Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 51

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

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

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

    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 canít 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...

  2. #2
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post

    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

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    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

  4. #4
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    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 by StillBallin75; 03-30-11 at 06:13 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  5. #5
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    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 national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  6. #6
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    We had boots on the ground in Bosnia.
    More as part of the stabilization force after the real conflict was over, though.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  7. #7
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,289

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    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 >

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    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 >
    didn't forget to mention anything. It wasn't the topic of discussion.

  10. #10
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    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.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •