The Civil War in Libya

Re: Majority of 23,000 votes in Fox News poll wants U.S. to stay out of Libya

I think domestic opinion in the US is solidly against American involvement. What I would like to see is France, the UK and other EU nations taking the lead in combat air ops, with the US providing the sort of behind the scenes support that only we can provide: AWACS, in-air refueling, intel of all kinds, jamming, JSTARs, drone flights, downed pilot rescue etc. Combat missions would be flown by Rafales off the Charles de Gaulle and by Eurofighters out of bases across the Med.

Of course, that would require unity and willingness to use force on the part of the Europeans, which is not likely. But it's what I'd like to see, because as an American, I too have no willingness to commit American forces to another open-ended, probably escalating conflict that will tax our already thin resources and serve as another cause for the world to hate us.

It would mean aircraft operating from Italy. It is too late.

Re: Majority of 23,000 votes in Fox News poll wants U.S. to stay out of Libya

Finn McCool said:

But it's what I'd like to see, because as an American, I too have no willingness to commit American forces to another open-ended, probably escalating conflict that will tax our already thin resources and serve as another cause for the world to hate us.

Click to expand...

Why is the world going to hate you for bombing Gaddafi's planes? The rebels want it, the Arab League wants it. Who doesn't want it - Venezuela, China, Russia and everyone else who prefers oppression to freedom?

I'm afraid the US has let European (not the UK) countries take advantage of its NATO protection for too long. If the US doesn't want to have to intervene all the time, it needs to put its foot down and say "ok you NATO countries, start showing some backbone and increase your military spending. If you don't, you're out of NATO".

What's the point of NATO if the US allows Europe to have a free ride? To add legitimacy to US military operations around the world?

Re: Majority of 23,000 votes in Fox News poll wants U.S. to stay out of Libya

Who doesn't want it...
apparently the 60.11 percent of patriots in the FOX poll.

But seriously... no other polls conducted in the US news, etc.? FOX stats is all we have?
I'd like to see some other polls and what they put in it as the question and answers to yes-no-maybes

Re: Majority of 23,000 votes in Fox News poll wants U.S. to stay out of Libya

Mr T said:

Why is the world going to hate you for bombing Gaddafi's planes? The rebels want it, the Arab League wants it. Who doesn't want it - Venezuela, China, Russia and everyone else who prefers oppression to freedom?

Click to expand...

So people who don't agree with you = bad oppression lovers. But those who do agree with you = good freedom lovers? Boy, have not encountered this sort of logic since the playground.

Although I bet you will also have something to say if Russia and China were in support of intervention and insisted on Russian and Chinese boots on the ground in Libya leading the international response since America seems to have no stomach for a 3rd war and the war would likely be over before the Euros managed to reach consensus.

You may have failed to realize that the majority of America's own people think they should butt out when asked. Part of the price you pay when you pick too might fights for questionable reasons is that the world no longer trust your intentions when you put a case forward for intervention and your own people become too jaded and war-wary to want to get involved even when there might be a reasonable justification for getting involved.

I'm afraid the US has let European (not the UK) countries take advantage of its NATO protection for too long. If the US doesn't want to have to intervene all the time, it needs to put its foot down and say "ok you NATO countries, start showing some backbone and increase your military spending. If you don't, you're out of NATO".

Click to expand...

Ha! If you did that NATO would be an organization with members you could probably count on one hand.

What's the point of NATO if the US allows Europe to have a free ride? To add legitimacy to US military operations around the world?

Click to expand...

That is exactly the point of NATO in a post cold war world. The Great and Terrible Russia Threat is gone, and with it the whole reason for NATO's existence.

Right now, most members are 'free riders' because membership is essentially free by come with many perks. As soon as you add unreasonable demands, countries will drop out since they face zero external threat and have huge pressures on their public finances at home and increasing defense spending to please Uncle Sam when their own people are unemployed and demonstrating on the streets would be far greater threat to them than any conceivable external military foe.

63% Say U.S. Should Stay Out of Libya Crisis

ToxSic said:

Who doesn't want it...
apparently the 60.11 percent of patriots in the FOX poll.

But seriously... no other polls conducted in the US news, etc.? FOX stats is all we have?
I'd like to see some other polls and what they put in it as the question and answers to yes-no-maybes

Click to expand...

This one is a scientific poll.



"63% Say U.S. Should Stay Out of Libya Crisis
Tuesday, March 08, 2011

As official Washington buzzes with talk of possible U.S. military intervention in Libya, the majority of U.S. voters continue to favor a hands-off approach.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% of Likely U.S. Voters think the United States should get more directly involved in the Libyan crisis. Sixty-three percent (63%) say America should leave the situation alone. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, .)

