Not every member is involved in Afghanistan despite it being a case of article five but every member agreed hence the action occurred for Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Libya.
Yugoslavia is in Europe, and Afghanistan was sheltering Al-Qaeda.



I would like to see a reference for that as NATO and the US military's official websites deny this and no new reports I've found mention US ground troops. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52060.htm https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=✓&affiliate=www.army.mil&sort_by=&query=Libya+ground+troops

If your referring to Benghazi that was the embassy and the response team was not part of the US army.
I was not thinking about Benghazi.

Next have you seen the UN resolutions on Yugoslavia? Set up a safe zone but your not allowed to use force to protect and establish said safe zone. Also the US Senate did unanimously request the no fly zone https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-resolution/85
Is this you suggesting that the U.N. resouion that you argued was important is actually irrelevant? Also, when did the U.S. Senate request that No Fly Zone?

Members of his own government were defected to the rebels and requesting the no fly zone and he was massacring his own people. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12589434 Look did the dictatorships the US aligned with in the Cold War really hold back communism? And why would the answer for that be different for the fight against terrorism.
Anyone putting down an insurrection is definitionally menacing his own people. I, for one, am glad that Britain and France stated out of that noteworthy insurrection in 1861.

If the only organized opposition of any strength in a country is ideologically unacceptable, do you actively empower them anyway?
 
Yugoslavia is in Europe, and Afghanistan was sheltering Al-Qaeda.

And that means what? All NATO members agreed the intervention per the requirements of the charter frankly your being obtuse in your arguments of there being a lack of census. it being in Europe does not automatically require full participation is required and that would be overkill for dealing with Yugoslavia in the 90s.

I was not thinking about Benghazi.

So your not going to provide a reference for US ground forces claim.


Is this you suggesting that the U.N. resouion that you argued was important is actually irrelevant?

No just pointing out that they can be contradictory.

Also, when did the U.S. Senate request that No Fly Zone?

So your not reading the links I post. It was in the link right after I said that. Here it is again https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-resolution/85


Anyone putting down an insurrection is definitionally menacing his own people. I, for one, am glad that Britain and France stated out of that noteworthy insurrection in 1861.

I said massacring, its in your quote of my post. Next do you really expect me to believe you think a dictator killing protestors and civilians is the same as the Union enforcing the abolition of slavery.

This thread is meant to be about an alternate election in 2005 and this argument started over your claims there is no difference between Neo-converative interventions and liberal interventions. Me and others mentioned international census and you've attempted to argue against that and now your trying to say its bad because the logic would be used to preserve the confederacy which ignores the word massacring and ignores the substantial differences between 2011 Libya and 1861 USA. And you've made a claim about ground troops being present which you refuse to reference and have admitted to not reading links I provide.

I don't believe you are arguing in good faith and don't respond if you don't have any attention to argue in good faith.
 
And that means what? All NATO members agreed the intervention per the requirements of the charter frankly your being obtuse in your arguments of there being a lack of census. it being in Europe does not automatically require full participation is required and that would be overkill for dealing with Yugoslavia in the 90s.

Yugoslavia being in Europe means that NATO involvement there is not necessarily against the NATO charter the way intervening in Africa expressly is.

So your not going to provide a reference for US ground forces claim.
You're. I'm still looking.


So your not reading the links I post. It was in the link right after I said that. Here it is again https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-resolution/85
That link makes no mention of a no-fly zone, but praises symbolically the United Nations as well as others' efforts at looking to redress the crisis.

I said massacring, its in your quote of my post. Next do you really expect me to believe you think a dictator killing protestors and civilians is the same as the Union enforcing the abolition of slavery.
Atrocities happen in good wars, not just the bad ones, and Qadhafi's conduct in suppressing the insurrection was well within the norms of the Arab world at that point in time.

This thread is meant to be about an alternate election in 2005 and this argument started over your claims there is no difference between Neo-converative interventions and liberal interventions. Me and others mentioned international census and you've attempted to argue against that and now your trying to say its bad because the logic would be used to preserve the confederacy which ignores the word massacring and ignores the substantial differences between 2011 Libya and 1861 USA. And you've made a claim about ground troops being present which you refuse to reference and have admitted to not reading links I provide.

I don't believe you are arguing in good faith and don't respond if you don't have any attention to argue in good faith.
This is not abut 1861; it's about the semantic differences between 2003 n Iraq and 2011 in Libya. I brought up the civil war in the United States to point out that internal wars are not necessarily the business of other states to involve themselves with militarily. AS it was the humanitarian crisis in Libya has worsened because of the benevolence you claim NATO involvement was.
 
