The longer the uprising in Libya continues, the more pressure there will be to “do something”:
The United States should immediately ask the Security Council to authorize a no-flight zone and make clear to Russia and China that if they block the resolution, the blood of the Libyan opposition will be on their hands. We should push them at least to abstain, and bring the issue to a vote as soon as possible. If we get a resolution, we should work with the Arab League to assemble an international coalition to impose the no-flight zone. If the Security Council fails to act, then we should recognize the opposition Libyan National Council as the legitimate government, as France has done, and work with the Arab League to give the council any assistance it requests.
Any use of force must be carefully and fully debated, but that debate has now been had. It’s been raging for a week, during which almost every Arab country has come on board calling for a no-flight zone and Colonel Qaddafi continues to gain ground. It is time to act.
I’m not sure what this would accomplish, to be honest. The bloodshed won’t stop with a no-fly zone, and then the conventional wisdom will slowly shift to “Well, we did the no-fly zone and that didn’t work, so now we need to XXX.” And then, before you know it, we’ll have Marines on the shores of Tripoli, we’ll be spending another 50 billion a year indefinitely while our troops eat roadside explosives as we wait for our freedom bombs to nurture democracy while Ken Pollack collects another check for going on my tv to tell me we just need another freedom unit and then you doubters will see.
Don’t get me wrong, it is horrible what is going on. I just don’t understand how we make it better.
Yevgraf (fka Michael)
Why do you hate America, John?
MikeJ
I hate to go off on a language tangent, but when I read this yesterday my first thought was, “I wonder how the Times decided on ‘no-flight zone’ instead of the more common ‘no-fly zone.'”
Martin
The only thing that is going to meaningfully change the situation, that we can do, but don’t dare do, is send in sniper teams to take out Qaddafi and family. Anything else is busy work.
catclub
I have been noticing the populations of various countries that have been in the news for revolutions and foreign interventions:
Egypt: 80M
Bahrain: 1M
Libya: 6.5M
Tunisia: 10M
Ireland: 4M
Serbia: 10M
Croatia: 4M
Iraq: 31M
Afghanistan: 29M
It seems to me that we at least have had better odds with the smaller countries.
It is also amazing to me how much coverage a revolt in a small country can get.
Wisconsin: 5.6M
JC
I understand the hesitancy, and Clark gave voice to all the reasons not to – it’s just, as these revolutions spring up in the Middle East, it’s hard to watch them get crushed. Be it Iran, or Libya, or wherever.
Plus, the lesson tyrants learn is, hit back with everything you can. You’ll get away with it.
Now – this doesn’t mean that economic pressure won’t work some, but as Iraq shows, if you have oil, it’s somewhat possible to simply ignore economic pressure (tyrant doesn’t feel it, though populace does), as the oil WILL get bought.
BGinCHI
How about we set up an all-volunteer force from the Beltway media and neo-con think tanks.
They could get some fast training then be dropped on Libya in two weeks.
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
Factor in that if the US does get involved, then every group who doesn’t like us in the region (and they are significant) will be able to use our involvement as yet another rallying cry about the Great Satan trying to take over the oil in the region, and the opposition will be nothing but puppets. We have decades of history working against us here. I think the situation is just screwed no matter what we do.
eemom
I totally agree that we should stay the hell out, for all the reasons that have already been stated.
It’s just that there’s something so profoundly tragic about a people rebelling against tyranny and getting beaten back even though resources exist that could help them achieve it.
It’s different from the Saddam situation in that regard, in that the Libyan people themselves took the first major step.
I wonder, if the Iraq war mess had not happened the way it did…..if instead there had been something like this major uprising in Libya…..and if there had not been evil neocons in charge — would people have thought it was wrong to help the Iraqis overthrow Saddam? I guess the answer is probably yes.
catclub
@Martin: Only?
How about nuclear weapons? I am sure all options are still on the table. (Most hated ‘diplomatic’ expression.)
What about sending in cats with thumbs?
cat48
Evan Bayh to FOXNEWS, per Howard Kurtz, in my twitter feed! Bastard. I hate Bluedoggeys who claim to represent me.
