What if, rather than having Iraq, the U.S. would have invaded Libya in 2003 in order to eliminate Muammar Gaddafi's WMDs and nuclear weapons program?
Any thoughts on this?
Any thoughts on this?
Maybe the occupation and reconstruction of Libya would be somewhat easier than that of Iraq? At least, insofar as I am aware, Libya didn't have the same level of sectarian troubles that the Iraqis already had when 2003 rolled around. Regardless, I imagine that the invasion of Libya itself would not look too different than the invasion of Iraq, in the sense that the Americans probably utterly and completely crush any conventional resistance.
In the case of Libya, where is our logistical hub?
That's another issue with European objections-in an invasion of Libya, they'd have far more leverage because the US would be directly operating out of bases there.
He may not have given up his program, but Libya was not close to being able to get a nuke by any stretch. They indeed could have gotten the material for it, but they didn't have the expertise to make one. They would have needed a sponsor or supplier to have helped.If Al Gore gets elected and the Iraq War is butterflied it probably happens anyway.
What convinced Gaddafi to give up his WMD's was Bush's tough talk combined with the invasion of Iraq. Take that away and he keeps developing nukes and maintains his chemical weaponry. The U.S. would have grabbed the nukes with SOF (similar to how we drill to do so with Pakistan) and invaded as soon as he conducted a test or was clearly about to.
Pakistan is an obvious possible source of such help.He may not have given up his program, but Libya was not close to being able to get a nuke by any stretch. They indeed could have gotten the material for it, but they didn't have the expertise to make one. They would have needed a sponsor or supplier to have helped.