We are all watching developments in Libya. Tunisia and Egypt have disappeared from the headlines. It is rather odd to me that of all the movements in the Arab world to remove long-entrenched dictators, the one that has gathered the strongest response from America is that in Libya. America has frozen 30 billion in Libyan assets, and is positioning naval forces in the Meditteranean. We are going to regret this.
America should be concentrating its efforts on aiding Egypt and Tunisia. These are the two countries with perhaps the best odds at achieving democracy, should they survive the revolutionary turmoil that they are currently in. A few days ago demonstaters in Tunisia were fired upon as they were protesting the interim government. There were several deaths. This is not good. There is a fragile transition underway, and it could easily be derailed by such developments.
Libya is in the early stages of civil war. "The Resistance" is gathering strength and has recently begun consolidating control over the oil fields in the east to use against the regime. These are estimated to be 80% of Libyan production. Mark my words: whoever the leaders in this "resistence" are that have taken control of the country's oil will not simply hand that control over to any hypothetical interim government. Get ready for the warlords, people.
Whatever nastiness happens in Libya is now going to be stamped with the ubiquitous damnation, "American-backed". Here is a sample of a future news article that the next generation of Eurotards will never allow us to forget:
"A ferry full of undocumented refugees fleeing the civil strife in Libya was intercepted off the coast of Sardinia this morning. The humanitarian crisis in Libya continues to spiral out of control as the American-backed junta in Libya persists in killing babies with impunity..."
Why do we (Americans) involve ourselves in efforts that have little chance of success, and thus guarantee that we are associated with the inevitable failure? The intelligent strategy would be to pour all available energy and resources into developing democracy in Tunisia and Egypt, and leave Libya to Europe.
I'm answering the
Then you should pay more attention to the news. Gadaffi has moved into the city with tanks and his artillary is shelling civilian targets.
The UN has yet to fly a single sortie.
Sure sounds like "talking shop and nothing more" to me.
Preferable to whom? ...the people dying in Benghazi while the UN dithers?
while the UN dithers Call it
Call it 'dithering' if you like but the 'ditherers' are actually meeting in Paris at noon. They represent the UK, France, USA, Canada, Germany,Jordan, Morocco, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. As you should have finally grasped, the UN is its member states and these (and some others) are making final preparations about now. In your wisdom, you may have decided that preparation isn't necessary but Cameron, Sarkozy, Clinton, Harper and the rest are having to cope as best they can without your advice.
Guys,I think this is the best
Guys,
I think this is the best of all possible scenarios. The UN resolution forced Gadaffi to act quickly, and he had to order his brigades into action immediately. He needs to pacify the country before the no-fly zone can be put into place. (I hear that there are British and French jets patrolling Libya now and are prepared to intervene against Gadaffi's armor.) By forcing Gadaffi's hand, the battle can now be decided--by Arabs. That is the way it is supposed to be.
Remember that it took the British and the Americans 2 months to take control of Fallujah, but Gadaffi needs his troops to prevail by next week. Benghazi is about twice the size of Fallujah, so that is a daunting task.
Urban warfare favors the defenders. Now we will see what the rebels are made of. They are probably going to take casualites at a ratio of 10:1 to the regime, but such a war of attrition is still in the rebels favor. Gadaffi has no hope for reinforcements.
If the regime has decided to push this thing until victory or defeat, this is going to be the dramatic end of Gadaffi.
Trouble is if Gaddafi has got
Trouble is if Gaddafi has got his tanks and artillery in the suburbs of Benghazi this poses a very tricky problem for the Allies. Taking the tanks out now will be very costly. The no fly zone may tip the balance in the rebels favour but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
You compare Benghazi to Fallujah, but I think the comparison is superficial. In Iraq the Allies fought by 'Marquis of Queensbury' rules, but do you seriously think Gaddafi will do the same ? Nonsense. He will be as ruthless as possible and I am sure will reduce Benghazi to a heap of rubble. Urban warfare usually favours the defenders, but unless we are prepared to arm the rebels I still think they are toast.
I wish with all my heart I am wrong - I loath Gaddafi and I don't forget he has murdered my own people in the UK - but I fear he will eventually prevail. One think we can be certain of: there will be a great deal of blood spilt.
Owly,Urban warfare usually
Owly,
Not sure if you know the rebels are being armed with US blessing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8390521/Libya-crisis-Egypt-shipping-arms-across-border-to-aid-rebels.html
They are probably going to
The UN intervention is supposed to bring about a cessation of hostilities, not to back up a rebel offensive.