The US has no interests in Libya. I think 1% of our oil supply comes from them. That could be easily replaced by another rogue nation. The European Union gets 75% of their oil from them b/c they use “sweet crude.” EU, go for it!
Maude
What is this, the third war is the charm?
eemom
@JC:
yeah. That.
Merkin
you mean Obama SHOULDN’T use the bully pulpit?
Kathy in St. Louis
I listened to a military expert on NPR yesterday. He stated that every “no-fly” zone set up with American involvement has ended with our troops on the ground. We’d better be awfully sure we want yet another Middle east war before we do it.
I noticed that the Arab world was able to gather enough troops to help put down protesters in Bahrain today who want to overthrow their royal family…troops came from several countries within the Arab world. If Arab countries want this Gadaffi out, they can just send their kids in to accomplish his removal…
eemom
@Maude:
no, but what if there had been no first or second war? IOW, IF we hadn’t already completely fucked things up, now that our assistance could actually accomplish something positive, would it be right to provide it?
Lest there be doubt, I am speaking HYPOTHETICALLY here.
Keith G
That is some crazy shit being spewed there. I am quite sure that the Chinese and Russian regimes will feel so terrible that a few additional thousands of gallons of blood can be linked to their hands.
Anne-Marie Slaughter (nice name), you are a seriously stupid puppy.
cyntax
We shouldn’t go; we wouldn’t make it better.
But it is strange that the only Mid-east country where people asked us to go is the place we aren’t going. And they even have oil. I’d like to think our foreign policy isn’t as dysfunctional as it looks but…
Svensker
@eemom:
Like the Palestinians.
Maude
We don’t have any business in Libya.
Svensker
Wolverines and green balloons, that’s how.
Time for the Euros to spend some of their own damn money if they’re so upset about it.
(Not that I’m not sympathetic to the Libyan rebels, it’s just not a job for the US gubmint to take on.)
cat48
There’s a good chance we will do something, though, because the Arab League asked for the No Fly Zone, to save innocent civilians only, so it comes restricted.
Fareed Zakaria had a panel on this yesterday with actual Arabs who actually live in an Arab country. It’s worth watching if you want to know how they feel.
fasteddie9318
There are a number of steps that could be taken short of a no-fly zone, some of which we’ve already been asked to do by the Libyan opposition (and it’s not clear that said opposition would welcome a UN-imposed no-fly zone). Sharing intel and scrambling Gaddafi’s communications are two things we could be doing that the opposition has already requested. The problem is doing even that means we’d really better be sure that the opposition wins, which means the door to escalation is still open.
kdaug
We don’t.
malraux
@eemom:
Does Bush senior count as a neo-con? Because there was that major uprising following the first gulf war that the world pretty much turned a blind eye towards.
HyperIon
@Kathy in St. Louis wrote:
yes. exactly.
The Moar You Know
Again:
The Saudis, Egypt, France, Germany, the UAE, Italy and a slew of other nations who might actually have a stake in a no-fly zone have Eurofighters, F-16s, M1A1 tanks, Apache helicopters…all the goodies we have plus quite a few that we don’t, and a huge population of unemployed Arab youngsters who are standing around waiting for nothing more than to be handed a gun and a direction to point it in, hell, you don’t even have to pay them, just feed ‘em and tell them that it’s all for a chance to die in a hail of gunfire and glory.
That they are asking us to establish and enforce a no-fly zone, and not doing it themselves in spite of having all the tools to do so, should tell you something.
HyperIon
@cat48:
How does that work exactly?
How do we tell the guilty civilians from the innocent ones from way up in the air?
cleek
@Maude:
but we could, if the government was more agreeable.
Maude
@HyperIon:
We now have bombs that can tell the innocent from the guilty.
fasteddie9318
@Kathy in St. Louis:
This. Interesting how they can muster up those forces to put down a rebellion against their totalitarian regime, but when it comes to supporting a rebellion against a totalitarian regime, that’s our job.
Omnes Omnibus
@malraux: I would consider the elder Bush to be a Realist; the neo-cons are in there own way idealists/ideologues.
Keith G
@HyperIon:
I think the Army has provided an instructional video on that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqNRb-Hx17s
Oh, wait.
