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?

No. It was WMD.
Also, there was already a No-fly zone in order, and the massacres occurred largely before the No-fly zone.
If Bush would have made the argument for humanitarian first, then WMD, the libs might not have turned on him.
But, that is neither here nor there.

What I've observed is the moderate center, the foreign policy experts are largely in favor of these actions. But, all say we need to be careful of mission creep.

ptown_trojans_1;728452 wrote: What I've observed is the moderate center, the foreign policy experts are largely in favor of these actions. But, all say we need to be careful of mission creep.

Major props to you ptown, you have described everything here perfectly and without bias, as is the norm with you.

I personally am for the operation, although I could care less about the supposed massacre. I simply want a friendly Libya. This was the best shot we have at ending this dictatorship and the US, NATO, and the UN agreed to head towards that direction. I honestly feel that NATO will do just enough to get rid of Qaddafi. If the no-fly zone doesn't give the rebels enough of a level playing field, expect them to be moderately armed or air strikes to spread to more targets. There isn't much doubt in my mind that NATO wants to 1) be sure Al-Qaeda isn't strong within rebels and 2) hold their hand all the way to Tripoli.

I know plenty of people, and with good intents, have argued that arming the rebels would be like arming Taliban against the USSR. But my question to you, ptown (and anyone), is: wasn't the deciding factor in that scenario that we gave them anti-air weaponry to shoot down the jets and especially helicopters the Soviets were using? I guess what I'm saying is that if we only gave the Libyans stronger weaponry to use on the ground (e.g. rifles and land-to-land missiles should they exist with that sole capability), are we really giving them anything we couldn't take out pretty easily? I thought I had read the Afghans were still pretty much slaughtered with their AK-47's via helicopters. If we control the sky and don't give the Libyans those weapons to threaten that, isn't the worse-case scenarios lessened substantially?

Tobias Fünke;728531 wrote:Major props to you ptown, you have described everything here perfectly and without bias, as is the norm with you.

I personally am for the operation, although I could care less about the supposed massacre. I simply want a friendly Libya. This was the best shot we have at ending this dictatorship and the US, NATO, and the UN agreed to head towards that direction. I honestly feel that NATO will do just enough to get rid of Qaddafi. If the no-fly zone doesn't give the rebels enough of a level playing field, expect them to be moderately armed or air strikes to spread to more targets. There isn't much doubt in my mind that NATO wants to 1) be sure Al-Qaeda isn't strong within rebels and 2) hold their hand all the way to Tripoli.

I know plenty of people, and with good intents, have argued that arming the rebels would be like arming Taliban against the USSR. But my question to you, ptown (and anyone), is: wasn't the deciding factor in that scenario that we gave them anti-air weaponry to shoot down the jets and especially helicopters the Soviets were using? I guess what I'm saying is that if we only gave the Libyans stronger weaponry to use on the ground (e.g. rifles and land-to-land missiles should they exist with that sole capability), are we really giving them anything we couldn't take out pretty easily? I thought I had read the Afghans were still pretty much slaughtered with their AK-47's via helicopters. If we control the sky and don't give the Libyans those weapons to threaten that, isn't the worse-case scenarios lessened substantially?

Thanks for the props.
I agree with your first paragraph, as the dominate reason why I support the mission is 1. To limit Qaddafi and 2. To provide a hopeful transition in Libya through utilizing a force that is friendly to the U.S.

On the second part, it is different. It was impossible to establish a no-fly zone in Afghanistan, so the only way to support the Afghans against the Soviets was small arms and shoulder fired missiles. In Libya, we have more options, that do not include arming the rebels. I think I read somewhere were NATO was against arming them and only indicated that the Arab League or some Arab state provide arms for them. But, yeah, keeping just air strikes allows us to keep "our distance" and still provide support.

On another note, elsewhere in the region, the big surprise is Syria. I never thought the protests would move there, but people have been protesting in Syria. The state is controlled by a minority sect, the Alawites, so any large movement is a threat. Protests are still small, in the low thousands or so, but are vocal. Today Assad dismissed the cabinet, a symbolic gesture, but he has also released some prisoners and said he will push for some reforms.
This is interesting because Syria is a proxy for Iran and a base for Hezbollah. So, if Syria starts to waver, it could have huge regional implications.

