The attacks start on Lybia

[Silk]

According to the powers that be, Gaddafi has ignored the proposed ceasefire and has now been directly attacking his civlians, by edict of the security council, the U.N. now has to step in. But what is your opinion on this?

[Sabby]

What? o.o

[Silk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418

[Vekseid]

I'm... cautiously optimistic. Maybe it's because there's been so much bad news lately.

Part of the reason this took so long was it had to be made clear that the US, France and Britain couldn't just magically throw up a no fly zone and knock planes out of the sky and hope that would be the end of it. Gaddafi does not have numerical superiority - he has the heavy weapons. With the resolution essentially giving open license to destroy these assets, if the rebels really do have it together (their leader had a long talk with Clinton in France, apparently), then this could turn out well, if humanitarian aid comes shortly after.

I get the feeling that this is basically a sort of leap of faith kind of action. I can't profess to be comfortable with that, but I can't say I'm comfortable sitting by while someone goes pounding innocent civilians, either.

[RubySlippers]

The US was told we would support the action and now we are firing our missles into Lybia, I say let other people do the fighting we should provide just the UN Authorization which we did and leave others to fight this time. The Chinese have a big military let them send in aircraft and later ground troops with the French and other nations.

I'm sure the Foreign Legion can provide ample military power to and they are mostly scum turned into fighting forces so tend to be good at fighting.

[Silk]

But as the US is part of the U.N's security council and world police, they don't really have much choice but to get directly involved.

[Kurzyk]

Im concerned about the US sanctions on oil trade. The price of oil has already risen 18% since the insurrection in Libya.

"A war directed against Libya would push the price of crude oil up to abysmally high levels, potentially triggering a global inflationary spiral, which would result in the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

A sizeable increase in the price of oil over a prolonged period would wreck economic havoc: production and transportation costs would increase dramatically. Hikes in the costs of fuel and energy would trigger a renewed string of bankruptcies in major sectors of economic activity. They would also contribute to a sizeable increase in the external debt of developing countries." http://unhypnotize.com/economy-currency/53466-humanitarian-wars-good-business-speculators-applaud.html

[Vekseid]

Libya only has 2% of the world's oil reserves. And it would be an open question as to how much better letting the colonel have free reign would do to ameliorate the disruption anyway, since it's the oil producing parts that are actually in the greatest revolt.

[RubySlippers]

But as the US is part of the U.N's security council and world police, they don't really have much choice but to get directly involved.

Yes we do we paid our blood how many times for these actions and China the big rival now - nadda.

Its not our job to police the world we have five peer nations and the elected security council there to why is it always our nation to be dog of war China, Russia, the UK and France are all armed and capable are they not? And the UN Resolution called for a control of the skies why are we firing missles into the nations ground capability if its to be a NO FLY zone?

[Sure]

OPEC has an interest in that not happening. OPEC purposefully stunts its production so as to drive up profits. So OPEC could produce more in order to prevent that from happening. So it won't happen.

Furthermore, Libya is not in the top fifteen places we import oil from. That means at least 95% of the oil we consume each year is safe, probably more since the remaining 5% is everyone else including Libya.

PS: It is doubtful the Chinese military could reach America effectively, let alone Libya.

[Silk]

Yes we do we paid our blood how many times for these actions and China the big rival now - nadda.

Its not our job to police the world we have five peer nations and the elected security council there to why is it always our nation to be dog of war China, Russia, the UK and France are all armed and capable are they not? And the UN Resolution called for a control of the skies why are we firing missles into the nations ground capability if its to be a NO FLY zone?

Yep, and all those counties are also putting in legwork into lybia, argueably, a lot more than what america is doing. America is firing missles, france is actually sending their servicemen into hot zones, britain is also firing missles and policing airspace. Its just as well saying that their capable, but those other countries can do the same quite happily. Its a shared burden just because you might not hear of the other contries work doesnt mean their not working.

[TheGlyphstone]

Yes we do we paid our blood how many times for these actions and China the big rival now - nadda.

Its not our job to police the world we have five peer nations and the elected security council there to why is it always our nation to be dog of war China, Russia, the UK and France are all armed and capable are they not? And the UN Resolution called for a control of the skies why are we firing missles into the nations ground capability if its to be a NO FLY zone?

China is specifically playing hands-off right now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12798568

Russia and China, which abstained from the UN Security Council resolution approving the use of force in Libya, have urged all parties to stop fighting, as has the African Union.

So is Germany - it's the rest of the SC that is employing their forces.

