Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

All things Libya

Recommended Posts

We will stand by and watch the Saudis, and maybe even Saleh in Yemen, prevent a revolution in those places. But we will win no friends by standing by and watching Qadaffi slaughter the rebels in Libya. Sometimes there are no good choices, and we must chose between the least worst to two bad ones.

 

I agree with MarkJohnson. The arab world will probably forginve us on the previous two, especially if they don't get too bloody. Not helping in Libya will destroy what little goodwill we might have or ever have with the arab street.

No can afford. Sorry.

 

I agree on the full meal deal. Just talking an order of fries. We spend more in a couple of days of Afghanistan than what I'm thinking.

 

They do not have much. About 150 pieces of functioning mobile artillery of various types, and a heck of a lot of that had to remain behind in the west by Tripoli. Their air force is 60's and 70's Soviet vintage, and there isn't much of that still flying.

 

We do not have to kill it all either. Much of the army defected, and they took a lot with them, but not a lot of the good stuff. These guys WILL fight, if given half a chance.

Preach on brother!

 

I'm betting 3-5 days of USAF and Naval air strikes and the playing field will be very level. Every once in a while, it's definitely in our strategic interests to pick a winner and a loser. Qadaffi needs to be assured of being the loser this time. The world has put up with enough of his shenanigans for long enough.

 

Edit to add: page 1 and 2 ownage... Sweet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing Qadaffi's forces are at most 2-3 days away from taking Bengazhi. Once that happens, the whole rebellion will have failed. Meanwhile, the Us and Europe dithers in NATO meetings and rhetoric. What a wasted opportunity.

 

I predict history will show that the amount of $$ we might have spent helping the rebels by setting up a No-fly zone or other aid will pale compared to what we WILL spend dealing with a recalcitrant Qadaffi over the coming years as he looks for payback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, Paul Bremer, Cliff May, Randy Scheuneman call on Obama to institue a no-fly zone and explore option of targeted strikes against regime assets in effort to prevent further bloodshed....

 

I suggest these whack-job hawks don own their flak jackets and camo and get their, and their childrens asses right over to Tripoli and help the rebels on the gound right now!!

 

What a bunch of nattering nabobs of nihilism....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, Paul Bremer, Cliff May, Randy Scheuneman call on Obama to institue a no-fly zone and explore option of targeted strikes against regime assets in effort to prevent further bloodshed....

 

I suggest these whack-job hawks don own their flak jackets and camo and get their, and their childrens asses right over to Tripoli and help the rebels on the gound right now!!

 

What a bunch of nattering nabobs of nihilism....

The Simple Jack La-Z-Boy Warrior Division ® expands!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, Paul Bremer, Cliff May, Randy Scheuneman call on Obama to institue a no-fly zone and explore option of targeted strikes against regime assets in effort to prevent further bloodshed....

 

I suggest these whack-job hawks don own their flak jackets and camo and get their, and their childrens asses right over to Tripoli and help the rebels on the gound right now!!

 

What a bunch of nattering nabobs of nihilism....

 

Yes, the neo-cons never met a war they didn't like. Does that mean that there is no situation where force is not warrented?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

marines.gif

 

Yeah. I suspect there was a lot of push-back from the military. They knew they would be getting no more money for this, and that would hurt the nation-building projects that they are building their careers on. Not directly, but it would focus the publics attention on money again, and that's bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to suspect - Gates came out and flatly declared that a no-fly zone was the equivalence of declaring war. Of course - unless you want politicians telling the military what they can and cannot do once they have the mission....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing Qadaffi's forces are at most 2-3 days away from taking Bengazhi. Once that happens, the whole rebellion will have failed. Meanwhile, the Us and Europe dithers in NATO meetings and rhetoric. What a wasted opportunity.

 

I predict history will show that the amount of $$ we might have spent helping the rebels by setting up a No-fly zone or other aid will pale compared to what we WILL spend dealing with a recalcitrant Qadaffi over the coming years as he looks for payback.

 

 

I think it's over too. The French have withdrawn their support of no-fly, on the grounds that at this point it would do no good. They are right. The rebels are done, and hopefully they will surrender.

 

There really is a problem with the Saudis and the Arab league supporting anything meaningful against the rebels in Libya and at the same time shooting the rebels in the streets of Bahrain. Not going to be them.

 

Obama has stated that Qadhaffi must go, and then didn't lift a finger to help them when he turned the dogs loose. Not good. Then there was Obama saying that the "noose is tightening" or something like that the other night. His "last throes" moment, which I feel confident will come back to haunt him during the campaign. Japan, Bahrain, government shut down, I believe they were overwhelmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First sign he gets it...Obama now asking for a "no drive" zone around Benghazi, and sometime tomorrow.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/world/africa/17diplomacy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

China or Russia veto would put them in a bad spot if there is a bloodbath, so they just might abstain.

 

If granted, it lays a very literal "line in the sand" for US (or whomever) action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama has stated that Qadhaffi must go

 

Clinton stated that Saddam must go, as we have been reminded many times.

 

Fast forward some years, and when the nation building is going badly in Libya under some Republican, and this quote will be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama has stated that Qadhaffi must go

 

Clinton stated that Saddam must go, as we have been reminded many times.

 

Fast forward some years, and when the nation building is going badly in Libya under some Republican, and this quote will be fun.

Take the party out of the equation and I still don't see how we afford it. I started a thread about fiscal responsibility within minutes of starting a thread advocating taking action in Libya to see if anyone would see the inherent conflict in the positions...but I just cannot get my head around this.

 

Now, I am all for France and Britain doing their thing and taking action, and I am all for doing what we can do to help, short of military involvement. I just don't see how we can afford to do much at this point in time. If we cannot afford to provide health care to our own people here at home, we cannot afford to provide freedom to every person who seeks it around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama has stated that Qadhaffi must go

 

Clinton stated that Saddam must go, as we have been reminded many times.

 

Fast forward some years, and when the nation building is going badly in Libya under some Republican, and this quote will be fun.

Take the party out of the equation and I still don't see how we afford it. I started a thread about fiscal responsibility within minutes of starting a thread advocating taking action in Libya to see if anyone would see the inherent conflict in the positions...but I just cannot get my head around this.

