Larry Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Doing some research for a paper in my Ethics class. And one of the web sites I visited, over in the side where they have the "other things on this site", had a really great recommendation to this National Review Editorial. I'll confess that I've been feeling really helpless, in the "can't somebody please help those people?!?!?!" vein, and I thought the piece had some very good points. (My emphasis.) But Qaddafi won’t go down without one last spasm of bloodletting. His goons — loyal remnants of the security forces, together with foreign mercenaries — have been gunning protesters down in the streets. This has led to calls for the imposition of a no-fly zone. We understand and share the impulse to stanch the killing. But there are two problems with the proposed no-fly zone.One, Qaddafi’s regime doesn’t appear to be doing much of its murder from the air. If we are serious about limiting his ability to massacre his countrymen, the no-fly zone would have to become a no machine-gun zone, too — in other words an honest-to-goodness military intervention to affect events directly on the ground. Deploying our air power while Qaddafi continued to kill with impunity would make us look more ineffectual rather than less. For now (perhaps this will change if Qaddafi begins to consolidate his position on the strength of his air force), the no-fly zone seems a classic case of looking for lost keys under the streetlight; it’s the handiest way for us to intervene, not the most effective. Two, the rebels are on the ascendancy. Absent some drastic change in the tide of events, it looks as if they will prevail. Why would we taint what would be the indigenous glory of their ouster of Qaddafi with an almost entirely symbolic Western military action? The reason that the revolts of 2011 have had a dramatic catalyzing effect across the region, when the invasion of Iraq didn’t, is that they are the handiwork of Middle Eastern populations themselves, and thus a much more appealing model of change. Indeed, it is a sign of how home-grown these rebellions have been that President Obama’s mealy-mouthed passivity hasn’t stopped them from rolling on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Link? I agree a no fly zone would be largely ineffectual,and gets real hinky if they start using missiles against the rebels. Do we have a right to intervene militarily at this point?...if not,when? Should we simply provide humanitarian aid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Link? oops. Edited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Everything I've been saying. Plus the rebels don't want us to intervene: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/01/libya-revolution-no-fly-zone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpyaks3 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Should we simply provide humanitarian aid? Yes, unless opposition forces ask us to intervene, then we might have a decision to make. It sucks watching this but a military intervention is not a good way to go about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DallasCowboyFan156 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 This may sound callous but outside of getting the United Nations to pass sanctions against Libya (which they've done) and condemning the massacres the United States itself should do nothing. No no-fly zone and definitely no military intervention. If we do intervene I think we risk everything. Right now there is a regional movement happening in the Middle East that has the potential to revolutionize the region in our favor. By intervening in this issue we put that entire process at risk. If the United States were to use any military force, even as part of a larger UN coalition, it could give those despots still in power the opportunity to turn the PR battle back on us by labeling our country as the Western imperialists we've been accused of being since the Iraq War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Everything I've been saying. Plus the rebels don't want us to intervene:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/01/libya-revolution-no-fly-zone Well...so far they've mostly said no military intervention, but at the same time they have begged and demanded for a no fly zone. People in the west of Libya have been very insistent that they need some sort of assistance. On the other hand there have been statements made and repeated that any foreign troops will lead to armed resistance by Libyans against them. So it's somewhat complicated. I'm not quite sure they've thought this through enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Side note - I would pay anything to see/hear what the CIA is up to right now. I am sure we are doing all sorts of interesting things behind the scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Side note - I would pay anything to see/hear what the CIA is up to right now. I am sure we are doing all sorts of interesting things behind the scenes. Some people think we're behind all of this. In WWII, the Germans occupied Poland. The Polish resistance was largely pro-Western. With the Soviets on their way to take Poland from the Germans, the Polish resistance made some moves against the Germans. Rather than swooping in on a white horse and helping, the Soviets halted their advance. Why, because they knew the Germans would kill the pro-western resistance. Once that happened in a horrific manner, the Soviets went in, defeated the Germans and put the strongest remaining Polish forces (communist) into power. Somehow I wonder if that history is relevant to any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 How would a no-fly zone over Libya be imposed? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12615306?