War News Updates: How Did Libya Get Hold Of Advanced Surface-To-Air Missiles

Russian export controls of some of their weapon systems has always been a joke. What surprises me is that we have yet to experience a terrorist attack in which terrorists use these surface to air missiles to shoot down (en masse) a number of passenger airliners, and all at the same time.

 

 

via War News Updates: How Did Libya Get Hold Of Advanced Surface-To-Air Missiles.

XBrad: The other concern, of course, is that these improved missiles will start showing up in Afghanistan. Much like the US supplied Stinger wreaked havoc among Soviet helicopters, the presence of advanced shoulder fired missiles in the hands of our enemy there would greatly curtail our use of helicopters to provide logistical, intelligence, medical, transport, and fire support.

9 thoughts on “War News Updates: How Did Libya Get Hold Of Advanced Surface-To-Air Missiles”

  1. That’s what happens when you poke the badger, and then don’t kill the badger, regardless of how much you protest that you weren’t really leading the poking of it, but merely poked it with the biggest stick with your head in the sand. Like it or not, we crossed the Rubicon. Finish it off.

  2. OK, “If you strike the king, make sure you kill the king.” OK, you’ve done that, now what? Does this mean it will automatically be better or could it be exponentially worse? A young democracy may be the perfect terrorist haven. Don’t forget all of these terrorists groups have political wings. Once they are voted in, they bring in the militants.

    Do yourself and the Nation a favor, do your homework about everything involved in warfare. The terrorists’ worst nightmare is a fully informed American Citizen.

    1. I wasn’t the one who said “Quadaffi must go.”

      When the President of the United States says that, he’s set the only acceptable outcome, especially once US forces have been committed to action. Personally, I probably wouldn’t have intervened, but if I were President, I sure as hell wouldn’t have done so in such a half assed manner with such poor delineation of our goals and desired outcomes.

  3. Brad, You’re absolutely right. Our major problem is this, Obama is just following the precedent of former Presidents.

  4. The last war I can see as having defined aims was Lincoln’s war, and that was to force the Confederate states back into the Yankee Empire. Simple defeat of the opponent is not a solid war aim. The question is “what do you mean to accomplish as a result of victory in the field?”

    We stumbled into imperium by fighting Spain and acquiring the Philippines, Puerto Rico and the Marianas. We set up the conditions for Hitler by entering Wilson’s self aggrandizing war. We killed a further 400,000 troops by Acheson’s embargo of Japan in 1941, which gave us war in Europe, and then 44 years of cold war and proxy wars, not to mention Korea and Vietnam. This is discounting the treasure we had to expend to expend the blood.

    Great Presidents do not take their country to war, except in the last extremity. With that Idea, we find ourselves going back to 1812, which was fought to end Britain’s kidnapping of our citizens on the high seas for impressment in the Royal Navy to fight Napoleon. GB wouldn’t stop, so Madison had to fight.

    Frankly, Madison was probably the last great president of this country.

  5. I’m glad we are all committed to isolationism now, which is certainly a way of electing to “do” foreign policy. No one is prescient enough to foresee things like Hitler arising out of the decision to go to war in WWI (and that was not a result of our entry into WWI so much as the crushing payback Britain and France wanted to impose.) So, if you don’t want to engage in the world for fear of causing some 8th order-of-effect chain reaction, then take your ball and go home. That’s okay, I would be for it in many cases. On the other hand, and this was the idea of my original post, if you have decided to intervene somewhere, then you had better do it all-out and, in this case, destroy Quadaffi’s rule, and not leave him in place. Was it good to start? Frankly, I am okay with it because it is unlikely to get worse without Quadaffi (recall the Quadaffi of the 1970s-2003, not the guy we have seen for the last 8 years), and could quite possibly get better. Historically, (and this could be evolving a bit) but historically, Islamist parties generally get creamed at the polls. If these countries advance to the point of elections, Islamists will probably not win them. And, yes, I “know about the things involved in warfare;” not only do I teach it for a living, I am one of the guys that deploys when told to and frankly, between Kosovo, Macedonia, Kuwait, Kuwait, Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq, it is getting old.

Comments are closed.