Libya and International Intervention

[DeletedUser]

Alright frankly I was shocked to see that this wasn't a topic here and so I'm making one even though I'm not very good at making them and providing background info.

So, as of today (and the best of my knowledge) NATO is leading the enforcement of a UN mandated no-fly zone that has been imposed for almost a moth now. They are also conducting air-ground strikes on Gadaffi's forces in aid of the Opposition forces(Libyan rebels)

Previously to this the US was leading the enforcement of the no-fly zone and the strikes on Gadaffi's forces.

Oh Also the US has CIA operatives in Libya who may be intelligence gathering or may be "Intelligence gathering" aka arming and training opposition forces depending on who you ask.

Questions/ideas/concepts being:
Do you think that the UN should have imposed no-fly zone?
Should NATO be leading strikes?
Should there be any international invention?
Should the US be involved?
Should the US have CIA operatives or any forces on the ground in Libya?
If Libya why not _______(Insert name of other middle eastern revolt here)?

Feel free to answer any number of these or make your own, these are just ideas and topic starters

 

[DeletedUser]

Do you think that the UN should have imposed no-fly zone?
Yes, at the point Qadaffi said he will kill innocent civilians with his plane attacks, the UN was obligated to intervene in such a manner. I just wish they intervened in other atrocities of the past.

Should NATO be leading strikes?
Yes, the majority of Middle East nations respect and prefer NATO led forces.

Should there be any international invention?
Kinda the same question

Should the US be involved?
Not without Congressional approval. Obama did a big faux pas, when he ordered American planes to participate there without Congressional approval. That is simply unheard of and sets a horrible and dangerous precedent, which I'm sure some future Republican President will utilize as said precedent, bringing us to war on the whims of the executive branch (Bush Jr. at least bothered to trick the Congress into providing congressional approval).

Should the US have CIA operatives or any forces on the ground in Libya?
To be quite frank, I don't feel the U.S. should have any CIA operatives. That's cold-war era crap.

If Libya why not _______(Insert name of other middle eastern revolt here)?
Iran? Well, when civilians were being shot and killed by Iranian troops, UN did not intervene. Each situation is different, dependent upon individual nations' needs/investments and the measure/manner of actions imposed within a stated government. It's easy to make sweeping statements. It's easy to simplify things as black and white, but when has anything in this world ever been truly easy?

((boo everyone, hehe))

 

[DeletedUser]

Do you think that the UN should have imposed no-fly zone?


If there was going to be any kind of intervention of any form, ensuring complete air supremacy is pretty much a prerequisite. So assuming an interventionist position, then yes. Other than that I can only echo what Hellstrom has already said on the matter of protecting the civilian population (especially in a materially imbalanced conflict) - and echo his sentiments on the lack of intervention in conflicts past; however much it perhaps runs the risk of being seen as almost Palmerstoneian gunboat diplomacy in some nations and regions.

Should NATO be leading strikes?


Ignoring perhaps the bigger question of whether NATO should even exist any more; being really a cold-war anachronism. It's far better being a NATO lead operation than a unilateral action by any individual nation, or small collection of nations - and the inevitable cries of 'vested interests' or 'neo-colonialism' that would follow. Besides, NATO is the only compensate military coalition capable - or interested enough - to take on the task.

Should the US be involved?

I can't imagine anything happening without the world's current Superpower. I can't quite see an American opposed Franco-British military campaign in North Africa; David Cameron has many faults, but being Anthony Eden isn't one of them. In short, without American political will (and an American cheque book) there would be no military intervention.

Should the US have CIA operatives or any forces on the ground in Libya?


From my experience the best place for the CIA to ever be is at safely tucked up in bed at Langely; where they can do as little harm as possible. However, if the entire organization could be replaced by a very small team of socially-awkward mentally-challenged chimpanzees (which could only lead to a significant improvement in their field work) I may reconsider this stance. As to conventional forces on the ground? My instinct tells me that if NATO or the usual 'coalition of the willing' (ie: the United States and all seven of the British service personnel not currently deployed or guarding Kate and Williams wedding presents) were to put two divisions on the ground, it'd be an offensive military campaign of a matter of days, and probably a 'police action' for a number of years - and at present, nobody fancies the prospect of the latter part of that.

If Libya why not _______(Insert name of other middle eastern revolt here)?


In the words of Elizabeth I: "wars have uncertain outcomes..."

 

[Diggo11]

Do you think that the UN should have imposed no-fly zone?
Most definitely. Gaddafi has made it abundantly clear he wishes to rule as absolute dictator over Libya, and to do so is willing to harm and kill citizens. Imposing a new fly zone limits how effectively he can do this.

Should NATO be leading strikes?
If Gaddafi is to be removed, and is unwilling to step aside voluntarily, someone has to get their hands dirty. NATO, who represents a fair number of nations, has both the means and the will; why shouldn't they lead the strikes? Unless a larger organisation like the UN wishes to organise a united force, NATO is the next best thing the Libyan people have got.

Should there be any international invention?
Whilst the rebels are willing to fight - yes.

Should the US be involved?
The U.S. on their own represent 43% of global military spending. Whilst their recent history under George Bush in leading wars has been shaky, they simply have the means and will necessary in accomplishing the military objectives of any joint initiative.

Should the US have CIA operatives or any forces on the ground in Libya?
If it allows the airforce to minimise friendly fire whilst coordinating air strikes, yes.

If Libya why not _______(Insert name of other middle eastern revolt here)?
If the people of any Middle Eastern people request the assistance of western powers to overthrow a tyrant ruler who has and continues to breach international law on human rights, indeed why not?

 

[DeletedUser14029]

As long as Americans won't be reaping rewards from entering a war
Why bother? Its not Americans dying. I will sell more weapons.

 

[DeletedUser]

Do you think that the UN should have imposed no-fly zone?No
NATO kills lot more civilian in Afganistan and other countries regularly.
Should NATO be leading strikes?No
Should there be any international invention?No
Should the US be involved?No
Should the US have CIA operatives or any forces on the ground in Libya?No
If Libya why not _______(Insert name of other middle eastern revolt here)?Saudi Arabia

 

[DeletedUser]

adressing the quote in here as it's more fitting.

All I am saying is US and EU show their might all over the world pretending to be the protector of human rights when it has nothing to do with human rights and is all about their own personal gain.

So you say, the intervention in Libya has nothing to do with Gaddafi randomly shooting at civilians (including residential areas) with aircrafts, artillery and internationally outlawed clusterbombs? But personal gain...like..what actually? Oil? Libya was one of the most reliable partners, so that can't be the reason. Other resources? What is it?

Also in regards to your previous post. Do you support Gaddafi systematically killing Libyas civilians in favour of the UN allowing to attack Gaddafi's power with military means and accepting thereby civilian casualties?

 

[DeletedUser]

adressing the quote in here as it's more fitting.


So you say, the intervention in Libya has nothing to do with Gaddafi randomly shooting at civilians (including residential areas) with aircrafts, artillery and internationally outlawed clusterbombs? But personal gain...like..what actually? Oil? Libya was one of the most reliable partners, so that can't be the reason. Other resources? What is it?

your ignorance is appalling.

 

[DeletedUser]

Do you think that the UN should have imposed no-fly zone?
Yes. Civilian lives are important. As non-combatants, they are not involved. With what Ghaddafi is doing over there, I'm sure he does not feel the same way.

Should NATO be leading strikes?
Yes. I feel that with NATO leading, any other country who MIGHT have the idea to side with Ghaddafi will not. It, in my eyes, takes out any possibility of numerous countries siding with the loyalists and a chance of a larger scale war.

Should there be any international invention?
As Hellstromm said, it is the same question in a way.

Should the US be involved?
Yes and no. The US should be involved that they do what they have control over (helping out rebels by shipping supplies, freezing bank accounts, ect.). I do not believe that we should get involved like we did in Iraq, and so far, I believe that we are doing a good job of that. Obama has made a couple mistakes on this end, but I'm almost 90% positive that we will not at any time declare war and invade.

Should the US have CIA operatives or any forces on the ground in Libya?
No and no. The CIA or any ground forces for that matter will just add problems. We should keep an eye and help out, but I always hated the Iraq invasion. If we did the same thing in Libya, there no doubt would be problems with the American people.

If Libya why not _______(Insert name of other middle eastern revolt here)?
I'm just going to go with the entire Middle East on this one. The problems over there we can help out with, but at the same time, they arn't ours. America should focus more on itself and less on others. Doing so has brought us from being the world's greatest superpower to the state we are in now.
Wars and conflicts in the Middle East shall always exist. Whether it be because of a tyrant such as Hussein or Ghaddafi, or because of religious conflicts over the land of Palestine and Jerusalem. There shall always be problems, and it would take alot to solve these problems. America can never solve these problems. Corruption and dictatorships shall always exist. So shall religion.

There is my two cents for now. I'll add more later if I find time.