• The post you are reporting:
   
  If we are going to quote the famous theorists of warfare then there is a passage from Sun Tzu's Art of War that can be used to describe Gaddafi's situation.
  
  "Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve."
  
  History being something we should learn from, not emulate, gives us examples of leaders given no options preferring to see their countries soaked in blood than surrender. There are also numerous examples of armed forces changing sides but ending up as the new ruling elite. The Libyan rebel council is, so far, proposing the sort of regime change they attempted in 1969, and they got Gaddafi. Bombing a country far too often leads to the call for 'strong leadership' within the country being bombed, as no other options are recognisable.
  
  So far there have been no real signs of there being anything on the table (ideally coming from other Arab nations) to offer the people of Libya options. All bombing will achieve is a polarisation into two camps and that can lead to a long and nasty civil war.
  
  What is wrong with using the air power, and UN resolution, to defend the rebels rather than to attack Gaddafi while using every means available to promote negotiations?

Report Post

Your Name

Reason