After We Are Done Bombing Libya, Then What?
Jason P
Posts: 19,158
Since ground forces will not be used in Libya, these are my predicted outcomes:
1) Gadaffi is killed in an airstrike. The country plunges into a long and bloody civil war as different groups try to take power. The US is blamed for years to come.
2) Gadaffi remains in power and continues his ground attack on the rebels before driving them out and resuming power. Enemies of the state will live in fear of being rounded up and “disappearing” for the rest of their lives. The US is blamed for years to come.
3) Gadaffi leaves in exile. The country plunges into a long and bloody civil war as different groups try to take power. The US is blamed for years to come.
4) Gadaffi is killed / removed while covert groups manipulate a new government and restore order. The US is accused of using Libya as a puppet state to control its oil reserves for years to come.
5) Everything magically works out. The skies are filled with rainbows as bunny rabbits prance around in fields of lollypops.
The what-if’s are:
• If the UN had not interacted, how long would it have taken for this madman-dictator to restore power and a demented form of peace? In the long run, which verdict will cause more overall suffering to the Libyan people?
• In a country that has been ruled by a dictator for so long, will we see similar results such as the Sunni / Shiite groups bombing each other in Iraq if the iron fist of a dictator is removed?
It seems to me that without using UN ground troops to secure peace and give the Libyan people a chance to develop either democracy or a new ruler, Libya is going to experience bad(er) times. The rebels appear to be loosely coordinated and I’m sure there will be many different ideologies of how things should run if they are successful in removing Gadaffi. But if ground troops are used, then we risk another extended costly war / rebuilding effort. There are many Catch-22’s to consider and I'm glad I'm not the president.
Those are my random thoughts for the morning.
1) Gadaffi is killed in an airstrike. The country plunges into a long and bloody civil war as different groups try to take power. The US is blamed for years to come.
2) Gadaffi remains in power and continues his ground attack on the rebels before driving them out and resuming power. Enemies of the state will live in fear of being rounded up and “disappearing” for the rest of their lives. The US is blamed for years to come.
3) Gadaffi leaves in exile. The country plunges into a long and bloody civil war as different groups try to take power. The US is blamed for years to come.
4) Gadaffi is killed / removed while covert groups manipulate a new government and restore order. The US is accused of using Libya as a puppet state to control its oil reserves for years to come.
5) Everything magically works out. The skies are filled with rainbows as bunny rabbits prance around in fields of lollypops.
The what-if’s are:
• If the UN had not interacted, how long would it have taken for this madman-dictator to restore power and a demented form of peace? In the long run, which verdict will cause more overall suffering to the Libyan people?
• In a country that has been ruled by a dictator for so long, will we see similar results such as the Sunni / Shiite groups bombing each other in Iraq if the iron fist of a dictator is removed?
It seems to me that without using UN ground troops to secure peace and give the Libyan people a chance to develop either democracy or a new ruler, Libya is going to experience bad(er) times. The rebels appear to be loosely coordinated and I’m sure there will be many different ideologies of how things should run if they are successful in removing Gadaffi. But if ground troops are used, then we risk another extended costly war / rebuilding effort. There are many Catch-22’s to consider and I'm glad I'm not the president.
Those are my random thoughts for the morning.
Be Excellent To Each Other
Party On, Dudes!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
although there's no geopolitics there
Tres Mts. Gramercy Theatre 3/26/11
*formerly manutd3581
But Norh Korea shells South Korea and we don't do shit. Oh, yeah they can kick are ass.(Was stationed there it would be blood bath on both sides)
Trinadads got Oil!
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
and i doubt obama would ever parade in front a banner that said "mission accomplished." maybe his banner would say, "what's next?"
Difficult to argue with this, given the information that we are given.
