| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 111.1 | striking back | DELNI::GOLDBERG | | Tue Apr 15 1986 12:12 | 9 |
| By its attack on Libya, the US has established its right to respond
to acts of terror. What bothers me, however, is that we now seem
to be stuck with using conventional weapons and tactics to fight
a guerilla war on a global scale. Seems a very costly enterprise.
So far, the Russian non-response has been a big plus. Is there
a message to the Arab world in it? I hope that we are prepared
to respond to any acts of terror sponsored or carried out by Syria,
Iran, or the Palestinians, in support of Khadafy.
|
| 111.2 | Let's be -careful- out there | WHAT::SCHWARTZ | Steven H. Schwartz | Tue Apr 15 1986 13:26 | 10 |
| I would speculate that Soviet non-response comes from an old US/USSR
desire to avoid direct confrontatino with one another. That is
-way- too dangerous, given our mutual nuclear arsenals. A Security
Council motion, followed by an American veto, is more likely.
From the morning news, the Arabs are reluctant to follow Libya's
call for an oil sales embargo. Egypt is "distressed," etc. But
Reagan has been notably anti-Khadafi and neutral-Arab. I predict
major Arab and Soviet-bloc denunciations, but no hard-effect reaction.
|
| 111.3 | Low Key | GRAMPS::LISS | Fred - ESD&P Shrewsbury MA | Tue Apr 15 1986 13:55 | 21 |
| < Note 111.2 by WHAT::SCHWARTZ "Steven H. Schwartz" >
-< Let's be -careful- out there >-
"From the morning news, the Arabs are reluctant to follow Libya's
call for an oil sales embargo. Egypt is "distressed," etc. But
Reagan has been notably anti-Khadafi and neutral-Arab. I predict
major Arab and Soviet-bloc denunciations, but no hard-effect reaction."
Just out of curiosity I tuned in Radio Moscow at 9:30 PM to hear what
they would say about the incident. They spoke of "American armed
agression against Libya" for about 30 seconds and then went on to
other "news". The Soviets are playing it very low key.
Our own allies are rougher on us. A West German, English language,
broadcast thought our action was "unnecessary". I wonder what the
french are saying about us?
Fred
|
| 111.4 | Europe playing ostrich | WHAT::SCHWARTZ | Steven H. Schwartz | Tue Apr 15 1986 14:10 | 4 |
| Our allies are obviously scared. But then, -we- are the superpower.
Does Moscow ask Budapest's permission before staging parades in
Kabul? We apparently need to take the drastic actions alone, i.e.,
supporting ourselves. And that is the most secure approach.
|
| 111.5 | they're smiling in Tripoli and Damascus | DONJON::GOLDSTEIN | | Tue Apr 15 1986 18:30 | 9 |
| Q'Daffy is probably very happy! Now, with an external (non-Arab)
threat, his domestic opposition will rally around the flag. The
hard liners in Egypt, Jordan and other "moderate" arab countries
will have more of an excuse to put pressure on their governments.
The terrorists will have more "excuses" to "retaliate". The NATO
alliance is weakened. And the real terrorism won't change, since
you can't fight a guerilla war with conventional means.
Maybe they have a plant inthe White House.
|
| 111.6 | Cooperation is the key | R2D2::GREG | Your friendly contact in Geneva | Wed Apr 16 1986 03:20 | 22 |
| It is of course good for morale purposes to show the flag and "US
resolve" on this issue. We have already seen, on european TV, "the
innocent children and the dozens of apt. houses wrecked by the US
attack" (hope the US will take the heat as nicely as we did during
the Lebanese war, where the righteous US and european news agencies
provided us with hours of ruined buldings-some of them dating back
to 1976...)
However, as gratifying as the "raid" was, we must not lose sight
of the fact, that terrorism can only be fought by a general consesus
of nations and not just individual countries. In Israel we have
managed, at great cost, to limit to effect of terrorism but the
rest of europe still suffers from it. The first steps, albeit cautious
ones, were taken by the EEC in The Hague, where they decided to
limit the movement of Libyan diploamts and enforce stricter laws
concerning visas etc... . It is also clear that Libya is not alone
in this. Given the U.S's abismal record in Lebanon, and the fact
that it helped promote Assad's role as a power broker in the Middle
East will the same resolve be directed to Syria and Iran?
I hope that the "resolve" that was shown will not be a single fling
and that through cooperation between the security services of all
or a majority of countries this cancer can be eradicated. But it
will have to be done together and not only by FB-111's
|
| 111.7 | My thoughts | PFLOYD::CHERSON | | Thu Apr 17 1986 09:39 | 15 |
| My opinion of the raid was that basically Reagan had nothing to
lose, Libya is hardly a threat militarily to the sixth fleet, et.al.
It mostly served the purpose of "getting our rocks off", but of
course there was "collateral damage", i.e., civilian casualties,
G-d I hate Caspar Weinberger, the ultimate in corporatespeak.
What is more disconcerting to me is seeing all the righteous
indignation in Europe over Libya. Where were all these people after
the attacks in Rome and Vienna? Why weren't there demonstrations
over that? I think the answers are obvious, in any event to Israelis,
who have been subjected to European opinion before. Believe me
it all revolves around that wonderful substance oil, nothing else,
period.
David
|