What happens when Libyan airstrikes fail?

[Hugabear]

Honest question. What happens when Libyan airstrikes fail? He doesn't need to drop bombs on the rebels. Artillery, rockets, and machine guns can be quite devastating as well. Plus, they're much more mobile, easier to hide, and can be placed in heavily populated areas. Taking those out carries a huge risk of causing a lot of civilian casualties. Then you have the added task of removing Gadhaffi from power, because let's face it - we've reached a point of no return, if he stays in power and the rebellion fails, you're looking at a much worse situation than before.

The UN resolution doesn't forbid ground troops, merely no occupational forces. So if the air strikes fail to meet their objectives, if Gadhaffi's forces continue to remain a viable fighting force, then what? Do we commit troops? If so, whose? The United States? NATO? The Arab League? Because to be quite honest, despite all the talk about the Arab League supporting air action, I have a very hard time believing that they would support (let alone participate) ground action in Libya.

[Zanzoobar]

1. It depends on your definition of fail.

It is my opinion that we've taken the opportunity to destabilize Libya.

We will not fail at that.

[emulatorloo]

7. Libya was already destabilized.

[damntexdem]

2. If they fail, then they will have failed.

It's worth it to give the rebels a chance.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. That would depend on whether or not NATO is willing to support an armed rebellion

rather than a humanitarian misson. It's a rather sticky situation.

[Starry Messenger]

4. It depends on what you think we're trying to do.

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. Partition, arm the rebels and wait. Embargo the other half.

Enforce a no-fly zone, and a naval blockade. The assets are already there; they might as well fly, or sail, their monthly quota of hours to some purpose.

Qadaffi isn't going to live forever. It's what we should have done with Saddam, and did do with the Kurds.

History doesn't offer very many mulligans. This is one.

[Schema Thing]

6. Libyan airstrikes never fail

first rule of flight club.

[sad sally]

8. You mean Intervention Part 2: Boots on the Ground?

We’re fighting War Lite, without leadership or goals (Clifford Orwin is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto and a distinguished fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.)

Regime change is controversial, you see, even when the regime is that of a mad dog like Moammar Gadhafi. So for the sake of consensus – humanitarianism loves consensus, since it’s just this consensus that vouches for it as non-political – intervention couches itself in neutral terms. Yes, Colonel Gadhafi must go (Barack Obama has said so), but it’s not the intervention’s aim to remove him. That aim is merely to stop him from doing such terrible things.

That goal is a worthy one. But it can’t be achieved except by removing Col. Gadhafi. Leave a despot in power and you leave him with the power to oppress. And removing him may require more than your typical humanitarian intervention – a war fought at 15,000 feet, or with cruise missiles lobbed from distant warships, without too much danger to the intervenors. No despot has ever been deposed from 15,000 feet.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/were-fighting-war-lite-without-leadership-or-goals/article1954106/?du