|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:I bet the US is pretty pissed that they don't have working F-35s yet while France and EADS are having such nice sales shows. Guess who'll be offering discounts on F15 and F16 planes soon? While they don't have the F-35 yet, the Air Force is going to take full advantage of this air show opportunity. quote:Speaking at a Senate budget hearing yesterday, Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force’s chief of staff, said that the first phase of a campaign against Moammar Gadhafi’s aircraft would attack Libyan radar sites. That’s just as airmen with no-fly experience predicted to Danger Room. Taking down the radar sites, which direct Libyan air defenses, will require the use of radar-evading stealth jets. Enter the F-22 Raptor, Norton said, according to The Hill’s John Bennett. Perhaps the future holds a chance for contract renewal 
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
goatface posted:UN security council overrides a hell of a lot. Not US military powers. The authorization for this comes from the war powers resolution, which allows the President to engage forces for 60 days without authorization from Congress or a declaration of war. After that, Congress can authorize a 30 day extension, a full authorization of force (as was done for Iraq) or declare war. There are questions about the constitutionality of the war powers resolution, but it's unlikely to face a challenge.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I have a lot of reservations about this particular intervention, but I'd rather the US be hypocritical and help to prevent a massacre than the US remain consistent and let war crimes happen everywhere. Keep in mind that it's extremely likely that the US gave the go-ahead for the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia to support the regime in Bahrain in fighting against its protesters in exchange for the Arab League's support in Libya. I don't think Americans should feel strongly in favor or strongly opposed to this intervention in Libya. It's true that without it the chances of mass killings in the east would be extremely likely, and we should not paint over Qaddafis history of violence against uprisings in the country. But the US and Europe's motives in this conflict are questionable at best, certainly are not without blame in terms of creating this situation, and contradict its policies elsewhere. The people calling this the "feel good war of the year" in this thread are disgusting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I would hazard to guess that there are plenty of spy satellites on top of Libya right now, sending live image of what happens down below to mission control. It's night in Libya right now, which is why they've said that the next operational phase won't start for at least another 10 hours when there's been a chance to check over the damage caused by the initial strike using satellites.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:Obama explicitly stated that there will be no manned flights above Libya. When? His statement earlier today only explicitly ruled out ground troops and the Pentagon briefer wouldn't comment on "future operations".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:In any case, no flights are planned and there is no reason for manned American flights after the bulk of the fighting is over. You also have no evidence that this is the case. The Pentagon statement was that "phase one" of the operation consisted of the removal of the air defense network, which they'll assess when there's sunlight above Libya before starting the next phase of the operation and they won't comment on the details of that or whatever plans are in place. There's no reason to assume, based on anything Obama or the Pentagon said today that the US will not be involved in manned operations over Libya.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:Of course this is all conjecture on my part, and I may be proven wrong, but at this stage it would surprise me. A number of nations are already ready to pick up the slack on phase two or three (whatever they may be) in enforcing the NFZ, and the US long-range air arm is stretched thin as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan. So they can test out some outrageously expensive hardware in a live situation! http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/libya-may-give-the-f-22-its-first-wartime-test quote:Speaking at a Senate budget hearing yesterday, Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force’s chief of staff, said that the first phase of a campaign against Moammar Gadhafi’s aircraft would attack Libyan radar sites. That’s just as airmen with no-fly experience predicted to Danger Room. Taking down the radar sites, which direct Libyan air defenses, will require the use of radar-evading stealth jets. Enter the F-22 Raptor, Norton said, according to The Hill’s John Bennett.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
Yeah you just blow a few billion and ruin some planes with rain or the international date line and people get all pissy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
surf rock posted:On the other hand, by having an international coalition involved with the revolution, there's probably less chance of a horribly oppressive revolutionary government being installed. I have absolutely no idea how you've arrived at this idea.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 01:47
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:What is this? chem/bio weapons? Egypt taking land? Really? It's one moderator's prediction of the Iraq war from March, 2003 with the names switched. Joementum fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I don't know why this is an issue. The UN gave no authorization for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, yet Bush and Blair pushed on with it. If someone really wanted to send troops to Libya, then they would. So far, no one is interested in doing so. Yeah, the language of that resolution shouldn't be a concern in a world where the U.S. has 50,000 "non-combat advisors" in Iraq.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 03:16
