What would you recommend we do?
OTB
Nothing. I thought we agreed on that.
What would you recommend we do?
OTB
Gaddafi is winning. In a matter of days he may take Benghazi and it will be a bloodbath. While the US and the rest of the world simply stands aside and watches.
Gadaffi is laughing his face off as the earthquake has taken much to the Libyan trobles off the headlines and he can go more nuts with not as much attention. I really fear for the rebels that his will be another Kurd massacre in short order, with the rest of the world saying, nah not yet, ooops too late, ah too bad, that's awful, oh well.
Our getting involved now likely wont prevent that and may likely expand the problem.
Nothing. I thought we agreed on that.
Face the fact that the US is an impotent bystanter to the uprisings in the arab world. Viagra or Cialis would be the only hope.
Gaddafi is winning. In a matter of days he may take Benghazi and it will be a bloodbath. While the US and the rest of the world simply stands aside and watches.
I will NOT support any action that will endanger the lives of our young men and women nor put them in a position where they might have to harm even a single Muslim. We are "doing something" right now. We are trying to resolve this conflict using non-violent means (e.g. talking). If the Arab League wants a "no fly zone", let them put up a no fly zone.
There has to be a shot across the bow from somebody
Please please let that "somebody" be a brown man Muslim.
I will NOT support any action that will endanger the lives of our young men and women nor put them in a position where they might have to harm even a single Muslim. We are "doing something" right now. We are trying to resolve this conflict using non-violent means (e.g. talking). If the Arab League wants a "no fly zone", let them put up a no fly zone.
From what I remember not even one single pilot was lost in the
U.S. enforced no-fly zone after Gulf war I over Iraq. It was a cakewalk.
Libya can't be more deadly than Saddam's Iraq to the U.S.
Not really our fight and not much we can do short of landing marines, which I think we all think would be a mistake. The Euros have armed him and done business with him, if anyone was going to do anything it should be the European Union.
OTB
The strategic rationale for swift-moving expeditionary forces, be they Army or Marines, airborne infantry or special operations, is self-evident given the likelihood of counterterrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response, or stability or security force assistance missions. But in my opinion, 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,” as General MacArthur so delicately put it.
I would argue that we could do much, that we shouldn't, that sounds more like discretion vs impotence.
Could't, wouldn't , shouldn't, all amount to the same thing.
Are you asking for the US to get involved and saying you would support it, no matter the outcome?
Or are you stirring the pot to amuse yourself?
Fareed Zakaria had a panel of analysts from Morocco, Egypt, Jordan and Palestinian Territories, discussing the options and the feeling of the people. Everyone of them said the US should be part of a multinational force, but the US should not put boots on the ground without being prepared for some opposition by a few Arab nations.
Logistical support is all I would offer
Much the same, but the group had no problem with a no fly zone overwatch position for whatever goes forth. The french and British could easily fill in with that responsibility as well. the new type 45 British destroyer or the French/Italian Horizon class frigates would do a fine job from waaaay back there.