装甲恶鬼村正 邪念:Libya: Democracy cannot be dropped from 40,000-foot height

来源:百度文库 编辑:九乡新闻网 时间:2024/04/28 02:21:47

Libya: Democracy cannot be dropped from 40,000-foot height





22.jpg (100.5 KB)
2011-3-23 08:51


-----------------West in "mediaeval crusade" on Gaddafi, Putin says--------------------



Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Monday a U.N. resolution authorizing military action in Libya resembled "mediaeval calls for crusades" after Western forces launched a second wave of air strikes.


As diplomatic tempers over the campaign flared, officials in Tripoli said a missile intended to kill Muammar Gaddafi had destroyed a building in his fortified compound, which was heavily bombed in 1986 by the Reagan administration.


"It was a barbaric bombing," said government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim, showing pieces of shrapnel that he said came from the missile. "This contradicts American and Western (statements) ... that it is not their target to attack this place."


In an appearance on Libyan television on Sunday, Gaddafi promised his enemies a "long war" after the U.N.-authorized intervention in the uprising against his 41-year rule of this oil producing north African desert state.


"The resolution is defective and flawed," said Russia's Putin, whose country did not use its power to veto the resolution at the United Nations. "It allows everything. It resembles mediaeval calls for crusades," Putin added.


Libyan rebels welcomed the second wave of attacks.


"The committee rejects foreign troops on the ground but we encourage the bombardment of Gaddafi's army," Ahmed El-Hasi, a spokesman for the February 17 opposition coalition, said in the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi where the uprising began.

11.jpg (179.62 KB)
2011-3-23 08:51

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's defiant reaction to the ferocious bombardment of his country by Britain and America illustrates the scale of the military challenge that lies ahead as the coalition attempts to overthrow the Libyan tyrant.


After British and American warships fired an estimated 110 missiles to destroy Libya's anti–aircraft installations, Gaddafi responded in a radio broadcast from his heavily fortified bunker in Tripoli, declaring: "We promise you a long, drawn–out war with no limits."


If the Gaddafi clan really is prepared to fight to the bitter end, then it is unlikely that the coalition's ultimate objective of removing them can be achieved by air power alone.


As David Cameron remarked only four weeks ago, you cannot "drop democracy from 40,000 feet". The only way to get rid of a determined and resourceful dictator like Gaddafi is to send in ground troops to drive him from his bunker.


The conflicts in Kosovo in 1999 and Iraq in 2003 both began with the imposition of no–fly zones. But Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic and Iraq's Saddam Hussein were only defeated by the introduction of ground troops.


After the Iraq experience, Western leaders are understandably reluctant to deploy ground troops, particularly as UN resolution 1973, which authorised the military offensive, states that there will be no military occupation of Libya.


The UN is concerned about protecting Libyan rebels from Gaddafi's revenge attacks rather than seeking regime change in Tripoli. But the West would be made to look impotent if the conflict ended with Gaddafi still in power. For that reason coalition commanders argue that a ground intervention is not the same as an occupation, and that this form of military action must remain a viable option if Gaddafi refuses to go.


But, for the moment, the main focus of the coalition's effort will be to protect anti–government rebels while at the same time increasing the psychological pressure on Gaddafi that he stands no chance of winning against the West's superior firepower.

33.jpg (76.05 KB)
2011-3-23 08:51

The fact that the UN resolution allows the coalition to conduct attacks against Gaddafi's ground forces, as French warplanes did yesterday on the outskirts of Benghazi, means that commanders are not just limited to attacking antiaircraft installations.


"This means we can target Gaddafi's forces directly and hopefully will persuade many of his supporters that it is not worth fighting for a lost cause," said a senior coalition officer involved in planning the air strikes.

I understand that the British and American governments are also looking at the possibility of arming the rebels so that they have the military capability to defeat Gaddafi's forces. It would certainly be preferable for the Libyans to set their own house in order rather than have the American–led coalition do it for them. Arab sensitivities over Western military intervention in Libya have been highlighted by Amr Moussa, the Arab League secretary–general, who only last week backed calls for a no–fly zone, a decision that was crucial to winning UN backing.


But yesterday Mr Moussa criticised the coalition's handling of the conflict, claiming the aim of the mission was to protect Libyans, not to bomb them.


Mr Moussa's comments will play into the hands of Gaddafi, who has already denounced the coalition as a "crusader's alliance" which wants to seize control of Libya's oil and gas reserves.

44.jpg (166.73 KB)
2011-3-23 08:51

It is for this reason that, in the days ahead, the coalition will need to proceed with caution as it prosecutes the military campaign. Otherwise the Libyan leader will be able to appeal to Islamist militants to carry out terror attacks on Europe and America on his behalf.


"West would be made to look impotent if the conflict ended with Gaddafi still in power "


Reuters/The Telegraph


No country or coalition have the right to air strike Democracy onto others' soil at the cost of civilian life and property !!!