War in Libya Could Drag On, Military Analysts Say

[Purveyor]

Source: NYTIMES

PARIS — France and Italy said Wednesday that they would join Britain in sending some liaison officers to support the rebel army in Libya, in what military analysts said was a sign that there would be no quick and easy end to the war in Libya.

The dispatching of the liaison officers — probably fewer than 40 of them, and carefully not designated as military trainers — is a sign also, they said, that only a combination of military pressure from the sky, economic pressure on the government and a better-organized and coordinated rebel force will finally convince Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi that he has no option but to quit.

“Some countries thought the Libya operation could be over quickly,” said a senior NATO ambassador. “But no military commander thinks so.”

Sending advisers to Libya is the latest in a series of signs of trouble for the NATO campaign, which began in earnest with a stinging, American-led attack but has seemed to fizzle since operational command was transferred to NATO on March 31. After that, a rebel offensive was smashed by Qaddafi forces, which sent the rebels reeling toward the eastern city of Ajdabiya.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21nato.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. We have been thru this with Iraq, Afghanistan, so you know the script by now.

First bombs, then "advisers" then " some" troops to "protect" the advisers,
then charges and counter charges of both sides killing citizens,
then threats of Al-Kada as something gets blown up,
so more troops have to be sent,
along with contractors to build "outlying" bases to protect the troops,
then eventually the political issue gets resolved
and a "new leader" is shoved into place, who immediately asks the US to stay and "help" with reconstruction.

did I miss anything?

[RKP5637]

4. "... did I miss anything?" Yep, MIC profits up! n/t

[SoulSearcher]

6. Yeah -you missed on the boots ...

This time there will be "No Boots" on the ground in Libya.

Makes me feel sooo GOOD, that there will be an absence
of boots this time. I guess the 2200 Marines waiting offshore
Libya as we type are having a great time, knowing they will
get to go barefoot !

[PufPuf23]

30. But Libyans will be lining the streets throwing shoes at the Marines nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Remember when we only had "advisors" in VIetnam?

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. Yeah...I was married to one.

And WE knew in 1963 he was going to Nam, along with half the base he was training at, as night after night the Pres. lied to the people on tv about having no intention of sending any "troops" there.

[SoulSearcher]

13. Good Point

I remember my History Teacher holding the textbook
up in '73 - and forcing us all - in class - to read the text
about the "advisors". Then he told us he was in country,
full-combat gear, at that same time. And his mission was
not about advising. Made a pretty strong point that day.

[EFerrari]

15. My history teacher taught us some Vietnamese

to rehumanize the "enemy" in 1971.

Those guys who came back to classrooms did a lot for us, didn't they?

[dixiegrrrrl]

29. Good for him!!!!

[Baclava]

34. Hillary says 'NO' to US military advisors on the ground in Libya

Looks like the Euros will have to fight their own oil war on the ground.


Clinton rules out US military advisers in Libya

(AFP)WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that the United States would not be sending military advisers to aid Libya's rebels despite decisions by France, Britain and Italy to do so.

"There is a desire to help them be more organized and we support that. We're not participating in it, but we support it," she said in a conversation moderated by Charlie Rose at the State Department and aired on PBS.

She responded "no" when asked if the United States would follow the lead of its European allies.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i1YL1Shf2Waqwq8UXaZH5cbM3aDQ?docId=CNG.9ea60fb38cd63202043ecd72699f62f9.01

[Sonoman]

2. It was never supposed to be quick.

With the scaled-back efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, something had to be done to keep those Procurement Orders flowing.

Opening with bombing sorties and the launch of scores of Tomahawks just insured business-as-usual. Bombs and Rockets don't really accomplish anything but just blowing shit up and causing a lot of other collateral damage and resentment.

We're in for the long haul.

Sonoman

[AtheistCrusader]

3. I could not have foreseen this eventuality.

[EFerrari]

11. No one could have ever imagined the decision to use military force

would result in military engagement.

