I’m disappointed with the American response.
I don’t even know where Harper’s head is really at on this issue.
But if he committed our armed forces to enforce a no fly zone over Libya, I’m all down for it.
The simple question is can Canada pull it off if we wanted to ?
Are we less powerfull than Qadaffi ?
Canada’s air force could run roughshod over Libya’s.
The problem would be that Canada is pretty far from Libya. You’d need at least one other nearby country to be in on the plan.
Why are you disappointed in the American response? I’m looking at the world map and it appears that there are about 10 European countries with the capability to enforce a no fly zone over Libya.
Maybe you guys across the pond can respond without the US leading the way like in the Balkans.
Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
The civil war in Libya is no more Canada’s place to intervene than it is the United States’.
We’ve lost our taste for liberal intervention. If they want a revolution they’ll have to make it themselves.
America has such a (justified) bad reputation that helping the revolutionaries would tar their reputation just when they can’t afford to have it tarred. They wouldn’t want their supporters to decide that they’ll just install a new dictator who differs from Gaddafi only in being an American puppet.
No, you just lack that kind of force projection capabilities, since Canada isn’t interested in playing the military empire game.
What “liberal intervention”? Propping up dictators and devastating nations is our style, not “liberal” anything.
The simple answer is no, Canada can’t do it alone. You don’t have aircraft carriers, so at a minimum, you’d have to have a friendly base in the area.
And you can’t just snap your fingers and say “No Fly Zone”, either. To make something like that stick, first you have to destroy Libya’s anti-aircraft capability, and that’s not going to be easy (or cheap) to do. Moreso because Canada doesn’t have stealth fighters.
a) Seeing as the country of topic here is Canada, I suppose “the pond” means Lake Ontario?
b) Intervention in the Balkans was a NATO operation.
Responsibility to protect was a doctrine pushed heavily by the Canadians under the previous government (and marginalized now, thanks to a new party being in power). Unfortunately, the American invasion of Iraq delegitimized it worldwide, even though the US didn’t use R2P-style justifications until long after the fact. So yes, liberal intervention was The Up and Coming Doctrine, but it has been overtaken now.
Sheesh. Some connotations change when you cross the border.
From a technical perspective I don’t think our CF-18’s (F-18A…that’s right “A”) field any kind of anti-radiation weapons like the HARM. They’ve been upgraded post 1999 but they are still very old birds.
The Libyan airforce may be useless, but I wouldn’t discount their SAM and AAA network.
…with an “extremely strong” letter to the NY Times!
“Pushed heavily” is a hell of a strong term for “an idea Canada advocated but didn’t actually back up with any actions.”
Gien the chaos Libya’s in I’m not sure they have an air defence “network.”
Yes, it seems obvious that if a military intervention should be decided upon it should most naturally fall to some of the European nations. Both on account that they are closer, and because Europa has the highest stake in the matter. It appears that the EU has been pressuring the African Union to do something. I doubt that is a solution.
Nobody here actually wants to “pay any price, bear any burden” to accomplish it. The public will only accept a zero-casualties war (friendly ones, that is, they aren’t so worried about the lot we’re bombing). Talk is cheap, however, and in plentiful supply.
See, I disagree with this type of condescending colonial mindset. Libya is a proud sovereign state, not some toy waiting for a new master. Neither the US nor any European state have some fundamental right to meddle in its internal affairs. Intervention does not “naturally fall” to anyone but the Libyans themselves.
In regards to the OP, I am entirely opposed to any military response to the Libyan situation by any outside state, Canadian or otherwise.
A no fly zone is an act of war. That is why it can not be done by anyone unilaterally. It requires attacking planes , anti aircraft units and radar installations.
Aren’t acts of war pretty much always unilateral?
If the sole requirement for a sovereign state is that it have a proud sovereign, you are correct. Otherwise, its sovereignty is somewhat up in the air at the moment.
Good point. Isn’t about time we recognized that wars should be safe, sane and consensual?
I’m not saying that there should or should not be an intervention, but that if the West decided that such a one is needed, then it should be carried out by Europeans not Americans.
I’ll agree to that criticism. It also came at a bad time (released right around 9/11). That said, the Harper government apparently has banned the term “R2P” altogether.