re: "Where the push for ground troops may come from ... "

CDR Salamander at Cdr Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.") correctly opposes mission creep in Libya.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hat if, as things are trending, the rebel forces simply cannot dislodge Kadafi and his sons from power? With no one left to save and unlikely to destroy Bengazi in order to save it - a lot of nations are left having attacked a nation with nothing to show for it to the world or their citizens.

Somewhere between a full collapse of the rebellion and a last stand - someone will point out what has been invested at this point and the danger of a Qadaffi family's survival and the shaming of all the coalition nations. All that good advice about, "If you are set on regicide, you must succeed." and "If you set out to take Vienna; take Vienna." will come to the front along with a healthy bit of, "You won't get a second chance."

Everyone will look to the USA. I think SECDEF Gates is not bluffing - and I don't think the CINC will put troops ashore.

The rest of the Coalition therefor will not do it - because they cannot do it militarily without the USA - and politically with their population."

It's always nice to have Big Sam to rely, and blame, upon.

"(W)e are in this - I support 100% all efforts to win this ... to a point. We do not need another occupation by USA forces of a Muslim nation.If the rebellion continues to collapse, the push will come for ground troops ... and will pass. Uncle Sam will shrug - and I will support the President 100% saying "No."

I will fault him for getting involved in this folly to begin with - but will support his and SECDEF Gates's wise decision to let this opportunity for imperial humanitarianism pass.
Will it be a complete POL/MIL mess with second and third order effects that will be exceptionally distasteful? Yes. That is why you don't do things like this."

Once you go "kinetic," there no taking it back. If Qhadafy survives in power, even in a rump state, he will exact revenge. It's how he rolls.

re: "NATO: Hey, We'll Bomb The Rebels, Too"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ just keeps getting smarter all the time.

Money quote(s):

"If America wants to enter other states and declare a monopoly on sanctioned violence, well, that's a good way to keep outrages against civilians low, but comes at the cost of using American troops for every damn fight in the world.

If you're going to go a different way -- supporting indigenous fighters with air capabilities and intelligence -- you have to accept that there are going to be some vicious slaughters of civilians by "freedom fighters," but certainly you want as few such massacres as possible. What do you do? You can threaten an end to air cover and supply. But that doesn't thwart a slaughter in progress.

I'm not sure a threat to attack the rebels we're supporting is necessarily a bad thing. We need them to keep it clean. The temptation in any war, especially a civil one, is to get dirty and vicious as soon as possible and then keep topping yourself. Our troops don't do that (except for the occasional psychopaths who are then court martialed), but we don't want to have to insert our troops into every situation where we might want to flex some military might.

If we're going to fight in this limited fashion (and I think the old Cold War model of limited support is well worth revisiting), we do need to let our "freedom fighters" know that there are some things we just won't/can't countenance, and there's no way we can stay in a fight if our "freedom fighters" decide to unleash their inner Al Qaeda.

As for actually bombing them, though: I really can't think of a more preposterous situation than bombing both sides in a civil war.

Oh, and meanwhile, SecDef Gates said there won't be any ground troops in Libya as long as he's serving in his job. So, like, implicitly, he's threatening to walk."

&

"(O)f course, any time you have pilots in a war it means you're just one shoot-down away from a hostage situation."