scourge99
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 6,233
- Reaction score
- 1,462
- Location
- The Wild West
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Yet we must recall the incredible yet failed effort to retrieve and account for stinger missiles after the Soviet pullout from Afghan. Are we to arm people who may very well use those arms against us or others in the future?Providing limited weapons (and I have made the point about limited weapons clear in a number of past messages on the topic), namely a modest number of anti-aircraft weapons, would be anything but a quagmire.
I agree. I did not believe you were supporting that.Unlimited weapons would be 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.Tactical air strikes are not justified, because the U.S. lacks the critical interests to become involved in military operations.
I agree that there is little to no worry of Gadhafi as an unpredictable and aggressive dictator as compared to SaddamLibya under Gadhafi does not pose an imminent and credible threat to the U.S., critical U.S. interests, or U.S. allies.
agreedEmotions are not sufficient to justify direct military intervention.
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.Indeed, I believe the emotional urge "to do something" following the collapse of Somalia's dictator and evolution of a civil war was an example of a terrible decision to put emotions ahead of interests. The Cold War had largely wound down. Somalia had no geopolitical importance. The collapse of Somalia's dictatorship and jockeying of factions posed no threat to U.S. interests or allies. Sending troops there was, therefore, not anchored in critical U.S. interests.
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?There is no contradiction. In the former case, the Libyans would be waging the war all by themselves. In the latter, the U.S. and others are doing so to some extent.
That makes sense. I agree.I was talking about how the U.S. and other Western leaders were communicating their message concerning the mission, rationale for it, etc., not the politics of other nations.
Clearly, the U.S. and West, cannot make democracy magically appear in Libya. That would depend on the Libyans themselves, their institutions, their laws, etc. That Libya has had a monarchy followed by a long period of authoritarian rule is no coincidence. It is a product of the country's institutions, structure, history, and dynamics. Even if the anti-Gadhafi revolution succeeded, the barriers to democratic governance would be very steep and democratic governance would not be the assured outcome. It might not even be the most likely one e.g., civil war might be more likely given tribal rivalries, the reality that Col. Gadhafi still enjoys significant support, etc.
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.