In addition, Yemen continues to protest, with the President wavering when he will step down. Yemen is very interesting given al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The U.S. has to be cautious to ensure the small, yet powerful, group does not lead a radical movement to power.

Bahrain still continues to smolder, with Saudi and GCC troops in the country to ensure no more protests occur. It is unknown if the movement is dead, or just went low.

Egypt still continues to build its democracy, with elections on the Constitution last week or so, and elections overall later this year.
Jordan is seeing another rise in protests that could force the King to more concessions.

ptown_trojans_1;728388 wrote: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.

You may have misunderstood whose views I was specifically referring to as being changed by the violence of the 20th century. I was referring specifically to the change in American foreign policy from that of reactive isolationism to proactive interventionism. Specifically after WWII the American voter began electing politicians that stood behind the latter.

I will agree with you that the events in Bosnia and Kosovo were a catalyst in transforming NATO into an offensive entity. If you read the NATO treaty offensive military action could only be justified through the UN in adherence to its charter. NATO has acted offensively accordingly.

The main event in history that solidified that transition into an offensive military alliance was the fall of the Soviet Union and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. The Russians were weak and could not challenge NATO offensively. They could not use UN veto power because of economic dependence on the west. NATO took advantage of that to act in its self interest. Boris Yeltsin got bold on some vodka and sent Russian troops to beat NATO troops into Pristina to hassle them a little bit in a laughable show of force.

The Russians at this point can do little more than bitch. But NATO and the USA are not immune to the same fate of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. It is not a coincidence that a 10yr war in Afghanistan preceded their undoing? Economic instability and long wars don't mix. Its a shame we had to fight this war with one arm tied behind our backs and lengthened its duration.

ptown_trojans_1;728388 wrote:It would have been a massacre and the world, left and right would have nailed Obama for doing nothing.

The world has witnessed many massacres and did not lift a finger. Not sure that Benghazi would have been the massacre the world was anticipating. No doubt those leading the rebellion and leaders of military units that defected to the rebellion would have received a bullet in the head. Would it have resulted in wholesale cleansing of rival tribes and mass killings outside of the acts of war like in Bosnia and Kosovo? Maybe. There is no evidence to support that in this conflict at this point.

I will agree with you though Obama would be damned either way. Had he sat this one out he would have been blamed for every atrocity filmed on camera in Libya. Now that he has committed to the conflict he will be blamed for every FUBAR situation that comes of it. Sometimes rightfully so and sometimes not.

ptown_trojans_1;728388 wrote: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.

You read me right. I have never been a fan of committing our armed forces to any action with the word "limited" in its context. In most of those cases where we have limited our armed forces it did not fare so well for us. In the Balkans it bought peace for a season. Mark my words within the next decade they will have at each other again.

I agree air strikes can level the playing field. By doing so without the willingness to deploy proper force can also prolong the war and have the untended affect of increasing casualties. When we commit our armed forces our objectives should never be to "level the playing field". That is a recipe for failure or stalemate at best. Our objective should be to defeat our enemy. If that can be achieved by air power alone awesome. All for it.

Recent reports coming out of Libya are that Gadhafi's troops are again on the offensive. NATO must not be deploying enough air power. In the Balkans one can understand with the rolling hills and appellation type mountains and forests, the ability of the enemy to hide their armor and artillery. Libya is open desert plains. The only place to hide armor and artillery would be in urban areas. Attacking across those plains should be fatal given proper air cover.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya

ptown_trojans_1;728388 wrote: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 the event of a national emergency that facilitates the immediate order of the president to engage the armed forces in immediate action in defense of our nation or its forces abroad. It should be noted the president has the power to call a special session of congress to address any issues.

ptown_trojans_1;728388 wrote: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.

That 60 day deal is in the context of the war powers resolution. The president is not given carte blanche power to act as he wishes militarily for 60 days. It should also be noted that once armed forces are engaged in conflict it is politically difficult for congress to forcefully disengage them. That scenario will likely only occur during our decisive military defeat with the presidents unwillingness to acknowledge such.

Briefing congress does not equal approval. They need to vote. Otherwise they will flee accountability if the shit hits the fan and throw Obama to the wolves. If it goes well they will be there to receive their pats on the back.