And here you go. If the government is acknowledging that it has people on the ground communicating with the rebels, this is not just air campaign, especially in a country where foliage is scarce.
 
Yugoslavia being in Europe means that NATO involvement there is not necessarily against the NATO charter the way intervening in Africa expressly is.

Except I did answer this claim earlier

Expect that article five does not have a limit on where the attack takes place. For example an attack on Australia, by the terms of ANZUS would be an attack on the US, but also be applicable for claiming article five. Additionally article five has only been activated in the aftermath of 9/11 and invasion of Afghanistan so if similar circumstances occurred but an African nation where deliberately harboring terrorists they would be such a response there as well.

The charter does not have a Geo-graphic limit as your claiming it does.

You're. I'm still looking.

Is English a second language to you as that does not grammatical make sense. Are you saying you made a claim without any evidence and somehow expected the burden of proof to be one me?

That link makes no mention of a no-fly zone, but praises symbolically the United Nations as well as others' efforts at looking to redress the crisis.

Wrong

Urges: (1) the Gadhafi regime to abide by Security Council Resolution 1970, and (2) the Security Council to take such further action to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.


Atrocities happen in good wars, not just the bad ones, and Qadhafi's conduct in suppressing the insurrection was well within the norms of the Arab world at that point in time.

At a time when Tunisia and Egypt had seen their dictatorships replaced and there were protests throughout the middle east that did not end in blood shed. Next it wasn't a war/insurrection until Qaddafi started killing the protestors, how many of such conflicts would you try to argue are morally ambiguity about?

This is not abut 1861; it's about the semantic differences between 2003 n Iraq and 2011 in Libya. I brought up the civil war in the United States to point out that internal wars are not necessarily the business of other states to involve themselves with militarily. AS it was the humanitarian crisis in Libya has worsened because of the benevolence you claim NATO involvement was.

I hardly think the difference between the US ignoring the intentional community in one instance and acting with the census of the international community is a semantic difference. Nor is getting NATO agreement a semantic difference because if one nation has said no it would not have been a NATO operation. The difference between a country in a civil war and one that is not semantic either. Lastly it was the US's NATO partners that were pushing for intervention which.

Now the points about intervention, it was preformed on the collective belief more people would die if nothing was done. I think we are both familiar with the fears of what Qaddafi would do to Benghazi and its people. It has a population of 700,000 residents. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/libya-population/cities/

The highest (credible) estimate of the total number of people killed in the first war people killed in the first civil war is estimated to be 1500

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...a-war-u-n-rights-expert-idUSTRE7584UY20110609

The highest estimate from the second civil war is less than 8000 (if I'm reading graph right)

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/file...ers/SAS-SANA-BP-Counting-Casualties-Libya.pdf (page 7 figure 1 and I'm not counting the university of Tropli as accurate for reasons outline in the source)

The second civil war is a tragedy yet that does not suddenly mean the intervention made things worse. Having a peacekeeping force afterwords would have helped stablise the country IMO but that does not means letting Qaddafi get to Benghazi would have been a better outcome.

And here you go. If the government is acknowledging that it has people on the ground communicating with the rebels, this is not just air campaign, especially in a country where foliage is scarce.

I don't think CIA count as ground troops as they can't engage in actual warfare /fighting as the report indicates they were to find and report ground targets, not to engage and the officials quoted specifically pointed out
American officials cautioned, though, that the Western operatives were not directing the actions of rebel forces.

And the contact was to find out who they were, what were their goals ect.

For the most part it looks like normal spying in unusual circumstances and even the non-normal spying was finding targets for the air campaign to engage.

Also what does foliage have to do with anything?
 
Except I did answer this claim earlier
Err, where?


The charter does not have a Geo-graphic limit as your claiming it does.
The NATO charter was expressly designed to prevent applicability in colonial struggles, or are you arguing that NATO could have been invoked in wars relating to decolonization?


Is English a second language to you as that does not grammatical make sense. Are you saying you made a claim without any evidence and somehow expected the burden of proof to be one me?
Read what was quoted again, and then make your grammar inquiry.


Expressing openness to the possibility of a No-Fly Zone eventually is not affirmative support for definitely having one.





At a time when Tunisia and Egypt had seen their dictatorships replaced and there were protests throughout the middle east that did not end in blood shed. Next it wasn't a war/insurrection until Qaddafi started killing the protestors, how many of such conflicts would you try to argue are morally ambiguity about?
Mubarak fell only after losing U.S. support. He was basically pushed out. Are you really arguing that there was no violence in Egypt stemming from Mubarak's ouster?


