The huge number of NATO air strikes against targets in Libya has made very little difference in the ongoing civil war, according to reports on the ground. At the end of the day, both sides remain stalemated, unable to conquer the entire nation.
In this context, Libyan rebel complaints on Tuesday that NATO isn’t doing enough on their behalf make more sense. Likewise, a number of rebel factions have been pushing for NATO to provide a massive influx of weapons to them.
But the UN Resolution which gave the US and France their excuse for war was not a broad endorsement of regime change, and officials have repeatedly insisted that is not the war’s goal. Indeed, some officials have openly talked up a stalemate as an acceptable result for the war.
At the same time, a stalemate is not so much an end to the NATO involvement but an excuse for an open-ended involvement. Coupled with the reality that neither side was really in a position to deliver a knock-out blow before the attacks, thewar seems less justified than ever.
In the article by Casey Sigal, " Obama goes to war, the left goes AWOL", reprinted today, April 7, at AntiWar, Sigal claims AntiWar contributor Juan Cole supports the Libyan bombing. I would be interested to hear a reply to that claim from Juan Cole.
This is a relativel cheap, easy method Israel has used several times in the past. Arrange for a military invasion (preferably by US military forces) that is strong enough to produce a military stalemate, then back off and allow the ensuing chaos and civil war to destroy the country from within. This tactic was effective in destroying Iraq and will prove effective in destroying Libya and other Arab countries that pose a threat to Israel’s domination of the Middle East.
"At the sametime a stalemate is not so much an end to the NATO involvement, but an excuse for an open ended involvement," Well, that is just dandy! Another forever war in the MIddle East. I am wondering how a civil war with no end in site could be a possible benefit to the civilians of Libya. The only possible conclusion of this conflict is a negotiated settlement between the government forces and the rebels, and NATO involvement (translation: US involvement) makes that outcome less likely. Thank you Obomba!
Antiwar has to decide its side! Were you willing to see hundreds of civilians massacred or make whatever effort to stop that? I dislike when journalists or politicians blame whether something is done or not. it's always wrong. That is called demagogy. So, please put a stop at this that's why people are confused remain uninformed. It's unethical and counter-productive.
Here is my side. We should NEVER have intervened in Libya at all. We should have just minded our own business.
An excellent position? Cole is supporting US intervention in Libya. It isn't just an offhanded remark or quote from an article. It is a lengthy in depth pitch for US involvement in the form of an open editorial in the Nation magazine. Maybe you can make it "sound" better. However it sounds like US imperialism and reinforces previous statements and articles by Juan Cole concerning Central and South America that clearly reveal Juan Cole supports US imperialism in Latin America and elsewhere..
The Libyan civil war needs to come to an end. The only solution now is to input fighters to fight alongside the rebels and they will surely be successful. Let me suggest something. Liberians were trained by Gadahfi and they successfully fought the Liberian civil war. Some of those guys are still available to do the job if you give them the contract. Gadahfi trained the guys very well and these guys can get him out within few months. Try this method and you will see the solution.
Again I suggest to the U. S. and the world, please input those men that Gadahfi trained some years back. The guys are in Liberia and willing to fight as they were taught. This only require negotiation and a deal.