Right now, that's a theoretical problem. In any case, I do not believe direct military intervention in a civil war is the best way to address such an issue.given the amount of "aid" we pony-up to keep Libyan nuclear scientists "busy" doing medical research rather than making weapons indicates that our interest in Libya is of importance.
I don't think there is much that the U.S. could have done to prevent Somalia from descending into a failed state. Moreover, in the whole scheme of things, piracy is a minor geopolitical risk. Rather than worrying about providing security for all shipping, the U.S. could narrow its approach to providing security only to ships carrying vital cargoes (mainly oil). Other ships would need to make alternate plans i.e., re-route, hire security personnel, or help defray the costs associated with naval intervention. Recreational vessels should avoid the waters altogther. There is no justification for pleasure craft to sail those waters under the current circumstances.And what of the pirating off the coasts of Somalia? Unattended soars can fester--sometimes they go away on their own. But that is a whole other debate.
Early on, supply of select weapons probably could have made the difference. Then, Gadhafi's forces were reeling and his regime was putting out feelers for an exit. Now that time has passed and it has become clear that the revolution is actually a much narrower uprising (Gadhafi still enjoys significant domestic support) and the anti-Gadhafi forces' battlefield gains have been largely eliminated, the opportunity to topple the dictatorship may have passed. That's something the military would need to assess. If, in fact, the opportunity has passed, then the U.S. should only provide such support that would be necessary to avoid losing credibility, namely to lend some concrete actions to its earlier-stated position that it is U.S. policy that Gadhafi leave. Then, salvaging U.S. credibility would be the sole basis for providing some support, and if the regime survived, few could argue that the U.S. didn't at least make some concrete effort to advance its official policy.So you believe the rebels can overcome Gadhafi's army and mercs with such limited US assistance? It would seem that if we are going to support one side we should do our best (within reason) to ensure they win. Otherwise why should we bother at all?
I don't believe democracy is assured or perhaps even the most likely outcome should Gadhafi be driven from power.I'm not inclined to believe that a democracy would result from this civil war rather than any other type of government. Civil wars often result in years of further bloodshed and violence. Some countries never fully recover. America was one of the few exceptions.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
another hour, another tale
Gates: No timeline for end of Libya operation: US - Yahoo! News
John Boehner rips President Obama on Libya - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.comHouse Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) escalated his critique of President Barack Obama’s handling of military operations in Libya Wednesday, sending the president a scathing letter that demands answers to the run-up to engagement in the region and hits the White House for first consulting the United Nations and the Arab League, but not Congress.
Boehner wrote in the letter that he is “troubled” the United States military has been engaged in the attacks on Libya “without clearly defining” what the mission is and what America’s role is in achieving the goal.
Given Boehner’s methodical, and deliberate messaging strategy, the questions he posed are likely to keep surfacing until sufficient answers are given to Congress.
the speaker of the house asks the president:
1. does the mission include the removal of gadaffi or doesn't it?
2. which nations are to lead?
3. what are the lines of authority and responsibility?
4. does the mission include land based targets?
5. if coalition members drop out, how will that effect our role?
6. when are we to turn over control?
7. if gadaffi survives, how long will nfz last?
8. what's our relationship with the opposition, what standards must they meet to achieve recognition?
9. what's the cost, what's the payfor?
10. how does this action fit into our broader middle east policy?
now you might call the orange dude partisan, which is fine, fair
but most your neighbors would say he's right
his questions deserve answers
Perhaps there was nothing that could be done for Somalia.
Is a Bay of Pigs repeat acceptable?
If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!
Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.
it is what it isAll this is old news given a dramatic twist by the Daily Mail.
The World from Berlin: 'Gadhafi Is Facing a Coalition of the Unwilling' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
Hmm whatever happened to the US conservative approach that everyone who is against US military operations is a traitor (Iraq war era)? Is it because that Democrats are in charge you wish to politicise the whole thing.
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic, considering all the crap you put the "left" through over the Iraq war.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." ~ Isaac Asimov
What happened to the US telling the UN we would take the leadership role. Thats right!!! We have Obama who does not know what a leader is. He would rather see the UN be our leader