Operation ODYSSEY DAWN

[LineInTheSand]

Does it matter why to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines?

Short answer is no, as they obey all lawful orders.

It sure as hell does matter to them. May not affect if they serve or not, but I can assure you, the reasoning does matter for our humans, not robots, in uniform.

:::BEEP BEEP BOOP:::: Commander in Chief says so ::::BEEP BEEP BOOP:::: Ask no questions, think no thoughts :::: BEEP BEEP BOOP :::::

MALFUNCTION MALFUNCTION MALFUNCTION!

The "what the hell are we doing" questions come up in every wardroom, mess deck, chow hall etc. Doesn't mean they won't do what they've trained to do, but lets not assume service members don't think about these things too.

 

[MemberLG]

Does it matter why to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines?

Short answer is no, as they obey all lawful orders.

It sure as hell does matter to them. May not affect if they serve or not, but I can assure you, the reasoning does matter for our humans, not robots, in uniform.

:::BEEP BEEP BOOP:::: Commander in Chief says so ::::BEEP BEEP BOOP:::: Ask no questions, think no thoughts :::: BEEP BEEP BOOP :::::

MALFUNCTION MALFUNCTION MALFUNCTION!

The "what the hell are we doing" questions come up in every wardroom, mess deck, chow hall etc. Doesn't mean they won't do what they've trained to do, but lets not assume service members don't think about these things too.

I did say "short answer" and "lawful orders."

I was against the Iraq War, but didn't matter at all when I got called up for OIF I had no reservation about mobilizing.

 

[scoutpilot]

Yes, absolutely, now that we are involved, the safe return of all of those engaged in combat is paramount.

However.....

I'm still to trying to understand why (Nobel Peace Prize winner) President Barack Obama is sending our forces into combat over Libya against Qadaffi/Gadaffi/Khadaffi.

He's not suspected of possessing WMDs. He hasn't invaded another country. He hasn't attacked the USA. He isn't really a serious threat to our security at all. Our "national interests" are not threatened, he only has 2% of the oil.

This is a Libyan civil war, let it be fought by the Libyans, in Libya. Yes, we should be supplying arms and support to the rebel opposition, but there is no need to put Americans in jeopardy over this regime change (attempt).

Qadaffi/Gadaffi/Khadaffi a big blowhard, but so is Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (and Castro for that matter) yet we are not invading NK or Iran (or Cuba).

(And this IS about regime change, as it cannot end any other way but with Qadaffi/Gadaffi/Khadaffi leaving, dead or alive.)

If it's a humanitarian attempt to stop the bloodshed of the Government forces killing civilians, then why aren't we involved in the civil war in Rwanda, where the blood of over 1 MILLION stain the ground? The deadliest conflict in the world since WWII, yet most of us have never heard of this genocide.

Truth be told, we should be paying more attention and devoting military resources to what is happening in Bahrain (basically the same thing that is happening in Libya, the Gov is killing the pro-democracy rebels) as we DO have national interests there, yet it seems as if Bahrain is being pushed way back to page D23 by the Libyan conflict.

Qadaffi has been a consistent and outgoing force in the realm of state-sponsored terrorism. There's more to our national interest than oil.

 

[patentesq]

We are the leader of the world. Love it or hate it, with that position comes responsibility. And responsibility costs money.

Regime change in Libya is a legitimate aspiration, so long as it is done in conformance with international legal principles. Colonel Gaddafi is a very bad man, and the ultimate goal is just. It is not wrong to have this as a goal; it's all about the way we go about it.

For example, suppose an individual has a goal of possessing more money to pay down bills. One way to accomplish that goal is to steal the money from others. Another way to accomplish that goal is to work hard and save those earnings over time. The former method is not legitimate because it is not inconformance with law, while the latter method is legitimate. Both methods accomplish the same legitimate goal.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Does it matter why to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines?

Short answer is no, as they obey all lawful orders.


I did say "short answer" and "lawful orders."

I was against the Iraq War, but didn't matter at all when I got called up for OIF I had no reservation about mobilizing.

Then I may just not understand what you're saying. You admit that it does matter to them, but it does not affect their duty to serve. I can agree to that. It mattered to you, you had an opinion, but you did it anyway.

 

[Luigi59]

Qadaffi has been a consistent and outgoing force in the realm of state-sponsored terrorism. There's more to our national interest than oil.

If that's the justification, why aren't we sending missiles into Iran? Syria? Sudan?

Libya poses no threat, none, to the USA.

As a matter of fact:

This is a Libyan civil war.

On May 15, 2006, the United States announced that Libya would be removed from the list (of State Sponsors of Terrorism) after a 45-day wait period. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained that this was due to "...Libya's continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism,".

 

[scoutpilot]

If that's the justification, why aren't we sending missiles into Iran? Syria? Sudan?

