There is a good deal of talk bandied about lately about the possibility of a "no fly zone" being implemented to keep the "Good Colonel's" air assetts grounded. A lot of support actually seems to be coming from the "no blood for oil" folks. Remember them? That is a tad odd (and typical) I think. Personally I don't think we should be involved in any sort of adventure unless it is simply to lend some logistical support for the Europeans. They have much more at stake in the Libyan mess than we do. Let the French, Brits and Italians handle this little problem. In reality a "no fly zone" is probably fairly useless anyway. Most of the fighting seems to be of the ground variety with really very little damage coming from the air. A "no fly zone" would likely not really do that much. It has been pointed out also that with the exception of fixed air defense sites, it would be hard to distinguish between the "rebels" and "government" forces. When the mobile radar is lighted off there is little time to waste in destroying the site. There is certainly no time to determine if "friend or foe" is operating the equipment.
This one looks like it would be best for the Libyans themselves to sort out. After all, it is likely that the big winner here (assuming the rebs prevail) will be some sort of Islamist group(s) that will be every bit as dangerous to the West as the Colonel. Perhaps more so. At any rate if the Libyans truly want freedom they must bleed for it like everyone else who has thrown off the yoke of tyranny.
There may well come a time when Western forces are needed to seize the Libyan oil fields, but that is a different matter entirely. Does not appear to be a necessity at this time. I think President Obama should shun those who are crying for "a humanitarian military response" and in this case at least, play the "wait and see" game.
2 comments:
I am appalled at the idea of us (US?) getting involved in Libya. In fact with all this "Gadhafi must step down" and "all options are on the table" crap, I think we are already far too involved.
I note that you call him "the Colonel" because you don't want to have to figure out how to spell his damn name. Good ploy, but I have fortitude, and courage. Or I'm stupid.
Actually, I don't think even he knows how to spell his name.
In five articles this morning I counted no fewer than six different spellings, plus three times that he was referred to, like you do, as "the Colonel."
I just don't know how to spell it and tend to be a bit lazy to boot. Easier just to call him Colonel.
Post a Comment