarming an unarmed regime. Goebbels was right on what propaganda is...and how effective it can be.

Footwedge;724395 wrote:And yet the US continues to stick their noses into affairs that have absolutely no bearing on our national security. Doesn't matter if it's Bush...or Bush Lite...or should I say Bush "dark" .... haha.

I'd argue this does have an impact on U.S. national security. The impact of the U.S. supporting a ragtag band of rebels against a tyrant can have dramatic good will toward U.S. policy. That and continuing to support the new regimes in Egypt and Tunisia.
In the overall scheme of reducing terrorism, this is an act of goodwill and is in the realm of COIN.

Good luck? Good luck with what exactly? I watched it unfold quite nicely....as the Office of Special Plans took snippets of CurveBall and one other disgruntled Iraqi defector, and then sell 1 billion gullible people on the " defacto necessity" in disarming an unarmed regime. Goebbels was right on what propaganda is...and how effective it can be.

What occurred in Iraq is irrelevant to this discussion. Come on, don't fall into the it's Bush., blah blah.

ptown_trojans_1;724414 wrote:What occurred in Iraq is irrelevant to this discussion. Come on, don't fall into the it's Bush., blah blah.

From your perspective, militarily and national security-wise, I agree with you Iraq is irrelevant.

From a political perspective, it is entirely in play. The Left has become unglued (Nader calling for impeachment, for example) about this latest war and they have lost an overplayed bullet from their gun in haranguing Bush daily with their Iraq club. Politically-speaking, it's been a very tough week for Obama, as the posing with dead civilians in Afghanistan have also happened under his command. The claims that he's just like Bush foreign-policy wise is crystal clear and his base can't stand it.

The Left is pleading, begging and hoping that the Tea Party causes untold havoc among conservatives/moderates, and now they are imploding from their boy turning into Bush II. It will be interesting to watch how this all unfolds over the next 20 months as it ain't over til it's over.

The thing the Left doesn't get is Obama is a Realist, an International Relations term.
Realist see the international order in terms of power and advancing power and national interest through military force. Realists are usually calculated and use force precisely and when it applies to advancing U.S. national interest.

Obama is a realist for sure, with his use of drones, his surge of troops, his uses of detainee procedures, and his use of SPECOPS. An airstrike is not out of the ordinary with him, but full military action is. Realist do not like full all out wars, as it takes away national resources and can drain power.

The left usually doesn't get that, neither do some parts of the right.

I've been saying it for 2 years, Obama's policies are really like HW Bush, calculated and prudent.

To an outsider his seems to be like Bush, since he is continuing some of his policies, but Bush was a Neo international liberal-a combination of advancing democracy and freedom above national interest and using force to do it.

Looks like Bam is going to actually break down and tell us The Plan. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110328/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_libya

Only 7 days after the fact...not bad I guess. :rolleyes:

fish82;726990 wrote:Looks like Bam is going to actually break down and tell us The Plan. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110328/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_libya

Only 7 days after the fact...not bad I guess. :rolleyes:

Funny how you people complain about name calling and yet still feel free to refer to Obama as "Bam"

I am fundamentally against this military operation as well as the one started on the fabrications made by the previous administration in Iraq. However it is hilarious of all the flip flopping being done by the "conservative entertainment network and presidential hopefools as well as Obama himself.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/mar/25/did-obama-gingrich-flip-flop-libya/

Bigdogg;727049 wrote:Funny how you people complain about name calling and yet still feel free to refer to Obama as "Bam"

I am fundamentally against this military operation as well as the one started on the fabrications made by the previous administration in Iraq. However it is hilarious of all the flip flopping being done by the "conservative entertainment network and presidential hopefools as well as Obama himself.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/mar/25/did-obama-gingrich-flip-flop-libya/

When was the last time you saw me complain about name calling?

Sounds like a good address to me.
Laid out the rational, the objective, the successes and the hand off to NATO.
He also laid out the counter factual argument that if the U.S. did not act, massacres would have occurred.
In addition, there would have been massive refugees in Egypt and Tunisia, basically throwing those fragile power transitions into chaos.

If America has to throw some cruise missiles, air strikes and ground assaults to prevent a massive massacre, then I'm all for it. So, long as it does not include massive ground troops. The 90s taught us that you can use limited air power to complete objectives in a narrow sense of this.

