Now that we are committed to a no-fly zone (an unwise idea, I think, given the absence of consistent aims or defined objectives), we must support it and ensure its success.
We must prepare for a number of paradoxes that might arise. For instance, do we attack from the air targets on the ground, given that Qaddafi’s ongoing strategy likely will be to use tanks and artillery, often at night and among civilian landscapes, to beat back the rebels? (I assume that Qaddafi can still quite handily defeat the rebels without jets and gunships.) Does the no-fly zone, in the fashion of its previous counterpart over Iraq, escalate to more offensive tactics, such as taking out depots or armor concentrations, given that we have raised the ante and don’t want our newfound allies to lose with their advantages of Western air cover?
Are we still sort of neutral, or should we begin coordinating our tactics? And given the savagery of the last two weeks and the proclamations that Qaddafi will be subject to international justice, we must be prepared for a bitter finale and for reprisals on all sides. So does our support for the rebels include some efforts to ensure they do not end up doing to their enemies what their enemies did to them? (In this regard, who exactly are the rebels? And what are their aims, methods, and ideology?)
Also, it might be wise not to talk anymore about what we might do, lest we end up in a close-Guantanamo-in-a-year embarrassment. Let Qaddafi guess what our limitations are. To avoid a congressional revolt in the middle of an air campaign, as happened during the Clinton bombing of Milosevic, at some point President Obama needs to get a joint congressional resolution of the sort we saw on Iraq in October 2002.
In sum, I think we are going to learn that stopping Qaddafi’s air power is just the beginning of a messy situation. Qaddafi will be frantically searching for ways — amid public denials — to slaughter the rebels and to embarrass the West that is now committed to defeating him. Given what we know of over 20 years of intervention in the Middle East, we should assume that today’s supporters of action will become tomorrow’s ‘I told you so’ critics. Allies peel off rather quickly; the direction of insurgencies is unpredictable; and air power alone rarely changes conditions on the ground.
Our decision, I’m afraid, does not mean that rebels will soon surge into Tripoli to proclaim a new democratic republic with ample gratitude to the Western planes above them. I hope I am terribly mistaken.
I'm starting to have a real Wilsonian vibe here. It was one thing for Teddy Roosevelt to use his big stick policy, but Wilson took it to extremes, intervening just about everywhere he could and sending troops all over.
Now we have the Bush-Obama duo. Bush spent too much, expanded government too much, got entangled in long wars without well-defined exits in Asia and the Middle East. So, Barack Obama says, "This is bad. We need much more of it!" Will he invade Mexico next?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWithin a day, expect atrocities, staged with empty shoes of children scattered among lifeless bodies on an empty landscape shaking with wailing women who know these deaths are by the hands of Qad’gadfly forces, perpetrated so that multitudes of Mohammedans can point their finger at us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVictor, Victor, Victor... When are you going to realize that "we" don't need to do anything, because there is no "we" in the USA. There probably never was. Certainly, not now.
There is no "we" because when students apply to colleges commensurate with their intellect, they are asked on the application about the social status of their parents, their race and gender, and whether or not they play basketball.
There is no "we" because the supposed capitalist system has done nothing (zero, zip, nada) to stop that. Why bother, when you can import "them" in droves at lower wages, legally or not, and "they" don't give a hoot about the USA except as a job shop.
There is no "we" because the US military is just another large, loud, taxpayer supported organization, rather like those public employee unions in Wisconsin. But you don't see the similarity, do you?
There is no "we" because many of the white folks in the USA are descendants of those who got free land taken from the natives more than a century ago, but many other white folks got none of that. Yet it's skin color that counts, when "diversity" is dished out, and somehow the non-inheritors are supposed to be like the inheritors, who could care less about them.
There is no "we" by virtue of Anglo culture, if there ever was, because the UK has rapidly descended into a multiculturalism that criminalizes and shuns just about anyone whom I would care to include as "we," if I were so inclined. How about you?
