Conflicting interests

In an earlier post I pointed out the potential for the old empires to get frisky in Libya. Looks like the US cleared the way foe the French UK alliance to take to the skies, a quid pro quo for services rendered in the US wars. Allowing the French and Brits work in a more “sanitized” environment was the least it could do. Whether the US can really resist having future interests that will conflict with the Europeans is an unknown. What is known is that the French and British coalition and the Turks have begun to via over control. The Turks didn't take being omitted from the initial planning session lightly. They immediately joined the coalition sending an armada to the Libyan coast and getting the mission designated a NATO mission, with the GCC monarchy support. The French and Brits then moved to have the military and political elements separated. This has been followed by Turkish offer to negotiate. We have a race for Libya that has escalated from a civil war to an international showdown. Now we have oblig

?

What was this supposed to accomplish. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain’s Monarchy are living in a bubble, in the past, or are delusional. They just keep injuring themselves. They're suffering from a shear lack of political savy, vision, and disipline.

Advantageous Positioning

Simple math on UN security Council Resolution 1973.
When many were talking about going to war and what that entailed, the should we or shouldn't we debate, one thing was oddly left out. It is called leverage. Regardless of who is victorious on the ground in Libya this resolution gives outside leverage. If an outside player wants to protect civilians, rebels, corporations, or pursue any of their national interests they now have leverage. Along with leverage it provides broad room to maneuver.

On a side note; The US has a resolution 1773 called the War Powers Act. It allows the president to authorize the use of force while requiring the congress to be notified within 48hrs and get a formal declaration within 90 days or have the troops removed by then. The US has not formally been at war since WWII.

The empires of past getting frisky?

The US isn't doing anything in Libya. The French and Brits might. Going rouge would help them get out of the US shadow, clean up the image, restore some pride, make some frenamies, and they may even make a few bucks.

Both leaders could use a win, particularly a foreign policy win.

France has just had a diplomatic coup in their foreign policy ranks. This moved them to the right, the get back in the great game right. The Brits have plenty of the same.

They have the assets to smuggle and plant spec-ops in the area. They have access to great intel. So it won't cost to much.

Anti armor weapons and heavy machine guns will change the air dominance situation without handing out stingers (advisors should bring them if they are on the ground without a no-fly zone).

Radios, intel, and advisors might change the dynamics from a disorganized bunch loosing the fight to a semi disorganized quasi-asymetric-gurilla-tribal alliance. hahaha It won’t cost much either.

Too bad the first Brits to hit the ground got thrown in jail. That may have altered their decision making prognosis. Certainly hasn't hurt the French narrative. I think they are both itching to stretch their legs. We’ll see if they have the nerve to take the risks involved with this type of operation soon enough.