[Silk]

To downplay the situation, it can be summed up with "ok, since your not going to play fair, now big brothers going to get involved"

[itsbeenfun2000]

We are not committing ground forces this is important. The other partners may but I believe the goal is to level the playing field so the rebels can do the job themselves. The last thing we can afford is another drawn out war that we are leading the charge in. This time it looks like the European nations with the blessing of the Arab League is doing the bulk of the fighting.

As far as why the US? Should we sit by and watch people get butchered when we know we can stop it? Should we let someone win a war that shot at his own people demonstrating to start it? Why does the US get involved in every conflict, disaster, aid relief when things happen in the world? Because we are the only country that has the military to do it. The proportion of us helping in disasters to conflicts I bet is extremely high.

[Silk]

We are not committing ground forces this is important. The other partners may but I believe the goal is to level the playing field so the rebels can do the job themselves. The last thing we can afford is another drawn out war that we are leading the charge in. This time it looks like the European nations with the blessing of the Arab League is doing the bulk of the fighting.

As far as why the US? Should we sit by and watch people get butchered when we know we can stop it? Should we let someone win a war that shot at his own people demonstrating to start it? Why does the US get involved in every conflict, disaster, aid relief when things happen in the world? Because we are the only country that has the military to do it. The proportion of us helping in disasters to conflicts I bet is extremely high.

Kind of happens when your country is spending half of the global military budget

[Zeitgeist]

Considering it is France, Italy and Britain and not the US that have the long troubled colonial history in North Africa, then it makes sense to me they play a heavy role and the associated risks that come with it. Whether or not this action will result in Qaddafi's ouster remains to be seen. Simply evening the playing field, a characterization tossed around, may not be enough.

[Callie Del Noire]

Considering it is France, Italy and Britain and not the US that have the long troubled colonial history in North Africa, then it makes sense to me they play a heavy role and the associated risks that come with it. Whether or not this action will result in Qaddafi's ouster remains to be seen. Simply evening the playing field, a characterization tossed around, may not be enough.

Not to mention most of the shit he pulled over the years was directed at them. There have been assassinations of critics of Gadhafi all over the world, most particularly the UK (Including the murder of one policewoman during one), and he has knowingly, willfully and intentionally supplied training and arms to a good number of European terrorists over the years. He's even bragged about it.

He's lied to the media in the past, so the claims of widespread civilian casualties in the last few days to outside missles/air strikes won't be believable to me without independent verification. Given that he refuses to let reporters into the strike zones, I doubt its' as bad as he says.

He's been quiet for a decade, but before that he was very much an antagonistic element in the Mediterranean and Europe.

[Vekseid]

Considering it is France, Italy and Britain and not the US that have the long troubled colonial history in North Africa, then it makes sense to me they play a heavy role and the associated risks that come with it. Whether or not this action will result in Qaddafi's ouster remains to be seen. Simply evening the playing field, a characterization tossed around, may not be enough.

Italy is staying out of this. So is most of the US, apparently - the Enterprise is there but not actually taking action, and Obama has only a month or two before requiring congressional approval. He's basically gambling that the rebels will have this in thirty days.

[Callie Del Noire]

Italy is staying out of this. So is most of the US, apparently - the Enterprise is there but not actually taking action, and Obama has only a month or two before requiring congressional approval. He's basically gambling that the rebels will have this in thirty days.

He hasn't been as big a thorn in the US side as he has been with Europe. Nothing like being in a tent outside your military HQ when US carrier group bombs it to make you behave.

He's said things like he'd wipe Switzerland off the face of the earth if he had nukes (after his son was arrested there for Battery) and his actions in France and the UK are without a doubt all but warfare in name. I know he's okay-ed the murder of rivals on pilgrimage to Mecca and the Suadis have stopped at least one attempt to do so.

The most daring thing I can think of having heard of him doing in the US, aside from trying to finance insurgent groups, was the snatch of a Libyan dissident before he could be granted citizen ship and executing him.

[Jude]

This feels like such a stupid position to endorse after Afghanistan and Iraq, but I really do think that Gaddafi needs to be taken out.  How, what happens after, and our role in everything needs to be considered to prevent a post-dictator Libya that ends up like Iraq and Afghanistan did.

[Zeitgeist]

Italy is staying out of this. So is most of the US, apparently - the Enterprise is there but not actually taking action, and Obama has only a month or two before requiring congressional approval. He's basically gambling that the rebels will have this in thirty days.

Not only is Italy making available airfields in Sicily for operations, it also is contributing their own fighter planes.

http://english.cri.cn/6966/2011/03/20/1821s627464.htm

And so they should.

From what I understand, we've fired a number (100+) tomahawk missiles from surface ships and submarines into Libya. So I think it is safe to say we are more than just involved on the sidelines.

