Five questions anyone for the invasion of Libya should answer:

[howard112211]

I got these from a newspaper article of the german newspaper DIE ZEIT. I will translate and paraphrase. Original link here: http://blog.zeit.de/ladurnerulrich/2011/03/21/kopflos-in-den-krieg/

Much of this is paraphrasing so I think it goes under "fair use".

1. What if the "no-fly-zone" doesn't work?

What if Bengasi falls anyways? Will NATO bomb a densely populated city? Or will one then send ground troops?

2. What will happen if the rebels start a massacre of civilians?

Not much is known about the rebels other than that they oppose Ghaddafi. If they manage to take Tripolis, and start executing people, will the West stand by and watch? This has happened in Kosovo, where the UCK, an organisation that had strong connections to the mafia, started to drive out Serbs from taken territories. It also happened in the US supported rebellion in Afghanistan during the cold war.

3. What if there is a stalemate?

What if the country fractures into two countries? Will Ghaddafi be tolerated if he controls only half of the country and is otherwise quiet? What type of permanent involvment will this require? Or will one eventually have to send ground troops to take the other half?

4. What if Libya descends into anarchy?

Who will take on the task of becoming a "nationbuilder"?

5. Who exactly is for this war anyway?

Currently only Great Britain and France have actively endorsed it. The US has followed along but stated it has no interest in taking the lead. The Arab league has criticized the mission already on the second day. Only Katar has sent four planes. Germany wants to stay out of it. Turkey is against it.

[myrna minx]

1. Thank you for posting. K&R n/t

[dipsydoodle]

2. Stalemate

seems to be the most likely outcome at present maybe with the country partitioned.

[WatsonT]

4. Oh that'll be fun

and every few years they can go to war, each side claiming to be the real Libya and trying to reunite their people.

Maybe one half would get more of the oil reserves, while the other gets more of the remaining air-force and other military assets.

[dipsydoodle]

11. Its worth remembering

it wasn't a country in the first place. The Italians made it so after they picked up from the Ottoman Empire. It was 3 states : Tripolitania, Fezzan, and Cyrenaica which is where Benghazi is.

[The Magistrate]

12. And Even Within Those, Sir, Tribal Identity Counts More Than 'National' Identity

[dipsydoodle]

13. I would have thought

there must a geographical relationship between the 70 or so tribes and the 3 states mentioned.

Despite others here on DU disagreeing I still think the outcome of current circumstances will be a vertical line down the country leaving what was Cyrenaica as a separate state once again pending full civil war in years to come.

[WatsonT]

15. They became a nation in 1911

for perspective New Mexico and Arizona didn't join the Union until 1912. And Alaska and Hawaii didn't come in until the 50s.

But if anyone were to propose splitting them off because they aren't really part of the same country (what with being added so recently) many would take umbrage to that.

[The Magistrate]

16. Not Really, Sir: Italy Conquered Them as A Colonial Possession In War Begun That Year

Hardly the same thing as becoming a nation, you will doubtless agree.

[dipsydoodle]

17. That was as an Italian colony

which combined the 3 states I mentioned. They didn't become an independent country until 1951.

[WatsonT]

3. 6. who is willing to commit the troops, money

and national will to rebuilding afterwards?

[Motown_Johnny]

5. .

What if the no fly zone does work?

What if this saves tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives?

What if this ends quickly?

What if a democratically elected leader is selected?

What would our allies think if we refuse to do anything when they feel strongly about trying to limit the violence?






Hypotheticals suck.

[howard112211]

6. In military matters hypotheticals should be considered.

Your approach sounds like "let's just do it and see what happens". Generally not a good recipe for a good outcome.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. My point being that the OP was not considering the other possibilities

I was simply trying to balance out the one sided approach expressed in the OP.

[Bandit]

7. Yes they do but so does attacking a country that did not attack us.

That is not a hypthetical..This is not a defensive action....We don't have to kill them over there or they will kill us over here like in Afghanistan and Iraq..Everybody knows both those countries were on the verge of launching a major offensive with their tanks and battleships and massive uniformed troops against the USA.

[Motown_Johnny]

22. It was my understanding that some of the "rebels" did ask for help

[Bandit]

28. The Chechnen rebels asked for help when the Russians attacked them also.

There have been many people that have asked for American aid and it was not given..Haiti is a very good example.. America gave a Pledge it would come to the aid of any country in the western hemisphere that was being attacked. We did not do so when Haiti was attacked by rebels and their government overthrown..Whether we liked him or not Aristide was the elected President of their country.