Eric, you can't seriously be
Eric, you can't seriously be that naive can you?
He is.
He is.
Owly, I know a ceasefire
Owly,
I know a ceasefire would be a disappointment for you, given your appetite for bloodthirsty fantasy but it is what has been agreed and what makes sense.
What Ceasefire ? I just want
What Ceasefire ?
I just want to overthrow a blood soaked tyrant. A tyrant, I might add, who has killed British people on our own streets. You might like him I don't.
a blood soaked tyrant
Indeed. And in your blood-soaked musings, the thought of a ceasefire and the lives it will spare, doesn't appeal.
The provisions of Security
The provisions of Security Council Resolution 1973
Eric, the guys are right.
Eric, the guys are right. You are surprisingly naive.
reduce Benghazi to a heap of
Your reveries tend to be bloodthirsty. This doesn't amount to thinking rationally about the subject.
Owly,I think that you have
Owly,
I think that you have vastly underestimated the will of Europe. From the first page of this thread:
From what I understand, the US attempted to destroy Gadaffi's missile defense system today, but is now going to pull back and allow the Europeans to handle this. This is fantastic news in my opinion, for the reasons listed above.
Be fair jay, it was the
Be fair jay, it was the British that got this going, with French help, but I think you will find it was basically the British. So where are the Germans and everyone else in Europe. Ask Mono. She'll tell you. On second thoughts don't bother.
So where are the Germans and
French planes first into Libya. Major military and diplomatic contribution
Spanish airbases in Rota and Moron available
Belgium will contribute six F-16 fighter planes and a frigate
Italy is prepared to contribute both military air bases and airplanes
Denmark will send six F-16 fighters and a military transport aircraft
Germany said it may send additional crews to Afghanistan in order to free up US reconnaissance planes to monitor action against Gaddafi.
euractiv.com
Well, our tiger-duck
Well, our tiger-duck government has for once done something right, but for the wrong reasons.
We have 6 elections to come, and black and yellow will lose many of them. Another war is the last thing that would increase their chances. Fortunately this is so transparent that the voters won’t fall into the trap. Especially since Merkel promised to send more military to Afghanistan as a compensation. Hey, we don’t want the Bundeswehr murdering Afghans either! Chances are good that this awful government has only one more week left. BaWü votes next Sunday.
Britain and France have domestic reasons for their behaviour too. Little Napoleon hopes to increase his waning popularity, and Cameron wants to distract from his butchering the British economy: headlines that don’t contain the word “unemployment figures”. It’s fairly transparent too. Poor Libya.
I have to say that I am very
I have to say that I am very satisfied with the way that this situation has played out. The West stayed out of it until Gadaffi began indiscriminately shelling his own civilians, and by that time even the Arab League (!!!) was asking for a no-fly zone. There is Arab blessing and Arab participation on several levels, European leadership, and minimal American involvement.
I would have preferred that the Libyans handle this, but I guess I have to live with it. I can do that as long as foreigners pull out as soon as there is no longer a direct threat to civilians by Gadaffi. If we try to "stop the bloodshed" of a post-Gadaffi deepening civil war, we go back to being foolish.
Hi Jay,The UN Security
Hi Jay,
The UN Security council doing something is also a good news story here.
Hi, Brendan, The UNSC doing
Hi, Brendan,
The UNSC doing something is good news, no matter what?
Yes indeed. Aside from
Yes indeed. Aside from reforming itself, which I suppose is impossible today, this is a positive development in my view. Strengthening the security council's credibility is quite overdue as you can see from the opinions of others here.
1. Lybian civilians
1. Lybian civilians are in danger of becoming either “collateral damage” or Gaddafi’s hostages.
2. Libya will probably be completely dependant on neo-colonial powers for decades.
3. These powers won’t be happy with their acquisition though: tribal countries that simply don’t like an overlord tend to, er, cause problems. We all should know that by now.
4. Gaddafi has announced he will attack civilian shipping and aircraft (and perhaps a French nuclear power plant?). We have a war on the edge of Europe.
5. Other movements against regimes the west doesn’t exactly favour will try an uprising too, trusting that the UN will provide them with an air force. Their regimes can only avoid Gaddafi’s fate (he hasn’t got a chance) if they hurry to acquire the bomb (or at least a dirty one).