[Callie Del Noire]

One of my buddies.. who was a marine, pointed out a long time ago that it didn't matter how much you hit things from the air. You don't control the ground till you have boots on the ground. Period. You don't control anything unless you're in the dirt and such.

So, if things are going the way some folks think it will. SOMEONE will have to send in peacekeepers sooner or later. I find it interesting that he's using mercs to do most of his heavy lifting.

[Vekseid]

Not only is Italy making available airfields in Sicily for operations, it also is contributing their own fighter planes.

http://english.cri.cn/6966/2011/03/20/1821s627464.htm

And so they should.

From what I understand, we've fired a number (100+) tomahawk missiles from surface ships and submarines into Libya. So I think it is safe to say we are more than just involved on the sidelines.

Wow, that's quite a reversal from Italy's previous position.

And yes, American involvement has been pretty tame compared to the assets that we can bring to bear over there.

[TheGlyphstone]

One of my buddies.. who was a marine, pointed out a long time ago that it didn't matter how much you hit things from the air. You don't control the ground till you have boots on the ground. Period. You don't control anything unless you're in the dirt and such.

So, if things are going the way some folks think it will. SOMEONE will have to send in peacekeepers sooner or later. I find it interesting that he's using mercs to do most of his heavy lifting.

Probably because his regulars might be unreliable when the crunch time happens. There was that Libyan Air Force colonel who defected after being ordered to bomb civilians when this all started, and Libya's riddled with tribal affiliations.

[Callie Del Noire]

Probably because his regulars might be unreliable when the crunch time happens. There was that Libyan Air Force colonel who defected after being ordered to bomb civilians when this all started, and Libya's riddled with tribal affiliations.

Not to mention one of his sons is supposed to have gone over to the other side.

[Lord Drake]

Wow, that's quite a reversal from Italy's previous position.

And yes, American involvement has been pretty tame compared to the assets that we can bring to bear over there.

The current Italian government is more intervent-oriented. From what I heard from news, the reason for the first attempt at neutrality was that Italy had solid diplomatic contacts both with the rebels and Gheddafi and so neutrality was advisable in order to keep up those connections.

The colonel's attitude, though, has recently made clear that diplomacy would not bring acceptable solutions on his part.

[Zeitgeist]

And you know, either taking Qaddafi out directly or getting lucky with a missile hit won't really resolve anything. He has been in charge for 40+ years, and I doubt he's done that alone. There are his sons, and people close to him that are loyal. I doubt his death would magically turn anything around significantly.

[RubySlippers]

We are not committing ground forces this is important. The other partners may but I believe the goal is to level the playing field so the rebels can do the job themselves. The last thing we can afford is another drawn out war that we are leading the charge in. This time it looks like the European nations with the blessing of the Arab League is doing the bulk of the fighting.

As far as why the US? Should we sit by and watch people get butchered when we know we can stop it? Should we let someone win a war that shot at his own people demonstrating to start it? Why does the US get involved in every conflict, disaster, aid relief when things happen in the world? Because we are the only country that has the military to do it. The proportion of us helping in disasters to conflicts I bet is extremely high.

This is NOT a humanitarian mission I have military people as friend and relatives helping others after a natural disaster like the Tsunami's some time ago and now Japan are something they are proud to do its mercy and no one is putting our soldiers into harms way as in being shot at. In this case we voted for it in the UN giving it authority that should suffice and we should pull out of this now and let other more regional nations take the lead.

[Callie Del Noire]

And you know, either taking Qaddafi out directly or getting lucky with a missile hit won't really resolve anything. He has been in charge for 40+ years, and I doubt he's done that alone. There are his sons, and people close to him that are loyal. I doubt his death would magically turn anything around significantly.

Well I think a lot of military folk are invested in his holding on to power (that is... the Libyan military) but unlike some other regimes he clearly has some opponents. One of his own sons went to the other side. And there is a LOT of resentment in the international community towards him. Aside from token complaints from the Arab league he's been on his own side. I doubt even the Arab League wants much to do with him since he's had operations in any number of their countries to kill dissidents and he has made it clear in the past that he'd like to be the head of an United Arab state.

[Oniya]

Well I think a lot of military folk are invested in his holding on to power (that is... the Libyan military)

Although there was the one guy that Glyphstone mentioned who defected rather than bombing civilians.  Maybe the upper echelons of the Libyan military are with him, but the rank and file may be less enthusiastic.

[Callie Del Noire]

Although there was the one guy that Glyphstone mentioned who defected rather than bombing civilians.  Maybe the upper echelons of the Libyan military are with him, but the rank and file may be less enthusiastic.

Yeah supposedly the bombings and such are being done by mercs rather than his own airforce. I doubt that made any points with them.

[TheGlyphstone]

How high up in Air Force heirarchy is a colonel?

