| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa North |
| America's role in Libyan war much larger than acknowledged |
| 2011-08-30 |
| Posted by:Frozen Al |
| #10 add: through which you need logistics access |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-08-30 21:27 |
| #9 Libya didn't have a neighboring "ally" actively subverting your mission and supporting the militants financially, miltarily, and politically |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-08-30 21:27 |
| #8 Compared to Afghanistan, Libya was a roaring success. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2011-08-30 21:11 |
| #7 I think the bottom line is that quietly, the Maghreb has had a large number of SOCOM forces playing footsie with the tribes for some time now. This to counter al-Qaeda trying to get a foothold there, which has been a major goal of theirs. The tribes now know that any al-Qaeda they catch will be big money to them, and they can do what they want with them after, which is probably pretty hideous. However, SOCOM gets bored easily, so an opportunity like Libya was not to be missed, and would make an excellent operational run for AFRICOM. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-08-30 20:43 |
| #6 Not surprising. NATO couldn't take out a girl scout troop at this point. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2011-08-30 20:27 |
| #5 and Islamists get installed on the American dime. Win-win for Barack Hussein Obama |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-08-30 20:24 |
| #4 That's why the writers of the Constitution deemed a small standing army to be preferred as it didn't permit the Executive to engage in 'adventures' without the funding. Though proportionately, the land forces today are about the size they were in 1940 in ratio to the total population. The Atlantic and Pacific no longer offer the geographical and logistical barrier they once did since the abandonment of the Monroe Doctrine and the load of international treaties and commitments. The defense establishment should match the Threat(tm). Unfortunately, everyone can't agree on how to define succinctly what that is because like all politics someone has a dog in a fight someplace, not to mention exaggerated portrayals of it they might be. Thus the American defense establishment gets sucked into things like this. Again, and again, the military men have seen themselves hurled into war by ambitions, passions, and blunders of civilian governments, almost wholly uninformed as to the limits of their military potentials and almost recklessly indifferent to the military requirements of the wars they let loose. Aware that they may again be thrown by civilians into an unforeseen conflict, perhaps with a foe they have not envisaged, these realistic military men find themselves unable to do anything save demand all the men, guns, and supplies they can possibly wring from the civilians, in the hope that they may be prepared or half prepared for whatever may befall them. In so doing they inevitably find themselves associated with militaristic military men who demand all they can get merely for the sake of having it without reference to ends. Vagts, Alfred, History of Militarism, rev. 1959, Free Press, NY, p34. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-08-30 19:36 |
| #3 Exactly how much money can the president spend on secret wars without Congressional approval? Anybody know? Does anybody in Congress know? Anybody in the White House? Anybody??? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-08-30 19:21 |
| #2 More importantly, this makes Obumble look like the master strategist. I think it's a little too early to see whether what we got out of it was worth even what we did put into it. I'll bet we just switched dictators, like 1979. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-08-30 19:12 |
| #1 "Success" has a thousand fathers... |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-08-30 18:39 |