"By providing only air cover for the rebels, our intervention left the situation on the ground to the local competing forces, tribes and militias, which were divided then and remain divided to this day. Nearly 15 years later, Libya is still a mess, with two governments vying for control, and it's still a dangerous jumping-off point for refugees and migrants from Africa across the Mediterranean into Europe."
"I don't know Libya, I wrote at the time, but my gut tells me that any kind of decent outcome there will require boots on the ground either as military help for the rebels to oust Gadhafi as we want, or as post-Gadhafi peacekeepers and referees between tribes and factions to help with any transition to democracy. Those boots cannot be ours."
The removal of Nicolás Maduro creates deep uncertainty about Venezuela's political future and the range of U.S. options. Past air-only interventions, notably NATO's 2011 Libyan campaign, toppled Gadhafi but left no ground forces to manage post-conflict stabilization. The lack of boots on the ground allowed competing militias, tribes, and factions to vie for power, producing persistent fragmentation, dual governments, and migration flows across the Mediterranean. Direct U.S. occupation is infeasible, yet shaping outcomes without a ground presence risks creating a power vacuum and long-term instability. Strategic alternatives must account for limited influence absent on-the-ground forces and potential regional consequences.
Read at www.mercurynews.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]