 

Now, I am all for France and Britain doing their thing and taking action, and I am all for doing what we can do to help, short of military involvement. I just don't see how we can afford to do much at this point in time. If we cannot afford to provide health care to our own people here at home, we cannot afford to provide freedom to every person who seeks it around the world.

Liberty or death, Baby, or, ideally, enough of both to keep us entertained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama has stated that Qadhaffi must go

 

Clinton stated that Saddam must go, as we have been reminded many times.

 

Fast forward some years, and when the nation building is going badly in Libya under some Republican, and this quote will be fun.

Take the party out of the equation and I still don't see how we afford it. I started a thread about fiscal responsibility within minutes of starting a thread advocating taking action in Libya to see if anyone would see the inherent conflict in the positions...but I just cannot get my head around this.

 

Now, I am all for France and Britain doing their thing and taking action, and I am all for doing what we can do to help, short of military involvement. I just don't see how we can afford to do much at this point in time. If we cannot afford to provide health care to our own people here at home, we cannot afford to provide freedom to every person who seeks it around the world.

Sol, I totally agree with you that Europe should most of the work and $$, but we all know they won't. And your problem is you keep looking at this as a humanitarian effort. We're not going to do anything over there out of a sense of charity, this is totally a strategic move. As it should be. It's not about e Libyan rebels or e civilians, it's about oil to a small degree and about image and long term stability in the region. The Capitol we can buy in the Arab street by successfully showing them we really care more about democracy and liberty than stable dictators will go a long way and allow us to do more things in the region that is in our self-interest. It's really more about the oil, IMHO, to the EU and more of a long term goodwill move for us. So yeah, the impending cost sucks but like in chess - sometimes you sacrifice a rook to take the king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see it, Jeff. Between North Africa and the Middle East, we've mucked around that area so much, that I think that the only thing that could foster any good will would be letting them settle it themselves. Otherwise, we invariably get sucked into another nation building episode, and by now I think it is clear that we do not do that very well. Sure, we can talk about oil and how that will justify it, but once we're committed, that benefit to us seems to be forgotten and goes quietly away.

 

That aside, we cannot afford it. I would like to see such expense justified by anyone around here who has been complaining about Obama's domestic spending (not pointing at you specifically, Jeff). I would like to know how spending at home is unacceptable, but this is okey dokey. I just cannot see it. If our military industrial complex would like to fund it, I am all for it, but something tells me that if you and I are not making it profitable for them, their benevolent motives will fade.

 

Tom's got it right. To use a different quote... "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me-you can't get fooled again."

 

We should do everything possible to put pressure on the regime, as long as it's free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against the weapons Qadhaffi has, they had no chance. There have been a lot of cases in history of despots "cleaning up" rebellions, and they can be pretty ugly things. In those rebel held areas, every male of military age becomes "questionable", and the process of dragging them out of their beds in the middle of the night begins. They may claim they had nothing to do with it, but certainly they know somebody who was, and if they are for real (or to save their lives and the lives of their wife and kids), then they must start giving names. Khmer Rouge, Joe Stalin, pretty much every tin-pot in Africa...it's a long list.

 

If we lack the wisdom to know that there are limits to what we can do, and are like Wes Clark says, completely responsible for re-building the nation no matter what, I would agree that this is a slippery slop that we perhaps should avoid, but I really doubt that any spending bills will get by Congress on that. I am concerned that so many people seem unable to even imagine the idea or limited engagement though. That's a real worry.

 

I believe that the old order in the ME is doomed, probably not completely in our live times, but the old ways of backing brutal despots isn't going to work. We need street cred in there, real public respect. It's not that hard to get. What the US is is something they aspire to. Really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Examples of such limited engagements leading to nation building missions have been offered.

 

Why not list the long term successes of such limited engagements? Where should we point with pride?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been a lot of cases in history of despots "cleaning up" rebellions, and they can be pretty ugly things. In those rebel held areas, every male of military age becomes "questionable", and the process of dragging them out of their beds in the middle of the night begins.

 

And if the rebels gain power, many of them tend to repay that kind of attention in kind.

 

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Possibly inverted as to who is persecuting whom, but fundamentally the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Examples of such limited engagements leading to nation building missions have been offered.

 

Why not list the long term successes of such limited engagements? Where should we point with pride?

I would say that we could look at either side of that coin by discussing Bosnia and Somalia. To me, those present a stark contrast between limited mission with defined exit strategery and limited mission that turned into nation building and went all bad.

 

Iraq? Who the hell knows, because the reasons for going there changed every time the old reason turned out to be false or unobtainable, until we came up with one that would last a while, namely fulfilling their dreams of democracy.

 

Afghanistan? That WAS our fight, until we let it slip across the border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gadhafi is as trustworthy as any other despot.

 

So the US, Europe or Arab League enforces the no fly and drops a bomb on a radar site.

 

The brave colonel then says, "Didn't we save a few barrels of chemicals from the old days. I'm in deep shit anyway, just go ahead and lob them on them rascally rebels. I'll show them."

 

Who is fucked then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Examples of such limited engagements leading to nation building missions have been offered.

 

Why not list the long term successes of such limited engagements? Where should we point with pride?

 

Panama, Grenada, Kuwait, the DR, Haiti, Serbia...just off the top of my head, but I would not use the word "pride". This is not about preening our own ego, it's about saving lives.

 

Somalia too, for reasons I doubt you would understand.

 

This nation-building stuff like Iraq and Afghanistan is a pretty recent phenomena, yet that has become the model in the collective memory of the American public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh-oh. You said the word "collective." Say it three times in a row and Carl will pop up, like Beetlejuice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh-oh. You said the word "collective." Say it three times in a row and Carl will pop up, like Beetlejuice.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to the Thorazine Kid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Examples of such limited engagements leading to nation building missions have been offered.

 

Why not list the long term successes of such limited engagements? Where should we point with pride?

 

Panama, Grenada, Kuwait, the DR, Haiti, Serbia...just off the top of my head, but I would not use the word "pride". This is not about preening our own ego, it's about saving lives.

 

Somalia too, for reasons I doubt you would understand.

 

This nation-building stuff like Iraq and Afghanistan is a pretty recent phenomena, yet that has become the model in the collective memory of the American public.

 

Your examples seem to have American boots on the ground, so I assume you're OK with the fact that we'll be going into Libya? When will we leave?

 

Try me on Somalia. I'm not quite as stupid as you think. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Examples of such limited engagements leading to nation building missions have been offered.

