And Libya goes on...

[JMA]

Acerbic responses are okay, those that dip into condescension and dismissiveness are approaching a degree of incivility that is not necessary. You are a valuable contributor and have proven you can be civil and not scathingly caustic. The "(snip)" bit is unnecessary, just don't comment -- but then, you know all that...

I'll tell you what I have learned around here and that is just how thin skinned this selection of Americans are. Very strange in a predominantly military group. The use of "snip" is generally used out here on the internet to reduce repeats of long passages in quoted pieces. Also if you wish only to reply to or comment on a specific section of a post. Thin skinned people may take the action as a slight but mature and emotionally balanced people don't. If I ever want to be rude I will be in-your-face rude, I promise.

To clarify, the US law is that a head of state cannot be targeted outside his own country. (LINK .pdf -- see .pdf page 40, document page 35)

[shortened... rather than snipped]

Heads of state are fair game but there are minor rules. Governments are bureaucracies, after all. We may be dumb in spots but we are not stupid and in an existential case, rules go by the wayside. Essentially, the effect must be worth the cost. I'd also note that France (among others) can for a variety of reasons do things the US tends to catch an excessive amount of often ignorant flack for doing...

Is Gaddafi outside Libya right now? Is Gbagbo still considered the Head of State?

OK so pass the message under the table to the French that their leadership in this matter (Gaddafi and Gbagbo) would be appreciated, yes?

[M-A Lagrange]

About taking head of state out of the equasion, an old adage I learned was: never kill the opposing party chief: you never know what would come after.
This is old grand'pa wishdom but does that apply in the case of G.

I would just remind that he likes to say I am not the head of Lybian state just the gardian of the revolution...
Without playing with words, as him, the real question is taking him out of the board means you have someone to replace him.
The problematic is not philosophical but practical: states (US, France, UK...) need someone to talk to.

For the Lybian rebellion: mission accomplished, at least for the french. A letter from the head of the rebellion council has arrived in Paris. (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/73/20110325...y-d79e08a.html) sorry in french

But for the G government? There a special special ops is probably needed.

Anyways, seems G is in trouble: Ajdabiya felt during the night (for me)

[davidbfpo]

Opens with, citing an Italian newspaper story;

Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".....Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.....Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG..

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...eda-links.html

Note this man is not the current rebel commander, rather a small group of fighters were recruited by him.

[JMA]

Opens with, citing an Italian newspaper story;

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...eda-links.html

Note this man is not the current rebel commander, rather a small group of fighters were recruited by him.

I quote from that article:

...al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".

The cost of dithering.

[JMA]

About taking head of state out of the equasion, an old adage I learned was: never kill the opposing party chief: you never know what would come after.
This is old grand'pa wishdom but does that apply in the case of G.

One way or another Gaddafi has to go. So someone is going to replace him. Any reason not to take him out would indicate that his remaining in charge is an option. Do you really think it is?

[Ken White]

I'll tell you what I have learned around here and that is just how thin skinned this selection of Americans are. Very strange in a predominantly military group.

Fuchs who also tends to caustic comments has noted the same thing. Could be a difference in national posting cultures -- more likely it is a reflection that this particular forum maintains a generally professional and respectful approach to posting, discouraging both profanity and incivility. There are numerous US forums, military and other, that do not attempt to do that and if one wants to engage in virtual rough and tumble, no holds barred arguments, those are available.

The use of "snip" is generally used out here on the internet to reduce repeats of long passages in quoted pieces. Also if you wish only to reply to or comment on a specific section of a post.

I'm also aware that you push the limits deliberately in an attempt to be provocative and that you seem to calculate your use of the snip effect to further that.

Thin skinned people may take the action as a slight but mature and emotionally balanced people don't.

I disagree. The snip action is ordinarily not a slight and generally no one takes it as that. However, your selective and inconsistent use of it often appears calculated and taken with the tone of specific posts that leads one to suspect deliberate provocative or derisory intent.

Calculated slights, excessively caustic comments and general incivility are not used by mature and emotionally balanced people who have no need to resort to innuendo and minor insults to make a point.

If I ever want to be rude I will be in-your-face rude, I promise.

I'm sure you could do that, as could I -- that isn't the issue, nor is metaphorically beating ones chest on a textual discussion board particularly beneficial or impressive.