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Does that clause in the UN resolution saying no occupational forces include special or secret forces that sneak in and take out Gadhafi? But if he's in a hardened bunker somewhere that probably wouldn't work anyway. He's surrounded by loyalists serving as human shields, which is just one of the many reasons that an assassination attempt or targeted strike against Qaddafi is a bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Talk about an out of context quote. If you find me the original citation, I bet he was discussing the use of military force for self-defense as requiring an imminent threat to the US, not military force in general. It was from the Democratic primary debates and the question was about a bombing campaign against Iran. Hillary gave a similar answer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
Xandu posted:No it's out of context because bombing nuclear sites in Iran would require a congressional authorization due to the lack of imminent threat. This, a limited UN-sanctioned bombing campaign, does not, both due to the limited nature of it and the imminent threat to civilian lives. "Imminent threat" in the context of the quote very clearly means a threat to the lives of U.S. citizens, not Libyans or Iranians. Also, the UN-sanctioning of this action has no effect on the constitutionality of the President's engagement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 05:44
|
|
|
Xandu posted:In the context of the quote, not in the context of the law. There is no law that give the President authorization to engage the U.S. military in a foreign action to prevent an imminent threat to non-U.S. citizens. There's plenty of precedent for what Obama is doing, from every President since the war powers resolution was passed, but it's that (controversial) law that allows him to do this without getting Congress's permission first, not the UN, not the threat to the Libyan rebels, or anything else. Xandu posted:Somalia is another example of a UNSCR being considered legal cover for deploying military forces without congressional authorization. In that case, as in this one, the UN resolution was political cover for the action, not the legal justification.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 05:48
|
|
|
straw man posted:Can anyone convincingly argue that Colonel Q is an actual or imminent threat to the territory or people of the United States of America? Laughably, the U.S. counterterrorism spokesman did try to do that yesterday. It's a good thing that they dropped that line completely.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 05:51
|
|
|
personaljesus posted:Apologies if this has been addressed in this thread, but I will ask anyway. Basically all of the above. France is geographically close to Libya and had an aircraft carrier in the area at the time authorization for intervention was given. Additionally, France has a huge economic stake in Libya, not the least of which are the oil contracts with France Total, but also many other businesses. France does have historical, colonial ties in the region, including parts of Libya, though those are probably not a significant part of this action. And Sarkozy was probably encouraged to show France in a leading role on this operation by the U.S., which is very eager that it not be seen as the leader this time. Still, as far as I can tell, the only French "leadership" so far in the operation was the initial 8 fighter flight over Libya prior to the U.S. tomahawk strike. Since then, the U.S., U.K. and France appear to have been equally engaged and the U.S. military is currently in command.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 17:00
|
|
|
Pajser posted:I'm pretty sure, that a leader who considers youtube comments as the voice of the people is not a very good leader. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-26/politics/obama.youth.outreach_1_union-speech-answer-questions-clean-energy?_s=PM:POLITICS
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
Jut posted:Well that's a loving disappointment. Keep in mind that the result of a "No" vote would have been continued de facto military rule in Egypt for a year or more. Supporters of the "No" vote made noises about a technocratic advisory council to help the military manage affairs, but never agreed on a time frame for the eventual parliamentary votes. Still, it appears that the likely result of this "Yes" vote will be a new government with a large representation from the Muslim Brotherhood and it will be very interesting to see how the US and Israel react to that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
Ham posted:The result of a no-vote would be the writing of a completely new constitution whilst delaying parliamentary elections until non-Muslim Brotherhood or NDP political parties can actually organize for elections. Agreed, but you have to acknowledge that a "No" vote would have meant at least another year with the day-to-day government operations controlled by the military while the new constitution was being worked out. It's not my choice to make, but I can at least can understand the thinking of people who want to move on sooner.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Just said that they haven't decided (or rather, refuse to specify) whether or not they would stop attacking Gaddafi's forces if they stopped advancing. A little beyond that, even. He said that he wouldn't say what the response would be in a situation where the rebels were advancing on a loyalist position. That situation appears to be an inevitability. My guess is that the coalition will provide material support in that event, since I believe this won't end for the coalition without regime change, but I acknowledge that has yet to be affirmed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:It's pretty simple to say that they won't fire on advancing Rebel troops at the moment, since the Rebels have not yet bombarded populated cities, cut medical/food/water/power to civilian areas, or engaged in massacres. I wasn't trying to insinuate that the coalition would fire on advancing rebels. That's almost completely out of the question. The question is: will the coalition fire on fixed loyalist positions that are the target of advancing rebel forces?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 21:25
