PDA

View Full Version : And Libya goes on...



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Fuchs
03-17-2011, 01:17 PM
"Neocons Want War with Libya"
http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/03/neocons-want-war-with-libya.html

M-A Lagrange
03-17-2011, 01:45 PM
I don't think ICG is inhabiting the same reality as the people in Libya

Unfortunately I've to agree. And that's the limit of ICG at the moment, they are not in Lybia not before neither after.
Also, I agree on the fact the actual ICG agenda is basically a pacifist one. But they did immediatly ask for a NFZ or more pressuring measures against G.
But when you're an advocacy councelling organisation, you can go only as far as the people actually in power want to go.

I personnaly diseagree with the idea that isiolationism would work. I believe that it was an opportunity to send a message to the arab populations that would have been benefiting on the long term.

The recognition by France of the rebel gov will change nothing except may be raising up the level of anti terrorist alert in France. Sarkozi is still a "friend" for G and if Dassault propose him new planes, he will most probably say yes.
The real problem in fact is his sons who did not had to lead a revolution to free their people to acces power, unlike their father.

By the way, in "civil war" there is always a winner and a looser. And who ever it is: the looser is just erased from the surface of earth. The idea that rebel would be bad guys because they would take the opportunity to advenge former crimes is, IMO, just a short mind view. This does not make a foreign policy and even less a foreign politik.

Ken White
03-17-2011, 02:27 PM
Which is why, reading the debate between Ken and Carl (isolationism vs. interventionism), to my surprise I found myself agreeing with Ken.I do not advocate isolationism, far from it. I think we need to be more active in the world --but we could sure be smarter in how we do that...
In a world where the U.S. leads, we might have gotten some effective intervention in time for it to matter.True but the method of intervention and who does it are the important things. We need better Intel, we need better diplomatic --and better resourced diplomatic -- efforts worldwide. We can employ limited military training and logistic support to assist but it should not be the first choice and it should be constrained.

We should get DoD and the Armed Forces out of the 'diplomacy' business; the CoCom CinCs should be significantly reined in. We do need, can afford and can obtain a more capable intervention capability for those really rare instances where required and that should include a robust strategic raid capability. The real issue is that military intervention should be the last choice, not one of the first.
But leadership involves risks and costs, so that world involves the risk of a war, and as sure as God made little green apples, the U.S. would be pilloried for it. In a world where the U.S. doesn't lead, we get Rwanda, Darfur, and now Libya, because deploring a crisis is cheap, safe and free moral posturing that allows people to pretend they've done something because they care so deeply and use harsh language.Very true. I simply suggest that is in large measure due to our failures to obtain good intelligence due to excessive reliance on technology and trying to gather HumInt by being nice; by our failure to apply adequate economic and diplomatic efforts before a crisis erupts and then reacting militarily -- and doing that rather poorly. We have frittered away our leadership capability by inconsistency and mediocre to poor performance.

That is mostly due to our size and wealth. We're spoiled, we gaze at our navels and we execute foreign policy based almost solely on domestic political considerations. We have intervened excessively and poorly -- we can do better. We should do better.

JMA
03-17-2011, 02:31 PM
No, I am advocating a regular handover just like we have seen in Egypt and Tunisia where the presidential family and some close associates are fired and/or prosecuted but the great majority of the party members just stay in their job.

And in Libya this will be achieved how?

tequila
03-17-2011, 02:33 PM
Specter of Rebel Rout Helps Shift U.S. Policy on Libya (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/world/africa/17diplomacy.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print)- NYTIMES


The prospect of a deadly siege of the rebel stronghold in Benghazi, Libya (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), has produced a striking shift in tone from the Obama administration, which is now pushing for the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) to authorize aerial bombing of Libyan tanks and heavy artillery to try to halt the advance of forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/q/muammar_el_qaddafi/index.html?inline=nyt-per).

The administration, which remains deeply reluctant to be drawn into an armed conflict in yet another Muslim country, is nevertheless backing a resolution in the Security Council that would give countries a broad range of options for aiding the Libyan rebels, including military steps that go well beyond a no-flight zone.