 

Why not list the long term successes of such limited engagements? Where should we point with pride?

 

Panama, Grenada, Kuwait, the DR, Haiti, Serbia...just off the top of my head, but I would not use the word "pride". This is not about preening our own ego, it's about saving lives.

 

Somalia too, for reasons I doubt you would understand.

 

This nation-building stuff like Iraq and Afghanistan is a pretty recent phenomena, yet that has become the model in the collective memory of the American public.

 

Your examples seem to have American boots on the ground, so I assume you're OK with the fact that we'll be going into Libya? When will we leave?

 

Try me on Somalia. I'm not quite as stupid as you think. ;)

 

You are not grasping the concept of limited engagement Tom, if you think it dependent on whether or not there are

boots on the ground or not. Is that deliberate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand "limited engagement"...right up to the point where the first F-18 has a malfunction and goes down in Libya and the crew needs to be rescued...Now your "limited engagement" involves 12 a/c and crews with ROE's that allow them to use force to protect the extraction forces and to recover the crew. Once you're there, all bets are off. Gates was correct, enforcing a no fly zone essentially puts US forces on a war footing. "Limited engagement" is a euphemism/spin to make politicians and the American people feel more comfortable with the idea of "sneaking" into a conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW guys, JBSF knows this. You CANNOT enforce a No Fly zone where the adversary has operational air defenses. IOW, someone is going to get themselves "HARM'd" in the process of establishing our CAPs over any NFZ. If you're one of those air defense targets, "limited engagement" is going to look A LOT like war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we allow OEF and OIF to go on year after year and we won't do this?

 

You never heard me say that OEF and OIF were good ideas.

 

Actually, I'd like to equate wars to hot chicks: You may want to bang all of them, but you can only afford to bang one...so pick wisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we allow OEF and OIF to go on year after year and we won't do this?

 

You never heard me say that OEF and OIF were good ideas.

 

Actually, I'd like to equate wars to hot chicks: You may want to bang all of them, but you can only afford to bang one...so pick wisely.

All true. My comment was meant for the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand "limited engagement"...right up to the point where the first F-18 has a malfunction and goes down in Libya and the crew needs to be rescued...Now your "limited engagement" involves 12 a/c and crews with ROE's that allow them to use force to protect the extraction forces and to recover the crew. Once you're there, all bets are off. Gates was correct, enforcing a no fly zone essentially puts US forces on a war footing. "Limited engagement" is a euphemism/spin to make politicians and the American people feel more comfortable with the idea of "sneaking" into a conflict.

 

What you are referring to is "mission creep". A bit of that, at least here and there, is inevitable in most all engagements, limited or not.

 

Not that it hasn't been used just as you say it has, or anything, but I suspect this nation isn't up for anymore nation building at the moment. I think Hillary had to drag Obama and Gates kicking and screaming into this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW guys, JBSF knows this. You CANNOT enforce a No Fly zone where the adversary has operational air defenses. IOW, someone is going to get themselves "HARM'd" in the process of establishing our CAPs over any NFZ. If you're one of those air defense targets, "limited engagement" is going to look A LOT like war.

 

you are absolutely correct. A NFZ assumes the enforcer has air superiority at a minimum, supremecy is desired. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Libyan IADS immediately gets whacked before we start to fly, but like Iraq in Northern and Southern Watch - we told the Iraqis that any system that targeted a coalition a/c (i.e. showed hostile intent) would die. The problem with that was that the Iraqis violated that frequently and targeted coalition aircraft numerous times, putting us in danger and puckered my asshole on more than one occassion. Fortunately there are some Iraqi SA-2 and 3 operators with Allah right now because they did that to me :D So I wouldn't say that the NFZ is automatically begun with airstrikes right off the bat. But you tell the Libyans that even one tickle on an AD radar and the bombs start falling and they ALL die. And then you send out the pilots with some pretty iron clad ROE that allows them to do just that.

 

And I do not know if Libya has SA-10s. If so, that would be VERY bad juju. I would not want to be a Hornet driver facing one of those. If they DO have SA-10s - I would expect the F-22 Raptors just found their current world justification.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW guys, JBSF knows this. You CANNOT enforce a No Fly zone where the adversary has operational air defenses. IOW, someone is going to get themselves "HARM'd" in the process of establishing our CAPs over any NFZ. If you're one of those air defense targets, "limited engagement" is going to look A LOT like war.

 

What IISS and wiki say is all I know for sure. The overall take I hear is that he had started to re-build his economy after "giving up" a collection of junk we called a nuke program, and had not yet begun to re-build his military. I don't suppose he saw a reason to suspect he would need it in a hurry. Things were going well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are not grasping the concept of limited engagement Tom, if you think it dependent on whether or not there are

boots on the ground or not. Is that deliberate?

 

No, I just had not seen anyone advocating this limited engagement mention that they often wind up with boots on the ground. Just a few cheap airstrikes! Is that deliberate? When has that alone worked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are not grasping the concept of limited engagement Tom, if you think it dependent on whether or not there are

boots on the ground or not. Is that deliberate?

 

No, I just had not seen anyone advocating this limited engagement mention that they often wind up with boots on the ground. Just a few cheap airstrikes! Is that deliberate? When has that alone worked?

 

I imagine there will be some boots on the ground with the rebels. Forward observers. Not going to be a lot of them, but then, they might as well be British or French.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW guys, JBSF knows this. You CANNOT enforce a No Fly zone where the adversary has operational air defenses. IOW, someone is going to get themselves "HARM'd" in the process of establishing our CAPs over any NFZ. If you're one of those air defense targets, "limited engagement" is going to look A LOT like war.

 

you are absolutely correct. A NFZ assumes the enforcer has air superiority at a minimum, supremecy is desired. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Libyan IADS immediately gets whacked before we start to fly, but like Iraq in Northern and Southern Watch - we told the Iraqis that any system that targeted a coalition a/c (i.e. showed hostile intent) would die. The problem with that was that the Iraqis violated that frequently and targeted coalition aircraft numerous times, putting us in danger and puckered my asshole on more than one occassion. Fortunately there are some Iraqi SA-2 and 3 operators with Allah right now because they did that to me :D So I wouldn't say that the NFZ is automatically begun with airstrikes right off the bat. But you tell the Libyans that even one tickle on an AD radar and the bombs start falling and they ALL die. And then you send out the pilots with some pretty iron clad ROE that allows them to do just that.