Don't count him out yet....I'm sure he'll play Libya before he plays Texas.
everyone forgets about bosnia
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I would imagine that taking out Gaddaffi with an airstrike is one of the major goals right now. Perhaps without his presence, their military will unravel.
well you know reagan tried that... im not sure if youre old enough to remember that but... it didnt work so well... and now here we are.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
hahahaha... if only.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm curious as to whether the countries that will be hit by immigration: Malta, Italy etc will somehow partially blame the no-fly zone or expect any of the countries that form part of the coalition to take in immigrants so as to be accountable for their actions so to speak, even though, naturally, immigration is not a direct consequence though it was foreseen. I think what we will see is a bunch of European governments squirming in their seats: it seems that NO ONE at all wants these 'blacks'. The Libyan government certainly never wanted them (unless they're used as a tool against the rebels), the rebels never wanted them(in fact black Africans have had it the hardest in Libya), then they come to Malta and their stepping stone towards Europe and no one wants them here either.
Sorry for the long post, but my point is I'm wondering what will be done if immigrants continue to come to Southern Europe and governments here keep panicking needlessly.
http://www.eoghanmurphy.ie/2011/03/18/g ... -to-libya/
Before you make the first move, you must commit to the last. This is a cardinal rule of military intervention.
Imposing a no fly zone is an act of war. It shouldn’t even be contemplated unless those proposing it are prepared to take that act to its logical conclusion. That conclusion is: the occupation and administration of Libya and its people.
We’ve had a lot of discussion here recently about sovereignty and what it means to us in Ireland in the wake of the IMF/EU bailout agreement.
In strict post-Treaty of Westphalia terms, to have sovereignty over one’s territory is to have a monopoly on the use of force, both internally and against external aggressors. A police force controlled by a central power responsible for defending the state’s sovereignty internally, and an army responsible for defending the state against external aggressors.
Libya is in turmoil. If not yet in full blown civil war, it is close. Elements of the state’s security apparatus have turned against the centre of power of the state. Not all citizens are now ruled by that power. Geographical areas of the country are no longer controlled, undermining the legitimacy of external borders.
From the outside looking in, the country no longer has any formal envoys or diplomats (and therefore no legitimate foreign relationships); and its leadership – its sovereign – is no longer recognised by one of the top five authorities in the world on such matters: France. (France holds such distinction internationally as it is one of only five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council).
Can you declare war on a country if it’s not a country anymore? And if it’s not, could this potentially be the first legitimate intervention on foreign soil since World War II?
These are academic questions but they’re worth asking. In a way they help to determine the propriety of action (or inaction) beyond the usual ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ that is often bandied about in such cases.
If a foreign power wants to go in to Libya it will claim it is doing so for the ‘right’ reasons. But it will also find the ‘right’ reasons to stay out if that is its preferred course of action. And then we have the many interpretations of what is ‘right’… The people of France may think it right to intervene on behalf of the subjugated Libyan people. And the government of France my think it right to intervene to get its hands on all that oil that Italy currently has access to. Can they both be right?
We live in a complex world insofar as questions of sovereignty and statehood and international morality are concerned. (But don’t be fooled: the centuries-old ‘raison d’État’ that has governed international relations so strictly to date is still very much there in the Libyan case.)
Why not install a no fly zone as a stand alone intervention and let the Libyans sort it out themselves? This would be an attempt to level the playing field between the rebels and state forces, so that a more balanced civil war might be allowed to play itself out.
That might sound very well in theory but you will need someone to actually fly in and bomb Libyan radar equipment. To do that safely you will need to first take out their air defence systems: missile sites, runways and aircraft. And that’s all missile sites and missile launchers. Not just the defensive ones (after all, what’s the difference?). Once the no fly zone is in place, you then have to constantly patrol Libyan air space to enforce it and until such time as it is no longer deemed to be necessary.
It’s easy to call for a no fly zone. It’s a whole different reality actually implementing one. And any form of foreign military intervention will change the dynamic of the conflict in Libya, and likely not in a good way.
Libya might just be the first legitimate case in a long time for some form of intervention, but that doesn’t change the nature of what that intervention must be. And it certainly doesn’t alter the traditional motives of those calling for it.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/ci ... public_rss
---
perfect, the CIA are on the ground..Now things will be just fine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUQnVCZnmnI
Plus, no one knows who exactly the rebels are, thus I'm not surprised they sent spooks in (even though they have probably been there since the beginning).
Isn't this suppose to be a humanitarian intervention?
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/30/cia- ... ral-weeks/
Beginning indeed, they probably have a puppet all ready and waiting.