Administration officials — who have been debating a no-flight zone for weeks — concluded that such a step now would be “too little, too late” for rebels who have been pushed back to Benghazi. That suggests more aggressive measures, which some military analysts have called a no-drive zone, to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from moving tanks and artillery into Benghazi.

The United States is insisting that any military action would have to be carried out by an international coalition, including Libya’s Arab neighbors ...

jmm99
03-17-2011, 04:38 PM
is between isolationism and interventionism - as Ken points out.

Selectivity is called for - as Jon correctly (in my eyes) sums it:


from jcustis
For no other reason than the fact that the US has IMO recently tread very heavily in the path of world affairs (and typically to our detriment) and is experiencing larger issues as a result, it would be nice to see us stay out of what is a Libyan affair.

How warped we (US) have become is illustrated by the fact that the greatest amphibious force in the World has spent the last decade prowling about either desert or mountains.

Regards

Mike

Stan
03-17-2011, 05:09 PM
And in Libya this will be achieved how?

Jeez, JMA... The African Dictator Method, of course :D

Conte de fée... When the locals begin to circle the white house, their dictators will pack their bags and take off like bats out of hell. Some will go to Dictators’ Heaven in Morocco like Mobutu Sese Seko and the rest will fade away into the sunset to quietly enjoy their stolen millions. :eek:

The sad truth -- that I have no need in explaining to most herein -- is, the morning after the fall of an African dictator, the people will be living in a trashed economy, no money at the bank, pillaged store shelves, prison chambers full of political prisoners and ...

power-hungry opposition leaders jockeying for position in the middle of a political and social upheaval.

I'm done ranting for now --- please resume your normal broadcast :D

EDIT:




... the greatest amphibious force in the World has spent the last decade prowling about either desert or mountains.


Well said, Mike !
Might I add that we are now hamstrung by a bunch of pirates in fishing boats ?

J Wolfsberger
03-17-2011, 05:09 PM
"Neocons Want War with Libya"
http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/03/neocons-want-war-with-libya.html

Here is an excellent conservative counterpoint. On the NRO Libya Editorial, I Respectfully Dissent (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262377/nro-libya-editorial-i-respectfully-dissent-andrew-c-mccarthy)

Surferbeetle
03-17-2011, 06:02 PM
Morning Stan!


Jeez, JMA... The African Dictator Method, of course :D

Conte de fée... When the locals begin to circle the white house, their dictators will pack their bags and take off like bats out of hell. Some will go to Dictators’ Heaven in Morocco like Mobutu Sese Seko and the rest will fade away into the sunset to quietly enjoy their stolen millions.

Works in Africa, works in many other places as well...:wry:


The sad truth -- that I have no need in explaining to most herein -- is, the morning after the fall of an African dictator, the people will be living in a trashed economy, no money at the bank, pillaged store shelves, prison chambers full of political prisoners and ...

power-hungry opposition leaders jockeying for position in the middle of a political and social upheaval.

Too true. :(

As I survey the state of things on the 'interweb' over coffee this morning my take is that our negotiators are currently doing well.

1. We are keeping our eye on the ball with respect to the financial domino's of Japan, the EU, the US, and the rest of the financial system.

2. We are keeping our eye on the ball with respect to the status of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel & Iran.

3. We are insisting that the training wheels are coming off the shared 'international community intervention bicycle' and that if it's to be ridden it will be ridden by those currently pouting in the corner.

COL G, through this crisis, has self-identified as being weak to the sharks that swim in that part of the ocean. He may have a Sennacherib experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sennacherib#Patricide) or he may head off to parts unknown, but his countdown clock has started.

IMHO we should be seriously preparing for a joint response which will mitigate the humanitarian and economic fallout that will result from the realignment of the Middle East. This will require a broad spectrum and long-term response which is not limited to just going out and shooting select people until some folks feel better. :rolleyes:

Steve

omarali50
03-17-2011, 06:15 PM
"the Western babbling classes support them only insofar as they can use them to advance their domestic political agenda. Take them at their word, and you wind up in the same position as Qaddafi's soon to be dead enemies."

