Libya?

I’m a little curious why no one here seems to have mentioned UN Security Council Resolution 1973. This resolution seems to be used as a strong reference when governments of participating states explain Operation Unified Protector. I also get the impression that the resolution provides a legal basis which is different from e.g. Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I guess that the behaviour of the Gaddafi government, the calls for assistance from the opposition in Libya and the reactions from some Arab states are among the things which have contributed to the passing of the resolution and the international resolve to enforce it.

Some European politicans have said something along the line of that they feel it is important to back up UN decisions with military force when called for/when necessary. A spoken reason for this is to strengthen the UN as an important political body in the world.

Personally I support Unified Protector, but I do have some concerns about the future of Libya. Who the rebels are, what will they do if Gaddafi falls, how will all of this affect al-Qaeda’s activities in the region (as well as other groups which might be of interest), what if a stalemate lasts etc.

When it comes to the possibility of “less visible” agendas which some people claim exist in this, I mostly think it’s speculation. Even if some participating states hope to serve some of their own interests by engaging in the operation, it still seems to me that the military effort helps enforce the UN resolution correctly by reducing Gaddafi’s military capacity to threaten civilians.

I should of course take some precautions since I can’t possibly know everything, but right now I think the operation seems just (though I’m sure some things can be done better).

More rumblings of disapproval from Congress:

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/06/02/boehner-says-house-will-have-libya-resolution-friday?test=latestnews

UPDATE

The House of Representatives votes:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/3/bipartisan-congress-rebuffs-obama-libya-mission/

[B]Afghanistan in particular seems more and more like a lost cause every day, and I’m tired of U.S. servicemen (as well as those from Britain and other ISAF member nations) being attacked/betrayed (& killed) by Afghanis that they are supposedly helping. .

that was a lost war the day before we went in the type of terrain and type of battle will never be won by outsiders with normal armies

outsiders never have won and never will do !!

the best we can hope for is admitting defeat come home and save lives , equipment and money

these countries have been like this for many centuries

we are fools to delude ourselves that the status quo will change in the next few years or months !!

As for Libya? Our young men, and possibly women, are again being put in harms way. Is it worth it? Personally, I think not. The Arab spring should be allowed to rise and fall on its own merits. It’s not really headline grabbing as, thankfully, we are not suffering casualties. But is it really right for us as a nation to join another conflict and provide billions in aid when our own economy is on its knees and we have problems and potential problems of our own without any real idea how we are going to resolve our own issues?

Charity begins at home, physician heal thyself, I dare say that there are other little homilies which apply equally to our own situation. Let’s fix the UK before we go out trying to solve everybody else’s problems.

Kev,

Now see there? That’s an opinion…exactly what I was looking for. Was that really so hard? 🙂 Instead of weird off tangent remarks, you put down something that falls in the scope of what I was looking for when I started this thread.

I will say that I too grow weary of spending money in certain situations when it seems our own economy (the U.S. is in bad shape just like Britain) is in the dumps with little sign of getting better. I have mixed feelings on many of the current conflicts.

Afghanistan in particular seems more and more like a lost cause every day, and I’m tired of U.S. servicemen (as well as those from Britain and other ISAF member nations) being attacked/betrayed (& killed) by Afghanis that they are supposedly helping. I know it seems odd that I would agree with the campaign there to begin with and then go back and say the above, but it is a case of self defense in that the initial intent was to go in and wipe out Al-Qaeda’s operations and take out any members of the Taliban that stood in the way of that objective. Many would probably disagree with me, but after 9/11, something had to be done to stop Afghanistan from continuing to be a central playground/training ground for those idiots. As for the rebuilding of the country, that part is much tougher for me to swallow given the massive amounts of corruption among government officials among other things. I know there are Afghanis that want democracy, and they are glad we are there, but I just am not sure it’s a possibility in that country.

As for Libya, on the face of things it probably doesn’t make sense to be there, but at the same time Ghaddafi had to go, so I do support the action there. Personally, I think he should have been taken out years ago as he has American blood on his hands. The biggest question is what comes next. I’d like to think that once he is gone, they can find a way to have a democratic government, but experience has shown us all that outside of Israel, democracies have never really taken hold in the Middle East (yes I know Libya is North Africa).

J-20,

I’m not generalizing. I’m just saying Europe because it’s a NATO lead operation and the main players are major European nations. I’m not going to list every country…it’s just easier to type Europe, and if you are from one of the nations taking part then I’m asking for your opinion. Stop trying to look for something in my comments that isn’t there.

what’s proposterous to me is , the forces were short staffed and short of equipment

yet we have made redundancies scrapped and retired required equipment

yet we are taking on another war

one day we will have to defend our own country again

probably with octogenarians with pitchforks and knives tied to broom handles again

we can no longer spend money on wars that are nothing to do with us

let them get on with it !!

as i said earlier if we in this country tried toppling the government ( with arms and force ) don’t think for one minuite that the crowd would not have large exit wounds were the millitary / airforce had machine gunned them !!

we may not like him and his methods but we make a rod for our own backs by helping we often make things worse than they were or would have been

The Germans do not (both the public and fuhrer)

oh no !! 😮 that’s the germans not playing out and taking thier ball in !!

A few have made their feelings known…how about more? Aren’t the majority of the forum members here from Europe and/or the U.K.?

why do you want to generalize? I know many Americans think Europe is one country. but its not.

like i said, the French really support bombing Libya (both the public and el presidente)
The Germans do not (both the public and fuhrer)

I’m from the UK. But my opinion doesn’t count. Because as soon as your vote is cast and the candidate elected they then seek their own agenda. They do not come to ask me for my views on any given topic. Seeing your MP at one of their surgeries can result in a long waiting period to be seen, often measured in months. The Government will do what the Government want, not what the people want or even need.

As for Libya? Our young men, and possibly women, are again being put in harms way. Is it worth it? Personally, I think not. The Arab spring should be allowed to rise and fall on its own merits. It’s not really headline grabbing as, thankfully, we are not suffering casualties. But is it really right for us as a nation to join another conflict and provide billions in aid when our own economy is on its knees and we have problems and potential problems of our own without any real idea how we are going to resolve our own issues?

Charity begins at home, physician heal thyself, I dare say that there are other little homilies which apply equally to our own situation. Let’s fix the UK before we go out trying to solve everybody else’s problems.

Regards,

Kev35

Oh, I assure you I do…….;)

Moderator Message

The thread would probably do better on the Military Aviation forum.

Oh no, it wouldn’t.

Trust me on this.

GA

I am inclined to agree with you. The thread would proably do better on the Military Aviation forum. It is very relevant being about a current conflict being conducted, from Nato’s side, from the air.

I can add little to what I have already said, Phantom.

Can I then ask who it is that follows the President around with a suitcase quaintly called the ‘football’? Or are you trying to tell me that American nuclear weapons would only ever kill military personnel? The intention then is to kill EVERYONE, is it not?

Come on kev…I know that in your own weird way you are trying to make a point, but you know full well what context I’m speaking in.

As another has mentioned, the topic has spiraled quite off track…

Any chance we can move the discussion back to Libya, and the European (& British) opinion of the situation? A few have made their feelings known…how about more? Aren’t the majority of the forum members here from Europe and/or the U.K.?

Although I believe under the new NHS review, leeches and scarifiers may well be making a comeback.

Regards,

kev35

Kev – I anticipated your response by enclosing the word terrorists in inverted commas.

I would respectfully suggest that training a man to directly fire on civilians in the field of conflict is quite different from being trained to sit at a screen in an aircraft, ship or bunker and press a button, at the bottom of a chain of command from the President or Prime Minister.

I didn’t say we never needed benchmarks. I questioned their relevance in the context of the debate we are having.

Sky High.

Those you (and I for anyone in doubt) call terrorists believe they are fighting a legitimate war. A war which has greater legitimacy for them than any war involving Governments.

The point I raised regarding nuclear weapons is a direct response to PII’s statement that no one in the US military is trained to intentionally kill civilians.

Regarding benchmarks. We need them so that in the unhappy intance in which you need to see a doctor with a blood disorder, it can be diagnosed, treated and hopefully cured rather than having an appointment with a jarful of leeches and a sadist with a scarifier,

Regards,

kev35

Kev – I am discussing the point raised in the OP’s post when he talked about the unintentional killing of civilians by NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not discussing the intentional killing of civilians by “terrorists”.

You allude to this is the first sentence of your second paragraph.

Weapons of mass destruction are indeed still stockpiled by the “superpowers”, although these have been reduced by various treaties in the last 20 years. I have no doubt that in the extremely unlikely case that a third party launched a nuclear weapon against the West we would retaliate and I agree in that case there would be massive loss of civilian life on all sides. However that has strayed from the point of the discussion.

Tornado – I don’t see the relevance of your comment in the context of this particular discussion. Whatever happended in the past is in the past. I am talking about NOW. What do we need benchmarks for?

I actually wrote “…IS NEVER the intention…..” not was. I am speaking of the present and present conflicts, which is what I thought the thread was about. Past conflicts have been debated elsewhere many times and will continue to be so.

it is an impossibility not to compare to past conflicts , if you don’t it is an impossibillity to come to any conclusions there have to be benchmarks to compare to

But even in modern warfare the intent IS, on occasion, to solely kill civilians. You can twist this one around as well. Muslim extremists are fighting what they believe to be a Holy War. September 11th, Bali, Madrid, London et al were all designed, planned and executed to kill civilians.

Whether so called Western nations, or Nato would ever carry out the deliberate targeting of civilians remains to be seen. In war, however distant the conflict in time or whether it is happening today or tomorrow, the lines can and do become blurred.

“I would say that the evidence is strong that it is NEVER the intention to kill innocent people and great steps are taken to avoid it and modern weaponry makes it far more possible than it was a decade or more ago.”

If your comment above is true, why do Nations still maintain stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction? Which, by their very definition, are intended to destroy the masses?

Regards,

kev35

I actually wrote “…IS NEVER the intention…..” not was. I am speaking of the present and present conflicts, which is what I thought the thread was about. Past conflicts have been debated elsewhere many times and will continue to be so.

But in that case was it intent to kill civilians or an unfortunate accident? If your enemy choose not to wear uniform then civilian casualties become increasingly likely. PII was talking about intent.

Regards,

kev35

the trouble with intent is it has to be proven !! and governments ( no matter wich country ) are extreemely ecconomical with the truth

the plain truth with armies is they psychologicaly train the young to hate whoever the enemy of the moment was

whilst i was in it was paddys , commies , and argies with little sepperation between forces or civillians

there is a degree of seperation in air warfare that makes it a totaly difrent perspective to feet on the ground

as noted earlier there is a lot bigger picture on the ground than from the air