6. Democratic movements in countries allied to the west (e.g. Bahrain) are let down.
But you say it is good news that the UNSC does something, no matter what. Amazing.
Hi Momo,"Lybian civilians are
Hi Momo,
"Lybian civilians are in danger of becoming either “collateral damage” or Gaddafi’s hostages."
Were Lybian civilians not already in harms way? Were they not in a no win situation to begin with? Your points are rather more negative than I would expect from anyone who believes in universal human rights.
Of course they were, but now
Of course they were, but now they are in a (prolonged) civil war. The danger for the civilians is increasing immensely.
Brendan, in the beginning there was a political movement and the tribes. With the militarisation the political movement is out. The civilians have one enemy more than before.
Gaddafi was in a no-win situation. Against demonstrations (and that’s how the uprising began, don’t forget that) he is completely powerless. He ordered his supporters to counter-demonstrations, and these scared people were a pathetic sight.
Gaddafi’s success was that he was able to militarise the conflict. The rebels went into the trap to meet him on the territory Gaddafi is strong in: violence. He still couldn’t win, but he could prolong the struggle. The tiny bit of civil society there was in Libya was destroyed in that. They don’t have military means, only the tribes have.
Now the militarisation is being stepped up. The new regime can’t be better than the old one. From the point of someone who believes in universal human rights this is the worst that can happen.
Momo...you really are a
Momo...you really are a "glass half-empty" kind of person aren't you?
Even I have to applaud President Obama's timely use of cruise missiles to eliminate key military infrastructure, despite his earlier lukewarm pledge of only air support missions. The Tomahawk strikes will make enforcement of a No-Fly zone safer for the aircrews flying missions.
“Momo...you really are a
“Momo...you really are a "glass half-empty" kind of person aren't you?”
Not generally, really not. But I’ve given some reasons for my lack of optimism and enthusiasm, haven’t I?
“Even I have to applaud President Obama's timely use of cruise missiles…”
Mike, you would applaud anyone using them.
“The Tomahawk strikes will make enforcement of a No-Fly zone safer for the aircrews flying missions”
Thanks for the info, but even I know why air forces don’t like their enemies’ anti-aircraft defence!
They won’t diminish the risks I listed, though.
Brendan,Hello. It is nice to
Brendan,
Hello. It is nice to see you contributing again.
Absolutely. I can't imagine how the UNSC managed to do a 180 in such a short amount of time. It looks like someone did a lot of lobbying to make sure the vote didn't end in an embarassment.
Another good story is the participation of Canada. You guys have a great reputation and Canadian participation helps to give a "non-colonialist" stamp of approval. From what I understand, Harper has sent in 140 personnel and 6 CF18 Gretzky fighter jets.
Jay, you crack me up.
Jay, you crack me up.
Chris,The last thing you want
Chris,
The last thing you want is to be strafed by a Gretzky. The Canadians are a resourceful lot. They have utilized the concept of competitive advantage and parlayed their national strength into national defense. Canadian military R&D determined in the late 1980s that hockey pucks dropped from 2,000 feet are supremely lethal. They prefer them to American air-launced anti-personnel devices--such as cluster bombs--because of the humanitarian concerns created by undetonated canisters, which are then often picked up by innocents with disastrous consequences.
A delivery system was created, and the Canadians then introduced into the military theater the "cluster puck". There were used in Somalia with devastating effect, and, indeed, the last words uttered by many of Aidid's men were "Look, they are dropping Ding Dongs on us."
http//www.wikipedia/canadian-deadly-ding-dongs/
I have a question:Why didn't
I have a question:
Why didn't the US coordinate their strike with the French overflights?
Here is my answer: because certain military politicos wanted to wait until darkness fell. Cruise missiles being launched from American destroyers and cruisers have provided the dramatic footage of the conflict so far, and in order to maximize the effect you have to launch them for the cameras at night. Expect to see these launches on an endless loop on the news.
Why am I mentioning this? Because this is the "shock and awe" mentality that really pissed off the world during the Iraq war. Is this meant to frighten Gadaffi and inspire the rebels? Is it intended to distract (via national pride) that majority of Americans who didn't want the US to get involved in this affair?