As established earlier on in this thread the war powers act would appear to prevent the presidents involvement of our armed forces in this conflict. Clauses in it allow the president to engage our armed forces in actions pursuant to our obligations under said treaties. Basically congress is giving the executive pre-approval to commit our armed forces under the guidelines of those treaties constitutionally approved by the senate.

ptown_trojans_1;728388 wrote: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.

You can't compare the situation in Nigeria with Libya. The relatively free flow of oil out of Nigeria has not had any major disruptions. Nigeria is not in a state of civil war. Libya is in a state of civil war. The free flow of oil in Libya is at a halt. I would have to check on Nigeria's percentage of oil supply to the US or EU compared to Libya, but given the same circumstances in Libya you would likely see similar intervention. If not someone needs to play the race card.

ptown_trojans_1;728388 wrote: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.

Agreed. This is by no means an invasion force. It is a contingency force. American air force personnel have already found themselves on the ground in Libya. Yes that means boots have already been on the ground. And yes it likely takes more boots on the ground to extract them safely. It may at times be necessary to establish a perimeter on the ground to protect the extraction force.

Obama should not have shown his cards on this. Keep the enemy guessing. If you have engaged your armed forces always leave all options on the table. You do not want to be politically kneecapped by prior statements. The winds of war can suddenly shift.

Another case of a pre-emptive strike to resolve issues that have no bearing on our own safety. How many wars are we in now, Barry? Lemme know when your daughters enlist.

hmmm, which Middle Eastern country will be next to be invaded by the U.S.? Over/under on the number of wars we have going by the end of 2011. I say 4. Obama will lose the 2012 presidency because of his war. Guaranteed U.S. troops will still be in Libya by election day.

Look, I'm not for this military action in the first place, but are we in or out for god's sake? Looks like tomorrow all U.S. planes will be pulled out and now the rebels want a cease fire. What exactly was accomplished here then? We bomb Qaddafi and then pull our planes out and he stays in power. Seems like a complete waste to me.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-01/libyan-rebels-seek-cease-fire-after-u-s-vows-to-withdraw-jets.html

The rebel move comes one day after Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. jets, won’t be flying with NATO forces over Libya after April 2. Mullen said planes would be made available only if requested by NATO. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congress the U.S. will “significantly ramp down our commitment” to Libya except for electronic warfare, aerial refueling and surveillance.

“Seems to me, we are not doing everything necessary in order to achieve our policy goals and including relieving what is happening to the anti-Qaddafi forces,” Senator John McCain said at the hearing in Congress yesterday with Mullen and Gates. “I hope we don’t learn a bitter lesson from it.”

I have to agree with McCain here. If we're in, we're in. Make up your minds.

tk421;729322 wrote:Guaranteed U.S. troops will still be in Libya by election day.

I take it you work at the Pentagon?

I think it is very doubtful that US troops will be in Libya. Obama is politically too shrewd to get us in another war. Let the French boots if they're even needed.

Either way I still maintain you won't see boots on the ground. Not counting a special ops here or there.

Tobias Fünke;732159 wrote:I take it you work at the Pentagon?

I think it is very doubtful that US troops will be in Libya. Obama is politically too shrewd to get us in another war. Let the French boots if they're even needed.

Either way I still maintain you won't see boots on the ground. Not counting a special ops here or there.

We already have boots on the ground. How do you think those targets for our laser-guided Tomahawks and bombing sorties got marked? It isn't a video game or drones that did it.

BGFalcons82;732217 wrote:We already have boots on the ground. How do you think those targets for our laser-guided Tomahawks and bombing sorties got marked? It isn't a video game or drones that did it.

Yup. Clark and Chavez have been there for a couple weeks now.

Question for ptown (or anyone else for that matter) -

How does our national security operations/defense people you work with think about the US siding with Al Queda in the war against Ghadafi? I know war makes strange bedfellows (i.e. the US and Commie Soviets in the Big One), but we weren't actively pursuing and killing Soviets in the 40's like we are Al Queda members today. How can we be at war with them and have them be our ally all at the same time? Are we going to arm them to help defeat Ghadafi?

I remember Reagan and Ollie North getting barbequed daily (and to this day actually) over his "arms for hostages" deals. Isn't this worse...call it "arms for terrorists to use to kill Americans"?

BGFalcons82;732303 wrote:...
I remember Reagan and Ollie North getting barbequed daily (and to this day actually) over his "arms for hostages" deals. Isn't this worse...call it "arms for terrorists to use to kill Americans"?

