H2O Man Survey #2: Libya

[H2O Man]

“The 'military conflict' referred to in the book's subtitle is therefore always examined in the context of 'economic change.' The triumph of any one Great Power in this period, or the collapse of another, has usually been the consequence of lengthy fighting by its armed forces; but it has also been the consequences of the more or less efficient utilization of the state's productive economic resources in wartime, and, further in the background, of the way in which that state's economy has been rising or falling, relative to the other leading nations, in the decades preceding the actual conflict. For that reason, how a Great Power's position steadily alters in peacetime is as important to this study as how it fights in wartime.”
Paul Kennedy; The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000; 1987; page xv.

Some news reports suggest the possibility that the American role in the civil war in Libya is moving beyond the providing of a “no fly zone.” Thus, I am submitting a second “H2O Man Poll” on the war in Libya. As always, there is no “wrong” answer; this is a matter of opinion. Please answer any or all of these ten questions.

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civilwar in Libya?

{2} Has your opinion on this changed?

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”?

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya?

{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya?

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”?

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya?

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long?

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya?

{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society?

[aSpeckofDust]

1. I'll give it a shot..

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civilwar in Libya?
//Supported a strictly no-fly zone, aid to civilians, but since we aren't doing just that, no. Can't support it.

{2} Has your opinion on this changed?
//I started in the middle ground, but lean more towards no now than before.

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”?
//Not really, no.

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya?
//Oppose. There never seems to be a happy ending when the CIA is involved, I don't see this being different.

{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya?
//Yes, since the US pushed a 'no war crimes for outside sources' into the UN draft, I have no doubt that mercs are going to be heavily involved.

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”?
//Short term help, long term hurt.

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya?
//No, but that is to be expected.

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long?
//Long. Very Long.

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya?
//Depends on what you mean by stability. Can they get the fighting to stop on a mass scale? Yes, I think so.. Will a civil war wage underneath that imposed peace? Probably.

{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society?
//No effect. Depressing but true. Our gas prices will rise, but on the whole we live in a apathetic state.

[cali]

2. ok, here goes.

1) After struggling with some conflicting feelings on the issue, I opposed it.

2) My opinion has strengthened.

3) I'm always leery of claims such as "it's limited to a NFZ"

4) Oppose

5) I haven't a clue, but I wouldn't be shocked.

6) I suspect it hurts.

7) I don't know.

8) We'll see.

9) I doubt it.

10) I don't think it does either.

[Catherina]

3. Answers

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civilwar in Libya?
Strongly oppose

{2} Has your opinion on this changed?
No

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”?
No

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya?
Oppose

{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya?
Yes. There were tweet reports from the start that they were there.

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”?
Hurts it

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya?
Not at all

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long?
Long but it's not like it's new

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya?
Like they did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan? No

{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society?
Further destabilizes an already shaky situation and drives a big nail into the country's demise


There's no business like war business

[mmonk]

4. My answers. Thanks.

1. oppose
2. No
3. No
4. oppose
5. Yes
6. hurts
7. No
8. Long as it takes
9. No
10. Destabilizes

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. ibid.

[Me.]

5. I Am Ambivalent On This Matter

It is hard to sit in our livings rooms and watch people being slaughtered by a vicious, evil man. On the other hand I am getting a feeling of here we go again, quagmire here we come. If we were out of Iraq and Afghanistan I would have no problem with this but as we are not I have to wonder how far down the military rabbit hole is this country going to be forced to go.

Edited to insert the correct word

[indimuse]

6. here goes::

1)No! Have we not learned about getting involved with civil war in other countries..hence..Iraq!

2)No.

3)Noooo

4) Oppose (sorry for miss reading..on 2 antibiotics and my head is spinning..)

5)Absolutely!

6)Hurts..

7) Unfortunately not..

8)Years...

9) Perhaps after hundreds of thousands of innocence are dead!

10) Destabilizes..Nothing good will come from this here nor there!



If we wanted to remove Gadaffi so badly and quickly..why didn't we just take him out with one shot?
Clean. No warships no bombs..no loss of lives.etc..you get he picture!



thank you! knr!
Clean.

[Tatiana]

7. My answers.

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civilwar in Libya?

Oppose.

{2} Has your opinion on this changed?

Nope.

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”?