Although, the President needed to give them from the Oval Office. This felt just odd to hear something this serious from NDU.

Now, it is up to the rebels to decide Libya, while NATO provides air cover.

Sounds like a good address to me.
Laid out the rational, the objective, the successes and the hand off to NATO.
He also laid out the counter factual argument that if the U.S. did not act, massacres would have occurred.
In addition, there would have been massive refugees in Egypt and Tunisia, basically throwing those fragile power transitions into chaos.

If America has to throw some cruise missiles, air strikes and ground assaults to prevent a massive massacre, then I'm all for it. So, long as it does not include massive ground troops. The 90s taught us that you can use limited air power to complete objectives in a narrow sense of this.

Although, the President needed to give them from the Oval Office. This felt just odd to hear something this serious from NDU.

Now, it is up to the rebels to decide Libya, while NATO provides air cover.

ptown_trojans_1;727473 wrote:Sounds like a good address to me.
Laid out the rational, the objective, the successes and the hand off to NATO.

Since the end of the Cold War the military alliance that is NATO, has transformed itself from an alliance with its primary purpose in mutually defending its members against an attack on another member nation, into an alliance that will conduct offensive military campaigns in its members self interest. Some of our founding leaders warned of entangling alliances. And rightfully so. The violence in the 20th century caused many Americans to change those views. Understandably so. But as NATO makes this transition lets not forget that warning from the past. Military alliances are a two edged sword.

ptown_trojans_1;727473 wrote:He also laid out the counter factual argument that if the U.S. did not act, massacres would have occurred.

Benghazi would have suffered many casualties. There likely would have been reprisal killings. No stranger to war. Prior to our military intervention I have not seen any factual evidence of a massacre occurring. I have however seen many people dieing as the result of war. This war was weeks if not days from ending prior to our and our allies military intervention. No doubt there would have been a lot of blood shed. But with the military intervention we have not decisively conquered the enemy. We have merely hobbled him and leveled the playing field so the two side can go at it for and indefinite amount of time. Depending on that amount of time more people could actually die as a result. Qaddafi's regime will fall at some point.

ptown_trojans_1;727473 wrote:In addition, there would have been massive refugees in Egypt and Tunisia, basically throwing those fragile power transitions into chaos.

Most of those refugees would have been on the Egyptian side as rebels and those fearing retribution fled Benghazi. Egypt is a nation of 80 million. They have the most powerful military in North Africa. They would have remained stable.

ptown_trojans_1;727473 wrote:If America has to throw some cruise missiles, air strikes and ground assaults to prevent a massive massacre, then I'm all for it. So, long as it does not include massive ground troops. The 90s taught us that you can use limited air power to complete objectives in a narrow sense of this.

I am all for it as well depending on the situation. Using our military might to prevent a humanitarian tragedy I am ok with. Ideally with congressional approval for each specific engagement. The framers intent was to keep the decision to commit our forces to war out of the hands one man. Except to command a defense against an imminent or actual attack. Or once sanction by congress to command the military action they sanctioned.

Also lets be clear about this action in Libya. It is not just about preventing a humanitarian disaster. It is about preventing a humanitarian disaster in a nation that would leave a now hostile leader that would disrupt the free flow of oil to our fellow European NATO allies for an indefinite period of time.

If preventing massacres and humanitarian disasters were NATO's cause. They missed the boat in Africa. Rwanda, Darfur, Liberia, Ivory Coast.....To name few. No oil for you sorry. Don't worry some Hollywood stars will take up you cause.

For the record I think our military might (if we possess it) can and in some cases should be used offensively to prevent a humanitarian disaster (Rwanda, Darfur etc.) but only with specific congressional authorization. I also believe our military can and should be used offensively to secure the free flow of oil at market prices also only with the specific approval of congress.

Howard Kurtz and shockingly, the Associated Press weigh in with a couple of "Fact Check" articles regarding the speech.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-28/obama-libya-speech-fudges-the-details/?cid=bs:archive19#

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFWACvAYca3zjwTnnLh1JG8l2Rtw?docId=f1839ff6dd0e4265b2952651c972f4a5

As expected, a plethora of bullshit...but very well delivered.