I think in this particular case, the people doing the rising up did not expect that Western armies will come to their aid. They expected that they will sweep Gaddafi away and hang him from a lamp-pole. Having failed to do so, they may now wish to be saved by Western armies, but to think that the Western babbling classes incited them with false promises is a bit of a stretch (in THIS case)...

jmm99
03-17-2011, 06:25 PM
"cousin" Andy's message (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262377/nro-libya-editorial-i-respectfully-dissent-andrew-c-mccarthy) vibrates my McCarthy heartstrings. ;)

For those USAians who are serious about intervention in Libya, let them seek a congressional AUMF (not a complex piece of legislation and easily passed if you have the votes) and obtain the President's signature on it. Andy thinks that legislation would be DOA.

The alternative is ala Harry Truman (as in the Korean "police action" - obtain a UN SC resolution) and Bill Clinton (as in his Eastern European adventures). In which case, Andy's comments are worth repeating (empasis added):


It seems like a long time ago, but it is worth reminding ourselves that the only missions the American people supported involved destroying the terror network that attacked our nation on 9/11 and toppling its state sponsors. Unlike anything at stake in Libya, those are vital U.S. security interests. Iraq and Afghanistan became overwhelming commitments because of the conventional unwisdom that our security somehow hinges not only on defeating our enemies but on converting Muslim basket-cases into something resembling democracy.

And this, despite the absence of any Islamic democratic tradition; despite the tension between sharia and the Western principles that undergird our notion of democracy; and despite the dearth of evidence supporting the theory — and it is only a theory — that Country A’s being a democracy makes Country B safer from trans-continental terror networks skilled at exploiting democratic freedoms. (In point of fact, the evidence cuts in the other direction — unless you think places like Hamburg, Madrid, San Diego, and Westport, four of the many Western cities and towns where 9/11 was planned, are not democracies.)

So, a critical step that many miss (perhaps intentionally) is obtaining the approval of "We the People" for an African adventure.

If that were done, we (US) would still have to come up with the forces to do it - if, for example, a MAGTF (say, MEF size) would be adequate to handle Libya; and another MAGTF (say, MEB size) would be adequate to handle Somalia, where would they come from ?

Regards

Mike

Stan
03-17-2011, 07:56 PM
Morning Stan!

As I survey the state of things on the 'interweb' over coffee this morning my take is that our negotiators are currently doing well.

IMHO we should be seriously preparing for a joint response which will mitigate the humanitarian and economic fallout that will result from the realignment of the Middle East. This will require a broad spectrum and long-term response which is not limited to just going out and shooting select people until some folks feel better. :rolleyes:

Steve

Hey Steve !

Yeah, but I’m getting the hibigeebies over the rumors of British secret negotiations with the Colonel similar to our Prez offering Gbagbo refuge in the Peach State. Now what for the Colonel ? Does he get to take Lybia's booty from state coffers, or, does he just peacefully leave with the shirt on his back ?

Don’t get me started with our administration robbing Peter to pay Paul again – taking previously allotted humanitarian funds from progressing countries with real programs and dumping those dollars into another burning hole.

Gotta agree with many herein; best to sit this one out since we're not going to do anything (that will amount to anything), other than another financial burden.

Regards, Stan


Take them at their word, and you wind up in the same position as Qaddafi's soon to be dead enemies."

A shame that we have yet to learn this and apply it to our so-called diplomatic responses :wry:

Steve Blair
03-17-2011, 09:18 PM
How warped we (US) have become is illustrated by the fact that the greatest amphibious force in the World has spent the last decade prowling about either desert or mountains.

