Madame SoS Clinton added, "We had a no-fly zone over Iraq. It did not prevent Saddam Hussein from bombing his civilians and it did not get him out of office. We had a no-fly zone over Serbia: it still took 78 days of bombing to get Milosevic out of office."

I don't understand why the ultra neo-cons cannot learn from the past.

I'll take that back; it's all about no bid contracts in the Military Industrial Complex.

Shame on these greedy bas-tards to put profit over human beings. It's like their eyes become cash registers at the slightest conflict.

Why can't Libya's neighbors assist with the take down of Qaddafi?

More bold leadership from the Obama administration.

Does Obama have any plans to lead on anything?

I guess we'll have to wait for the UN to figure this all out. When do they plan on taking some votes? Next week? Two weeks? Three? The world is in some serious need for some of those UN resolutions.

Well, at least Gitmo is closed.

On Libya, too many questions

By George F. Will

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Today, some Washington voices are calling for U.S. force to be applied, somehow, on behalf of the people trying to overthrow Moammar Gaddafi. Some interventionists are Republicans, whose skepticism about government's abilities to achieve intended effects ends at the water's edge. All interventionists should answer some questions:

• The world would be better without Gaddafi. But is that a vital U.S. national interest? If it is, when did it become so? A month ago, no one thought it was.
• How much of Gaddafi's violence is coming from the air? Even if his aircraft are swept from his skies, would that be decisive?
• What lesson should be learned from the fact that Europe's worst atrocity since the Second World War - the massacre by Serbs of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica - occurred beneath a no-fly zone?
• Sen. John Kerry says: "The last thing we want to think about is any kind of military intervention. And I don't consider the fly zone stepping over that line." But how is imposing a no-fly zone - the use of military force to further military and political objectives - not military intervention?
• U.S. forces might ground Gaddafi's fixed-wing aircraft by destroying runways at his 13 air bases, but to keep helicopter gunships grounded would require continuing air patrols, which would require the destruction of Libya's radar and anti-aircraft installations. If collateral damage from such destruction included civilian deaths - remember those nine Afghan boys recently killed by mistake when they were gathering firewood - are we prepared for the televised pictures?
• The Economist reports Gaddafi has "a huge arsenal of Russian surface-to-air missiles" and that some experts think Libya has SAMs that could threaten U.S. or allies' aircraft. If a pilot is downed and captured, are we ready for the hostage drama?
• If we decide to give war supplies to the anti-Gaddafi fighters, how do we get them there?
• Presumably we would coordinate aid with the leaders of the anti-Gaddafi forces. Who are they?
• Libya is a tribal society. What concerning our Iraq and Afghanistan experiences justifies confidence that we understand Libyan dynamics?
• Because of what seems to have been the controlling goal of avoiding U.S. and NATO casualties, the humanitarian intervention - 79 days of bombing - against Serbia in Kosovo was conducted from 15,000 feet. This marked the intervention as a project worth killing for but not worth dying for. Would intervention in Libya be similar? Are such interventions morally dubious?
• Could intervention avoid "mission creep"? If grounding Gaddafi's aircraft is a humanitarian imperative, why isn't protecting his enemies from ground attacks?
• In Tunisia and then in Egypt, regimes were toppled by protests. Libya is convulsed not by protests but by war. Not a war of aggression, not a war with armies violating national borders and thereby implicating the basic tenets of agreed-upon elements of international law, but a civil war. How often has intervention by nation A in nation B's civil war enlarged the welfare of nation A?
• Before we intervene in Libya, do we ask the United Nations for permission? If it is refused, do we proceed anyway? If so, why ask? If we are refused permission and recede from intervention, have we not made U.S. foreign policy hostage to a hostile institution?
• Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fears Libya becoming a failed state - "a giant Somalia." Speaking of which, have we not seen a cautionary movie - "Black Hawk Down" - about how humanitarian military interventions can take nasty turns?
• The Egyptian crowds watched and learned from the Tunisian crowds. But the Libyan government watched and learned from the fate of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments. It has decided to fight. Would not U.S. intervention in Libya encourage other restive peoples to expect U.S. military assistance?
• Would it be wise for U.S. military force to be engaged simultaneously in three Muslim nations?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/08/AR2011030803149.html

___________________________________________________________

I think that Mr. Will has covered the Question much better than I ever could.

Independent redneck, Very good post. He makes some great points. We must be very careful as a nation it's just very hard to watch the rebels getting slaughtered and not feel helpless.

