|Quoting mham001 (Reply 261):|
pparently, pointing out that Englands own David Camaron has led the political charge (along with Sarkozy) is beyond your ability to comprehend.
Still not got the name right?
Yes, I know that Cameron, as well as Sarkozy, were keen to establish a NFZ, back when the rebels looked to have the upper hand and Gaddfi's air power looked to be an instrument of not only attacking the uprising, since there is also some history of him using air power very indiscriminately, during the 1980's when he had ambitions in Chad. (For ambitions read the uranium mined there).
Using jet fighters and even TU
-22 bombers against villages.
The French, assisting the Chadians (a former French colony), eventually ran his forces out of Chad by 1987.
Think on that. In this period, he supported just about every terrorist group known to man.
He effectively supplanted US Citizens as the main fund-er/armourer of the IRA, then there was Palestine groups (not the PLO - far too moderate for him), the Japanese Red Army, European far left terror groups, 'Carlos the Jackal'. Islamists in the Philippines and many more.
Given the concern in more recent years about extremist groups getting hold of nuclear material, just imagine if his ambitions in Chad had gone unchecked in the 1980's?
Though virtually unknown outside of France, the operations to deny him this were far more effective than that US raid in 1986, to which his response was the UTA DC-10 bombing, PA103, even more weapons for the IRA (the US F-111's used UK bases).
So slag off the British and French if you will, fact is the latter likely prevented nuclear material ever getting into Gaddafi's hands.
To the present, quite understandably the US is loath to get into another conflict, many in the UK feel the same too.
But the situation changed, that 'charge' did lead to the UN resolution now, US diplomatic pressure allowed it to be relevant to the situation that emerged last week of a city of 700,000 being at Gaddafi's mercy - or as he himself remarked - lack of it.
US diplomatic muscle almost certainly prevented Russia and China vetoing the resolution, that would have taken time and a lot of persuasion/arm twisting.
A pure NFZ only resolution will have been useless to prevent a total, bloody, final Gaddafi victory.
And this time, the accusations of the 'Europeans wanting the US to fight for them' is contradicted by the initial French air-strikes on Saturday that prevented Benghazi from falling, the UK contribution too, with others following not far behind.
Not to say that there are not deep reservations and fears of how this will play out.
However, events on the ground in Libya have dictated the change from a mooted 'pure NFZ' to the broader resolution.
France is committed in Afghanistan too, the UK even more so (with the coffins to prove it), there are questions about how long this operation in Libya can be sustained beyond the political.
The ball is in the rebel's court, they don't as yet have the organisation to match their fervour.
Best result? When the uprising started, numbers of Gaddafi's military defected, including some jet fighters.
Hence his use of foreign mercenaries (he has never fully trusted his armed forces), so hopefully the military pressure exerted by the Coalition, with the legal backing on the UN, will push more of them to defect/depose Gaddafi and his vile family. Once self preservation kicks in.
There is no appetite in either the US or Europe to put troops in, politically unacceptable nationally as well as internationally.
Unless other Arab states do, but then they seem to take the view that while they want Gaddafi gone as much as anyone, better the 'infidels' do the dirty work - helps them domestically with their populace - if it goes tits up, they can have the blame too.
Want to point fingers, that's the place to start.