[Callie Del Noire]

How high up in Air Force heirarchy is a colonel?

Not sure.. but considering he's  been named 'King of Kings' in the past I think rank is moot.

[TheGlyphstone]

Not sure.. but considering he's  been named 'King of Kings' in the past I think rank is moot.

I didn't mean Gaddafi specifically, I meant in a real Air Force. The pilot who defected was a Libyan Air Force colonel...obviously not 'equal' to Gaddafi himself, but I was curious how high up that would be in typical ranking.

[Oniya]

How high up in Air Force heirarchy is a colonel?

'Full bird' colonel in the US Air Force is the sixth 'officer' rank, just below a brigadier (or one star) general.  Very similar to Army hierarchy, if you remember your M*A*S*H episodes.

[consortium11]

How high up in Air Force heirarchy is a colonel?

Gaddafi is infamous for using mercenary forces in his army... he did for much of the Chad wars. That said the amount is sometimes overstated... there's a certain amount of cultural/tribal racism involved against Southern Africans in Libya.

[Callie Del Noire]

What gives me is aside from his rank, he's not had an OFFICIAL position in the government, according to him, since the 1980s or so.


Of course is President Reagan hadn't 'missed' him in the 80s he'd have most likely followed through with some of his bolder plans (like training/financing insurgents throughout Europe and the US. I know that sometime after the first bombing of the Twin Towers a Libyan was caught coming across the US/American border with a bundle of plastic explosive.

[Sabby]

I may be a bit late here, but... why the hell is someone rolling tanks into their own country?

[Callie Del Noire]

I may be a bit late here, but... why the hell is someone rolling tanks into their own country?

Someone who has decided that having infantry shooting his dissenting citizens isn't enough. Supposedly he's got snipers picking off folks with tanks as support. Nice guy eh?

[Sabby]

The fuck? Wow :/ This is why I avoid politics, because I can't even begin to comprehend how that started and how action is being taken.

[Oniya]

The fuck? Wow :/ This is why I avoid politics, because I can't even begin to comprehend how that started and how action is being taken.

Qaddafi is a sociopathic megalomaniac with enough pull to get someone else to do the shooting for him.  It may not be medically accurate, but it's a good enough explanation to keep my head from exploding.

[Ramster]

He hasn't stayed a dictator for 20-odd years by nursing sick puppies back to health!

[Callie Del Noire]

He hasn't stayed a dictator for 20-odd years by nursing sick puppies back to health!

Make that 40 odd years. 

[OldSchoolGamer]

Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling this is going to turn into another long-term war, as we are increasingly drawn into conflicts in the oil-producing regions of the Mideast.  And if the Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict flares into open warfare, as it shows signs of doing, all bets are off.  Things are going to get UGLY.

[Callie Del Noire]

Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling this is going to turn into another long-term war, as we are increasingly drawn into conflicts in the oil-producing regions of the Mideast.  And if the Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict flares into open warfare, as it shows signs of doing, all bets are off.  Things are going to get UGLY.

They ARE Ugly.. we over committed ourselves back in the early part of this decade. Every military leader with a star on his shoulder that said so got the boot courtesy of Donald Rumsfeld, and now we're going to pay that price. We overlooked the vulnerbility of the Afganistan/Pakistan border and the influence of the Taliban in Pakistan. That should have been our focus. Saddam was a bastard, sick and twisted but he understood the bottom line (like the Colonel).

We could have leaned on him, worked Afganistan on the front burner from day one. As anyone who has seen the military messes that have occurred in that region since Alexander the great would know, quick fast effective moves and management are the way that region should have been handled.

Instead we spent years fighting insurgency in Iraq that was mostly our fault since we didn't control the borders when we invaded. Syria and Iran both slipped folks in and I'm betting support groups to this day. What a bloody waste of time and man power this has been.

Right now, thanks to 'right sizing' we couldn't commit people to the ground in another region effectively. Hopefully the European powers who have been the Colonel's victims for so long should do it. I'd like the Arab League to do it..but honestly I don't trust most of them to contribute to rebuilding an effective country afterward.

[itsbeenfun2000]

The Arab League neither has the military or coordination to do a job like this. We say they are in the picture to keep it a clean fight and not make it look like it is the west interfering again. They asked us to do this because they can't do it themselves. Not a single one of their militarys is trained well enough.

[OldSchoolGamer]

So far I think Obama is handling this well...self-serving criticisms from the GOP re the expense of the mission notwithstanding.  Funny how the GOP's accountants were on vacation when the Iraq debacle was undertaken.

I think the next month is going to be critical.  If Obama sticks to plan--spend the rest of March softening up Gaddafi's forces and then draw down American forces and reduce our role to strictly advisory and recon by the middle of April--I'll say this is going to be a success, at least from America's standpoint. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Depends on how stiff the Europeans stay at it. I bet the will, every country involved has had some sort of Libyan sponsored event(s) on their soil.

[RubySlippers]

My father is former Military Intelligence and worked embassy duty mostly he said there are assets of our on the ground Special Forces and very likely CIA, all under the radar. He should know he arranged this in more than one situation hand picking teams to go in for education and ground intelligence of allied rebels. If so we have boots on the ground in harms way so screw Obama on this we should have abstained or voted for it on condition nothing else should be expected from us.

I wish the US would declare itself neutral and stay out of world affairs like this.

[Callie Del Noire]

My father is former Military Intelligence and worked embassy duty mostly he said there are assets of our on the ground Special Forces and very likely CIA, all under the radar. He should know he arranged this in more than one situation hand picking teams to go in for education and ground intelligence of allied rebels. If so we have boots on the ground in harms way so screw Obama on this we should have abstained or voted for it on condition nothing else should be expected from us.

I wish the US would declare itself neutral and stay out of world affairs like this.

We tried that a couple times.. the first time Germany offered Mexico a chunk of our territory (The Zimmer telegram) if we started coming into the war upon resumption of unrestricted sub warfare (world war 1) and the second time we tried to stay neutral Japan attacked us and four days later Germany and Italy declared war on the US.

We're too big to be neutral. Have been for the better part of a century and change. What we do can, and should be limited, in this case but we can't stay neutral.

The point is Ruby, we can't be neutral. Too many folks in this will assume we're using cut outs and puppets. If we take a definite but limited role we can show that we aren't moving in a manner similar to Iraq nine years ago.

[OldSchoolGamer]

We tried that a couple times.. the first time Germany offered Mexico a chunk of our territory (The Zimmer telegram) if we started coming into the war upon resumption of unrestricted sub warfare (world war 1) and the second time we tried to stay neutral Japan attacked us and four days later Germany and Italy declared war on the US.

Not to hijack the thread...or to pick nits...but we weren't exactly "neutral" in the time leading up to WWII.  On paper, yes...in practice, we were busy disrupting fuel shipments to the Japanese Empire and helping arm Britain.

Not that I would have done anything differently had I been in charge (well, except for assigning a higher likelihood to a Japanese sneak attack in the Pacific).  Japan and Germany were clearly imperial powers with conquest on their mind, and American entry into WWII one way or another was preordained.  Just sayin'...

[Silk]

There is a bit of a joke going around at the moment where I live (Nothing to do with me though, but relevant to what people are saying) about how this is considered one of the more legal wars in a long while and America is getting cold feet, just as a statement of irony.

[Callie Del Noire]

There is a bit of a joke going around at the moment where I live (Nothing to do with me though, but relevant to what people are saying) about how this is considered one of the more legal wars in a long while and America is getting cold feet, just as a statement of irony.

Truth be told.. we dont' have the assets.

Thanks to 'right sizing' without changing our rules of battle, we've simply don't have the manpower to do '2 1/2' wars. Not the ships, planes, tanks, trucks, boats or anything else. The only reason we were able to do Iraq and Afghanistan as long as we have is their geographic closeness.  A lot of folks don't realize the training, maintenance and downtime cycles that are needed to keep our forces sharp. We've ignored a LOT of them in the last 10 years, particularly in the Marines and Army.

As usual in the downsizing, the grunts lose a LOT more than the leadership. When I first joined in 1994, the blueshirts in the Navy had been downsized for at least 4 years and the problem was the Chiefs and Officers were still over what they needed for the downsized Navy. Similar problems in the other branches.

[Zakharra]

  Can't we provide the logistics and tactical support and let the Brits, French and other allies do the boots on the ground fighting?

[Callie Del Noire]

  Can't we provide the logistics and tactical support and let the Brits, French and other allies do the boots on the ground fighting?

I think we are. I'm willing to bet the base in Sicily is the one that we co-run with the Italians. I am willing to bet that we are running Electronic Warfare and Surveillance for sure. I'm betting by now between the US, English, France, Italy and the Dutch there isn't much in the northern section over the size of a duck that is flying that isn't immediately tagged and classified.

[sesshomaruartist]

But even though Obama continues to state that it's not American's war, there seems to be a belief that if and when America pulls out that other countries would falter. Britain too has quite a contingent in Iraq and Afganistan, this war won't be doing them any favors economically. As for France I doubt any country would do this with so few allies and Italy has already shown mixed feelings for this operation. I hope I'm wrong though.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I think the hope is that the rebels will become better organized and equipped, and able to carry the load themselves within a few weeks.

