In an ideal world...

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Ok, in an ideal world, the Italians would never have been allowed to use mustard gas on civilians in Etheopia. In an ideal world, Standard Oil would not have sold Hitler all the oil he needed to invade Poland and then run amok in Europe. In an ideal world, the UK and USA would put ethics before their own economic interests and would never install tyrants like Idi Amiin or Saddam Hussain.

But we don't live in an ideal world. However, if we did, what would happen next in Libya?

Without troops o the ground, wars cannot be won. We bombed germany into ruins, but it was not until Russians, Yanks, and Brits marched into Berlin and flew their flags that hitler's people got down to signing the documents for unconditional surrender.

It may be argued that troops on the ground need to occupy Libya, but whose troops? I think that the only fair and just settlement to the gaddaffi question is that we must let his own people deal with him themselves.

The UK, the US , and even the UN, can send in warplanes to shoot down Gaddaffi's air force, which is currently being used to kill the rebels who want him deposed. We could also attack his tanks and artilliery from the air, but we must let - we should let, the Libyans take care of this tyrant for themselves.

We must not invade and set up a western style puppet government to ensure ourown interests, but rather support the democratic movement within Libya itself. Gaddaffi has it coming to him. he has sponsored acts of terrorism against the West, from arming and funding the IRA to the bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie. It's payback time, and if his own people depose him and put him on trail, don't ask me to speak in his defence.

However, while air strikes against the Gaddaffian troops and shooting down any planes that threaten the rebel advances must begin immediately, it would be wrong for anyone else to march in and take the victory from the rebel forces. Let's assist from the air, but leave our ground forces out of it. Libya must be liberated by the Libyan people, primarily. And we owe it to them to send in the help that they ask for.

Comments

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

The only people really who have the political position to do that would be the Arab League.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Exactly what I have been trying to say since day one.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

My hunch is that the Arab League is slow to act on cases like this for a few reasons: One being Kadaffy himself, he's hurt them politically in the world's eyes for a long time. Second being islamic militants. And lastly, and maybe most importantly is because they're kind of scared of the idea of helping democratic revolutions as a lot of them are basically monarchies of various forms.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Jesus Christ, IF WE ARE AGAINST GHADAFFI LETS TAKE HIM OUT. GODDAMNIT WHAT IS THIS HALTERING, NONSENSICAL CRAP?! Either help your chosen rebels and resolve the situation, or stay the hell out. This "air-only" bullshit is carefully crafted BULLSHIT designed to make Westerners feel good about "doing something" while not really doing anything.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

This, ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY THIS (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/933979.html?thread=72068443#t72068443).

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

A SPADE! IT IS ONE!

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

I agree, just one small correction. It's not "carefully" crafted bullshit. It's ad-hoc crafted bullshit. They don't know what the hell they're doing and they care more about looking as if they know, rather than taking a firm position on anything.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

No - I disagree.

I am really dead set against intervening on the ground because I didn't see the presence of American troops being welcome after the Deposing of Saddam.

maybe Americans shoulda got the hell out the minute the dictator was toppled, but this did not happen , and Americans are still under attack there and in Afghanistan.

When the Americans liberated paris in WW2, they were very careful to let De Gaulle and the Free French forces he led march in first.

With foriegn mercenaries and imported arms holding the rebels back in Libya, an ' air only' campaign is not 'going in half heartedly', it is going in to the extent that we have been asked to.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Indeed. I don't recall air-alone attacks did very much against Solobo......

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I agree completely, since Libyan politics is embroiled in tribal allegiances and imposing the auspices of the UN on the issue only insures complete political intransigence.

What I'm objecting to is this idea that we're somehow "not intervening" when WE ARE DIRECTLY INTERVENING.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

We almost had him back in 1986...

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

No - we did nail Saddam, we didn't nail the problem.

If we support Libyans to the extent they want our help , and no more, they can win , then we are in a good position to negotiate with whoever ends up running the place.
It may be that the various factions will all appeal for assistance again , and we are going to have to consider who we shall support and how.

