my guess- all of the above. This link is to the Army Times story on the same subject:My question is if any Air Force pilots in Italy and Middle East will by flying over Libya or if it will be Navy pilots off our carriers?
my guess- all of the above. This link is to the Army Times story on the same subject:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-buildup-for-libya-mounts-at-italian-bases-031911/
Like Bruno said, this will most likely be a combination of both if American fighters are to be used as part of the active enforcement part of the No-fly zone (which I'm guessing they will be).
However, it all depends on the political level of commitment the current administration will allow. To me, it looks like the US is willing to let our European Allies lead this effort, and most likely contribute the most in regards to combat presence. That being said, our Allies just don't have the LOGISTICAL capability this type of action will require, particularly Tanker support. I expect we'll have at least 2 Tanker tracks somewhere over the Med allowing for continual operations of the no-fly zone. Plus we'll be sending in tons of supplies in daily to numerous locations throughout the region supporting this effort. So yes, America will be a HUGE part of this effort, but perhaps not as much at the tip of the spear (and I'm betting the current Administration LOVES that fact).
The real question (and indicator of just how committed the current Administration is to this effort) is who will be providing the over-all Command and Control? Will this be a joint British / France led campaign? Once again, America has a much greater logistical capability to support this than our Allies. Also, we haven't been involved in a war effort we weren't leading since WWI. Is America willing to let someone else lead?
But I'm betting again we'll take the back-seat on this one, with token levels of combat forces involved unless things get worse.
Like Bruno said, this will most likely be a combination of both if American fighters are to be used as part of the active enforcement part of the No-fly zone (which I'm guessing they will be).
However, it all depends on the political level of commitment the current administration will allow. To me, it looks like the US is willing to let our European Allies lead this effort, and most likely contribute the most in regards to combat presence. That being said, our Allies just don't have the LOGISTICAL capability this type of action will require, particularly Tanker support. I expect we'll have at least 2 Tanker tracks somewhere over the Med allowing for continual operations of the no-fly zone. Plus we'll be sending in tons of supplies in daily to numerous locations throughout the region supporting this effort. So yes, America will be a HUGE part of this effort, but perhaps not as much at the tip of the spear (and I'm betting the current Administration LOVES that fact).
The real question (and indicator of just how committed the current Administration is to this effort) is who will be providing the over-all Command and Control? Will this be a joint British / France led campaign? Once again, America has a much greater logistical capability to support this than our Allies. Also, we haven't been involved in a war effort we weren't leading since WWI. Is America willing to let someone else lead?
But I'm betting again we'll take the back-seat on this one, with token levels of combat forces involved unless things get worse.
We have a very, very, very narrow window to take out the Colonel's military and put them on par with the opposition. Otherwise, the Colonel will get smart and withdraw his military and try to change its public-perception label from "aggressor" to that of "defender". If things are delayed and our air assets start to become a close-air support arm for the opposition, coalition support for this effort will evaporate quickly because the opposition will be assuming the "aggressor" label at that point. If that happens, in a "defensive" role, the Colonel can instruct his secret service folks to infiltrate the opposition and quietly and systematically take out its leaders over an extended period of time.
The trick is to reduce the Colonel's military to something that won't threaten the opposition in the coming weeks. This means not allowing them to retreat.
It is important to note that Resolution 1973 doesn't call for "regime change", so this can get messy if the Colonel is still hanging around Tripoli and shaking his fist next month.
Isn't the purpose of the air strikes/no fly zone solely to protect civilians?
My question is if any Air Force pilots in Italy and Middle East will by flying over Libya or if it will be Navy pilots off our carriers?