These findings echo those in a survey in late February when 67% said the United States should stay out of the political situation unfolding in several Arab countries including Libya.

Forty percent (40%) of voters rate the Obama administration’s response to the situation in Libya to date as good or excellent. Twenty-one percent (21%) say the administration is doing a poor job. The president has made clear in recent days that a variety of options including military ones are open as far as the United States is concerned.

This, too, is comparable to how voters viewed the administration’s response to the political unrest in Egypt that led to the resignation of longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on March 6-7, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Forty-two percent (42%) of voters believe a change in the government of Libya would be good for the United States. Thirteen percent (13%) think the overthrow of longtime Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi would be bad for America, while19% say it will have no impact. A sizable 27% aren’t sure.

Generally speaking, however, 76% of Likely Voters believe that it’s good for America when dictators in other countries are replaced with leaders selected in free and fair elections.

Forty percent (40%) now think it’s at least somewhat likely that Libya will become a free, democratic and peaceful nation over the next few years, but that includes just seven percent (7%) who say it’s Very Likely. Forty-nine percent (49%) think such a transformation is unlikely, including eight percent (8%) who say it’s Not At All Likely to occur. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.

This is more optimism than voters expressed when asked two weeks ago if most of the Arab countries now experiencing political unrest will become free, democratic and peaceful in the next few years. Only 30% thought it was at least somewhat likely.

Republicans feel slightly more strongly than Democrats and voters not affiliated with either major party that the United States should get more directly involved in the crisis in Libya. But most GOP voters, like those across all demographic categories, are opposed to U.S. involvement.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Democrats give the president good or excellent marks for his handling of Libya, a view shared by 40% of unaffiliateds but just 23% of Republicans.

Members of the president’s party also are more optimistic than GOP and unaffiliated voters that Libya will ultimately become a free, democratic and peaceful nation.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of the Political Class like the way the president is handling the Libyan situation, but just 29% of Mainstream voters agree.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of all voters say they are following recent news repots about the political unrest in Libya, with 45% who say they are following Very Closely.

Most Americans now fear that the political unrest roiling Arab nations like Egypt and Libya may get America into another big war.

In August 2009, following the British government’s decision to send the terminally ill terrorist convicted of blowing up a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland back home to Libya, 31% of Americans described the North African Arab country as an enemy of the United States. Only two percent (2%) said Libya was a U.S. ally, while 52% rated it somewhere in between an enemy and an ally.

A majority of voters, for the first time, support an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan or the creation of a timetable to bring them all home within a year.

But a plurality of voters fears that the growing unrest in the Arab world will have a negative impact on the fragile political situation in Iraq, and most think it is unlikely that all U.S. troops will be out of that country by the end of the year as planned.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

Survey toplines and crosstabs are available to Platinum Members only.
ShareThis

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion polling information. We poll on a variety of topics in the fields of politics, business and lifestyle, updating our site’s content on a news cycle throughout the day, everyday.

Rasmussen Reports Platinum Members get an all-access pass to polling news, analysis and insight not available to the general public.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade. To learn more about our methodology, click here.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on March 6-7, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology."

Obama cools to US military intervention in Libya

The Christian Science Monitor excerpt:

"Obama’s pragmatism appears to be largely in sync with American public opinion. A number of recent polls show that while Americans are following the upheaval in the Middle East with considerable interest, they generally do not favor strong US intervention in the region – either to promote democracy or bring about “regime change” in Libya.

In one poll released this week by the Vision Critical/Angus Reid polling firm in New York, only 8 percent of respondents said they would support Iraq-style military action by the US in Libya."



"Obama cools to US military intervention in Libya
President Obama signals that, for now, he is wary of committing US military forces to help the Libyan opposition oust Muammar Qaddafi.

By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer / March 11, 2011


President Obama listens to a question as he holds a news conference in Washington Friday. (Photo credit: Jason Reed/Reuters)

Washington

President Obama on Friday signaled he has settled into a cautious approach to Libya that seeks the ouster of Col. Muammar Qaddafi, but which – at this point – does not include the use of US military force.

As outlined at a White House press conference, the president’s Libya policy in many ways reflects the pragmatic approach he has adopted towards the upheaval that has seized the Arab world from Yemen to Morocco.

The US stands with the people of the region and their yearning for greater freedoms, Mr. Obama says. But a variety of factors – from differing US interests to how embattled governments respond to the protests against them – mean the US will not treat each case the same. The one constant, the president suggests, is that the US will look for the predominant force for change to come from within.