|
|
|
I imagine we'll see a walk-back of that Pentagon briefer's "we are not going after Qaddafi" statement from a few minutes ago. That seems to be an uncharacteristically affirmative statement of coalition intentions, especially since the U.S. is still vehemently asserting that it doesn't control the coalition. It was also very conveniently packaged in sound-bite form and will get a ton of play on cable news tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
Well, also remember that the economy of Libya consists largely of Qaddafi handing out the profits made on those contracts with European firms to his citizens, especially the military and loyalist parties. That's how he's able to claim a 0% poverty and hunger rate when 30% of the country is unemployed. It's no surprise that a large number of those people would remain loyal to his regime.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
Richard Engle (in Tobruk, Libya) discussion with Chris Matthews. Matthews: What is going on in the war? Are we going after Qaddafi? What are we doing in this war, do we know? Richard Engle: The rebels here think we have given them unconditional military support. Their only strategy seems to be allow the US and other military powers to scorch the earth and destroy Qaddafi's military so that they can make a very slow advance toward Tripoli. They do see a humanitarian element to this because if Qaddafi's forces had been allowed to enter Benghazi or Tobruk there very likely would have been massacres, but now they think this rebel movement which has been leaderless and disorganized believes it has has been recognized and given the full support of the United States military. Matthews: Are we giving arms of any kind? Small arms, artillery,armor, what are we giving to the rebels. Anything? Engle: I have seen no evidence that we are giving the rebels anything. They seem to be holding the weapons that they seized from the units of Qaddafi that were destroyed by the Americans. Sometimes they're armed with just pocket knives... The rebels are in two groups. There are the volunteers, they seem to be a little bit braver, they're the ones heading out to the front lines. They're not having a lot of success. That's one group. The other are the divisions of the army, formerly Qaddafi's army, that defected. And they are not really doing much of anything. In Tobruk today, we went to the main army command to talk to one of the top generals here who had supposedly joined the rebellion. He was at home today and had taken the day off. Matthews: Do the rebels think we're going for the kill, Qaddafi? Engle: they hope so and that's what they want. They seem to think there could be a few ways to end this conflict. The US could continue to trailblaze for them and scorch the earth so they can move forward. They think they can reach Tripoli in a short amount of time, perhaps weeks or a few months. Or if there's enough pressure, there could be some sort of coup in Tripoli and someone could come out and assassinate Qaddafi. Or the third option would be that one of these missiles comes and actually kills Qaddafi. If none of those things happen there could be a long stalemate. Once the US starts this, once the US and other powers begin to provide the rebels with a safe haven and air cover it's very hard to take that away. Because if you're offering your protection and they try to advance, they will advance, and you take that air cover away, the rebels are very likely to start losing again and we're back to the situation where we were and the main cities being threatened with being overrun.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
That's why he put that nice little paragraph in his letter to Congress about Libyan instability maybe, kinda, perhaps threatening American "national security interests".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
The more important point is that the President does not derive power to commit military force from the UN, which several people both here and in D&D have assumed. The President either has the power to exercise military force as he deems appropriate following its appropriation, or he has the authority as outlined by the war powers resolution. But a UNSCR neither commands nor grants the President the authority to commit force under US law, it just legitimates its use in a way that other member states cannot object.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
Salo posted:I don't blame him. From a strategic standpoint, if the US took a strong position even with the rhetoric of handing over power to another entity, everyone else would just say, "Welp, you got this one Obama, I'm out!" and the US would be left holding the bag. This is why the Turkish opposition to this being a NATO operation is problematic. That was their out to make this a non-US led operation. The British have already said they have absolutely no interest in leading, so I guess the plan now is to convince Sarkozy that it would be fun to be in charge. Otherwise they'll have to gin up some non-specific multinational leadership council that will give the other coalition participants plenty of cover to extract themselves when this inevitably requires escalation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 08:45
|
|
|
farraday posted:From the BBC Well, it's a bit of a good sign, since steering groups usually have things like mission statements.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
