Glaucus said:
Robert said:
@Mike:
I'm not so sure about your last statement. Seems a tad over-the-top.
Bush certainly had no plans in terms of building up Iraq once the invasion stage was over. Obama however hasn't even planned that far. There are so many things still up in the air. In Iraq we at least knew more or less who the opposition was. Also with Iraq the scope of the military intervention was very well defined, we knew all along there would be a full scale invasion followed with regime change. Sure they told us we'd be welcomed with open arms, and although that didn't go as planned, that was still the plan. Here we have nothing at all in terms of a plan.
Actually, I disagree.
The "rebels," as the BBC loves calling them.
Libyan government aligned military (apparently)
Anything that NATO deems "a threat to civilians."
What will trigger the end of bombing?
The "rebels" ousting Gaddafi.
What will trigger an escalation?
Gaddafi looking like he's going to crush the rebellion.
Is regime change on the agenda?
Absolutely. In fact, it's clearly, blatantly and blindingly obviously one of the main objectives.
Are troops on the ground viable?
Yes.
Yes.
Or even the most basic of all: who's in charge?
Gadaffi (for now.)
The Arab League entrusted us with a huge task and we're doing a good job of {bleep} things up.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. What task? Protecting civilians?
Also, I think this conflict has the potential to grow past Libya's borders. We're already seeing mercenaries from other African nations streaming into Libya. But we must also consider that there are a number of African nations with similar leadership issues and there is strong incentive for them to pool resources. What will NATO/UN/US/Arab League do if other nations come to Libya's defense (most likely by supplying logistics and weapons)?
Fair point and I agree with you. This has the potential to turn into a much bigger catastrophe than it already is. And it might even end up worse than Iraq but I think that unlikely, given the level of carnage that would be required.
Personally, I don't think there's a good chance that the Libya rebels will dethrone Gaddafi. At least not alone.
That much is also blindingly obvious.
Either Western nations will be forced to deploy ground troops to do the dirty work or they will at some point pull back and allow Gaddafi to wipe them out. Both present problems and I'm not sure which one worries me most. In either case, we can expect to see a huge stream of refugees moving into Europe.
Indeed and I won't argue with any of that.
I just think people are getting a little carried away with hyperbole comparing what has so far been a relatively minor skirmish to the millions-slaughtered-clusterfuck of Iraq.
I've been against this from the start and continue to be but let's try to retain some perspective.
It might turn into a disaster on the scale of Iraq but it's nowhere near that at this stage.
And guess which country will likely see the bulk of them? Greece. That's the last thing I want to see.
[/quote][/quote]
Why, because that's where your family hails from?
Would it be OK if they all went to another country?
Italy, perhaps? They've certainly had their fair share already.
Which country the refugees pour into isn't top of my list of reasons for being against bombing Libya.
