Matt,

You’ll notice that I used the term “liberal democracy” - the prefix is crucial. Democracy alone is useful, but it needs to be coupled with a notion of individual rights. If 90% of a population decided to exterminate the other 10% you wouldn’t simply accept it as the “will of the people”.

Completely agree.

“We cannot simply ignore the desires of the minority in Libya just because they are a minority. They are no less legitimate just because they lack weight of numbers”

There is no minority in Libya in danger of being exterminated or otherwise being stripped of their human rights. There is a bloody fight of a movement against a murderous dictator. I think we both agree that the sooner Gaddafi is overthrown the better. You seem to support an intervention not to stop Gaddafi murdering the opposition, but to shape the new government, or do I get that wrong? Why do you believe that the new government will create a humanitarian catastrophe such as the extermination of a minority?

"The fall of Gadaffi will only mark the end of the first quarter."

Yes indeed.  Then the hard bit begins.

Rebel forces have crossed the Rubicon, but are far from victory thus far.  In fact, Gadaffi has successfully beaten back the rebels with air supremacy.

Since your pronouncements of Gadaffi's fall are premature, are you willing to entertain the potential consequences of the restoration of his regime based on genocide?

How long are you willing to wait?  Can’t wait to hear what opinion those in Libya will have of those countries that simply sit back and watch them flail and die.  What is your decision point for taking military action and who do you envision taking it? 

'Can’t wait to hear what opinion those in Libya will have of those countries that simply sit back and watch them flail and die.'

Mike,

As those Libyans fall and die, so does Western credibility fall and die along with them.

At least Momo will be able to console herself that we didn't steal their precious oil.

Momo is not alone.  Rassmussen poll out today -- 63% say the US should stay out of the Libya Crisis.

That's sad, and shows bad instincts on the American public's part. Limited American-led military intervention in Libya, followed with the overthrow of Kadaffi would do much to elevate America's tarnished reputation.

Will be a very sad missed opportunity.

Mike,

BTW, I understand the American reluctance to engage, it's been a tough 10 years. Momo, on the hand, is coming at this from a purly cyncical position, she puts more weight on oil considerations than she does human considerations.

Nothing cynical in my position, Chris. Unlike you I am just not an utterly trusting person when I think of our respective governments’ intentions.

The Libyans deserve freedom, not occupation or colonisation.

Mike,

Since your pronouncements of Gadaffi's fall are premature, are you willing to entertain the potential consequences of the restoration of his regime based on genocide?

Be patient.  This is going to take a while.  You are a military man, so I am sure that you are aware of the complications of fielding a fighting force from raw recruits on the spur of the moment.  Every day that Gadaffi does not decisively end this revolt is another day that the "resistance" has to get organized.  They are currently incapable of launching a full scale assault on Gadaffi loyalists, but that will change with time.  I believe that they have time on their side, as even the troops fighting "for" Gadaffi do not seem to want to wipe out the opposition.

I keep seeing clips on the news of opposition forces assembling on highways, and bombs falling about 200 yards away from them in the sand.  Either those pilots are incredibly incompetent, or they really didn't want to hit their targets.  Segments of Libyan ground forces also do not seem interested in decisively clearing the rebels.  I keep hearing reports of pro-Gadaffi forces penetrating rebel lines in the center of a city, then retreating back to their former positions.  I think that was in Zawiya or Misurata.

I have never seen anything like a nation's UN ambassador turning against his leader on the floor of the UN.  That speaks volumes to the level of popular discontent with Gadaffi.  The amount of force required to quell this rebellion would be on the level of what Hafez Assad used in Hama, and that would surely provoke an intervention.  Gadaffi has chosen to die a slow death, and, so be it.  It is going to be ugly.

Thank you for your contribution of the Rasmussen poll.  I have been watching Fox News the last few days to get the right's perspective, and I have seen those commentators putting immense political pressure on Obama to act.  It is nice to know that the vast majority of Americans aren't buying it.

 You are a military man, so I am sure that you are aware of the complications of fielding a fighting force from raw recruits on the spur of the moment. 

Regretfully, my experience is telling me this is less an issue of fielding a fighting force of raw recruits, than an issue of whether that unskilled force can absorb the losses that can be inflicted by an enemy that has air supremacy.  It will become an issue of time and logistics (fuel, munitions, spare parts) that erode Gadaffi's combat capability sufficiently for rebel forces to succeed. 

Chris,

BTW, I understand the American reluctance to engage, it's been a tough 10 years.

Limited American-led military intervention in Libya, followed with the overthrow of Kadaffi would do much to elevate America's tarnished reputation.

I disagree.  There is something inherently patronizing about interventions.  To personalize it, it is like having your mother-in-law jump in when you are disciplining your son.  Whether you are right or wrong, it is your son and she needs to respect your authority and your family by keeping her mouth shut.