There is no "we" because, at least in my lifetime, various ethnic groups have sought to mobilize the US military for their own foreign purposes. I can name several, and some are quite fashionable, then and now.
Do what you want. I can't stop you. Just don't include me, when you talk about "we."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen the Arab League asked for support, the Dems couldnt wait to deliver such a gift. As if it would erase all of Americas past "transgressions" towards the Middle East. So, our help was a bit much says the A.L. I guess that was one of the six un-intended consequences the intelligence community didnt seem to think of. I think we were all just HAD.
When do we learn our lesson?
Im not expecting a "let me be clear" answer from our Nobel Peace Prize Winner President
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Never_Outraged
I’ll second that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, I sure think we are a nation of "we" and I support our troops in this mission. I don't think "we" as a nation should stand around and let people be butchered when "we" can do something to stop it. I am glad "we" finally acted and I an glad Clinton had enough manhood to ensure "we" did so. Never thought I would ever write that, but it's true.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, and this part of the "we" sees nothing in common between the US military and the Wisconsin public unions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusea bunch of wee wee
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, Victor, but no, I won't support this insanity.
1 - I think we have absolutely Z-E-R-O national interest in the matter. I've typed this as slowly as I can.
2 - As for humanitarian concerns, please. Let me say two words: Darfur and Bahrain. Or two more: Rwanda. Or Tehran. Let's not insult each-other's intelligence. In Libya, one armed side is fighting against another armed side, and the latter has actually attacked the former. There is no aggressive genocidal intention from an all-powerful regime against hapless peasants. Let's get real, shall we?
3 - Sorry, but this time the shoe is on the other foot. I will NOT support a war launched by a narcissistic, serial vacationer Marxist community organizer who sailed into the presidency for being petulant about past wars. No way, sir. I'll scream against it louder than Obama and his traitorous minions have screamed about Iraq, thank you very much.
4 - This war is unnecessary. Who we support and why is unclear, as is its purpose. It comes when we are mired in debt, nobody has attacked us, unemployment hovers around 10%, gasoline is creeping up to $4 a gallon, and we are already over-deployed in two other dubious theaters. So, don't ask me to go along to get along. I don't want to get along with this traitorous administration and the amateurs it has employed.
4 - Ah, the international community. The U.N. can go stick their resolutions you know where, or else they better get vocal about why the world thought Saddam had WMDs. In any case: Do the Europeans want this war? Do the British want this war, while the jet engines from the plane that flew home the Lockerbie bomber are still hot? Then let them fight it, pay for it, and explain away to the world the inevitable propaganda pictures of maimed civilians mangled by Western missiles.
5 - Sorry, but I won't give the media the satisfaction of playing nice after they have all but sabotaged what they saw as "Bush's" wars. I hope this insane, purposeless and causeless adventure peters out to nothing (and soon!), that enough people scream loud enough to stop it before it becomes another drain on our national treasury and before it gets us too deeply involved in yet another country we have no business with.
6 - Oh, right. This time we are "following" a "world consensus," not merely "going it alone" ("to go" is not a transitive verb, by the way, whoever coined this hackneyed puke-inducer), as my liberal friends like to finger-wag. Go tell that to the 30 countries who fought alongside us in Iraq, before anyone lectures me about "going it alone."
So, to sum up, no way in hell. I won't support this hare-brained insanity, as I won't support the disgusting hypocrisy of those who launched it, as well as of those who explain it away on the news-wires just because the cool black guy with a "D" after his name got us into it.
Count me out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlthough much bigger than Iraq, it is also much easier to control. Libya has no trees, is flat, and you can see everything that moves from miles around between towns. Iraq has plenty of varied terrain, rivers, deserts, dunes, hills, hamlets, and is a mess to figure out who is who. Libya is pretty easy, McDaffy troops wear uniforms, rebels don't (those that switched sides changed their markings to rebel ones).
This won't take too long, air power can control Libya so long as rebels continue to push towards Tripoli one town at a time with cover. Once they reach Tripoli it might get real interesting though.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Now that we are committed to a no-fly zone (an unwise idea, I think, given the absence of consistent aims or defined objectives), we must support it and ensure its success."
