Saddam survived over a decade of a NFZ and harsh sanctions*, so why would Gaddafi be any different?
-
- Which arguably strengthened him, but no matter.
Saddam had control of the Iraqi oilfields. In Libya, the oil is in the area that is mostly held by the rebels.
Qaddafi is fighting a quasi-conventional, existential war. The other side will crush him if they have enough training and equipment. The sanctions will, in this case keep Qaddafi from having adequate equipment, and there are already backers for the rebels (both in training and materielle). Sanctions help ensure that the rebels will eventually have much superior military strength, and that will take Qaddafi down. Saddam never had this kind of threat to deal with — and he never could get rid of those Kurds in the North.
Didn’t we claim some Nazi gold?
I would be surprised if Gaddafi has enough support for a civil war without a mechanized army. Judging from the initial pictures the UN forces went hunting for armored units as well as aircraft and radar installations. Without air support the tanks are sitting ducks.
I disagree. The resolution is broad enough that they can take any proportional military action in order to “protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan”. I can honestly be argued (and I’d be willing to) that Quadaffi’s very presence in the seat of power, his proven track record as being willing to violate cease fires and his previous statements about being willing to massacre people and go house-to-house to find them all means that while he’s alive (or, at least, in power) that he places the people of Libya “under threat”.
Libyan command centers have been targeted. They certainly don’t directly threaten civilians. They just organize the attacks against them. So, I can’t see how Kadhafi and his direct staff would be a less valid target, being at the head of the organization.
I’ve zero issue with eliminating Kadhafi if he could be located. In fact, he should be the primary target. He’s after all much more responsible than Libyan pilots or artillery teams. They just do what he tells them to do. And regarding limiting losses of life, his would probably be the only one needed for success, in all likelihood.
Probably not. If Quadaffi was killed, one of his sons would most likely fill the void. And it’s not impossible that some of his generals would, either. I still think that means we should do our best to kill them, though, while avoiding a larger war.
They’re also destroying artillery, and even (from what I saw amongst the wrecks) light vehicles probably used to move troops.
I doubt it. I’m unconvinced that Kadhafi closest “henchmen” would be as faithful to his sons that they’ve been to him. Or that they would trust them enough. And finally, it would be morally devastating. Also, how convinced would the Libyan military be that Khadafi’s sons are up to the task?
By the way, there are rumors that Kadhafi would have executed the head of his secret police.
They wouldn’t necessarily have to be as faithful to his sons as they are to him. His sons would simply have to kill enough of them to guarantee compliance with the rest. And there’s no particular reason they’d be faithful to Quadaffi but not others; Quadaffi essentially has the support he has because he buys it, not because he’s a great leader.
Unconfirmed report that Khamis Gaddafi has been killed, possibly by a “kamikaze” strike by a Libyan pilot turned rebel.
An American fighter crashed near Benghazi; crew ejected and have been recovered.
Out of curiosity, has Anderson Cooper managed to find a second Arab (aside from Fouad Ajami) yet?
I think this story deserves a little further discussion. There is a non-negligible chance that this plane was brought down by anti-aircraft fire. Of course, the US government immediately blamed mechanical failure, but it almost always does so when these incidents happen in warzones; take such statements with a grain of salt. If the plane was shot down, then this would be a major triumph for Gaddafi’s brave fighters, and will hopefully give the Western aggressors pause in their future reign of terror.
Even if the US isn’t lying through its teeth for a change, this still represents over $30 million down the drain. Every major loss like this will further bleed an economically fragile nation, thus making withdrawal of forces all the more likely.
Finally, the rest of you war hawks should take a moment to ponder the ramifications of this situation. Your stances seem to be based on the assumption that you can steamroll over Libya with impunity, at no danger to yourself or your attack dogs. As you see, this is not the case. The pilots could just as easily have died or come down in government-held territory. Something like this will very likely happen as this crusade drags on. What then? Will you still support this war of aggression when Gaddafi’s soldiers are using your boys as bargaining chips? Or will you finally see reason then?
Well, I always assumed that an international intervention would probably result in a (very) few casualties on the intervening side. Even extremely unbalanced conflicts usually result in some bruises to the stronger side. Even a confirmed report of a strike aircraft being shot down and crew killed wouldn’t change my general attitude.
I am wondering how an American F-15 came to be over Libyan soil at all, since my understanding was the the strike aircraft were going to be French, British and so forth, with American support in the form of high-altitude radar planes, ships and missiles.
I see talking Arab heads on his show all the time, but Ajami’s the only regular, so far as I’ve noticed. I only started watching it recently.
Somehow I don’t think we’ll have to worry about anybody reverse-engineering the thing.
I think if you watch a few minutes of John McCain’s 2008 campaign propaganda you will find the answer to your question.
I thought our brief only included softening the place up so our allies could get boots on the ground. We’ve arguably done that. Let our allies do their job now. And if they fail, it will be THEIR failure, not ours. All the talking heads are speaking under the assumption that we own this thing, but I recall it being made EXPLICIT that we don’t.
Enough of your BS. You’ve made a flat assertion here. Put up some proof of the US “almost always” blaming mechanical failures for plane crashes in war zones. For a change, post some proof of your malarkey.