What's the endgame in Libya?

Does anybody know? When do we walk away from it? We imposed a no-fly zone in Iraq 20 years ago. We're still there. When does this stop?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/22/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=C1

And winning re-election in 2012.

Other than that, everyone seems to fall silent when I ask that question, or when I ask why we believe that this intervention will improve an admittedly horrific situation.

IMHO.

The "who the ^&$* else ya gonna vote for, chump?" strategy that has been ravaging our country for 18 years.

We need to break out of it.

how can one be "even more pro-war" than someone bombing other countries for no reason) but so are
that opponent's base constituents, while Obama's base is generally anti-war. US elections are all
about a turnout, when barely a half of registered voters shows up one cannot afford alienating his
base. I still don't know what was the real reason for starting the war against Libya, but obviously
it is more important to Obama than his reelection.

Take out all of Gadaffi's heavy stuff and then walk away.

Split the country back into 2 of the original 3 states which is how it was when an Italian colony.

Leave the "protesters" to arm themselves on a more equal footing over a period of a few years.

Then watch the the civil war between the 2 states as the "protesters" move west.

btw - I think the opposition banked on getting more from the west than just a no fly zone and they lucked out.

but aside from that, what's the point?

just wait til we hear about Al Qaeda in Libya. Which was the excuse for the Iraq war, after we let them in.

So sick of this bullshit.

#2: Installing a government more sympathetic to to our needs.

get ready to hear about how "we broke it so we bought it" and must stay and stabilize the country.

We have to make the rebels win now and that will take more than blowing up runways.
Gaddafi knew how to play the game with the West. The US/UK will want to make sure that Libya does not turn into another Iran and I am not expecting them to just pull back now and cross their fingers.

This incursion reminds me of the kids in the school yard...over in the corner is the bully whose been injured and the smaller kids are now brave enough to do something about...but they need to call big brother in first. It's obvious that Cameron and Sarkosy in specific wants Gadaffi gone and they're all in on this invasion as long as "big brother" lobs the missles from offshore and from above. The question is when that strategy doesn't remove Gadaffi and it has to be done on the ground, whose boots will be marching? I'm firmly against any U.S. forces in yet another adventure...especially one that has limited and unknown "benefits".

The gamble here is that Gadaffi's military gear is old and that if it is degraded and enough of his mercenaries are killed that he'll fold...but there's no guranatees. The day the British and French complain that this will be a "long slog" is the day the U.S. should bail...but I doubt that will happen

The similarities between this situation and the start of the Iraq war are allowing them to crow that this war is rushed and unnecessary, some of the same arguments we used against GWB and his gang. I actually heard one guy yesterday call the president a "chickenhawk". How do we reply to this? This is not why I voted for Barack Obama.

we're going to end up on the ground there for years

when was the last time we actually got our military out of somewhere? We're still in Germany and Korea

And I'm only guessing.

Or is simply different good enough?

Blow shit up, leave when it gets boring.

That says it all.

It's a war, not a game.

nailed it

:sarcasm: