And Libya goes on...

[tequila]

I think long-term sanctions would be useless. Aggressive, short-term interdiction of aerial resupply for Qadhafi regime forces would probably be quite productive, though.

I think any active armed intervention should wait for either an invitation from a Free Libyan provisional government that may coalesce in Benghazi, or if Qadhafi forces turn the tide and are threatening to overrun Benghazi and other major opposition-held population centers. The retaliation that could result from such a scenario might look like southern Iraq post-Gulf War I.

[Fuchs]

What supply? They have all they need in their country.

A no-fly zone is tricky as well. The Iraq NFZs haven't exactly a good reputation, as they were mis-used to bully Iraq for a decade, long after the end of the short shi'ite uprising. The Iraq NFZs also artificially held an otherwise long-resolved conflict (Kuwait as liberated already) lingering for a decade.

NFZs are also an infringement on the sovereignty of Libya. The UN will likely not step over this Rubicon unless
- Libya is expelled
- Libya's Ghaddafi government outlawed as waging war against its people, not just its armed opposition (war crimes)
- another Libyan government than Ghaddafi's get international recognition (and agrees with foreign meddling in domestic affairs)


The principles of the UN are an important component of the national security for most countries, they're a huge red line in international politics.
The U.S. got away with violations thanks to its UNSC veto right, its networking with allies and its sheer size, but the potential for political power loss and backlash has always been huge.

[Coinoperator07]

Libya is in Civil War. What is America's national interest in this conflict (other than the natural resources)?

From my foxhole, this looked to be a more emotional response than a well thought through military action. Again, the US has involved itself in a conflict without asking all the "then what" questions. If there is an endstate to this operation, it has not been clearly defined. Why get involved in Libya and not in Yemen? Bahrain? Syria? Iran?

Also, this is NOT in the pervue of NATO. No NATO nations or partners were attacked. NATO has no mandate, here. If the UN wants to get involved militarily, it's the UN's baby.

I hate to see innocent people killed and I think Qaddafi is a terrible dictator, however, there are laws and rules that must be followed or chaos ensues.

Let's all take a breath, have a strategy, make a plan, and execute violently to an end that is suitable to the betterment of humanity and that's within the Rule of Law as currently exists in the UN Mandate.