Without "consistent aims or defined objectives" by what yardstick do you measure success? If Qaddafi's planes remain on the ground but tens of thousands die in Benghazi is it a success? If Qaddafi is overthrown and replaced by tribal gang leaders is it success?
Success cannot be defined without goals and it appears clear that in this region we have none.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne more time, please answer the following simple questions:
1) What is our urgent and critical national interest in a no-fly zone?
2) What is the end game strategy and how does the no-fly zone accomplish our ends?
3) Why are we risking our national treasure for a culture that hates America and America's national interests?
We have learned nothing from Iraq or Afghanistan. This is a completely futile waste of time and resources.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Now that we are committed to a no-fly zone (an unwise idea, I think, given the absence of consistent aims or defined objectives), we must support it and ensure its success."
Aside from agreeing the "no-fly" zone is unwise, I don't buy this for a second.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, no, no! No more war! We need to get the H out of the Mideast yesterday and deploy our troops where they are needed -- along the border with Mexico. If "we" do anything, it should be to impeach Obama for arrogating war-making power to himself. The Constitution is being flagrantly ignored! This is WAR. And the U.N. is NOT empowered by the U.S. Constitution to give our President the authority to go to WAR! No, VDH, it matters NOT a whit that this has been done. To say that because it is being done, therefore we need to support it?? Hell, no!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA 'no-fly' zone soon becomes a 'no-tank' and 'no-artillery' zone, which becomes a 'no-stick-your-head-out-the-foxhole' zone, which ultimately becomes a 'we-surrender' zone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHit hard, swiftly, and savagely; leave promptly, and whomever is left tell them, "It's in your hands; if you mess around again, we'll be back."
I strongly disagree with this intervention for many of the reasons Voltaire notes. But I would put aside all of my reservations if there were a proper debate and vote in Congress supporting "regime change without boots on the ground, unless absolutely necessary", which is the unstated but actual policy of this administration. Honestly, I don't think such a measure would pass. Not if the measure candidly stated that the assassination of a foreign head of state was our aim, and it seems to be, given the latest news from Tripoli.
This has already been a very rough year, hasn't it? But imagine how we'll feel in 2012 if we don't successfully eject this sock puppet from the White House.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDr. Hanson,
I'm afraid your forebodings are better informed than your hopes. This is gonna be an ugly mess, and if know what the desired " success" is supposed to look like, you know more than the White House, the Pentagon and both Houses of Congress combined. Only one thing is certain: whoever "wins", it surely won't be America's taxpayers or soldiers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVoltaire, I think you misunderstand Victor's opening point. Despite his personal feeling that this intervention is unwise, once the decision has been made to use our military, it is imperative that Americans do everything to see that we succeed. I would hope that all on the right understand this.
Yes, Congress should be consulted and an authorization sought if this become weeks and not days as I expect it will. A no-fly zone is a tool to maintain the status quo, not to implement change. Unless we change the rules and goals into an offensive mission, this will be a long, drawn out action.
External Link
We should not seek to undermine the President, but we can and must work to refine it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVoltaire,
We have no national interest in trying to remove a terrorist-sponsoring, anti-American dictator from the Muslim world? I take it you were against all the Gulf War/Iraq actions in the past 20 years? And you really think 'there is no aggressive genocidal intention from an all-powerful regime against hapless peasants'? Perhaps Qaddafi will, should he prevail, welcome the poorly armed rebels with open arms. I think not. Past humanitarian failures are no excuse for present inaction. We should use this rebellion as an excuse to get rid of Qaddafi, from the air or by supporting friendlies on the ground. Should they win, the rebels probably won't create a Jeffersonian democracy, but talk about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Last I looked, Japanese democracy wasn't that great either, but it sure as hell beats military/Imperial rule.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. VDH is wrong in his first sentence. No we must not support this ileagle war. When did Congress vote, Mr. Hansen?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse