The U.S. finally (after the fact) discovers a good reason to wage war on Libya. That is to recapture the terrorist responsible for the Lockerbie bombing that our "special relationship"..."friends"... set free.
Gentlemen, i am surprised you have seem to lost your balls in the GWOT. Whatever you may think of the whole Lybia operation, its quite obvious time for the Khadaffi regiem is running out. Rebel forces under Nato guidance are now within 50 km / 20 miles from the capital. You all fail to see the strategic importance of the whole Lybia operation. No Western losses.
I think we should do a Lybia on Syria too. Yes te air campaign would be like 10 times more intensive. But wiht airbases in Turkey and Iraq next door its easy. And then let the locals take over. Just like in Lybia.
I no warmonger but i think theres no better time to repeat the Lybia campaign in Syria then now.
That would basicly get rid of things like: Syrias WMD arsenal and missiles and the regime, kill off support of Hezbollah and Hamas, decrease Irans influence to like 0 in the Middle East, and get get rid Syrias and Irans grip on Lebanon. Hell it might even bring peace to Israel.
In my humble opinion we got a perfect scenario now to get rid of a real threat and a major obstacle for peace in the Middle East.
And ofcourse after Syria, Iran is next. We can do a Lybia on them too.
If we really wanne make the world a safer place we should not let this opportunity go to waste.
So in short: we bomb the shit out of Syria, send in the drones and SF. Help the locals and a major threat is gone.
Serious if you cant see it or you think Lybia is a stale mate and Greece is even more bankrupt then the Usa. Then i give up.
Saddam wanted to initiate oil trading in other than the US dollar, which motivated George Bush to invade Iraq. Gaddafi had similar intent, with like consequences.
Collapse of the US economy would only be hastened if oil trading moved away from the dollar.
Vince, I have Syrian friends who are Christian. Their spin on the current unrest in Syria might muddy the waters somewhat for you. They say that virtually all of the Syrian moderates and minorities - like the Christians - look upon the Assad government, for all its many, many faults, as the lesser - by far - of two evils.
They see, [b]just as is already happening in Egypt[/b], that the protesters wanting western-style freedoms will be shoved aside and supplanted by hardline Islamists who are very well financed by Saudi Arabia. They say that these hardliners are already pretty thick on the ground among the 'after Friday prayers' protesters.
So be careful what you wish for. The West called for a democratic, one man, one vote system in Palestine, and (no surprise to anyone who has lived in that part of the world), when they got it, they got a Hamas government in Gaza. The Arafat regime was (and without him, continues to be) corrupt and flawed in the extreme, but it was/is infinitely more acceptable to Western interests than a Hamas-dominated government running (or [i]trying[/i], not very well, to run)Palestine as a sideline to their primary aim, the [b]total[/b] destruction of Israel.
Democracy means something very, very different to the average man in the Middle East (the so-called 'Arab Street') to what it means to a Westerner. [i](And notice I said ‘man’ and not ‘man and woman’? A small but oh so important point in the Middle East.)[/i] The vast majority will vote the way their mullah (or in rural areas, their tribal leader) tells them to - and don't for one moment imagine that the hatred for all things Western (actually, a deep, ultra conservative fear of change) isn't visceral with far more in the Arab Street than you might imagine from meeting educated Arabs.
Nico, I wish I knew. If I had an answer, I could demand a very large salary from someone in Washington along with a very good advance for a book deal.
I lived in the Middle East the best part of twenty years, and I think the best way I could illustrate the complexities of the place would be to repeat a hoary old story that I understand dates from the 1920s. It goes along the lines that Western those journalists who visit the Middle East for one day go away and write a book about the place. Those who stay a week go away and write a magazine article. And those who stay a year go away unable to write a word about it.
To oversimplify an incredibly complex and constantly shifting situation, I think I could sum it up in one sentence - whatever the West, (and in particular the Americans) do, they'll be seen to be wrong by the majority in the Middle East.
The Americans are more or less in the situation of "damned if they do and damned if they don't" for any given situation, and all too frequently, the course of action they take really is the one they probably shouldn’t, and they exacerbate their error by always only going half-arsed into whatever course of action they take. This makes them appear weak to the Arabs, and there is nothing the Arabs despise more than weakness, particularly in someone who has the capability of projecting strength.
Shifting for one moment to Afghanistan, Barack Obama is basically in the same situation that Abraham Lincoln found himself in after the very costly victory at Gettysburg. However, unfortunately, he seems not to be following Lincoln's example in seeing the costly and increasingly unpopular war through to a definite victory. Lincoln was under enormous pressure from the Eastern US Establishment press to make peace with the South before he had absolutely and utterly defeated Lee’s Confederate Army. Against incredible resistance from many in his government, (and parents who didn’t want their sons to die in what they saw as a now unnecessary war), he persevered until his Federal army took Lee’s surrender. If he’d bowed to that pressure, there’d have been two separate ‘United’ States and the world would have faced a very different North America in the 20th Century, which who knows what results in world events.
Whether the US can ever win in Afghanistan is highly debatable. Personally, I don’t think it can, and I think that’s beginning to be recognised by more and more people in the halls of power in Washington. If it was to pursue a total war on a massive, impossible, WW2 scale that included a full scale invasion of Northern Pakistan with a bloody, gruesome ending along the lines of what we saw the Sri Lankans indulge in on 4 Corners last Monday night, (which isn’t ever going to happen, if only because the Americans are broke), it might buy twenty years or so of Western ascendency (but certainly not peace).
In pulling large numbers of troops out to bolster his re-election chances, Obama is basically doing what Nixon did in 1972-3 in Vietnam – buying a face-saving exit for himself and “Afghanising” the war, allowing the Taliban, (who’ll patiently wait him out now that they’ve seen him blink), to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, much as did the North Vietnamese in 1975. The defeat, within a few short years, of the Western-backed Afghan government is almost certainly assured, and about the only thing the West will ‘gain’ from it is thousands of Afghan refugees who were silly enough to throw in their lot with the West.
Along with tens of thousands of Afghan refugees who will SAY that they threw their lot in with the West.
Albatross, i believe you. I have no illusions protests are not organised by certain groups or that regiem change would neccesary mean a better life for the people. Offers a chance tho.
The point i was trying to make is that the blueprint for the Lybia op could work in Syria too. And without many Western losses.
Its about taking out a threat, not bout trying to occupy a country and shape its future.
As you bring Afghanistan up. Like the initial op on the Taliban and then instead of staying just leave. What should have happened 10 years ago.
As Gates put it: any future defense secretary who advises the President to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined,
Many people think this Lybia operation is a big fail. I think its a good example of the close future.
We tried nation building forget about that. Next wars will be about taking out threats.
And yes there always will be new wars. Only question is who is next.
9 comments:
Holy krap... we agree on something :)
Does double jeopardy count?
No. Just double-JDAM.
Gentlemen, i am surprised you have seem to lost your balls in the GWOT. Whatever you may think of the whole Lybia operation, its quite obvious time for the Khadaffi regiem is running out. Rebel forces under Nato guidance are now within 50 km / 20 miles from the capital.
You all fail to see the strategic importance of the whole Lybia operation. No Western losses.
I think we should do a Lybia on Syria too.
Yes te air campaign would be like 10 times more intensive. But wiht airbases in Turkey and Iraq next door its easy.
And then let the locals take over.
Just like in Lybia.
I no warmonger but i think theres no better time to repeat the Lybia campaign in Syria then now.
That would basicly get rid of things like: Syrias WMD arsenal and missiles and the regime, kill off support of Hezbollah and Hamas, decrease Irans influence to like 0 in the Middle East, and get get rid Syrias and Irans grip on Lebanon. Hell it might even bring peace to Israel.
In my humble opinion we got a perfect scenario now to get rid of a real threat and a major obstacle for peace in the Middle East.
And ofcourse after Syria, Iran is next. We can do a Lybia on them too.
If we really wanne make the world a safer place we should not let this opportunity go to waste.
So in short: we bomb the shit out of Syria, send in the drones and SF. Help the locals and a major threat is gone.
Serious if you cant see it or you think Lybia is a stale mate and Greece is even more bankrupt then the Usa.
Then i give up.
Reasoning maybe astray here.
Saddam wanted to initiate oil trading in other than the US dollar, which motivated George Bush to invade Iraq. Gaddafi had similar intent, with like consequences.
Collapse of the US economy would only be hastened if oil trading moved away from the dollar.
Vince, I have Syrian friends who are Christian. Their spin on the current unrest in Syria might muddy the waters somewhat for you. They say that virtually all of the Syrian moderates and minorities - like the Christians - look upon the Assad government, for all its many, many faults, as the lesser - by far - of two evils.
They see, [b]just as is already happening in Egypt[/b], that the protesters wanting western-style freedoms will be shoved aside and supplanted by hardline Islamists who are very well financed by Saudi Arabia. They say that these hardliners are already pretty thick on the ground among the 'after Friday prayers' protesters.
