• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go - The Daily of the University of Washington

So far, the military action has been limited to clearing the airspace by shooting down Libyan military planes, airstrikes on Libyan military forces and Tomahawk missile strikes. Planes and missiles can do a lot against buildings, missile launch sites and large tank formations, but planes can’t place someone into custody. If the U.N. or NATO want to put troops on the ground to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice, that is going to mean American men and women...

We can expect the United States to have to commit more soldiers than any other nation. This has less to do with the size of our military and more to do with the national politics of the member countries...

In order to distribute aid properly, there will have to be troops on the ground. To prevent chaos, in the power vacuum, NATO will have to send in troops, not as an invasion force, but as a force to secure the food and relief efforts. And that inevitably means that NATO will send ground forces, and that means Americans...

President Obama will be able to say that the United States is not sending troops to Libya, which on paper will be true. NATO will be sending troops, and as a member nation, the United States will support that action with troops of its own. In the end, the United States will commit more forces than any other country...
 
So far, the military action has been limited to clearing the airspace by shooting down Libyan military planes, airstrikes on Libyan military forces and Tomahawk missile strikes. Planes and missiles can do a lot against buildings, missile launch sites and large tank formations,

Air strikes worked in Bosnia under pretty much the same conditions, so there's no reason to doubt the same plan will eventually work in Libya.

ricksfolly
 
Air strikes worked in Bosnia under pretty much the same conditions, so there's no reason to doubt the same plan will eventually work in Libya.

ricksfolly

you cut it off too soon...
...but planes can’t place someone into custody. If the U.N. or NATO want to put troops on the ground to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice, that is going to mean American men and women
 
Air strikes worked in Bosnia under pretty much the same conditions, so there's no reason to doubt the same plan will eventually work in Libya.

ricksfolly

1) Yes there is. Because every situation is different. I have no idea how you can say such a thing with such certainty
2) It depends on what you been by "worked." Our air strikes didn't prevent mass migrations, ethnic cleansing, or the Srebenica massacre. When politicians tout NATO/Allied involvement in Bosnia as a success, it is a myth. The big picture is a lot less rosier than our leaders at the time, and the media, make it seem.
 
Last edited:
Air strikes worked in Bosnia under pretty much the same conditions, so there's no reason to doubt the same plan will eventually work in Libya.

ricksfolly

We had boots on the ground in Bosnia.
 
The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go - The Daily of the University of Washington

So far, the military action has been limited to clearing the airspace by shooting down Libyan military planes, airstrikes on Libyan military forces and Tomahawk missile strikes. Planes and missiles can do a lot against buildings, missile launch sites and large tank formations, but planes can’t place someone into custody. If the U.N. or NATO want to put troops on the ground to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice, that is going to mean American men and women...

We can expect the United States to have to commit more soldiers than any other nation. This has less to do with the size of our military and more to do with the national politics of the member countries...

In order to distribute aid properly, there will have to be troops on the ground. To prevent chaos, in the power vacuum, NATO will have to send in troops, not as an invasion force, but as a force to secure the food and relief efforts. And that inevitably means that NATO will send ground forces, and that means Americans...

President Obama will be able to say that the United States is not sending troops to Libya, which on paper will be true. NATO will be sending troops, and as a member nation, the United States will support that action with troops of its own. In the end, the United States will commit more forces than any other country...

You forgot to mention the civilian casualities associated with these attacks to prevent civilian deaths.
< 48 killed, 150 injured in Libya | World | House of Japan - News Technology Autos Culture Life Style >
 
The U.S. may not send troops to Libya, but American soldiers could still go - The Daily of the University of Washington

So far, the military action has been limited to clearing the airspace by shooting down Libyan military planes, airstrikes on Libyan military forces and Tomahawk missile strikes. Planes and missiles can do a lot against buildings, missile launch sites and large tank formations, but planes can’t place someone into custody. If the U.N. or NATO want to put troops on the ground to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice, that is going to mean American men and women...

We can expect the United States to have to commit more soldiers than any other nation. This has less to do with the size of our military and more to do with the national politics of the member countries...

In order to distribute aid properly, there will have to be troops on the ground. To prevent chaos, in the power vacuum, NATO will have to send in troops, not as an invasion force, but as a force to secure the food and relief efforts. And that inevitably means that NATO will send ground forces, and that means Americans...

President Obama will be able to say that the United States is not sending troops to Libya, which on paper will be true. NATO will be sending troops, and as a member nation, the United States will support that action with troops of its own. In the end, the United States will commit more forces than any other country...

I agree there's a risk that coalition members, including the US even, may see the situation become "almost right" and think they just need a few ground troops to finally complete the goal, if we ever multilaterally agree on one which we probably won't. I could also see a situation where we pump so much time and money into the NFZ and getting rid of Gaddafi that we feel we need ground troops to make sure its not all wasted.