 

And I do not know if Libya has SA-10s. If so, that would be VERY bad juju. I would not want to be a Hornet driver facing one of those. If they DO have SA-10s - I would expect the F-22 Raptors just found their current world justification.....

 

They keep saying that all he has is SA-6's.

 

As the deal with the other members of this "coalition" come to light, an interesting thing is that no US assets are, as of now, being used to hit anything in Libya. We are command and control only.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-allied-forces-converge-for-libya-attack/2011/03/18/ABUQkvr_story.html

 

Under the War Powers Resolution, the President must ask for permission from Congress to attack anybody with the US military, unless defending the US itself. Obama has informed Congress of the details of the plan, describing the role we are assuming, apparently to allow them to object if they feel that exceeds the powers of his office. The comments in the article indicate there was none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama has informed Congress of the details of the plan, describing the role we are assuming, apparently to allow them to object if they feel that exceeds the powers of his office. The comments in the article indicate there was none.

IF they feel that he exceeds the power of his office? Watch this.

 

 

 

Hey Nanny, Booby, etc.... Has Obama exceeded the power of his office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW guys, JBSF knows this. You CANNOT enforce a No Fly zone where the adversary has operational air defenses. IOW, someone is going to get themselves "HARM'd" in the process of establishing our CAPs over any NFZ. If you're one of those air defense targets, "limited engagement" is going to look A LOT like war.

 

you are absolutely correct. A NFZ assumes the enforcer has air superiority at a minimum, supremecy is desired. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Libyan IADS immediately gets whacked before we start to fly, but like Iraq in Northern and Southern Watch - we told the Iraqis that any system that targeted a coalition a/c (i.e. showed hostile intent) would die. The problem with that was that the Iraqis violated that frequently and targeted coalition aircraft numerous times, putting us in danger and puckered my asshole on more than one occassion. Fortunately there are some Iraqi SA-2 and 3 operators with Allah right now because they did that to me :D So I wouldn't say that the NFZ is automatically begun with airstrikes right off the bat. But you tell the Libyans that even one tickle on an AD radar and the bombs start falling and they ALL die. And then you send out the pilots with some pretty iron clad ROE that allows them to do just that.

 

And I do not know if Libya has SA-10s. If so, that would be VERY bad juju. I would not want to be a Hornet driver facing one of those. If they DO have SA-10s - I would expect the F-22 Raptors just found their current world justification.....

 

They keep saying that all he has is SA-6's.

 

I was watching anderson Cooper last night and they were showing video of pro-Qadaffi forces massing near Benghazi. It was like a SAM and AAA vis-recce test. I counted a couple of ZSU23-4s, an SA-8 and an SA-13. None of those are to be taken lightly despite being 1980s technology. SA-6s are the same. I would really rather not go up against one if I could avoid it. Any one of those could ruin your day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW guys, JBSF knows this. You CANNOT enforce a No Fly zone where the adversary has operational air defenses. IOW, someone is going to get themselves "HARM'd" in the process of establishing our CAPs over any NFZ. If you're one of those air defense targets, "limited engagement" is going to look A LOT like war.

 

you are absolutely correct. A NFZ assumes the enforcer has air superiority at a minimum, supremecy is desired. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Libyan IADS immediately gets whacked before we start to fly, but like Iraq in Northern and Southern Watch - we told the Iraqis that any system that targeted a coalition a/c (i.e. showed hostile intent) would die. The problem with that was that the Iraqis violated that frequently and targeted coalition aircraft numerous times, putting us in danger and puckered my asshole on more than one occassion. Fortunately there are some Iraqi SA-2 and 3 operators with Allah right now because they did that to me :D So I wouldn't say that the NFZ is automatically begun with airstrikes right off the bat. But you tell the Libyans that even one tickle on an AD radar and the bombs start falling and they ALL die. And then you send out the pilots with some pretty iron clad ROE that allows them to do just that.

 

And I do not know if Libya has SA-10s. If so, that would be VERY bad juju. I would not want to be a Hornet driver facing one of those. If they DO have SA-10s - I would expect the F-22 Raptors just found their current world justification.....

 

They keep saying that all he has is SA-6's.

 

I was watching anderson Cooper last night and they were showing video of pro-Qadaffi forces massing near Benghazi. It was like a SAM and AAA vis-recce test. I counted a couple of ZSU23-4s, an SA-8 and an SA-13. None of those are to be taken lightly despite being 1980s technology. SA-6s are the same. I would really rather not go up against one if I could avoid it. Any one of those could ruin your day.

 

Believe me. They might be old, but give me a few of my friends and we could kick anyone's ass with those old systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW guys, JBSF knows this. You CANNOT enforce a No Fly zone where the adversary has operational air defenses. IOW, someone is going to get themselves "HARM'd" in the process of establishing our CAPs over any NFZ. If you're one of those air defense targets, "limited engagement" is going to look A LOT like war.

 

you are absolutely correct. A NFZ assumes the enforcer has air superiority at a minimum, supremecy is desired. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Libyan IADS immediately gets whacked before we start to fly, but like Iraq in Northern and Southern Watch - we told the Iraqis that any system that targeted a coalition a/c (i.e. showed hostile intent) would die. The problem with that was that the Iraqis violated that frequently and targeted coalition aircraft numerous times, putting us in danger and puckered my asshole on more than one occassion. Fortunately there are some Iraqi SA-2 and 3 operators with Allah right now because they did that to me :D So I wouldn't say that the NFZ is automatically begun with airstrikes right off the bat. But you tell the Libyans that even one tickle on an AD radar and the bombs start falling and they ALL die. And then you send out the pilots with some pretty iron clad ROE that allows them to do just that.

 

And I do not know if Libya has SA-10s. If so, that would be VERY bad juju. I would not want to be a Hornet driver facing one of those. If they DO have SA-10s - I would expect the F-22 Raptors just found their current world justification.....

You arrogant horrible excuse of a man, boasting about the death of fellow military personnel who were killed defending their country against foreign aggressors. Do you not have any morals, empathy or insight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW guys, JBSF knows this. You CANNOT enforce a No Fly zone where the adversary has operational air defenses. IOW, someone is going to get themselves "HARM'd" in the process of establishing our CAPs over any NFZ. If you're one of those air defense targets, "limited engagement" is going to look A LOT like war.

 

you are absolutely correct. A NFZ assumes the enforcer has air superiority at a minimum, supremecy is desired. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Libyan IADS immediately gets whacked before we start to fly, but like Iraq in Northern and Southern Watch - we told the Iraqis that any system that targeted a coalition a/c (i.e. showed hostile intent) would die. The problem with that was that the Iraqis violated that frequently and targeted coalition aircraft numerous times, putting us in danger and puckered my asshole on more than one occassion. Fortunately there are some Iraqi SA-2 and 3 operators with Allah right now because they did that to me :D So I wouldn't say that the NFZ is automatically begun with airstrikes right off the bat. But you tell the Libyans that even one tickle on an AD radar and the bombs start falling and they ALL die. And then you send out the pilots with some pretty iron clad ROE that allows them to do just that.

 

And I do not know if Libya has SA-10s. If so, that would be VERY bad juju. I would not want to be a Hornet driver facing one of those. If they DO have SA-10s - I would expect the F-22 Raptors just found their current world justification.....

You arrogant horrible excuse of a man, boasting about the death of fellow military personnel who were killed defending their country against foreign aggressors. Do you not have any morals, empathy or insight?

 

Let's see... he was flying missions to protect the Iraqi people from their own government. In the process, the Iraqi government, through their AD system tried to kill him. They weren't successful. He won. What's the fucking problem here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was watching anderson Cooper last night and they were showing video of pro-Qadaffi forces massing near Benghazi. It was like a SAM and AAA vis-recce test. I counted a couple of ZSU23-4s, an SA-8 and an SA-13. None of those are to be taken lightly despite being 1980s technology. SA-6s are the same. I would really rather not go up against one if I could avoid it. Any one of those could ruin your day.

 

Believe me. They might be old, but give me a few of my friends and we could kick anyone's ass with those old systems.

NS, I suspect some of your friends are working on the Nellis threat replication ranges. Because those guys rotinely kick our ass with those old systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet! Looks like the French are already kicking ass over Libya. Pretty dramatic video of a libyan Flogger or Fencer fighter jet shot down.

 

Go Sarko, go Sarko!

 

Edit: Definitely a Mig-27 Flogger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was pretty much straight in? Heard something on the box about a 2nd one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure, mate. The news here is sketchy so far.

 

It's refreshing to see the French take the lead here. I would suspect the US is providing C2 and tanker help. I also cant imagine the Hornets off the us carrier aren't going to get involved. I'm hoping we get more details soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word has it that the French did a bombing run first, followed by cruise missle attacks from Brittish and US submarines and destroyers. It's on now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a sad bunch of limp dicks we are. two completely failed current deployments costing thousands of US lives and stupid amounts of tax payer dollars (with no realistically achievable objective I might add) and we are now fucking around with some two-bit tent occupant so we can feel like the big guys on the block....

 

totally f-ing pathetic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real political question comes after the SEAD and establisment of the NFZ. What's next in Libya? Ground attack in support of the rebels?

 

Does this establish a precedent for action in other states where civil war breaks out? Syria? Iran? Saudi Arabia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the deal with the other members of this "coalition" come to light, an interesting thing is that no US assets are, as of now, being used to hit anything in Libya. We are command and control only.

 

 

I guess that all changed with the introduction of 110 cruise missiles.

 

Watching with interest to see how significantly this degrades Qaddafi's air defense.

 

Some items of particular note:

 

1. The Germans - the most war-mongering nation of the last 100 years, are the only cock-blockers opposed to military action in the EU.

 

2. The French military are taking the lead role... very interested to see how they do. I'm always offended by observers who criticize the courage of the French and their substantial military capabilities.

 

3. On the other hand, I understand that the start of military action was delayed BY LUNCH MEETINGS in Paris, allowing Qaddafi's forces to enter Benghazi. I appreciate the need to consult with all the participants and the imperative of having Arabs represented in the meetings, but talk about brinksmanship!

 

4. The Italians have the most to lose out of the foreign powers. Billions invested and more dependent on Libyan petroleum products than any other. Will be very curious to see how their military and their politicians behave as this unfolds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real political question comes after the SEAD and establisment of the NFZ. What's next in Libya? Ground attack in support of the rebels?

 

I figure it all boils down to what resources the rebels have at their disposal. If they don't have the weapons and the money to take the fight back to Tripoli, then the next steps are already clear: arm and fund the rebels.

 

I just wonder about the blowback we seem to always face after putting guns and money into the hands of Middle-Eastern / Central Asian "freedom fighters." I still shake my head over the billions we spent on the mujahedeen, recognizing that 20+ years later these people are among our worst enemies.

 

What if the next iteration of Al Qaeda / Taliban have control of production and reserves of oil, AND they pulled themselves up using Western money and free weapons???

 

It seems that each military intervention exacts a terrible cost years later... At least this time, our friends in NATO are stepping up to the plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the chance of AQ or mujahideen popping up in Libya are slim to none. From what I hear it is not a terribly fundamentalist Muslim country and Qadaffi himself ws trying to blame the uprisings n AQ as a way to turn public sentiment against the protesters. AQ is a boogyman there as much as it is here, apparently.

 

I have always said the French military is very capable, probably the most advanced in the EU. And I might have made fun of their courage in the past only in jest. It was really that their political goals were often at odds with the US and they were a constant thorn in our side.

 

I also am interested to see how much of the burden e rest of the coalition is pulling, including Italy. I am especially interested in what the "Arab league" is contributing besides cheerleading? Of any of the Arab league, the UAE is probably the most capable with 60+ block 60 F16s. And the Saudis..... They have a tight rope to walk with their own internal dissent. It's hard for them to support rebels seeking democracy while putting down their internal dissidents and those in Bahrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing I'd like to know that haven't heard talked about much is what is France's angle here? Why were they so adamant in pulling along the rest of the UNSC? Do they have a large Libyan community inside France?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The Germans - the most war-mongering nation of the last 100 years, are the only cock-blockers opposed to military action in the EU.

 

Maybe they could not figure out why they cared whether it is the new boss or the old boss in Tripoli.

 

I can't figure out why we care, and so support their stance. Uh, except on the whole cock thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing I'd like to know that haven't heard talked about much is what is France's angle here? Why were they so adamant in pulling along the rest of the UNSC? Do they have a large Libyan community inside France?

