Quote:

IMO, there is a big difference between air strikes and boots on the ground. Air strikes and bag men on the ground will facilitate change, w/o continued occupation. All we have to do is hope that whoever grabs power is easily bought.



Yeah, there obviously is a big difference.

But war isn't straight forward. Obama's said Ghaddafi has to leave 3 cities he already occupies. Two of them are within 30 miles of Tripoli. Ghaddafi's already told Obama to fuck off. So, I'm not sure how you're convinced air strikes is necessarily going to facillitate change. If air strikes is all it takes to necessitate change, why wouldn't they just have done that in Iraq?

And, the Bush administration was convinced they wouldn't have to occupy Iraq for nearly so long. Their initial plan was one year. Things just don't go as planned.

But anyway, so the argument is the difference is Obama's willing to give up on the war if ground troops are required? They would definitely going to be required to get Ghaddafi outta those two cities. But, the idea is that Obama's willing to surrender before they have to enforce those demands?

Has he been telling Europe they shouldn't go in with ground troops? Or, as long as it's not American troops it's okay with him? That "artful" phrasing though, don't know if you can find moral imperative in it I consider necessary for war.

This post is jumbled because I'm trying to figure out what the hell is going on. If I understood it, it'd be a lot shorter.