If you say you are going to play a "limited role" then play a goddamned limited role. I am an American and I love my country, but this makes me wince. After watching the tenth replay of the missile launches, I had the feeling that Gadaffi went from looking like a ruthless tyrant to an embattled underdog. That is going to inspire a lot of the wrong people to side with him. We may now see foreign fighters seek to battle "the unstoppable menace", or Libyans who simply don't like seeing their country attacked by foreigners join the loyalists.
Using a sledgehammer to kill a fly may be a perfectly delightful way to kill a fly, but in a world where suspicion and antipathy towards America flourishes, Americans must be more sensitive to attitudes that are understandably fearful of an unchecked military superpower. To be honest, this somewhat smacks of a case of national insecurity. It seems like America needs to prove that even when they defer to their allies in the performance of necessary global police work, that it somehow wouldn't be possible without the Americans in the first place. I couldn't conceive of how that would be considered as anything less than irritating to our allies.
" That is going to inspire a
" That is going to inspire a lot of the wrong people to side with him."
Quite right. And it's going to discourage a lot of people who might otherwise have opposed him. I'm still ambivalent though. The factor that has to be taken into account is Daffy's madness. There is no point at which he will come to a rational conclusion that he is beaten and he is quite capable of fighting to the very last Libyan - or at least until the last of his supporters turn on him to save their own skins. That's why I'm tentatively moving to be supportive of this initiative.
"...and in order to maximize
Not true. Tomahawks are a sub-sonic cruise missile. Launching at night makes them harder to shoot down. They have a low radar cross section but can be shot down with AAA.
No, it is a low-risk method of removing the SA-6 threat to coalition air ops.
Mike,We could argue the
Mike,
We could argue the details of daytime launches, but lets cut to the chase. Why did we need to release footage of those launches in the first place? We know enough to keep the press off the battlefields these days, so why not continue with that theory and keep the nasty business of military action off the front pages entirely?
Seeing those missiles take off sends a chill down your spine--if you like America. If you don't like America--as many in the middle east don't--then seeing those launches gives you an entirely different feeling, no?
Jay,The DoD is screwed
Jay,
The DoD is screwed regardless - just think if we *didn't* release those videos - the press would scream cover-up and you'd have a Congressional investigation. And yeah, it doesn't help that we did show them - 'cause now the Arab League wishy-washy dudes can point to the evil crusaders.
Still, Mike is right that we had to strike at night to take out the air defenses - we're not going to risk even a French or British pilot just for the possibility that a video or two causes some hot-heads to get irritated.
Bit of of a lose-lose for us, but that's our lot in the world, n'est pas?
Tim
What Jay expected is
What Jay expected is happening quicker than I thought:
Russia and China deplore the use of violence (yea, trying to distract from the fact that you didn’t veto it, because it was so tempting an opportunity to weaken the west)
The Arab League protests: they wanted a no fly zone, not all out war (why did you ask the NATO then).
Cyprus issues a statement that they deplore the use of British bases on their island for the attacks on Libya and that they have no influence over them.
And all that before the first photos of civilian casualties are published.
What arguments were there in
What arguments were there in favour of this war?
The humanitarian. Bombing for peace. Gaddafi mustn’t be allowed to kill civilians, Nato can do that better.
Answering a call for help and showing Nato is on the side of freedom loving Arabs. Well, they are just starting to regret that call for help.
Keeping Africans out of Europe, and maintaining a flow of cheap oil into Europe: even that is doubtful.
“I just want to overthrow a
“I just want to overthrow a blood soaked tyrant. A tyrant, I might add, who has killed British people on our own streets. You might like him I don't”
Owly,
The UNSC allowed military power in order to protect civilians, not in order to overthrow a dictator.
Theoretically the rebels ought to be kept from advancing, because that might endanger civilians too.
Another war without a clearly stated aim and strategy.
Whose prescient idea was it
Whose prescient idea was it to call this coming disaster “Odyssey Dawn”? Can someone tell me that?
Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero who travelled far and wide after he had sacked the famous town of Troy. Many cities did he visit, and many were the nations with whose manners and customs he was acquainted; moreover he suffered much by sea while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home; but do what he might he could not save his men, for they perished through their own sheer folly in eating the cattle of the Sun-god Hyperion; so the god prevented them from ever reaching home.
Momo,"Now the militarisation
Momo,
"Now the militarisation is being stepped up." [Momo]
I think that there was a new threshhold of violence on offer from Gaddafi when this was decided by the SC. Gaddafi was ready to proceed with a political pogrom against the opposition after he had taken Benghazzi. He's a man of his word in that respect, and so I can't disagree with the decision at all. Although imperfect, it's certainly a justified response.
