The Libya problem.

[mike3]

Good Lord, we wouldn't want to insult the Brigade by suggesting they had any legitimacy would we? We need to pull out the old "Revolutionary Guard" trick.

Actually I may have overstated their capacity to hold on in face of air power.



We will see what happens from here on in, if they are afraid to surrender (or too embittered or too loyal to surrender) then we can expect some bitter urban fighting.

Can someone get on the phone to Benghazi and tell them they need to use the word "prisoner of war" and not "hostages"? Remember, taking hostages is what the Libyan government is supposed to do, not uprising civlian protesters.

So there aren't any "civilian protesters", then?

If only the Libyan army had fully understood Western dishonesty and hypocrisy and headed into Benghazi when they had the chance, this bloodbath could have been avoided and countless lives saved

What would an honest West do? Let Qaddafi do that? Encourage him to?

 

[little grey rabbit]

So there aren't any "civilian protesters", then?



What would an honest West do? Let Qaddafi do that? Encourage him to?

Can I just get this straight, mike - you have no qualms at all about our dear friends the civilian protestors taking Libyan soldiers "hostage" - their word, not mine?

I mean I don't really expect them to abide by any norms of warfare or human rights, but could they at least be told they need to pretend to? Consider the feelings of the Liberal Humanitarians!!!?!!!

 

[geni]

Good Lord, we wouldn't want to insult the Brigade by suggesting they had any legitimacy would we? We need to pull out the old "Revolutionary Guard" trick.

What are you talking about? The Khamis Brigade are entirely legitimate combatants. Which is why we are allowed to kill them.

Actually I may have overstated their capacity to hold on in face of air power.

Eh overstreached supply lines. It happens.

 

[little grey rabbit]

What are you talking about? The Khamis Brigade are entirely legitimate combatants. Which is why we are allowed to kill them.

I was thinking of the republican guard - a kind of dehumanisation of your intended targets. They aren't the army, they are the feared and hated Khamis Brigade. I think you only allowed to kill them if they are attacking civilians, fortunately our definition of civilian is so elastic that it would now include Mullah Omar, Osama bin Ladin, Shamir Basayev and Zarqawi (sp?)

Eh overstreached supply lines. It happens.

Hmmm, "overstretched supply lines" It reminds me of either day 1 or 2 of the bombing, the US general in charge of bombing stated the Libyan column between Benghazi and Ajdabiya had been attacked and left "isolated and confused"

We talk about asymmetric warfare. We have a situation of double asymmetric warfare. The conflict between the Government and the insurgents and the situation between the Government and the coalition.

I wonder what has happened to the "hostages"?

 

[geni]

I was thinking of the republican guard - a kind of dehumanisation of your intended targets. They aren't the army, they are the feared and hated Khamis Brigade.

Hey it's not our fault if goverments set up praetorian guard style systems.

I think you only allowed to kill them if they are attacking civilians,

Geneva convention. They are lawful combatants thus you are allowed to kill them.

fortunately our definition of civilian is so elastic that it would now include Mullah Omar, Osama bin Ladin, Shamir Basayev and Zarqawi (sp?)

The status of dead people is not something people generaly worry about. bin Ladin's status is unclear. He's probably an unlawful combatant. Mullah Omar might actualy have a claim to civilian status depending what he as been up to of late.

We talk about asymmetric warfare. We have a situation of double asymmetric warfare. The conflict between the Government and the insurgents and the situation between the Government and the coalition.

I wonder what has happened to the "hostages"?

Despite some claims to the country there is little evidence that the Khamis Brigade withdrew in anything other than good order. I doubt they ever existed.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Ghaddafi started it, not Obama.

Al Qadea stared it, not Ghaddafi.
You need to read the latest informatioin
The Rebels have admitted that they fought against the Americans in Afghanistan.

This means Obama has prevented Ghaddafi from bombing Al Qaeda.

 

[geni]

Al Qadea stared it, not Ghaddafi.
You need to read the latest informatioin

Your chearleading for Al Qadea is noted.

The Rebels have admitted that they fought against the Americans in Afghanistan.

A very small percentage of them yes. However Al Qadea were hardly the only group active in that area.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ghaddafi started it, not Obama.

WTF? I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The timeline appears to be that a number of folks rose up and tried to throw off Ghadaffi's (spell as you like) reign, and he reacted in the usual Arab despot fashion: tried to put it down. His problem was that a bunch of his soldiers switched sides, as did a few airmen, and this complicated the issue.

I am not sure what you mean by "he started it" and would appreciate you explaining that.

For Bill:

Al Qadea stared it, not Ghaddafi.

You are guessing, and I'll bet your guess is wrong.

 

[Toontown]

Especially since you can't point to any activity in recent years implicating Ghaddafi in terrorism.

I can't? Not even his vow to slaughter mass quantities of civilians (i.e., revert to his true terroristic nature)? Followed by his determined military thrust with the aim of carrying out the threat?

Until Kaddaffy did that, Obama had made no move against him.

Maybe he'd turned a new leaf. If so, Obama is foolish to try and topple him and put a group who are still actively committing terrorist acts in charge.

