OT – War #3?

[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.

[ocrenter]

[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.”

[ocrenter]

[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.”

[ocrenter]

[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.”

[ocrenter]

[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.”

[ocrenter]

[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.”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=ocrenter]
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.”[/quote]

OCR: Well, actually, let’s not “leave the military strategy to the pros”, since military (hard power) and diplomacy (soft power) go hand-in-hand in this part of the world.

Libya is completely unlike Egypt or Bahrain, in the sense of swinging votes like the Saudis or the Arab League to “our side”. Gaddafi is the head of a pariah state and has been for a long time. In the eyes of the Saudis, specifically, ousting him from power is a net positive. There’s also a moral imperative at work here, and that moral imperative was implicitly and explicitly stated by Obama during his 2009 Cairo speech: “That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.”

Obama has failed utterly, since that 2009 speech, to successfully articulate both a vision and a strategy consistent with the principles he laid out in Cairo. As a result, the US has dithered unnecessarily as we’ve found ourselves consistently following events, rather than guiding them.

In most cases, soft power is far more valuable than hard power. Egypt is such a case. But, we failed to manage that situation well, either, and as a result, we’re facing a more problematic situation there then we should.

Unlike the US policies and strategy that allowed us to successfully anticipate and thus manage the collapse of the Soviet empire, we have no such policies or strategy in place now. Why do you think Hillary Clinton has so strongly indicated that she won’t be returning as SecState should Obama win in 2012?

History has shown that we cannot rely on NATO, CSCE or the Europeans. Whether its the Balkan fiasco of the 1990s, or ISAF in Afghanistan, the Europeans have shown themselves to be completely inept and militarily unable and unwilling to support any meaningful intervention. This will probably be no different, hence my assertion that we should discuss military strategy right along with diplomatic strategy. And, yeah, I caught the dig about the “pros”. Much of my business is centered in this part of the world, and the US has an outsize presence when it comes to force, and for the very reasons discussed above.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=ocrenter]
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.”[/quote]

OCR: Well, actually, let’s not “leave the military strategy to the pros”, since military (hard power) and diplomacy (soft power) go hand-in-hand in this part of the world.

Libya is completely unlike Egypt or Bahrain, in the sense of swinging votes like the Saudis or the Arab League to “our side”. Gaddafi is the head of a pariah state and has been for a long time. In the eyes of the Saudis, specifically, ousting him from power is a net positive. There’s also a moral imperative at work here, and that moral imperative was implicitly and explicitly stated by Obama during his 2009 Cairo speech: “That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.”

Obama has failed utterly, since that 2009 speech, to successfully articulate both a vision and a strategy consistent with the principles he laid out in Cairo. As a result, the US has dithered unnecessarily as we’ve found ourselves consistently following events, rather than guiding them.

In most cases, soft power is far more valuable than hard power. Egypt is such a case. But, we failed to manage that situation well, either, and as a result, we’re facing a more problematic situation there then we should.

Unlike the US policies and strategy that allowed us to successfully anticipate and thus manage the collapse of the Soviet empire, we have no such policies or strategy in place now. Why do you think Hillary Clinton has so strongly indicated that she won’t be returning as SecState should Obama win in 2012?

History has shown that we cannot rely on NATO, CSCE or the Europeans. Whether its the Balkan fiasco of the 1990s, or ISAF in Afghanistan, the Europeans have shown themselves to be completely inept and militarily unable and unwilling to support any meaningful intervention. This will probably be no different, hence my assertion that we should discuss military strategy right along with diplomatic strategy. And, yeah, I caught the dig about the “pros”. Much of my business is centered in this part of the world, and the US has an outsize presence when it comes to force, and for the very reasons discussed above.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=ocrenter]
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.”[/quote]

OCR: Well, actually, let’s not “leave the military strategy to the pros”, since military (hard power) and diplomacy (soft power) go hand-in-hand in this part of the world.

Libya is completely unlike Egypt or Bahrain, in the sense of swinging votes like the Saudis or the Arab League to “our side”. Gaddafi is the head of a pariah state and has been for a long time. In the eyes of the Saudis, specifically, ousting him from power is a net positive. There’s also a moral imperative at work here, and that moral imperative was implicitly and explicitly stated by Obama during his 2009 Cairo speech: “That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.”

Obama has failed utterly, since that 2009 speech, to successfully articulate both a vision and a strategy consistent with the principles he laid out in Cairo. As a result, the US has dithered unnecessarily as we’ve found ourselves consistently following events, rather than guiding them.

In most cases, soft power is far more valuable than hard power. Egypt is such a case. But, we failed to manage that situation well, either, and as a result, we’re facing a more problematic situation there then we should.

Unlike the US policies and strategy that allowed us to successfully anticipate and thus manage the collapse of the Soviet empire, we have no such policies or strategy in place now. Why do you think Hillary Clinton has so strongly indicated that she won’t be returning as SecState should Obama win in 2012?

History has shown that we cannot rely on NATO, CSCE or the Europeans. Whether its the Balkan fiasco of the 1990s, or ISAF in Afghanistan, the Europeans have shown themselves to be completely inept and militarily unable and unwilling to support any meaningful intervention. This will probably be no different, hence my assertion that we should discuss military strategy right along with diplomatic strategy. And, yeah, I caught the dig about the “pros”. Much of my business is centered in this part of the world, and the US has an outsize presence when it comes to force, and for the very reasons discussed above.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=ocrenter]
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.”[/quote]

OCR: Well, actually, let’s not “leave the military strategy to the pros”, since military (hard power) and diplomacy (soft power) go hand-in-hand in this part of the world.