]I hardly think the difference between the US ignoring the intentional community in one instance and acting with the census of the international community is a semantic difference. Nor is getting NATO agreement a semantic difference because if one nation has said no it would not have been a NATO operation. The difference between a country in a civil war and one that is not semantic either. Lastly it was the US's NATO partners that were pushing for intervention which.
If it's your vaguely modernized, liberalizing stable autocracy being destroyed by a foreign bombing campaign, do you really care which group of white liberal democracies supported it and which did not? War is sometimes necessary, but it's always destructive. If using armed force to put down a movement backed by militant extremists warranted NATO intervention, why did Saddam Hussein massacring Kurds in 1991 or Hutus and Tutsis going at it in Rwanda in the mid nineties? Why wasn't NATO in Somalia? Haiti? Darfur?

Now the points about intervention, it was preformed on the collective belief more people would die if nothing was done. I think we are both familiar with the fears of what Qaddafi would do to Benghazi and its people. It has a population of 700,000 residents. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/libya-population/cities/
And where is this concern for the Rohingya? Why isn't NATO there?

]The highest (credible) estimate of the total number of people killed in the first war people killed in the first civil war is estimated to be 1500

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...a-war-u-n-rights-expert-idUSTRE7584UY20110609

The highest estimate from the second civil war is less than 8000 (if I'm reading graph right)

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/file...ers/SAS-SANA-BP-Counting-Casualties-Libya.pdf (page 7 figure 1 and I'm not counting the university of Tropli as accurate for reasons outline in the source)

The second civil war is a tragedy yet that does not suddenly mean the intervention made things worse. Having a peacekeeping force afterwords would have helped stablise the country IMO but that does not means letting Qaddafi get to Benghazi would have been a better outcome.
Open air slave markets have returned to Libya. The utter destruction of Qadhafi regime without something stable to replace it allowed the robbery of arms depots in the interior of the country. It's no coincidence that violence erupted in Mali not long after. Yes, the countries don't border, but borders in the Sahara are hard to enforce.


I don't think CIA count as ground troops as they can't engage in actual warfare /fighting as the report indicates they were to find and report ground targets, not to engage and the officials quoted specifically pointed out
Because every intelligence operation goes to plan and never results in the necessary application of lethal force.

Also, as is generally and necessarily true of acknowledged intelligence operations in real time, there is much more going on than is public. That's a good thing, but it really undercuts the no involvement on the ground and no taking sides thing. Of course, how there are even rebels if your claim about peaceful protests is true makes no sense.

And the contact was to find out who they were, what were their goals ect.
I don't think you understand how intelligence operations in combat zones work, etc.

]or the most part it looks like normal spying in unusual circumstances and even the non-normal spying was finding targets for the air campaign to engage.
Is it normal to tell reporters exactly what deployed intelligence operatives are doing in real time?

Also what does foliage have to do with anything?
A lack of foliage makes potential targets easy to see from manned and unmanned aircraft. You don't need enough CIA on the ground at you have to acknowledge their presence in a country with few natural obstructions.
 
Err, where?

The quote I responded with. Here it is again.

Expect that article five does not have a limit on where the attack takes place. For example an attack on Australia, by the terms of ANZUS would be an attack on the US, but also be applicable for claiming article five. Additionally article five has only been activated in the aftermath of 9/11 and invasion of Afghanistan so if similar circumstances occurred but an African nation where deliberately harboring terrorists they would be such a response there as well.

Plus article 6 does state

https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France

As the French considered Algeria part of France rather than a colony at the time NATO was created.

The NATO charter was expressly designed to prevent applicability in colonial struggles, or are you arguing that NATO could have been invoked in wars relating to decolonization?

If Australia were attacked by the terms of ANZUS the US would be involved and the US would bring in NATO.


Read what was quoted again, and then make your grammar inquiry.

It still does not make sense. In response to me asking "So your not going to provide a reference for US ground forces claim." You responded with "You're. I'm still looking." You're, does not fit with the rest of the sentence.

Expressing openness to the possibility of a No-Fly Zone eventually is not affirmative support for definitely having one.

In your originally refute you said it made no mention of a no fly zone which is different to this. Now considering the mentioning of the possibility was part of a specific urging by the US senate that the UN do more to protect civilians so I would argue it is indicating Senate support it if implemented.


