Sounds like a good idea to me, based on this.
Of course, I’ve always thought that making Libya a no-fly zone was a good idea, as long as Khadaffy Duck was in charge. But now, it’s a really great idea. Unfortunately, there’s a very low correlation between good ideas and Obama administration actions.
I disagree that it is a good idea. As a commentor on that story said, we gotta stay out of what is going on in Libya. At least militarily. Otherwise we’ll own the aftermath. That is NOT something we need at this time.
That sounds like the argument for allowing Saddam to slaughter the Kurds and Shia. And we know how well that turned out.
On the upside, the now impending necessity of WWIII will cut short the nascent CWII here at home. So there’s that. On the down side, not a good time to be a young man approaching the 18 to 25 demo.
We are witnessing a massive realignment of the Islamic world. How it will play out in the long run is anyones guess. Besides, anything we do is likely to blow up in our faces — particularly with the mental midgets in control of DC now.
Getting militarily involved so early while there appears to be many more dominoes to fall could be getting us involved in a lot more than any of us are willing to bite off. I am much more excited about what may happen in this country over the next 24 months and getting drawn further into the turmoil of the Islamic world will not help us fix the serious issues we have here at home.
That’s just the way I see it. Let the UK and Europe help in Libya if they are so motivated. It’s in their backyard and they are the ones who need to atone for their dealings with the Libyan leadership.
I just wish the lunch cafeteria was a no-fly zone!
Didn’t we try the no-fly zone trick in another Arab country a while back? As I recall, that ended with our having to send roughly half our army to finish the job, which eight years and four thousand dead US soldiers later still isn’t finished.
I can certainly understand the appeal of no-fly zones; we get to Do Something without anyone actually getting hurt, except maybe a few Libyan fighter pilots.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t really do any good. Qaddhafi can kill all the protesters he wants or needs using good old-fashioned machine guns, tanks, and artillery, and he can remain in power indefinitely while our airplanes roam the skies and his remain grounded. Indeed, the presence of American airplanes in the skies will let him play the “We Must Unite Against The Foreign Invaders!” card with legitimate sincerity, which will persuade any Libyan who is even remotely on the fence to side with the regime.
Libya is a less populous country than Iraq, and we have I think learned from our mistakes in Iraq. We could perhaps set things right in Libya with no more than 50,000 pairs of American boots on the ground, in no more than five years, and bring home at least 48,000 when we’re done. Or we could stay the hell out of the whole thing. There is no middle ground worth serious consideration.
Didn’t we try the no-fly zone trick in another Arab country a while back? As I recall, that ended with our having to send roughly half our army to finish the job, which eight years and four thousand dead US soldiers later still isn’t finished.
That’s because we didn’t implement it when it would have really counted — to shoot down the helicopters that he used to suppress the rebellion among the Kurds and Shias after the first Gulf War. He stayed in power, and we had to deal with him for years afterward.