Libya is completely unlike Egypt or Bahrain, in the sense of swinging votes like the Saudis or the Arab League to “our side”. Gaddafi is the head of a pariah state and has been for a long time. In the eyes of the Saudis, specifically, ousting him from power is a net positive. There’s also a moral imperative at work here, and that moral imperative was implicitly and explicitly stated by Obama during his 2009 Cairo speech: “That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.”

Obama has failed utterly, since that 2009 speech, to successfully articulate both a vision and a strategy consistent with the principles he laid out in Cairo. As a result, the US has dithered unnecessarily as we’ve found ourselves consistently following events, rather than guiding them.

In most cases, soft power is far more valuable than hard power. Egypt is such a case. But, we failed to manage that situation well, either, and as a result, we’re facing a more problematic situation there then we should.

Unlike the US policies and strategy that allowed us to successfully anticipate and thus manage the collapse of the Soviet empire, we have no such policies or strategy in place now. Why do you think Hillary Clinton has so strongly indicated that she won’t be returning as SecState should Obama win in 2012?

History has shown that we cannot rely on NATO, CSCE or the Europeans. Whether its the Balkan fiasco of the 1990s, or ISAF in Afghanistan, the Europeans have shown themselves to be completely inept and militarily unable and unwilling to support any meaningful intervention. This will probably be no different, hence my assertion that we should discuss military strategy right along with diplomatic strategy. And, yeah, I caught the dig about the “pros”. Much of my business is centered in this part of the world, and the US has an outsize presence when it comes to force, and for the very reasons discussed above.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=ocrenter]
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.”[/quote]

OCR: Well, actually, let’s not “leave the military strategy to the pros”, since military (hard power) and diplomacy (soft power) go hand-in-hand in this part of the world.

Libya is completely unlike Egypt or Bahrain, in the sense of swinging votes like the Saudis or the Arab League to “our side”. Gaddafi is the head of a pariah state and has been for a long time. In the eyes of the Saudis, specifically, ousting him from power is a net positive. There’s also a moral imperative at work here, and that moral imperative was implicitly and explicitly stated by Obama during his 2009 Cairo speech: “That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.”

Obama has failed utterly, since that 2009 speech, to successfully articulate both a vision and a strategy consistent with the principles he laid out in Cairo. As a result, the US has dithered unnecessarily as we’ve found ourselves consistently following events, rather than guiding them.

In most cases, soft power is far more valuable than hard power. Egypt is such a case. But, we failed to manage that situation well, either, and as a result, we’re facing a more problematic situation there then we should.

Unlike the US policies and strategy that allowed us to successfully anticipate and thus manage the collapse of the Soviet empire, we have no such policies or strategy in place now. Why do you think Hillary Clinton has so strongly indicated that she won’t be returning as SecState should Obama win in 2012?

History has shown that we cannot rely on NATO, CSCE or the Europeans. Whether its the Balkan fiasco of the 1990s, or ISAF in Afghanistan, the Europeans have shown themselves to be completely inept and militarily unable and unwilling to support any meaningful intervention. This will probably be no different, hence my assertion that we should discuss military strategy right along with diplomatic strategy. And, yeah, I caught the dig about the “pros”. Much of my business is centered in this part of the world, and the US has an outsize presence when it comes to force, and for the very reasons discussed above.

[ocrenter]

it was not a “dig.” simply that we are looking at macro strategy, and not military logistics. I’m sure you can go off on the nitty-gritty military related details and quite frankly run circles around me with that.

so the question remains, you have the Libyan rebellion. what do you do?

A. Immediately impose the no-fly-zone unilaterally. in effect we now own this problem. we continue to be the world’s policeman.

B. We use this opportunity to bring in other players and make the Euros and the UN own this issue.

[ocrenter]

it was not a “dig.” simply that we are looking at macro strategy, and not military logistics. I’m sure you can go off on the nitty-gritty military related details and quite frankly run circles around me with that.

so the question remains, you have the Libyan rebellion. what do you do?

A. Immediately impose the no-fly-zone unilaterally. in effect we now own this problem. we continue to be the world’s policeman.

B. We use this opportunity to bring in other players and make the Euros and the UN own this issue.

[ocrenter]

it was not a “dig.” simply that we are looking at macro strategy, and not military logistics. I’m sure you can go off on the nitty-gritty military related details and quite frankly run circles around me with that.

so the question remains, you have the Libyan rebellion. what do you do?

A. Immediately impose the no-fly-zone unilaterally. in effect we now own this problem. we continue to be the world’s policeman.

B. We use this opportunity to bring in other players and make the Euros and the UN own this issue.

[ocrenter]

it was not a “dig.” simply that we are looking at macro strategy, and not military logistics. I’m sure you can go off on the nitty-gritty military related details and quite frankly run circles around me with that.

so the question remains, you have the Libyan rebellion. what do you do?

A. Immediately impose the no-fly-zone unilaterally. in effect we now own this problem. we continue to be the world’s policeman.

B. We use this opportunity to bring in other players and make the Euros and the UN own this issue.

[Author]

Posts