farraday posted:But what if the mission statement is in Western? I think the bigger problem will be a war waged by committee, which would seem to have some fairly serious negatives. "Alright, welcome to the pre-meeting for our war planning retreat. Who's taking minutes? Denmark? Great. Now, we've contracted for just coffee and muffin catering, since we're ending the retreat by noon and Cameron promised to bring the big pads of paper and markers. Does anyone have items they wanted to add to the agenda outline I sent around?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Actually for once we could send in our heavy mechanized stuff. Libya is 99% perfect tank country. It's where Rommel made his reputation after all. You can take over as much sand as you like with your big guns, but you've got to take the cities and you've got to do it with as few civilian deaths as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:No poo poo. But it's just possible that using mechanized infantry for that job would be safer than just dropping JDAMs on stuff. Of course that's assuming there's a US ground deployment in Libya at all. The one thing the Obama administration has said since the beginning of this is that there will be no US ground forces. I can definitely see a situation where other countries send in ground forces, but he's going to have a huge problem politically walking that statement back.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
Competition posted:Gaddaffi does not have the means to take territory and soon he wont have the means to defend it. Neither do the rebels. The least-bad end at this point is a stalemate with the creation of some type of East Libya, hopefully one willing to take refugees. Any other path towards total regime change is going to require ground forces in excess of what the rebels are able to muster and will get even uglier than the situation currently is. Hopefully, that's what Hillary was hinting at with her "Benghazi is the new capital" talk today, but who knows. Who's even supposedly leading the coalition at this point? What NATO commander is in charge and from what country? What is the stated mission goal? That these questions have been consistently unanswered is part of the reason there are a some skeptical people in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
farraday posted:t3ch3 I know you really like the idea of separation, but I'm still not seeing any support from that on the ground in Libya, and without that what's the point of it? Just to be clear, I don't really like the idea of anything. I'm just trying to understand how this conflict can be ended with the least possible loss of life and I think that, at this point, the creation of a refugee state best serves that purpose. Whether the rebels like it or not, their struggle cannot exist without coalition air support, but it's also extremely unlikely that they'll ever take Tripoli without coalition ground support, and that battle would kill thousands.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2011 03:10
|
|
|
farraday posted:Not even puppies? More to the point you're right that if the orders shifted and they refused to protect anything west of Ajdabiya they likely could not advance, but it would also leave Zitan and Misrata completely at the whim of Ghaddafi. It's not any different and my opinion is entirely based on a hunch that a few thousand fewer people might die if that were done than the inevitably bloody push toward Tripoli with coalition ground support. I fully admit that I have no reason to believe this beyond an uninformed guess from a white American armchair general type and am really glad that I'm nowhere near being in a position to decide or be affected by this decision. I'll concede that my kneejerk is toward less use of force where it can happen and anyway this is a silly argument to have since events are going to play out as they will whatever theories we propose here. I'll gladly agree to be proven wrong on an internet message board if fewer people die. edit: also, i actually do dislike dogs and, by extension puppies. sorry. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
farraday posted:You monster! Also, I disagree with your thoughts on the proper response to this problem. I think my biggest problem with what you're suggesting is it seems as naively optimistic as thinking a conquest of Tripoli by outside rebel forces wouldn't be bloody. I'm not sure how you recognize the dangers in one course while ignoring, or minimizing to a large degree, the dangers in the other. Please believe me, I was doing nothing of the sort. That's why I described a partition as the "least bad" option, in my opinion. I don't think it's possible to be optimistic of the result in Libya, unless you're being seriously deluded or disingenuous.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2011 03:40
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Gaddafi is using landmines, ensuring that whoever wins, civilians will be dying for years after this conflict is over. This would be a good opportunity for the United States to take the high road and sign and ratify the Ottawa Treaty.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 12:07
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:I wanted it to be true too, but realistically civil wars usually take longer than that unless the west is willing to go all Even when the United States does that, the civil wars tends to go on for years in one form or another. It's really hard to kill an insurgency with "tactical air strikes".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2011 00:27
|
|
and just go around basically obliterating Gaddafi's military to help the rebels.
|
dj_clawson posted:Google News is feeding me a lot of news that reads, "Obama authorizes covert operations in Libya." The authorization order was made weeks ago, before the UNSCR and was just now leaked by someone to the Guardian. I highly doubt it was a purposeful leak from the administration. And before all the realpolitik pragmatists in the thread jump all over this point, you're incredibly naive if you thought the President would not authorize CIA action in Libya. This is de rigeur for the executive. The only surprising thing is that there wasn't already a blanket authorization on covert actions in Libya.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Gaddafi withdraws his troops from cities in the West and stops all attacks. What would that leave Gaddafi? He'd be Grand High Poobah of Tripoli or something?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 13:07
|
|