Regards

Mike

I don't know that I'd say we've "become" that warped. I'd actually contend that we've just been plodding blindly down the "interventionist" path first blazed by Woodrow Wilson before World War I. There have been occasions where we've intervened (and chosen NOT to intervene) based on a clearheaded view of national interest, but I'd argue that they have been few and far between since Theodore Roosevelt (which should tell you how often I think we've screwed up in this area).

That said, I'd say that our moment to take effective action in Libya is long passed (if in fact there was a moment for us to take such action), and we should cut our losses. Not very PC, but it's where we're left standing. Better to quietly use whatever influence we have left in the region in areas where it might have been effect (Egypt, the Gulf States, and so on).

Fuchs
03-17-2011, 09:31 PM
I don't know that I'd say we've "become" that warped. I'd actually contend that we've just been plodding blindly down the "interventionist" path first blazed by Woodrow Wilson before World War I.

Really?

I know that Wilson usually gets blamed for such things, but somehow I've still got my issues with explaining why exactly the Americans fought against the Barbary Pirates roughly a century earlier.

J Wolfsberger
03-17-2011, 09:39 PM
Really?
... but somehow I've still got my issues with explaining why exactly the Americans fought against the Barbary Pirates roughly a century earlier.

Because they were seizing our ships and enslaving the crewmen.

Fuchs
03-17-2011, 09:52 PM
Sure, beyond an ocean.

And of course, there died much less citizens in the conflict than became victims previously.

No, seriously. The U.S. was never fully isolationist, it was merely distracted by its Indian Wars from the typical adventures that governments of the time embarked upon f they had the resources.

Oklahoma Land Rush 1893 - few years later the war with Spain at Cuba and the Philippines (including the de facto colonization of the latter) plus the annexation of Hawaii and East Samoa, but a few years later Wilson was the bad, bad guy who steered the ship towards interventionism. :confused:

I don't buy it.

Pete
03-17-2011, 10:03 PM
It was Wilson who announced his Fourteen Points in January 1918 as the basis for a peace settlement to end the First World War. They weren't as much a set of principles that justified intervention but rather the basis for redrawing the map of Europe after the war.

davidbfpo
03-17-2011, 10:19 PM
I meant a No Fly Zone, not a NOZ.

The BBC TV News is reporting an Anglo-French force is being prepared to act, after diplomatic efforts with Arab nations - which has led to four nations promising air support - and at the UN.

Link on BBC World News:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12779628

A separate BBC story, citing UN sources:
Senior UN sources said British and French war planes could be in the air within hours to carry out initial air raids on Libyan positions, if the resolution is passed, possibly with logistical support from Arab allies.

Fuchs
03-17-2011, 10:21 PM
I don't see their relevance to this discussion. Few of these points were pursued by the U.S. government later on anyway.

Steve Blair
03-17-2011, 10:25 PM
Really?

I know that Wilson usually gets blamed for such things, but somehow I've still got my issues with explaining why exactly the Americans fought against the Barbary Pirates roughly a century earlier.

Wilson was the first to do it on a major, extended scale as opposed to one-offs. I'm not going to try to convince you, Fuchs. You've already made up your mind. But if you examine the record, Wilson was one of the first (note that I don't attribute the first ideological interventions to Wilson) to launch a series of interventions outside of the continental United States for what would now be termed purely ideological reasons. Roosevelt did some interventions, but for the most part he had what he considered sound policy reasons for them (and avoided those that he didn't have good policy reasons for...and Roosevelt avoided more than he actually intervened). Roosevelt's were also for the most part fairly limited.

And Pete, Wilson was launching his interventions before the U.S. got involved in World War I. The 14 Points stemmed from his ideological background, and didn't really provide a basis for his interventions. As you point out, they were intended more to shape postwar Europe.

I don't intend to continue this discussion per se, but more brought it up to illustrate that the US has always been spotty when it comes to this sort of thing.

davidbfpo
03-17-2011, 10:26 PM
Yesterday I attended this briefing and tomorrow will add some points of note, e.g. AWACS (NATO or RAF?) and tankers moved to Cyprus.

