Thread
:
Turn of events in Libya vindicates U.S., NATO strategy
View Single Post
08-21-2011, 11:50 PM
#
1
cajonnmu
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
507
Senior Member
Turn of events in Libya vindicates U.S., NATO strategy
Wired:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...alemate-libya/
Just a few weeks ago, western observers were absolutely positive that the NATO air and sea campaign in Libya was going nowhere.
“
Can NATO actually win any of its wars?
” the
Guardian
wondered. “
Why can’t NATO whup Libya?
”
Time’s
Mark Thompson asked. Center for a New American Security analyst
Andrew Exum
answered that the NATO wasn’t really trying all that hard to oust the dictator Moammar Gadhafi– and anyway, “it’s likely that a stalemate is going to continue.”
...
19,751 NATO sorties later
, that seems like a flawed assumption.
The operation was massive. Predators and other intelligence aircraft told their rebels where pro-government forces were, and what they were saying. Plus, the drones
did some damage of their own
, launching 92 strikes since late April. Apache gunships, launched from the carrier
HMS Ocean
, took out Gadhafi checkpoints, to “encourage rebel fighters in the east to move forward,” according to the
Independent
. The frigate
HMS Sutherland
was one of several ships blocking suspicious vessels from possibly resupplying the regime. B-1 stealth bombers flew all the way from South Dakota to get in on the action,
destroying 100 targets in one 24 hour stretch
.
This effort didn’t exactly get off to a good start, however. This was a campaign
organized on the fly
, with (to put it mildly) murky demarcations of roles and responsibilities. At the beginning, one top U.S. general even
pinky-swore
that the Americans would never directly support the rebels. Then the announced mission — to
stop the slaughter of civilians
— fell away, and was
quickly replaced
by the real (if imperfectly articulated) objective of removing the Colonel and his
Glamazon bodyguards
. All the while, the Obama administration had the stones to call Libya “
a limited humanitarian intervention, not [a] war
.” It’s hard to argue that this is what the
United Nations authorized
. Certainly the U.S. Congress
never really agreed to any of this
.
It’d be a mistake to give alliance air and sea power all the credit for Gadhafi’s fall. The rebels did the vast majority of the fighting. (Although you do have to wonder how many contractors and
western intelligence operatives
are on the ground, to add some veteran heft to the rookie rebels.)
...
In mid-April, less than three weeks after the NATO campaign began, Council on Foreign Relations President Emeritus Les Gelb noted that care, and concluded that Iran and North Korea were taking comfort in the alliance’s inability to exercise its military might. “
To Tehran and Pyongyang, the lesson of Libya is that the West can’t do decisive harm to them
,” he wrote. Do those regimes now draw the opposite conclusion, with Gadhafi on the run?
Quote
cajonnmu
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by cajonnmu
All times are GMT +1. The time now is
07:19 PM
.