You have been warned by others and twice before by me to restrain from potentially provocative rhetoric that pushes the bounds of civility as desired on this board. You have been and can be a valuable contributor -- that fact has caused several of us to make allowances for your excessively acerbic style on occasion. It's getting tiresome. Show some of that maturity and less of the thin skin you mentioned.

[tequila]

More Gaddafi propaganda own-goals - a woman breaks into the Tripoli hotel where foreign journalists are staying and tries to tell how she was raped and abused by pro-Gaddafi militia. Gaddafi loyalists prove her point by dragging her away after scuffling with journalists trying to protect her.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...erican-support

Evidence is emerging that United States forces are waging war in Libya on behalf of rebels whose ranks include jihadis who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

KaDaffy is a Bad Guy, but the people fighting against him are not necessarily Good Guys.

[Bill Moore]

Evidence is emerging that United States forces are waging war in Libya on behalf of rebels whose ranks include jihadis who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

There may be evidence somewhere, but it wasn't in the article referenced.

[Bob's World]

Of course these guys have AQ links.

Libya was then #2 in total numbers and the #1 in per capita in terms of providing foreign fighters to AQ in Iraq.

AQ is conducting UW across this region, just because some one takes the support of AQ or helps AQ out it does not make them AQ, it just means they needed help to achieve liberty and AQ was the only one offering.

Kind of like the American Colonies taking help from France didn't make us French.

As sailors say, "any port in a storm"; for nationalist insurgents it is typically more a matter of any UW source of support is better than none.

The intel guys and ideologues (most who truly know very little about insurgency or UW) will attempt to twist this into us supporting terrorists. Those with an anti-President Obama agenda will lead this assault.

If we do this right we will go a long ways toward disempowering AQ in this region and rendering them largely moot. These people want liberty, not to go from one form of oppressive slavery under Qaddafi to another form under AQ.

DOL,

Bob

[Ken White]

Not that it stops many from trying. I think the shrinks sometimes call that projection...

Libya was then #2 in total numbers and the #1 in per capita in terms of providing foreign fighters to AQ in Iraq.

They also trained or hosted the training of a lot of other folks, including a slew of Somalis...

Kind of like the American Colonies taking help from France didn't make us French.

Hmm. Basically correct but given the attitude of many Americans, perhaps not totally so.

The intel guys and ideologues (most who truly know very little about insurgency or UW) will attempt to twist this into us supporting terrorists. Those with an anti-President Obama agenda will lead this assault.

Oh? What about those who voted for and totally support the President but who are concerned the issue is not supporting terrorists but aiding a group (not further defined) who will be as oppressive or more so than Gadaffi? What about those who are absolutely neutral on the President but are convinced that more secular governments in the region are needed and that any leaning toward religious fundamentalism should be deterred? Or those, either anti or pro the President who wish to support a faction that is in opposition those seeking or accepting AQ support?

There are many valid reasons for many things that do not entail a domestic political agenda and it is entirely possible to take a position out of true belief in the rightness of that stance without necessarily allowing ones attitude toward one or more people to affect decisions. That BTW is not nearly as rare as many seem to believe...

If we do this right we will go a long ways toward disempowering AQ in this region and rendering them largely moot.

Please explain what doing it right entails, what should be done.

DOL,

According to my texting kids, DOL is the brevity code for 'Dying of Laughter.' That's okay, I guess...

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Few of those people know what liberty is. The closest thing to "liberty" any living Libyan can remember is the "liberty" of being a subject of King Idris, or the "liberty" of the Bedouin raider.

"We" are unlikely to do this right. We have been wrong so long its is probably too late for the AC-130U gunships to make it right tonight.

Days, not weeks.

[Bob's World]

Few of those people know what liberty is. The closest thing to "liberty" any living Libyan can remember is the "liberty" of being a subject of King Idris, or the "liberty" of the Bedouin raider.

"We" are unlikely to do this right. We have been wrong so long its is probably too late for the AC-130U gunships to make it right tonight.

Days, not weeks.

Probably not the first time someone from Georgia observerd that "those people don't know what liberty is....
..
They will define it in their terms, and they will do just fine.

[Bob's World]

Ken,

I am fully aware that many are concerned about who we support in Libya. Fair concerns, as you full know these type of upheavals tend to attract all manner of men with all manner of motivations. There is no avoiding that.