[sabrina 1]

31. That's because Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were both behind

the two coups that ousted the popular Aristedes. He was going to raise the minimum wage for god's sake, what would that have done to Big Business' access to slave labor, and he was planning to educate his population, same as Chavez did. How could we tolerate that? An educated population is very hard to keep down.

We backed the far right thugs in Haiti, so I guess you could say we did respond to THEIR cries for help.

Wiki cables on Haiti reveal a lot about why the rightful president of Haiti was not allowed to return among other things.

[JackRiddler]

62. Do you have any historical precedents supporting your implications?

Your first question is already nonsense, of course. The "no-fly zone" doesn't work, because it was never tried. It was decided from Zero Hour that there would be no no-fly zone. It is a bombing campaign.

[Johonny]

8. The answer to all these is : then we will need a tax cut for the rich

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

10. And repeal "Obama-Care"

because we care about protecting people

[bluethruandthru]

26. And we'll need to slash those pesky "entitlements"

because WE'RE BROKE!!!!!!!
:sarcasm:

[denverbill]

9. It's a thoughtful post, but by the same token:

What would have happened if we had NOT intervened? Gaddafi had already explicitly stated he intended to massacre the rebels.

So on the one hand you've got the possibility that the intervention will fail and leave a big mess. On the other hand, there is the almost certainty of a rebel defeat and likely slaughter of thousands (or tens of thousands) of civilians, and continued dictatorship.

In 1991, Bush the first stood by while Saddam Hussein massacred thousands of Kurds and Shiites Bush himself had inspired to revolt. How much better off would we have been if we had stopped that massacre then? Frankly, if Bush had sought UN approval to intervene in 1991 to prevent a massacre, I would have supported that.

Libya is not Iraq, IMO. If Gaddafi goes, I don't see it devolving into civil war and suicide bombings of Shiite versus Sunni. I saw that happening in Iraq long before the invasion. Even Bush the First predicted that as a result if he intervened.

[liberal N proud]

14. It matters not what we think for Greed is the master of all decisions

We are just pawns in the game to be thrown to the front lines as sacrificial offerings.

[Bluerthanblue]

25. if greed was the motivator - then doing nothing would be the answer

as many people who cite the cost of each tomahawk missile on here try to claim.

[liberal N proud]

59. You must know who's greed applies

It is not ours or the nations but much bigger.

[GOTV]

18. I'm for a no fly zone. I'm not for an invasion.

1. What if the "no-fly-zone" doesn't work?

If Ghaddafi cannot use his air forces to attack the rebels the no fly zone did work. If the rebels lose anyway that's unfortunate but we gave them a better chance.

2. What will happen if the rebels start a massacre of civilians?

I don't know.

3. What if there is a stalemate?

I don't know.

4. What if Libya descends into anarchy?

I don't know.

5. Who exactly is for this war anyway?

The people of Libya who are attempting to over throw Ghaddafi.


Do you avoid taking any actions in life that might possibly fail?

[howard112211]

19. No, but to paraphrase Sun Tsu:

"The successfull general wins first and then enters battle, the unsuccessful general enters battle and then tries to win."

The meaning of this quote is that to be successful in military matters, once should have done all of the math, and addressed all of the "what if?"s and "but"s prior to entering battle, or one is inviting disaster. "Let's just start a war and see what happens" should get any general/leader fired immediately.

This is not an everyday life action. This is a decision of utmost relevance.

[Ikonoklast]

21. Sun Tzu never heard the words "They have attained overwhelming air superiority."

Those six words heard by any modern military leader only mean one thing...that he will soon be unemployed.

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Sure, if followed up by sufficient ground forces

Goering thought he could take out the Dunkirk beaches from the air, and allowed 330,000 British and French troops to escape.

Regardless of air superiority, Qaddafi's military needs to be beaten if he is to be overthrown. Maybe he's not to be overthrown; maybe the rebels just declare a new nation and sell the oil from the portion they can secure.

If our intent is to overthrow him, we should say so. If not, we should act accordingly, which would be to neutralize his anti-aircraft forces and airpower, enforce a no-fly zone (which we're doing) and NOT attack his ground forces (which we have done).

We're deliberately misrepresenting what we intend to do, and that's helping us trip ourselves up on accomplishing our ill-defined goals.

It's a mess, but at least it's a politically correct mess, huh?

[Ikonoklast]

55. Goering was a pompous blowhard.

Goering didn't have anything remotely resembling total air superiority over Dunkirk; he said a great many things that were just plain moonshine.

Hitler was stupid enough to believe him.



The RAF flew fighter interdiction every day the evacuation was ongoing.

The harassment of German aircraft was intense.

If your enemy can fly out to meet you over the battlefield, you have not gained air superiority in any way.



If indeed the Luftwaffe had total air superiority, the evacuation would have failed and the BEF might have had to surrender.


And as far as air power not ever stopping a country from waging further war, see Japan, August 1945.

[GOTV]

29. Then we're in a good spot since the point of the NFZ

Is to prevent Qaddafi from using his air force against the rebels and I think we've done all the math necessary to assure we will be able to attain that goal.

The NFZ is not intended to force one outcome over another on the ground.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Yes, even if they don't admit it, the no-fly zone IS intended to favor one side over the other

It's not about innocent civilians, it's about the rebel forces teetering on the brink of being destroyed. The words slip out every so often, just as they do about Qaddafi no longer having any legitimacy, which implies he should be removed.

We're fighting a half-assed non-war of euphamisms, when history teaches us that clarity and decisiveness are what wins wars. Qaddafi has no such subtlety or addle-headed view of things; he knows he has to crush the rebellion or he will be removed from power and probably killed.

Playing the middle of the road and being all things to all people may be successful in elections (not in leading) but it's disastrous in war.

[GOTV]

36. Clearly the NFZ only hurts those with an air force, and that's not the rebels.

Still, it's not intended, or expected to force one outcome over the other. The sides are more evenly matched now.

[PurityOfEssence]

34. Clausewitz would cringe

“No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.”

We want a politically correct war, one where we don't get our hair mussed (as Buck Turgidson would say) and do it with tidy push-button sterility, while only killing those who had it coming.

It's deliberate bullshit, though, because we don't want to just protect civilians, we want to depose Qaddafi. Not saying so doesn't really fool anyone, by the way, it just reminds what lying sacks of shit they are, and how they think they can play fast and loose with facts and intents.

Knowing politicians deceive shouldn't be big news, but knowing that they deceive about war, the organized killing of others and dominating of foreign peoples, should be a bit dispiriting to anyone with a scrap of decency. Just because someone's bad doesn't mean we have the ethical right to lie, distort and deeply misrepresent our intentions to get our way. That's simply imperialism.

Those who snicker knowingly as our President foists off lies and distortions to accomplish something that actually has some merit (the deposing of Qaddafi) are scofflaws and further justify those who say that our country is nothing but a cynical juggernaut of self-interest.

This is deplorable, and it's arrogantly sloppy to boot.

[Jakes Progress]

24. If Korea started shooting down any air traffic over the US and

bombed all the strategic air defense systems in the country, don't you think we would consider that we had been invaded?

[piedmont]

27. No, because that's not an invasion. Did the Japanese invade Pearl Harbor? nt

[Jakes Progress]

38. American air space is our territory. They invaded.

[piedmont]

44. You should write a history book. It will be one-of-a-kind.

It's pretty clear what the poster you responded to supports and does not support. Re-defining the word "invasion" does not make one equal to the other.

[Jakes Progress]

63. You should get a dictionary.

The poster was redefining the word. Your bias is showing.

[GOTV]

30. No. That would not be an invasion. To be an invasion they'd have to invade.

What you're describing is an attack.

For example I don't think the US was invaded by al-qaeda on 9/11. We were attacked.

[Jakes Progress]

39. Check the dictionary.

It is all find and good to have your own definition or interpretation, but the definition given in authoritative sources does not match yours.

An attack on foreign territory is an invasion. It could be considered an air invasion. Or you could call it a temporary or limited invasion, but we entered their territory for the purposes that meet the definition of invasion.

Quibbling over the definitions is silly though. Attack/Smattack. Invasion/Sinvation. It's what we did, why we did it, what we expect to happen that matter.

[GOTV]

45. I know what invasion means. This is not an invasion. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

64. You know what you think you want it to mean means.

But you lack any resources that support your re-definition.

[GOTV]

65. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

42. The UNSC's resolution specifically states there will be no invasion.

[GOTV]

52. Great!

I didn't mean I thought an invasion was going on. The OP referenced people that approved of the Libya "invasion". I was defending our action while distancing myself from hypothetical people who might favor following up with an invasion.

[Taverner]

20. Also - let's just say we can keep a no fly zone

How is that going to do any good?

Like I said in another post - I saw this movie before.

It was called "The No Fly Zone over Iraq" and it, with sanctions, killed untold thousands.

[GOTV]

32. The good it does is that it prevents Qaddafi from killing hundreds of rebels easily for little cost

If he wants to put down the rebellion he will have to do it in ways that are more difficult and more expensive using many more men and much more equipment and taking a great deal longer.