Link is to the podcast, with a Q&A:http://www.iiss.org/events-calendar/2011-events-archive/march-2011/the-conflict-in-libya-and-military-options-for-the-international-community/

Brigadier Ben Barry, Senior Fellow for Land Warfare, assessed the state of the civil war.
Provided the rebels can maintain their morale and coherence’, he said, ‘we can expect them to hold out longer in larger towns, where it should be more difficult for government firepower to concentrate on rebel positions.

Note this was before the reports that Libyan state (Gaddafi loyalists) are nearing Benghazi.

Cliff
03-17-2011, 10:36 PM
The UNSC just approved the NFZ resolution...

could be too late for the Libyans...

V/R,

Cliff

JMA
03-17-2011, 11:13 PM
The UNSC just approved the NFZ resolution...

could be too late for the Libyans...

V/R,

Cliff

Too late for the Libyans? Maybe not.

Too late for the US to save face and retain credibility? Most certainly.


From the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367357/Therell-mercy-tonight-Gaddafi-threatens-rebels-massacre-Obama-goes-UN-fly-zone.html): After weeks of hesitancy over imposing a no-fly zone in Libya, the United States made a dramatic about-face, calling for even more expanded action, including strikes on Gaddafi's ground forces besieging rebel-held cities.

J Wolfsberger
03-17-2011, 11:25 PM
Apparently (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9M18QA00&show_article=1)it will be primarily the British and French, could start within hours and could include action against ground forces.

Fuchs
03-17-2011, 11:38 PM
The UNSC just approved the NFZ resolution...

This basically reinforces my suspicion that both public and governments in the West are infected with serious air power hype and that Western governments are terribly incompetent in military strategy and the art of war.


The few old Mirages, MiGs and Suchois are hardly the key problem.
A smart approach would have attempted to break the loyalty and confidence of the indigenous pro-Gaddaffi troops.

Ken White
03-18-2011, 01:44 AM
Too late for the Libyans? Maybe not.Not sure pure air can swing it...

Though it's notable the UNSC Resolution doesn't limit itself to air power only.
Too late for the US to save face and retain credibility? Most certainly.You're apparently a great deal more worried about that aspect than are we. :D

Whether by accident or by design, that dithering may have the extremely beneficial effect of forcing Europe -- and the region -- to take care of their own problems without insisting on the US being involved...

About time. Long overdue.

Ken White
03-18-2011, 01:45 AM
This basically reinforces my suspicion that both public and governments in the West are infected with serious air power hype and that Western governments are terribly incompetent in military strategy and the art of war.


The few old Mirages, MiGs and Suchois are hardly the key problem.
A smart approach would have attempted to break the loyalty and confidence of the indigenous pro-Gaddaffi troops.On both counts. You have any idea why Germany abstained?

Not a problem to me but I'm sure there's a good reason...

Pete
03-18-2011, 03:18 AM
President Wilson was the first to state a comprehensive list of principles that guided U.S. foreign policy. I'm also aware of his previous interventions in Mexico, but it should be emphasized that the second one there by Wilson was provoked by an incident on American soil. Wilson has nothing to do with Libya and I've had no involvement in previous debates about this topic of Wilson, so I'd prefer to leave the subject alone.

Rex Brynen
03-18-2011, 03:33 AM
On both counts. You have any idea why Germany abstained?

We couldn't possibly have the French, British, and Germans all agreeing on a common European security and defence policy issue. It would be un-European.

Rex Brynen
03-18-2011, 03:41 AM
Not sure pure air can swing it...

I think it can certainly prevent a Qaddafi victory, given how small, overstretched, poorly motivated, and poorly-led his forces are--and how much latitude the UNSC resolution gives for selecting targets. Loyalist units have proven very poor at close combat, and have largely relied on tank, artillery, and naval fire to break rebel positions from a distance. Fortunately, Libya is one of those places where MBTs and MRLs stand out for miles.

It is also clear that Egyptians have already started military supply of the rebels, and I suspect that will morph to a quick-and-dirty train and equip soon. In the end, the Libyan opposition will have to win the all important ground part of this on their own.

