Gen. Wesley Clark says Libya doesn't meet the test for U.S. military action

[jaxx]

By Wesley K. Clark
Friday, March 11, 2011; 8:00 PM

<..> We have launched many military interventions since then. And today, as Moammar Gaddafi looks vulnerable and Libya descends into violence, familiar voices are shouting, once again: "Quick, intervene, do something!" It could be a low-cost win for democracy in the region. But before we aid the Libyan rebels or establish a no-fly zone, let's review what we've learned about intervening since we pulled out of Vietnam.

The past 37 years have been replete with U.S. interventions. Some have succeeded, such as our actions in Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), the Persian Gulf War (1991) and the Balkans (1995-2000). Some were awful blunders, such as the attempted hostage rescue in Iran (1980), landing the Marines in Lebanon (1982) or the Somalia intervention (1992-94).

<..> Given these rules, what is the wisest course of action in Libya? To me, it seems we have no clear basis for action. Whatever resources we dedicate for a no-fly zone would probably be too little, too late. We would once again be committing our military to force regime change in a Muslim land, even though we can't quite bring ourselves to say it. So let's recognize that the basic requirements for successful intervention simply don't exist, at least not yet: We don't have a clearly stated objective, legal authority, committed international support or adequate on-the-scene military capabilities, and Libya's politics hardly foreshadow a clear outcome.

We should have learned these lessons from our long history of intervention. We don't need Libya to offer us a refresher course in past mistakes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...inionsbox1

That ought to make some heads explode.

[nofurylike]

well said, jaxx!

wow, ah?

thank you for posting this!

[sandnsea]

I think he's right in this instance. I am really disappointed in Senator Kerry and his call for a no-fly zone. The money spent on it could be used to put solar tiles on every home in new mexico and arizona and we'd get the same result, reduced price of energy as the oil speculators realize their days are truly numbered.

[Cha]

(03-12-2011 12:50 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  I think he's right in this instance. I am really disappointed in Senator Kerry and his call for a no-fly zone. The money spent on it could be used to put solar tiles on every home in new mexico and arizona and we'd get the same result, reduced price of energy as the oil speculators realize their days are truly numbered.

That sounds like a good suggestion to Senator Kerry!

I haven't been following this..what does a "no fly zone" entail?

[sandnsea]

(03-12-2011 03:29 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(03-12-2011 12:50 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  I think he's right in this instance. I am really disappointed in Senator Kerry and his call for a no-fly zone. The money spent on it could be used to put solar tiles on every home in new mexico and arizona and we'd get the same result, reduced price of energy as the oil speculators realize their days are truly numbered.

That sounds like a good suggestion to Senator Kerry!

I haven't been following this..what does a "no fly zone" entail?

Eventual war, seems to me. We had a no fly zone over Iraq after the first Gulf War. Saddam's air force wasn't allowed to enter space of the Kurds or Shia, it was limited to protecting mainly the Baghdad area, iirc. It's always been ironic to me that the Shia have been the biggest obstacle in peace in Iraq, considering we gave them their political power. At least that's the way I see it.

[Cha]

(03-12-2011 04:09 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(03-12-2011 03:29 PM)Cha Wrote:  

(03-12-2011 12:50 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  I think he's right in this instance. I am really disappointed in Senator Kerry and his call for a no-fly zone. The money spent on it could be used to put solar tiles on every home in new mexico and arizona and we'd get the same result, reduced price of energy as the oil speculators realize their days are truly numbered.

That sounds like a good suggestion to Senator Kerry!

I haven't been following this..what does a "no fly zone" entail?

Eventual war, seems to me. We had a no fly zone over Iraq after the first Gulf War. Saddam's air force wasn't allowed to enter space of the Kurds or Shia, it was limited to protecting mainly the Baghdad area, iirc. It's always been ironic to me that the Shia have been the biggest obstacle in peace in Iraq, considering we gave them their political power. At least that's the way I see it.

Thanks, I appreciate that, sandnsea.

[jaxx]

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday said the U.S. military could establish a no-fly zone over Libya, but he cautioned that doing so would first require widespread air strikes across that nation.

<..> But establishing control of Libyan air space would “start with attacks to destroy” Libyan air defense systems. That kind of assault would require more U.S. military aircraft than “you would find on a single aircraft carrier.”

With so many fighter jets involved in other conflicts, the needed additional jets would have to be redeployed.

Gates told the panel that U.S. military involvement in Libya would require Congress to approve a use-of-force measure.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati...ir-strikes

In other words.....war.

[OptimistesMaddie]

So this is the purpose of the United Nations all countries would enforce a no fly zone.

If they aren't going to do a no fly zone well at least get anti-aircraft weaponary to the civilians so they can take out Ghadafi's planes. Hire mercernaries to help the civilians.....this is a chance to get rid of another tyrant and the time is right.

[sandnsea]

(03-12-2011 08:37 PM)OptimistesMaddie Wrote:  So this is the purpose of the United Nations all countries would enforce a no fly zone.

If they aren't going to do a no fly zone well at least get anti-aircraft weaponary to the civilians so they can take out Ghadafi's planes. Hire mercernaries to help the civilians.....this is a chance to get rid of another tyrant and the time is right.

That's what Republicans wanted to do in Yugoslavia with Milosevich. Instead, Clinton said no way, the last thing we need is more weapons in there. He worked with Europe to increase pressure and eventually Wes Clark led one of the few peaceful ejections of a despot. He wanted to do something similar in Iraq I believe, but instead we had Democratic Party infighting and Republican stupidity rolled right over us.

[OptimistesMaddie]

(03-13-2011 12:35 AM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(03-12-2011 08:37 PM)OptimistesMaddie Wrote:  So this is the purpose of the United Nations all countries would enforce a no fly zone.

If they aren't going to do a no fly zone well at least get anti-aircraft weaponary to the civilians so they can take out Ghadafi's planes. Hire mercernaries to help the civilians.....this is a chance to get rid of another tyrant and the time is right.

That's what Republicans wanted to do in Yugoslavia with Milosevich. Instead, Clinton said no way, the last thing we need is more weapons in there. He worked with Europe to increase pressure and eventually Wes Clark led one of the few peaceful ejections of a despot. He wanted to do something similar in Iraq I believe, but instead we had Democratic Party infighting and Republican stupidity rolled right over us.

Valid points! The next best thing would be for the United Nations to take out Ghadafis planes as they are parked. Ghadafi is going to kill as many civilians as he can.

[Joan Ruaiz]

What can I say!
I know how to pick 'em!

[NoPasaran]

I think a policy of doing nothing in Libya is a policy of watching the eventual triumph of the tyrant Gaddafi and the inevitable bloodbath that will follow.

If a no-fly zone were imposed the tyrant would either have to keep his airforce on the ground or see it destroyed in a few days. Either way he would be unable to bomb the rebels, which would shift the military balance somewhat as well as boosting the morale of those whom I'm sure we all agree are the "good guys" in this struggle.

The trouble with handing out anti-aircraft weapons to civilians is they don't have the training to use it. A lot of military equipment has already fallen into rebel hands, but they seem to lack the skills to use much of it effectively.

President Clinton's campaign against the Serbian "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo which Clark executed can be described as "peaceful" only if you don't count all the bombs we dropped.

[There Is No Spoon]

(03-13-2011 10:00 AM)NoPasaran Wrote:  I think a policy of doing nothing in Libya is a policy of watching the eventual triumph of the tyrant Gaddafi and the inevitable bloodbath that will follow.

If a no-fly zone were imposed the tyrant would either have to keep his airforce on the ground or see it destroyed in a few days. Either way he would be unable to bomb the rebels, which would shift the military balance somewhat as well as boosting the morale of those whom I'm sure we all agree are the "good guys" in this struggle.

The trouble with handing out anti-aircraft weapons to civilians is they don't have the training to use it. A lot of military equipment has already fallen into rebel hands, but they seem to lack the skills to use much of it effectively.

President Clinton's campaign against the Serbian "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo which Clark executed can be described as "peaceful" only if you don't count all the bombs we dropped.

I agree with you and Fareed Zakaria who suggests that if we do nothing here is gives the wrong message to other dictators who will see it as a green light to massacre their own people if they dare protest.