It's worse if we are arming them but I don't know that we are.

BGFalcons82;732303 wrote:Question for ptown (or anyone else for that matter) -

How does our national security operations/defense people you work with think about the US siding with Al Queda in the war against Ghadafi? I know war makes strange bedfellows (i.e. the US and Commie Soviets in the Big One), but we weren't actively pursuing and killing Soviets in the 40's like we are Al Queda members today. How can we be at war with them and have them be our ally all at the same time? Are we going to arm them to help defeat Ghadafi?

I remember Reagan and Ollie North getting barbequed daily (and to this day actually) over his "arms for hostages" deals. Isn't this worse...call it "arms for terrorists to use to kill Americans"?

Great post....we also armed Saddam Hussein in the early 80's. We never learn. Vote libertarian...then and only then will the US knock off this utter nonsense.

Tobias Fünke;732159 wrote:I take it you work at the Pentagon?

I think it is very doubtful that US troops will be in Libya. Obama is politically too shrewd to get us in another war. Let the French boots if they're even needed.

Either way I still maintain you won't see boots on the ground. Not counting a special ops here or there.

Too shrewd not to get us in another war? You are kidding right? The escalation in Afghanistan was quite remarkable, don't you think? And we didn't bomb Pakistan on a daily basis under the last guy in power. Yup.....those Nobel Peace prize winners are a devious bunch.

A great article regarding US intervention...and the costs of such nonsense...

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/pursuit-of-happiness/war-is-a-government-program/

BGFalcons82;732217 wrote:We already have boots on the ground. How do you think those targets for our laser-guided Tomahawks and bombing sorties got marked? It isn't a video game or drones that did it.

"Boots on the ground" meant invasion, sorry for the confusion.

Footwedge;732562 wrote:Too shrewd not to get us in another war? You are kidding right? The escalation in Afghanistan was quite remarkable, don't you think? And we didn't bomb Pakistan on a daily basis under the last guy in power. Yup.....those Nobel Peace prize winners are a devious bunch.

This is one of the dumber things I've ever read.

fish82;732244 wrote:Yup. Clark and Chavez have been there for a couple weeks now.

Actually, I believe this one was Sam Fisher.

Looks like we have another Vietnam in Libya. Obama the savior sure has got himself in quite a pickle here. Not to mention the requisite shady accounting about the true costs of this war.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,755616,00.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/7/democrat-white-house-low-balling-costs-libya-missi/#

he front in Libya is barely moving as the country remains split between rebels and Gadhafi's troops. The rebels are complaining of not receiving enough air support, but NATO is hardly in a position to ramp it up after the withdrawal of US fighter jets. The resulting stalemate underscores the lack of a clear strategy for the allies in Libya.

But the Libyan rebels are not alone in their complaints: Within NATO, there is also increasing frustration at the slow progress on the ground. The seemingly rudderless attacking and fleeing of the untrained fighters in the face of government soldiers is causing the Western allies to despair, albeit not in public, because it looks more and more likely that the undeclared aim of the international intervention -- the removal of dictator Moammar Gadhafi -- will probably never be achieved.

A Democratic lawmaker says the White House is “dramatically underestimating” the true cost of the military’s involvement in Libya by relying on accounting that obscures the total financial burden being saddled on taxpayers.

Looks like old Barry's first go at nation building isn't working out quite like he planned. Oops, there wasn't any plan.

BGFalcons82;732303 wrote:Question for ptown (or anyone else for that matter) -

How does our national security operations/defense people you work with think about the US siding with Al Queda in the war against Ghadafi? I know war makes strange bedfellows (i.e. the US and Commie Soviets in the Big One), but we weren't actively pursuing and killing Soviets in the 40's like we are Al Queda members today. How can we be at war with them and have them be our ally all at the same time? Are we going to arm them to help defeat Ghadafi?

I remember Reagan and Ollie North getting barbequed daily (and to this day actually) over his "arms for hostages" deals. Isn't this worse...call it "arms for terrorists to use to kill Americans"?

1. Are we? I haven't heard anyone with cred speaking on this that we are.
2. If there are al Qaeda in Libya, they are the worst al Qaeda fighters ever, considering the rebels can't even hold the advance line.

tk421;735996 wrote:Looks like we have another Vietnam in Libya. Obama the savior sure has got himself in quite a pickle here. Not to mention the requisite shady accounting about the true costs of this war.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,755616,00.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/7/democrat-white-house-low-balling-costs-libya-missi/#





Looks like old Barry's first go at nation building isn't working out quite like he planned. Oops, there wasn't any plan.

