Quote:
Originally Posted by killer_carlson
(on Piers Morgan who I really like the more I watch him) I saw an interview with a former US general and he put it really plain language.
To paraphrase:
A no fly zone is a strategy to accomplish a mission, it is not a mission in and of itself. What the goal of this coalition is, has not been made clear or well publicized. Without having a clear goal well explained and clearly communicated, one of the bigger risks is "mission creep" where the mission grows and changes. Mission creep has been one of the larger criticisms of Afghanistan and Iraq within US critics.
He also said that there is a tremendous importance on diplomatic streams right now to ensure that the end game is clear from the get go and the freedom fighters/rebels are clear on what the international committment and end game is as well.
So in terms of the no fly zone, consider it a strategy of a larger mission which is still being worked out. Anticipate more disclosure to follow.
|
I would expect that we're going to see a massive mission change when the American's transisition command of the mission to either NATO or the French.
The American's didn't really want to be seen as the lead "Crusader" in this operation and they haven't specifically gone after Gaddafi. If the French take charge, I think this turns into a regime change requirement.
It was also interesting to note that the CF-18's were sent on a bombing mission yesterday, and even through they had targets of opportunity they returned to base with their full bomb loads due to the overwhelming chance of civillian casualties. I heard the same thing happened with a British Typhoon as well.
Ghaddafi is trying to do the only thing he can, get his forces in among the civillians so that they can't be bombed from the air.
I would say that we're going to now see a long protracted mission if we're serious about protecting civillian lives.