[lit-ideas] Re: Why Gadhafi Disarmed
- From: Scribe1865@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:38:03 EDT
In a message dated 4/18/2004 1:17:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> > But there was no reason for him to be scared,
> > because there was no US plan to attack Lybia after
> > Iraq; Syria, Iran, and North Korea were being
> > mentioned as possible candidates.
> >
> > How do we know that?
There are no more plans for more wars because the US military is overloaded
close to the breaking point. The USA simply can't get into any more
adventures at the moment.
While everything said above is true, IMHO, in terms of current politics and
in terms of conventional force deployment, there's no reason to assume that the
US couldn't:
(1) Launch extensive air campaigns against perceived Libyan WMD sites,
targeting both them and Gadhafi. If one's targets are enemy infrastructure or
enemy
weapons installations, troops are not necessary, just bombs.
OR
(2) Operate through a combination of proxy armies and special forces against
the Libyan government.
Plus it's worth remembering that the US strategy is to maintain dominance in
two major theaters of operation while also fighting in a third regional
conflict if necessary. That would mean immediately calling up all reserves,
withdrawing from some NATO and UN policing commitments, and playing musical
chairs
with logistics. But it could be done. However that would take a major threat
like
N. Korea trying to invade S. Korea (...or Bush feeling that the Lord had told
him to invade Libya).
In the meantime for a threat like Libya (assuming quotidian nonreligious
madness) , mere bombing would suffice.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
