Max Fisher of the Atlantic:
"If the Western air strike campaign continues to fail in stopping Qaddafi's forward march, President Obama, as well as European leaders, will be forced to choose between two similarly unattractive options. Either escalate Western involvement in the civil war, as many are urging him to do, and risk entangling the U.S., and possibly American lives, in a conflict with no clear outcome or end-point. Or decline to escalate, allowing Qaddafi to continue toward a victory, and toward the 'house to house' slaughter he so openly promised, in which the U.S. would appear complicit."
The Times of London:
"The retreating column seemed rudderless, a sea of vehicles and fighters armed with infantry weapons and light rockets, but lacking the resolve, training or leadership to stand up to even a modest display of force by Colonel Qaddafi’s conventional armed forces. They were an unmistakably intimidated lot.
"After several minutes of wild driving, some of the rebels tried to regroup, pulling over on the shoulder of the highway between Brega and Ajdabiya beside an abandoned restaurant and a small mosque.
"A man standing on a pickup truck and brandishing an assault rifle led a crowd in chants of 'God is great!' Morale appeared to stabilize.
"Then a single artillery shell or rocket exploded several hundred yards away, kicking up dust and black smoke. The crunch of the impact made the rebels flinch.
"The chanting ceased at once. The rebels scattered, dashing for their vehicles and speeding east anew, their panic both infectious and a display of an absence of command and control."
What the hell is going on, Obama? Is this the quick, decisive military action and rapid pull out you suggested? Success promised as viewed in the spectral eye of a fortnight? Many are speculating that America and the coalition forces have only increased the violence against civilians as Gaddafi promised it would.
The Economist had this to say:
"I WISH it were otherwise, but my worries that America's military intervention in Libya will extend the civil war and increase the number of people harmed or killed, relative to a no-intervention baseline, are not abating. Rebel forces are in 'panicked retreat,' losing the gains they had made with the assistance of allied air support. The situation does not seem promising."
Ackerman of Wired writes:
"Trouble is Gates was as clear as mud about how the war ends if one of Gadhafi’s commanders doesn’t overthrow the Libyan dictator. He said it was hard to imagine how Obama would tolerate Gadhafi retaining power, even though regime change isn’t a military mission. Legislators of both parties were incredulous at that presentation of the U.S. goals.
"The challenge of governing Libya after Gadhafi goes is a daunting one, in Gates’ telling: balancing tribal interests and weaving together a coherent nation. Those tribes will play a 'major role' in any future Libyan politics. Hmm, what costly, long wars already fought by the U.S. military does that sound like?"
The US's initially stated objective of "minimising the violence" is nothing like what we are seeing in actuality unfold in Libya. It is in fact, sadly but truly, the exact opposite. It is looking like another Iraq - an oil war - with even less clear objectives. If things keep going the way they have been so far, no one will be happy after this incursion is over and it may well cost Obama the next election.
No comments:
Post a Comment