Tom said:

Where are the concerns they had before, or gee, maybe it is and was simple partisan politics and they can't find it possible to agree with Conservatives or to disagree with Obama?

You know what, I think I just stumbled upon the only thing that makes at least some sense!?

My first post on Libyan intervention was a lament that Obama was not providing air support a week before the US changed its tune, so certainly that explanation makes no sense in my case.

I've provided an answer to Tom's question several times, yet he continues to ask the same question. Tom, if you refuse to read and think about the answers, why do you continue to ask the question? Just because you don't agree (or don't understand) doesn't mean that other people take their views for silly reasons.

rickyp wrote:As per usual Will is uneven.

Yet, he presents an infinitely more balanced and informed viewpoint than yours, and dare I say even more coherent? He actually uses facts and doesn't change topics.

Certainly not George Will.

The President hasn't.

The Secretary of State hasn't.

A general testified we might send in troops.

Rickyp hasn't presented a coherent strategy we're pursuing either. Instead, you seem to glory in its incoherence, which is bizarre.

Thank your lucky stars that the grand plan in Libya is still below that of Reagan's plan in Lebanon and no where near Bush's plan in Iraq.

Bush had a plan. It worked. Saddam was out of power quickly.

What is the PLAN in Libya?

We either should have been determined to take Ghaddafi out or we should not have dabbled here. Instead, Obama took the LBJ approach--we have to do something and we'll figure out the ins and outs later.

first, the part about liberals was obviously a cheap shot. I do find it a bit amusing how it sure does appear to be at least somewhat true however.

Regarding what RickyP posts:
"The original goals were to stop a genocide in Benghazi. Achieved."
ummm, was their any genocide to start with?
You can just as easily state this was to prevent a volcanic eruption, achieved

"The second goals announced were to enable the rebels to advance. Some success..."
some success followed by some failure followed by some success followed by (and a general downturn for the rebels as we go on,)

"The third goal (announcd by some in NATO) is to help the rebels topple Ghaddaffi... Ongoing."
and appearing less and less likely

"The fourth goal is to do all of the above without having to invade. So far so good."
but with more and more reason to think this also impossible,

You asked what is sloppy and ill conceived?
Please feel free to add to the following list of things off the top of my head:
* Who is actually leading?
* NATO just bombed "friendly forces" in a tank
* The Arab world is no longer behind us
* Saudi Arabia is upset
* Who will lead the new government?
* how will loyalist troops be treated if the rebels win?
* How will rebels be treated if Gadaffi wins?
* What if Gadaffi wins?
* How / how well are the rebels being supplied?
* How is NATO working/communicating with the rebels? (bombing tanks isn't very communicative)
* what is the exit strategy when (if?) Gadaffi is toppled? (if you want to claim we never entered to require an exit, how will things run after the rebels win if we stay out?)
* Even NATO is not unified, Turkey and Germany are against it
* we "picked sides" in a civil war, Russia and China picked the "other side" that aint too pretty to think about is it?

I have to ask, what would you claim would make you think this is anything other than sloppy and poorly planned? Can you point to anything and say, "see how well this plan is working"?

tom

"[quote]The original goals were to stop a genocide in Benghazi. Achieved."
ummm, was their any genocide to start with?[/quote
You really want to argue that Ghaddaffi's threats shouldn't have been taken seriously?