Martin
@catclub: Well, I’m not sure nukes would *help* necessarily. Not much of a successful revolution if everyone is dead. But the start and end of this whole situation lies with Qaddafi (and possibly his sons). Get rid of him and everything ends.
serge
@Svensker: Bien dit
FlipYrWhig
@The Moar You Know: Yeah, I don’t get why the Arab League or some other regional body can’t just take care of this themselves.
What gives me qualms about getting sucked into a hot war in Libya is that, as happened with Iraq and “Saddam Hussein,” Libya and “Muammar Qaddafi” are already “branded” as evil, meaning that there doesn’t have to be a whole new marketing effort to say that Tinpot Dictator = Hitler. You can just skip to the boom-bang-pow. You can’t do that with Equatorial Guinea or something, because Americans don’t know who the Bad Guys are yet. Everyone already knows Qaddafi is a Bad Guy. That makes war, sadly, sickly, much easier.
John - A Motley Moose
By all means, let’s establish a no-fly zone. We all know how well that worked in Iraq during the 90’s. Another alternative is to arm the opposition. We’ve got Reagan’s actions in Afghanistan to show us how well that can work.
Of course, no one should take me seriously, since I’ve proven by my early opposition to the Iraq war that I don’t know what I’m talking about. If anyone listened to DFHs like me, we wouldn’t have Iraq as that shining example of democracy in the ME.
cat48
@HyperIon:
I don’t know how we tell them apart nor save someone from the air. Just relaying what they said.
Ash Can
Qaddafi is a world-class schmuck, but this one’s on the Arab League, and that’s where it should stay. If it’s not clear to everyone in the entire fucking world (except for the brain-dead types whom we know and castigate well) that US involvement in a Middle East conflict leads to bad shit, then there’s nothing to be done for them.
Maude
@Martin:
It would not be good to try to kill Gadaffi. Nor would it be a good idea for someone from another country try to kill Obama.
trollhattan
Haven’t looked at a Libya map lately, but hasn’t the Q-man already more or less taken back a lot of key real estate and oil installations, and now has the momentum?
I’m guessing A. a no-fly wouldn’t accomplish a whole lot tactically and II. it’s too late already, even if it might once have.
Cue the Arab League.
soonergrunt
@HyperIon: Do you think it will matter?
As I’ve said before, we’ll be blamed for the bad shit no matter what happens.
We’ll be blamed for the innocents getting maimed whether we maim them or not. We’ll be blamed for Libya’s oil being plundered whether we plunder it or not.
Whether we do anything or not, we’ll be blamed for whatever bad shit happened, and never get any credit for any good stuff, even if it is widely known and accepted that nobody but us could possibly have done the good stuff in question.
Color me fucking shocked.
Since the oil is going on the market anyway, and we won’t get any, and I mean ANY credit for anything internationally, and we’re going to get blamed no matter what we do, (usually by the self-same assholes who begged us to do something in the first fucking place) we might as well do the cheapest, easiest thing, which is to say, nothing.
Fuck anybody and I mean ANYBODY who thinks we should do something.
cyntax
@HyperIon:
From 20,000 feet the Air Force never misses: they always hit the ground.
prufrock
@HyperIon:
Well, to paraphrase Full Metal Jacket, the ones that run are guilty. The ones that don’t are well disciplined.
srv
We must bomb them to make ourselves feel better.
soonergrunt
@srv: Who is this ‘we?’
cat48
Svensker
@soonergrunt:
Um, what? You want some poor farmer in Bangladesh to be all thank you thank you mister Sam?
Perhaps the aid we give should be given with grace, without expecting thanks. Our karma might be that we get help back when we need it.
In the meantime, pissing folks off by bombing their families probably doesn’t help. But maybe those furriners are different. Thanks for the food! That makes up for killing little Pratep!