Mubarak fell only after losing U.S. support. He was basically pushed out. Are you really arguing that there was no violence in Egypt stemming from Mubarak's ouster?

I will argue that losing the army's support was more important and it was more peaceful that Libya and Syria and a democracy started to be implemented only for the 2013 coup.

If it's your vaguely modernized, liberalizing stable autocracy being destroyed by a foreign bombing campaign, do you really care which group of white liberal democracies supported it and which did not?

With respect this bit about the group ignores the reasons for going in, the intentional community being outraged about Qaddafi's treatment of his own civilians as opposed to inaccurate claim about the status of Iraq's WMD program. And having legal authority vs having the possibility of war crime trials is a substantive difference as well. And Iraq saw an occupation which Libya didn't. Treating all the same make analysing why they had different outcomes difficult.

War is sometimes necessary, but it's always destructive. If using armed force to put down a movement backed by militant extremists warranted NATO intervention, why did Saddam Hussein massacring Kurds in 1991 or Hutus and Tutsis going at it in Rwanda in the mid nineties? Why wasn't NATO in Somalia? Haiti? Darfur? And where is this concern for the Rohingya? Why isn't NATO there?

Well as I said NATO requires all members to have to agree to action and Libya was an instance of agreement.


Open air slave markets have returned to Libya. The utter destruction of Qadhafi regime without something stable to replace it allowed the robbery of arms depots in the interior of the country. It's no coincidence that violence erupted in Mali not long after. Yes, the countries don't border, but borders in the Sahara are hard to enforce.

Gaddafi had wrecked Libya's institutions whilst in power meaning that there was always going to be a significant power gap after he died

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...libyas-post-gaddafi-war.454659/#post-17805340


Because every intelligence operation goes to plan and never results in the necessary application of lethal force.

I did specifically make a divide and I think it is fair to point out that the CIA being in control of drone strikes that merely pointing out targets for the air is a limit on their operations.

Also, as is generally and necessarily true of acknowledged intelligence operations in real time, there is much more going on than is public. That's a good thing, but it really undercuts the no involvement on the ground and no taking sides thing. Of course, how there are even rebels if your claim about peaceful protests is true makes no sense.

They became an armed rebellion in response to Gaddafi killing them. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/20/libya-protests-benghazi-muammar-gaddafi

It mirrors JFK's saying He who makes peaceful revolution impossible makes violent revolution inevitable.


I don't think you understand how intelligence operations in combat zones work, etc.

I know what ground troops are considered by international standards and historical precedents on their use and limits on reporting.

Is it normal to tell reporters exactly what deployed intelligence operatives are doing in real time?

With respect the government itself did not announcing this and official spokespeople are refusing to comment. And there are actual limits to reporting on army attacks real time as the BBC got in trouble in the Falklands war for broadcasting information about an attack just before it happened.

A lack of foliage makes potential targets easy to see from manned and unmanned aircraft. You don't need enough CIA on the ground at you have to acknowledge their presence in a country with few natural obstructions.

That does not belong there as it throws the grammar off.

With respect air intelligence is useful if you know were you are looking. If you don't you could be wasting hours looking at empty desert. When Saddam was using scud missiles in the first gulf war air intelligence was ineffective because the coalition did not know where the scud missiles were so special forces were deployed.
 
The quote I responded with. Here it is again.



Plus article 6 does state

https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm


As the French considered Algeria part of France rather than a colony at the time NATO was created.
Goof. So, how, again, is the alliance applicable to a conflict in


If Australia were attacked by the terms of ANZUS the US would be involved and the US would bring in NATO.
Good. So, how, again, is the alliance applicable to a conflict in Libya?



It still does not make sense. In response to me asking "So your not going to provide a reference for US ground forces claim." You responded with "You're. I'm still looking." You're, does not fit with the rest of the sentence.
Reread your sentence.


In your originally refute you said it made no mention of a no fly zone which is different to this. Now considering the mentioning of the possibility was part of a specific urging by the US senate that the UN do more to protect civilians so I would argue it is indicating Senate support it if implemented.
I had not seen i in my third read through, but you point is irrelevant. Stating that something might at some point be required is not endorsing of it, which was your argument.



I will argue that losing the army's support was more important and it was more peaceful that Libya and Syria and a democracy started to be implemented only for the 2013 coup.
Losing Washington lost him the army. Saying it's a better situation is true, but you're the one who seems to think that Libya was in line with international norms. So which is it?


With respect this bit about the group ignores the reasons for going in, the intentional community being outraged about Qaddafi's treatment of his own civilians as opposed to inaccurate claim about the status of Iraq's WMD program. And having legal authority vs having the possibility of war crime trials is a substantive difference as well. And Iraq saw an occupation which Libya didn't. Treating all the same make analysing why they had different outcomes difficult.
Saddam Hussein was tried. Qadhafi was not. Measuring a conflict by American military casualties is nonsensical and irrelevant to legalities and effects. There was no planning for what came after the NATO campaign because those involved didn't want to actually accept what they'd done. So, now there's a migrant crisis in Europe resulting from failed policies in Libya that hobbled viable options in Syria worsening the crisis still, and strengthening fringe movements in Europe as a result. Well done, liberal interventionism. Well done.


Well as I said NATO requires all members to have to agree to action and Libya was an instance of agreement.
You argued the opposite previously.



Gaddafi had wrecked Libya's institutions whilst in power meaning that there was always going to be a significant power gap after he died

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...libyas-post-gaddafi-war.454659/#post-17805340
All the more reason to not bring down the regime with armed force and no long-term planning.

I did specifically make a divide and I think it is fair to point out that the CIA being in control of drone strikes that merely pointing out targets for the air is a limit on their operations.
The Pentagon operates the drones, not Langley.


They became an armed rebellion in response to Gaddafi killing them. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/20/libya-protests-benghazi-muammar-gaddafi

It mirrors JFK's saying He who makes peaceful revolution impossible makes violent revolution inevitable.

The NATO campaign in Libya has done exactly that; made violent revolution inevitable.


I know what ground troops are considered by international standards and historical precedents on their use and limits on reporting.

Good.

]With respect the government itself did not announcing this and official spokespeople are refusing to comment. And there are actual limits to reporting on army attacks real time as the BBC got in trouble in the Falklands war for broadcasting information about an attack just before it happened.

Again, there's a method to how these things get reported. For all you or I know, orders came from Langley or the West Wing to feed the reporters something to control the story.

That does not belong there as it throws the grammar off.
I typed at instead of that.

With respect air intelligence is useful if you know were you are looking. If you don't you could be wasting hours looking at empty desert. When Saddam was using scud missiles in the first gulf war air intelligence was ineffective because the coalition did not know where the scud missiles were so special forces were deployed.
This is not some unknown country; allied intelligence has followed Libya for a long time, and the regime was cooperating on weapons proliferation. American and British intelligence likely already knew where the military bases were in the country.
 
Good. So, how, again, is the alliance applicable to a conflict in Libya?

Its applicable in that there isn't a limit for discussion on intervention. Let me put it this way, all 29 members of NATO agreed on the intervention, if there was something in the charter preventing against such a coarse of action at least one would have objected and there not have been a NATO intervention.

Reread your sentence.

By bad for missing that.

I had not seen i in my third read through, but you point is irrelevant. Stating that something might at some point be required is not endorsing of it, which was your argument.

It was specifically part of the resolution described as urging to the UN security council. Urging action and mentioned one action to take (and no others) does look like a pre-emptive endorsement.

Losing Washington lost him the army.

His son threatening to loosen the armies control of the economy (the Egyptian military owns 40% of the economy) lost him the army.


Saying it's a better situation is true, but you're the one who seems to think that Libya was in line with international norms. So which is it?

I don't see how there is a contradiction there as the Egyptian government fell before the situation was equal to what was occurring in Libya.


Saddam Hussein was tried. Qadhafi was not.

Which reflects the presence of grounds troops in Iraq vs the lack of such troops in Libya.

Measuring a conflict by American military casualties is nonsensical and irrelevant to legalities and effects.

Expect I have not mentioned American casualties nor have I talked about measuring. Analysing is not (just, if at all) measuring but looking at causes, outcomes and how it progressed. Bush's team( Cheney and who he placed in the Administration) had wanted to invade Iraq from the get go but came up with really bad plans which they tried to make reality fit. In Libya it was a rapidly escalating situation that did require a response with powers such as the US being war weary thus not wanting to put the effort into a peace-keeping presence.

There was no planning for what came after the NATO campaign because those involved didn't want to actually accept what they'd done. So, now there's a migrant crisis in Europe resulting from failed policies in Libya that hobbled viable options in Syria worsening the crisis still, and strengthening fringe movements in Europe as a result. Well done, liberal interventionism. Well done.

So your completely shifting away from your argument there's no difference between Neo-converastive interventions and Liberal ones? Now the intervention succeed in protecting the civilian population from attacks by Gaddafi so it was a success in meeting its objective but the peace was lost afterwords. Last I believe there would have been refugees from Libya and consequently Syria regardless of what actions were or were not taken by the international community.

