That seems like a quagmire. The rebels are a disorganized mess. Who will provide the training, transportation, and distribution of the weapons? How will we prevent the weapons from falling into the wrong hands or being targeted by frauds and conns? Its a logistics nightmare!! Whereas air power from remote sea or land bases is fully under our control and at our discretion.
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. Unlimited weapons would be an issue. One example where I specified the limited amount of weapons assistance is:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...e-backs-no-fly-zone-libya.html#post1059346252
can you elaborate on how air strikes are not justified but flooding weapons into the hands of untrained and scattered forces is preferable?
Tactical air strikes are not justified, because the U.S. lacks the critical interests to become involved in military operations. Libya under Gadhafi does not pose an imminent and credible threat to the U.S., critical U.S. interests, or U.S. allies. Emotions are not sufficient to justify direct military intervention. 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.
This contradicts your desire to furnish libyans with weapons. The airstrikes leveled the playing field. Its up to the libyans to fight the rest of the war for the government they deserve.
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.
I don't see how we can fix the opinions and politics of other nations.
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.