 

Never piss off a short Frenchman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing I'd like to know that haven't heard talked about much is what is France's angle here? Why were they so adamant in pulling along the rest of the UNSC? Do they have a large Libyan community inside France?

 

Never piss off a short Frenchman.

 

I heard you can get away with it if you have a really, really vast place to run away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing I'd like to know that haven't heard talked about much is what is France's angle here? Why were they so adamant in pulling along the rest of the UNSC? Do they have a large Libyan community inside France?

 

Never piss off a short Frenchman.

And never fight a land war in Asia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UK PM David Cameron speech on the UN action being taken

 

What we are doing is necessary, it is legal and it is right.

 

It is necessary because, with others, we should be trying to prevent him from using his military against his own people.

 

It is legal because we have the backing of the UN Security Council and also the Arab League and many others.

 

And it is right because I don’t believe we should not stand aside while this dictator murders his own people.

 

Tonight our thoughts should be with those in our armed services who are putting their lives at risk to save the lives of others. They are the bravest of the brave. I believe that what we are doing is in a just cause and "in our nation’s interest."

 

you can bet they will have reached interim agreements on access to oil stocks, trade goods and supply of weapons shipments to rebel officials to ensure they succeed and build up an effective army to take Gaddafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruise missile strikes are downright unfriendly. Some would say an act of war. Ron Paul among them. Me too, BTW.

 

In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. Frankly, it is not up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up “no-fly” zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution. Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked – not by Gaddafi, and not by the rebels. This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.

 

Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d’etat in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business. How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. These are terrible reasons to put our soldiers’ lives at risk.

 

Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don’t have the money for more military interventions overseas. We don’t have the money for our current military interventions overseas. We have to rely on the Fed’s printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars. That alone should put an end to any discussion about getting involved in Libya’s civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing I'd like to know that haven't heard talked about much is what is France's angle here? Why were they so adamant in pulling along the rest of the UNSC? Do they have a large Libyan community inside France?

 

Never piss off a short Frenchman.

And never fight a land war in Asia.

 

Qadhafi and the world go way back. The guy is nuts, and this is all about taking the guy down. Machine-gunning his own people was just the last straw.

 

Spain has now joined in (three carriers, they have), and the Canadians are sending a squadron of F18's.

 

From his letter to Obama today: "To our son, his excellency, Mr Barack Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed."

 

 

 

Somebody needs a hug. Understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the deal with the other members of this "coalition" come to light, an interesting thing is that no US assets are, as of now, being used to hit anything in Libya. We are command and control only.

 

 

I guess that all changed with the introduction of 110 cruise missiles.

 

Watching with interest to see how significantly this degrades Qaddafi's air defense.

 

Some items of particular note:

 

1. The Germans - the most war-mongering nation of the last 100 years, are the only cock-blockers opposed to military action in the EU.

 

2. The French military are taking the lead role... very interested to see how they do. I'm always offended by observers who criticize the courage of the French and their substantial military capabilities.

 

3. On the other hand, I understand that the start of military action was delayed BY LUNCH MEETINGS in Paris, allowing Qaddafi's forces to enter Benghazi. I appreciate the need to consult with all the participants and the imperative of having Arabs represented in the meetings, but talk about brinksmanship!

 

4. The Italians have the most to lose out of the foreign powers. Billions invested and more dependent on Libyan petroleum products than any other. Will be very curious to see how their military and their politicians behave as this unfolds.

 

 

 

 

The cruise missiles pretty much seal the deal on just C2, doesn't it? As much as that sucks legally, I don't object. The die is cast. Demoralizing Qadhafi's men and getting the rebels moral up is key to avoiding a long, bloody stalemate.

 

 

The Germans have business interests elsewhere in the region that want the status quo preserved. Not that they hate freedom, or anything, it's just that the way things are seems more stable and predictable.

 

The French don't like to roll, but when they do, they like to roll heavy.

 

Somebody was whining about Hillary not saying much at a G8 meeting the other day too. Nevermind that the UN security council is the proper venue for discussions of war, and that was scheduled for the next day. Don't believe everything Murdock tells you.

 

The Italians figured out that their investments had become more at risk in a thoroughly bunker-ed down, Qadhafi led Libya, I guess. Anyway, the decided to play along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a new war will distract the public from fiscal issues and allow Congress to pass a CR for the rest of the FY. I need to do some planning here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the chance of AQ or mujahideen popping up in Libya are slim to none. From what I hear it is not a terribly fundamentalist Muslim country and Qadaffi himself ws trying to blame the uprisings n AQ as a way to turn public sentiment against the protesters. AQ is a boogyman there as much as it is here, apparently.

 

I have always said the French military is very capable, probably the most advanced in the EU. And I might have made fun of their courage in the past only in jest. It was really that their political goals were often at odds with the US and they were a constant thorn in our side.

 

I also am interested to see how much of the burden e rest of the coalition is pulling, including Italy. I am especially interested in what the "Arab league" is contributing besides cheerleading? Of any of the Arab league, the UAE is probably the most capable with 60+ block 60 F16s. And the Saudis..... They have a tight rope to walk with their own internal dissent. It's hard for them to support rebels seeking democracy while putting down their internal dissidents and those in Bahrain.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

 

What I had in mind was not AQ, but specifically "the next iteration" of enemies in the Mideast and Central Asia. My hunch is that AQ as a brand will continue to fade, and new, unexpected threats will emerge.

 

I may be fatalistic but it seems that intervention on the side of "freedom fighters" too often blows back in our face years down the road. It's impossible to see, just as the transformation of the mujahedeen into AQ and the Taliban was hard if not impossible to predict back when we poured all that money, training and weapons into their cause against the Soviets.

 

By the same token, a case could be made that we backed the wrong side in Vietnam beginning in the 50's. From what I've read recently, Ho Chi Minh was far from committed to Communism in the years after WWII, and was surprised and dismayed that the US didn't support his fight for liberation from French colonialism. The conflict in Indochina bears only passing resemblance to today's problems in the Middle East and Central Asia, but I would argue that it's very hard to predict how rapidly transforming allies in unstable parts of the world will evolve.

