Libya mission: US eases off, Gadhafi holds on

[SpartanDem]

Source: Huffinton Post

WASHINGTON — Two weeks after a dark-of-night barrage of mostly U.S. missiles and bombs opened the international air assault on Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, the American combat role is ending, the rag-tag rebels are reeling and the Pentagon is betting its European allies can finish the job.

Gadhafi is still standing, with a few uncertain signs that his inner circle could crack. The Obama administration is hoping that if Gadhafi's government doesn't implode soon, a relentless campaign of airstrikes on his tanks, air defenses and most trusted army units will at least weaken his ability to survive a renewed uprising by a disjointed opposition. The rebels initially rattled Gadhafi but in recent days have given up most of their gains.
.....
Starting Sunday, no U.S. combat aircraft are to fly strike missions in Libya. NATO's on-scene commander can request American strikes in the days ahead, in which case they may have to be approved in Washington

Also withdrawing from the combat mission on Sunday will be the initial workhorses of the military campaign: U.S. Navy destroyers and submarines that launched Tomahawk cruise missiles from their positions in the Mediterranean Sea. No Tomahawks were fired Saturday, the Pentagon said.




Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20110402/us-us-libya-the-mission/

[Sonoman]

1. "The Obama administration is hoping"

There's yer fucking strategery, rat there.

"hoping"

Dog help us all.

Sonoman

[amandabeech]

2. If that's it, they shouldn't have bothered.

Now we look weak and idiotic for not staying there to finish the job, particularly after having said the Gadaffi must go.

The Brits will give it a real go. If the French are mad enough and scared enough they will fight. Neither of them has the AC-130 or anything like it to my knowledge. At sea, neither the Brits nor the French have the kind of firepower we do. They can't throw hundreds of Tomahawk or the equivalent onto shore.

I did not support this because I thought that there were too many ways that things could go wrong and we'd end up with Vietnam on the Beach, but I really did not believe that we would withdraw like this after pumping up the rebels and saying that Gadaffi must go.

Unless we are there, there is the possibility of Gadaffi killing a lot of folks.

So what will we do when Gadaffi marches into Benghazi and starts shooting people?

Hillary? Barack? John? Anybody?

[joshcryer]

4. What? The revolutionaries are unlike every other conflict we've been involved in...

...they are fighting for themselves. They're not doing it over sectarian reasons, they're not doing it over ethnic reasons, they're doing it for freedom.

[Purveyor]

3. Colossal f'n mistake and mess, indeed! eom

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

6. Bad decision

If you choose to bring in the military, then you need to go for the throat.

At this point, all he is giving the pukes is the ability to try and create another "1980 Jimmy Carter" - someone indecisive and too weak.

[joshcryer]

7. Obama is following UN guidelines. This is a far cry from Bush.

I think it's clear that the Libyan revolutionaries want to end this thing as quickly as possible, which is why the US and Egypt (and probably other states) are arming and training them.

What's important is that rather than people being afraid to train to build security forces, these people are eager to learn how to fight against Gaddafi's forces.

[Lithos]

8. Whoa

First, I am wholly in favor of US intervention especially as it has the UN background. Please do not take the line about need which is where I am seeing you go - I believe we should be engaged, though I think boots on the ground would be a strategic mistake.

What I am against is a wishy-washy appearance in US policy here especially on the domestic front. This only arms the pukes and gives them ammo to hurt us in 2012.

[joshcryer]

9. I think that's a possiblity, however, I'm optimistic.

I think that ultimately the thing will be long over with by the time 2012 gets around (6 months tops). By then Gaddafi will be gone and the Libyan people will be setting up a new government. In fact, if things go really well, Libya will be having a democratic constitutional referendum a few months before Obama is reelected. It sounds really optimistic I know, but there's a real big difference between Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya. Libya wants this. Neither Iraq or Afghanistan asked for it, they just got it shoved down their throat.

[Lithos]

11. I am hoping that Libya will be over in the next two months

My concern is the the Rebels will run out of gas before Ghadaffi's troops do.

Personally, I believe in the concept of a Democratic Libya even if this means steering a separate course.

However, I remember Somalia was a major topic of Clinton's capabilities even though it has been resolved years prior to 1996. I think there is a large percentage of the voters who have an inherent bias that Democrats are weak on such matters.

[Safetykitten]

10. Well, so much for that sanitized/abbreviated version of the war.