JMA
03-18-2011, 05:32 AM
Not sure pure air can swing it...

Under what appears to be the wide rules of engagement allowed one quick violent accurate strike will break the back of the Gaddafi regime. Whether its quick or slow will depend on what the generals are allowed to do.

I would go for quick because the politicians and the public have no staying power and may yet pull the plug before the job is done.


Though it's notable the UNSC Resolution doesn't limit itself to air power only.You're apparently a great deal more worried about that aspect than are we. :D

Not as worried as the the US should be. Stand by to have it repeatedly thrown into your faces that it was only the determination of France and Britain (in that order) that shamed the US into action. Another case of a US administration having disgraced the nation in the eyes of the world.


Whether by accident or by design, that dithering may have the extremely beneficial effect of forcing Europe -- and the region -- to take care of their own problems without insisting on the US being involved...

About time. Long overdue.

I like the spin ;) ... you ever thought of a second career at State?

Yes, it must be embarrassing to Americans... I sympathize.

jcustis
03-18-2011, 05:57 AM
The neocons are going wild with bloodlust over the simple dynamics of the classic Catch-22 situation that the US is in.

It should give everyone reason for pause, and to literally stop, drop, and roll to be sure that their hair is in fact on fire. They might be surprised that in the grand scheme of things, letting Libya plod along on its own may be the best medicine. Wait...what was I thinking? Everything is black and white with no room for subtlety, balance, or cause for measured and deliberate action.

Where's my hammer to take care of that fly?

JMA
03-18-2011, 06:31 AM
The neocons are going wild with bloodlust over the simple dynamics of the classic Catch-22 situation that the US is in.

It should give everyone reason for pause, and to literally stop, drop, and roll to be sure that their hair is in fact on fire. They might be surprised that in the grand scheme of things, letting Libya plod along on its own may be the best medicine. Wait...what was I thinking? Everything is black and white with no room for subtlety, balance, or cause for measured and deliberate action.

Where's my hammer to take care of that fly?

Why is there an assumption that there needs to be a massive military intervention in Libya?

The intel available to the US and various EU countries should allow for a quick and simple precision strike to bring the regime to an end.

I would think that there has been an ultimatum issued to Gaddafi which has given him x hours to pack up and go... or face the consequences. Failing which a strike will go in (best on the forces in the East) taking out every vehicle, tank and artillery piece... but making sure concentrations of Gaddifi forces are given the appropriate attention.

Not sure there is any need to exaggerate the amount of force needed to scatter Gaddafi's rag tag army and mercenaries. A point on these African mercenaries. It is only an untrained rebel militia which has anything to fear from mercenaries from Chad, Niger, Zimbabwe or wherever. These thugs are at their best when dealing with untrained militias and unarmed villagers... they are nothing but fodder for the 30mm cannons.

Play this one correctly and it will be over by Monday.

jcustis
03-18-2011, 07:13 AM
To be more precise, we don't have a need to be involved, militarily, in the affairs of Libya.

Dayuhan
03-18-2011, 07:24 AM
Not as worried as the the US should be. Stand by to have it repeatedly thrown into your faces that it was only the determination of France and Britain (in that order) that shamed the US into action. Another case of a US administration having disgraced the nation in the eyes of the world.

Like Ken I am not worried, or embarrassed, or shamed. You could always see it as a cleverly implemented strategy to force the Europeans to take responsibility for matters in their own backyard.

If you look at reactions to US policies, what most of the world saw as real shame and disgrace was the unilateral interventions of the Bush era, which were widely opposed, widely criticized, and which are still widely trumpeted, especially in the Muslim world, as evidence of American disregard and contempt for practically everybody else. Largely as a result of that reaction, the current administration established from the start an intent to work primarily through and in concert with multilateral organizations. I see no particular shame in doing what we said we will do, or in expecting our allies to step up and take the lead on matters that primarily affect them and which have no immediate impact on our interests.