 

The optimist in me believes that the information age and rising levels of education in the Mideast and some parts of Central Asia gives hope to the chance of emergence of peaceful neighbors, but the amateur political historian in me casts a wary eye on the new breed of Middle Eastern rebels. The same fruits of the modern age which provide hope can also serve to deliver the unexpected at speeds we have not previously witnessed. Where enemies have previously emerged gradually over time, there is a strong chance that new and powerful enemies may rise up rapidly and with vengeance towards the US.

 

Thank god our allies are more involved in this conflict. It's your time to shine, Europe.

 

There's two questions I have at the top of my mind as I observe what might be called springtime in the Middle East. Would this be happening at all, and if so, how would it be different, if GW Bush and Tony Blair had not taken the initiative to carve out a slice of democracy in Iraq? If peaceful neighbors emerge from the current mess, I believe the invasion of Iraq will be viewed in the future as the critical first domino to be toppled. If it all goes to hell though, perhaps we'll see another manifestation of blowback in the face of good intentions.

 

Anyway, from an armchair observer to an American aviator JBSF, I'm grateful for what you and the rest of the coalition men and women in uniform did in Iraq. As unpopular as that war has been, I'm convinced that seizing the initiative by toppling Saddam was a brilliant move, and deserves enormous credit for what's happening now throughout the region. I'm both surprised and not surprised at all that I see ZERO mention of this in the news and commentary on current events. I know there must be like-minded people out there but so far don't hear their voices. In time, I think we will.

 

The second question I'm pondering with no answer in sight is what about Pakistan? Among all of the festering sores spread across the Mideast and Central Asia, Pakistan appears to be the one without even a hint of a solution. My hope is that the relative prosperity and power of India will spill over into Pakistan. How long must we wait and at what cost to the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing I'd like to know that haven't heard talked about much is what is France's angle here? Why were they so adamant in pulling along the rest of the UNSC? Do they have a large Libyan community inside France?

 

My hunch is that the French see a golden opportunity to prevail in a foreign conflict in the leading role. I also see strong signs of forward-thinking about the absolute necessity of prosperity and freedom of expression spreading throughout the Middle East. Call it a high chance of a brilliant military success, a chance to leap to prominence on the world stage, and put another stake into the heart of the age of Middle-Eastern despots.

 

How delicious is the irony of all the parallels to what Bush and Blair did in Iraq?

 

Anyway, Vive la France!

 

Man, to be a fly on the wall in Bashir Assad's compound...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't figure out why we care

 

We should listen to JBSF on this one, as someone who has risked his life for this cause.

 

From my side, I believe we MUST care because the people of the Middle East will create problems which we cannot ignore, unless there is a dramatic and rapid break from their recent past.

 

I see what you mean about the new boss being the same as the old boss, but at least in Iraq, so far that is absolutely not true.

 

You could also take a look at the history of the 20th century. There are dozens of new bosses who are decidedly better than the old bosses, and many parts of the world are much better off thanks to this fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and supply of weapons shipments to rebel officials to ensure they succeed and build up an effective army to take Gaddafi

 

Too bad the goddamn rebels arrested and deported the SAS and MI6 gents who dropped in for just that purpose. Talk about a boner move.

 

I would imagine that with pro-Qaddafi tanks and snipers a few blocks from their HQ, the welcome mat is now brightly lit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a new war will distract the public from fiscal issues and allow Congress to pass a CR for the rest of the FY. I need to do some planning here.

 

Only about half of that year left, I guess. Almost time to start fighting over the next budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a new war will distract the public from fiscal issues and allow Congress to pass a CR for the rest of the FY. I need to do some planning here.

 

It should, considering that our system of government is designed such that the branch of government closest to the people decides when the people are ready for war, and that is what has happe.... um. Oops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't figure out why we care

 

We should listen to JBSF on this one, as someone who has risked his life for this cause.

 

From my side, I believe we MUST care because the people of the Middle East will create problems which we cannot ignore, unless there is a dramatic and rapid break from their recent past.

 

Soldiers follow orders, they don't make policy. I'll listen to Jeff on questions like this one, about which I am genuinely curious:

 

Jeff, is there any surface to air missile that would NOT scare the shit out of you if it were fired at you?

 

He's an expert on that subject.

 

As for the subject of whether WE need to tell people how THEY need to change their ways, I'm still not convinced at all. Rather, I'm convinced that the rebels are now in a way beholden to and dependent on us for our cruise missiles and overhead support, and such dependence breeds resentment. I'm convinced that their opposition can now play the "Anti-American" card politically to good effect, since we're not exactly popular. I'm convinced that ignoring our laws and allowing a President to just start a war when I would bet most of the people can't explain who we're fighting for, who we're fighting against, and why, is just asking for another unpopular and expensive war with little real direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the subject of whether WE need to tell people how THEY need to change their ways, I'm still not convinced at all. Rather, I'm convinced that the rebels are now in a way beholden to and dependent on us for our cruise missiles and overhead support, and such dependence breeds resentment. I'm convinced that their opposition can now play the "Anti-American" card politically to good effect, since we're not exactly popular. I'm convinced that ignoring our laws and allowing a President to just start a war when I would bet most of the people can't explain who we're fighting for, who we're fighting against, and why, is just asking for another unpopular and expensive war with little real direction.

 

You make some excellent points, and I respect your point of view.

 

It is extremely interesting that our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president did indeed order our armed forces into action without a mandate from Congress, as prescribed by our constitution. From what I read, he consulted with the leaders of Congress, and that's about it.

 

Obama did have a UN Security Council resolution though.

 

Just by itself, this is a remarkable moment in US history. It's astounding that this president, who taught constitutional law and whose ascent to power was built on the unpopularity of GW Bush and the Iraq war, sent our forces into harm's way based on a UN resolution.

 

Regardless, I believe it was the right thing to do. You may have gathered that I'm in favor of an interventionist foreign policy. It's in our vital interests to see the procession of the last century's despots handing power over to their sons STOP NOW.

 

Saddam Hussein -> Uday Hussein - check

Hosni Mubarak -> Gamal Mubarak - check

Maomar Qaddafi -> Saif Qaddafi - in progress

Kim Jong Il -> Kim Jong Un - hopefully the next succession to be spoiled

Haffez Assad -> Bashir Assad - too bad the old man didn't hang around longer. Too late here but I'd say he is TOAST.

 

Whatever your politics Tom Ray, you can't deny the tide of history. Despots handing power off to their sons is one more trend headed for the trash heap of history.