Of course, practicing the speech for nine days after the start of hostilities will do that I suppose.

Well well well. This admin has fubr'd the whole Libya thing in a big way. First you have Obama saying it's in our national interest to get involved on Libya, yet Def Sec Gates on Sunday it was not in our interest. WHAT???? You can't be serious can you? Now we find that aid is boing given to the rebels in form of arms and munitions. But wait, guess who's behind the rebels? Why that rascally group of Al Quaida dudes. WHAT???

You libs are gonna have a whole lot of crap coming your way, and deserve every bit it. This Libya thing is all about oil. Plain and simple. No war for oil, no war for oil, no war for oil.

Mr. 300;728164 wrote:You libs are gonna have a whole lot of crap coming your way, and deserve every bit it. This Libya thing is all about oil. Plain and simple. No war for oil, no war for oil, no war for oil.

That only works if the POTUS is a Republican and the protest chant is being broadcast repeatedly every evening on the Leftist Evening News.

fish82;727909 wrote:Howard Kurtz and shockingly, the Associated Press weigh in with a couple of "Fact Check" articles regarding the speech.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-28/obama-libya-speech-fudges-the-details/?cid=bs:archive19#

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFWACvAYca3zjwTnnLh1JG8l2Rtw?docId=f1839ff6dd0e4265b2952651c972f4a5

As expected, a plethora of bullshit...but very well delivered.

Of course, practicing the speech for nine days after the start of hostilities will do that I suppose.

So does this mean that Obammmo wins another peace prize?

ptown_trojans_1;724441 wrote:The thing the Left doesn't get is Obama is a Realist, an International Relations term.
Realist see the international order in terms of power and advancing power and national interest through military force. Realists are usually calculated and use force precisely and when it applies to advancing U.S. national interest.

Obama is a realist for sure, with his use of drones, his surge of troops, his uses of detainee procedures, and his use of SPECOPS. An airstrike is not out of the ordinary with him, but full military action is. Realist do not like full all out wars, as it takes away national resources and can drain power.

The left usually doesn't get that, neither do some parts of the right.

I've been saying it for 2 years, Obama's policies are really like HW Bush, calculated and prudent.

To an outsider his seems to be like Bush, since he is continuing some of his policies, but Bush was a Neo international liberal-a combination of advancing democracy and freedom above national interest and using force to do it.

The right does not get this either. Seems to me that this perception of BHO as a runaway liberal is held by both sides but this is largely untrue.

I'm sorry, hasn't Obama repeatedly said that no U.S. boots will touch Libyan soil? Just last night on prime time TV, as well?

What's the point of sending 2200 Marines off the Libyan coast if they aren't going into the country? More BS from Obama the liar.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8039326

believer;728286 wrote:That only works if the POTUS is a Republican and the protest chant is being broadcast repeatedly every evening on the Leftist Evening News.

Are you kidding??? The left and libertarians are hammering BHO just like they hammered W. They at least are consistent. They hate war period and don't buy Barry's humantarian line. The right on the other hand have solidified their slide into lunacy. Just look at the mundane bickering about BHO's actions in Libya despite by and large mirroring the neo-conservative playbook with regards to foreign policy. as ptown points out he's not in fact conservative in this regard but it's certainly closer than the ironclad leftist that the right believe him to be. He has repudiated contemporary liberal ideology in favor of some other pragmatic action that might more closely align toward a contemporary conservative political ideology. Despite this the right hates anyways. They are totally inconsistent and will bash Barry for anything and everything. The left and libertarians and are lobbing the same critiques they did toward W. and that the right refuted. Yet, the right is also jumping in and throwing those critiques at Bammy boy.

tk421;728364 wrote:I'm sorry, hasn't Obama repeatedly said that no U.S. boots will touch Libyan soil? Just last night on prime time TV, as well?

What's the point of sending 2200 Marines off the Libyan coast if they aren't going into the country? More BS from Obama the liar.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8039326

Now, I'm not saying sending ground troops in is the right choice...But, suppose a reasonable analysis of the facts revealed that it would be a wise choice...personally I'd rather have him go back on a preliminary statement as the war began and make the correct choice. You people are outrageous...

