And Libya goes on...

[Dayuhan]

Obama admits on TV (SkyNews) last night that there is effectively a stalemate on the ground. It looks as if the US wanted that outcome as they could change that in a heart beat if they wanted to.

Now we are told that the air strikes will continue until Gaddafi goes (the logic being that the civilians will continue to be at risk for as long as Gaddafi is there). Now the question is do you wait for him to decide when he needs to go or do you help him on his way?

The US would love to see MG gone but they don't want to be the ones to remove him. Simple enough, and not unreasonable.

THe US are out of the game because it's an election year and they have different domestic issue, like the wrong perception their economy is bankcrupt because of small wars like Lybia, Ivory Coast or Somalia and not because of Irak and Astan. (debatable and arguable)

I don't think there's a widespread perception that the US is bankrupt because of small wars like Libya, Ivory Coast or Somalia or because of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a fairly widespread and not unreasonable belief that a nation in real financial straits should not be taking on additional burdens abroad, especially in places where we have no vital interest (or any interest at all) at stake.

There should be some consistancy in everybody foreign policy.

Policies will be consistent when perceived interests are consistent... which is not likely to happen often.

Could you please explain which strategic advantage could Italy obtain in helping France without a solid agreement about post-war?

I'm not sure anyone's in a position to commit to a solid agreement on postwar dispositions, given that neither of the contesting parties is likely to be able to govern Libya postwar and none of the intervening parties have shown any desire to govern Libya.