So, if the line of control stalemates like in Korea, he still wins? That dog won’t fly, Monsignor.
Yes, Obama should make no public declaratoins that take too much on the Americans. It is best if this is seen as owned by the Lybian rebellion.
…it is a “kinetic action”!
Way back in the thread I started with the premise that this has to be over in a short time. So I’m only saying that if we get out soon, it can go up in the W column if there is no massacre before we leave, and we don’t leave claiming that we’ve resolved the situation.
Trouble is, the only way to get out without screwing things up is to get rid of Kghaadhphiei and some minimally acceptable powers take charge. If we leave before them, we’ll be accused of leaving the country in chaos. I have some slight optimism because Libya is wealthy and has a professional class which may be able to institute a beaurocracy that lasts for a while the populace is drunk with freedom (relatively speaking).
It’s up to Obama to frame the whole story right to make it look like it was worth while. That something I don’t think he’s done a good job at on other issues. On this one he really needs the results to look good. So long term conflict, massacre, or the nutjob retaining power, will get scored as an L, no matter what the long term result is.
Not picking on you, Tri, just taking off on this because its close to a point I think needs emphasizing. If the violence is effectively over, then the threat we are protecting against is gone. We have every right to go with a clear conscience, and our Allies surely realize we are strained to the limit as it is.
But the assumption that without America, all is lost, we need to counter that. Obama is clearly charting a course away from super-power dominance, and super-power expense. First among equals, perhaps, but still, America should no more dominate other countries than one American should dominate another. A move not so much towards a world government as a world civilization. Sorely needed, if we are to have any hope of surviving our dangerous new toys.
Don’t start. Just . . . don’t start.
Oh, Kghaadhphiei! He’s the catcher!
I guess it’s not vague anymore. From London, today:
“Gadhafi has lost the legitimacy to lead, so we believe he must go. We’re working with the international community to try to achieve that outcome,” Clinton told reporters.
Failing to see the specificity there, John. What does “working with the international community” lock us into?
I don’t know what Obama’s intentions are where super stuff is concerned, but the recent uprisings in the ME are a sign that the people are willing to fight for their own self determination. Maybe Obama has telegraphed a new attitude, or nmaybe technology has just created informed citizens. Either way I’m glad we are stopping a massacre and I’m also glad that we are standing with people willing to fight for their freedom (only half glad actually because I have no idea if the Libyan rebels care about freedom at all, or if they will decide to massacre their enemies if they prevail).
It locks in the goal that whatever we’ve done so far won’t be a success until Kadaffi is gone. Whether we get rid of him or someone else does, isn’t important.
Remember, I’m trying to understand how we determine if we’ve been successful here. I originally thought, per TriPolar’s posts, that we could be successful even with Kadaffi is still in power. I think that is not correct. (No jab at TriPolar. I think he was just giving his own opinion.)
I don’t think there are many circumstances where whats-his-name stays in power, and we can call it a win, but maybe if Libya is split it will work out. But uprisings usually keep going up, or go down. So staying in the middle doesn’t seem probable. But I still think the win for us is getting out before too long without getting blamed for anything.
I kind of agree, but I don’t think you have a career as a presidential spokesperson. 
But I do think there is a possibility this will turn out really well, or really badly. I’m a little nervous that we’re just kind of tossing a few missiles, flying a bunch of sorties, and hoping for the best. We don’t know who our local allies are, and we don’t really have a plan (yet) to get rid of Kadaffi.
When I see pictures of these rebels, I see a bunch of rickety pickups with machine guns mounted on them. If we don’t arm these guys, they don’t stand a chance. Are we ready to do that? And by “we” I mean the Europeans as well.
This worries me too. Especially counting on the Europeans.
The rank and file of this rebellion are mostly young male civilians from all over Libya but mainly the east. They’re probably a good representative sample of the whole people – who, like most people, want freedom, but mostly do not think very deeply about politics, or have any political ideology about which they are passionate. I don’t think they have any conscious common agenda beyond democracy, certainly not one for which they would demand purge trials and public executions. Of course, they might demand those things just out of a different kind of thirst for vengeance, against enemies they have faced and defeated after hard, bitter fighting, and who really have committed atrocities. Could go the Nuremberg Trials way, could go the Committee for Public Safety way. Could go the Truth and Reconciliation Committee way, even.
And, of course, they – the rebels, and the whole people – are divided into tribes, and each tribe might have its own agenda.
I said above that I think we need to arm the rebels for them to have any chance of winning, but after watching some analysis, I realize how naive that is. Arming these guys w/o training them is next to useless. How do we train these guys in any reasonable time to give them the skills needed to not shoot their own feet?
I’m left skeptical of “Regime Change Lite”.
That seems right. We’ve declared for that goal, so regardless of how we contribute, we’re ‘co-owners’ of its success or failure.
As far as Regime Change Lite® (kinda catchy, that), I wonder if we’ll start seeing more muscular forms of support from Egypt and Europe to go along with the weapons. “Advisors” & etc.
Perhaps Saudi Arabia can pull its troops out of Bahrain and send them to Libya to help out. I’d be happy for us to provide the transport.
Pfft. “We’re working to make him go” is not the same as “we’ll make him go”. We’ve been “working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” for 20 years, but it doesn’t mean we actually have.
Bad analogy. When the US’s top diplomat says Kadaffi has to go, that is our official policy.