If the Afghan/Iraq war (remember that one?) is winding down, America needs something else to fight with/for. And Tripoli is such an old memory. So hell, yes, why not invade Libya? It should make us a real favorite world-wide.
The Arab world has a long history of invasions which they have resented, even though they have not always been able to resist them. The invasion of Libya would almost certain increase support for Gaddafi.
The most we should do would be to create a no fly zone over Libya in order to prevent Qaddafi from using his air force to fight rebels.
The other night on CNN I heard a young Libyan (calling from Libya) begging for a U.S. no-fly zone, but emphatically declining any military intervention beyond that, saying, “We want to do it ourselves, we want to earn it.”
Yes, starting in the Seventh Century A.D.
And I saw a story today with a man pleading for outside help. Kadaffy has surrounded Tripoli with 200 tanks. If they want to earn it, they will pay a steep price.
Libya belongs to both the Arab League and the African Union. If there is any intervention to be done, one or both of those groups should do it.
A no fly zone would be hard to do. China would almost certainly oppose it, and it’s hard to do as an agressive dictator would be keen to test it. The more you see Western forces in Libya the worse it is for the people.
If the Arab League or African Union want to supply the forces and the actual air craft, then fine, let the West help those groups with techincal aide or supply them with bases or the back up the need.
How about propaganda leaflets? All they need to say is, “We’ll double what Gaddafi’s paying you!”
Despite all the stupidity on the right and left about getting involved and fighting for what we believe in, we are actually following the wisest course of action at this point, which is to call for the departure of the dictators, but otherwise remain uninvolved.
The United States does not have the best reputation in the Arab world for a variety of reasons, both real and imagined. Our involvement would only taint the revolutions, which so far are producing promises of real democratic, social and economic reform. We need to stay the hell out of these things and allow nature, and the will of the people, to prevail.
As this is also in Europe’s backyard and many of these nations were former colonies of the European powers, I think this is something we can safely push into their sphere of “assistance”.
We have no damn business getting involved in Libya’s internal affairs. Let the Libyan people determine their own destiny. If they overthrow the dictator and establish some sort of stable government, we should probably offer humanitarian aid in the aftermath…food, water, medical supplies, maybe help them rebuild whatever gets blown up, that sort of thing.
We’ve done more than enough military adventuring for this generation. Bring our boys home.
From whom are you hearing this?
The only person I’ve heard suggest the US was planning in invasion was our old buddy Hugo Chavez, but I think he was just drinking again.
Here’s one place: Time
And a quote from that link:
On her way to Geneva for talks with members of the U.N. Human Rights Council, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Sunday that the U.S. stood ready to offer “any kind of assistance that anyone wishes to have from the United States” in the effort to oust Gaddafi. In Geneva on Monday she said, “Nothing is off the table so long as the Libyan Government continues to threaten and kill Libyans.”*
Empty Diplo-babble. Lots of people in Libya have asked for lots of things from us, and we’ve given them nothing. The US isn’t going to act unilaterally in Libya.
Third time’s a charm.
The state department needs a big stick, and thats the military. Obama wants to look like he is doing something positive, so the JCS gives him a list of options that the military can perform, and in what time frame.
Those options take time to gather, it really does not matter what the libyans want or dont want, its a matter of what the Europeans and other allies want in terms of their security first and foremost.
Then secure the oil wells and start to stabilize the oil market, so this insane rape at the pumps comes to a swift conclusion.
This is a horrible idea. Have we learned nothing from recent history? I can’t fathom how the US going into Libya would be a good idea. If the UN decides to do it let the French and British bear the brunt of responsibility. Aren’t they the former colonial nations under the League of Nations mandates after WWI? At least they have some sort of historical connection to being in the region.
I want to see nothing less than the people of Libya getting the chance to determine their future but I don’t see any way US troops bringing it about ends well for anyone.
The difference is, America is much more willing to kill than to help. We derive more satisfaction from mass slaughter than anything else, and look forward to excuses to engage in that slaughter; while on the other hand we absolutely hate helping others and try everything we can to avoid doing so. Which is how (for example) we end with a huge military that has nearly unconditional support from most of the population, but we can’t & won’t enact the kind of universal health care you see in every other civilized country.
We’ll act unilaterally if we think it will profit or amuse us. It isn’t like we’ve ever been unwilling to do so; why would we be unwlling now all of a sudden?
That’s pretty much the long and short of it.
Remember when Reagan bombed Libya just for the fuck of it? That made Khadafi shut the fuck up for quite a long while. (Gosh, I miss the Cold War…)
Like most people here, I think American intervention with Libya would be a bad idea for several reasons. But there’s nothing categorically wrong with the idea of meeting tyranny with violence. Most democracies are born in violence.