...and while General Ham may be engaging in a little psy-ops with Qaddafi here, I rather suspect that is wishful thinking on my part. From the AP/.CBS:
As I showed the rebels doing in the previous post, so to the regime is flexing and adapting, in this case to the rules of engagement. We're fighting Marquis of Queensbury, they're fighting for survival. It's an existential war for them, so they will do what is needful to win, until the pain is too great. It's not an existential war for us (though the Euros might be inching towards a concern about themselves, in re refugees) and so we will engage in a very nuanced and agonizing angst-filled danse macabre over how to proceed. Only it's the young troop with the rifle who will deal with real agony. Feh.
The window for a quick end to this was very early, when the regime was wobbly. But we dithered our way past, as that window slammed shut, was boarded up, and now armored shutters are being installed.
For the record, I was all for just sitting this one out. Let NATO lead and ask us for help on this one, though that was probably not a realistic geopolitical aspiration on my part.
And it's not like this wasn't a predictable result of the approach we took. And, frankly, I'm sure the Generals and Admirals made that point, when asked. If asked. Read the whole article, worth your time to click-through on that one.(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON - The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.
Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers Thursday that added American participation would not be ideal, and ground troops could erode the international coalition and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.
As I showed the rebels doing in the previous post, so to the regime is flexing and adapting, in this case to the rules of engagement. We're fighting Marquis of Queensbury, they're fighting for survival. It's an existential war for them, so they will do what is needful to win, until the pain is too great. It's not an existential war for us (though the Euros might be inching towards a concern about themselves, in re refugees) and so we will engage in a very nuanced and agonizing angst-filled danse macabre over how to proceed. Only it's the young troop with the rifle who will deal with real agony. Feh.
The window for a quick end to this was very early, when the regime was wobbly. But we dithered our way past, as that window slammed shut, was boarded up, and now armored shutters are being installed.
For the record, I was all for just sitting this one out. Let NATO lead and ask us for help on this one, though that was probably not a realistic geopolitical aspiration on my part.
God help us if Samantha Power becomes SecState after The Cackler.
I will only note my stipulation was restrict ground troops to Combat Air Traffic Controllers, and to perform a heavy air strike for a limited time. Strike fast, strike hard, and let the Rebels clean up the remnants.
But then I also figured The One would get Congressional approval, but I digress.
In any event I will now humbly remove my hat and sit in the corner chewing on my boot toes for the rest of the day.
Let them kill each other as long as they like.
If we see G-D- affy sitting still, go for the kill on him [strictly as "part of no-fly authorization" mind you] with a note "Remember Lockerby!"
We cannot afford to be the world's meddler and mediator for every backwater armpit where "diverse" cultures clash over who should reap the rewards for being the latest dictator.
We got enough problem right here in America that demand our urgent attention.
Not the least of which are finding a suitable 2012 replacement for the bumbler in chief, and convincing the clowns in Congress to cut the damn spending!
No American boots on the ground in Libya!
I don't have an issue with the air strikes, but I do have an issue with the bypassing of congress and giving up control to the EU.
I didn't have an issue with getting our sneaky Petes and snooper and poopers in that AO on the pretext of assisting the rebs. We've got damn near no clue who the players are and needed to get up to speed, by hook or by crook.
I'm kinda torn over the idea of ground troops doing the ground booting.
On the one hand, every single ilsamic nation is going to have to be broken and remade before this long war can be ended.
On the other hand, going on the last several years as a baseline, our Dept of State, Pentagon, Intel agencies of all sorts, ARE going to pick the first convenient figure head to back and it WILL be the wrong guy. It'll be the wrong guy for our efforts in this war and it will be the wrong guy for stability in that particular AO.
And... current habits and practices tend to indicate that we'll fall all over ourselves in playing the Respect the Ideology That IS at War With Us and help the local yokels reinforce the abomination of a conquestrian ideology into even more solid bulwarks around themselves.
Can we PLEASE just have a Commander in Cheif who wasn't hiding behind the door when God was handing out brains?
8^)
I mean, really. What idiot in the administration came up with that slogan?
Favorite runner-up, whoever named the Wikileaks Task Force. Heh.
Grimmy, I'm not conflicted at all. Libya is not our business, has never been our business, and we never should have become involved. Period.
I may come off as callous, but we can't rescue every single hell-hole on this planet even if we bled ourselves dry. Considering this administration is already doing that purely domestically, we don't need the grief. Doesn't matter even if they really were the Rebel Alliance right out of Star Wars (which they very much aren't). "We are the friends of freedom everywhere, but guardian only of our own." Remember that one?
As I write this, French troops are shelling "rebels" on the Ivory Coast. When will enough be enough?
And doing a real good job with those hearts & minds, too...
Where we differ is that I see every single muslim nation as either current active enemy or enemy in waiting. And the ones in waiting aint gonna wait any longer until it is absolutely, positively, 100% worst possible time for us before they declare themselves as enemy openly.
Every mulsim nation without exception. I see Islam as the problem. It is an ideology that can not coexist with civilization. Period.
But, we aint there yet, in terms of functionally dealing with such a historically, unremittingly, absolutely aggressive threat as islam is and always has been, so, in the meantime, I see us getting some good solid inside scoop on who's who and what's what in as many places as possible as a positive both net and gross.
Personally, I give less than one quarter of a rabid rats arse for the rebels. The game, imo, is to get in and get up to speed on as much as possible in as many areas as possible.
PS. Unless I was too nuanced or some such. I do not buy into the taqqyia that the quislings favor in ths war.
Offensive, unsensitive and rude. I know.
Where you and I differ is that I see every single nation dominated by islam to be either actively or passively enemy. Libya was an active enemy for a long time. They've sence became a passive enemy. Libians are rife among the jihadiscum our troops encounter where ever our troops encounter jihadiscum. The Libyan gov may not send them, but the ideology dressed up in religious clothing that dominates Libya does.
Any chance we get to put people on the ground in an info/intel seeking manner, any chance we get to cause disruption, any chance we get to get into any nation dominated by islam, is a chance worth taking.
Some may be confused enough to believe this war is just about a particular group of jihadiscum or just some discreet geographical location or the other. That is patently and obviously wrong and has been for several decades now. The Cold War served to force a stalemate in dealing with this constantly rising threat and we learned to ignore it. We got punished for that ignoring. We'll get punished again, and again, and again, and again.... and again for so long as any haven exists for that ideology of conquest dressed up in barbarous, murderous, 7th century abomination of a religion.
So, in short, where we differ mostly, is that I see any who play the "its just the crazies" or "its just the radical islamists" as quislings on their knees in submission to the same tired old taqqyia that islam has been spewing for centuries.
Offensive, insensitive, rude, yeah. I know.