You haven't established that Obama is trying to topple him. The French have said they want to topple him. Obama hasn't said so. Nor has the UN resolution mandated Kadaffy's toppling.

Nor have you established that the rebels are terrorists. Nor do they act like they've ever been in combat before. What you've done is indulge in a 'guilt by association by geographical proximity' fallacy.

Don't you think? Doubly foolish is we make the attempt, fail, then walk away. Remember, Ghaddafi may still have chemical weapons. At least the experts think he does. What if he NOW decides to retaliate with them using terrorists? What's the exit strategy for that? Hmmmmm?

Are you opposed to making Kadaffy angry? Afraid he might use his chemical weapons on us? Are our lives to be ruled henceforth by the need to keep terrorists happy, so they won't attack us?

Screw that. Let's kill as many of the mutherhunchers as we can. Wherever, and whenever possible. After all, wasn't that what we had originally set out to do?

You people have an ongoing problem with exit strategies. You can't win a war with an exit strategy. And frankly, you shouldn't even be looking for a way out of the war against international terrorism. You should be looking for ways in. Ways to get at the terrorists.

The "exit strategy" in Libya is simple enough. Kill Kadaffy. Finish the job Reagan set about to do decades ago. Then tell Kadaffy's replacement the same will happen to him if he also jacks up.

Don't worry. We probably won't have to get our hands dirty killing Kadaffy. The French have indicated an interest in doing that job.

 

[Laeke]

I think you are overestimating the will of our president to follow up on his statements (which is not a bad thing actually, seeing how he has a hard time shutting it). Creating some sort of outcry by killing him would not be of a lot of use. Up to the Libyans to do it.

I believe that France, UK and the US all said that they would favor an end to the regime.

 

[BeAChooser]

Until Kaddaffy did that, Obama had made no move against him.

As I recall, Ghaddafi made verbal threats to go door to door back on March 5th. In fact, his son threatened chaos and massacre against those revolting back on February 21st. So a full month elapsed before Obama *acted*. Obama is sooooo decisive.

And we still don't have any real proof that *genocide* was occurring or was really intended. It's just being used as the excuse for going in, just like it was in Kosovo. And the claims of genocide in Kosovo turned out to be false. Propaganda. In fact, if any group committed ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, it was the group who have now renamed it Kosova. Wonder how this one will turn out.

And if just talking about committing acts of genocide or mass terrorism is the rationale for Obama to involve us, then why hasn't Obama done something about all those who have called repeatedly for genocide against Israel and Jews? Who are now arming Israel's enemies to do just that. With missiles even. Seems to me that he and members of his staff have even been helping those people. Why the person some say convinced Obama to involve us here, Samantha Powers, is extremely anti-Israeli. Hmmmmm … perhaps we should connect the dots.

You haven't established that Obama is trying to topple him.

LOL! Back around March 5th Obama called for "regime change" in Libya. You do know what that phrase means, don't you? Shouldn't we take Obama seriously given that he said that was his goal, just like Ghaddafi said something that you insist we take seriously? Shouldn't we take him seriously given that bombs have fallen on Ghaddafi's residence … twice … since then?

On March 21 he said our military wouldn't try to push Ghaddafi out and then US and NATO forces ravaged Ghaddafi's military forces. He said we'd push him out some other way. That we'd "install a democratic system". But doesn't "install" imply toppling? And regardless of the means, "other" still implies an effort to topple him. Obama may deny we are going to assassinate him, but it's widely known that we have special forces "on the ground" in Libya.

The French have said they want to topple him. Obama hasn't said so.

Really? Seems a lot of media sources have that wrong then. For example ...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/22-1

March 22, 2011

… snip …

U.S. President Barack Obama reiterated his prior calls for regime change in Libya on Monday during a televised press conference from Chile … snip …

"It is U.S. policy that Gaddafi needs to go," he said. "We've got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy."

"[W]e will continue to pursue those, but when it comes to our military action, we are doing so in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 that specifically talks about humanitarian efforts, and we are going to make sure that we stick to that mandate," Obama continued.

Seems to me that's a pretty clear statement. And the military sure seems to be going beyond just efforts to stop *genocide*. Looks to me like they are trying to level the playing field militarily so the rebels can defeat Ghaddafi's forces.

Nor have you established that the rebels are terrorists.

I'm sure many aren't. But that doesn't mean that none are or that they won't end up being controlled by those who are when this is all over. That's happened over and over in Muslim countries. As I noted earlier (http://www.anhourago.co.uk/show.aspx?l=8324268&d=501), captured al-Qaeda documents from 2007 show that the region of Libya where this rebellion started provided far more of the foreign fighters in Iraq per capita, than any other country or area.

The records show that the "vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their home town in the Sinjar Records resided in the country's northeast". Benghazi provided many volunteers. So did Dernah, a town about 200 kms east of Benghazi, in which an Islamic emirate was declared when the rebellion against Gaddafi started.

Here's a top Libyan rebel leader, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, who boasted to a journalist that he fought us in Afghanistan and recruited men from the Derna area to fight against us in Iraq. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html How many American soldiers were killed as a result of this guy's actions? How many innocent Iraqi civilians died? Hmmmm?

