Quote Originally Posted by pvebber View Post
That doesn't answer the question.

When you have multiple competing end states among coalition partners, who gets to pick the "right" one?

In this case it seemd the "means" to impose a no-fly zone is a no brainer. But what is the braoder "end"?

Is it simply protecting cvilians without choosing sides?

Is it regime change?

Is it avoidence of an iraq-like on-going pro Gaddafi insurgency after his government falls?

Is it a "reboot" of the political state so oil and gas contracts can be re-negotiated?

Is it ensuring a democratic government replaces Gaddafi (meaning the current rebels may not be who what to ultimately win?)

Its easy to say the "strategy should be what you start with, but how do you actually do that in a complex real-world situation like this?

I agree it doesn't answer the question which is why the Libya situation is probably not going to end well. We just jumped in with Airpower and think this will make it OK, probably want. Which again is Warden's point Strategy has to come first before you decide on the means, whatever it may be. We have never defined what we (US) really want except for Daffy to be gone, whatever that means. Until that is clearly defined it dosen't matter how good your Airpower,Groundpower,or Seapower is, it is a mission with no end. Which from the most recent reports I have seen is exactly what it is turning into.