|Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 131):|
That's been as clear as the light of day to me. Glad to hear others see it as well.
Bumper sticker warriors 2001-2009, bumper sticker peaceniks 2009-
We've already seen this with Afghanistan, before 2009 woe betide anyone 'unpatriotic' enough to dare question the use of military force!
|Quoting mt99 (Reply 150):|
And whats wrong with that? Are you looking for him to fail?
Yep, the effects on stability in the region, US prestige (usually a very
important factor for ex Hawks), never mind Libya civilians, don't feature in this torturous debates, well not since 2009 anyway.
Needs boiling down I think.
Crisis erupts in Libya, after the wholly unexpected falls of other (though rather more Western friendly) regimes in the region, discord in others.
Gaddafi, true to form, does not do things by half, (those Mirage F.1 pilots defected to Malta at the start since they might have accepted attacking armed rebels, not though as ordered, unleashing 30mm cannon and rockets on demonstrating crowds).
Rebellion blows up, some counties call for a NFZ, US not keen, all the legality issues, over stretched forces, it's probably lack of effect on the ground.
Rebellion gets in trouble, Gaddafi and sons make blood curdling threats of revenge against cities like Benghazi, here the dynamic in the White House shifts.
Hillary Clinton is sensitive to what the lack of concerted Western action in Rwanda in 1994 did to her husband's legacy, across the pond, leaders who had been calling for - and somewhat rebuffed for it - military action seem also prepared to not only contribute militarily, but politically too.
In getting a meaningful resolution through the UN, doing so would remove another obstacle, lack of legitimacy.
(Real legitimacy, not the highly partisan stuff on here).
The prospect of a 24 hour rolling news/Internet viewed massacre, potentially being stopped by a resolution allowing protection of citizens as well as a NFZ, has the odd situation of a more hawkish State Department compared to the Defence Dept.
In the end, that outweighed the very real, still apparent risks, that intervention brings.
Now the US is largely moving aside from the core military tasks in Libya.
Though the UK could lob some Tomahawks and Storm Shadow missiles, as well as France too with the latter, having a USN
ex Trident sub packed with all those Tomahawks, as well as some other unique to the US capabilities as B-2 bombers, would enable the take-down of the (remaining?) Libyan Air Defence system very quickly.
How effective it would have otherwise been against Western aircraft we did not get to find out, that is the point of doing it!
Even so, the situation was so desperate around Benghazi, that even with the passing of the Resolution 1973 (which happens to be a considerable triumph for US diplomacy considering Russia and China's usual stance), Gaddafi's forces could still carry out a massacre in the window of time they had left before and during the take-down of the AD
Which is why Sarkozy launched the French air-strikes on day 1 in close support of Benghazi, prior to the main effort of suppressing defences started.
(He has a lot of ground to make up in that region, having called both Tunisia and to an extent Egypt so wrongly).
He told President Obama and PM
Cameron after his aircraft were in the air
, however that's another irony in all this, usually acting first, telling allies after, is from the other side of the Pond!