But being a member of NATO America would have to agree first to any NATO action, which means if the US voted against sending in ground troops as part of NATO in the NATO forum, there wouldn't be ground troops unless they were sent outside of NATO. NATO still requires 100% agreement on things like this, which is why the first and so far only time article 5, the mutual defense part of the treaty, was used was 9/11. And not something like the Falkland War for example.

So there's definably a huge risk for ground troops to be sent in the future depending on the situation, but the US cannot be forced by treaty to do it.
 
Air strikes worked in Bosnia under pretty much the same conditions, so there's no reason to doubt the same plan will eventually work in Libya.

ricksfolly

No, airstrikes in Bosnia didn't work. The Serbian Army slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Bosnian Muslims, then were allowed to march home, under arms and intact. Absolutely nothing was accomplished in Bosnia.

Bottom line is, you can't win a war from the air.
 
No, airstrikes in Bosnia didn't work. The Serbian Army slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Bosnian Muslims, then were allowed to march home, under arms and intact. Absolutely nothing was accomplished in Bosnia.

Bottom line is, you can't win a war from the air.

Yes lets not forget the biggest genocide and mass killing since the holocaust took place under a no fly zone, the temptation to send ground troops into Libya may be too much if the situation gets really desperate.
 
No, airstrikes in Bosnia didn't work. The Serbian Army slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Bosnian Muslims, then were allowed to march home, under arms and intact. Absolutely nothing was accomplished in Bosnia.

Bottom line is, you can't win a war from the air.

Amen to that.
 
didn't forget to mention anything. It wasn't the topic of discussion.

To ignore the actual impact and effectiveness of the weaponry you identified, would be a direct censorship of the action. Perhaps an attempt to sanitize the issue or lead to false conclusions by omission. Since boots on the ground would be the next step, that should be addressed in an International context, not a partisan context. A link is attached addressing that issue.

LINK < Libya: The law is clear - it is illegal to arm the "rebels" - English pravda.ru >
 
To ignore the actual impact and effectiveness of the weaponry you identified, would be a direct censorship of the action. Perhaps an attempt to sanitize the issue or lead to false conclusions by omission. Since boots on the ground would be the next step, that should be addressed in an International context, not a partisan context. A link is attached addressing that issue.

LINK < Libya: The law is clear - it is illegal to arm the "rebels" - English pravda.ru >

Says the man who uses Pravda as a source :rofl:

Just because one person doesn't talk about something YOU want to discuss, doesn't make it censorship.
 
Last edited:
Have we actually decided yet that we're going "to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice?"

Last I heard, we weren't committed to anything of the sort. I know that many in govt have expressed the desire that MomoQ leave Libya, but that's not the same as bringing "Muammar Gaddafi to justice."
 
We already have boots on the ground:

The American President, Barack Obama, has reportedly given authorisation to the CIA to conduct covert operations to help rebel forces in Libya.Reuters and ABC News claim that Mr Obama signed a "finding" document, however neither the CIA nor the President's spokesman were willing to confirm that such assistance had been granted.

Other reports say that CIA operatives have been in Libya for a number of weeks and have been used to make contact with rebel forces, gather information for possible air strike targets and to rescue crew members of a US F-15E Eagle, which crashed last week. British intelligence personnel are also believed to be operating in Libya.

Apparently CIA boots don't count.

http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/1290...es-green-light-for-cia-operations-reports.htm
 
Have we actually decided yet that we're going "to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice?"

Last I heard, we weren't committed to anything of the sort. I know that many in govt have expressed the desire that MomoQ leave Libya, but that's not the same as bringing "Muammar Gaddafi to justice."



Obama's still voting "present"
 
Have we actually decided yet that we're going "to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice?"

Last I heard, we weren't committed to anything of the sort. I know that many in govt have expressed the desire that MomoQ leave Libya, but that's not the same as bringing "Muammar Gaddafi to justice."

According to 0bama "Gaddafi must leave". As far as I know that is still US policy.
 
Have we actually decided yet that we're going "to bring Muammar Gaddafi to justice?"

Last I heard, we weren't committed to anything of the sort. I know that many in govt have expressed the desire that MomoQ leave Libya, but that's not the same as bringing "Muammar Gaddafi to justice."

You're right, I don't think we're even headed in that direction right now. And even if we want him to leave, i'm not sure if the West is actively trying to get him to do so. Last I heard, we're trying to get senior members of his circle to defect and weaken him, which would perhaps indirectly induce him to give up and leave.
 
You're right, I don't think we're even headed in that diDrection right now. And even if we want him to leave, i'm not sure if the West is actively trying to get him to do so. Last I heard, we're trying to get senior members of his circle to defect and weaken him, which would perhaps indirectly induce him to give up and leave.

Drop a Bomb on him, let the country collapse, get a bag of popcorn and watch the show. The U.S cannot afford this Money wise.
 
Back
Top Bottom