In the history of the United States' interventions in other nations from Indochina to Latin America, the US has never played a "limited" role (e.g. only establishing a "no fly zone"). I always knew American personnel would make their way on the ground. That's what our foreign policy has dictated for years, from the Philippines to Vietnam.

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya?

Oppose. El CIA kills. Ask anyone in Central or South America. I don't think anything positive will come of CIA involvement.

{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya?

It's certainly possible. Richard Engle was reporting on how the "rebel" forces were looking into hiring personnel with military experience. And just where will the money to finance this effort come from? Hmmmm.... Perhaps the same country pushing austerity measures for its poor and working class?

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”?

It clearly hurts our country as it reaffirms the Bush Doctrine of preemptive military engagement. Obama's precedent will no doubt be followed by future Presidents long after he leaves office.

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya?

No. I don't think he's being honest and I don't think he personally believed half the stuff he said during his speech on the topic.

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long?

Depends on how you categorize brief and long. I'm inclined to think we will be involved for at least 6 months, likely longer.

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya?

If they couldn't do it in Vietnam or Indochina or Iran or Argentina or Nicaragua or any of the countless other nations we've invaded, I doubt we'd have found the magic formula now for bringing about stability. Our specialty is DESTABILIZING countries, unfortunately. There is a slight change that this might turn out like our planned and executed regime change in Panama.

{10} Does the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society?

I think it destabilizes us. We're already in debt. We're just piling on the debt with more military adventures. Not to mention, Japan has problems of its own right now so they won't be purchasing any more of our debt in the near future. As a matter of fact, we better hope that they don't start trying to collect on what we owe them. I also think this latest military adventure has soured a number of citizens on government and governmental responsibility. The purpose of government is to take care of and make decisions in the best interests of its citizens and people. I think many people are going to be resentful of the fact that apparently we care enough to intervene with haste overseas, yet can't be bothered with helping hurting children and families right here in this country. I think these people will be voicing their opinions during the next elections -- either by staying at home, voting third-party/write-in, or working very hard for those opposing the leaders who have taken us down this road.

[snappyturtle]

8. Here's my take:

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civilwar in Libya? * Oppose

{2} Has your opinion on this changed?* No

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”? * No. I looked at the "no boots on the ground" as a lead in to "we tried" or "we didn't want to but..."

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya? *Both. I would have hoped the CIA was there BEFORE we committed and maybe they were.

{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya? * I don't know...probably as they seem omnipresent in our involvements.

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”? *Can't tell. Don't know definition of "national interests" in regard to Libya. I know what's been said but..........?

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya? *Not fully open and honest; think there's more to it.

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long? *Whatever it is, it's too long

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya? *No...up to Libyan people

{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society? *Adds to destabilization

[LaurenG]

9. Short Answers

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civilwar in Libya?
Did not support US involvement in Libya - I wished for UN to take control.

{2} Has your opinion on this changed?
No

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”?
No I never believe what the US says in any war, past record and all.

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya?
Oppose edit: to clarify


{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya?
Unsure

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”?
In the long run may be helpful but not convinced. In the short term may create more reason for terrorism.

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya?
Not at all.

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long?
LONG

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya?
No - look at Iraq.

{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society?
Makes us much poorer financially and gets the hawks all riled up and refocused on other things.

[Vinee]

10. ..............

1.)NOT FOR A SECOND
2.)not even a little bit
3.)nope
4.)I guess, now that we're in it. It's better than proceeding without decent intel.
5.)no, probably not just yet.
6.)attacking Libya isn't in our national interest, it's in Europe's best interest. I guess it's a favor returned for Iraq. At best, it will help the European economy; at worst, it will help the Russian economy as well as the economy of other ME countries that don't really have our best interest in mind. What's worse, it further legitimizes preemptive war in the absence of a clear and present danger to the US.
7.)NO.
8.)If it is determined that the rebels will play ball with us, we'll be there forever.
9.) Maybe, maybe not. If we stay there long enough, maybe it will turn into another Iraq.
10.) it further legitimizes preemptive war in the absence of a clear and present danger to the US. violence begets violence begets violence. That we do this while already engaged in two ground wars and while our economy is crumbling leads me to believe that this will lead to instability and taxes.

[BeFree]

12. Empire

The Empire has brought us many 'good' things.

If one wants more Empire, then STFU and let them continue.

If one doesn't want more Empire then maybe what we have we don't really want?

[mrdmk]

13. My reply to your questions

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civilwar in Libya?

Oppose.