[Taverner]

41. He has heard of tanks, you know

Tanks, troops, landmines, grenades, there are lots of ways to kill other than from above

And when it comes right down to it, Cluster Bombs (like we use in enforcing a No Fly Zone) are not smart at all, and by Quadaffi's design, will kill many more innocents than bad guys. But we can live with that - in America we love war. We love thinking we're Shane, when in reality we're Jack Wilson.

[GOTV]

48. They're not as efficient as planes for killing large numbers of people

Simple as that. The NFZ evens the odds just a bit.

[Taverner]

50. They work though

The NFZ sure worked in the case of Sadaam Hussein's Iraq

All that bombing we did sure helped get rid of Hussein in the Clinton admin, didn't it?

Bet you don't even know we bombed Iraq almost daily during its NFZ

[GOTV]

54. Sure. So do guns. So do knives. the NFZ is not expeced to stop all killing.

Just to stop Qaddafi's one sided advantage to kill so many, so quickly and so easily.

[Hugabear]

57. Pure bullshit

You can kill just as many people with tanks and artillery as you can with planes. Plus, tanks and artillery have the advantage of being mobile and a lot easier to hide, and you can position them in heavily populated areas. Taking out tanks and artillery means killing lots and lots of civilians.

[GOTV]

66. You can kill as many people with your bare hands too ...

... it will take a lot longer though.

[Shandris]

37. I was vastly disappointed to find our strategy for the conflict.

We never should have had more than air superiority, anything more was downright idiotic. The biggest problem was the presence of aircraft, we could have alleviated that problem from the deck of an aircraft carrier and let the ground troops decide their own fate.

So, with that in mind, the answers would have been simple:

1. No Air Force in the world can hold the air over us, moot question.
2. Ground troops decide, but we can investigate for future war crimes trials.
3. Ground troops decide the outcome.
4. Ground troops decide the outcome.
5. For the civilians, ostensibly. Keeping the skies free of Gaddafi's aircraft protects them from retaliatory bombings that are only tertiary in relation to said civilians, and he has done it previously in this campaign so there is no reason to suspect he would not do so again. Let the ground troops decide the outcome.

Since air superiority was my only supported avenue of military intervention...I'll take a pass on the questions now that they've gone beyond that.

Lightly edited for clarity.

[DutchLiberal]

40. What if we didn't answer the people's cry for help?

Would the number of victims quickly surpass the already 6,000 deaths?

[Taverner]

43. There was a way we could have done this

No guns, no deaths, etc

When the rebels had taken Benghazi, we could have recognized them as a sovereign nation. Just think if the UN had done that - Quadaffi would have either had to have backed down, or go out fighting.

[ButterflyBlood]

46. That'd be a nice step but would mean little

There's an internationally recognized government of Somalia after all. How much influence do they have? And for the record France has already recognized the opposition government of Libya.

[Taverner]

47. Trust me, bombing Libya won't help the rebels any

Just ask any Iraqi during the Clinton Admin

[ButterflyBlood]

49. Uh, during the Clinton admin Saddam was completely disabled in the south and Kurdish region

The UN no-fly zones completely put an end to his murderous campaigns in those areas and removed his authority. And that's what this operation is most comparable to, not what Bush did.

[Taverner]

51. Yeah - tell yourself that

If it helps you sleep at night

[DutchLiberal]

60. You can't acknowledge a group of rebels as a nation...

Diplomacy doesn't work that way.

[Iterate]

53. Invasion? I don't recall plans for an invasion. It's not in the OP title either.

If you mean NFZ, say so.

[Taverner]

56. K&R

:kick:

[quiller4]

58. And on the third day of the mission the Arab League praised it.

Mussa issued a message of support on Sunday and again today. Canadian planes left bases in italy to join French planes earlier today. Belgium and Canada issued messages of active support on Saturday.

Who exactly supports this effort? 70% of those polled by CNN support a no fly zone.

Am I part of the 70%? Absolutely.

[JoePhilly]

61. And what about Naomi?

Answers.

#1. If the NFZ fails, Libya is right back where it was, isn't it? I mean, Ghaddafi was already killing folks with no obstacles. So if NFZ fails, he still kills them. I guess we could just watch.

#2. Why would the rebels kill civilians? Who seriously thinks that is a potential outcome?

#3. Two countries? Why not 4? Stalemate? Sorry, one side will win.

#4. Isn't this the same as #1, #2, or #3?

#5. The UN sanctioned the NFZ effort (war, really?) ... not just the French and British as falsely claimed. And the Arab League ASKED for a NFZ effort, and now, for political reasons, has been critical of specific mechanics of creating the NFZ, you have not heard them ask to END IT, have you??? No. Oh, and the countries who are trying to "stay out of it" are doing so for internal political reasons.