Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
Technically you are correct. But in reality the Libyans in Misrata and a few other places are fighting each other while the majority of the NATO air effort overflies Libya at a safe height while a few Brit/French/? aircraft go through the motions of carrying out ground strikes to give the impression NATO is really attempting to protect civilians. Its all very relaxed it you are operating under NATO in Libya but a different story if you are living in Misrata with your family.
True, too true for the people. And I do agree with you and join your point on the need to reconnect military with normal people condition during conflicts. Especially when you have such a technology distance between people on the ground (who get assassinated indiscrimialy) and strikes conducted from the air.

This is a subject of its own but my position is (as you may have gathered) to intervene before the situation becomes "extreme". This requires skill, local knowledge, judgement, finesse and the rest. Here lies the problem.
Agree also, just past the link to show that "humanitarian military interventions" are not an easy task and requieres more than just a bunch of "stallone's expendables".

Did I say something about zero casualties? As one who has buried friends and comrades in a conflict I could never contemplate or support an exercise where soldiers lives are placed at unnecessary risk. The way to intervene in these Mickey Mouse countries IMHO is through a specifically targeted, very carefully planned and skillfully carried out intervention before the killing/genocide/war starts and the body count begins to rise.
Short wars as 6 days or 2nd shabba wars are rare. Even Lebanon 2006. I agree with you on the spirit but must admit that conflict are long...
Unfortunatelly, Libya is not a mickey mouse country. Do we like it or not, Gadaffi did train most of the African leaders/rebel groups and still has likes with many of them. Countries like Kenya or Uganda are reluctant to frozze his bank accounts... Chad is playing dirty with Gadaffi to get ead of some tribal fighters by sending them to support him and so does Mauritania.
It may look insignificant from Washingtown or L.A. but it does and will impact power in Africa.
The other problem I can see is that interviene too early to prevent is opening a door to what could be seen has a R2P fascist/military dictature. Exactly what Carl Schmitt points in his critics of the Just War concept.
The problem is that you have to wait until there are massive human rights abuse before launching anything. But once you started: YOU HAVE TO GO UP TO THE END.
Otherwise: just don't do it, you will end up with more ennemies than friends.
Sirya case is also interresting. I personaly believe that "Western" States (and specially US) are now facing a new dilemma: they pushed for people up rise in the name of freedom and democracy. And now that it's arriving, they are backing back saying: well... get organised, do it yourself, it's domestic problems... It's not good foreign policy, it's not defense policy. Basically the onces who are the most shaken in that story are the military and administrations of "Western powers" who finally do not want to see things changing cause it would mean they have to change too. It's more confortable to play with fire by yelling advises than actually facing it.

Sad indeed. But it gets worse when limbs get severed and the like. I suggest that these reports support my case for early intervention.
Cf what I just said.