Mandalorian Knight Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I hadn't heard that. Thanks for the info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primogen Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Various news sources, such as? I mean, I don't really doubt that the CIA has agents in Libya, or that the UK has deployed special forces units, but it seems a bit peculiar that government officials would confirm it without ending up dead from 'Aggravated Suicide' a few hours later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian Knight Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Various news sources, such as? I mean, I don't really doubt that the CIA has agents in Libya, or that the UK has deployed special forces units, but it seems a bit peculiar that government officials would confirm it without ending up dead from 'Aggravated Suicide' a few hours later. It's a way for the politicians to cover their... to have their stories straight. If their respected governments had gone on about how there wouldn't be anyone deployed on the ground, and if a SOF guy is later captured by troops loyal to Ghadafi, then the politicians lose points in the polls and credibility. This way they can confirm what other governments will expect anyways while not giving any specific details. I do wonder what the Rules of Engagement for these troops are. Are they only permitted to call in airstrikes? Or do they have other roles, such as training the rebels or operating independently to attack targets of opportunity? Unfortunately, that much *definitely* isn't going to be shared with the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Various news sources, such as? I mean, I don't really doubt that the CIA has agents in Libya, or that the UK has deployed special forces units, but it seems a bit peculiar that government officials would confirm it without ending up dead from 'Aggravated Suicide' a few hours later. I believe it was reported over here the other week that President Obama had given authorisation for US special forces to operate on the ground, but yeah, it is a little strange. I know our government had deployed the SAS during the mass evacuation of foreigners to get people out from the oil fields... and from a nostaglic point of view, the SAS was practically born in that desert - but I doubt they'll be driving pink jeeps with machine guns now. As for actual, full on troops on the ground, if it happens, I wouldn't be surprised to see the French at the head of the column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 I do wonder what the Rules of Engagement for these troops are. Are they only permitted to call in airstrikes? Or do they have other roles, such as training the rebels or operating independently to attack targets of opportunity? Unfortunately, that much *definitely* isn't going to be shared with the public. I remember reading one of the anti-Qadaffi protestors in Benghazi saying that some Western troops are on the ground, training civilians for combat [Al Jazeera, I believe], so it wouldn't be too far-fetched to think they're doing serious business in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liverandbacon Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Various news sources, such as? I mean, I don't really doubt that the CIA has agents in Libya, or that the UK has deployed special forces units, but it seems a bit peculiar that government officials would confirm it without ending up dead from 'Aggravated Suicide' a few hours later. BBC, New York Times, a ton of others. As for confirmation, that's not peculiar at all. The US gov (and I'd assume the UK gov too) doesn't really care if people know, since it really isn't surprising, or anything worth hiding. Obama authorized CIA assistance in a very transparent way, when there are all manner of other, quieter, ways to do the same. The decision-makers likely want the people to know about this, or at the very least don't care. I worded my post to not present CIA/SAS+SBS involvement as fact, only the media's confirmation, because as a gov employee (or tool of capitalist imperialist world domination if you prefer) I have rules that need to be followed about what to post on the internet, and I like to stay well away from the boundary of what's allowed. However, if the media wasn't meant to know about it, they wouldn't, and there's not much reason for an official to fake it. Take that as you will. The CIA leadership is saying 'no comment' because general policy is to not flat out confirm anything, leaving that to the discretion of certain other officials. You'll find that, when asked, the CIA is likely to say 'no comment' on even fairly innocuous activities from years ago that are common knowledge, even those with documents released under the FOIA. edit: Only one thing has really been flat out denied, instead of 'no comment'. The US has not aided in arming the rebels. Considering how many Al Qaeda fighters and sympathizers have joined the cause, this is a good thing. Arming them for the tiny period of time where our interests are somewhat aligned would be a poor decision (honestly, a complete rebel victory could be very dangerous indeed; it might be preferable for western nations if the rebels just applied enough pressure to trigger a palace coup, followed by reform, instead of a new government being formed from the ground up, with a high risk of domination by militant Islamic interests). The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. The enemy of my enemy is a problem for later, to be cautiously used in the present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.