Roger Moore
@HyperIon:
I think the idea of a no-fly zone is that we shoot down military planes which, surprisingly, tend not to have innocent civilians on them. That’s the theory at least. In practice it isn’t quite so clean. Keeping our planes in the air probably means blowing up Libyan AAA and SAM batteries, many of which will be located close enough to civilians to ensure some civilian casualties if we attack them. There’s also the risk to people on the ground of dud missiles, falling debris, and the like. But it’s a hell of a lot better for the civilians than bombing ground troops or sending in soldiers of our own.
cyntax
@soonergrunt:
I’m pretty sure Bill Kristol always uses the royal “we.”
soonergrunt
@cat48: Well, the British, the Italians, the Germans, the Spanish, and the French have nice shiny new air forces that could all fly from France, Italy, Gibraltar, Spain, and Malta to do the job.
And they should have fun with it.
Chuck Butcher
The thing about this is that airplanes make it easier to whack the rebels, but tanks always trump small arms and the rebels don’t seem to have a tank force and Gaddafi does. Last I looked, tanks don’t fly.
Stefan
Fareed Zakaria had a panel on this yesterday with actual Arabs who actually live in an Arab country.
Aiyeee! Aiyeee! Bias! Bias! Obviously this Arab from an Arab country is far too self-interested to be trusted on this topic. Far better to listen to an American to know what’s what.
soonergrunt
@Svensker: Way to miss the point, genius.
cat48
@soonergrunt:
Agree they should do it if they want one.
Omnes Omnibus
@Chuck Butcher:
Sure they do; they just don’t do it very well.
Lost Left Coaster
@Svensker:
Ouch. But true.
srv
@soonergrunt: Someone was offended when I called them the new-neocons, so maybe we can call them the TWITerati or Emos-4-War.
Shoemaker-Levy 9
Forget Libya, how about the U.S. get involved in
KuwaitBahrain, which was just invaded byIraqSaudi Arabia. As in, maybe the U.S. should tell the region’s most repressive, reactionary dictatorship, which it arms, to knock it off.soonergrunt
@Omnes Omnibus: That’s why the 3rd Bn (Airborne) 73rd Armor doesn’t exist anymore.
srv
How about Armchair Air-Marshalls?
Omnes Omnibus
@soonergrunt: They had Sheridans long after anyone else, right?
soonergrunt
@Shoemaker-Levy 9: Take everything I’ve said here, and swap out Libya for Bahrain.
That is all.
soonergrunt
@Omnes Omnibus: Well, JRTC and NTC had Sheridans after everybody else, but 3/73 was the last combat unit to have them. But the main reason 3/73 cased their colors was that the USAF kept pancaking the Sheridans in bungled LAPES drops and high drops.
Omnes Omnibus
@soonergrunt: That’s what I get for serving in Europe; I never made it to NTC or JRTC, just Hohenfels.
ETA: Big pancakes.
mutt
The Egyptians can handle this if they chopose too, unilaterally, and with cause: they share a border, 10’s of thousands of Egyptian citizens are involved, its a major disaster right on thier border.
They can knock down Gadaafys few a/c & copters without brearthing hard.
They live there, they are Muslims, they speak the language.
No need to get permission or holds meetings w/ the UN.
IF they wanted to.
I think its in thier interest, but what does that ,matter.
No need for “nato”- the US, tho. Recipe for disaster. And profiteering.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
If a week is long enough to deliberate flying over a sovereign country, a year is more than long enough to debate health care.
eemom
@Svensker:
You don’t pay taxes here anymore, ain’t that right? Why not put your money where your mouth is and make a nice donation to Hamas? Way better than bankrolling those freeloading police officers in that nice safe New Jersey town — and I’m sure your gaycrush Glenn would approve.
Gustopher
We already have two wars going on, and no national interest in Libya.
How fucking stupid do people have to be to support committing our military another non-essential engagement that has every chance of escalating into a third war?
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom: Mahatma?
soonergrunt
@Gustopher:
How many people supported the Iraq invasion and to this day haven’t gone around begging forgiveness in sackcloth and ashes?
mk3872
Interesting. Reading Cole, Greenwald, Hamsher and Kos today, I understand that Obama was completely controlled by the Pentagon.
Now you’re telling me that he’s NOT pushing us into any old war that the hawks are calling for?
Which is it?
Or have you all just randomly chosen which episode fits your imagination of a military complex that rules the WH?
MTiffany
Which can then be used as justification by any other African or Arab nation in the region to at the very least start arming their chosen side or all out enter the conflict. IMNSHO, not a good idea.