But right now, Libyan rebels are being pounded by foreign mercanaries using imported arms. And they are asking for our assistance. they don't want libya invaded, they want our air support.
Why not let them have it? Why not 'let Gaddaffi have it' in the other sense of the phrase?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Lets just be sarcastic about everything because its so edgy. Lets never do anything good because we can't do everything good.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Let's just drop some bombs. That'll work.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Sigh....*why* do people forget about the Rapallo Treaty? The USA gave Hitler oil, true, but the German generals who would later go on to be faithful executors of Hitler's mass murder decrees learned how to use combined-arms warfare on Soviet soil in the 1920s. None of that happened and the Nazis would have had far longer to rebuild (while that it was happening raises some interesting questions about the Republic he destroyed).

For that matter, had the French moved in 1936, the generals would have killed Hitler. Had anybody been willing to fight in 1938, between them the British, French, Poles, Czechoslovaks, and Soviets were more than sufficient to squish the Wehrmacht of 1938. Instead the democracies would not fight for democratic Czechoslovakia, while the Polish and Soviet dictatorships weren't willing to fight without democracies (and Poland even got that bit of Czechoslovakia it tried to grab right after WWI for its troubles).

In the ideal world you espouse, the USA would never have come into existence in the first place as the British would have recognized the injustices inflicted on the Pequot, Powhatans, Yamasee, and Abenaki as too much to do.

The USA and the other strong countries if they intervene should only do so as the rebels themselves request and no further than that.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Sure, "the rebels", until such time as the tribal power structure requires a re-alignment of alliances when the main enemy is taken out. And then who do "support"? Which side of the side you are on do listen to? What happens if/when Ghadaffi goes down, and the surviving patronages start to turn on one another? THEN WHAT?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, you're asking questions from a logical, rational perspective. The people advocating this intervention-not-called-an-intervention think no more about this than they did in 2001 or 2003. Or in the 1990s former Yugoslavia for that matter. As I said in the other thread, the options for this ending range from unpleasantly to horribly, there is no good one. People really, really need to learn this lesson all over again, seems like.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

But they *have* demanded airstrikes and a no fly zone , to the best of my knowledge and belief. So what do we do now, ignore them ?

Whose troops?

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

"It may be argued that troops on the ground need to occupy Libya, but whose troops? "

Libyan opposition troops.

/thread

Re: Whose troops?

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

My point exactly.
Give Libya back to the Libyans. Everything , includding the oil, is rightfully theirs.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

The Libyan people were liberating the country until they were hammered by mercenaries and foreign supplied weapons. Providing air support balances the scales, giving the opposition parties a chance to establish themselves. There is no need to occupy Libya.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Absolutely!

[okmewriting.livejournal.com]

Gaddaffi is currently in control of 80 to 90% of the country. The cease fire suits him. Gaddaffi also has a lot of supporters. There was a guy on the radio last night from Tripoli who was very much in Gaddaffi's camp but he did make a interesting point about these people who get their free education instead of staying and trying to improve the country, they run off to the west and are now wanting the international community to bomb Libya and destroy it's security. How can they call themselves Libyan he was saying.

Who is the West and it's interesting bedfellows to pick sides? Yes there are people against Gaddaffi but there are still a lot of people who aren't. If they want their freedom, they have to take it. We can't give it to them. Nothing good has ever come of our intervention.

Speaking of the West's bedfellows - the Arab League - a bunch of despots and dictators with oil. At this moment Yemen and Bahrain are busy subjugating their own citizens. Who are they to say Libya can't deal with the armed rebels like this? And why isn't the West trying to get resolutions at the UN about them?

And the UN resolution - the military action could well strengthen Gaddafi. Have they learned nothing from Saddam?

[okmewriting.livejournal.com]

Have now read the text of the resolution. It calls for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid, no fly zone etc. It does not anywhere in the text of that tell Gaddafi to pull back from the cities he's encircling. So I don't see how Obama & Cameron can tell him to do that. They seem to be putting their spin on the resolution. They want regime change no matter what. They really have learned nothing from the mess that is Afghanistan and Iraq.