All these ideas suggested by Tom make sense ‘if’ we choose to enter the Libyan civil war via NATO. However, I quote the British Army’s Gen. Richard Dannett, ''If we think some more intervention is right we need to work out what our strategic objective is and make a campaign plan that translates that strategic objective through activity on the ground that can be delivered."

Inevitably, America will by necessity become the key military element in any NATO intervention particularly regarding sustainable air power and logistical support. And while we have a global reputation for having unmatched military capabilities we also have a reputation for not being strategically very clever and generally tone deaf to views other than our own.

My question is how do we define at what point we wave the checkered flag on this intervention and leave? And what happens if a new Libyan government turns out to be as bad as Col. Qaddafi’s a possibility not that far fetched?

I have yet to see a compelling reason to get involved in this beyond "moral obligations." I also have yet to see an argument that explains how those same "moral obligations" don't compel us to put troops in Burma, Sudan, or back in Somalia.

We are stretched to the max already. We do not have anything that could remotely be classified as a vital national interest in the outcome in Libya. I'm not saying you have to pick and choose your battles... LIFE says you have to pick and choose your battles. You pick and choose, then you fight and deal with the consequences. We are still in the fighting and dealing with consequences phases in two major operations. You just got done saying we've run our star general ragged in Afghanistan. You really want to slap a second-stringer on the butt and send him into another game?

I love all these suggestions, but they're all predicated on a strategy of "anti-Qaddafi-ism." Look at it from the other direction. "These actions are pro-_____." Fill in that blank. Who are you supporting in there? Do you know? Who's in charge? What's his agenda? What's his plan? Once he wins the war, what kind of peace does he bring about? How does your plan dovetail into that? Where's the French dossier on the falafel stand commander? Until I see that, for all you know you're arming the next Bin Laden.

Tom, I'm sorry and I love your stuff, but you're already drawing lines on the map and you haven't even thought about the FOREIGN POLICY issues at hand. I think you've been smoking a little too much of whatever Great Satan's Girlfriend is on. To borrow from her, you are jumping into SOF-insurgency sexercises... without first considering the benefits of abstinence.

The ideas espoused here are the military and political equivalent of the current American economic situation-- you have great aspirations, but you're putting stuff in the cart we can't really afford. Stop being jealous of what the French and British do, and don't let the desire to keep up with the Jones's and the Jaques's put you into a mortgage that runs us bankrupt.

Leaving aside the question of whether the U.S. (with or outside of NATO) should intervene militarily in Libya, let me throw out two more thoughts on Tom's "...opens the door for NATO intervening in the civil war, I think."

I think there is at least one other political/diplomatic door that would have to be opened for NATO to intervene -- the United Nations Security Council. I do not believe that all 28 members of NATO (operates on a consensus rule) would agree to intervene without a UNSC Chapter VII resolution authorizing it. This means obtaining both Russian and Chinese acquiescence. I believe that is a long shot for a number of reasons, including Russia's ongoing desire to see NATO diminished in world affairs, not enhanced (China isn't too thrilled with NATO either -- something to do with bombing their embassy in Belgrade a few years back).

One more very practical consideration for both the US and for NATO is whether NATO has the capacity to both intervene in Libya (perhaps escalating the scope of that intervention over time if initial measure do not succeed) and sustain ISAF in Afghanistan. Which is the higher priority for Washington and for NATO as an organization and the members of NATO?

Just points to ponder aside from the broader question of "should we" and the directly related question of what our objectives would be in such an intervention.

When oh when will we ever come to the conclusion that, more times than not, the only winning hand is not to play at all.

But if we do, Tom, what is up with this no-fly zone obsession among the editorial writers and other ignorant (I didn't say stupid, though I probably should have) Washington elite? Do you have any idea what that will cost?

If you're going to do it, which we shouldn't, fly in one night and bomb every airfield in Libya. Job done. Nothing is going to take off after that, especially with Libyan AF maintenance and turnaround. The carrier on station could do it, no problem. We know how to deal with SAM-5 and SAM-6, even if they're up and manned, which they probably aren't. Forget the Europeans--they'll hand us the bucket (empty) to put the fire out. So why not learn from them for once?

Rant over.

1. The civil war is turning into a regional security issue that affects our allies, (real allies in Europe) and has the potential to destabilize Egypt and Tunisia. - Continued fighting equates to increasing damage on Libya's oil production for Europe which will strengthen the strategic position of Saudi Arabia and Russia. This compromises (albeit slightly) the strategic independence of NATO members as we enter what is likely an unprecedented period of instability in the middle east. Furthermore, if the fighting continues, it will likely reach the national borders of Egypt and Tunisia which could create further instability and possibly a war between countries that are already on the verge of falling apart. If the US is shown to be powerless in this situation (when we have already stated clearly what we want: Quadafi out) it damages our own ability to exert force.

