OT: Mr. Obama's War has Started

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

I love the fact that the exact same thing is happening in Bahrain and the government is using the military to crack down on protesters but you dont hear the UN complaining there? And where were the Tomahawks and No Fly zone when China cracked down in Tiananmen Square?

Like I said it interesting that Central Command has assets based there so of course we turning a blind eye to it. *Shrug*

[Raellus]

For the U.S., it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we don't support Libya, we lose popular support in the region (public opinion in Tunisia & Egypt seems to favor the NFZ and the Arab Legue voted unanimously to support an NFZ [w/ two contries abstaining]). If we do though, we look like warmongering hypocrits to the rest of the world. I'm sure that Bin Laden is going to have a field day with this.

I get the impression that the French were pushing really hard for this no fly zone. It's good to see that they are actually doing some of the heavy lifting this time around.

If the NATO air assets target Libyan armor and artillery (and there is some indication that they have already begun to do so), it could start to swing the fighting back in favor of the rebels.

Also, I heard today on NPR that the Libyan fighter shot down yesterday (a rather dramatic pic of it going down in flames was all over the web) was a rebel plane attempting to defend Bengazi that was mistakenly shot down by the rebels.

[95th Rifleman]

I thought Bosnia proved how useless a no-fly zone really is. the buggers just painted red crosses on their transport helos and kept moving troops in to massacre the civvies.

You need boots on the ground to conduct any kind of war. Since Gulf 91 politicians have this idea that all you need is air strikes.

[Legbreaker]

I see a difference between Libya and Bahrain:
Libya is basically a civil war with the current dictator well known for his "casual" attitude towards civil rights.
Bahrain on the other hand is not a civil war. Yes, it's a rather heavy handed use of military force, but it's not a shooting war like Libya.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

I thought Bosnia proved how useless a no-fly zone really is. the buggers just painted red crosses on their transport helos and kept moving troops in to massacre the civvies.

You need boots on the ground to conduct any kind of war. Since Gulf 91 politicians have this idea that all you need is air strikes.

Well they did get spoiled with the success of that 6 week Air campaign didn't they...

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

I thought Bosnia proved how useless a no-fly zone really is. the buggers just painted red crosses on their transport helos and kept moving troops in to massacre the civvies.

The pressure of the air campaign against Serbia in '99 eventually led to their withdrawal from Kosovo and the end of the Balkan Wars of the '90s.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The pressure of the air campaign against Serbia in '99 eventually led to their withdrawal from Kosovo and the end of the Balkan Wars of the '90s.

The key word is "eventualy".

I'm not saying air power isn't effective but it does not solve these kinds of Humanitarian crises. How many civvies where butchered while we where merrily blowing up air defences and such in Bosnia?

The no fly zone let Saddam butcher his own folks for a DECADE before the 2nd war kicked off in 2003.

No fly zones on their own do not solve these problems but allow politicans the illusion of doing something.

[Ramjam]

If there must be outside boots on the ground than they must be arab and only in a peace keeping role.
If NATO troops go in there than it would be Iraq all over again and the Arab world will turn against us even more than they have at the moment.
You might get away with sending in Turk troops if NATO really wants to send troops but with the problems they are having with the Kurds I very much doubt we will see them offering any.
Support the rebels with SF and air power etc, but at the end of the day they have to fight the fight. All we are doing is leveling the playing field.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Ramjam

If there must be outside boots on the ground than they must be arab and only in a peace keeping role.
If NATO troops go in there than it would be Iraq all over again and the Arab world will turn against us even more than they have at the moment.
You might get away with sending in Turk troops if NATO really wants to send troops but with the problems they are having with the Kurds I very much doubt we will see them offering any.
Support the rebels with SF and air power etc, but at the end of the day they have to fight the fight. All we are doing is leveling the playing field.

Doubtful that the Arab League is going to support troops. The other major Arab power is Egypt, and the good Colonel would just love to have Egyptians "invade" Libya; it would almost be as good a propaganda tool as having the US/UK send in a couple of brigades. As for the Italians, they last thing they want is their troops in Libya.

Based on what I'm hearing on the news, I feel that the political will to commit troops in any kind of role just isn't there.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

The key word is "eventualy".

About a year? Not bad considering all that came before. No, the air campaign against Serbia was not quite as clean as that launched against Saddam in '91, but it got results. Milosovic was out of office a year or two later and the Balkans have been relatively peaceful since. IIRC, the only ground forces committed were a UN peacekeeping force.

Aside from a few SF types, I doubt that we'll see Americans on the ground in Libya. We're too strung out as it is and we don't have a good history there (..."to the shores of Tripoli"...). Logistically and militarily speaking, France would be the logical choice but their colonial history in the region might rub many in the region the wrong way.

[Graebarde]

de ja vue? Seems there was similar actions back about what 25 years ago? Let'em kill each other off, and let allie sort 'em out. If the Arabs want him out, let THEM do it, of course they won't becaues they'll get their a$$ kicked.. they already are waffling on actions taken... best thing to do to the whole fkn region is turn it into a giant mirror.. from the atlantic to the himalayas... you can rebore through glass can't you?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

For the U.S., it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we don't support Libya, we lose popular support in the region (public opinion in Tunisia & Egypt seems to favor the NFZ and the Arab Legue voted unanimously to support an NFZ [w/ two contries abstaining]). If we do though, we look like warmongering hypocrits to the rest of the world. I'm sure that Bin Laden is going to have a field day with this.

The simple fact is that we have to go full on and take Kaddaffi out of power now. We need to attack his troops, and basically become the rebel's air force. If the rebels lose the war, then our actions will make us look impotent and, well, stupid.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The simple fact is that we have to go full on and take Kaddaffi out of power now. We need to attack his troops, and basically become the rebel's air force. If the rebels lose the war, then our actions will make us look impotent and, well, stupid.

You are right Paul, we do have to eventually put boots on the ground if we want to show that we are backing the rebels. The main thing is where are they goign to find the force to to move over there....

[Legbreaker]

Of course Obama has ruled US boots on the ground out of the question...

Which begs the question, who else can fill the void? I'm thinking France is placed well....