[sesshomaruartist]

They need also some kind of leadership too, they seem to push one step closer to tripoli and get attacked stagger two steps behind. Perhaps some military training since majority of them are ordinary citizens. I seriously doubt they can do any damage to Gaddafi even if they reached Tripoli.

[Oniya]

They need also some kind of leadership too, they seem to push one step closer to tripoli and get attacked stagger two steps behind. Perhaps some military training since majority of them are ordinary citizens. I seriously doubt they can do any damage to Gaddafi even if they reached Tripoli.

This has been a problem with other 'police actions' that the US has gotten involved in.  Leadership training is going to be essential for the area to become stable if Qaddafi is ousted.

[Callie Del Noire]

But even though Obama continues to state that it's not American's war, there seems to be a belief that if and when America pulls out that other countries would falter. Britain too has quite a contingent in Iraq and Afganistan, this war won't be doing them any favors economically. As for France I doubt any country would do this with so few allies and Italy has already shown mixed feelings for this operation. I hope I'm wrong though.

First off, I think the French would have a greater investment in this region that most of the others. Geographically it seems to me the French and Italians (and Spanish for that matter) would want whoever comes out of this as friendly and stable as possible. We ALL definitely don't want a hostile Islamic state ala Iran in the region. Libya has quite a bit going for it, and with the right forces being supported I'd say it would be able to recover fast.

I think the countries neighbors would do well to help out. And it would definitely be a step up from the man who sponsored bombings all over Europe. He might have been quiet for the last 10 years or so but don't forget almost every country in Western Europe has him to thank for bodies and radical terrorist groups getting training.

Long view wise.. it would be a sound move to replace him with a balanced moderate government. If everyone stands aside..you can promise the country to more radical groups.

I wish the folks making the decisions in the area the best of luck convincing the Nay Sayers that it is their (and our) interests to do this rather than hide.

[sesshomaruartist]

First off, I think the French would have a greater investment in this region that most of the others. Geographically it seems to me the French and Italians (and Spanish for that matter) would want whoever comes out of this as friendly and stable as possible. We ALL definitely don't want a hostile Islamic state ala Iran in the region. Libya has quite a bit going for it, and with the right forces being supported I'd say it would be able to recover fast.

I think the countries neighbors would do well to help out. And it would definitely be a step up from the man who sponsored bombings all over Europe. He might have been quiet for the last 10 years or so but don't forget almost every country in Western Europe has him to thank for bodies and radical terrorist groups getting training.

Long view wise.. it would be a sound move to replace him with a balanced moderate government. If everyone stands aside..you can promise the country to more radical groups.

I wish the folks making the decisions in the area the best of luck convincing the Nay Sayers that it is their (and our) interests to do this rather than hide.

I did not state that no one should do anything, but even if they did, in the end Libya might become another Iraq since even now the Arab League are stating that the attacks are not what they wanted, even though they don't have the balls to do anything to help the libyan people, the truth is cause most Arab goverments are Unser regimes and so they do not want to influence their own people to uprise against them. Plus we all know how the western especially American image is among the Arabic world in general so they would be mixed reactions once ground forces are deployed whether they are Americans or not as they see them linked with Israel.   

[consortium11]

First off, I think the French would have a greater investment in this region that most of the others. Geographically it seems to me the French and Italians (and Spanish for that matter) would want whoever comes out of this as friendly and stable as possible. We ALL definitely don't want a hostile Islamic state ala Iran in the region. Libya has quite a bit going for it, and with the right forces being supported I'd say it would be able to recover fast.

I think the countries neighbors would do well to help out. And it would definitely be a step up from the man who sponsored bombings all over Europe. He might have been quiet for the last 10 years or so but don't forget almost every country in Western Europe has him to thank for bodies and radical terrorist groups getting training.

Long view wise.. it would be a sound move to replace him with a balanced moderate government. If everyone stands aside..you can promise the country to more radical groups.

I wish the folks making the decisions in the area the best of luck convincing the Nay Sayers that it is their (and our) interests to do this rather than hide.

Just on the French point it's worth noting that this is far from the first time they've been involved in Libya. One of the main reasons the Chad/Libya conflicts ended so badly for Libya was when the French finally kicked into action. They've long taken the lead on dealing with Libya in the Western World until the promises of oil and an end to terrorism/WMD development brought the détente that's lasted until this current conflict.

[Callie Del Noire]

Just on the French point it's worth noting that this is far from the first time they've been involved in Libya. One of the main reasons the Chad/Libya conflicts ended so badly for Libya was when the French finally kicked into action. They've long taken the lead on dealing with Libya in the Western World until the promises of oil and an end to terrorism/WMD development brought the détente that's lasted until this current conflict.