You asked what is sloppy and ill conceived?
Please feel free to add to the following list of things off the top of my head:
* Who is actually leading? In terms of your assertion: Why does this matter? It seems like the French and British weighed upon the US to contribute air force capabilities. NATO military command now leads. A Canadian at the moment. *
NATO just bombed "friendly forces" in a tank. Shall I enumerate for you the numbers of friendly fire incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan? Half the British casualties in the invasion of Iraq were levelled by American bombs. These kinds of things happen. In Libya they occur in large part because of the rag tag nature of the rebels. Apparently this time they failed to identify tanks as allied. *
The Arab world is no longer behind us . Actually it pretty much is. Two nations are supplying air power, two others vessels, and those nations in democratic genesis are particularly supportive. And its those nations that offer the greatest hope for the future. What have you got against democracy? *
Saudi Arabia is upset. Really? * And you care about this why>?
Who will lead the new government? When you support self determination and democracy you let the people decide. Would you have appreciated the french telling the American revolutionaries who should lead? *
how will loyalist troops be treated if the rebels win? Well, I hope. *
How will rebels be treated if Gadaffi wins? They’ll be massacred.
* What if Gadaffi wins? Then we go back to a situation from a year ago, except that he’s lost 30 billion dollars in assets that have been frozen, he’s embargoed and his loyalists are slowly bailing.. The only real negative is that the oil will stop flowing as part of the embargo. *
How / how well are the rebels being supplied? It probably improves every day. People tend to be inmventive and self sufficient in times of great stress. *
How is NATO working/communicating with the rebels? (bombing tanks isn't very communicative) Again, I’m sure they are working on improving this… One failure is NOT a reason to quit. *
what is the exit strategy when (if?) Gadaffi is toppled? (if you want to claim we never entered to require an exit, how will things run after the rebels win if we stay out?) What exit is required if Ghaddafi is toppled? There won’t be a significant military presence on the ground if all goes well. *
Even NATO is not unified, Turkey and Germany are against it Turkey is part of the naval embargo.
* we "picked sides" in a civil war, Russia and China picked the "other side" that aint too pretty to think about is it? If one side is a despotic tyrant and the oterh is for democracy, self determination and social justice …I’m comfortable with the choice. Don’t you believe in freedom democracy and self determination?
Here's a Libyan response to the kinds of attitudes represented by some of these arguements. The ones that suggest that Libyans can't manange their own affairs and theat they are backwards..
have a read:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/op ... 0182.html#

hahahaha, kinda funny answers
Do you REALLY think this is planned well?
A Canadian leads today, nobody knows who is in charge, it's a freaking cluster fu@k isn't it?

Let the people decide who leads ...same answer as Iraq...didn't work so well?

Gadaffi lose 30 billion? and we lost more? and still no decision

People tend be innovative? ...rousing support!?

How will the rebels be treated ...massacred
...but loyalists???

"if all goes well"...umm,, that was the "plan" in Iraq you had a field day with

Tom

Do you REALLY think this is planned well?
A Canadian leads today, nobody knows who is in charge, it's a freaking cluster fu@k isn't it?

Well YOU don't know who's in charge. His name isLt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard NATO command tends to be a little cumbersome compared to unilateral command structures. But there is a pretty specific command and control system and other than mis identifying rebels in former Army tanks, its been pretty good. I'll remind you again that even in the best armed forces, friendly fire incidents aren't eliminated.
No its not a swearword. The bombing initially stopped Ghaddaffi's forces from ending the rebellion by taking Ben Ghazi. That initial objective achieved has given the rebellion a chance. That was pretty well planned. As was the suppression of the air defence systems and the air force..
But it isn't perfect. If you think most military campaigns go as planned, and are neat and tidy, I think you haven't read much military history.
Example? D-Day was considered a brilliant campaign, but the Americans on Omaha wouldn't testify to it being brilliant. Nor would many of the allied paratroopers or glider assault troops, or the first wave at Juno Beach.. And yet ..things turned out well in the end.

Let the people decide who leads ...same answer as Iraq...didn't work so well?

Depends on your point of view. If you are a Shiite Iraqis its okay, unless you lost loved ones in the violence. For an American, I'm sure that the cost versus the final disposition of the Iraqis electorate's chosen government has to be disappointing. (And the disposition of the oil fields.)
You're right that the US could have maintained the no-fly zone, and kept both Sadddam and Iran off balance. The cost would have been a million times less, and the possibility of an internal change pretty high. But too many people beleived either faulty or purposefully deceptive "intelligence" and were sold on the invasion.
That doesn't really compare to the Libyan situation where an immediate intervention was required to prevent genocide, and where a genuinely popular revolution with democratic aspirations was about to be snuffed out by the genocide. The option in Iraq was to continue with a patient and succesful containment, the option in Libya was to stand by and witness slaughter and disappoint the Arab's in other countries who are seizing liberty and freedom themselves. I think the intervention demonstrates that the West does care about democracy, freedom and the average Arab citizen.

Gadaffi lose 30 billion? and we lost more? and still no decision

Well, I know that the 30 billion in assets has been frozen.And that it now totals 33 billion
source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... 3R20110330
Where are you're official budget estimates for the additional cost for American involvement? other than expended ammunition this is a kind of war exercise for forces that need to be supported anyway...