2. Failure to oust Quadafi sets an example for other oil dictatorships (many of whom could soon be in a similar situation). - At this moment, the party which seems to be managing the "crisis" in Libya best would seem to be Quadafi. He has held off initial pressure in his capital. He has thus far prevented international media from producing evidence of genocide or war crimes. He has prevented western powers from getting involved militarily. He has (as of today) rallied his own military assets to a point where they are retaking lost ground. When similar regimes in the region see this, the message is clear. Your best bet to stay in power is to fight as hard as possible using every asset at your disposal because in the final analysis, no one else wants your problem. It also makes them wish they had a WMD deterent as this is the only true protection from US intervention.

3. Failure to oust Quadafi could turn the Arab street against us in a time when they seem to be liking us. - If Quadafi marches to the Egyptian border there will be a bloodbath along the way and afterward as he cleanses the country of dissent. This cleansing could very well go along tribal lines, much as the fighting has. The surviving rebels will hole up in Egypt where they will be accepted as defeated heroes. Meanwhile, details of the body count will start to slip out and the question will arise: Could the US have done something? It will seem very awkward when our answer is: Well yes we could have, but we were worried about the uncertain strategic results.

Everyone says that we shouldn't go in because the power vacume of a post-Quadafi Libya might result in inter-tribal warfare with the possibility of AQ. Well if Quadafi takes back Bengazi, there will probably still be inter-tribal warfare as Quadafi cleans house.

Everyone says that a no-fly zone won't have much effect on the ground because Quadifi's Migs can't hit shit anyway. Actually though, the most useful affect a no-fly zone will have is to prevent military supplies and persons from being shipped to Quadafi from sub-Saharan Africa. Anyone who knows anything about Africa knows that if you have the right connections and enough money, you can buy an army pretty quickly in Africa. That is exactly what Quadafi has been doing over the past week and he will keep flying it in as long as he can.

In other words, this guy is a real pain in the ass, everyone knows we can take him out pretty easily and leave just as easily so why don't we do it already. Don't worry about shit hitting the fan because that has already happened.

Ok now back to looking for work.

In the wake of going on a solid ten-year run of serial strategic incompetence and bald-face lying, do Americans have any individuals or institutions left that we can trust to lead us into yet another fuzzy-minded military expedition?

If we go, will it be with guidance from another great friend of democracy? A Libyan Karzai or Chalabi perhaps?

Would France or any other EU/NATO nation give a flying fart for Libya if 980,000 barrels of oil per day were not at risk? They're the ones that made the marriage bed with Muamar and kept his despotic rule going these past many years.

Define the Problem!

Is Quadafi the Problem or is Instability the Problem?

For some obscure reason we're assuming that getting rid of Quadafi is going to stabilize the situation. Why?

What is with the weird attachment to No Fly? Why assume it will tip things towards Rebels? When did Air Combat Command become a bunch of pacifists? New motto: "Peace Is Our Profession"?!?!

Oh I get it, we're going to war w/o going to war. Never mind!

ERIC HAMMEL, your sharp comments are spoiling the growing war party in both NATO and Congress. You’re like the teetotaler that shows up at some booze soaked revelry.

Sarkozy has the right idea. NATO nations should recognize the regime in East Libya and then just target the heavy weapons which are being used by Qaddafi's loyal bodyguard regiments. Given everything we've seen during the past two weeks it seems these are the only forces which are still loyal to him (or else they would have reached Benghazi by now). The ditherer-in-chief is overthinking this one. The US could deploy a few hundred special forces soldiers to coordinate operations and withdraw them the day after the statues fell in Tripoli. Totally agree that the US should do no more (ie. deploy more troops or stay longer)--that'd be a disaster. Or be content to deal with the Qaddafis for another forty years--mobs can't beat tanks and artillery.

Where's the joy in lining up to send other people's children off to die for no good reason? I see many articulate people caught up in ruminating on such folly, but I just don't understand the careless place from which it comes. Don't mistake intellect for wisdom, passion for truth, or ignorance for an open mind.

I do understand, with deep regret at this advanced stage of life, that there are people out there who have misconstrued the stark depictions of death in combat I have been writing since I was a teen. I labored with quite another purpose in mind: You were supposed to think hard, not get hard.

A wise woman recently said that journalists should investigate stories rather than put out uncorroborated rumors. There was a lot said about Gaddafi forces attacking protestors when the unrest in Libya began, but the images we have now on TV depict war- more like a coup d'etat attempt that should not be equated with the peaceful anti government demonstrations that took place in Egypt or Tunisia. There are anti-Gaddafi rebels in the streets in Libya carrying all kinds of weapons.