{2} Has your opinion on this changed?

No.


{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”?

Not Really.


{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya?

Oppose.


{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya?

Doubtful.


{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”?

Doubtful.


{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya?

No.


{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long?

Longer than expected.


{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya?

Doubtful.


{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society?

Destabilize, if you will except the word polarize in place of destabilize.


Comment: The military act was done without any public debate what-so-ever. Hiding behind the U.N. is a thin shield considering the fact the U.S.A. voted in-favor of military action. The U.S. ambassador not only was appointed by President Obama, but is also the ambassador's boss.

[H2O Man]

14. kick

[David__77]

15. OK.

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civilwar in Libya?

Oppose.

{2} Has your opinion on this changed?

No.

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”?

No.

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya?

Oppose.

{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya?

I do not know. Those of other nations could be.

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”?

Yes. But the adverse impact will be felt in the future rather than now.

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya?

I do not think that is possible, because those have not been articulated privately.

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long?

That is uncertain. Not "short" as in weeks or a few months.

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya?

No.

{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society?

Neutral effect.

[riderinthestorm]

16. Let me preface my responses with my belief that we don't know who we're backing

I'm sure we don't know who the "rebels" are - that may even include top US Admin officials and NATO officials but it surely means that regular Americans don't know. My answers would be more informed and clear if I knew who we actually were planning on installing post Gaddafi, or even who the players were in the "ragtag" (cough) rebel forces. It's not inconceivable that an Islamic state even more oppressive than Gaddafi's will come out on top since any rebellion that the Saudis are behind makes me deeply uneasy.

So with that said, here are my answers:


{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civilwar in Libya?
A: Supported a strict NFZ, aid to civilians, but since we aren't doing just that, no. Can't support it.

{2} Has your opinion on this changed?
A: I started with a wait-and-see attitude, but was always deeply skeptical that this would stay with the mission as originally outlined. Past Administrations, and this one is no different, are masters at mission creep and selling that to the American public. This conflict looks to be no different.

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”?
A: Tweets showed that SAS forces and Blackwater forces were already suspected weeks ago, playing a role in the insurgency. To believe that the CIA wasn't heavily involved would have been naive.

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya?
A: Oppose.

{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya?
A: Yes, since the US pushed a 'no war crimes for outside sources' into the UN draft, it was obvious that the mercenaries were already there. I'd also stipulate that "no boots on the ground" really means "no AMERICAN uniformed troops on the ground" and that this conflict will be fought by Blackwater types and others.

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”?
A: Short term and long term hurt. Our economy is in no shape to jump into another war and our efforts always backfire in this region. No matter what the citizens of Libya may be saying now, I'm sure the PR masters within the KSA will ensure it's spun negatively by the end. And our own ability to screw things up in that region....

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya?
A: No

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long?
A: Long. Especially if we can install our own puppet then it will be forever.

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya?
A: Depends on what you mean by stability. Can they get the fighting to stop on a mass scale? Yes, I think so.. Will a civil war wage underneath that imposed peace? Probably.

{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society?
A: No effect. Americans will believe the cheerleaders who spin this as a humanitarian mission. American exceptionalism will be played upon to great acclaim on Faux News.

[rosesaylavee]

17. ...

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civilwar in Libya? ~~ Oppose.

{2} Has your opinion on this changed? ~~No.

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”? ~~ Yes.

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya? ~~ Oppose.

{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya? ~~ Possibly. Why would they miss such a great business oppty?

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”? ~~ Hurts.

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya? ~~ No.

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long? ~~ Already too long.

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya? ~~ No.

{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society? ~~ Hard to tell. We haven't been stable for so long, I've forgotten what that looked like.

[Shandris]

18. Here we go.

My original support was ONLY to the prevention of Ghaddafy's aircraft from bombing civilians, and my view on that has not changed. Had that been the outcome, I would have been supportive. All this shit added on later has quenched my support, because I no longer feel our involvement is justified and does not fit the criteria of a 'Just War'. That said...

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civilwar in Libya?

I supported the creation of a No-Fly Zone, pursuant to preventing air superiority from destroying a dissenting movement that had the apparency of public support.

{2} Has your opinion on this changed?

Yes.

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”?

I believed it should have been, although I didn't believe it would be limited to that unfortunately. The first cruise missile was proof of that; it is possible to 'Not Fly' and still maintain a Command and Control structure.

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya?

Generically oppose.