"if all goes well"...umm,, that was the "plan" in Iraq you had a field day.

Yes. But, as you've considered the difference being that the US in Iraq occupied the country, whereas in Libya not. Where in Iraq the US had assumed responsibility for government of an occupied country where much of the populace was violently opposed and where the majority of Iraqis quickly grew to hate the occupation. In Libya, there is no occupation, the west was begged to intervene, and although there have been friendly fire incidents I'm certain the rebels don't want the air cover to disappear because of them...
People who keep saying, Haven't we learned anything from Iraq? should look carefully at the very apparent distinctions between the two situations and the actions taken in both cases. Its apparent the answer is yes.
But the lesson of Iraq wasn't, "Never intervene again. Never actively support democratic aspirations. Never stand up for freedom".

Or not. Even when you think you've got it right and thought it out it's still a quagmire. Look at Afghanistan, I seem to recall rickyp and Danivon in days gone by holding to the idea that Afghanistan was the real war and that Iraq was a distraction. It turned out Iraq was a cake walk when compared to nation building in Afghanistan. Now the only possible win in Afghanistan is Gen. Betrayus creating a crime syndicate big enough and powerful enough to marginalize the Taliban.

GMTom wrote:first, the part about liberals was obviously a cheap shot. I do find it a bit amusing how it sure does appear to be at least somewhat true however.

Except that Ray Jay is an ex-liberal who is now more conservative, and who was the most supportive of intervention (but did haev concerns as expressed), and I am what you would think of as ultra-liberal and my position beforehand was quite sceptical.

Basically, for 'liberals' you mean 'RickyP'. Quit generalising based on a single (and quite singular) example.

Neal Anderth wrote:Or not. Even when you think you've got it right and thought it out it's still a quagmire. Look at Afghanistan, I seem to recall rickyp and Danivon in days gone by holding to the idea that Afghanistan was the real war and that Iraq was a distraction. It turned out Iraq was a cake walk when compared to nation building in Afghanistan.

Perhaps Afghanistan would have been easier if we had not gone in for one year, then concentrated on Iraq for five or so more, and then turned back to find things had become a quagmire.

I'm also far from convinced that Iraq was a 'cake walk' in terms of nation building. If you wanted a nation that was in thrall to the Iranian theocracy in the centre, desperate to separate off in the North (Kurdistan) and has an Al Qaeda insurgency still causing mayhem from time to time, I suppose that you got what you wanted. The jury is still out on whether Iraq will become a stable nation.

Afghanistan was never going to be easy, what with its history. Hence why it is so disappointing that we let the ball drop so early into the process, allowing the Taliban to slowly get back in, and leaving the rest of the country more susceptible.

No, not just Ricky, not by a long shot.
Ricky is our single most liberal of liberals and seems to follow the line on most issues more than any other so yes, he is the prototypical person I was referring to but, the posting was not aimed at any one person or any people in particular at all Ricky and Danivon are not the only liberals out there, sorry to break it to you but there are many others and my posting was not aimed at any one or two people, sorry to have talked about others but it's not just about you guys.

The general liberal attitude is what I was speaking to and it is true TO A POINT and it was most certainly a cheap shot being overly generalized I know, but in that way it is somewhat humorous how true it is?
...I do not expect you to agree, seems rather obvious to me but generalizations are frowned upon by some when it hits too close to home I suppose?

just for an example, it is not just my feeling, there are PLENTY of others who seems to wonder about this. I did a Google search "liberal support for libya intervention" and found many many hits
example: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 742AAhgMrq
"Why are most liberals supportive of the intervention in Libya?"
and if you read the replies, they are all over the place including one who suggests it to be the opposite, but I simply am not the only one wondering about this, I seriously doubt that person is talking about Rickyp in his posting either?

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

...Senator Obama, 2007

oh, and that was not about Iraq, remember congress approved Iraq
well, not Obama, sure he was not in the Senate at that time but he was clearly against it (Iraq) from the start:

Even at the time, it was possible to make judgments that this would not work out well

my how things change?
But no, this is so very different!?