You argued the opposite previously.

No I haven't its in line with what I have been saying the entire time. I've repeatedly stated

It is to serve the interests of members nations and after meetings between the members states they decided it was in their interest to be the the enforcers of the UN security council resolution. If any of the member states objected the intervention would not be a NATO mission and I would argue they fully understand the alliance they all agreed to join.

Not every member is involved in Afghanistan despite it being a case of article five but every member agreed hence the action occurred for Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Libya.

And that means what? All NATO members agreed the intervention per the requirements of the charter frankly your being obtuse in your arguments of there being a lack of census. it being in Europe does not automatically require full participation is required and that would be overkill for dealing with Yugoslavia in the 90s.

I don't know what you think I've been advocating but I have outright stated multiple times it was agreed on by all NATO members hence why there was an intervention when talking about Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya.


All the more reason to not bring down the regime with armed force and no long-term planning.

With respect responding to blackswan style event/crisis does not often leave room for long term planning especially when the UN did not support a peacekeeping force. There's a difference between saying an intervention was perfect and it made things worse.

The Pentagon operates the drones, not Langley.

Obama had to change the rules on that towards the end of his second term.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.fc5655742ff3

And after Trump became President it shifted back to the CIA

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cia-wins-back-control-of-drone-strikes-gvpqf6qqp


The NATO campaign in Libya has done exactly that; made violent revolution inevitable.

I think killing the peaceful protestors ruled out peaceful change before NATO intervened.

Again, there's a method to how these things get reported. For all you or I know, orders came from Langley or the West Wing to feed the reporters something to control the story.

So your arguing the government ordered a leak that your claiming would prove their undermining the UN resolution.

This is not some unknown country; allied intelligence has followed Libya for a long time, and the regime was cooperating on weapons proliferation. American and British intelligence likely already knew where the military bases were in the country.

You own source on the CIA presence specifically cities emails from an official stating

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html

“We didn’t have great data,” Gen. Carter F. Ham, who handed over control of the Libya mission to NATO on Wednesday, said in an e-mail last week. “Libya hasn’t been a country we focused on a lot over past few years.”

And additionally it was noted

The United States and its allies have been scrambling to gather detailed information on the location and abilities of Libyan infantry and armored forces that normally takes months of painstaking analysis.

snip

But if government troops advance into or near cities in along the country’s eastern coast, which so far have been off-limits to coalition aircraft for fear of causing civilian casualties, General Deptula said that ground operatives would be particularly helpful in providing target coordinates or pointing them out to pilots with hand-held laser designators.
 
Its applicable in that there isn't a limit for discussion on intervention. Let me put it this way, all 29 members of NATO agreed on the intervention, if there was something in the charter preventing against such a coarse of action at least one would have objected and there not have been a NATO intervention.
Because politicians accept limitations on their own power and NATO does anything without its members agreeing.

]By bad for missing that.
No worries.


It was specifically part of the resolution described as urging to the UN security council. Urging action and mentioned one action to take (and no others) does look like a pre-emptive endorsement.
Observing in a symbolic resolution that the possibility could exist for needing to implement a No-Fly Zone is not an endorsement or approval of one. Observing that an eventuality may be necessary in a symbolic measure in one house of Congress is not equal to approving of that eventuality. No matter how you slice it, observing that one might me necessary later is not permission to have one, and your continued conflation of the two is at best disingenuous.


His son threatening to loosen the armies control of the economy (the Egyptian military owns 40% of the economy) lost him the army.

It did not help matters. Losing Washington mattered more.


I don't see how there is a contradiction there as the Egyptian government fell before the situation was equal to what was occurring in Libya.
The fall of regimes on both sides had no bearing on Libya?



Which reflects the presence of grounds troops in Iraq vs the lack of such troops in Libya.
If your whole argument is that the Libyan incursion was necessary because the Libyan government's tactics in Benghazi may have constituted war crimes, and you're acknowledging that Saddam Hussein did face justice for his crimes, it sounds like you're saying Libya was a failure.


Expect I have not mentioned American casualties nor have I talked about measuring. Analysing is not (just, if at all) measuring but looking at causes, outcomes and how it progressed. Bush's team( Cheney and who he placed in the Administration) had wanted to invade Iraq from the get go but came up with really bad plans which they tried to make reality fit. In Libya it was a rapidly escalating situation that did require a response with powers such as the US being war weary thus not wanting to put the effort into a peace-keeping presence.
No American administration since 9/11 has wanted to engage in any sort of medium to long term planning in the adventures abroad. I thought Barack Obama and his team were cognizant of the Pottery Barn rule given their critique of the Iraq War, which, relative to Libya, has been a success. You've yet to make clear why Libya escalating required NATO intervention but Syria escalating did not. Is it really simply a matter to you of NATO members voting to intervene or not?