Libya poses no threat, none, to the USA.

As a matter of fact:

This is a Libyan civil war.

Yeah, the Bush administration never got anything wrong about the greater Arab world. Clearly, Qadaffi is a changed man...

 

[BillSL]

Thinks like this (Operation Odyssey Dawn) are the ones that really make me want to join the Military.

I honestly don't care if this is about oil or any economic matters - but it DOES matter that we will fight against murderers.

 

[bruno]

It's a Libyan civil war for certain. But it seems to be a confluence of several interests of the US:
a. Oil is an interest to the US- it's foolish to argue otherwise. the economy runs on the stuff and will for the lifetime of this reading audience. Libya may not be a huge supplier to the US, but a major disruption of supply anywhere is a disruption everywhere. Shutting off 1-1/2 million barrels daily to the world market absolutely affects the US economy.
b. It's nice to hear that the US removed Libya from the list of state supported terrorism- doesn't mean that it is really the case. Far be it from me to suggest that in 2005 that we were searching for anything that we could call a "victory" in the GWOT. IMHO Not a chance that Libya is suddenly out of the business of supporting terror as one of its tools (how did they treat the Lockerbie bomber when he got back to Libya after Scotland let him go for "humanitarian" reasons? Did that looks like a country that has forsworn the use of terro as a tool of policy?)
c. Khaddafi is committing atrocities against his own people - and doing it in a place where we can in fact make a difference. Do we have a moral obligation to influence and intervene when we can do so to prevent attrocities committed by established governments against civilians - including civilians of their own nation? I dunno- but if we don't - do we have a moral obligation to help out when disaster overwhelms the resources of another country? Most people seem to think we do- (Japan/Haiti/ Indonesia) so what is the difference? What interest does the USCG have in rescuing the sailors of a stricken ship outside US waters if the flag and sailors aren't American?The precedent is obvious- that we have some responsibilites to help those who are powerless to help themselves. So why intervene here instead of in the myriad of other places that dictators attack their own people? How about : because we can intervene here effectively and we will get the help of other interested nations while it is a much less certain thing in other places in the world. There is no value to anyone if we intervene somewhere without the intention or ability to make the required committment to achieve our goal

There are a lot of interests that Nations have- some are direct (sovereignty of the borders and direct physical security of our citizens) and others are a little more indirect (for example humanitarian and international civil rights)- that doesn't mean that they aren't compelling national interests anyway. I agree with Sen McCain here- my point of contention with President Obama was in declaring that the US would not stand bye while Khaddafi attacked his own citizens, then stood bye for a month while he did just that- which just emboldened him to continue. But now that we have intervened along with our NATO partners- I certainly hope that he doesn't sit around reading the polling data to decide if we are committed or merely making a gesture.

 

[MemberLG]

. . .
c. Khaddafi is committing atrocities against his own people - and doing it in a place where we can in fact make a difference. . .

We should be very careful about this. If we don't like it, it is committing atrocities against civilians and if we like it it becomes counter-insurgency operations?

Because certain combatants don't have fancy weapons and don't wear uniform, that doesn't make them civilians.

Perhaps I missed it, but I am not convinced that Khaddafi is commmiting atrocities (i.e. use of chemical weapons, mass executions, and etc).

 

[MemberLG]

Thinks like this (Operation Odyssey Dawn) are the ones that really make me want to join the Military.

I honestly don't care if this is about oil or any economic matters - but it DOES matter that we will fight against murderers.

I like to remind you that the purpose of U.S. military is to defend our national interst, not fight murderers.

Using your logic, shouldn't we be a full scale war against narco-terrorists in Mexico?

 

[scoutpilot]

I like to remind you that the purpose of U.S. military is to defend our national interst, not fight murderers.

Using your logic, shouldn't we be a full scale war against narco-terrorists in Mexico?

It is? I don't remember that in the oath. I remember swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, but I didn't hear national interest mentioned.

As for this fight, I appreciate Bruno's assessment.

Though I think it's squishy and weak as a motto, the US Navy calls itself "A Global Force for Good," not "A Global Force for Good...Unless it seems kinda dangerous or hard, in which case not so much."

If we wanna get technical...

"The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas."

 

[sg1fan93]

We should be very careful about this. If we don't like it, it is committing atrocities against civilians and if we like it it becomes counter-insurgency operations?

Because certain combatants don't have fancy weapons and don't wear uniform, that doesn't make them civilians.

Perhaps I missed it, but I am not convinced that Khaddafi is commmiting atrocities (i.e. use of chemical weapons, mass executions, and etc).

I believe Khaddafi had said that he was going to storm Benghazi, go door to door and exterminate all resistance (or something along those lines, I dont know the actual quote) What worried the international community was they don't know his definition of "resistance".

