I’m hearing noise about a possible U.S. intervention in Libya. It’s an interesting question.
So, does the U.S. invade another foreign country? What would be the consequences, given our long and storied enmity with Qadaffi? Would we be doing the Libyan people a favor, or would it turn into another long Iraq and Afghanistan-esque slog, where we deal with a persistent (possibly mostly foreign) insurgency, porous borders, etc.?
How would it affect Obama’s presidency? Will he side with Reagan and bomb the shit out of parts of Libya, and would it be seen as courting the Republicans if he did? Will we intervene, but with the U.N. as intermediaries?
Absolutely the wrong thing to do. We can not afford it for one thing. Another reason is the image of the US as a power trying to take over the world would be enhanced.
We can not act unilaterally. It has to be sanctioned by the UN.
I bet Al Qeada would love it.
Please no. Even America can’t fix a hornet’s nest with bombs. If UN decides to take steps the US should participate proportionally to other nations commitments.
Not without knowing who will take over. If the resistance had a clear leader who was posed to take control after Qaddafi (or pick the spelling of your choice) leaves, then I could see it. We make a deal with him and he gives us friendly relations and oil. Might be worth it, then. But just going in like we did in Iraq with no endgame would be a fool’s move.
Hopefully not; although bombing and such is more likely than invasion given how much the military is already bogged down and how little warning there has been that Libya would blow up.
The latter; as our motives are only and always greed, hatred and Christian fanaticism, our intervention would cause only harm. People with evil motives only do good by accident. We’d kill a lot of Libyans to indulge our fantasies of the Noble White Christian Capitalists saving the subhuman foreigners and bringing them to the One True Way of God and the Free Market. But we wouldn’t do any actual good because we aren’t interested in even trying to do so.
Everything that went wrong - and pretty much everything would - would be blamed on him. There won’t be any rallying behind the President for a Democrat, especially a black one.
What would our pretext even be? If we didn’t invade while Ghadafi was in power, how would we justify doing so now that he’s getting kicked out? At least theoretically, we’re supposed to like the people striving for democracy, which would be slightly inconsistent with going to war against them.
Well, I think it’s pretty obvious that it would be pitched as a war of liberation, that we’re finally going to “get” Qadaffi because 1) he’s a shithead (shades of Saddam), 2) he’s bombing his own people, 3) we’re on the “people’s” side, and 4) uh, see #1.
As some have said, the only action US should take has to be UN sanctioned. And even when we take action, it must only be proportional, if not less than, other nations. The US image abroad could be improved by this, as well as the fact that our economy simply couldn’t handle another theater of war.
A no fly zone to me seems like a great equalizer. Control of the air gives the encumbent a huge advantage. Wasn’t it one of the [del]Taliban[/del] fearless and loyal Afghan fighters for freedom from communism who said “we do not fear the Russians. But we fear their helicoptors”?