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Here's one view on what should be done. This guy generally seems to have some pretty good sources on the ground in Libya. http://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi Really worried it will take a massacre for the world to wake up and enforce a NFZ; even more worried this massacre may be in Azawiya. #Libya 31 minutes ago via web Regarding "no intervention" vs. NFZ; let's summarize the rebels position this way: "Cover our backs and we'll do the fighting." #Libya 30 minutes ago via web Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I'm in complete isolationist mode on this one. Every time we stick our hand out in that part of the world it comes back with teeth marks all over it, and I can't believe this situation will be any different no matter how it comes out. There's plenty of nations that can enforce any kind of no-fly zone, or even troop insertion without it having to (once again) come down to us leading the way, spending the money, losing lives... and of course, the usual "death to America" later. Sorry folks, but militarily we're a bit tied up at the moment. We can support them in spirit, and we can reach out when the dust settles. But until then, they have to prove something to me. Not vice versa. Let someone else do it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpyaks3 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 People realize that a no fly zone would require extensive bombing of air defenses right? It isn't exactly a simply easy to do thing. http://www.france24.com/en/20110301-libya-no-fly-zone-would-require-bombing-raids-us AFP - Enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya would first require bombing the north African nation's air defense systems, top US commander General James Mattis warned on Tuesday. A no-fly zone would require removing "the air defense capability first," Mattis, the head of Central Command, told a Senate hearing. "It would be a military operation," the general said. The United States and its allies are weighing possible military action, including a no-fly zone, as Libya's Moamer Kadhafi used his forces to crush mounting opposition. Although Kadhafi's military is badly outgunned by US and NATO aircraft, the regime has dozens of surface-to-air missiles that could shoot down allied warplanes. As the head of US Central Commnad, Mattis overseas American forces in the Middle East and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. US military doctrine usually requires knocking out an adversary's air defense missiles and radar any time air power is used. Officials said earlier the US military was moving air and naval forces near Libya to prepare for a range of options that could include a show of force or more direct intervention. The West heaped pressure on Kadhafi after loyalists tried to retake a key city near the capital following a show of defiance by the veteran leader the US dubbed "delusional." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Sorry folks, but militarily we're a bit tied up at the moment. We can support them in spirit, and we can reach out when the dust settles. But until then, they have to prove something to me. Not vice versa. Let someone else do it. ~Bang We're sending ships there now. So apparently we aren't that tied up. I don't think we will invade or anything like that, but we will almost certainly soon make some sort of military included effort to aid the people there. There is too much pressure on us and the international community right now to help out, for nothing to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 We're sending ships there now.So apparently we aren't that tied up. I don't think we will invade or anything like that, but we will almost certainly soon make some sort of military included effort to aid the people there. There is too much pressure on us and the international community right now to help out, for nothing to be done. True,, (kind of hard to use the Navy in Afghanistan, I guess ) I am hoping that they'll be used in a humantiarian aid effort,, for evacuation, floating hospitals, and the like. I'm against US involvement militarily. (Certainly NOT at the head of any force. If we send a small group to assist in a true multi-national force, OK if need be. ) And I want to be clear,, I'm not heartless, I feel for those caught in this battle, and I hope that the opposition wins swiftly and decisively. I think Gadaffi is one of the worst enemies of the people of the earth, and he always has been. Honestly, when I hear we're freezing assets here in the US, and in London, I have to wonder why in the **** anyone from either country would do business with him in the first place. we should have frozen his assets the moment he deposited them.. whenever that was. Actually, we should have just taken them and told him to go **** himself if he complained. Pardon the vernacular, but **** Gadafi. Hard. He deserves the worst that anyone can heap upon him. Drawing and quartering him would be a kindness ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 You wouldn't want us to act against UN rules would ya? We have the capabilities of course,but it leaves other areas exposed....beside being illegal and costly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koala Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 This is a case where my reflexive isolationism in regards to the ME is probably wrong. If we directly intervene, i.e. boots on the ground -- catastrophe. We'll cut the rebels at the knees, Qaddafi says look what the revolution brought -- invasion. However, enforcing a no-fly zone, maybe grounding Qaddafi's airforce, might actually buy as a LOT of good will in the region. Especially if we dont follow that up by any overt attempts to intervene in the resulting political turmoil. We stop Qaddafi from using his airforce to bomb them, let the rebels do the rest, and then keep our mouths shut during the period after the storm. It would appear as if we really did somethign nice for the Libyan people without demanding anything in return. Thatll buy us a lot of goodwill in the arab world, so long as we are careful not to appear to have ulteriour motives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 That isn't our fight. you do what you can non militarily but you don't intervene militarily. If Europe wants to, they can since they are closer. We don't invade Mexico to stop the drug trade which is having an impact on the U.S.; so why are going to send our troops to Libya. If we end up there, guaranteed it will be a disaster. Did we intervene in Africa in the 90's? Forget which country it was that basically had a genocide. Frankly, let other countries in the area help them. The Egyptian Military could help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 This is a case where my reflexive isolationism in regards to the ME is probably wrong.If we directly intervene, i.e. boots on the ground -- catastrophe. We'll cut the rebels at the knees, Qaddafi says look what the revolution brought -- invasion. However, enforcing a no-fly zone, maybe grounding Qaddafi's airforce, might actually buy as a LOT of good will in the region. Especially if we dont follow that up by any overt attempts to intervene in the resulting political turmoil. We stop Qaddafi from using his airforce to bomb them, let the rebels do the rest, and then keep our mouths shut during the period