Anyway, the link you provide says this:

"The 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit was set to deploy to the Mediterranean later this year but that got bumped up once NATO forces launched an air assault on Libya.

The unit is relieving the 26th MEU, which took part in some of the initial assaults. The 22nd is a Marine, air and ground task force. Some are trained for aviation combat, others for ground combat. They can handle evacuations and humanitarian missions too."

BoatShoes;728380 wrote:Now, I'm not saying sending ground troops in is the right choice...But, suppose a reasonable analysis of the facts revealed that it would be a wise choice...personally I'd rather have him go back on a preliminary statement as the war began and make the correct choice. You people are outrageous...

Anyway, the link you provide says this:

"The 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit was set to deploy to the Mediterranean later this year but that got bumped up once NATO forces launched an air assault on Libya.

The unit is relieving the 26th MEU, which took part in some of the initial assaults. The 22nd is a Marine, air and ground task force. Some are trained for aviation combat, others for ground combat. They can handle evacuations and humanitarian missions too."

Soo, if we are truly going into Libya for humanitarian reasons and troops on the ground is the right thing to do, why do liberals constantly criticize Bush? Did Saddam not kill hundreds of thousands of his people? Was the Iraq war not humanitarian?

Or is it just that it is all political bullshit from the left, like everyone not blinded by party knows? The left hate Bush for his war but are desperately trying to justify Obama's war. I am sick and tired of the fucking hypocrisy. If it is bad for a Republican president, it had better damn well be bad for a Democratic president.

majorspark;727664 wrote:Since the end of the Cold War the military alliance that is NATO, has transformed itself from an alliance with its primary purpose in mutually defending its members against an attack on another member nation, into an alliance that will conduct offensive military campaigns in its members self interest. Some of our founding leaders warned of entangling alliances. And rightfully so. The violence in the 20th century caused many Americans to change those views. Understandably so. But as NATO makes this transition lets not forget that warning from the past. Military alliances are a two edged sword.

Did the violence of the 20th century change their views? I'm not sure. Massacres like in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan and elsewhere has made the concept of air strikes and UN forces to slow or end massacres. Also, the members of NATO are vital in our work on Afghanistan, and given that Libya is near Europe, it was only natural to use NATO.

Benghazi would have suffered many casualties. There likely would have been reprisal killings. No stranger to war. Prior to our military intervention I have not seen any factual evidence of a massacre occurring. I have however seen many people dieing as the result of war. This war was weeks if not days from ending prior to our and our allies military intervention. No doubt there would have been a lot of blood shed. But with the military intervention we have not decisively conquered the enemy. We have merely hobbled him and leveled the playing field so the two side can go at it for and indefinite amount of time. Depending on that amount of time more people could actually die as a result. Qaddafi's regime will fall at some point.

It would have been a massacre and the world, left and right would have nailed Obama for doing nothing. Also, if I am reading you right, it is either do nothing or go full force in? The 1990s and air strikes showed that there is the current option as a possibility, it levels the playing field, allowing the rebels to advance on their own will.

Most of those refugees would have been on the Egyptian side as rebels and those fearing retribution fled Benghazi. Egypt is a nation of 80 million. They have the most powerful military in North Africa. They would have remained stable.

Unsure, Egypt is so fragile right now, a flood of refuges could easily tilt the state and overwhelm, especially the new police forces.

I am all for it as well depending on the situation. Using our military might to prevent a humanitarian tragedy I am ok with. Ideally with congressional approval for each specific engagement. The framers intent was to keep the decision to commit our forces to war out of the hands one man. Except to command a defense against an imminent or actual attack. Or once sanction by congress to command the military action they sanctioned.

Also lets be clear about this action in Libya. It is not just about preventing a humanitarian disaster. It is about preventing a humanitarian disaster in a nation that would leave a now hostile leader that would disrupt the free flow of oil to our fellow European NATO allies for an indefinite period of time.

If preventing massacres and humanitarian disasters were NATO's cause. They missed the boat in Africa. Rwanda, Darfur, Liberia, Ivory Coast.....To name few. No oil for you sorry. Don't worry some Hollywood stars will take up you cause.