Citizen_X
@mk3872: “the hawks” /= the military.
Or, there’s a reason the term “chickenhawk” became popular during the last decade.
Uloborus
@MikeJ:
A no-fly zone is where we use our air force to shoot down anything that flies over Libya that isn’t us, and blow up anything threatening our control of their skies.
But that’s pre-9-11 thinking.
A no-flight zone is where we get a big list of all the people in Libya, declare them all terrorists, invade the country and have security teams stand near every vehicle capable of air travel to make sure no one on the list uses them.
Alex S.
I don’t quite agree, but of course, I’ve already said that in the other thread. Yes, there is a chance that the no-fly zone is a first step of something more. However, it doesn’t have to be. The no-fly zone should help the Libyans to help themselves. It’s a good way to involve the UN and make it multinational. Disrupt Gadhafi’s potential to use bombers and planes. Make the regime implode, destroy it from the inside. Get other factions to abandon him. Ground troops are not necessary and if the international community was willing to dispense with Libyan oil for a few months, the no-fly zone wouldn’t be necessary either.
And by the way, if Gadhafi wins in the end, what’s the plan then? Obama already said that Gadhafi has to go, Great Britain supports a no-fly zone, France has recognized the Benghazi government. The West is not going to see any Libyan oil unless they reintroduce him into the international community as they did in the last years.
Uloborus
@mk3872:
Hmmm? Cole doesn’t think that Obama is controlled by the military OR is a hawk. He just has fits about everything that he even suspects is a violation of civil liberties.
eemom
@Omnes Omnibus:
ok, I lied. :)
catclub
@cyntax: “where people asked us to go is the place we aren’t going”
Whattaya mean nobody asked us to invade Iraq?
Chalabi asked us, Curveball asked us.
Of course Chalabi means Iran, but that is just a quibble.
Hamid Karzai
@soonergrunt:
What, why is everybody staring at me?
Jay B.
@mk3872:
The neo-con nutters aren’t the Pentagon, you know. Regardless of the persecution complex you’re tending for Obama, I doubt you’d find many professional military men behind another Middle East engagement.
So, surprisingly, either you have no fucking idea what you are talking about, or you are looking for just another excuse to whine about the all-powerful Professional Left, which, almost assuredly, agrees with the Administration and the Pentagon in this case. Keep up the awesome analysis, though!
Maude
@Alex S.:
You watch too many movies.
Mnemosyne
The only halfway sensible idea I’ve seen so far is to freeze Gaddafi’s bank accounts so he can’t pay his mercenaries. If there’s some way that our influence could make that happen, that would be great, but other than that, we need to stay the fuck out.
Jay B.
@Alex S.:
You realize we’ve done all of these things over the years in places ranging from Cuba to Iraq, right? The second the US weighs in materially helping the “opposition” (which may include people more horrifying than Quaddafi and would, almost assuredly, spark a bloody battle for control), the opposition becomes suspect. The endless bad will the U.S. and the West have earned doesn’t help your case, as nice as it would be in all perfect worlds. No Fly and sanctions, you’ll recall, helped maintain Saddam’s rule — even as that was better than the alternative, ousting Saddam with ground troops.
Face it, Quaddafi holds all of the cards and any solution we provide could result in something worse than the status quo.
FlipYrWhig
@Uloborus: Well, he did just say that Obama gets rid of anyone who voices even slight criticism of the “national security state.”
Corner Stone
@mk3872: So sad.
Corner Stone
@HyperIon:
Look for the wedding party.
Corner Stone
@JC:
Tyrants do not need to learn any lessons regarding oppression of their citizens. Hence the moniker “tyrant”.
Maude
@Corner Stone:
#85 WIN
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: It’s probably like how singers keep taking voice lessons. You may be a tyrant now, but don’t rest content, you can always learn new techniques!
Alex S.
@Jay B.:
There are several differences though: The rebels are actually calling for a no-fly zone. And it shouldn’t be an american-only action. And if I recall correctly, the no-fly zone in Iraq was installed after the massacre against the Kurds to protect them and the Shiites. It worked by the way, and it made Hussein relatively powerless. And Iraq did not have a native rebellion against Hussein. Things have to be reconsidered though if the rebellion dies.
keestadoll
The Moar You Know
@Alex S.: Yeah, the Chinese wouldn’t have any desire to buy some. And God knows the Europeans never bought any on the down-low from Saddam when we tried the same idiot strategy with him.