I don't know why labels for political affiliation mean anything in this debate. I guess its the American thing that you can't actually engage in an discussion of ideas but have to pick sides. And for that labels of left and right come in handy so you know what shibboleths to holler. .
Cripples the ability to embrace new ideas I think.

I was supportive of the original invasion of Afghanistan. That is the idea of an invasion. Afghanistan, and northern Pakistan are the one area of the world where exporting terrorism, was being embraced by a segment of the populace and officially supported (or in the case of Pakistan, supported by some elements of the government). I can't see why that situation should be tolerated. For those of you against the original invasion, perhaps you can explain why ?
I believe that if the US had gone in with the force it went into Iraq with, accompanied by the far wider alliance of nations that have contributed to Afghanistan a Patreaus like strategy might work to actually change the region and make it inhospitable to fundamentalists and terrorist,. It would take a generational commitment. (Anecdotally I vacationed a few months ago with an American Marine leuitenant who echoed that sentiment. He was going back for his third tour in Afghanistan)
I beleive if it eliminated the region as the incubator of dangerous ideas regarding Islam, and the use of terror as a global weapon, it would be worth the investment.
Looks like its been bungled by the same "on the cheap" philosophy that hampered the occupation of Iraq. And the occupation of Iraq was one reason that the Afghanistan was "on the cheap". (That and that idiot Rumsfeld>). And by the way, none of the rationale for invading Afghanista legitimately applied to Iraq.

On the record I don't mind being labelled the only "liberal" But I'll point out that I was involved minimally in the only government (Riding Campaign manager for a leadership candidate ) in North America that actually practiced conservative fiscal policies while in office. Sucessfully. I point that out because labels are paper thin but actual actions mean something.
So, all you isolationist conservatives...explain why the toleration of actual global terrorists in Afghanistan now seems appropriate?

where did anyone ever even suggest we should tolerate terrorism/terrorists?

rickyp wrote:I believe that if the US had gone in with the force it went into Iraq with, accompanied by the far wider alliance of nations that have contributed to Afghanistan a Patreaus like strategy might work to actually change the region and make it inhospitable to fundamentalists and terrorist,. It would take a generational commitment. (Anecdotally I vacationed a few months ago with an American Marine leuitenant who echoed that sentiment. He was going back for his third tour in Afghanistan)

Logistically, it's impossible to invade landlocked, inhospitable, 3rd Century Afghanistan the way we invaded Iraq. I think the original plan was great. It was unfortunate when the Northern Alliance leader was assassinated.

The biggest problem, I think, is Afghanistan is so backward, so tribal, and so strange (to us) that, I think we should have just gone in, tried to kill/capture as many as we could, and leave. If they reconstituted the camps, flatten them. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

We are wasting American money and lives trying to transform a place and a people that are perfectly happy living in the land that time forgot. The only thing missing is dinosaurs.

I beleive if it eliminated the region as the incubator of dangerous ideas regarding Islam, and the use of terror as a global weapon, it would be worth the investment.

We can't change a religion. We can't force people to choose modernity.

Looks like its been bungled by the same "on the cheap" philosophy that hampered the occupation of Iraq. And the occupation of Iraq was one reason that the Afghanistan was "on the cheap". (That and that idiot Rumsfeld>). And by the way, none of the rationale for invading Afghanista legitimately applied to Iraq.

Cheap? Nah. I think it's more the nature of the culture and terrain. Tanks don't work well. Our goal to win one village at a time is the right one--IF one believes it is winnable. I don't.

Given our restrictive ROE and our objective to win the hearts and minds, I think this war has been a loser for the last 4 or 5 years. Eventually, our political leadership will realize this. The only reason we don't leave is the instability that would cause in Pakistan. So, instead of solving the problem (insecurity of Pakistan's nukes), we keep wasting the lives of young men and women in an uncivilized fragment of the Earth that most closely resembles the Moon.

So, all you isolationist conservatives...explain why the toleration of actual global terrorists in Afghanistan now seems appropriate?

I would not agree with that statement. However, there are other alternatives to "stay the course" or "retreat." Two readily come to mind: 1) expand the conflict into Pakistan by either invading the areas AQ is in or by stealing their nukes, or both; 2) Leaving and regularly (and indiscriminately) bombing suspected terrorist training camps.