Is it possible that an escalation in Libya could bring US further into

[quinnox]

the conflict?

I'm wondering if things don't go very well and things like concrete plans do tend to go to hell in wars in general, that the United States might have to raise the stakes and put in ground forces in Libya eventually?

If so, would you support it?

I'm curious to hear from the Obama supporters and those who are gung ho about this intervention right now as well.

[HereSince1628]

1. Remember the Balkans during Clinton's presidency?

If not, go ahead and google for reading material.

The biggest barrier is getting started, once over that hurdle escalation is politically pretty easy.

So easy that it is almost inevitable.

[quinnox]

2. I have a feeling this is a difficult question that won't be answered

by the gung ho supporters of this military action.

I wonder why they don't want to answer a simple question like this.

[HereSince1628]

6. It involves known unknowables...shades of Rumsfeld...

None of us know just how the Libyan govt will tolerate this. They don't have to choose military action in an attempt to gain satisfaction. They can retaliate economically (oil), or against civilian targets (terrorism and assassination), or against diplomatic/military targets. Libya has ALREADY done ALL of these things. There is precedence that warrant concerns.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quinnox]

4. thanks for being the only one to answer

While I disagree that not supporting the military action means that you are a Quadaffi supporter (reminds me too much of the arguments used against opponents of Iraq invasion) the answer is appreciated.

[meow mix]

9. "wrong side choosers" i dont know how else to explain it lol. but the protestors limbs and lives

are whats at stake.

he has no choice but to show his weakness, and hide... which will also be his undoing.
boxed in with his rats and theyll tear each other to peices from within.
i dont see any victory moves for ghadaffi although the media gives him a lot of optimism too, lol

listen to richard engel he's about the only one who knows imo

[pampango]

5. While I support the UN action, I don't think that "broad brushing" helps.

Many who oppose the UN's intervention are not Gaddafi supporters (though some probably are). By the same token, those who support are not necessarily war-mongers (though some probably are).

[meow mix]

10. turning thier backs supports his ability to slaughter.

and hurts the presidents efforts as well. at a time like this... wow

[Aerows]

7. Personally, I believe it is going to escalate

Whether or not the US puts boots on the ground remains to be seen, but with Qaddafi rounding up civilians as human shields on military targets, I can't really see how boots on the ground will be avoidable.

[joshcryer]

8. Absolutely possible. The question is whether paid mercenaries are going to keep...

...defending Gaddafi at all costs. They've lost a great deal of their strength. The attacks on Benghazi left them pretty much completely blown away (I saw the pictures, they're pretty fucked up).

If yes, then it can become a protracted battle that lasts months and requires on the ground intervention.

If no, then it's over in a couple of weeks and Libya will have UN people on the ground helping them rebuild.

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. Yes, it's possible. Does anybody know? No. Well..

..only on DU, where people know for sure.

[Tatiana]

12. Wes Clark has some interesting thoughts on the topic.

2) Know your purpose and how the proposed military action will achieve it.

In 1989, when the United States wanted regime change in Panama, a powerful U.S. force took over the country, captured dictator Manuel Noriega and enabled the democratic opposition to form a new government. Panama today is a thriving democracy.

On the other hand, in Somalia in 1992-94, we started out on a humanitarian mission, gradually transitioned to greater use of military power and then had a tragic tactical stumble trying to arrest a warlord. The loss of 18 Americans caused national outrage, and eventually we pulled out. We experienced classic mission creep, without reconsidering the strategy or the means to achieve it.

In Libya, if the objective is humanitarian, then we would work with both sides and not get engaged in the matter of who wins. Just deliver relief supplies, treat the injured and let the Libyans settle it. But if we want to get rid of Gadhafi, a no-fly zone is unlikely to be sufficient -- it is a slick way to slide down the slope to deeper intervention.

<snip>

A no-fly zone in Libya may seem straightforward at first, but if Gadhafi continues to advance, the time will come for airstrikes, extended bombing and ground troops -- a stretch for an already overcommitted force. A few unfortunate incidents can quash public support.

http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/article_4315925e-4cc0-58c9-b3ac-84a4f9ca219c.html