I normally don't touch on International Relations and Politics, because it is a whole new ball game. Besides there is a lot at stake in this war, and it would be highly one-sided for me to comment from all the way in Singapore. So if I have any comments about this commentary, I would be more than willing to learn from it.
It seems to me that US President Barack Obama may be the only Nobel Prize Peace recipient to have started a war against another country. Of course the reason that is given to the community is that they want to prevent a massive genocide from taking place.
And what about neighbouring Bahrain and Yemen? Is it because there are US military assets in these countries? Is it because somehow, they will sort out the trouble themselves. Or is there something more sinister like material assets in Libya that is attractive enough for intervention. And what about North Korea's incessant bullying of South Korea? Why is it settled by sending an ex president there for talks? Why can't the same be done for Libya? With negotiations?
NO-FLY Zone = No Go Policy
Now, Aerial Supremacy alone, will not win the war. Lessons from Kosovo & Bosnia should have taught the UN troops that Ground Forces are still needed to ensure that peace reigns. However in terms of monetary-wise, it may not be feasible for a US led UN Ground Force to enter Libya. Fighting the war in Afghanistan and Iraq has already strained the US economy. Her allies like Britan are still trying to convince her people back home about the Iraqi war.
Arming the Rebels = No Go Policy
Sending covert teams into Libya to contact the Libyan ground rebels may not be a good idea. Similarly, equipping Libyan ground rebels with weapons is also not a good idea.
Remember Osama bin laden? Remember how the US equipped his rag-tag force back then against the Russians? In fact, some opponents of equipping the rebels, worry about the political leanings of some fighters, especially since NATO's top commander Admiral James Stavridis said on Tuesday that while most rebels were "responsible," some showed "flickers" of Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah sympathies. These countries have a different sense of the term "democracy". What the west sees as democratic, the countries in middle east see it as something deviant or euphemistically, different. So while the ground rebels cry for help, equipping them with weapons from the UN, will send a wrong message.
And that message is that peace is obtained by more force. And what happens when the UN forces are in? They get stuck there in a messy quagmire, because they are needed to build the country like in the case of Iraq.
The current Libyan leader, Gaddaffi, is a mad ruler. To fight him head on is like fighting your shadow -- Pointless. And fighting a shadow war now in Libya will only force the mad ruler to bite back, and with more casualties.