Come on, don't throw around the V word. This isn't even close.
Looks like this thing will come on for a little while. As long as NATO just keeps air strikes going, I'm ok. Most of the costs are on NATO. But, the moment the discussion moves to ground forces, I'm against the war.

Tobias Fünke;733056 wrote:"Boots on the ground" meant invasion, sorry for the confusion.



This is one of the dumber things I've ever read.

What's dumb about it? What exactly is innaccurate in what I posted?" I never call your stuff dumb. Go.

ptown_trojans_1;736013 wrote:Come on, don't throw around the V word. This isn't even close.
Looks like this thing will come on for a little while. As long as NATO just keeps air strikes going, I'm ok. Most of the costs are on NATO. But, the moment the discussion moves to ground forces, I'm against the war.

You must be against it already then because they are discussing that very thing. American soldiers in Libya, despite Barry's repeated saying that wouldn't happen on national TV.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374736/US-troops-Libya-Army-General-Carter-Ham-opens-door-ground-deployment.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The United States may consider sending troops into Libya to aid rebel forces, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.


Army General Carter Ham added the Libyan operation was largely stalemated now and was more likely to remain that way since America has transferred control to NATO.


The comments are the strongest indication yet that the U.S. army's top brass are considering the possible use of American ground troops to oust Colonel Gaddafi from the country.

Note that the whole reason for going into Libya isn't to have a no fly zone and protect innocent citizens, it's a regime change. As if we didn't already know that.

tk421;736414 wrote:You must be against it already then because they are discussing that very thing. American soldiers in Libya, despite Barry's repeated saying that wouldn't happen on national TV.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374736/US-troops-Libya-Army-General-Carter-Ham-opens-door-ground-deployment.html?ito=feeds-newsxml




Note that the whole reason for going into Libya isn't to have a no fly zone and protect innocent citizens, it's a regime change. As if we didn't already know that.

I support it right now, but as far as I know, there are no concrete plans to send in U.S. ground forces. The general was voicing his opinion, not the official U.S. position.
When that happens, then I'll voice my opposition.

Looks like Operation Impending Clusterfuck is in full swing now. Rebels in Libya have almost retreated back to positions held prior to NATO's bombing campaign. Loyalist are shelling and gun battles are being reported in Ajdabiya. Gaddafi's troops have adapted and are keeping their heavy equipment hidden in cities. They are moving troops and arms in civilian vehicles. The situation on the ground is so confused that NATO has bombed rebel positions and vehicles often enough that some of the rebels suspect NATO is against them.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/201149104826526171.html

Lack of leadership, planning, and intelligence. False intelligence caused NATO's political leaders to mistakenly believe that Gaddafi had little popular support. Everyone thought Gaddafi was despised by the masses in Libya and his regime had so little popular support that Western intervention would cause the Gaddafi regime to immediately fall back to Tripoli. Then the final rebel onslaught on the capital would bring a quick end to the Gaddafi regime.

No time to plan, gather intelligence, or develop a leadership structure. We were led to believe the world was about to watch the whole house slaughter of women, children, and old people along with the rebel fighters take place before their very eyes in Benghazi if there were not military intervention. No doubt civilians would have been killed. A lot would have fled the city and some would have ended up in refugee camps in Egypt. No doubt their would have been some reprisal killings. But I doubt it would have been the genocide we were led to believe. Now at best we can only hope for a stalemate. If the war remains stalemated for much longer many more people will die than would have had Libyan loyalist taken Benghazi weeks ago.

I knew this mission had clusterfuck written all over it when heard the words "level the playing field" being mentioned as a war goal. The only time I want to hear that as a war goal is in the context of literally "leveling the playing field".

The British and the French were expecting us to carry their water. Now that we have taken our buckets away they have shown their unwillingness to pick up the slack. Cameron and Sarkozy were talking big when they thought American guns would be in the majority. Get more of your planes in the fight pussies. Not just a token amount either. You wanted this. You wanted the free flow of Libyan oil. Libyan oil fields hold the largest reserves in Africa. The French and the Brits need to get there balls screwed on right.