For the record I think our military might (if we possess it) can and in some cases should be used offensively to prevent a humanitarian disaster (Rwanda, Darfur etc.) but only with specific congressional authorization. I also believe our military can and should be used offensively to secure the free flow of oil at market prices also only with the specific approval of congress.

So, even if Congress is on recess, which it was, the President should wait until Congress returns? Or, should be dependent on the House and Senate leadership to determine military action. I don't think so. Not in today's world. It has been established, the President can use force at his usage for up 60 days before Congressional approval. Besides, Obama briefed the leaders of Congress before military action and all gave no indications they would disprove.

For NATO, you can't use the1900s as the alliance was still trying to figure out what the hell it was. Yes, it missed in Africa last decade though.
I'd also admit the oil portion of that. However, that theory is flawed in regards to Nigeria-we have not invaded or use force there.

Mr. 300;728164 wrote:Well well well. This admin has fubr'd the whole Libya thing in a big way. First you have Obama saying it's in our national interest to get involved on Libya, yet Def Sec Gates on Sunday it was not in our interest. WHAT???? You can't be serious can you? Now we find that aid is boing given to the rebels in form of arms and munitions. But wait, guess who's behind the rebels? Why that rascally group of Al Quaida dudes. WHAT???

You libs are gonna have a whole lot of crap coming your way, and deserve every bit it. This Libya thing is all about oil. Plain and simple. No war for oil, no war for oil, no war for oil.

Listen to the quote by Gates, vital national interests. Understand Gates is a Cold Warrior. That means: direct attack, the potential to destroy the country or the direct threat of force on CONUS. Currently, Russia and China to some extend fit that model.
Otherwise, U.S. interests are explained by our continued war on terrorism, and this effort is to really help in that cause by hopefully gaining another ally and establishing a free state in the region.

tk421;728364 wrote:I'm sorry, hasn't Obama repeatedly said that no U.S. boots will touch Libyan soil? Just last night on prime time TV, as well?

What's the point of sending 2200 Marines off the Libyan coast if they aren't going into the country? More BS from Obama the liar.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8039326

Common Standard Operating Procedure for air strike zones.
If heaven forbid, we had to use troops for whatever reason, a force of Marines are already there waiting to go. That reduces the time it would take to deploy ground forces if thigns go really bad. It is standard Pentagon operations the whole way.

tk421;728387 wrote:Soo, if we are truly going into Libya for humanitarian reasons and troops on the ground is the right thing to do, why do liberals constantly criticize Bush? Did Saddam not kill hundreds of thousands of his people? Was the Iraq war not humanitarian?

Or is it just that it is all political bullshit from the left, like everyone not blinded by party knows? The left hate Bush for his war but are desperately trying to justify Obama's war. I am sick and tired of the fucking hypocrisy. If it is bad for a Republican president, it had better damn well be bad for a Democratic president.

What are you talking about...the hardcore libs oppose this libyan intervention as well! I'm watching O'Reilly right now and he pointed to Anthony Weiner's support of the libyan action as evidence of leftist hypocrisy but he supported the Iraq war at the outset!

Guys like Jon Stewart and other hardcore libs are opposed to this action just like they were against the Iraq war.

Again...the hardcore libs are not trying to justify Obama's actions. There are more moderate dems trying to justify Obama's actions but most of these moderate libs supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars at the outset.

I mean what liberals are you talking about? Democrats unlike republicans have degrees of liberalness throughout there party...there are hardcore libs like michael moore who think war is always bad and more moderate ones (most of whom voted in favor of the Iraq war originally).

The hardcore left feels betrayed by BHO and does not support the Libyan intervention.

Not buying it, Boat. Libs want Obama RE-ELECTED and if this goes south, he won't be. So the party is pretty much standing behind him on this, regardless of a few extreme exceptions that most of the world ignores, anyway (think Code Pink).

The machinery for the Democrats (i.e. the mainstream media) is playing along with him and letting him set the tone: we had to go in to prevent a possible massacre, etc. Only time will tell if they begin turning on him like they did W for Iraq (which happened pretty quickly), but I'm betting they'll stick with him to the bitter end.

After all, these folks went "all in" on him to get him elected. There's no way they want to be seen has having backed an abject failure -- and he's way behind domestically with the economy, so he'd better get the foreign policy right, at least.