Obama cools to US military intervention in Libya

[frigidmagi]

CSM

[quote]President Obama on Friday signaled he has settled into a cautious approach to Libya that seeks the ouster of Col. Muammar Qaddafi, but which – at this point – does not include the use of US military force

As outlined at a White House press conference, the president’s Libya policy in many ways reflects the pragmatic approach he has adopted towards the upheaval that has seized the Arab world from Yemen to Morocco.

The US stands with the people of the region and their yearning for greater freedoms, Mr. Obama says. But a variety of factors – from differing US interests to how embattled governments respond to the protests against them – mean the US will not treat each case the same. The one constant, the president suggests, is that the US will look for the predominant force for change to come from within.

RELATED: Can the US military help Libyan rebels oust Muammar Qaddafi? Four options.

At the press conference – called by the White House to address rising gas prices – Obama painted a picture of a slow but sure course on Libya aimed at pressuring the Libyan government as it battles the opposition.

“We are slowly tightening the noose around Qaddafi,â€

[KlavoHunter]

A single fucking squadron of F-22s would put paid to the entire fantastically obsolete Ghaddafiite air force. Or are F-22s only for flying over the Super Bowl?

[frigidmagi]

In my more cynical moments I tend to think Gates doesn't want to do this because it undercuts his whole position on aircraft. He's been against the F-22 for a long time now and God forbid it become useful where everyone can see it.

[Stofsk]

It's more likely that Obama is afraid to green-light an intervention because he's basically a do-nothing President. There is basically no-one else who can put aircraft in the area to enforce a no-fly zone other than Uncle Sam, but he won't do it because of ???

[General Havoc]

It's more likely that Obama is afraid to green-light an intervention because he's basically a do-nothing President.

Obama is not a do-nothing president, and describing him as such makes your analysis seem petty. Whatever the reason we have not intervened, it is not because Obama is a weak and spineless person, which is, as usual a synonym for someone who happens to not be the speaker.

That being said, I simply cannot find a credible explanation for our failure to act in this case, save the realpolitik calculation that a no-fly zone would require direct military intervention into Libya. A single squadron of F-22s would not suffice for this, nor would a single squadron of anything. Libya is a nation the size of Mexico, with a coastline of well over a thousand miles. Complete shutdown of Libyan airspace, even "merely" the airspace near the coast where the bulk of the fighting can be assumed to be taking place, is a mammoth undertaking not feasible without installations, and yes, troops, on the ground. Intervention of this sort on the part of the US would serve to swing popular opinion towards Gaddafi, as the level of which our previous "interventions" in the middle east are hated can scarcely be understated.

Do I think we should do it anyway? Yes, on balance. It fills me with seething anger and frustration to watch Gaddafi massacre his own people by carpet bombing innocent civilians. But the calculations are more complex in this case than a simple matter of "Obama the Stupid" refusing to act because he is spineless.

[Stofsk]

It's more likely that Obama is afraid to green-light an intervention because he's basically a do-nothing President.

Obama is not a do-nothing president, and describing him as such makes your analysis seem petty. Whatever the reason we have not intervened, it is not because Obama is a weak and spineless person, which is, as usual a synonym for someone who happens to not be the speaker.

Call me a cynic then. I'd rather believe he was disinclined to take action due to being 'overly cautious' rather than purposefully holding off so as to let Gadaffi, who has been a US ally for the last few years, remain in power.

That being said, I simply cannot find a credible explanation for our failure to act in this case, save the realpolitik calculation that a no-fly zone would require direct military intervention into Libya. A single squadron of F-22s would not suffice for this, nor would a single squadron of anything. Libya is a nation the size of Mexico, with a coastline of well over a thousand miles. Complete shutdown of Libyan airspace, even "merely" the airspace near the coast where the bulk of the fighting can be assumed to be taking place, is a mammoth undertaking not feasible without installations, and yes, troops, on the ground.

I don't buy that. The US had a no-fly zone over Iraq for something like a decade and Iraq was way the fuck more powerful militarily than Libya.

There is some exaggeration from those who are making the case for a no-fly zone, but I don't see how you need 'troops on the ground' etc or restricting air power over the entire country like you seem to imply, when a no-fly zone would have most of its area situated around the rebel cities and towns.

Intervention of this sort on the part of the US would serve to swing popular opinion towards Gaddafi, as the level of which our previous "interventions" in the middle east are hated can scarcely be understated.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but if you don't then nothing can stop Gadaffi from dropping bombs on innocent people.

BTW, I saw an article on this subject posted on That Other Board, about an Air Force General who thinks a no-fly zone should be enforced.