It was a no win situation for the UN with "do something" being preferrable to allowing what was looking like a foregone conclusion - namely loyalist victory and subsequent retribution.
Hi Jay,
The Canadians are in there for domestic reasons like everyone else it seems to me. An election is looming next week and one of the main topics in dispute is the upcoming purchase of new fleet F-35 Crosby's no one seems to want. Don't be surprised in we lose a few F-18's on this outing. Our PM's itching to say that F-18's are just too slow for 21st century warfare.
I don’t doubt Gaddafi’s
I don’t doubt Gaddafi’s ruthlessness, Brendan. But now wedding parties are in danger too.
We don’t know much about Gaddafi’s political pogroms. We must treat information coming from Libya carefully, both parties have a firm grip on the press. Remember the Kuwaiti nurse and the Iraqis murdering babies? Heartbreaking.
The Russians have issued an official statement that their satellite pictures show that Gaddafi’s troops had not advanced.
Why Libya, and not Bahrain or Yemen? Well, we know why, but you find it positive that the UNSC has come to this decision! The principle applied to Libya is different from that applied to Bahrain.
The more I think of it, the more dangerous I find it: the UNSC is exercising power arbitrarily, completely outside international law. If Bahrain is exercising sovereign power in crushing internal opposition, so is Libya. If Libya must be kept from butchering its opposition, so must Bahrain. You know what the exercise of power combined with lawlessness is, don’t you? Very scary development.
Yes. I'm still ambivalent
Yes. I'm still ambivalent about this and I think, pretty much along the same lines as Jay (sorry Jay, I'm afraid we're in agreement) that this will work out for the best.
But you have to be suspicious about the role of the Gulf dictatorships in this. I can't help thinking that it's a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. Surely, even though they hate Daffy, they'd hate more to see a popular insurrection against a dictatorship succeed? You have to wonder what they've been offered in return. A free pass to massacre their own democracy activists perhaps? Though I'm sure the vile Clinton will call for restraint on both sides!
(sorry Jay, I'm afraid we're
Yes. This is very disquieting. I can't figure out why a man with such an anti-intellectual adherence to implausible, discredited economic theories would suddenly become so rational, impartial and far-sighted when it comes to interventions in the Arab world.
As far as douchebags go, you are extremely inconsistent.
Hi Momo, I've heard Russian
Hi Momo,
I've heard Russian reports that claim they see no use of air power by Gaddafi as well as no movement. Both are not claims being strongly put forward by *rebel* forces anyway. The mandate is actually to protect civilians, *not* to intercede in favour of the uprising. One aspect of protection involves imposing a no fly zone. The other obvious requirement implied by that is removing tank and artillery being used to shell towns (even after a declared cease fire, and also contrary to international law). So the French take out a few tank columns? They are clearly not wedding parties, and it has stopped the shelling for the moment and limited Gaddafi's options.
As to illegality, clearly you are technically incorrect. You are moralizing about the potential risks as well as your perception of inequality in the SC’s application of force.
The fact is Bahrain CAN be influenced by other means and other actors, and has not seen the same level of violence. Basically it’s very bad, undoubtedly repressive, but the protests were in fact allowed to a point and as of today (after the brutal crackdown) they have announced a commitment to democratic reforms which the opposition has accepted (also giving up their demand to topple the monarchy). So, not equivalent in my view.
In Yemen the opposition is still strong and defiant, and so more comparable to the Egyptian revolution. The recent killings alone may galvanize the population against the regime. I would guess that most would be supportive of reform in Yemen without the need of force. What could be done militarily anyway?
So... I agree that the principals applied to Libya are different from Bahrain and Yemen, and I think there are a good many reasons why this should be the case. I’m sure that everyone would have preferred that peaceful demonstrations in Libya achieve the needed reforms and that the opposition had not resorted to out and out rebellion after provocation, but this is now a reality. I am hopeful that they can force a cessation of hostilities and, most likely, a stalemate that may eventually result in a quieter, maybe even the eventual peaceful departure from power of Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi.
Both claims were vital for
Both claims were vital for the decision to interfere in Libya. If Gaddafi is neither advancing considerably nor using the airforce against the rebels, why must there be an intervention?
So far there were no wedding parties hit, but you know why I see the danger. I don’t know where you get your optimism from, actually. To be honest, I don’t care if Gaddafi is removed peacefully or if the rabid bird’s dreams come true and he ends at a lamppost. What I care about is the safety of Libyan civilians and their prospects of getting a better system of government. Iraqis and Afghans could tell you that western involvement, er, does not improve the chances.
Gaddafi’s brutality against internal opposition is not clearly against international law, Brendan. And if it is a reason to interfere, the same is true in Bahrain. The degree of murderous brutality is the same. Are we prepared to introduce international law criminalising this brutality against internal opposition or not?
I am not concerned about the legality of this decision, I am concerned about UNSC decisions becoming unrelated to international law. This can end in tyranny.
Hi Momo, At a minimum, I
Hi Momo,
At a minimum, I think there is a need to consider the real politick of the UNSC play. You can't be interceding in everyone’s internal affairs, but on occasion it serves the greater good to show that you can, and will.
"Gaddafi’s brutality against internal opposition is not clearly against international law, Brendan" [Momo]
Well, fighting internal opposition is legitimate of course, but what is not legit is artillery and tank fire into civilian targets which (from my watching of it) has been confirmed. He was collectively punishing entire towns and cities for the uprising. Do you care to defend that behavior? I sense you would not argue this point forcefully if the UNSC acted to stop Israel bombarding Gaza. Before you ask why this was not the case, let us agree that two wrongs rarely make anything right.
The "allies" have: a) agreed not to occupy, b) are reacting to the actions of Gaddafi, c) have the legal basis to act to protect Libyan civilians (resolution 1973). All is well in the world! Be happy.
We will have to disagree on the finer points here as I feel personally that preventing artillery, tanks and air power being employed by Gaddafi is a fine objective if they leave it at that. Blowing up his military infrastructure is fine with me, too, if they are seeking to create air dominance and destabilize the military and economic capacity of one crazy SOB.
They have definitely been
They have definitely been granted a free hand in that—it’s no coincidence that the massacres in Bahrain and Yemen were stepped up on the day of the UNSC decision.
Which popular insurrection do you see succeeding? Do you mean the native auxiliary troops of Nato’s Libya expedition?
Hi Brendan, by the way. Hope
Hi Brendan, by the way. Hope you're still at your iconoclastic best.
Chris,I am watching the
Chris,
I am watching the University of Texas play Arizona in the basketball tournament. Wanted to say thanks for those two kids from Toronto we have. Cory Joseph and Tristan Thompson.
Tim and Mike,Still, Mike is
Tim and Mike,
I shouldn't get into a discussion with a couple of military guys over proper tactics. That would be like me debating Owly or Matt on the best brands of tea and marmalade, as I should probably defer to their obvious authority on the matter.
But, I just can't stop myself. We used daylight launchings of Tomohawks in the first Gulf War. They do chug along quite slowly, and it is possible to shoot them down, as the Iraqis managed to knock--I think 2 of them--down. That is hardly reason to change rules of deployment. Let's be honest, we released those pictures for political reasons. They made Obama look like a real bad ass after so many were calling him weak. They shut the Fox Hawks up, didn't they?
My point is that we need to be extremely sensitive when it comes to displays of American firepower. Back in 2003, some careless general was bragging about the capabilities of his forces, and he used the phrase "shock and awe". That was eight years ago, and we have not lived that down yet. Those three words have caricatured the American military, and perhaps the nation itself, as arrogant bullies who see no distinction between civilians on the street and Xbox animations at the barracks.
I think we need to keep a lower profile, unless we want this to be stamped with the words "American-led". This is supposed to be Europe's contribution to international police work, and in case you haven't noticed, the French have gone completely apeshit here. I can understand driving Gadaffi's forces from the outskirts of Benghazi, but following the convoy and continuing to attack troops that are basically retreating is little less than a massacre. They are supposed to be protecting civilians, not taking sides in the actual war. Ask yourselves who shot down that rebel plane yesterday. These are events that could encourage new factions to join the fight to defend their country.
Speaking of the French exuberance, I don't understand the rush to get rid of Gadaffi. If you think there is going to be a quiet transition to democracy once he is gone, you are surely mistaken. What does the international community do then? What do we do about other countries that might be encouraged to forego peaceful protests and take up arms with the expectations that the West will bail them out if things get too tough?
As a nation, we need to think about these questions before we wade in waist deep. We need to stay off the front pages when it comes to events that do not have a happy ending in sight.
Post new comment