[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]OCR: Maintaining a no-fly zone isn’t easy, especially when you’re seeking to do so (as Italy and France will do) over the Med. They’ll have the use of the French aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle, but will likely deploy most of their aircraft from ground-based facilities, which means travel times of around an hour to an hour and a half to Libya and it also means airborne refueling.
Easier still would be to use US subs in the Med and hit Gaddafi’s airfields and support infrastructure (i.e. radar, refueling and re-arming facilities) with sub-launched cruise missiles and ballistic missiles (carrying conventional warheads). This way, we don’t have commit US ground based forces (out of Aviano and Sigonella), nor do we have to pull a carrier battle group into the Med (there isn’t one there presently).
Gaddafi has been able to swing the battle back in his favor through the use of air power, as well as using a “fire brigade” system, whereby he choppers his mercenaries to various hot spots. If you eliminate these capabilities, you level the playing field for the rebels.[/quote]
let’s just leave the military strategy to the pros.
and specifically discuss how as president you would have handled the Libyan rebellion from the start. with the understanding that we are overstretched and we do not want to own this, while at the same time we do want something done to help the rebels even the playing field.
As you said, “Obama and Co. (with the exception of Hillary Clinton) have proven to be rank amateurs throughout.” so what would President Allan have done different? Do you go in first and impose the no-fly-zone yourself. And try to get the pussy Euros to take over? Or do you apply pressure on the Euros and get the Saudis to your side and get the Arab league on your side so that any American intervention from this point forward is seen in a different light than the typical “imperial foreign intervention.”
