NATO Seeking Libya Exit Strategy

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
Another “urgent exit strategy” to consider. This time in Libya. From UPI:
LONDON, July 26 (UPI) — NATO is seeking an urgent exit strategy from Libya that will end the fighting and decide the future of embattled leader Moammar Gadhafi, even if that means letting him stay in the country though out of power, it emerged Tuesday after British and French foreign ministers met in London.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague and French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said NATO and even members of the opposition Transitional National Council wouldn’t oppose Gadhafi staying in Libya as long as he gave up power.

In the only Libyan voice of dissent reported so far, activist Soliman Albrassi, living in London, said allowing Gadhafi to stay in Libya would be a recipe for civil war, the BBC said.

Hague and Juppe received support for the proposal from former British Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, who said it would be important to avoid a “blood bath in Tripoli” — seen as a likely outcome if a final military push to the Libyan capital triggered close combat.

Hague said: “What happens to Gadhafi is ultimately a question for the Libyans … What is absolutely clear, as Alain (Juppe) has said, is that whatever happens, Gadhafi must leave power. He must never again be able to threaten the lives of Libyan civilians nor to destabilize Libya once he has left power.”

“Obviously him leaving Libya itself would be the best way of showing the Libyan people that they no longer have to live in fear of Gadhafi,” Hague said.

“But as I have said all along, this is ultimately a question for Libyans to determine.”

The rest here.
nationalreview.com/corner/272852/nato-seeking-libya-exit-strategy-charlie-cooke
 
…so they’re admitting that this was an enormous waste of time?
 
Absolutely baroque. The whole thing was from the beginning and gets more so at every turn.
 
Libya provides their oil and natural gas …

… so they attack Libya.

And attack the port facilities for THEIR oil and LNG tankers.

:coffeeread:

:banghead:

is this stupid or what?

if it wasn’t for all the people who have been killed,

:hey_bud:

But this is not funny

[Is there a smiley for absolute bewilderment?]

There used to be a lot of jokes about the ineptness of Arab armies, but in this case, it looks like Libya has defeated all of Europe.
 
U.S. has spend roughly $800 millions on this Libyan war. So much for operations that would last days not months. According to my boss, the U.S. is doing a lot behind the scene i.e. intel support, electronics warfare, bombing, logistics, etc.
 
MugenOne said:
U.S. has spend roughly $800 millions on this Libyan war. So much for operations that would last days not months. According to my boss, the U.S. is doing a lot behind the scene i.e. intel support, electronics warfare, bombing, logistics, etc.
Click to expand...
But remember that this murdering of Libyans is not a war and we are not taking sides and this is a humanitarian operation. We come in peace; shoot to kill!
 
If Obama wanted a war, and if he felt he had sufficient reason to start one, then he should have at least gone to Congress for approval. Yes, I know the authority of the commander in chief is a bit murky on such things. But my goodness, Bush went to Congress and got authority to attack Iraq and STILL got eaten alive for it because the UN “authority” didn’t say “go in shooting whenever you want and at your sole discretion”. Not that I think the U.S. has any obligation to obtain UN permission in such things, understand, but that was, in effect, one of the liberal objections to the continuation of the Gulf War under G.W.B.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top