I saw Gaddafi during a street parade when I was very little. In the 2 decades since, I haven't come across another political leader who's been able to command as much intrigue as the colonel did then. For those hearing about Gaddafi's for the first time as a result of the current unrest in Libya, or from his likely association with the Lockerbie atrocity, he'll seem like nothing but a dreaded tyrant. The man however is loved (or at least appreciated) by a whole lot of people, and not just those in his pockets. He's a staunch leader of the OAU and an audacious proponent of African/Arab unity and anti imperialism, often saying what cowards think (remember what happened to Lumamba after he gave the African freedom speech). I find the man strange, but despite his eccentricity, a lot of people look up to him and will support him for a long time.

I do not think it is our place to meddle with Libyan affairs at this time. Even the U.N. needs to find out more about what's happening on the ground in Libya before making any moves. For example, who are these anti-Gaddafi rebels? Where did they get their ammunition from? Are ordinary Libyan civilians, women, and children safe around these rebels, and would Gaddafi forces even have a reason to attack anyone if these rebels did not exist? Some type of mediation, such as encouraging different tribal leaders to come to the table for diplomatic talks and resolutions sounds better to me than handing over assistance to some rebels we know nothing about.

Even if we wind up going in and enforcing a no-fly zone Gaddafi's forces will still have an advantage over the rebels in tanks and organization of fighting forces. We put up a no-fly zone and in a week there will be cries for airstrikes to intensify against ground targets, concentrations of troops, C2 centers logistics hubs and the such.

Sure you could say there are moral obligations involved, and in another world or another time when we aren't tied up in two Arab countries already and involved in something of an economic mess we could go in. But not today, and frankly there have been plenty of "moral obligations" that we've passed up. As much as we like to think we are upholders of all that is good and holy regardless of who or where its taking place our history is dotted with incidents where such interventions on the grounds of "moral obligation" also happen to have a very solid gain for our own interests.

Besides, what is the end-game here? Once we step in its going to be rather difficult to get out. Think about it: We are relying on a bunch of rebels to make coordinated and effective military strikes to cripple Gaddafi and force him to leave, if they fail to make solid gains after the imposition of a no-fly zone what do we do then? Do we just one day just stop flying patrols? Do we take more steps to help the rebels by dropping more bombs? If we go in on the basis of "moral obligations" then we will be bound to enforce this no-fly zone until Gaddafi leaves the country, either on some vehicle or in a body bag. Whereas intervening even more in Libya increases the risk of dropping a bomb on the wrong target, and before we know it we'll have throngs of people on the street burning American flags (and probably/preferably an Israeli one too) chanting "Death to America."

And suppose all the stars align and the rebels manage to push Gaddafi out. Who takes his place? Right now the rebels are united in their common hatred of Gaddafi, but what happens after that common enemy is gone? Will the true democracy activists win or some other force? Some hard-line fundamentalist Islamists who seek to create a sharia? Another dictator or self-styled "president?" What is to say after Gaddafi leaves the rebels won't turn on themselves and embroil themselves in another civil war? How about outside actors?

To tell the truth, the childish side of me revels in this. Look how impotent this world is without US leadership. Everyone is practically shoving and pushing their way to the podium to voice their concerns and to talk the talk about moral obligations, human rights and all that wishwash. And once everyone is done giving their identical two cents on the issue and the question of who will walk the walk comes up the room is silent. Western powers that love to lecture about human rights and all that nonsense now realize that for the most part the vehicle which advances their agenda tends to take the form of US aircraft carriers and other military assets. Meanwhile Arabs who have long resented American intervention are how asking us to act. The Arab League recently just backed the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. WHAT A FUCKING JOKE. They themselves can't even act on their own words expect the US and US taxpayers to put their silly plan into action? No thanks. After years of your people burning our flags and trying to kill us in Iraq and Afghanistan we've finally gotten the message, you don't want us around. So it is with a great sense of satisfaction we can now reply to their request of a no-fly zone with a: "you sorry fuckers are on your own."

And finally, this is about Libyan independence. If they want it so bad they'd better be damn ready to bleed and die for it. Otherwise what is the point. Jefferson once said that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." This is Libya's chance to show the world whether or not they truly want liberty.

Back to reality.
Perhaps if certain things on the ground changed, if for instance the rebels organized and showed us they are ready to fight to the end and are determined to throw out Gaddafi one way or another, then we SHOULD act. If the Libyan people can show us an endgame, we can show them US airpower.