{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya?

Good possibility. So long as they are NOT being paid by the US Government, I don't care whether they are or not; mercenaries, while not my brand of belief, have proved useful to many armed conflicts over the centuries.

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”?

Haven't decided yet. Ostensibly, it harms slightly. If the Arab world in general leans in favor of the coalition action, then it would slightly help.

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya?

No.

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long?

Militarily, short. Intelligence-wise, I believe we have a long-term role in nearly every nation, both friend and enemy.

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya?

Given historical trends, no.

{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society?

I don't think it has much more than a Talking Point-level effect on overall American society. It 'destabilizes' for as long as its important in the news cycle.

[alsame]

19. My answers:

{1} As I've said elsewhere, I've been very, very conflicted. However, as more information comes out and things seem to be escalating, I'm leaning toward opposition.

{2} Yes.

{3} No, but I was hoping that was the case.

{4} Oppose. Things do not usually end well when the CIA gets involved.

{5} I would bet money on it.

{6} Well, since it's not clear what those “national interests” are, I'm skeptical. Aren't we supposed to be on a humanitarian mission? Or are we fighting for the oil companies (again) and/or the banking industry?

{7} No. I don't think any administration ever tells the entire truth about what the MIC is doing.

{8} I have no idea. Of course I hope for a quick resolution but I fear another endless involvement.

{9} Again, I have no idea because I don't know enough about the Libyan society and who the rebels are. It would be nice to think there is a framework for a functioning democratic gov't, but I don't know if this is the case. I just hope we don't install another puppet regime.

{10} Honestly, I doubt it will have any impact here.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. Here goes:

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civilwar in Libya?

OPPOSE

{2} Has your opinion on this changed?

NO

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”?

OF COURSE NOT; WE'VE ADMITTED SUCH, AND THE RESOLUTION PERMITS LITERALLY ANYTHING BUT OCCUPATION AFTERWARD

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya?

OPPOSE

{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya?

IF HISTORY IS ANY JUDGE, MERCENARIES AND SPECIAL FORCES ARE ALREADY THERE

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”?

IT MAKES US LOOK LIKE CYNICAL, OPPORTUNISTIC ASSHOLES

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! NO. HE'S NOT ACTUALLY CLEAR ON THE GOALS BEYOND "OUSTING QADDAFI AND INSTALLING A GOVERNMENT THAT WE CAN COMPLETELY DOMINATE."

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long?

HARD TO TELL. IF THE SAVAGES GET RID OF OBAMA'S TYPICAL ULTRAMODERATE, ON-THE-CHEAP, PLAUSIBLY DENIABLE SUBTERFUGE AND FIGHT AN UGLY WAR AS UGLY WARS ARE TO BE FOUGHT, IT COULD BE BRIEF. IT COULD ALSO BE A LENGTHY MESS.

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya?

MAYBE, IF THE FUNDAMENTALISTS CAN BE CONTAINED. FAT CHANCE ON THAT, THOUGH.

{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society?

IT SLIGHTLY DESTABILIZES, UNLESS IT GETS MESSY, IN WHICH CASE IT'S MODERATE TROUBLE. THIS WAR HAS TOO MUCH SUPPORT FROM REACTIONARIES, IMPERIALISTS AND OBAMA ACOLYTES WHO WOULD LOVE AND DEFEND HIM IF HE BEAT TINKERBELL TO DEATH WITH A TIRE-IRON OF THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN. IT'S A BIG TENT FOR THIS COLLUSION, AND THEY'RE ALL BENT ON BOLSTERING THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY CONCEPT.

[H2O Man]

21. Note on #10:

By "destabilize," I should have been more precise. I meant in the context that the following quote, taken from the 2004 book, "Imperial Hubris," by "Anonymous" (Michael Scheuer):

" 'We thank God for appeasing us with the dilemma in Iraq after Afghanistan,' Ayman al-Zawahiri said in late 2003. 'The Americans are facing a delicate situation in both countries. If they withdraw they lose everything, and if they stay, they will continue to bleed to death'." (xxi)

To be clear, Scheuer is an extremely obnoxious person. Yet he wrote two important books. More, all these years later, the US military is stil active in both Afghanistan and Iraq, "bleeding" our economy.

[Uncle Joe]

22. Here are my answers.

1. Yes

2. It could depending on the use of mercenaries by the U.S. I believe they're a malignant blight or growing tapeworm against our national security serving both as a leech against the publics' traditional defense establishment and safety valve for weak politicians wanting to circumvent public accountability for their actions.