 I recall that we started in Iraq with just air power. There were not suppose to be any "boots on ground". Bush stood on the deck of a U.S. air carrier  and declared "mission accomplished" just thirty days from the beginning of the war in 2003. Now, just how long has it been since we went to war in Iraq? How many American young men and women have died? How much money do we own China for this war?

The Republicans like to flex their muscles with other peoples kids for soldiers, and other peoples money (China). Unless the Republicans repeal the tax cut extension for the wealthy and initiates a draft; we should not even THINK about doing anything in or to Lybia.

This is a civil war between the people of Libya and the United States should stay out of it. We did not intervene in the civil wars in Africa, Cambodia, Iran or other countries. The United States can not and should not be the policemen of the world. If the European countries or the United Nations want to establish a "no fly zone" then let them pay the bill and provide the military expertise. We don't even know who is supporting the so called "rebels" and what kind of government would take their place. The United States should sit this one out.

Meanwhile, another Obama foreign policy disaster:

Gaffe master Joe Biden may have started WW3 in Russia...

(AFP) – 5 hours ago

MOSCOW — Known for sometime sticking his foot in his mouth, US Vice President Joe Biden delivered another trademark gaffe Thursday by mangling the name of Russia's most famous prisoner Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

In a somber 40-minute address to Moscow State University students that generated more giggles than rounds of applause, Biden tried to bash Russia for putting Khodorkovsky behind bars on what many believe are politically motivated charges.

At least that was the intent.

What came out was one of the more sensitive moments in recent Russia-US relations in which the entire hall seemed ready to help the desperately struggling US vice president pronounce Khodorkovsky's name.

"Over the past few months our administration has spoken out against allegations of misconduct in the trial of... of, uh... the, um... excuse me... Khodor... Kovinsky," said Biden, almost barking out the last word.

What are they talking about thats not the reason

Secretary Clinton's statement is the wisest advice in recent years from a leading member of government.

The Libyan revolution leaders decided to go the armed way and duke it out in a civil war. Why do we have to take sides?

Ghadafi is likely going to win this duel because the opposition miscalculated and couldn't finish him off within 1 week.

Whatever the case, democracy in Libya is on the forward match. Libya is never going to be the same again.

SO much for the truth. More people should think that way. We have to take care of Home first. We can't keepcleaning up everyboy else's mess around the world.

This is like saying because the sun rises the dayhas unforseen consquences. If that's thecase,one should just stay in bed.

The real facts are thse: what do youdofor anencore if your first policy fails? That's the real questionof planning. The real reason Saddam murdred his own people was because Bush I and Schwarzkof had the policy ofnot inerving in interal affairs. What Saddam did to stablize his goverment was taken as his concern, and not the worlds. They could have shot down the helicopters-theydidn't. And the reason they didn't was they did not want to govern Bagdad..that wasn't their encore idea.

Bush says so in his memoirs. And after the Fiasco of his son Bush senior was praised for his wisdom in not carryingout thefolly of his son.

To try and re-write history is unbecoming of Clinton

Theydidn't trybecause they didn't have policy inplace-or maybe the policy was not bieng a fool and rushing in to dangerous quicksand.

In both Afganstan and Iraq we did not understand our choices because we chose not to understand. We could have looked a the Britsh experience in both that was lousy..and ignored it. The only reason theBrish kept Iraq was the filled 70,000 people in a 1927 uprising. The brits had long ago given up Afganistan.

Lnydon Johnson Liked to say "power is where power goes". What he meant was, that once you commit yourself to a course of action everything now flows from that.

Once Obama said "Gaddifi must go" he has crossed, like it or not ,the Rubicon. And he cannot go back; he is a prisoner of his decision. All things are now contingent on "must go". there is no stop int hat-no maybe..if or whatever.

The only remanining decison point is the how. We assume NATO willl provide politicalc over.

Clinton needs to lay out the how in as clear as possible terms. What opposition gruops are we recognzing. What do we envison as the end result. When and how will we know that result has been achieved. How much of an Islamic state would we tolerate?

From all the comments and bickering I read here, I believe it's agreed America has no business in Libya. The amount of oil we get from there is so minimal it could be shut off completely and we wouldn't miss it.

Let the United Nations stick their nose in the Libyan mess IF they choose to. America has lost too many good American military people in Iraq and now Afghanistan. One more life lost in defense of some sand pit or worthless poppy field is one too many and I say bring all the troops home and put them down on the Mexican border to defend OUR Nation from that cesspool to our South!