I'm hoping that the lesson from that event will push them to work earlier and help install moderate allies into place. They, in my opinion, have a better chance being a moderating influence than the US. They have a recent history of wishing to NOT overly interfere than the US, hence my opinion that they would do more good with less concern of long term involvement than the US.

Not to mention, like I have mentioned before, it's their 'neighborhood' and in their own interest.

That lack of recent aggressive moves will be a better platform to work from.

[Noelle]

It would do the French a world of good to make peace with the Maghreb world, in general. They have undergone/are undergoing a similar "Islamification" fear as they struggle to integrate a large Muslim population into their society, which is already highly secular to begin with.

What surprises me about Sarkozy is his recent...passion, you could say, to go in and help Libyans, especially given his own particularly questionable actions towards their population/related populations in his own country, though the point has already been brought up that it's in his best interest to have a stable North Africa to help stymie the immigration into France. I wonder, though, how Libyan immigrants stack up to those from, say, Algeria or Tunisia, especially given that French is second to Arabic in both countries. Either way, it's nice to see countries beside the US step up to the plate, especially given the constant bad-mouthing France endures for declining the Iraq war, among other things.

[MagicalPen]

UN involvement is more directed at leveling the playing field (the rebels were on the verge of success before Ghad. started using tanks, artillery, and planes indiscriminately. Very hard to find protection in the open desert from such things when you have no means of countering them. Of course, had the politicians gotten their act together, the Rebels wouldn't have been on the verge of defeat a few days ago and the dictator might well be disposed of by now.

I am glad we did finally take action, but it could have been done sooner. I don't support the use of troops on the ground in the country at all, but neutralizing the 'power weapons' that were being used to neutralize rebels and civilians alike. It will be interesting to see what the final death toll will turn out to be.

On the same hand, I worry about who will fill the power vacuum...much like the situation in Egypt.

[Callie Del Noire]

UN involvement is more directed at leveling the playing field (the rebels were on the verge of success before Ghad. started using tanks, artillery, and planes indiscriminately. Very hard to find protection in the open desert from such things when you have no means of countering them. Of course, had the politicians gotten their act together, the Rebels wouldn't have been on the verge of defeat a few days ago and the dictator might well be disposed of by now.

I am glad we did finally take action, but it could have been done sooner. I don't support the use of troops on the ground in the country at all, but neutralizing the 'power weapons' that were being used to neutralize rebels and civilians alike. It will be interesting to see what the final death toll will turn out to be.

On the same hand, I worry about who will fill the power vacuum...much like the situation in Egypt.

I'm sure a LOT of folks in that corner of the world are worried about what comes out of the change of power in those countries. Syria, Lebanon, Turkey are first in line BEHIND Israel.

Most of the successful secular governments in the Islamic world are in the Med. To have TWO fold in such a short time has to be a serous concern to anyone with two cents worth of common sense to rub together.

[consortium11]

I'm sure a LOT of folks in that corner of the world are worried about what comes out of the change of power in those countries. Syria, Lebanon, Turkey are first in line BEHIND Israel.

Most of the successful secular governments in the Islamic world are in the Med. To have TWO fold in such a short time has to be a serous concern to anyone with two cents worth of common sense to rub together.

Egypts the big one. As tragically as the others could turn out (and they could end successfully) in the short term they're essentially internal conflicts. Long term if things go as badly as they could then there's the potential for either turning into an open sore like Somalia or a friendly nation for fundamentalists but their short term impact is limited. In Egypt on the other hand the Muslim Brotherhood is the only one of the opposition groups that is effectively organised... and if they do get into power then the current situation in Isreal/Palastine (volatile right now as it is) could blow up in an instant. If the Brotherhood feel secure they'll happily rip up all treaties and restart the war with Israel, whatever their proclamations at the moment.

In truth the only countries worse for the world in general if they fell into completel anarchy or hostile fundamentalism became the rulers of the ones currently at threat are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

[RubySlippers]

We have UN authorization for a NO FLY ZONE and I support that but what is the US doing firing on other targets than SAM systems and armed aircraft, any other sorties are outside of the UN authorization as far as I can tell.

Did we vote to include all additional measures as deemed necessary to supress one side over the other?

If its not we are going beyond the authorization we voted on and we should scale back operations to within those limits.

[Silk]

I beleive the remit for intervention is the dismantlement of all heavy armaments that are a risk to the civilian population. Such as artilery and tanks are included if used within civilian locales

[RubySlippers]

Oh then bomb away as long as its in the resolution and its only our air power used.

[MagicalPen]

Might want to read up on the news in regards to that. The French and British seem to be taking a good deal of the sorties in Libya at this point. The US is also the biggest military force, so has to take on the lion shares of the task. The reason those other targets are being hit is because those targets themselves are not targeting Rebel Military Assets, but indiscriminately firing on the Civilian population. Despite repeated calls to stop doing such things, pro-Dictator forces continue to do so - the only way to stop them is neutralize them. I have no problem with the combined forces targeting targets of opportunity like that.

[Callie Del Noire]

There have been many reports of Pro-government force snipers shooting civilians. From spots reinforced with tanks and such. Seems to me if you're going to deviate from the conditions the folks watching from the high ground ask you not to do.. you shouldn't be surprise when they drop a rock on you.

A lot of the folks he supported back during the Serbian conflicts have been signed on as mercs, as well as even less civilized mercs from the southern portion of Africa (remember he had no problem dealing with the folks in Angola). A lot of both groups had zero computations about shooting anything that didn't pay them.

[Will]

I've actually heard conflicting reports on who these mercenaries are, and whether they're mercenaries at all.  Especially the ones from southern Africa.  I've heard on NPR that many of the so-called mercenaries are actually just migrant workers?  And the native Libyan population just jumped to the conclusion of them being hired guns based on local prejudices.

So, I dunno.  I think it would probably be best to source any information about mercenaries being used against civilians, or any sort of move against civilians at all.  Lots of civilians have willingly taken up arms to fight, and at that point, I have to say they cease being civilians.  Whether this is because they wanted to go and overthrow the regime, or because they thought they were going to be attacked one way or another, I don't know, but I don't pretend to know, either.

[consortium11]

I've actually heard conflicting reports on who these mercenaries are, and whether they're mercenaries at all.  Especially the ones from southern Africa.  I've heard on NPR that many of the so-called mercenaries are actually just migrant workers?  And the native Libyan population just jumped to the conclusion of them being hired guns based on local prejudices.

So, I dunno.  I think it would probably be best to source any information about mercenaries being used against civilians, or any sort of move against civilians at all.  Lots of civilians have willingly taken up arms to fight, and at that point, I have to say they cease being civilians.  Whether this is because they wanted to go and overthrow the regime, or because they thought they were going to be attacked one way or another, I don't know, but I don't pretend to know, either.

I mentioned this earlier. There's two points to be made here...

1) It's almost certain that Gaddafi is using mercenaries... or at least non-Libyan fighters even if not technically mercenaries. He's long built and relied upon a "Pan-African Legion" and a "Pan African Islamic Legion" in conflicts in the past and he'll of course use them against civilians.

2) Despite that the sheer quantity of attacks by "Mercenaries" should be taken with a pinch of salt. When this conflict first broke out if you went by local reports it was as if an invasion had occured... no Libyans would shoot other Libyans it was always "Southern African mercenaries". There's a lot of ethnic and tribal tension in the area going back to when the Arab majority used an African minority as slaves and much of that's played through the way this conflicts been reported on the ground there. It's very easy for a privileged majority to blame all their ills on an under-privileged minority... and while some problems may come from them it's virtually never that one-sided.

What I wouldn't dismiss are the attacks on civilians as a whole. Gaddafi's regime has never shown any reluctance to attack anyone who opposes them, armed or not.

[Will]

I'm not trying to dismiss them; I'm just saying a source would be better when talking about a specific instance.  It appears that there's a lot of misinformation coming out of this situation.

[Noelle]

Lots of civilians have willingly taken up arms to fight, and at that point, I have to say they cease being civilians.  Whether this is because they wanted to go and overthrow the regime, or because they thought they were going to be attacked one way or another, I don't know, but I don't pretend to know, either.

This is a very imporant point -- there were also reports on NPR that it was precisely because of this that the UN may have trouble distinguishing who's who on the ground. Our mission is not to bomb the hell out of the pro-Gaddafi forces, the mission is to protect civilians, regardless of who they support. The rebels are such a mixed bag that many of them appear to be civilians both in and out of battle.

In regards to mercenaries, it's pure speculation at this point with little evidence (as far as I'm aware) pointing in either direction to say for sure. I wouldn't put it past him, as it's the same tactic used by Mubarak, but then, Mubarak's hired guns fell apart very quickly and did not have near the strength of Gaddafi's army, in comparison.

...On a semi-related note, anyone else wondering where Gaddafi's virgin babe deathsquad is doing during this whole thing?

[TheGlyphstone]

His what?

[consortium11]

His what?

These lovely ladies.

As seen here...



More pictures at this link.

I tend to think Gaddafi followed the Idi Amin school of image building... he deliberately came across as eccentric and a bit of a fool to the West to downplay and cover up how horrific he could be.