Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 5, 2011 9:22:34 GMT -8
Had we taken action on our own (or with whoever else was willing to proceed with us) a couple of weeks earlier, we might have helped tipped the scales decisively against Moammar. The rebels were really on a roll. Perception is so important. It looked as if the Big M was going to be overthrown, and when that is the case, lots and lots of people who are on the fence decide to throw in with the perceived winning side.
As things stand now, the rebels are being thrown back steadily. It's obvious that the the anti-Moammar "forces" are hopelessly over-matched. It does not take a military expert (which I am not) to realize that these guys are much more interested in firing their rifles into the air than at the Libyan army. I'm not saying that some, at least, have not been fighting, but this is not an army in any sense of the word.
A well-equipped and well trained battalion of regular soldiers could probably push the rebels all the way back to Benghazi. If Qaddafi's forces have enough left after NATO bombing, and it looks as if they do (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/05/nato-lacking-strike-aircraft-libya), it's difficult to see how the rebels can hold out. If they are forced back to Benghazi and the Libyan army chases them, they will probably break and run for the Egyptian border, leaving the inhabitants of Benghazi to . . . . oh, my . . . leaving them subject to a massacre by Qaddafi's forces! Hey, weren't we supposed to have stopped a massacre in the first place?
If that happens, will Obama double down by sending our planes back into action (see the above link to understand how under-strength NATO is without the U.S. flying missions)? Will be send arms and, importantly, trainers to the rebels? Oh, that's right. Such a move would mean American boots on the ground. Since we all know that Obama never breaks his word, I guess that's out.
So where are we if Qaddafi is able to continue his military campaign despite NATO's efforts. (I would say "best" efforts, but obviously NATO without the U.S. as the tip of the spear is not giving its best efforts.) The rebels may well evaporate into the desert, with Qaddafi, at the very least, punishing many of the eastern Libyan simply because they are in the area which most vigorously opposed him and, of course, because he can! He would, as did Saddam, see himself as the 21st Century Saladin, the man who stood up to the Great Satan and prevailed. That would be bad for America, and disastrous for President Barack Obama. How would Obama spin what would be an obvious, and very serious, setback to his policy in the area? How about this for a slogan. Vote for Barack. . . he (almost) got that nasty Qaddafi to step down! Right!
Obama (in my view) does not hate America but is more focused on its faults (some of which are undeniable) than its many good points. Furthermore, while he may not exactly be a pacifist himself, his party largely is. He cannot easily discount that influence. That adds up to a man who is reluctant to take action without first getting permission from those countries that he apparently believes to be morally superior to his own. Yes, it's laughable to believe that France, a country whose government deliberately blew up a Green Peace boat some years back, and which has done a piss-poor job of integrating North Africans into its society, should be seen as superior to us morally, but that's what the Big O seems to believe. A man who goes on an apology tour around the world bad-mouthing the country we was elected to lead cannot be taken seriously as a cheer-leading homer.
So where are we? We are, perhaps, in a situation in which a tin-horn dictator, a man who is bad but not really worse than several other such dictators around the world, has a decent chance to humiliate the U.S. because the latter's leader was more interested in getting a "mother may I" than achieving victory.
We should either have stayed out of Libya or gone for the jugular a month ago. If you can justify bombing tanks and trucks on humanitarian grounds, you can justify landing an expeditionary force to see that a post-Qaddafi Tripoli not become a horror-chamber of score-settling. And if that force lands just a bit before Qaddafi had stepped down, well, that would be close enough for government work.
Obama, because of his prejudices, has taken probably the worst possible course in Libya: get involved just a little bit and a little too late, making more than possible either an eventual Qaddafi victory or a partition of the country, either of which would be very bad for this country's interests.
The most important quality one can ask for in a U.S. President is good judgment, especially in international affairs. Truman, despite not being a polished sophisticate, turned out to have that quality. In the case of Libya, Obama has demonstrrted the opposoite on both counts.
AzWm
As things stand now, the rebels are being thrown back steadily. It's obvious that the the anti-Moammar "forces" are hopelessly over-matched. It does not take a military expert (which I am not) to realize that these guys are much more interested in firing their rifles into the air than at the Libyan army. I'm not saying that some, at least, have not been fighting, but this is not an army in any sense of the word.
A well-equipped and well trained battalion of regular soldiers could probably push the rebels all the way back to Benghazi. If Qaddafi's forces have enough left after NATO bombing, and it looks as if they do (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/05/nato-lacking-strike-aircraft-libya), it's difficult to see how the rebels can hold out. If they are forced back to Benghazi and the Libyan army chases them, they will probably break and run for the Egyptian border, leaving the inhabitants of Benghazi to . . . . oh, my . . . leaving them subject to a massacre by Qaddafi's forces! Hey, weren't we supposed to have stopped a massacre in the first place?
If that happens, will Obama double down by sending our planes back into action (see the above link to understand how under-strength NATO is without the U.S. flying missions)? Will be send arms and, importantly, trainers to the rebels? Oh, that's right. Such a move would mean American boots on the ground. Since we all know that Obama never breaks his word, I guess that's out.
So where are we if Qaddafi is able to continue his military campaign despite NATO's efforts. (I would say "best" efforts, but obviously NATO without the U.S. as the tip of the spear is not giving its best efforts.) The rebels may well evaporate into the desert, with Qaddafi, at the very least, punishing many of the eastern Libyan simply because they are in the area which most vigorously opposed him and, of course, because he can! He would, as did Saddam, see himself as the 21st Century Saladin, the man who stood up to the Great Satan and prevailed. That would be bad for America, and disastrous for President Barack Obama. How would Obama spin what would be an obvious, and very serious, setback to his policy in the area? How about this for a slogan. Vote for Barack. . . he (almost) got that nasty Qaddafi to step down! Right!
Obama (in my view) does not hate America but is more focused on its faults (some of which are undeniable) than its many good points. Furthermore, while he may not exactly be a pacifist himself, his party largely is. He cannot easily discount that influence. That adds up to a man who is reluctant to take action without first getting permission from those countries that he apparently believes to be morally superior to his own. Yes, it's laughable to believe that France, a country whose government deliberately blew up a Green Peace boat some years back, and which has done a piss-poor job of integrating North Africans into its society, should be seen as superior to us morally, but that's what the Big O seems to believe. A man who goes on an apology tour around the world bad-mouthing the country we was elected to lead cannot be taken seriously as a cheer-leading homer.
So where are we? We are, perhaps, in a situation in which a tin-horn dictator, a man who is bad but not really worse than several other such dictators around the world, has a decent chance to humiliate the U.S. because the latter's leader was more interested in getting a "mother may I" than achieving victory.
We should either have stayed out of Libya or gone for the jugular a month ago. If you can justify bombing tanks and trucks on humanitarian grounds, you can justify landing an expeditionary force to see that a post-Qaddafi Tripoli not become a horror-chamber of score-settling. And if that force lands just a bit before Qaddafi had stepped down, well, that would be close enough for government work.
Obama, because of his prejudices, has taken probably the worst possible course in Libya: get involved just a little bit and a little too late, making more than possible either an eventual Qaddafi victory or a partition of the country, either of which would be very bad for this country's interests.
The most important quality one can ask for in a U.S. President is good judgment, especially in international affairs. Truman, despite not being a polished sophisticate, turned out to have that quality. In the case of Libya, Obama has demonstrrted the opposoite on both counts.
AzWm