]So your completely shifting away from your argument there's no difference between Neo-converastive interventions and Liberal ones? Now the intervention succeed in protecting the civilian population from attacks by Gaddafi so it was a success in meeting its objective but the peace was lost afterwords. Last I believe there would have been refugees from Libya and consequently Syria regardless of what actions were or were not taken by the international community.
Wait, the point was not to shield civilians from attack, but from attack by a particular person? Things in Libya are objectively worse; if your point of view is correct, NATO should still be engaged in theater. There are far more refugees than there otherwise would be.


No I haven't its in line with what I have been saying the entire time. I've repeatedly stated







I don't know what you think I've been advocating but I have outright stated multiple times it was agreed on by all NATO members hence why there was an intervention when talking about Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya.
A just conflict is one which has the approval of the correct politicians. If that's your position, then fine, but it's not as though interventions put before the alliance are turned down.
Why do you think NATO involvement was not sought in the 1991 Persian Gulf War?


With respect responding to blackswan style event/crisis does not often leave room for long term planning especially when the UN did not support a peacekeeping force. There's a difference between saying an intervention was perfect and it made things worse.
Why was UN support necessary for your peacekeeping force if it was appropriate for them to outsource to NATO the air campaign initially? Have there not been other recent black swan events that avoided so reckless a response? I really don't know why you're defending this when even President Obama has admitted that they dropped the ball.


Obama had to change the rules on that towards the end of his second term.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.fc5655742ff3

And after Trump became President it shifted back to the CIA

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cia-wins-back-control-of-drone-strikes-gvpqf6qqp
I was thinking that the change had been earlier in the Obama presidency.

I think killing the peaceful protestors ruled out peaceful change before NATO intervened.
Must be why Bashar al-Assad is still in power.


So your arguing the government ordered a leak that your claiming would prove their undermining the UN resolution.
It's called damage control and getting ahead of a story.


You own source on the CIA presence specifically cities emails from an official stating

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html



And additionally it was noted

Libya was not a focus over the past few years because it was cooperating with western intelligence on weapons proliferation and terrorism. Regimes which have not remain in power despite behavior as egregious if not more so than Colonel Qadhafi's. Also, unless they're worried about underground bunkers, legitimate targets in Libya can be observed fairly well from satellites. I can appreciate that thy want to minimize civilian deaths, but I don't know how that requires enough personnel on the ground that the government allows their presence to be acknowledged as it is occurring.
 
Because politicians accept limitations on their own power and NATO does anything without its members agreeing.

Politicians created constitutions, the NATO charter, the UN ext. Whilst there are Nixon's out there I don't think most politicians are, Sure they may be self adsorbed, double down or switch sides too much (depending on who) but I will argue most understand the limitations on power.

If they're universally willing to push boundaries why were so few of the US's European allies in the second Gulf War?

Observing in a symbolic resolution

And calling for more action and specifically listing a coarse of action that can be taken. I really don't see why you think the fact they were urging something and giving a specific action should be overlooked.

that the possibility could exist for needing to implement a No-Fly Zone is not an endorsement or approval of one. Observing that an eventuality may be necessary in a symbolic measure in one house of Congress is not equal to approving of that eventuality. No matter how you slice it, observing that one might me necessary later is not permission to have one, and your continued conflation of the two is at best disingenuous.

With respect considering how you've made inaccurate assumptions about my views on conflicts I have not commented on I would advise that you don't make assumptions about my beliefs and if you really think I'm disingenuous report my posts for trolling. Otherwise drop it as its not conductive to civil debate.

On the document: It was part of a resolution where they were urging for more action to be taken and mentioned only one coarse of action.

It did not help matters. Losing Washington mattered more.

The fall of regimes on both sides had no bearing on Libya?

The protestors in Libya were encouraged but I don't see it effecting Gaddafi as he had been in his own universe since the 1980s. (When he conducted state terrorism). And Obama and other leaders probably hoped it meant they would not have to be involved in a conflict in the region.

If your whole argument is that the Libyan incursion was necessary because the Libyan government's tactics in Benghazi may have constituted war crimes, and you're acknowledging that Saddam Hussein did face justice for his crimes, it sounds like you're saying Libya was a failure.

