If this whole operation ends with Gadhafi still in power, has it failed?

[joe_sixpack]

I don't see air power alone being enough to remove Gadhafi. The forces rebelling against him aren't trained or armed well enough to do it, even if NATO provides coordinated close air support for their attacks. So unless more of his army loyalists switch sides, some outside force is going to have to put boots on the ground.

Can we live with any possible outcome of this that leaves Gadhafi in power, even if it's only half the country? Because no matter how long he has to wait, he will try to purge the people that started the uprising and reassert his control.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Depends on the participant.

:think:

[tekisui]

2. That isn't the focus of the operation.

It is meant to be a mitigating factor, lessening the senseless killing of civilians. It is not a regime change objective, but a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from using the air to kill Libyans and to prevent him from bringing in mercenaries from other African nations.

[Buzz Clik]

3. +1

[joe_sixpack]

6. Are we going to try and use airpower

to stop his ground forces then? It would be so much better if his army turned against him and got rid of the bastard. Save a whole lot of people a lot of trouble. But that doesn't look like it's going to happen. So what's next?

[tekisui]

8. I don't know the what next.

It is definitely worrisome. Will the no fly zone be enough? Probably not. There may need to be a no-drive zone as well. What I sincerely hope is that it never gets to boots on the ground. Basically, we are there to level the playing field, to the extent possible.

From there is just not knowable.

[KamaAina]

4. Can we live with any possible outcome of this that leaves still more boots on the ground over there?

I have a sinking feeling we're being sucked in to yet another Middle East war. :scared:

[RKP5637]

5. As one poster said the purpose is not regime change, but IMO if he remains

what you've said will happen. He's been around soooo long and survived, I think his goal is now for one of his sons to eventually take over the family business, so to say.

[David__77]

7. You want West-enforced "regime change?"

That's the Bush doctrine in action.

[joe_sixpack]

9. I'm not a proponent of regime change at all

I didn't want us to get involved in this in the first place. I agree with many others on the board who say let other countries handle this one. We've definitely got our plate full. But now that this is unleashed, I just question the end game.

[gratuitous]

10. You'll have to wait a little while

The deathgasm folks are still enjoying their post-climax cigarette to think about anything more than three seconds into the future.

[bowens43]

11. no matter how it ends

it's a US policy failure. This is no different the US 'liberation' of Iraq.

[Critters2]

12. No. It'll still mean plenty of profits for the MIC. So, it's all good! nt

[AntiFascist]

15. Exactly...

at $4/gallon or more for gas there are plenty of profits....reason enough to keep war efforts going as long as possible, don't you think?

[Rex]

13. It won't fail...slam dunk doncha know!

Besides, we now have wars (Iraq) that are deemed 'too big to fail' and can never end.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Fail? We never fail. See the gloriious victories in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan...oh, wait.

[provis99]

16. yes, but we kicked commie ass in Grenada! Woo hoo!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. An heroic effort against a formidable and heavily armed enemy.

It ranks up there with "Bambi vs Godzilla".

[customerserviceguy]

17. How will we define success?

Are we going to go over there and impose 'democracy' on them like we did with Germany and Japan?

Naw, didn't think so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. A doubling of the "defense" budget will be the benchmark definition of victory.