After talks with his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized military intervention in Libya "directly and unequivocally rules out" ground operations.
"The position of the Russian Federation remains absolutely unchanged," he said.
Why are China and Russia discussing Western ground intervention? I thought the West had ruled that out.
But unless we want to count on luck, that is what should happen to avoid Khaddafi surviving this war. I'll say it again, a good division-sized force could march on Tripoli and drive Khaddafi from power. Then the only question is whether loyalists could maintain a terror campaign or insurgency against a new government.
UPDATE: Oh, and the New York Times editorializes about the war. But unlike the Russians and Chinese who understand what breaking the stalemate would require, the NYT editors rely on their vast ciphering abilities on issues of strategery to give their best advice. One, NATO should speak as one voice. Two, somehow--with magic perhaps or by saying "pretty please" or something--we need to convince Khaddafi loyalists to defect.
Oh, and they're fine with bombings that might kill the dictator's children and grandchildren. Funny what is acceptable when your own man is in office. (I don't doubt we can legally target such "command and control" locations, but I find the practice counter-productive in the propaganda war.)
But it is the bombing part of their advice that is really funny and shows that they really have no business opining on military matters:
But the Pentagon needs to send America’s specialized low-flying attack planes, the A-10 and the AC-130, back into action against Libyan Army tanks. These are far more effective at destroying enemy vehicles and avoiding friendly ones.
One, the problem isn't that we can't identify tanks at high altitudes. We don't need to go low to do that.
Two, going low isn't ideal. We learned that in the Persian Gulf War when some of our planes (and the British) used low attack profiles and got hammered with anti-aircraft guns while the high-flyers avoided that simple but numerous flak. No, we fly high and drop smart bombs.
Three, unless it is an extremely low threat environment, we don't fly low. The AC-130 flies at between 5,500 and 10,500 feet for their missions. This is in no way "low-level." But this is still within range of anti-aircraft guns so the planes usually operate at night. Indeed, future versions will be missile-only armed to allow them to fly higher and still destroy targets on the ground. The A-10, which in the 1970s was designed to fly low to use its 30mm chain gun, is also being upgraded to allow it to fly high while loitering over the battlefield to use a targeting pod to identify targets far below. Basically, flying low just gets our pilots killed without providing any military advantage. So what a shock, the editors' military advice is absolutely worthless.
Seriously, the last place to go to for military advice is anyone associated with this paper's editorial board. Honestly, an accordion would be a better choice if you go to war than taking these guys' advice.
