Originally Posted by thunderbird7
Stating that the bombing of Libya won the campaign on its own or that the bombing of Iraq helped win the ground war are both mis-understanding the definition of 'win'. Look at the state of both countries now. No bombing campaign in isolation can win anything - it is simply a step on the way to further action be it boots on the ground or diplomatic to force change on a nation. You can bomb them back to the stone age but unless you come up with long term viable alternative solutions for people on the ground, you will breed festering bitterness and resentment that will manifest itself in years to come.... as we see now.
"Boots on the ground" are no more capable of delivering long-term solutions than air power, unless they stay there forever as an army of occupation. An equally true statement for you:
"Stating that a ground force won a war on its own is mis-understanding the definition of 'win'. No military campaign in isolation can win anything - it is simply a step on the way to further action to force change on a nation. You can occupy them until the end of time but unless you come up with long term viable alternative solutions for people on the ground, you will breed festering bitterness and resentment that will manifest itself in years to come.... as we saw in pretty much every western land operation in the Middle East or Asia since WW2."
Even the great land campaign that finished WW2 in Europe did not deliver a "long term viable alternative solution" on its own; such matters as the Marshall Plan, the Nuremberg Trials and de-Nazification must be considered as parts of the long-term Allied victory. It's facile to refer to 'people on the ground' as a way of intimating that only action 'on the ground' can have decisive effect. We all live on the ground, so of course that is where the ultimate political effects of military action are felt. But decisive military effects can be delivered from any environment, for example by naval blockade.
Air power achieved the west's military goals in Libya, by tipping the balance decisively in favour of the local ground forces we wanted to win. Do you think that if we had used western land forces instead, the eventual political outcome would have been any different? Remember that initially the political settlement looked good - it was only THREE YEARS later than it broke down after a disputed second election. The only way land forces could have made any difference to that is if they had stayed in Libya for that entire period to disarm the militias and provide internal security until an army acceptable to all the tribes could have been formed. I think that is in the realm of fantasy, both practically and politically. That does bring into question whether we should have intervened at all, but it doesn't change the substance of my point that decisive
military effect can be delivered from any of the environments, air included.