Reagan could easily have taken out Gaddafi when he tried many years ago. The only reason that operation failed is because they didn’t realise that our dear Prime Minister of that time would warn Gaddafi. That was a critical misjudgment.

At the time the USAF had the option of using the brand new (and yet unknown to the world) F-117 which would not have been detected by our ATC radar (and neither any other). They had in fact prepared two missions both ready to launch, one with the F117s and one with the more conventional F111. At the last minute they decided not to use the F117 stealth planes to avoid the risk of compromising this as yet top secret plane.

The thinking was that the older F111s would still be able to dodge Libyan radar long enough to surprise them. What they didn’t factor in was the advance warning from Malta. If they had had even the least suspicion of thath they would have risked the F117s and today we would not be talking about Gaddafi.

They can do even better today with the B2 and F22. The only limitations today are political, not military or technical.

You may recall that Ronald Raygun already tried once but was foiled by KMB.

if the USA deploys just two or three of these ships,you mention, wouldn’t we have all those ,don’t know what to call them, shouting and protesting to stop ,as the odds are not fairly balanced,and the “poor Libyan” military forces are outnumbered.I am afraid it is now too late, they should have given them the arms and support they needed from day one, and the Libyan people would have done the job themselves.All we can now do is watch the masacre and let the leaders of ,what we call free nations, live with their blood stained, conscience.,and may Gid forgive them.

As far as I could make out, the Libyans ARE asking for help. Or did I miss something?

By taking out Gaddafi I meant taking out his air force and his heavy weapons, not him personally.

To operate a bare-minimum no-fly zone, given that Italy has refused to become involved and Malta is, ahem, neutral, France and the UK would have to deploy aircraft carriers. The British HMS Illustrious can only support helicopters.

The Ark Royal has been scrapped. The Charles de Gaulle, the only French carrier, can support a limited and insufficient number of Harriers and Super Etendards. The Spanish have one small carrier and they are keeping away for fear it might get slightly scratched.

Germany has nada – niente – rien – xejn.

On the other hand, the USA deploys (take a deep breath) the Enterprise, Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Nimitz, Carl Vinson, Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John Stennis, George HW Bush and Harry Truman. The Kitty Hawk is mothballed but functional. Each American carrier is effectively larger than the French, Spanish and Italian carriers put together.

Obama could wipe out the Libyan forces in the time it takes him to play a round of golf. The golf will happen. And the carriers will sleep.

One word (two actually) – Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has its own rebellion to deal with. Which is why the US is treading very carefully indeed. If it helps the rebels in Libya it would be a huge precedent for the Shia in Saudi Arabia, who’ve been trying to topple the regime for the last five decades at least.

And without the US, NATO cannot act.

As for the Europeans, I’m not sure our public has actually understood what “intervention” means.

The Libyan army is badly trained and poorly maintained and not adequately equipped.

You’re thinking of Gaddafi’s personal guard.

Could easily take out Gaddafi on their own? How?

Walk up to his door, ring the bell and offer him a can of poisoned ice tea?

It may have escaped your notice that the Libyan army is one of the better equipped armies. The elite troops haven’t defected because they are loyal to Gaddafi.
Loyal and elite. Get it?