With no-fly zone in Libya now, US-led coalition freer to attack

[dkf]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0320/With-no-fly-zone-in-Libya-now-US-led-coalition-freer-to-attack

The first day of US-led attacks on Libyan military targets appears to have gone as planned.

Saturday’s barrage of ship-based Tomahawk cruise missiles effectively established a no-fly zone, Joint Chiefs of Staffs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said Sunday.

This has allowed US fighters and radar jammers to fly over Libya, continuing the hunt for air defense facilities as well as tanks, artillery, and other Libyan army forces threatening rebel forces and other civilians. US pilots apparently are safe now from the long-range, high-altitude surface-to-air missiles that might have resulted in downed pilots becoming prisoners of war.

Many key questions remain, however, Adm. Mullen acknowledged on several Sunday morning television news programs.

What happens if civilians loyal to Muammar Qaddafi in effect become human shields, surrounding potential military targets or the Libyan leader’s compound? What happens if the US-led coalition prevails militarily but Qaddafi remains in place? And what happens if Qaddafi is killed or leaves Libya but the country fractures along tribal lines?

"How this ends from the political standpoint, I just can't say," Mullen said on CNN's "State of the Union."

President Obama has pledged that no US ground troops will be involved in the UN-sanctioned effort. But if the fight moves into urban areas, that makes attacks from the air (or from ship-based cruise missiles) much more difficult if civilian casualties are to be avoided.

[meow mix]

1. "Moammar Kadafi's thinning human shield"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x696970

:yoiks:

[dkf]

2. I'm sure they don't want to be cannon fodder...or should I say US missile fodder.

[meow mix]

4. nope lol, especially not for a paper-tiger everyone hates so much

:rofl:

[TomClash]

3. What is the mission exactly

Isn't that something the President should articulate?

[dkf]

5. You would think.

Ugh this is going to turn into another Iraq I just know it.

[TomClash]

6. I'm not sure

But I suspect the no-fly zone will be maintained for a long time.

I'm not thrilled with the Turkish role either. They have long had designs over Libya and even lost a war there 100 years ago.

[amandabeech]

7. And just who are the rebels?

Don't we at least get to know who our allies actually are?

What happens if we, the French, the Brits and the Canadians can't bomb Kaddafi back to the stone age?

How do we get out?

Do we national build?

How badly will this stretch our military? Both Gates and Mullen opposed this on the basis that we are stretched too thin, among other things.

AND--

How are we going to pay for this?

[TomClash]

8. All good questions

That's why you have to go to Congress to declare war. So all of these issues are aired in public. But we were mocked savagely on DU when we suggested this.

[amandabeech]

10. Lots of people have been mocked savagely on DU, and they've turned out to be right.

You're in good company.

I agree that Congress should declare war. Check over on Politico. Kucinich is on it, and this time he has company. If we don't hand off to the French and Brits very quickly, this could turn into a rallying point for Dem opposition to the Obama administration in toto--including Clinton, and, I'm afraid, my guy Biden who was right on Afghanistan, IMHO.

The Vietnam War split the Dem party. I don't want this one to do the same, but if it does, the anti-war crowd will NOT be to blame.

[joshcryer]

12. Go here and watch all of this guys shows:

http://www.livestream.com/libya17feb

You will then be clued in on who the Libyan Revolutionaries are.

[ixion]

9. uh, 'enforce the ceasefire', by, uh, bombing them.

lovely mission, that.

[amandabeech]

11. We're not enforcing a cease-fire. We're enforcing a no-fly zone,

which entails putting a lot of military installations, mobile and stationary, out of commission.

BIG difference.

BTW, I don't support this operation.

[ixion]

14. which entails

bombing the cities. So-called 'smart' bombs, aren't, and thus these so-called 'surgical' strikes, aren't, either. They're more like Mass Murder Strikes.

[TheKentuckian]

13. To create conditions that remove Qaddafi's military superiority.

Severely curtail his ability to bring in outside support.

To eliminate his ability to attack neighboring countries in an effort to stir up some Pan Arab or Pan African war for his own benefit.

To minimize the regime's ability to execute mass destruction.

Isolation and containment.

Disrupt and intercept communications.

To in effect, give the rebels a fighting chance.

Folks can reasonably oppose the action. There are real reasons to support a veto, though those arguments aren't being made. However, pretending this is Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the first Gulf War (at this stage, though closer than the other two) is off base certainly the wild eyed Viet Nam comparisons are hyperbole.