after the storm. It would appear as if we really did somethign nice for the Libyan people without demanding anything in return. Thatll buy us a lot of goodwill in the arab world, so long as we are careful not to appear to have ulteriour motives If it takes too long for something to happen and one of the towns gets massacred though, it might still make us look bad. I don't know that it's entirely fair though, considering all the complications in our way. Aside from that I think if we do institute some sort of no fly zone, we will need to define it clearly to the people there so they know exactly what we will be doing and the dangers. Also we might want to offer to sign some sort of agreement with the opposition to prove that we don't have further interests in Libya outside helping them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Is it true Qadaffy (or whichever spelling he's using today) is using foreign mercenaries from places like Chad to help keep power? Even if there's no push for a No Fly Zone, I think there are 2 steps America can take without making ourselves look bad in the process: 1. Humanitarian aid to the protesters, especially medical supplies and food. In the grand scheme of things, this would be a cheap option which would allow us to help their cause while letting them do most of the work. Pretty win-win for us. 2. Blockade Tripoli. If we already have naval ships there, this should be an easy step. Our planes could protect our ships rather than enforce no-fly zones, and we could prevent mercenaries and arms from getting to Qadaffy's side. If we took those 2 steps, we could then ask others (France, Britain, Italy, Spain, etc.) to take up some of the burdern as well, and the shared load would make it easier on all nations involved. Hell, maybe America runs a blockade while the Euro's enforce the NFZ and provides protection to the revolutionaries. I'm sure there are plenty of issues and complications I'm not condering, or other steps we could take, but there are ways for America to provide some help and goodwill without looking like imperialist warmongers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 That isn't our fight. you do what you can non militarily but you don't intervene militarily. If Europe wants to, they can since they are closer.We don't invade Mexico to stop the drug trade which is having an impact on the U.S.; so why are going to send our troops to Libya. If we end up there, guaranteed it will be a disaster. Did we intervene in Africa in the 90's? Forget which country it was that basically had a genocide. Frankly, let other countries in the area help them. The Egyptian Military could help. I've seen very few if any calls for invading Libya. I don't recall Mexico publicly asking for military help from us. I wouldn't be surprised if we are aiding them quietly however. I think a lot of people are looking at this situation with too much of a historical view, which may not be such a useful idea at the moment. We are at the moment in unprecedented times and these times require swift if not in some case instantaneous reactions and new ideas that are unencumbered by the weight of past grudges and policies. If you look at the way Middle Eastern leaders and others in the world have been caught so off guard by all of this, it's clear that many are clinging to old ways and methods of dealing with things that have suddenly become impotent, irrelevant, and in some cases increasingly disastrous when measured against the current situations. That isn't to say that we should rush into things without consideration, but if we want to keep up with events we will be required to set aside a lot of old ways of thinking and try to think ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 And if the Swine king prevails despite the perception? He does have supporters,allies and business partners....sorry,but I'm not a fan of military actions w/o real need. You want a revolution,ya better be prepared to bleed for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Satan's attorney, here. Suppose we do impose some kind of no-fly zone. (Or provide any other kind of aid, for that matter.) Then have we made a promise? Have we told the folks all over that region that if they rebel against their dictator, we'll help them, too? Have we sent a signal that if the dissidents in Iran decide to "go for it", then we'll help? And second question: If helping the rebels in Libya sends the message of "if the people decide to overthrow a dictator, the US will help them do it", is that a bad message to send? After all, a message like that gets delivered to the opposition in Iran, and to the Ayatollahs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 on the 2nd If you deliver that message you need to deliver on the promise...and be prepared for the consequences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/live-blog-libya-march-2 12:08am Have we been here before? A further UN resolution isn't needed before military intervention, says Britain's foreign secretary. William Hague's comments come just hours after French foreign minister Alain Juppe said there would not be any no-fly zone imposed without UN backing. Hague said: There have been occasions in the past when such a no-fly zone has had clear, legal, international justification even without a Security Council resolution - it depends on the situation on the ground. British officials would have to take "full legal advice" before acting with foreign allies without UN backing, he said, adding: "You would certainly need a very strong degree of international support." 1:09am If the UN were to decide to establish a no-fly zone over Libya, authorities warn that it wouldn't be the simplest of tasks. Quite aside from the the threat the 50 SA-6 surface-to-air missiles that Libya possess would pose, it would also take hundreds of aircraft to maintain a 24hr no-fly zone, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.Land bases would also be required, at the very least in southern Italy, but also in Greece, Egypt and possibly Tunisia. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-libya-no-fly-20110301,0,1283071.story By the way, CNN is saying we (US alone) have 8 ships in the Mediterranean, or will shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Probably the carrier group playing with the Iranian ships The Brits are talking a strong game....guilty over dealing with the swine? added the Enterprise and friends http://disasteremergencysupplies.com/snafu/2011/02/drumbeats-of-war-us-carriers-enterprise-and-kearsarge-to-libya/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.