 

Tom Ray - would you agree that the world is better off by showing tyrannical leaders the exit sooner rather than later?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is extremely interesting that our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president did indeed order our armed forces into action without a mandate from Congress, as prescribed by our constitution. From what I read, he consulted with the leaders of Congress, and that's about it.

...

Tom Ray - would you agree that the world is better off by showing tyrannical leaders the exit sooner rather than later?

 

More interesting is the silence about Obama's War from those who did not like George Bush's interventionism. They seemed to understand back then that Congress has a foreign policy role under our Constitution.

 

Quaddafi has been a tyrant all my life, and there are hundreds of others, some with nuclear weapons. If I answer "yes" to your question, does that mean I must agree that any time a President thinks a leader is tyrannical and a rebellion is a good idea, he can just lob in some cruise missiles at his discretion without any kind of vote in Congress or anything? Because if that is what you are trying to get me to agree to, the answer is no, but the question is not exactly clear.

 

I know, I know, Sol is going to come along and express outrage that I won't answer the question and insist on changing it. Any time now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a new war will distract the public from fiscal issues and allow Congress to pass a CR for the rest of the FY. I need to do some planning here.

 

The rest of us need to plan too. We want things like "the Congress shall have the power to declare war" or to "regulate commerce among the several states" to mean the same thing tomorrow as it did yesterday.

 

You can't always get what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops! I forgot to mention that we also want the "right to keep and bear arms" to mean the same thing over time. Sorry, Ben.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is extremely interesting that our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president did indeed order our armed forces into action without a mandate from Congress, as prescribed by our constitution. From what I read, he consulted with the leaders of Congress, and that's about it.

...

Tom Ray - would you agree that the world is better off by showing tyrannical leaders the exit sooner rather than later?

 

More interesting is the silence about Obama's War from those who did not like George Bush's interventionism. They seemed to understand back then that Congress has a foreign policy role under our Constitution.

 

Quaddafi has been a tyrant all my life, and there are hundreds of others, some with nuclear weapons. If I answer "yes" to your question, does that mean I must agree that any time a President thinks a leader is tyrannical and a rebellion is a good idea, he can just lob in some cruise missiles at his discretion without any kind of vote in Congress or anything? Because if that is what you are trying to get me to agree to, the answer is no, but the question is not exactly clear.

 

I know, I know, Sol is going to come along and express outrage that I won't answer the question and insist on changing it. Any time now...

No, I am going to point out that I oppose Obama's interventionism, and have stated as much repeatedly, so your straw man fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I answer "yes" to your question, does that mean I must agree that any time a President thinks a leader is tyrannical and a rebellion is a good idea, he can just lob in some cruise missiles at his discretion without any kind of vote in Congress or anything? Because if that is what you are trying to get me to agree to, the answer is no, but the question is not exactly clear.

 

Interventionist foreign policy is definitely a slippery slope, and unfortunately, there is always a price to pay for messing in the affairs of other countries.

 

One of the consequences is blowback from our well-intentioned deeds. Witness my discussion above about our direct role in the creation of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and what often happens when we support "freedom fighters".

 

All things considered, I think it's better to take action when necessary. How "necessary" is defined is certainly a question which demands a vigorous debate. I see your point of view and will be scratching my head today over the issues.... Thanks for the healthy discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How "necessary" is defined is certainly a question which demands a vigorous debate.

 

In Congress, or inside the President's head?

 

Our Constitution says BOTH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a new war will distract the public from fiscal issues and allow Congress to pass a CR for the rest of the FY. I need to do some planning here.

 

The rest of us need to plan too. We want things like "the Congress shall have the power to declare war" or to "regulate commerce among the several states" to mean the same thing tomorrow as it did yesterday.

 

You can't always get what you want.

The war power thing has been pretty stable since 1950, hasn't it?

 

Incidentally, do many people here think words have meaning independent of the minds of their senders and receivers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a new war will distract the public from fiscal issues and allow Congress to pass a CR for the rest of the FY. I need to do some planning here.

 

The rest of us need to plan too. We want things like "the Congress shall have the power to declare war" or to "regulate commerce among the several states" to mean the same thing tomorrow as it did yesterday.

 

You can't always get what you want.

The war power thing has been pretty stable since 1950, hasn't it?

 

Has there been any vote under the War Powers Act? I must have missed it if so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war power thing has been pretty stable since 1950, hasn't it?

 

Has there been any vote under the War Powers Act? I must have missed it if so.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

linky

 

In a three-minute statement to the media on Saturday after the first cruise missiles were launched, Mr. Obama six times noted international support for the use of force, saying the attack on Libya was an "international effort" and that the U.S. was acting with a "broad coalition" that included European and Arab partners. Mr. Obama and his aides also said he and top advisers had consulted with bipartisan leaders in Congress.

 

Oh goody. Glad he got Congressional approval and all. :rolleyes:

 

Now I can hold Congress accountable! But I'll need to know a bit more. Who were these leaders? What did they say? What did my particular representative tell them to say?

 

I want to punish him with my vote on this matter, and knowing the answers to those questions is as close as I can come to knowing how he might have voted had Congress had anything to do with this war.

 

Accountability and a balance of powers would have been nice, but can I at least get answers to those questions instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - for all you hearts and minds folks - thinking the Arab street is behind this - here's some cold water for you:

 

 

 

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians."

 

--AMR MOUSSA, head of the Arab League, doubling back on the group's original support for the no-fly zone in Libya. Moussa says the current military action has gone beyond the wishes of the League. (via Jerusalem Post)

 

 

 

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/20/quotes-arab-league-condemns-libya-airstrikes/#ixzz1H9j8jQuh

To Sol's point- I was very much in the "not our problem" camp, and now it looks like we've created a nice problem. No boots on the ground and air defense only basically partitions Libya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to have gotten away from the Unitary Executive theory....

 

 

This foreign policy adventure brought to you by Raytheon.

 

 

Brawndo has electrolytes.

4a589b30_262d_9b260.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This foreign policy adventure brought to you by Raytheon

Well, Obama DID promise more jobs. I'm sure the MI complex needs jobs too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - for all you hearts and minds folks - thinking the Arab street is behind this - here's some cold water for you:

 

 

 

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians."

 

--AMR MOUSSA, head of the Arab League, doubling back on the group's original support for the no-fly zone in Libya. Moussa says the current military action has gone beyond the wishes of the League. (via Jerusale