Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
those with more experience but just curious why explicitly targeted attacks against both kad affi and others seen to be key partners inthe last two weeks crackdown coupled with assistance humanitarian and otherwise would not be a good strategy?
exactly who does anyone think he would actually become a martyr to.
and one last question if history is meant to be a guide to inform not rule why exactly would anyone "have" to do anything. it seems the choices are what to do when and by whom in what manner to what ends.
all of which will only be answered only once something is done?
i realize the past has many examples of how something like this can go wrong, does that have to mean thats what will happen here?
It is already going wrong.

The moment to have acted on a low risk - high return basis has passed.

It is clear the US Administration (I add this because it is the Keystone Cops like Administration who are the idiots and not the American people) got the strategy all wrong... pathetically wrong.

Read the following from the New York Times: Obama Takes Hard Line With Libya After Shift by Clinton

They got this wrong of course:

The shift in the administration’s position — from strong words against Libya to action — was forced largely by the events beyond its control: the crumbling of the uprising raised the prospect that Colonel Qaddafi would remain in power to kill “many thousands,” as Mr. Obama said at the White House on Friday.
This garbage is merely face saving from an Administration who failed to anticipate (or were not so briefed by the less than competent CIA) that Gaddafi could strike back. The world will have to wait to see how many Libyans were killed by Gaddafi in the last few weeks to see how much blood this dithering (and most likely ill-advised) president has on his hands.

This is a case of the US waking up late to the issues at stake and then wanting to push/muscle the French and the Brits out of the way.

Its going to get worse.