Obama: 'True Lies'

[rkjindal91]

Obama rules out `land invasion' in Libya
23 Mar, 2011 2129hrs IST AP
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama
categorically ruled out on Wednesday a land
invasion to oust Libyan leader Muammar
Gaddafi as coalition forces launched a fifth
day of air strikes against government
military targets in the North African nation.
Obama said the United States will be pulling
back this week from its dominant role in the
international campaign aimed at preventing
Gaddafi from attacking civilians. In
international attacks early Wednesday,
missiles from U.S. F-15 fighter jets
destroyed Gaddafi missile sites around
Tripoli. In two cities where pro-Gaddafi
troops have besieged civilians, the
international force struck a government
ammunition depot outside Misrata and
other planes hit ground forces outside
Ajdabiya, officials said on condition of
anonymity because they were not
authorized to release the information.
Residents in Misrata said coalition attacks
forced government troops to withdraw
tanks from there. Obama was asked in an
interview with the Spanish-language
network Univision if a land invasion would
be out of the question in the event air
strikes fail to dislodge Gaddafi from power.
Obama replied that it was ``absolutely'' out
of the question. Asked what the exit
strategy is, Obama did not lay out a vision
for ending the international action but
rather said:
``The exit strategy will be executed this
week in the sense that we will be pulling
back from our much more active efforts to
shape the environment. ``We'll still be in a
support role; we'll still be providing
jamming and intelligence and other assets
that are unique to us; but this is an
international effort that's designed to
accomplish the goals that were set out in
the Security Council resolution,'' Obama said.
As the air war in Libya achieves some of its
early objectives, such as grounding
Gaddafi's air force, the Obama
administration is looking for a quick exit
from a front-line role in the international
operation that has yet to gain the robust
participation of Arab nations that
Washington wanted. NATO warships have
started patrolling off Libya's coast to
enforce the U.N. arms embargo, as the
alliance appeared set to assume
responsibility for the no-fly zone over Libya
to protect civilians. But civilians in major
cities like Misrata still are bearing the burden
of clashes with pro-Gaddafi forces, raising
the prospect of stalemate and doubt about
whether the Libyan leader can be defeated
outright.
Obama was returning to Washington on
Wednesday a few hours earlier than
planned. In El Salvador on Tuesday he
painted an optimistic picture of the
international military operation and said he
had ``absolutely no doubt'' that control
could be shifted from the U.S. to other
coalition members within days. ``When this
transition takes place, it is not going to be
our planes that are maintaining the no-fly
zone,'' the president said earlier at a news
conference.
``It is not going to be our ships that are
necessarily enforcing the arms embargo.
That's precisely what the other nations are
going to do.'' The most obvious candidate
to take control — the NATO military alliance,
which also happens to be led by the United
States — has yet to sort out a political
agreement to do so. Obama said NATO was
meeting to ``work out some of the
mechanisms.''

 

[pmukherjee]

I don't understand the title of "True Lies". What lies do you spot in the American stand? The Americans are already deeply bogged down in two major conflicts and can not afford another one. This is a fact and they have admitted to this. That they were not keen on initiating precipitate action against Libya is also evident. That is why the French and the British have a greater role in this conflict than hithertofore. If there are more American aircraft and cruise missiles over Libya today, it is because US really is the only country with the resources to impose the 'No fly Zone'. If The US President wants to scale down the American involvement, it is because he can't afford to get deeply involved in Libya.

This is the factual position. Now, the morality of western involvement in Libya is another thing altogether. It is true that foreign intervention in affecting a regime change is totally undesirable, regardless of how loathsome the regime may be. The Libyans should be left to decide their own fate just as the Tunisians and the Egyptians did. At the same time, can the international community really just sit by and let a tyrant murder citizens by the hundreds? Isn't that one of the reasons for which the UN was created in the first place?

The initial objectives set out were understandable. Denying Gaddafi the use of his air force to bash the opposition would have balanced out the undue advantage to him. However, I don't approve of the indiscriminate use of cruise missiles and aerial attacks including on Gadaffi's residence which seems to be the norm now. A couple of CAPs over Libyan airspace including some dedicated SEAD missions was more than enough to ensure that Libyan aircraft did not take to the air.

 

[rkjindal91]

I don't understand the title of "True Lies". What lies do you spot in the American stand? The Americans are already deeply bogged down in two major conflicts and can not afford another one. This is a fact and they have admitted to this. That they were not keen on initiating precipitate action against Libya is also evident. That is why the French and the British have a greater role in this conflict than hithertofore. If there are more American aircraft and cruise missiles over Libya today, it is because US really is the only country with the resources to impose the 'No fly Zone'. If The US President wants to scale down the American involvement, it is because he can't afford to get deeply involved in Libya.

1) Americans can go to any extent to save their intrests let alone the no. of conflicts.

2) Its childish to underestimate French air power by saying ''US really is the only country with the resources to impose the 'No fly Zone''

3) They will try all their best to bring down Gaddafi 'dead or alive' before their exit. I wonder I will read in tomorrows newsppr that Gaddafi Killed In Accidental Fire.

4) They may go for supportive role in military contexts but politicaly they would be racing ahead of everyone. They would make sure that a US friendly regime is established which will turn Libiya into a oil field for US and libiyans the workers on that field.

5) The very intervention at the time when Gaddafi victory over rebels was almost achieved proves their goal.

6) How can you compare heavily armed rebels(AK-47/56, Anti-Aircraft Guns, RPGs, armoured vehicles, etc) to innocent unarmed civilians of Tunisia and Egypt?

