UN Approves Libyan No-Fly Zone

[filkertom]

Hey, just what we need -- another military front.

Comments

[per_solo]

Didn't we just see this show? Wait, it's been a few years, and we've had our own "regime change" in the meantime. *deep sigh*

I tell ya...I think I'm getting too old to be THIS cynical. Can't it be all puppy dogs and roses...like it was when I was growing up..in the 80s? You know, when divorce rates skyrocketed, Ollie North was on the stand, and we had the S&L scandals?

And they wonder why Gen X is typically considered so cynical...

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

Not really buying the "this is exactly the same as Iraq!" schtick that gets bandied around about this.

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

Yeah, cause that worked out so well...

oh wait, was that an argument for or against? because I've heard that one used for both...

[per_solo]

Which is entirely your right. :-)

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

Er, Tom, at the moment we and the French are the only ones that have actually pledged any physical support for that. I believe we've a squadron on standby, although apparently the Chief Air Marshall said something about only really needing half a dozen planes, i.e 3 fighters and a couple of bombers. [and presumably an observer or AWACS to direct.]

Which figures, you chaps are a tad bit busy elsewhere right now, and the Libyan air force is a bit pathetic really.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I know. There's not really a lot to do with them, except prevent them from bombing their own people. It's just... we can't get out of Iraq, and we can't get out of Afghanistan, and North Korea and Iran are cranky, and I am intensely cheesed off at the prospect of even more war.

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

Oh we could get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but first it would mean admitting it was a massive con job in the first place, and that actually, the troops being there is largely the source of the problems now...which apparently there isn't the political will to do. [what, admit that the democratic process was subverted and they're not universally loved.. Inconceivable!]

So far though, nobody is talking about sending ground troops in, although that resolution is worded so it's possible. I think our political masters have learnt that getting involved in another country's civil war is a bad move...

*sigh* at least I hope they've all learnt a lesson.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

I'm certain the Libyans currently fighting and dying to rid themselves of a monstrous dictator are deeply concerned over you being cheesed off. I mean, how rude of them to not tolerate death squads, grinding poverty, secret police raids, and no hope for anything better so you don't have to deal with the idea that maybe we should support a genuine effort to make one blighted hellhole a better place.

Hell, we're not even part of this yet! Britain and France are the ones chomping at the bit. The US is still in nits "well, maybe" stage of deliberations.

Sorry, but these are people fighting for their freedom, something I swore to defend. As far as I'm concerned we should jump in with every air asset we can scrape up, pound the Qadaffi loyalists into red mist, and let the opposition know that there's any number of cells and gallows waiting for Qadaffi in Europe and America.

I'm a little cheesed off that the man who ordered the Lockerbie PanAm bombing isn't hanging from the end of rope yet.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

The problem is, every pot we've stirred our spoons in these last ten years has gone bad. REALLY bad.

Afghanistan? Corrupt dictatorship.

Iraq? Corrupt dictatorship.

Granted, we can't make Libya worse than it already is- but we CAN waste American lives and money propping up a new regime just as bad as the old.

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

You forgot about the potential for spreading our forces too thinly, thus making matters worse for the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(I am assuming that you don't think we're already spread too thin, of course. I think we are, but I also don't know jack about the real condition of the military.)

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

At least this time it's the UN. I think the world is sick of Qadaffi, and he's about to massacre the Libyan revolutionaries.

So maybe there's some justice in this.

...I hope...

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

Well, he says he is...the rebels are pretty much: Eh, what?!

[wcg.livejournal.com]

At least for now, it's a France/UK mission with UN backing. I don't know of any US assets involved in this one. In a more perfect world the Arab League would have taken the lead on this, but time was running out and the Libyan rebels had about 48 hours left before they fell.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

I think the Arab League is still trying to react to Tunisia and Egypt. They don't know which way to jump on this one.

No Fly Zone in Libya

[hvideo.livejournal.com]

While France and the UK have so far been the ones to talk of enforcing the No Fly Zone, the first step would pretty much have to be getting rid of the Libyan SAMs. For that, there might be requests for the USA's stealth fighters and bombers to be used.

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

I'm as leery about this as I was about our troops going into Iraq, but who else is going to stop the Qaddafi goons from firing on their own people? And are we just going to leave the place a worse mess than we found it?

[bridgeweaver.livejournal.com]

Iraq is a poor analogy, think Serbia during the Balkan war. A lot of the same people who (rightly) howled at our invasion of Iraq were champing at the bit to do the Serbians a mischief when they were playing merry hell with the Bosnian and/or Kosovar muslims. Iraq was a stable state; the Yugoslav civil war had destabilized the entire region. Iraq was a US show from the beginning. Libya appears to be a more international effort.

What I wonder is why the Russians and Chinese didn't block the resolution. Cui bono?

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

The message coming through here (the UK) is that the resolution was pushed and backed by the Arab nations, which Russia and China did not want to oppose because of oil and banking interests.

The other message coming through is that one of the major factors in the success of the resolution was the (apparently) lukewarm attitude of the US, particularly of Clinton and Obama. It is being speculated that this attitude was partly assumed, because the one thing that would have stopped the idea of a no fly zone dead in its tracks was if the US had put it forward and gone all out for it.

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

Of course we in the UK have a slight problem in that we've chucked our Harriers and the carrier that we could have shipped them down there with.

HOLD ON LIBYA!

ONLY ANOTHER FEW YEARS AND WE'LL BE READY -almost-AGAIN!

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Spain has just agree to let NATO use their airfields.

It has certainly scared the Libyian government, though anyone who believes that they are really calling off their troops is very, very naive.

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

I still think the UK are not only stupid in cutting defence (and chucking away trained pilots as soon as they've trained) -
but they are utter fools in then telling all and sundry they are going to do it!

EH COME ON ARGENTINA! El Malvinas they are yours....

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Just remember 2 things.

1) Libya doesn't have vast oil reserves.

2) A cease-fire was called hours after the resolution was passed.

Sometimes the system works.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Apparently Roosevelt had something when he talked about talking softly, but also having a big stick.

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

Libya does have oil.

The cease-fire claim appears to have been a bogus call.

If this can be pulled off in a way that prevents a massive crime against humanity, I think it may be, unfortunately, necessary.