All we need is one carrier group and support from the British and French, then Qaddafi is screwed.

Obama wants to make sure American troops don't get hurt? No, he wants to talk the talk, but not walk the walk, when more American troops have died for the good of all humanity than most nations put together. Words do nothing to stop monsters like Qaddafi, Neville Chamberlain learned that lesson the hard way in the months leading up to World War II, he was the stupid, short-sighted Prime Minister that did nothing to stop Hitler, but he sure thought he was the man of the ages until the war happened anyway.

The French are sending their carrier, as are the British. Benghazi has been cleared of Qaddafi loyalists. Misurata is still holding out. The tenacity of the opposition forces in that city is unbelievable.

Yet nobody still is asking... who are these rebels we are supporting? They yell "Democracy", but do they mean it? If they never had it how do they know they want it? Maybe they really mean "We want an Islamic state". Who leads them? Why haven't we heard from them? Momar is no angel, and deserves a terrible fate, but he is also no Hitler and never will be. How many in Libya want him gone? Do we just hear the noisy ones?

Make no mistake, the media is driving this story of "human tragedy". What about those poor protesters in Yemen and Bahrain? So they get their No-Fly Zone and UN resolution too? It seems the countries with the money are again relying on the countries that are broke to do the heavy lifting...again.

As for Obama procrastinating, I agree. He should have said no right away. If the Arabs want this so bad, let them do it.

Because the politicians did such a good job in Vietnam? Until you've served and understand what the real issues are (usually bureaucrats behind a desk in DC), I wouldn't recommend "fixes".

Vietnam was more of the same. The military failed there, and it is failing now. And it's precisely because I've kept away from any actual involvement with the military while still keeping myself informed about their actions that I feel qualified to talk about them in something approaching an objective manner. See: conflicts of interest.

You're not understanding that the U.S. military is more or less under civilian control. Saying that the military "failed" in Vietnam is technically accurate, but only if you ignore the fact that they were ordered to step into a horrible mess without a declared war to help galvanize support on the home front. Those orders came from civilians.

I agree with your analysis.  And I think we still are blowing it.  True or not, there are stories of the Brits targeting Gaddafi - I suspect over the Lockerbie bombing suspect release.  If he is deposed, he will sing like a canary.

It may not be Gaddafi that shoots them down.  The opposition has shot down one of his, and it is hard to tell whose plane it is when it is 15k feet up..

The military did not fail.  They won every battle - the politicians lost the war.

Actually his name is Gadhafi not what I have been saying.

No kidding, the politicians so lost Vietnam with bonehead decisions and blatant lying.

I agree. Politicians also placed severe restrictions on US forces which resulted in many losses (not attacking SAMs untill they are finished - or not attacking at all if they are in XYZ area).

Granted, the civilian government wasn't exactly sensible at the time. But unless Vietnamese civilian killings and crop destruction were specifically ordered in each case by US political leadership, then I can and will hold them to blame for their actions (in fact, even if that behavior was explicitly ordered, I think (but I'm not positive) that those orders might be considered unlawful, and military personnel could be prosecuted for following them there, as well). As it was, the military's prerogative should have been to carry out their orders in such a way that the absolute minimum civilian and collateral damage was inflicted. They didn't. Could a well-behaved military have pulled something approaching a positive outcome out of Vietnam? Probably not. But a badly-behaved military certainly did not help.

(Note that when I say "the military", I mean the organization and its actual willing backers. A lot of the soldiers (especially in VN) were just caught up in the mess for economic reasons or because, you know, there was a draft. I have nothing against them.)

Understood. However if he was worth the effort, I would have searched how to spell his name correctly.  He is a legend in his own mind - and no one elses.

Depends on if you count the president as military or politician.

Another example of political involvement, this time in Afghanistan: Troops not allowed to engage the enemy if they put down their weapon, even temporarily. Al Quaida/Taliban fighters would deliberately taunt US forces, take a few shots, set there weapons down, then reposition. Who asks there military to fight with one hand tied behind their back? Only the US.

Scoutdog - It is true that terrible things happen during war. I say good. It's not supposed to be nice and neat. It should be so terrible that it is always the option of last resort, but when it does happen it should be decisive. Because so many precautions are taken to protect civilians, and despots are willing to exploit these causalities to a sympathetic world with propaganda, we can count on more of these types of actions in the future. The enemies base of support is now off limits and many don't seem to mind opposing forces duking it out. Personally, I prefer a president that has experienced the horrors of war. At least they fully understand what they might have to ask our men and women to do.