 

[Luigi59]

It's a Libyan civil war for certain. But it seems to be a confluence of several interests of the US:
a. Oil is an interest to the US- it's foolish to argue otherwise. the economy runs on the stuff and will for the lifetime of this reading audience. Libya may not be a huge supplier to the US, but a major disruption of supply anywhere is a disruption everywhere. Shutting off 1-1/2 million barrels daily to the world market absolutely affects the US economy.
b. It's nice to hear that the US removed Libya from the list of state supported terrorism- doesn't mean that it is really the case. Far be it from me to suggest that in 2005 that we were searching for anything that we could call a "victory" in the GWOT. IMHO Not a chance that Libya is suddenly out of the business of supporting terror as one of its tools (how did they treat the Lockerbie bomber when he got back to Libya after Scotland let him go for "humanitarian" reasons? Did that looks like a country that has forsworn the use of terro as a tool of policy?)
c. Khaddafi is committing atrocities against his own people - and doing it in a place where we can in fact make a difference. Do we have a moral obligation to influence and intervene when we can do so to prevent attrocities committed by established governments against civilians - including civilians of their own nation? I dunno- but if we don't - do we have a moral obligation to help out when disaster overwhelms the resources of another country? Most people seem to think we do- (Japan/Haiti/ Indonesia) so what is the difference? What interest does the USCG have in rescuing the sailors of a stricken ship outside US waters if the flag and sailors aren't American?The precedent is obvious- that we have some responsibilites to help those who are powerless to help themselves. So why intervene here instead of in the myriad of other places that dictators attack their own people? How about : because we can intervene here effectively and we will get the help of other interested nations while it is a much less certain thing in other places in the world. There is no value to anyone if we intervene somewhere without the intention or ability to make the required committment to achieve our goal

There are a lot of interests that Nations have- some are direct (sovereignty of the borders and direct physical security of our citizens) and others are a little more indirect (for example humanitarian and international civil rights)- that doesn't mean that they aren't compelling national interests anyway. I agree with Sen McCain here- my point of contention with President Obama was in declaring that the US would not stand bye while Khaddafi attacked his own citizens, then stood bye for a month while he did just that- which just emboldened him to continue. But now that we have intervened along with our NATO partners- I certainly hope that he doesn't sit around reading the polling data to decide if we are committed or merely making a gesture.

Logically, your premise makes no sense when applied to other oil-rich terrorist-sponsoring regimes.

Using that logic, justify not attacking Iran.

 

[LineInTheSand]

If it is in our best interest to save them, then save them. If not, let the regional powers do it.

I watched part of the State Dept. briefing today on TV...

Some interesting questions came up:

The UN Mandate protects civilians, but does it mean the coalition must protect govt. and rebel civilians at the same time? Rebels, are they civilian? Are "We" protecting them or are they on their own once they pick up a gun? How does a No Fly Zone exactly protect civilians who are being killed by soldiers on foot?

Interesting questions for which there were now answers or circular answers and political trickery!

 

[patentesq]

I believe Khaddafi had said that he was going to storm Benghazi, go door to door and exterminate all resistance (or something along those lines, I dont know the actual quote) What worried the international community was they don't know his definition of "resistance".

What really matters is Resolution 1973. That resolution calls on us to enforce its terms to the letter (doesn't really matter if we were behind the drafting that resolution or not -- it is there).

That said, if Gaddafi is in violation of the resolution, hammering his tank columns is totally justified for another day or so and supported by international law. However, this legtimacy will evaporate as soon as Gaddafi comes into full compliance with the ceasefire, etc. That is why we have a very narrow window of opportunity to remove the Libyan military as a factor in the democracy protests in Libya.

Bottom line is that we want regime change like it happened in Egypt. The problem is, however, that Egypt's military is totally different than Libya's military -- as a matter of professionalism and whether a bunch of thugs should carry out the illegitimate orders of the dictator.

Some may not like the role of the United States as the leader of the world, because that responsibility comes with great costs (e.g., it's expensive, servicemembers are killed, etc.). But the last time we took on an isolationistic approach to world affairs, tens of millions died. Since WWI, we have decided that it really is in our interests to take an active role in world affairs. In the long run, it is totally in the interests of everyone to do what we can to have a stable Middle East.

As for Iran, there is no Resolution authorizing an attack on that country. As such, unilateral attack would violate the UN Charter.

 

[bruno]

Logically, your premise makes no sense when applied to other oil-rich terrorist-sponsoring regimes.

Using that logic, justify not attacking Iran.

that's easy- I already gave you the answer: Pragmatism.

because we can intervene here effectively and we will get the help of other interested nations while it is a much less certain thing in other places in the world.

Who was it who said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"? Only on the internet and in true believer politics are there any hard and fast rules about what the country must or must not do in every case. We don't have to be bound by a record of perfect consistency- we have to be successful. The first consideration of what we do as a country is: "what will we be successful at doing?"

