Yeah, but you're calling it a stalemate.
I am? You're the one who brought that word into this thread Joph. But I'll do ya a favor:
I first used that word in this thread
Me, March 21st wrote:
I think we should have just been honest. Say we don't like Khadaffi, toss support to the rebels to help them end his rule, and stand by that decision. The idea of walking into it backwards by pretending we're just there for humanitarian reasons is stupid IMO. No one believes it, and it wont work. The risk we're running is that we'll end up with a stalemate and even more people will die as a result of our "humanitarian" efforts.
I did not say that this stalemate would last forever, just that "even more people will die". So... April, May, June, July, August. That's 5 extra months *after* I said this before an opponent we could have helped them defeat in like 2 weeks was finally defeated.
And if you read that whole thread, you'll note that my issue was with the original claim of using nothing but air support. I argued that we would need to do more than that if we were to help the rebels actually win. And guess what? I was right! We (NATO) did do more than just blow stuff up from the air. We did provide tons of weapons and on the ground military assistance before the rebels were able to win.
It's quite arguable that had NATO stuck to its original promise of just using air power to protect civilians from Khadaffi's forces, we would still be in that stalemate. It's precisely because they didn't do this that the rebels won. And I also predicted that as well. I said that everyone knows they'll have to do more, but they're effectively lying to the public so that they don't suffer massive outcry for their actions. Then, as time goes by and no one's really paying attention, they'll start providing weapons, then ground support, etc.
My whole argument was that either they were embarking on a venture that could not work *or* were being dishonest and intending to do the right thing (eventually), but lying about it so as not to draw negative political attention to themselves. As it happens, they did the latter. My position is that had they been honest about what they were doing (toppling Khadaffi), and directly provided what was needed to accomplish this instead of dancing around the issue, this conflict could have been resolved months ago and many fewer lives would have been lost.
I was right about it then, and I'm still right about it now.
That was after a whopping 21 days of fighting
Tanks fight better than anti-aircraft guns on pick-up trucks? Who knew??
Um... Yeah. That's kinda the point! It's why one conflict took 21 days and the other 6 months. Gee. I thought that's exactly what I was saying.