News U.K. Parliament report on 2011 war in Libya

[nsaspook]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/119.pdf

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.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obamas-worst-mistake-libya/478461/

 

[Bystander]

"Precision warfare" is an oxymoron. If you're going to go to war do so ... without deadlines, limits, or any other "humanitarian" constraints prolonging things.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, Libya is Obama's Iraq (caveat: Iraq is a little bit Obama's Iraq too). Doesn't get a lot of press, but the history books will realize this wasn't exclusively an Obama or Bush problem, but rather an America problem and a "war ain't what it used to be" problem. And probably a "Middle East is unstable" problem.

 

[mheslep]

...If you're going to go to war do so ... without deadlines, limits, or any other "humanitarian" constraints prolonging things.

Which American war do you contend would historically qualify as meeting your guidelines?

 

[Bystander]

Which American war do you contend would historically qualify as meeting your guidelines?

Since the advent of "precision/surgical weapons?" Grenada ... and ... that's about it.

 

[mheslep]

Since the advent of "precision/surgical weapons?" Grenada ... and ... that's about it.

Any American war, in any time. I don't believe any of them were executed with zero limits, with zero humanitarian constraints.

 

[Bystander]

Any American war, in any time. I don't believe any of them were executed with zero limits, with zero humanitarian constraints.

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]

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."

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]

https://books.google.com/books?id=Z...="strangle the monster in its cradle"&f=false

 

[Bystander]

To elaborate: if you're going to fight, FIGHT (or to quote Tuco in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, "When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk."); the art to all this is knowing "when/if."