I would be all in favor of wading into Iran to depose the (dangerous) nutjobs who are running the place if I thought that we were likely to be successful in doing so. I don't-in fact I'm pretty certain we would be worse off than we are now. That doesn't mean that what is true for Iran- a huge country geographically with a lot of military capability and a large population is true for everywhere else. In this case- I'm pretty certain that the short term aims of this mission will be successful- and are justified.
The big question mark is of course- We don't know who is in line to take power in Libya if/when Khaddafi goes- but balancing that: we do know who is there now. Kind of suspect and hope that change will be better than it is now.

 

[Luigi59]

that's easy- I already gave you the answer: Pragmatism.


Who was it who said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"? Only on the internet and in true believer politics are there any hard and fast rules about what the country must or must not do in every case. We don't have to be bound by a record of perfect consistency- we have to be successful. The first consideration of what we do as a country is: "what will we be successful at doing?"

I would be all in favor of wading into Iran to depose the (dangerous) nutjobs who are running the place if I thought that we were likely to be successful in doing so. I don't-in fact I'm pretty certain we would be worse off than we are now. That doesn't mean that what is true for Iran- a huge country geographically with a lot of military capability and a large population is true for everywhere else. In this case- I'm pretty certain that the short term aims of this mission will be successful- and are justified.

It was Emerson's quote. No "little mind" here ("on the internet" ), perhaps your personal insult should be aimed somewhere else?

Assembling a coalition (including many Arab neighbors) against Iran would take about 15 minutes. Iran has many many enemies, none of them want to see that "dangerous nutjob" get an atomic weapon, which they are very close to completing, within 2 or so years is the experts estimate.

Would you rather take out a non-nuclear Iran or wait until they turn Israel into a sheet of plate glass?

Libya is a non-factor to the US, a non-threat run by the same "nutjob" who has run it for the last 40 years.

Why are we now going after him (as mentioned earlier, about a month late) when he has been their all this time, doing the same thing? There is no urgency. It's an internal regime change. Yes, we can and should SUPPORT it - offer weapons, logistics, food, advice, etc - but no need to put our forces at risk.

Libya's civil war threatens none of its neighbors, and it certainly doesn't threaten us or our important allies the way Iran does.

Iran, however......We WILL engage in combat against Iran sooner or later. If the justification for an attack is the logic you have posted, I expect President Obama to send the missiles toward Tehran any minute.

The big question mark is of course- We don't know who is in line to take power in Libya if/when Khaddafi goes- but balancing that: we do know who is there now. Kind of suspect and hope that change will be better than it is now.

The devil you know is better than the one you don't. Khadaffi is a known fool, a daff old man who no one takes seriously. whatever/whoever comes in next could be a real threat.

Either way, let the people of Libya handle it.

 

[scoutpilot]

It was Emerson's quote. No "little mind" here ("on the internet" ), perhaps your personal insult should be aimed somewhere else?

Assembling a coalition (including many Arab neighbors) against Iran would take about 15 minutes. Iran has many many enemies, none of them want to see that "dangerous nutjob" get an atomic weapon, which they are very close to completing, within 2 or so years is the experts estimate.

Would you rather take out a non-nuclear Iran or wait until they turn Israel into a sheet of plate glass?

Libya is a non-factor to the US, a non-threat run by the same "nutjob" who has run it for the last 40 years.

Why are we now going after him (as mentioned earlier, about a month late) when he has been their all this time, doing the same thing? There is no urgency. It's an internal regime change. Yes, we can and should SUPPORT it - offer weapons, logistics, food, advice, etc - but no need to put our forces at risk.

Libya's civil war threatens none of its neighbors, and it certainly doesn't threaten us or our important allies the way Iran does.

Iran, however......We WILL engage in combat against Iran sooner or later. If the justification for an attack is the logic you have posted, I expect President Obama to send the missiles toward Tehran any minute.



The devil you know is better than the one you don't. Khadaffi is a known fool, a daff old man who no one takes seriously. whatever/whoever comes in next could be a real threat.

Either way, let the people of Libya handle it.

Your understanding of Iran is quite shallow. Probably a subject best left for another debate.

As for the "personal insult" part....wow. I'd hate to see what you'd do if someone actually insulted you. Laughable.

 

[Luigi59]

Your understanding of Iran is quite shallow. Probably a subject best left for another debate.

As for the "personal insult" part....wow. I'd hate to see what you'd do if someone actually insulted you. Laughable.

You would be very surprised at my depth of understanding of the politics of the Middle East, well above what someone at your level would ever grasp.

You might as well complain to someone who might be impressed by your posts.

I am not.

As for your other comment, you have no dog in the fight, best you leave the discussion to those who it actually involves.