The discussion revolves around the U.K. Parliament report on the 2011 war in Libya, focusing on the implications of military intervention, the consequences of regime change, and broader reflections on American military engagements. Participants explore the effectiveness and morality of warfare strategies, particularly in the context of humanitarian constraints and historical precedents.
Participants express multiple competing views regarding the effectiveness and morality of military interventions, particularly in the context of Libya. There is no consensus on the appropriateness of humanitarian constraints in warfare or the historical execution of American wars.
Limitations include the lack of agreement on definitions of success in military engagements and the varying interpretations of historical precedents. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions about the nature of warfare and its ethical implications.
In March 2011, the United Kingdom and France, with the support of the United States, led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from attacks by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. This policy was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element. By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa. Through his decision making in the National Security Council, former Prime Minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.
Which American war do you contend would historically qualify as meeting your guidelines?Bystander said:...If you're going to go to war do so ... without deadlines, limits, or any other "humanitarian" constraints prolonging things.
Since the advent of "precision/surgical weapons?" Grenada ... and ... that's about it.mheslep said:Which American war do you contend would historically qualify as meeting your guidelines?
Any American war, in any time. I don't believe any of them were executed with zero limits, with zero humanitarian constraints.Bystander said:Since the advent of "precision/surgical weapons?" Grenada ... and ... that's about it.
That's the point, isn't it? We have very seldom gritted our teeth and finished a war. WWI begat WWII; WWII begat The Malayan Emergency, Korea, Vietnam ... All for the sake of "political correctness."mheslep said:Any American war, in any time. I don't believe any of them were executed with zero limits, with zero humanitarian constraints.
Yes there such a thing as PC and yes its grown worse. Yes half measures in the face of agression invite war instead of avoid it. But my point is that I see no point. Last try: what does "finish" the last war mean in the sense of avoiding WWII, Korea, or Vietnam? Invade the allied Soviet Union in 1945, or later, after they had the bomb, in 1949? The Soviets lost 20 million in WWII. How many should the Americans (broke in 1945) alone have killed (and it would have been alone)?Bystander said:That's the point, isn't it? We have very seldom gritted our teeth and finished a war. WWI begat WWII; WWII begat The Malayan Emergency, Korea, Vietnam ... All for the sake of "political correctness."