Much or even most of the world resents the idea of America as "the world's police".  Such a role needs to used as sparingly as possible, and only in situations where it can prove that such a vocation leads to positive results.  Replacing one oil-rich dictator with another only leads to suspicion of motivation.

In Libya, who would we be "engaging".  We could topple Gadaffi with a flick of our wrist, but then what?  Are you suggesting that we merely help the resistence get rid of Gadaffi, and then withdraw as the rest of the civil war rages?  This is going to go on for years, I believe.  I also believe that it will resemble Somalia or Afghanistan in the sense that once "the opposition" defeated Said Barre or Mohammad Najibullah, the opposition fractured and began fighting amongst themselves for ultimate control.  In this instance the stakes are much higher, and so will be the level of violence.  The Lebanese slaughtered one another for 15 years over basically nothing.  Can you imagine how they would have fought if the winner would have claimed a mountain of oil wealth?

There are two options for the West.  Fold, or go "all in".  A limited intervention to remove Gadaffi is naive and myopic, and will accomplish basically nothing aside from establishing that the British and the French are still not above meddling in their former colonial playground of North Africa.

Chris,

On a side note, I repeatedly argued that it was the American public's emotions that drove it in the wrong direction with regards to Iraq, and now it seems that it is again the American public emotions that is driving it in the wrong direction with regards to Libya.

You bastard.  I was just about to log out and go to work when I found this.  Damn it!

You are correct, at least partially.  I think that many Americans were passionate after 9/11, and actively supported an effort to forcibly change the dynamic of the Middle East.  If a future of more 9/11s was a possibility, why not get rid of dangerous dictators that bred extremism and focused anger on the United States?

Iraq was the best place to start.  You had a maniac that brutalized his neighbors and his own people with impunity.  He had a string of United Nations violations that gave legal and political cover for his removal.  Sanctions could be removed, and democracy could be created.  There was an apparently clear census of oppressor and oppressed, and we would immediately have allies inside the country in the endeavor to recast Iraqi society.  As you well know, that affair was far more complicated than it seemed on paper in early 2003.

Libya does not have even a fraction of the "clear" objectives that Iraq offered in 2003.  While you may attribute American reluctance to involve itself in another Arab affair as "war fatigue", I think it has more to do with Americans being fully aware that US resources and power are have finite limitations, whereas the ability of open-ended Arab civil wars to deplete them is quite infinite.

The word I am thinking of is "quagmire", which is what happens to Americans when they go places where their help is not wanted, but refuse to accept that fact out of a sense of national pride or an intangible notion of "credibility".  I think that after 60 years of making the world safe for democracy, 63% of Americans have become quite sage in their practical assessment of American Idealism and how it is received in practice.

Jay,

 ...the British and the French are still not above meddling...

 Don't forget the Italians.  After all, the only reason Gadaffi is still alive is that Rome warned him of the coming airstrike and gave him a chance to hide.  Otherwise, Reagan would have killed him decades ago.  Instead of a quick, surgical removal....

Interesting article in STRATFOR that support's Jay's view.

The more important question is what exactly a no-fly zone would achieve. Certainly, it would ground Gadhafi’s air force, but it would not come close to ending the fighting nor erode Gadhafi’s other substantial advantages. His forces appear to be better organized and trained than his opponents, who are politically divided and far less organized. Not long ago, Gadhafi largely was written off, but he has more than held his own — and he has held his own through the employment of ground combat forces. What remains of his air force has been used for limited harassment, so the imposition of a no-fly zone would not change the military situation on the ground. Even with a no-fly zone, Gadhafi would still be difficult for the rebels to defeat, and Gadhafi might still defeat the rebels.

The attractiveness of the no-fly zone in Iraq was that it provided the political illusion that steps were being taken, without creating substantial risks, or for that matter, actually doing substantial damage to Saddam Hussein’s control over Iraq. The no-fly zone remained in place for about 12 years without forcing change in Saddam’s policies, let alone regime change. The same is likely to be true in Libya. The no-fly zone is a low-risk action with little ability to change the military reality that creates an impression of decisive action.

Read more: How a Libyan No-fly Zone Could Backfire | STRATFOR

Based on STRATFOR's assessment, a really futile political gesture like a No-Fly zone is exactly the kind of mission the UN is capable of executing.

Mike,

That is why I think the rebels would require support that goes beyond simply creating a no-fly zone.

I think the US should, unilaterally, enter Libya with all our military might, take over the country, and dictate what sort of puppet government needs to be installed.  After all, they do have oil, and we need to steal more.

Does the US even purchase any oil from Libya?

I suggest the US invade the country that actually provides the US with the bulk of their oil, it would probably be easier and cast a hell of a lot less.