RELATED: Can the US military help Libyan rebels oust Muammar Qaddafi? Four options.

At the press conference – called by the White House to address rising gas prices – Obama painted a picture of a slow but sure course on Libya aimed at pressuring the Libyan government as it battles the opposition.

“We are slowly tightening the noose around Qaddafi,” Obama said, citing the international sanctions imposed on the regime, the adoption of an arms embargo, and implementation by NATO of 24-hour overflight surveillance of Libyan military activity.

Obama's pragmatic approach

As for eventual military action to help bring about Qaddafi’s departure, Obama said he was weighing the options but suggested he is not yet as enthusiastic as some other Western countries, led by France and Great Britain, appear to be.

“You have to balance costs versus benefits” in deciding whether or not to use the military, he said. “I don’t take those decisions lightly.”

Obama stopped short of endorsing the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya, but noted that NATO officials will meet on Tuesday to continue discussions that took place this week. In addition, he noted that he is sending Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the region next week, and she will meet with representatives of the Libyan opposition.

Obama’s pragmatism appears to be largely in sync with American public opinion. A number of recent polls show that while Americans are following the upheaval in the Middle East with considerable interest, they generally do not favor strong US intervention in the region – either to promote democracy or bring about “regime change” in Libya.

In one poll released this week by the Vision Critical/Angus Reid polling firm in New York, only 8 percent of respondents said they would support Iraq-style military action by the US in Libya.

Obama responds to critics

In his Friday press conference, Obama responded to mounting criticism in Washington for what some say has been a halting and at times contradictory approach to the turmoil in the Middle East. He insisted he has emphasized the same key principles across the board, including his conviction that people have the right to express their grievances to their government.

This process of change can be a great opportunity for the Middle East, he added, saying the US “should be on the side of those who want to seize this opportunity."

The president’s rhetoric did not reassure everyone. On a day when reports out of Saudi Arabia told of security forces using intimidation, tear gas, and even gunfire to discourage a planned “day of rage” protest, some human-rights organizations seized on Obama’s point that the US would respond differently to different countries.

The US should not overlook a crackdown on protesters just because it has “strategic and economic ties” to that country, the organization Human Rights First said.

Insisting the Saudis are “using many of the same crackdown techniques that the Obama administration recently condemned in the wake of uprisings in Egypt and Libya,” Brian Dooley, director of the organization’s human rights defenders program, says, 'The United States cannot play favorites and give allies that stifle dissent a pass.'”

Re: Majority of 23,000 votes in Fox News poll wants U.S. to stay out of Libya

Mr T said:

Why is the world going to hate you for bombing Gaddafi's planes? The rebels want it, the Arab League wants it. Who doesn't want it - Venezuela, China, Russia and everyone else who prefers oppression to freedom?

I'm afraid the US has let European (not the UK) countries take advantage of its NATO protection for too long. If the US doesn't want to have to intervene all the time, it needs to put its foot down and say "ok you NATO countries, start showing some backbone and increase your military spending. If you don't, you're out of NATO".

What's the point of NATO if the US allows Europe to have a free ride? To add legitimacy to US military operations around the world?

Click to expand...

Who doesn't want it? Those include India, Brazil and South Africa.

solarz said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Looks like the Libyan government's artillery and air force is finally starting to turn the tide of this war.

I wonder if the early ineffectiveness of the Libyan government forces is due to the massive desertions, which left many command posts vacant. Once the initial waves of desertions ended, what remains of the government army are loyal enough to start making use of their superior assets.

Finn said that the clock is ticking... yes, but it looks like it's ticking for the rebels right now...

Click to expand...

I suspect that relatively few officers actually deserted, but decided to sit on the fence ( citing poor communications, lack of fuel, munitions etc to be able to carry out orders) while they worked out who was going to come out on top. Once it became clear that Gadaffi had negotiated his survival with the West, they "regained" operation capability and the tide swiftly turned against the rebels.

Now it only left to see when the rebellion will truly fall apart. Short of a full-scale foreign military intervention (that'd be no short of invasion) to take the rebel side, there's no hope for the loose band of anti-Gaddafi rebels, no-fly zone would only lead to a slow and agonizing death to them in the end - time and again it just proved to be a moral self-pleasing measure for the western governments, but do nothing to stall the tide of well-armed, well-organised armies to bring certain doom to whoever the no-fly zone supposed to "protect", whether that was in Iraq or in the Balkans.

Perhaps that also proved "Facebook revolution" don't transit well to armed revolution.