3. No I believed the CIA would be involved all along as spotters or trainers.

4. I don't oppose CIA involvement, they're a legitimate if shady arm of the U.S. Government.

5. They may be and this would rapidly erode my support, even though I support the overall policy of defending the opposition.

6. Depends on the outcome but I would wager 60-40 that it helps, primarily because of Libya's position between Egypt and Tunisia, two nations; with fragile embryonic democracies of a sort. Had Gaddafi been given free reign to retaliate against his opposition, I can't help but believe there would've been a major refugee problem destabilizing a good chunk of North Africa.

7. For the most part honest, but I rarely view things as black and white.

8. I believe the U.S. will have connections to Libya for some time to come, but I'm not certain as to the capacity.

9. Perhaps, they can help but it's mostly up to the Libyans, including Gaddafi.

10. This will be dependant on the outcome but overall I view the odds as 65-35 in favor. A democratic Libya; that was supported by the U.S, during its' hour of need could benefit the U.S. and Europe in intangible ways with Arabs and Africans.

My own analysis is that Gaddafi is a survivalist at heart and will ultimately abdicate and seek asylum within a few weeks if not months, he doesn't want to end up like Saddam Hussein. If he does the International community will let him off in re: to charges against him and elements of his government may be included in the new democratic Libya, this could help rehabilitate his long term image.

Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.

[Zorra]

23. Cool survey. Refreshing that someone actually asked what we thought about it.

Since I believe you know the histories and backgrounds of events that I may post below I won't go into pedantic detail

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civil war in Libya?

Answer: No. For many reasons. Precedents like Vietnam. Iraq. Consistently being lied to by my government (Tonkin, mushroom clouds, Saddam Hussein responsible for 9/11) over a long period of time. It appears to me that our government, people and resources are being used to conquer "rogue" states in service of multinational corporations, rogue states that do not adhere to the corporate program for the planet and that have valuable resources that the corporations wish to develop for their own profit. Consistently observing that my government uses the term "American interests" to define multinational corporate interests, which are most often counter to the interests of the American people. I am an anti-imperialist. I am an anti-globalist. I believe in the sovereignty of nations and their right to self-determination. I don't know how much of the information I've read/heard about Gadhafi is accurate. Propaganda is disseminated by MSM on a daily basis. It is a shame, but I've found that when I've been consistently lied to, skepticism is healthy.

{2} Has your opinion on this changed?

Answer: No.

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”?

Answer: I knew that that the role was not limited.

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya?

Answer: I cannot answer this question because my information on the true intentions of the CIA is limited. I do believe that covert information gathering by intelligent and perceptive well-trained US spooks in other nations is critically important to our national defense.

{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya?

Answer: Absolutely.

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”?

Short Answer: No. I do not believe it is in the interests of the American people, (except in the sense that it may help Obama ger re-elected, and he is a less harmful president than any republican would be). I believe that when the term "national interests" is used in this context that it primarily means "the interests of multinational corporations that may do business in the US and hence trickle down some tiny amount of the profit to Americans".

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya?

Answer: No. True openness and honesty in this case requires complete divulgence of intent and motivation. People can often be led to believe something through a combination of different types inference and environmental circumstance, leaving the option open for the person using this type of deceptive inference technique to be able to say "I never said that" when acting counter to the erroneous beliefs created through inference. It is dishonest because the deceiver knew all along that s/he was using a deceptive inference technique. And the possibility of direct deliberate deception exists also.

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long?

Answer: That's relative. Long, by my standards.

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya?

Answer: "Stability" is relative to interpretation. "Can" is relative to interpretation. Yes, the possibility exists that it can. I believe that this would take a very, very long time and extreme authoritarian measures. And the "stability" would dissolve soon after the authoritarian occupier agents released their grip on the native peoples. And the occupiers may never really "leave" after the safe haven for multinational corporate operations and their ability to safely extract and sell Libya's resources is established.

(Somewhat similar to the present state of Iraq)

{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society?

Answer: Any society that condones 3 wars of aggression without discernable justification is. IMO, already dangerously unstable. Compare this with an individual that commits extreme violent acts causing extreme harm/death for her/his own profit, and not within the parameters of socially acceptable justifiable self-defense.

Behavioral scientists often use the term "sociopathic" to describe this type of individual.