And as noted in that article

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".

And now that the rebels don't really need those SAMs in Libya, where will those SAMs end up? Outside an American airport? Outside an US military airport in Iraq or Afghanistan? How many US citizens or soldiers will die as a result? Hmmmmmm?

And it looks like Ghaddafi was right when he claimed for weeks that the rebel movement was linked to al-Qaeda. Yet Obama just dismissed that as propaganda, despite the fact that our own military intellligence was telling us Libya was the #1 source, per capita, of foreign fighters in Iraq. Despite the fact that Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi was captured in Pakistan, held by the US, and then turned over to Libya and released there in 2008. Surely Obama was informed about all this during that lengthy period where he *deliberated* what to do.

Here's another al-Qaeda leader from Libya calling for the overthrow of Ghadaffi … http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/811 … a Libyan who is apparently a top al-Qaeda Afghanistan commander. Want to bet that Libyan members of al-Qaeda are now rushing back to Libya in the hopes of turning Libya into another Afghanistan. Good job, Obama.

Are you opposed to making Kadaffy angry? Afraid he might use his chemical weapons on us?

Not at all. I was fully in favor of Reagan sending a message to Ghaddafi. And Bush doing the same by making Saddam hide in that hole in the ground where he was eventually found, before he was hanged. But there is such a thing as acting foolishly. Prior to this *rebellion*, Ghaddafi was in the process of building the facilities needed to dispose of his chemical weapons. He'd renounced them. He was being monitored. He was cooperating. He was even acting against al-Qaeda in his own country.

So Obama's and the NATO's actions have turned a situation where Ghaddafi had renounced WMD and was cooperating with their eventual destruction into one where those very weapons might now be turned on us and he may resume WMD development. Yes, I do think that's cause for concern and a case of making matters worse in the WOT.

And tell me this? What happens to those chemical weapons if Ghaddafi loses against the rebels, we have no "boots on the ground", and al-Qaeda ends up in control? Are you NOT afraid that al-Qaeda might use chemical weapons on us? Because that would be outright foolish. Down right stupid.

You people have an ongoing problem with exit strategies.

No, it's Obama and NATO that now have that problem. Big time.

You can't win a war with an exit strategy.

LOL! Haven't "my people" been trying to tell Obama and the democrats that for years with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[Darth Rotor]

No, it's Obama and NATO that now have that problem. Big time.

BAC, you and the MSM need to stop lying to yourselves, and pretending that NATO is some "other thing."

The US of A is the senior partner in NATO. If NATO is involved, WE are involved.

Now, if the EU takes over, or the WEU, from NATO, then you can say "it's not our problem any more" but I don't see that in the near term.

BAC, I'll also point out that, if you are an American (which I think you are) if Obama has this problem, We have this problem, since he's our current president. And, as above, if NATO has that problem, we share the problem, as were are about the biggest dog in that pound.

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC, you and the MSM need to stop lying to yourselves, and pretending that NATO is some "other thing."

DR, you know I know that. I'm just playing along with the liberal meme. Of course if NATO is involved, we are involved. I've even pointed that out in a thread or two.

BAC, I'll also point out that, if you are an American (which I think you are) if Obama has this problem, We have this problem, since he's our current president.

Why do you think I spend so much time being critical of the current President and spend little time complaining about other countries' leaders? Because I believe Obama's lies and incompetence are a problem to me and the US. And will be the source of many of my children's problem, as well. You're chastising the wrong person.

 

[Thunder]

Because I believe Obama's lies and incompetence are a problem to me and the US. And will be the source of many of my children's problem, as well.

I thought Conservatives firmly believed in personal responsibility.

..but now they can just blaim all of their problems on President Obama.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/editors-blog/2011/0325/Is-Libya-like-Kosovo

Obama advisor calls for a military invasion of Israel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oFkmcZt4OQ&feature=player_embedded

This is the person with Obama's ear on Libya. It's scary.

 

[Noztradamus]

This is who Obama has started a war. So what's his exit plan again?

It's a kinetic military action.

 

[BeAChooser]

It's a kinetic military action.

 

[Thunder]

A Democratic President involves American military forces to help stop a brutal dictator in a country full of oil, and Republicans don't like it one bit.

call me unsurprised.

why don't they like it? because they iz jealous he ain't a GOP President.

 

[Fishstick]

So now that we've reduced yet another NON-US politics thread to Dem/Rep/OBAMA/Bushitler, has anyone brought up Israel yet in any way? That way this thread can be identical to every other thread.

 

[McHrozni]

Yeah, of course, some soldiers defected, others were overrun. But the army seemed incapable of stopping the rebels for two weeks. Before finally pushing back with relative ease(?) Did the reinforcements came from Siberia or something? Maybe there was some panic and the regime had a heavy shuffling/regroup/logistics effort, I dunno...

I don't find this unusual at all. The army had to secure Tripoli and sorroundings, find out who was loyal and who wasn't, determine who will fight and who won't, execute some of those who refused to fight, determine where to go and with what, determine what the targets were, group units, mobilize loyal reserves ... etc. These things take time, and two weeks doesn't seem to be too long for that.

McHrozni