Percy writes:
Thanks for posting this, it helps to see the specific terms of the resolution, which appears to be an excellent example of the age old adage, "Be careful what you ask for." The Arab League asked for a no-fly zone and got a UN resolution authorizing "all necessary means to protect civilians" with only a "foreign occupation force" being off-limits, so I assume any ground-based special-ops would be within the guidelines of the resolution.
What is the difference between a rebel and a civilian? It sounds like if Gadhafi uses force against the rebels, the coalition is authorized under the term of the UN resolution to take action. This is like breaking a mirror, I think we've just guaranteed ourselves seven more years of Arab hatred.
I think that is right on the money. In addition if this is viewed by the Arabs, and particularly the people of Syria, as a victory for and by the west, rather than a victory for the people of Syria then IMHO, in the medium and long term it will cause considerable damage to the hopes and aspirations of others in that part of the world that desire freedom from oppresive regimes. It will also of course, as you point out, damage even further for years to come the position of western countries in that part of the world.
I just don't know what they're thinking unless, and I sure hope I'm wrong, that there are those with a vested interest in this type of conflict that are driving it.
AbE: In my view the establishment of a no-fly zone on its own would have been a good thing, but as you said Percy they have gone well beyond that.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.