@Mnemosyne: Frozen. Didn’t even slow him down. He’s got money elsewhere.
This isn’t our fight, folks.
Cris
You must admit that has a nice ring to it.
Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason (formerly frosty)
There’s nothing like having a son join the National Guard to really really clarify if we should go in militarily somewhere.
Answer: I haven’t seen the defense of America’s Freedom needing the blood of my kid or any other kid in my lifetime. Except maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Everything else has been lies, excuses, metaphors, and bullshit from old guys who are afraid of looking weak. Or just afraid. Or some damn thing. Maybe they just like watching stuff blow up.
Batocchio
So this would be whiny, unrepentant war hawk Anne-Marie Slaughter urging for war yet again, huh? Shocking!
A whole week! Heavens! And that debate has now been had, you damn hippie – by Slaughter and all the serious folks who think exactly like her. Get yer war on! Anne-Marie Slaughter – slightly less insane than John Bolton!
Sixers
This just in: We can’t solve every problem in the world and Libya may go back to being led by the terrible dictator we were all pretty much ok with leading the country 80 days ago.
Alex S.
@The Moar You Know:
Exactly, if Gadhafi stays the Chinese will get the oil.
soonergrunt
@MTiffany: but why should we give a shit? There are a lot of bad things that can happen, and we’re going to be blamed for whichever one does happen, whether we did it or not. That being the case, why should we spend one dime or one drop of blood?
soonergrunt
@Alex S.: And I care about this because why? Maybe we should be working on our own economy to ease our dependence of foreign oil so that we don’t feel like we have to lock and load every time some piss-ant dictator of a piss-ant country decides that slaughter is cool.
PIGL
@FlipYrWhig: the appropriate bad guy in Equatorial Guinea would be well established within 48hrs of the US gummint deciding who he was.
Hell, within 48hrs you could be bombing Toronto.
Corner Stone
@PIGL:
Fuck that! I love that HGTV show Property Virgins!
Yutsano
@PIGL:
You do realize, of course, that the US military does have a scenario for invading Canada, amirite?
Alex S.
@soonergrunt:
It’s one of the few times that economic, moral and diplomatic concerns are aligned.
Sixers
@Alex S.:
Where have I heard this argument before?
soonergrunt
@Yutsano: When I was in, we made plans to attack Denver from Las Vegas in the Battle Staff NCO course.
soonergrunt
@Alex S.: That would be from your perspective.
I think the oil gets out to the highest bidder no matter who’s in charge, just like last month.
cyntax
@catclub:
Ha! Good point. I should’ve specified that no one living in the country had asked.
Uloborus
@FlipYrWhig:
Like I said, show Cole a suspected civil rights violation and he starts screaming and frothing at the mouth. But we all have our sensitive points and he’s otherwise pretty attached to reality. Honestly, I think the Winter darkness and living with a dog he hates has just made him crabby and depressed lately. Poor bastard.
HyperIon
@Alex S. wrote:
which Libyans?
El Cid
“Doing stuff” can very much be worse than doing “nothing” (in terms of military involvement).
Not every single time.
But in these sorts of cases, besides the hawk freaks who just want military involvement to go after Qaddafi and generally get their bomb-related thrills, there begins a momentum toward supporting the doing of “something” and not so much a focus on “what would be done” and “what consequences would that have.”
Qaddafi, for one, would very much love the opportunity to add defying the Western imperialists to his list of appeals for pro-regime or not-really-either Libyans to oppose those attempting to overthrow him.
As Gates pointed out, you can’t just send outside military aircraft around to enforce ‘no fly zones’ without taking out any existing anti-aircraft weapon deployments as well as those which pop up repeatedly.
And if you just keep sending in drones and such, you can indeed keep blowing a lot of shit up just the same, but given that resources would soon be deployed in civilian areas either way, you’re going to be blowing up Libyans on a regular basis.
Then maybe in a familiar storyline, Qaddafi begins to increase even more the air-to-surface threat of helicopters. I’m sure we can spot them and take those out a lot more efficiently these days, but is it enough to prevent their use quickly enough so that rebel locations and their population support weren’t already taken out?
Perhaps there are great and completely persuasive arguments with reams of empirical evidence to handle all the above questions and more.
In this world, though, you get once again the tones of moral imperative, and typically less interested in figuring out what would be the likely consequences of what is being proposed.
Then again, if you really ask such things, you love Qaddafi/Saddam and want to have his babies.
srv
@HyperIon: The good guys. Led by that rebel general, former interior minister, aka torturer-in-chief for the last 40 years.
Ruckus
@BGinCHI:
They’re so gun gung ho I figure they don’t need any training. They’re so good I say drop(kick) them from 45,000 feet out the back of a C130. They’re so full of hot air they don’t even need parachutes. Give’m an M4 and a couple of mags and they can clean it up in no time.
Or not.
El Cid
@Yutsano: There’s always some military planner tasked with drawing up invasion or attack scenarios for anywhere and everywhere. Including domestically.
El Cid
@HyperIon: Major Western powers, especially the US, get to decide which is and which isn’t a legitimate government. This was a lot of fun in the 1980s in Central America and Southern Africa.
Brachiator
If the Arab nations want to impose a no-fly zone, they should get to it. After all, we provide the Egyptians and Saudis with jet fighters. What are they saving them for?
Ruckus
@Brachiator:
Internal resistance?
ETA Maybe not so much in Egypt.
MikeBoyScout
For those obsessed pricks who demand we do something!!, how about y’all pony up the money to pay for our last adventure?
And how about you start with taking care of our Veterans who actually did sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan, and taking care of the families of those Veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice?
The shit remains the same
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask them, “How much should we give?”
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@cyntax:
Not true!
Sometimes they hit the water.
El Cid
@Brachiator: A lot of the equipment the Saudis purchase from the US sits around unused. It’s a good friendly gesture to the US to keep buying more stuff from US military suppliers than needed.
And actually the Saudi military works very closely with Pakistan, it’s actually heavily aided by Pakistan.
[I did forget to mention that Pakistan very much appreciates the Saudis for having funded most of their nuclear arms program.]
Viva BrisVegas
There is a time honoured method for dealing with scenarios like Libya.
You find out how much Qaddafi is paying his mercs, then you offer to double it if they turn their weapons around.
This is a cheap (relatively), easy and effective solution which has the benefit of being traditional in the region.
JC
Corner Stone
Well, in the last two months, the dictators in both Tunisia and Egypt fell, and without significant violence, like what is being seen in Libya. So yeah, if Gadafi’s violence did NOT work, I think we may get more Egypts and Tunisias, rather than Libya style uprisings.
AAA Bonds
Agreed. If we engage in air war over Libya we will be making the same mistake we made in Iraq, only without Libya invading someone else first.
AAA Bonds
What I find bizarre is how the Arab League and statements from the rebels are being offered as justification.
Ask the rebels, and sure, they genuinely want a no-fly zone, and a lot more than that. They want us to intervene against Gaddafi on their side. Why wouldn’t they?
But we shouldn’t.
Ask dictators of Arab countries, many of whom are putting down demonstrators – many of whom are our “allies” – whether they want us to offset Gaddafi’s air power. Of course they do. If they have to throw someone to the wolves, it’s him. They don’t want to exercise air power over Libya themselves. They want us to do it.
But we shouldn’t.
Sixers
@JC:
Because we can totally predict what happens in the middle east!
brantl
Bomb his fucking runways, and do it every couple of weeks. The only reason that no-fly zones turned into a war was because Bushes WANTED a war.
This is where the US could actually be the nation we claim to be, upholding the rights of the downtrodden, but hell, we don’t even do that HERE anymore.
DPirate
Do not do anything. Every option is bad and consists of murder. It isn’t our business.
I cannot believe you people calling for acts of war to “save lives”, esp. while we are currently engaged in killing many with our military. Your brains are addled. It is disgusting.
brantl
@DPirate: I think he should be stopped from wantonly killing his own citizenry. I don’t think that’s an act of war.