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".