Also those that are concerned we are supporting AQ in Libya and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt will certainly come in all political flavors. The misinformation and misunderstanding on the nature of the conflict we face since 9/11 is not restricted to any side of the political aisle. I only said that the President's enemies will lead that parade, not that they will be alone.

As to how we do this right? That is the question. I don't know, but I think some things are important:

1. Remain as neutral as possible. We are here to referee the fight, not help one fighter beat up the other..

2. Stay focused on the big picture, and that is the Arabian Peninsula. All operations in Libya must set a precedent for how we will act elsewhere, and must be designed to send messages to governmental leaders, resistance leaders, and the general populace.

3. Shape a new message for Western audiences as well. GWOT is far more about people seeking liberty and governance of their own design than about Caliphates and radical concepts on Islam. Helping facilitate evolutions of governance across the Middle East is far more conducive to making Americans save than going about changing regimes we dislike and propping up those we do.

4. The war is over and has been for years. Yes we have men in combat, more than need to be. We have gotten sucked into immaterial close fights elsewhere, and will guard against that happening here. Meanwhile we will remain committed to the pursuit of AQ proper, but we will cease in the ridiculous branding of every nationalist insurgent who accepts AQ help as somehow becoming AQ or standing for what AQ stands for.

We have an opportunity to get onto the right track, if we dare to take it.

Oh, and "De Oppresso Liber," but then I know you knew that.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Probably not the first time someone from Georgia observerd that "those people don't know what liberty is....

Rather than bolster my confidence and that of any lurkers that the anti-KaDaffy forces really are Good Guys, you attempt to kill my message because I am presently living in Georgia?

Lame, especially from a Floridian. You get a No Go at this station.

[Dayuhan]

Of course these guys have AQ links.

Libya was then #2 in total numbers and the #1 in per capita in terms of providing foreign fighters to AQ in Iraq.

AQ is conducting UW across this region, just because some one takes the support of AQ or helps AQ out it does not make them AQ, it just means they needed help to achieve liberty and AQ was the only one offering.

Kind of like the American Colonies taking help from France didn't make us French.

As sailors say, "any port in a storm"; for nationalist insurgents it is typically more a matter of any UW source of support is better than none.

If we do this right we will go a long ways toward disempowering AQ in this region and rendering them largely moot. These people want liberty, not to go from one form of oppressive slavery under Qaddafi to another form under AQ.

How does AQ's ability to recruit a few hundred Libyans to fight in Iraq suggest that the current rebels, a group that did not even exist then, are linked to AQ?

Who ever said that the Libyans who fought in Iraq were "nationalist insurgents" at home, and how would fighting in Iraq do anything to advance nationalist insurgency in Libya? It's not as if driving America out of Iraq would break the American support that was sustaining Gadhafi in power, because America wasn't giving Gadhafi any support. We'd taken him off the pariah list, but we weren't supporting him.

If we do this right we will go a long ways toward disempowering AQ in this region and rendering them largely moot. These people want liberty, not to go from one form of oppressive slavery under Qaddafi to another form under AQ.

There seems to be a lot of talk around these days about "getting it right" and "doing it right". How exactly do you want us to "do it right" in Libya? What would "doing it right" look like?

We don't know what "these people" want. We don't know that they all want the same thing, beyond getting rid of Gadhafi. Some may want liberty. Others may want to take Gadhafi's place.

I would guess that liberty and good governance are among the least likely outcomes of all this, in anything but a very extended time frame, and that with the resources we're willing (or, realistically, able) to commit there's little or nothing we can do to produce liberty and good governance.

We went into this essentially for emotional reasons. Gadhafi is loathsome and nobody wanted to see Benghazi sacked. Realistically, though, there's no desirable end state that the US has the power to bring about with the level of force that we are willing (or, realistically, able) to commit. Even if we or the rebels removed Gadhafi, that wouldn't make the rebels able to rule, and continued civil war, or a weak government beset by constant insurgency, or a Somali-style collapse remain more likely than liberty and good governance.

If we're going to be held responsible for the consequences of our actions, by ourselves and others, we should be very careful what actions we take, because most of the likely consequences suck.

[Dayuhan]

So I'll add...

1. Remain as neutral as possible. We are here to referee the fight, not help one fighter beat up the other..

2. Stay focused on the big picture, and that is the Arabian Peninsula. All operations in Libya must set a precedent for how we will act elsewhere, and must be designed to send messages to governmental leaders, resistance leaders, and the general populace.

