(Dare not making wise cracks about him looking like a soft pudgy faggot because his hands are registered as deadly weapons with the police department)
Posted on 03/07/2011 9:37:55 AM PST by kristinn
SNIP
To help the president nudge the JCS in the ensuing discussion, here are the options he should ask to be put on his desk:
1. Best option: Give the Libyan rebels the aid they need to win. This may be no more than some secure communications gear and a couple of thousand rocket-propelled grenades to deter Qaddafi's tanks and SUVs. (This may be already happening in some form.) Can we start flying discreet charter flights of stuff into some airports in the east? This needs to be ready to go ASAP -- like yesterday.
2. More aggressive, riskier option: It is not in the interests of the United States, or the Libyan people, to see Qaddafi put down the rebels. So if Option 1 doesn't work, what more do we need to do? I think here we want to think about direct action: Using Special Operations troops to corner and then capture or (if he insists) kill Col. Qaddafi. You do need tactical air on tap for this, both to finish off Qaddafi if he holes up and also to cover the extraction helicopters. This needs to be ready to kick off in 72 hours.
3. Third: And yeah, sure, let's look at what a no-fly zone would look like. This is my least favorite option, because it is a half measure -- which by definition is an act that is enough to get us involved but by itself is not enough to promise to determine the outcome...
SNIP
But it might be worthwhile to throw up a no-fly zone if only as a cover for Option 2, because it would have the effect of throwing sand in Qaddafi's eyes. So the NFZ also needs to be ready to go in 72 hours.
(Excerpt) Read more at ricks.foreignpolicy.com ...
No matter which side we choose to provide arms to, those same weapons will someday be used against Israel or even us.
Isn't it interesting how those anti-war zealots suddenly become pro-war when one of their own is in the White House? I'm for sitting this one out. We gain nothing by killing Gaddafi, and lose nothing by letting him kill rebels. It isn't our fight.
How about none of the above.
Quite correct. Let the bastards shoot each other.
Amen. Gadaffi’s an SOB, but his ouster would likely lead to an islamist state there. Neither option is a good one. We should just stay the hell out of this one.
Why not let Obummer meet with Ghadafi “any where at any time without a preconceived agenda” as he claimed he would do with any leader dozens of times when he was campaigning.
>Using Special Operations troops to corner and then capture or (if he insists) kill Col. Qaddafi.
LOL Yes, thats it! Create millions of new terrorists in a second!
These fools act like Mo has no domestic support.
That is simply brain dead - and wrong.
He has plenty of support.
Let Libya wither on the vine and go for Saudi Arabia.
Agree completely. Two no-win wars are more than enough for me, thanks very kindly.
How about Ricks going over there and doing it himself.
Invading Libya seems to me a project best left to the private sector.
I guess the “Save Libya” bumpersticker will fit right underneath the “Save Darfur” and the “Free Tibet” bumperstickers.
Counting the days til The Saudia Royals get what they deserve including Fox/CNN/ABC Prince Al Waleed.
(Dare not making wise cracks about him looking like a soft pudgy faggot because his hands are registered as deadly weapons with the police department)
I totally agree. No more boots on the ground in the Middle East. Our kids are precious to us, not them.
lots of luck Thomas, take several body bags.
Why not send our home-grown muslims to clean up the ME mess?
LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.