7) By the title ''True Lies'' I wanted to emphasize on the fact that had their intentions been clean they would have intevened a lot before.
Moreover they would have allowed France and Britain to go ahead and themsevles sit outside.

 

[pmukherjee]

1) Americans can go to any extent to save their intrests.

I wish we could say the same for our nation.

Its childish to underestimate French air power by saying ''US really is the only country with the resources to impose the 'No fly Zone''.

No, it is a very realistic appreciation. France has never had any major power projection capabilities. With the sole aircraft carrier that France has carrying no more than a squadron plus strength of Rafales and Super Etendards, her capabilities of fighting a sustained out of area air campaign are practically non existent. Prsently, the US has two super carriers within range, the CVN-65 Enterprise in the Red Sea and CVN-70 Carl Vinson, North Arabian Sea. If you include the American bases in Southern Europe and the middle east, you will realise the overwhelming resources at the disposal of the Americans. And that does not include the Tomahawk firing Virginia class SSNs that are within cruise missile range. The bottom line is that UK and France can not go it alone without American participation. The Americans know this and they do not like it one bit as they are getting spread out thinner than butter on toast. Cutting corners with the defense budget as UK and France and indeed all Europe is doing is one thing but to be saddled with all additional burden is something else.[/QUOTE]

They will try all their best to bring down Gaddafi 'dead or alive' before their exit. I wonder I will read in tomorrows newsppr that Gaddafi Killed In Accidental Fire.

I do not think there has ever been a confirmed case of a dictator having been sent to his maker only by use of air power. If that was the case, Gulf war -2 would have been largely unnecessary and WW-2 would have ended much before the Russians crossed the Rhine. Gadaffi would not have survived in power for 40 years if he can be killed so easily by a cruise missile or a GPS guided bomb. Air power will on its own never affect a regime change in Libya, yes, it might give the Libyans in opposition the strength to topple him. That is the aim of the whole exercise.

They may go for supportive role in military contexts but politicaly they would be racing ahead of everyone. They would make sure that a US friendly regime is established which will turn Libiya into a oil field for US and libiyans the workers on that field.

I thought Libya was already selling oil to the US. Any reason why the Americans should go to this length for something they are already getting?

Look, I am being neither pro nor anti American here. All I am contending is that Gadaffi can not stay in power in the face of such wide spread domestic dissent. His superior armed forces are killing people in large numbers even with the use of the air force against his own people. This has to stop. But, the overwhelming force being used now is wrong. Let the Libyans do it themselves while the western powers neutralise the advantage Gadaffi had by not letting him to use his air force. Let us remain strictly within the ambit of enforcing a 'No fly zone'. The present campaign is going way beyond that.

 

[rkjindal91]

I wish we could say the same for our nation.

The day when we will say so is not far away my friend...

No, it is a very realistic appreciation. France has never had any major power projection capabilities. With the sole aircraft carrier that France has carrying no more than a squadron plus strength of Rafales and Super Etendards, her capabilities of fighting a sustained out of area air campaign are practically non existent. Prsently, the US has two super carriers within range, the CVN-65 Enterprise in the Red Sea and CVN-70 Carl Vinson, North Arabian Sea. If you include the American bases in Southern Europe and the middle east, you will realise the overwhelming resources at the disposal of the Americans. And that does not include the Tomahawk firing Virginia class SSNs that are within cruise missile range. The bottom line is that UK and France can not go it alone without American participation. The Americans know this and they do not like it one bit as they are getting spread out thinner than butter on toast. Cutting corners with the defense budget as UK and France and indeed all Europe is doing is one thing but to be saddled with all additional burden is something else.

Ya you got that one right. I agree.

I do not think there has ever been a confirmed case of a dictator having been sent to his maker only by use of air power. If that was the case, Gulf war -2 would have been largely unnecessary and WW-2 would have ended much before the Russians crossed the Rhine. Gadaffi would not have survived in power for 40 years if he can be killed so easily by a cruise missile or a GPS guided bomb. Air power will on its own never affect a regime change in Libya, yes, it might give the Libyans in opposition the strength to topple him. That is the aim of the whole exercise.

GPS guided bombs or cruise missiles can be tracked down to who fired them. It is easier to claim that,''Unfortunately, Gaddafi was killed in an air raid where he accidently got into stray fire.''

I thought Libya was already selling oil to the US. Any reason why the Americans should go to this length for something they are already getting?

That is the problem they do not wanna buy at all. They want to extract.

Look, I am being neither pro nor anti American here. All I am contending is that Gadaffi can not stay in power in the face of such wide spread domestic dissent. His superior armed forces are killing people in large numbers even with the use of the air force against his own people. This has to stop. But, the overwhelming force being used now is wrong. Let the Libyans do it themselves while the western powers neutralise the advantage Gadaffi had by not letting him to use his air force. Let us remain strictly within the ambit of enforcing a 'No fly zone'. The present campaign is going way beyond that.

My friend.. Even I am neither Pro nor Anti-America. I believe that they had power they ruled. But now time's changing. We are still a lot behind but we are surging with leaps and bound.

And I believe we did right in responding negatively on Gaddafi's call.
What do you feel?

 

[pmukherjee]

My friend.. Even I am neither Pro nor Anti-America. I believe that they had power they ruled. But now time's changing. We are still a lot behind but we are surging with leaps and bound.

And I believe we did right in responding negatively on Gaddafi's call.
What do you feel?

Yes my friend, we are indeed on the right track. Still a long way to go but we will get there sooner than later. You are also right about our voting on the UNSC. India is big enough to stand up for what it believes in and we should resist pressure and stand our ground no matter how strong the arm twisting may be. The only consideration that should always guide us is national interest and we should never compromise on that.