Robert said:
The "rebels," as the BBC loves calling them.
Heh, that much I know too Robert. I'm sure you know my question deserves a more detailed answer then that. Who re the rebels? We're getting statements from high ranking US officials that elements of al-Qaeda are intermixed with in the rebels. But we're not sure to what extent. What we do know is that Libya is tribal in nature and that the "rebels" are part of a tribe different from Gaddafi and that the two have always been at odds. Are we looking at a pro-democracy movement or is it just a tribal dispute? If the rebels take over, will they create a truly democratic state or just replace one tyrant with another? I'd be shocked if it were the former.
[quote:3t3nn1ja]Who are we bombing?
Libyan government aligned military (apparently)[/quote:3t3nn1ja]Yes, but again it's not that simple. This started as a no-fly zone. Ok, some ground targets are fair game, but mostly air defense assets. But we've seen tanks bombed too. In Kosovo we had a full out air war, but they quickly ran out of military targets (Serbs did a good job of hiding their heavy hardware) so NATO ended up bombing strategic targets like bridges - because they needed to bomb something. So to me it seems like there's nothing very well defined as the no-fly zone cover story has pretty much been blown already, but we're not sure how far things will go. In Iraq we knew it was a full invasion and pretty much got what we expected.
[quote:3t3nn1ja]What are valid targets?
Anything that NATO deems "a threat to civilians."[/quote:3t3nn1ja]Yes, talk about vague.
[quote:3t3nn1ja]What will trigger the end of bombing?
The "rebels" ousting Gaddafi.[/quote:3t3nn1ja]So if the two sides draw a line in the sand and call a cease fire, NATO will keep on bombing? My point is, we don't have real answers here. NATO is telling us they're there to protect civilians, but they're really protecting combatants. It's a messed up situation and I don't think even they know where things begin and where they end.
[quote:3t3nn1ja]What will trigger an escalation?
Gaddafi looking like he's going to crush the rebellion.[/quote:3t3nn1ja]Most likely, but we keep hearing promises of no ground troops. The most I expect to ever see in Libya are some special ops, like SAS teams calling in air strikes. I can't really see any serious ground troop efforts by any NATO nation inside Libya.
[quote:3t3nn1ja]Is regime change on the agenda?
Absolutely. In fact, it's clearly, blatantly and blindingly obviously one of the main objectives.[/quote:3t3nn1ja]It's certainly on their wish list, but how far are they willing to go to make it happen? Again, in Iraq it was all pretty much spelled out for us. Here it isn't, we're getting conflicting reports and we have to remember that certain promises may have been made to certain players. Like in the '91 Gulf War, George Bush (senior) promised the Saudis he would NOT go into Baghdad. Certain back room deals are probably going to constrain this operation as well.
[quote:3t3nn1ja]Are troops on the ground viable?
Yes.[/quote:3t3nn1ja]To some degree yes, as we've already seen SAS there. But will we see NATO deploying a few divisions backed with armor into Libya? I somehow doubt it.
[quote:3t3nn1ja]Is invasion possible?
Yes.[/quote:3t3nn1ja]I can't disagree with you, but again, my point is things are at this time not planned out. An invasion may happen, it may not happen, but does anyone really know? I doubt any decisions have been made either way. My point here is that this operation is poorly planned and thought out and that it seems they are just winging it, where as with Iraq, the invasion was fairly well planned out and executed. It fell apart afterwards, but that's a different story.
[quote:3t3nn1ja] Or even the most basic of all: who's in charge?
Gadaffi (for now.)[/quote:3t3nn1ja]Actually, I meant, who's in charge of NATO. Remember, my argument here is that this operation isn't as well planned as the Iraq invasion. We could name the Generals of the Iraq invasion and even the air war on Kosovo. Who's calling the shots here? Not only that, in a matter of weeks we've already seen a change in command. That's just weird.
[quote:3t3nn1ja]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?[/quote:3t3nn1ja]Well, that was what the no-fly zone was for. Obviously that's in past now, but yes, protecting civilians. In such a case, forcing a stalemate would achieve that, but NATO doesn't seem interested in a stalemate, they want their side to win.
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.
You're probably right that this might not escalate out of control. If Gaddafi forces take the upper hand, he may chase the rebels across the border. At that point the rebels may initiate cross border raids. The classic response there is for Gaddafi to do the same, which can very quickly draw in other nations.
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'm not comparing Libya to Iraq on that level. I was comparing how the Western powers organized themselves for the operation. Obviously a full scale invasion as we saw in Iraq would have a much higher potential for death and damage. No argument there.
[quote:3t3nn1ja] And guess which country will likely see the bulk of them? Greece. That's the last thing I want to see.
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.[/quote:3t3nn1ja]Well, I never said it was top of my list either, just another point on an already long list. I'm obviously biased towards Greece, but I am also aware that Greece has more refugees and illegal immigrants then any other EU nation due to it's location. There have already been signs of tension there and a huge influx of refugees could make things worse. Basically, it could add to the destabilization of the region and that's not good for anyone. I'm not arguing that the refugees should be sent elsewhere, I would prefer that the situation was settled without the need for refugees.