3. Shape a new message for Western audiences as well. GWOT is far more about people seeking liberty and governance of their own design than about Caliphates and radical concepts on Islam. Helping facilitate evolutions of governance across the Middle East is far more conducive to making Americans save than going about changing regimes we dislike and propping up those we do.

I realize that the intentions here are all good, but I suspect that the outcomes will not be. Appointing ourselves to referee other people's fights and appointing ourselves to facilitate changes in other people's governments is not going to win us friends and admirers, anywhere. It is not going to be perceived as support for a populace, no matter what our intentions are. It's going to be perceived as gratuitous self-interested meddling. That doesn't disempower our enemies, it empowers them. Any time we meddle in the Middle East it gets spun as self interested pursuit of oil. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant, it is believed.

Unless we are specifically asked to referee or facilitate by people with a credible claim to represent a populace, we need to stay out. The solution to problems created by bad meddling is not good meddling, it's less meddling. I'm not sure there is such a thing as good meddling: meddling may on very rare occasions be necessary, but it's never good or desirable.

[Cole]

So I'll add...

I realize that the intentions here are all good, but I suspect that the outcomes will not be.

But at least one outcome will be virtually no Libyan aircraft or air defenses and far fewer armored vehicles for WHOEVER takes over to use elsewhere or on their own people.

Appointing ourselves to referee other people's fights and appointing ourselves to facilitate changes in other people's governments is not going to win us friends and admirers, anywhere. It is not going to be perceived as support for a populace, no matter what our intentions are. It's going to be perceived as gratuitous self-interested meddling. That doesn't disempower our enemies, it empowers them. Any time we meddle in the Middle East it gets spun as self interested pursuit of oil. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant, it is believed.

If they are going to believe that anyway...in addition to their belief that we support Israel and therefore we are bad...we are screwed anyway you look at it. After all, we helped Islamic people in Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. What did it get us a few years later?

So even if some Libyan rebels are jihadists, doesn't this give them a different pursuit outside Iraq and Afghanistan? Methinks it is better to have insurgents fighting their own government than fighting the U.S. and Afghani/Iraqi Soldiers.

Unless we are specifically asked to referee or facilitate by people with a credible claim to represent a populace, we need to stay out. The solution to problems created by bad meddling is not good meddling, it's less meddling. I'm not sure there is such a thing as good meddling: meddling may on very rare occasions be necessary, but it's never good or desirable.

Seem to recall the Arab League and UN did ask us? I'm staying out of this second-guessing because it is a tricky situation and anyone claiming to know the answer is probably deluding themselves.

But you gotta admit it makes a great argument for serial rather than parallel destruction of our adversary. Things change, and new things come to light as conflicts evolve.

[carl]

It might be well to recognize the limitations of the study of the origins of the foreign jihadi types who went to Iraq. The authors were careful to note the limits of the data they had and cautioned about making definitive conclusions based upon it.

[Bob's World]

Rather than bolster my confidence and that of any lurkers that the anti-KaDaffy forces really are Good Guys, you attempt to kill my message because I am presently living in Georgia?

Lame, especially from a Floridian. You get a No Go at this station.

Cannoneer,

Easy big guy, not calling you racist, rather just pointing out that your observation is one that is commonly made of certain groups based upon the perceptions those outside the group in question. While a satisfactory brand of "liberty" for an average Libyan is likely quite different than for the average American the critical issue is that there is a universal quest in alll mankind for whatever it is they see as meeting that mark.

It is no less arrogant and condescending to assume that an Arab doesn't understand what liberty is today than it was for some southerner to assume that African Americans wouldn't know what to do if they were freed from slavery.

But yeah, I do want to "kill you message" if your message is that Libyans wouldn't know what to do with liberty if they had it. One has to assume that the current rebels come from a cross-section of the populace. Some are looking for loot, some for power, most simply to achieve what they have no legal peaceful means the achieve. One should also assume that there are agents representing Islamist groups seeking to gain an advantage. I would assume there are a variety of national agents at work as well. All seeking to advance the interests of their respective organizations.

But to this I say "so what"? This is always the case. This is what happens in revoultions. It is not justification not to act, but rather justification to ensure that our own engagement is designed to compete with those factions that we would perfer did not gain the greatest influence. That can't be done from 30,000' with the afterburners on. If all we do is fly by and blow the door open, we have no idea who will run through that door or who will be leading them.