Because we didn’t know what the hell we wanted to do. We achieved the primary mission of kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, but we left Saddam in power while encouraging his people to revolt. Then we thought that maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to encourage a civil war and that we shouldn’t get involved. Then we felt bad when Saddam began crushing the rebellions we had encouraged and we established the no-fly zones to get him to back off and preserve some thorns in his side. Humanitarian concerns barely entered into it; it was a way for us to continue to impose our will on Saddam after our ground troops had left (not that it stopped him from attempting to shoot down our aircraft or defying our weapons inspections).
It was an expensive, half-assed, and ineffective response. It won’t work out any better in Libya, while drawing us into conflict with their military. And for what? To protect the rebels? Do we even know who these rebels are? Let France and the Arab League deal with it if they’re so concerned.
I think that’s just dandy, and they can go ahead and do just that. We wouldn’t ask them to come here and establish a no-fly zone over Mexico if that’s what we wanted. Plus, it would help our economy, since we can sell them new military equipment rather than contributing our own.
When was the last time we avoided the spearheading and main funding part of a mission? I’m pretty sure we were the most active in Serbia (happy to be proven wrong) – and that was right in the rest of NATO’s back yard.
There are good reasons to oppose US involvement, but cost really isn’t one of them. The 6th Fleet is permanently deployed in the Mediterranean, and its jets fly combat air patrols (or training patrols) more or less continuously. Establishing a no-fly zone over Libya just means they’d be doing it a bit further south.
Odd that the no-fly zones were established a year and a half after the rebellions (they were set up in mid-'92) and did nothing to foment the overthrow of Saddam while they did offer some protections to the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. It’s almost like that was what they were supposed to do.
That’s *if *the no-fly zone doesn’t lead to more active involvement. If the rebel forces unseat the Empire, uh, Crab-daffy’s forces and there is a power vacuum, what then? This is different than Egypt, where the army stayed basically neutral and was able to step in and provide some stability after the government was overthrown. In this case, we would be imposing the no-fly on the Libyan army – much more like Iraq or Taliban Afghanistan than Egypt.
Anyway, sorry for the multiple single quote responses – I really should have multi-quoted.
That’s because we destroyed Iraq’s air force and most of their air defense in Desert Storm. Libya still has an air force and air defense capability. Imposing a no fly zone is doable, but it isn’t going to be the cakewalk so many seem to expect if Libya is non-cooperative.
I’m not sure to be honest, but this is a good time for the first time in a while.
Actually establishing a No Fly Zone will almost surely include taking out Libya’s strategic assets. Meaning planes, radar and missiles go boom first. That is the SOP.
The point you are simply ignoring is those assets can and might be used to fight back against whoever is attempting to make them go boom. And our own munitions are not cheap. Essentially you’d have to have a multi-day air war to shut down their defenses. An unheralded part of the air war in Iraq was the special forces teams (yes, ground troops) that snuck in to the target area to mark targets before the bombing started.
Yes, we can impose our will on Libya if we choose to do it. But this is not a video game. Real men and women will be laying their asses on the line…and some of them will probably die.
A few brave soldiers as opposed to the brave thousands likely to die for nothing if the UN does nothing. It does not appear much will be asked of us. I agree we should not be in the forefront on this mission, but we should, if asked support the efforts by NATO and the Arab League to give the rebels a chance against the Colonel.
I should have made it clearer that I was responding to that moronic use of “Why do you hate America?”
I think you lost track of your argument. You were saying the no-fly zones were supposed to help Iraqis overthrow Saddam. Based on what you’ve offered so far, I’m not buying it. That has nothing to do with the bullshit behind the 2003 war (or even the nonsense about how Saddam was the next Hitler from the 1991 war).
I’m not going to defend the 2003 war as it was started for the dead wrong reasons in my opinion. But in fairness to Desert Storm, Saddam had used chemical weapons vs. Iran, attacked the people of Iraq in the Kurdish areas and invaded Kuwait. Next Hitler was strong of course, but Saddam was a rabid tin-plated despot that did need to be stopped.
I’m assuming you’re not suggesting we should have let him have Kuwait to “appease” him. But as hyperbole goes, it was far from the worst abuse. Saddam was probably the most dangerous man on the planet in 1991.
And you’re the one claiming that maintaining a no-fly zone for 12 years that covered only half of the Kurdish territory, antagonized the southern Shiites into issuing fatwas against us before we had even invaded, and involved thousands of airstrikes in and out of the no-fly zones (and the civilians casualties they caused) was strictly for humanitarian purposes.