5 ms·

Are you genuinely trying to argue that air strikes had no impact on the war in Libya?

• seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  No, just that they didn’t make them successful. Without the rebels, the revolution would have failed, and even with them, it would have failed if they weren’t numerous enough. I don’t think the air strikes did much more than show some support for them, they were useful and made things easier but not material in its success.
  • djbebs 5y ago
    You should read some more about the Libyan war, because you're significantly misinformed. The airstrikes were absolutely crucial to the rebels victory, and no one with any idea of how the war progressed would try to claim otherwise. Before the airstrikes qadaffis forces were overrunning the rebels and were well on their way to benghazi off the back of their armored corps and air superiority, it was the airstrikes that put a stop to that.
  • tharkun__ 5y ago
    I find this back and forth weird. It seems to me that you are saying that the air strikes did not make the revolution successful because it also needed troops on the ground to be successful. You are also saying that they were not material in its success. I would argue that the revolutionary ground troops would have suffered more losses if Gaddafi had had air support but the revolution didn't. Nevermind the tanks and such destroyed by NATO via air strikes. Potentially enough to make the revolution fail. Is that not material?