sdd@pyuxh.UUCP (S Daniels) (03/27/86)
Now that the shooting has started in the Gulf of Sidra (sp?),
maybe we can leave the old stuff (WWII, 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Israeli's
sinking a US Navy vessel 19 yrs ago, etc.) and talk about something current.
To keep things easy to follow for you folks who'd rather play debate than
read and understand things (if you know what I mean, and I think you do),
I'll do this in a question/answer format. You'll have to supply the ">"s.
I'll even cite my references up front: I've been reading the newspaper
(mostly AP wire stuff), listening to CBS radio, and watching Macneil/Lehrer.
If those aren't specific enough, tough cookies and don't expect me to read
your flames/replies after you start on that tack.
------
Q1. Should the US Sixth Fleet have returned fire?
A1. Certainly. After someone shoots six missiles at your aircraft and sends
2 missile patrol boats out, the fleet commander would have turned
restraint into negligence if he'd waited longer and not returned fire.
But that's the easy one.
Q2. Should the fleet have attacked the missile site at Sirte (sp?) and the
patrol boat sent out on the second day, even though the Libyans did
not open fire?
A2. Once again, yes. Libya was warned that any of its vessels or craft
heading toward the US forces would be considered hostile and would
be treated accordingly. The missile site was attacked because it had
turned up its fire control radar, most likely preparing an attack.
Q3. Should the US Sixth Fleet been there in the first place?
A3. Yes, for several good reasons.
1. Since WWII, the US has been the principal naval power of the free
world. Accordingly, it carries the primary responsibility to keep
international waters just that, international. As soon as Khadafy
declared the Gulf of Sidra his, then drew his "line of death" across
it, someone had to show him this wasn't his lake.
Now, for those of you who say, "You should have negotiated a settle-
ment over the boundary dispute," let's remember something: it's
not Moamar's to annex. Besides, I recall that the British negotiated
a settlement to an annexation in the mid-1930's, Hitler's annexation
of Czechoslovakia. See how much good that did?
2. Libya has shown a great willingness to attack its neighbors, Chad,
the Sudan, and Egypt, in the recent past. A show of force tells
them the United States is willing to go in harm's way against one of
their enemies. Using that force, once attacked, reinforces that.
3. The US wanted to show Khadafy it did not approve of his support of
terrorism. It chose to do that by letting him see the fleet up
close and personal. A far more restrained approach than some
the more reactionary folks proposed, like preemptive air strikes.
4. There have been reports, unconfirmed, that Libya was planning
attacks on US diplomats abroad. Again, a show of arms is not
an unreasonable deterrent.
Q4. But doesn't this give Khadafy another stage to strut and fret upon?
A4. Yes, but only the ones who buy his bull are the ones who are already
converted to his cause.
Q5. If this is such a good idea, why have the USSR, the Arab league, and
a few others supported Khadafy?
A5. Unenlightened self interest.
1. The USSR supports him because
(a) we don't and
(b) he buys a heck of a lot of arms from them.
2. The Arab League supports him *publicly* because
(a) even if he is the bastard of the family, he's still family
(b) Khadafy has a big military force, by their standards, and
he doesn't mind using it against them.
*Privately* (according to some analysts), they would prefer he
either go away or behave because
(a) he's an embarrassment
(b) nearly all of them need US aid, $$$$, and/or arms
3. The others are just afraid supporting the US in this will cause
Libya to mount terrorist attacks against them. In short, the only
thing greater than their lack of guts is their lack of principle.
Q6. Won't this just make Khadafy get more heavily involved in terrorism?
A6. Perhaps, but one has to wonder how much more he can do. Khadafy's
already shown he'll strike anywhere at any time. I doubt if he has
a production quota.
Besides, now that the US has shown it will use deadly force against
Libya, even Khadafy must realize that the fleet can steam back in
again and do even more damage should he try to retaliate. If he does
try to retaliate, we should do just that. It might even be a good
time to take the SOB out.
Q7. How long should the fleet stay there?
A7. The DoD said it might leave early, if the attacks don't recur.
However, I think that weakens the point. The fleet should stay there
until (a)the planned last day of the exercise or (b)Libya stops
shooting and/or sending vessels out, whichever is later.
------
Okay, sports fans, I've had my say. Your turn.
--
Steve Daniels (!pyuxh!sdd) "I'm counting the smiles on the road to Utopia."