The mission was an air campaign there was no way to make sure Gaddafi would be captured without directing the rebels and having 100% confidence in knowing where he is.

No American administration since 9/11 has wanted to engage in any sort of medium to long term planning in the adventures abroad. I thought Barack Obama and his team were cognizant of the Pottery Barn rule given their critique of the Iraq War, which, relative to Libya, has been a success. You've yet to make clear why Libya escalating required NATO intervention but Syria escalating did not. Is it really simply a matter to you of NATO members voting to intervene or not?

I have not commented on Syria in this discussion. If you really want me to, the main difference between Assad and Gadafi is that the former did not alienate the Russians whilst the latter did. I Believe a no fly zone, like the ones in Iraq during the 1990s, should have been established but there was hesitation mostly from a lack of willingness to commit against a state with allies that had veto power on the Security Council.

Now you claim not wanted whilst that is to a certain extent true with Bush Jr and Cheney I will argue its not true of Obama. Considering the planning in the Pacific Orientation that kept getting sidetracked by events in the Middle East and Europe I argue planning is in his nature but he was President during times of unexpected events. Before the Russians invaded Ukraine how many predicted they would, especially when they didn't during the Orange Revolution.


Wait, the point was not to shield civilians from attack, but from attack by a particular person? Things in Libya are objectively worse; if your point of view is correct, NATO should still be engaged in theater. There are far more refugees than there otherwise would be.

I honestly do believe there would have been more due to examples of how Gaddafi handled matters at the height of his power.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2006/06/28/libya-june-1996-killings-abu-salim-prison#

In the summer of 1996, stories began to filter out of Libya about a mass killing in Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison. The details remained scarce, and the government initially denied that an incident had taken place. Libyan groups outside the country said up to 1,200 prisoners had died.

Now that is near the top of the higher estimations for both conflicts in Libya.

A just conflict is one which has the approval of the correct politicians. If that's your position, then fine, but it's not as though interventions put before the alliance are turned down.
Why do you think NATO involvement was not sought in the 1991 Persian Gulf War?

My positions is that that liberal interventions are more interested in building coalitions and following international law. Bush jr and Cheney went into Iraq after the Security Council (including European allies on it) ruled against invading and weakened US influence in several allies . Clinton, Al-Gore and Obama would not have invaded anywhere after being told no by the Security Council.

On the First Gulf War, probably because the Saudi wanted to minimize the amount of 'infidels' stationed on their territory and the number of states in the immediate region reduced the need for NATO and perhaps being nervous about the fighting capabilities of the Iraqi army. As many were fearful of a blood bath prior to Desert Storm commencing.

Why was UN support necessary for your peacekeeping force if it was appropriate for them to outsource to NATO the air campaign initially?

The UN does not have an air force but does have peacekeepers so I'm not sure how seriously I should take this point.

Have there not been other recent black swan events that avoided so reckless a response? I really don't know why you're defending this when even President Obama has admitted that they dropped the ball.

The most recent edit comperable end edit blackswan event aside from the Arab Spring was the fall of the Warsaw pact and those governments did not have as many loyalist troops left.

I was thinking that the change had been earlier in the Obama presidency.

Maybe but I haven't found anything earlier than the 2016 story.

Must be why Bashar al-Assad is still in power.

If he did not have the Iranians and Russians on side how do you think he would be fairing?

It's called damage control and getting ahead of a story.

The problem with that hypothesis is considering none of the reports in Libya ever made contact with these groups that there was not there numbers needed for admission.

Libya was not a focus over the past few years because it was cooperating with western intelligence on weapons proliferation and terrorism.

If the Saudis starting killing masses of civilian protests would you be happy for nothing to be done? Heck are you happy with Trump continuing the weapons sales deal in light of their embassy murder. Or him not even trying to curb their actions in Yemen?

Democratic partners of the US believed Gaddafi should go, and I would find it disconcerting if the US stuck by him.

Regimes which have not remain in power despite behavior as egregious if not more so than Colonel Qadhafi's.

But Gaddafi was more diplomatically isolated so a census could be built.


Also, unless they're worried about underground bunkers, legitimate targets in Libya can be observed fairly well from satellites. I can appreciate that thy want to minimize civilian deaths, but I don't know how that requires enough personnel on the ground that the government allows their presence to be acknowledged as it is occurring.

None of the reporters in Libya (or rebels for that matter) ever accidentally showed these groups in action so I'm not confident that point was actually reached.
 
Last edited:
Top