I don't believe that collective or individual sociopathy could be considered a stable condition by any existing societal standards.

Thanks. I sincerely hope that I am totally inaccurate in my opinions/observations. Subcomandante Marcos wrote an essay back around Zapatista/Chiapas. Called "The Seven Loose Pieces Of The Global Jigsaw Puzzle". Here is an excerpt. I believe that this essay concisely and relatively accurately explains global megapolitics.

"The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel."

Peace

[H2O Man]

24. My answers:

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civil war in Libya?

I had mixed feelings. I appreciate the emotional appeal of a humanitarian effort. The decision to involve the US appeared to be, in part, based upon that. I always think that any US President – Democrat or Republican – should follow the Constitution's War Powers Clause (and the 1973 War Powers Resolution). The fact that President Obama did not concerned me,

{2} Has your opinion on this changed?

Yes. I had thought that a “no fly zone” might have been an actual goal, until about the second day. It became obvious that the US role was far larger.

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”?

No. Within two days, it became obvious that the role had extended far beyond a “no fly zone.”

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya?

It would be nice to know more about what CI was doing there in the past weeks, months, and years. Without more information, people tend to speculate. When we look to past examples, it raises the likelihood that even President Obama knows the full picture. Thus, we have something distinct from “civilian control” over military decisions. The concept of intelligence/industry determining US policy should concern every American.

{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya?

Yes.

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”?

It may help a very few people invested in the war machine, but it carries long-term negatives for the vast majority of us.

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya?

No. More, when we consider that the big eight members of both houses of Congress are sworn to secrecy, in regards to what parts of the truth they are being told, it handcuffs the public's ability to decide if they support the war effort or not.

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long?

Long. It didn't start in March, and it won't end in April.

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya?

There is a remarkably slim possibility of this.

{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society?

The War Machine fueled an economic boom in the post-WW2 years. But the world's dynamics have changed significantly since then. Today, it bleeds our economy. That is a form of destabilization we can ill afford.

[Zorra]

25. Knr

[frylock]

26. ..

1: oppose
2: no
3: no
4: oppose
5: no (not yet)
6: hurts
7: NO
8: prolonged
9: NO
10: destabilize

[hayu_lol]

28. Thoughtful survey...

1. Opposed

2. No(have been in Libya many times)

3. No

4. Oppose

5. Possible/Probable

6. Hurts

7. No(Obama's speeches remind me of the head of one of Hitler's Intelligence Services,
Admiral Canaris. German military/intelligence people after WWII often included the
remark that with Canaris, you listened to what he DID NOT say more than what
he said. Obama's speeches are like that.

8. Probably long and maybe very long.

9. No

10. Destabilize

For what it is worth, only NATO or the UN should have ordered the no-fly zone. We should not have been at the table. This will hurt us in the long run throughout the middle east.

Apologies for not typing out the questions.

[LiberalAndProud]

27. Response.

{1} Did you support or oppose President Obama's decision to involve the United States in the civilwar in Libya?
Unequivacally opposed.

{2} Has your opinion on this changed?
Only to the degree that my original opinion has been reinforced.

{3} Before hearing that the CIA had people “on the ground” in Libya, did you believe the US role was limited to creating a “no fly zone”?
No. What, do you think I'm stupid?

{4} Do you support or oppose the CIA involvement in Libya?
Oppose.

{5} Do you think that “private” US corporate para-military forces (such as the former “Black Water”) are “on the ground” in Libya?
Yes.

{6} Do you believe that President Obama's decision to involve the US in Libya helps or hurts our country, in the context of “national interests”?
Immeasurable harm.

{7} Do you think President Obama is being open and honest with the American public about the reasons and goals involved in his decisions regarding Libya?
Absolutely not.

{8} Will the US military/intelligence agencies' role in Libya be brief or long?
No end in sight. Certainly not in my lifetime.

{9} Can the US military/intelligence community bring about stability in Libya?
No.

{10} Do the US participation in the war in Libya stabilize or destabilize American society?
Destabilize.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Anybody remember the CIA involvement in the Bay of Pigs and how well that turned out?

1. NO
2. NO
3. NO
4. Oppose
5. Probably
6. NO
7. NO
8. Long
9. LOL
10. Destabilize. Considering the Republicans will have a new "waste of government money" to bludgeon Obama and the Democrats with to cut spending with. Not "defense" spending, of course.

[H2O Man]

30. Kick #2