[skepticscott]

18. It's not even a matter of using military force.

It's a matter of using military force in such a way that an interminable conflict is the inevitable result. We could use overwhelming force and destroy Qaddafi's forces completely, and let the rebels take over, but we won't. For some unknown reason, we seem determined to keep the two sides on fairly even terms, which is absolutely nuts. Either finish things decisively or keep out altogether.

[Fool Count]

21. So we let the rebels take over. Then what?

They wouldn't be able to hold on to the power gifted to them for 48 hours without support of NATO troops occupying the country.
In Afghanistan the rebels (the Northern Alliance) were able to take over without much help and had a lot of prior experience governing
their part of the country for years before the regime change. Still it now takes over 100 thousand foreign troops to keep the Karzai
government in Kabul from being overthrown. That's the same amount the Soviets had at the hight of their occupation. Why would it
be any different in Libya? What a boondoggle it is.

[skepticscott]

25. Exactly right

which is why this country needs to get over its tragic delusion that it can make any foreign political situation better by the application of military force. In real life, sometimes there simply are no good outcomes to be had, but no American president has the wisdom and courage to say so. They are required to act as if American intervention can always make things better.

[Vattel]

27. Damn. That says it all

[EFerrari]

26. It's only insane if you think the contest is between Gaddafi and the rebels.

There isn't much, probably not more than has been fabricated. The real contest is probably off stage, a bidding war or some other deal that isn't clear yet.

[Baclava]

32. No boots on the ground blood - we were promised.

"Rebels in the besieged city of Misrata have also demanded ground troops to protect civilians, but the international community is wary of the political and military risks that such a step would entail."

[FiveGoodMen]

5. One country at a time, we will wage war with the rest of the world

until the rest of the world wises up and turns the tables on us.

[RKP5637]

8. And particularly if we get a wacky gov. in place in DC filled with teabaggers and the like. I had

someone tell me today the US should just bomb these/any countries before they give us so much grief.:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Fool Count]

22. One country at a time is unacceptably long, there are

like over 160 of them. We are doing three at once now, and can probably double that number to speed the whole thing up.

[Lasher]

7. We've turned the corner.

The objective is victory.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. Yep, there's a chicken in every garage and two cars in every pot and it won't be over

'til it's over over there.

Just wrap those puttees good 'n tight and don't let 'em bayonet any more Belgian Babies.

[FedUp_Queer]

10. Just once...

I'd love to wake up to:

House and Senate vote to cut defense 50% because US will not start any wars this year. Obama pledges to sign bill.

[RKP5637]

14. +1, n/t

[benboot]

16. Mission creep and we are giving the rebels body armor.

This makes no sense. Half that body armor will end up being used to protect those attacking our soldiers around the world.

[skepticscott]

17. Well of COURSE it will

that was the point from the beginning, as anyone with a brain wave could see. We don't want to let the rebels get squashed, but we won't use sufficient force to removed Qaddafi and let the rebels take over. So what's the inevitable result? Another perpetual standoff. Insane.

[bvar22]

19. Surprise, surprise!

They didn't even bother to change The Marketing.

If you are not FOR The NEW WAR in Libya,
then you are WITH The Communists AlQaeda Saddam The Terrorists Qaddafi!!!

[ixion]

20. Big surprise, that...

not.

It was always the plan. The Neocon agenda of Pax Americana continues, unabated by the 'change'.

[ProgressIn2008]

23. As the horror unfolds, where do all the outraged humanitarians disappear to

I wonder? Haven't I seen this show before? War is so pretty and shiny when it's new. It's hard to work up that fervor when it's just the gray shit that spills out of wounded countries.

[OnyxCollie]

28. LOL!

:rofl:

[Baclava]

31. "Days, not weeks"

Keyboard commandos told me so.

[KoKo]

33. Oh, yes....it will drag on. History shows these "liberations" do tend to drag on.

:-(