The Case for a No-Fly Zone
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

“This is a pretty easy problem, for crying out loud.â€

[frigidmagi]

Gadaffi, who has been a US ally for the last few years, remain in power.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Done business with? Sure, so has your country, France, Britian, Russia and everyone else with two cents to rub together. Ally? That's streching the term so far that rubber is impressed man.

That said, a single squadron of F-22s wouldn't do the job, but hey wouldn't you know? We have more then a single squadron and it's not like they're busy! I defend the F-22 gladly but it's not a weapon system for Afghanistan. It's a weapon system for oh I don't know... blowing apart a Anti-Air defense system so other aircraft can go into the sky and burn it clean of various scum?

I don't think we need on the ground troops, I think air strikes and a no fly zone will let the rebels do their own dirty work. Frankly we don't have the ground troops to spare and I think Europe would flat out refuse to send any if there wasn't a sizable US ground force involved. Nor do I believe that it will make Qaddafi suddenly popular, most of the Arabs are more worried about their own governments and frankly the Arab League are one of biggest voices for this, as are the Libyan rebels!

We all agree that this should be done. As far as I can tell, the only ones against this are Russia, China, Qaddafi and Obama. Which drives me near insane. Why is he agreeing with the bloody handed manic and the two biggest repressive states on the planet!?!

[Stofsk]

Gadaffi, who has been a US ally for the last few years, remain in power.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Done business with? Sure, so has your country, France, Britian, Russia and everyone else with two cents to rub together. Ally? That's streching the term so far that rubber is impressed man.

Perhaps so. I suppose the point I'm trying to make here is if I were being a real cynic, I would say Obama isn't getting involved because he doesn't want to lose Gadaffi as a strategic, convenient 'partner' in the war on terror. That would be a worse thing than simply going 'we don't wanna get involved because of the prime directive or because it'll cost too much or because i'm a pussy of a president etc'.

I hate to say it but I think there are probably whispers of 'better the devil we know' being shared in some circles.

That said, a single squadron of F-22s wouldn't do the job, but hey wouldn't you know? We have more then a single squadron and it's not like they're busy! I defend the F-22 gladly but it's not a weapon system for Afghanistan. It's a weapon system for oh I don't know... blowing apart a Anti-Air defense system so other aircraft can go into the sky and burn it clean of various scum?

The job of getting rid of Libya's antiquated and shitty air defence system could potentially be done by AEGIS missile cruisers. Then the CAP can fly scare off any Gadaffi pilots into staying on the ground or even defecting.

Anyway I pretty much agree with you Frigid.

[frigidmagi]

Cruise missiles are more expensive per pop then F-22s sorties. I would favor using F-22 bombs to kill decades old SAM targets that can't dodge then Cruise missiles but then I'm being stingy and want to get some use out of the new toys. That's just me.

Also partner my ass, he went after Al Q because they wanted him gone. Again you stretch the term to near meaninglessness. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (the group in question) was founded in 1995 to overthrow the current government and establish an Islamic one. To be fair to them, they have never carried out operations outside of Libya and their association with Al Qeada proper is in question. The extent of their intelligence sharing is in doubt as well. It should be noted that the Russians and Chinese also shared intelligence in regards to Islamic terror groups with the US, before the Iraq invasion anyways. Does that make them partners? Are they allies now?

If you want to say Libya does business with the west, I can't dispute that. It's a bedrock fact. Calling Libya's government a US ally is frankly however robbing the word ally of it's meaning. If you want a oil driven authoritarian state committing aroticies while being a US ally, you want the Saudi Troops in Bahrain thread my friend.

[Stofsk]

Really? Huh. How about that.

[frigidmagi]

For the record, Stofsk replied while I was adding alot to my post. Like 99% of it. I'm pretty sure he's only replying to my first sentence. Sorry Chris. I owe you a Coke (or non-American beer your call).

[Stofsk]

Look I had a huge long Effortpost on this, but I decided to just go screw it. All I meant by what I said was that the US and Libya have been 'doing business' in recent years. If the word 'ally' doesn't fit that context, then I apologise for being imprecise.

[SirNitram]

A single fucking squadron of F-22s would put paid to the entire fantastically obsolete Ghaddafiite air force. Or are F-22s only for flying over the Super Bowl?

The problem is not the airforce. The UN Security Council nations could ground their air force. The problem is that there are anti-air platforms throughout the country, and to have a no-fly zone, you need those gone. F-22 is air superiority, and thus not worth it.

Also, UN SecCon 10-0 on making it.