So be careful what you wish for. The West called for a democratic, one man, one vote system in Palestine, and (no surprise to anyone who has lived in that part of the world), when they got it, they got a Hamas government in Gaza. The Arafat regime was (and without him, continues to be) corrupt and flawed in the extreme, but it was/is infinitely more acceptable to Western interests than a Hamas-dominated government running (or [i]trying[/i], not very well, to run)Palestine as a sideline to their primary aim, the [b]total[/b] destruction of Israel.
Democracy means something very, very different to the average man in the Middle East (the so-called 'Arab Street') to what it means to a Westerner. [i](And notice I said ‘man’ and not ‘man and woman’? A small but oh so important point in the Middle East.)[/i] The vast majority will vote the way their mullah (or in rural areas, their tribal leader) tells them to - and don't for one moment imagine that the hatred for all things Western (actually, a deep, ultra conservative fear of change) isn't visceral with far more in the Arab Street than you might imagine from meeting educated Arabs.
Excellent analysis Albatross, couldn't agree more.
So what does the West countries do?
Nico, I wish I knew. If I had an answer, I could demand a very large salary from someone in Washington along with a very good advance for a book deal.
I lived in the Middle East the best part of twenty years, and I think the best way I could illustrate the complexities of the place would be to repeat a hoary old story that I understand dates from the 1920s. It goes along the lines that Western those journalists who visit the Middle East for one day go away and write a book about the place. Those who stay a week go away and write a magazine article. And those who stay a year go away unable to write a word about it.
To oversimplify an incredibly complex and constantly shifting situation, I think I could sum it up in one sentence - whatever the West, (and in particular the Americans) do, they'll be seen to be wrong by the majority in the Middle East.
The Americans are more or less in the situation of "damned if they do and damned if they don't" for any given situation, and all too frequently, the course of action they take really is the one they probably shouldn’t, and they exacerbate their error by always only going half-arsed into whatever course of action they take. This makes them appear weak to the Arabs, and there is nothing the Arabs despise more than weakness, particularly in someone who has the capability of projecting strength.
Shifting for one moment to Afghanistan, Barack Obama is basically in the same situation that Abraham Lincoln found himself in after the very costly victory at Gettysburg. However, unfortunately, he seems not to be following Lincoln's example in seeing the costly and increasingly unpopular war through to a definite victory. Lincoln was under enormous pressure from the Eastern US Establishment press to make peace with the South before he had absolutely and utterly defeated Lee’s Confederate Army. Against incredible resistance from many in his government, (and parents who didn’t want their sons to die in what they saw as a now unnecessary war), he persevered until his Federal army took Lee’s surrender. If he’d bowed to that pressure, there’d have been two separate ‘United’ States and the world would have faced a very different North America in the 20th Century, which who knows what results in world events.
Whether the US can ever win in Afghanistan is highly debatable. Personally, I don’t think it can, and I think that’s beginning to be recognised by more and more people in the halls of power in Washington. If it was to pursue a total war on a massive, impossible, WW2 scale that included a full scale invasion of Northern Pakistan with a bloody, gruesome ending along the lines of what we saw the Sri Lankans indulge in on 4 Corners last Monday night, (which isn’t ever going to happen, if only because the Americans are broke), it might buy twenty years or so of Western ascendency (but certainly not peace).
In pulling large numbers of troops out to bolster his re-election chances, Obama is basically doing what Nixon did in 1972-3 in Vietnam – buying a face-saving exit for himself and “Afghanising” the war, allowing the Taliban, (who’ll patiently wait him out now that they’ve seen him blink), to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, much as did the North Vietnamese in 1975. The defeat, within a few short years, of the Western-backed Afghan government is almost certainly assured, and about the only thing the West will ‘gain’ from it is thousands of Afghan refugees who were silly enough to throw in their lot with the West.
Along with tens of thousands of Afghan refugees who will SAY that they threw their lot in with the West.
Albatross, i believe you. I have no illusions protests are not organised by certain groups or that regiem change would neccesary mean a better life for the people.
Offers a chance tho.
The point i was trying to make is that the blueprint for the Lybia op could work in Syria too.
And without many Western losses.
Its about taking out a threat, not bout trying to occupy a country and shape its future.
As you bring Afghanistan up. Like the initial op on the Taliban and then instead of staying just leave.
What should have happened 10 years ago.
As Gates put it: any future defense secretary who advises the President to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined,
Many people think this Lybia operation is a big fail. I think its a good example of the close future.
We tried nation building forget about that. Next wars will be about taking out threats.
And yes there always will be new wars. Only question is who is next.
Post a Comment