Rebels call for "Close Air Support." Do they want IRAQ in Libya, Fallujah in Tripoli??

[Distant Observer]

American General says US is going to go after pro-Gaddafi ground troops in the cities. "Rebels" call for "close air support" for a new drive to Tripoli. IS THIS "PROSPECTIVE" DESTRUCTION OF THE PRO-GADDAFI FORCES LESS IMMORAL THAN THE FEARED "MASSACRE" OF REBELS IN BENGHAZI THAT THE NO-FLY WAS SUPPOSED TO STOP??

I hated to watch the anger and vehemence with which Gaddafi and his regime went against the disorganized "rebel" groups. I don't know if he would have really committed a "massacre" in Benghazi had he been left to conquer the city. But he could have. And, like most others I would want some international intervention in the form of a strong diplomatic mission to demand a ceasefire, or even a "proportionate" military strike to halt the advance of his forces on the city.

But what I hate more is the disproportionate destruction that we, always "the righteous ones," have unleashed on Libya, all packaged in repeated exaggerations, hypocritical justifications, and outright falsehoods, all designed to make what is plainly evil appear to be purely good.

Libya is in CIVIL WAR. The civil war is to a large degree the product of a long-running power struggle and factional conflict rooted (for large measure) in opposition from passionate Easterners whose King was overthrown by Gaddafi and who have always felt oppressed by the dictatorial regime. Like the children of Cuban immigrants, they hate the leader who disposesed their parents, stifle freedom and stand in the way of their economic prospects.

But Gaddafi's Libya, was never as bad as many of the authoritarian regimes in the region. There were things to be thankful for. Like universities, hospitals, a generous social welfare net.
Taking up arms and driving against pro-Gaddafi cities, killing pro-Gaddafi people, and insisting on their "Allahu Akbar" right to overthrow Gaddafi and his regime, was not the most peaceful or thoughtful approach to bettering their society.

Now, the rebels now say they need American "close air support." DO THEY KNOW what hellfire of destruction they are asking for in calling for more US attacks against their fellow Libyans who happen to be pro-Gaddafi.

American use of force does not have a reputation of being "proportional. In Iraq, the Fallujah residents who dared to "rebel" against the free-wheeling activities of 4 "independent contractors" working for the "Coalition Provisional Authority" quickly found that out. L. Paul Bremmer, the US provisional dictator, made sure that those rebels paid the price of rebellion.

WHAT THE US DID TO ITS "REBELS" IN FALLUJAH






An endless stream of propaganda "amateur videos" and unidentified phone calls to CNN about the craziness of Gaddafi or the "massacres" or FEARS of "massacres" by the evil pro-Gaddafi people, will not morally justify the kind of destruction and bloodshed that almost always results when the Western powers decide they are justified in killing people in non-Western country.

[old mark]

1. The "rebels" are NOT trained military- they are a group of people

with guns, who accept orders from no one and evidently fight or not as they please. The lies you are hearing come from the Ghadaffi regime and his captive media, and I am very surprised peopel believe any of his bullshit.

Please save your outrage till you know thge facts and understand the situation.

mark

[Distant Observer]

6. I have lived in many countries in Africa for 10 year and have followed the Libya saga since the 1969

revolution.

[Waiting For Everyman]

2. Their "fellow Libyans" are on rooftops in Misurata killing them with sniper fire.

Is shooting the victim of a crime the same thing as shooting the one who COMMITTED the crime against the victim? I'm glad law enforcement doesn't see it your way (yet).

My, what a busy poster in only 15 days.

[EFerrari]

3. K&R

[dipsydoodle]

4. If they really did ask for close air support

safest thing to do is to tell 'em to fuck off - diplomatically of course.

[JerseyTrash116]

5. Close air support?

The idea of doing so for these rebels is ridiculous. Bombing from 25,000 feet and close air support are two entirely different things.

[ieoeja]

8. You can do it, but we would have to embed spotters with the rebels.

During MacArthur's wasted campaign in the Philippines, tanks and artillery could not keep up with our infantry in the jungles. And the US Army had no close-in air support. But the Marines did.

They initially tried using Navy/Marine flyers with Army spotters. But they lacked the training/experience, and ended up embedding Navy/Marine spotters with the US Army infantry. This worked just fine.

[Igel]

11. Nah.

Just give them phones and the appropriate laser devices.

Since they neither spin nor really want power--they're completely honest and altruistic--we can trust them more than our own soldiers to make the right decisions. I'm absolutely sure that no innocent civilians, no collateral damage, could ever result from the bullet shot from the barrel of a rebel's gun, no innocent could be so much as discomfited by a bomb directed by a rebel's command.

[Kennah]

10. +1

I have no personal experience, but a friend and coworker from a previous job was an Army Infantry Lieutenant in Viet Nam.

Close Air Support involves communication between infantry and the air units, with the infantry providing coordinates. Within a certain distance--too close for comfort--it's "Danger Close"

My friend once had to call in a "Danger Close" drop. Close Air Support isn't for amateurs.

Another step closer to Viet Nam in Libya.

[spanone]

7. says who? please back up all claims...you know, links

[Distant Observer]

9. Richard Engel, MSNBC, Hardball, 3/23/2011

[JoePhilly]

12. In press conference the other day, the US general said NO CLOSE AIR SUPPORT.

He said the mission of the NFZ is to protect civilians. He was asked directly if they would provide "close air support" and he said NO.

Since then, I have seen no official change in the administrations position on that point.

Has anyone else?