Talk:American involvement in the 2011 Libyan Civil War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force

Africa: Libya

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Libya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libya.

Head

US role "consisted of a number of bombing missions"? Well, that is a very POV (and largely oversimplified and even incorrect) start to the page.

Actually it is a much more multifaceted approach that is being played by Washington. Let's look at the timeline:

It originally involved diplomatic pressure and announcements followed by sanctions as the death toll skyrocketed. Initially, Obama (a notably cautious leader disinclined towards major actions) was very unwilling to enter his country into a third war, while the conservative majority in the legislature felt it did not suit US interests (no doubt seeing it as a sort of second Bosnia; other US conservatives noted the improvement of relations with Libya under Bush). However, Obama came under heavy pressure from his allies Britain and especially France (as well as certain other NATO countries), as well as from statements by rebels as well as various analysts that a lack of US intervention would cause a great growth of anti-Americanism and that intervention would have the opposite affect; as well as large demonstrations by Libyan diaspora and many sympathizers (some being members of other diasporas, others not). In the end, Obama only made the choice to intervene when Gaddafite troops were marching on Benghazi and the Gaddafis (Muammar and Saif-al-Islam) were gloating of how they would "wipe out" and "annihilate" the rebels, deemed codeword for major massacres. But even after the UN resolution was passed, the US implementation of the no-fly zone was done in a hesitant manner, in a way that showed that they still were not willing to firmly take a side. They gave the rebels far less help than the latter had expected in their (the rebel's) advance from Benghazi to Ajdabia, to Brega and then aimed at Sirte, causing the rebels' brash offensive strategy to yield many casualties. Eventually the rebels' advance was reversed and the Gaddafites made it as far as Ajdabiya, while the US government came under fiery criticism from first the rebel government and then both sides (as well as the center) of the political spectrum for its hesitancy. With heavy UN mandate-forces aerial aid, the attack on Ajdabiya was repelled- but the US, despite being praised heavily by the rebel government for its actions at Ajdabiya, still insisted on playing a sort of backstage role, not wanting to get too involved and no-doubt having fears that there were Islamists among the revolutionaries (as alleged by Gaddafi, his sympathizers and apologists, foes of Western intervention, Russia, China and so on). The US did not take an eager role in the conflict until the visit of John McCain (apparently a well-respected figure) to the NTC's capital, during which he affirmed that the rebels were not only "freedom fighters" but "his heroes" and dispelled the myth that the rebels were Al-Qaida operatives in disguise. What did US (and indeed, other Western) aid entail? Not only bombing of Gaddafi's centres, but also humanitarian aid to rebel-controlled areas (and when possible, the whole country), encouragement of recognition of the NTC as the sole government of Libya (despite the fact that the US itself only recognizes de facto, despite having a full-fledged embassy in Benghazi and vice versa, with an appointed ambassador), and applying diplomatic pressure on countries that could swing to aiding Gaddafi (such as Russia, Turkey and even China) to adopt pro-NTC stances. The latter almost humorously resulted in a two-faced policy by some of these as their policies were pulled back and forth by different elements within the country, most notably Russia, which alternates between one face suggesting it might be better for Gaddafi to go, and the other face which speaks of "medieval crusades" and sends Ilyumzhinov to play a friendly game of chess with Gaddafi. Anyhow, this page needs info and citations. I suggest using Al-Jazeera: use its articles, but especially use its Libya Live Blog, a long developing timeline of the events which has much info on the Western role in Libya (and how it developed). On one entry, Al Jazeera even released the breakdown of the spending of US funds on Libya-related affairs, a precious source for us. One could also borrow sources from other Wiki articles. But this page must be improved, or otherwise deleted, as at its present state, it is an eyesore. (sorry for a long post on a tiny article's talkpage). --Yalens (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know more about this topic than me! I just figured it deserved its own article, that's all. YHG 942 (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine then, we jsut really need to make this page worth something if its going to last. --Yalens (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move suggestion

I still support its change to "Western involvement...", as long as it doesn't duplicate 2011 military intervention in Libya (if you guys are ready to work on it). It would be a good effort to minimize pressure on the other articles. You're in the right direction, YHG942. This war is getting longer and we need more separation to keep it smooth for the readers. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 20:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US relations with the NTC

I just added this section. Its more of a timeline here, but many of hte sources reveal the motivations behind the US' position changes (initially for example, they weren't sure of who the rebels were; the official recognition recognition came after a pledge by the rebels to develop Western democracy). There should be more analysis added.--Yalens (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on American involvement in the 2011 Libyan Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]