Doing everything yourself isn't leadership.

Fuchs
03-18-2011, 09:58 AM
On both counts. You have any idea why Germany abstained?

Not a problem to me but I'm sure there's a good reason...

Officially they liked the idea of doing something about the crisis,but saw too many dangers and risks in military intervention - whatever that means.

I know several probable unofficial reasons that would not be fit for a public statement as long as the minister of foreign affairs still wants to appear to be polite and diplomatic.



The UN webmaster is slow, as always. The resolution will appear here.
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions11.htm
I'm interested to see whether this is limited in time or open-ended (which would be a folly)

JMA
03-18-2011, 10:29 AM
Officially they liked the idea of doing something about the crisis,but saw too many dangers and risks in military intervention - whatever that means.

I know several probable unofficial reasons that would not be fit for a public statement as long as the minister of foreign affairs still wants to appear to be polite and diplomatic.

Whatever the reasons are it is once again sad that the humanitarian aspect seemed to play no role in the decision making process. An unfortunate continuing national characteristic.

JMA
03-18-2011, 10:43 AM
To be more precise, we don't have a need to be involved, militarily, in the affairs of Libya.

And the "we" is here?

If you mean the people of the USA then perhaps someone should tell Obama and Clinton to shut up on the issue as it seems they are out of step with American people.

If, however, it is a personal opinion then you will have been in agreement with you current Administration until two or three days ago. Then something changed. Any idea what caused that?

Fuchs
03-18-2011, 10:49 AM
The problem is in part that it's not sure an intervention will improve the situation - it could also worsen it. UN intervention has extended the Bosnian civil war, for example.

There's reason for mistrusting the usual suspects of military interventions and their ability to aim at military targets only.

There's also a considerable potential for misuse in UNSC resolutions, as evidenced by the U.S. lie that a UNSC resolution somehow legalised OIF although that was an entirely new and counter-factual view for all but two UNSC seat owners.

Finally, keep in mind how the U.S. misused its Iraq NFZ (originating in a cease-fire agreement for a war that had lost its legitimacy when Kuwait was liberated) to bully Iraq for a decade and for no good reason (the Southern NFZ made no sense any more, the Northern one could have been patrolled from the safety of Kurd-controlled territory) without any potential for trouble.

And then there's the strange idea of "self defense" of certain air force's pilots, who fly at 20,000 ft in a Mach 2 jet and claim to have bombed a wedding in "self defense" because they saw muzzle fire.


Obviously, there are many concerns that are not fit for a press release.

I need the exact text on the UN website quick, the news are -as usual- totally useless because they don't offer any of the important details of the resolution.

davidbfpo
03-18-2011, 10:53 AM
I will admit the diplomatic activity and a NFZ Plus UNSC Resolution have caught me by surprise.

SWC have debated around the issues, so can I add these three questions:

- What are the main factors that will determine the impact of any Western military action on opinion and strategy among militant jihadi networks, particularly in North Africa, and on wider opinion in the global Islamist movement particularly in the UK and France.

- On the military level, how feasible will it be to defend Benghazi without committing foreign ground forces? What is the likely mix between land/air/sea, and between direct intervention and aid/supplies/training?

- On the diplomatic level, how hard will it be to use the UNSC resolution to obtain a ceasefire and open a political negotiation between the Libyans?

tequila
03-18-2011, 11:29 AM
Not as worried as the the US should be. Stand by to have it repeatedly thrown into your faces that it was only the determination of France and Britain (in that order) that shamed the US into action. Another case of a US administration having disgraced the nation in the eyes of the world.

Disagree with you emphatically on this one. Do you really believe that France and Britain threw together this resolution on the fly? I seriously doubt that the French and the British have the ability to get the Russians and the Chinese to abstain on this quite broad UNSC resolution by themselves. This would not have happened without the U.S.

Only media report I could find on Egyptian military aid to the Libyan rebels (http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFLDE72H0N120110318), which apparently began a few days ago with the knowledge and likely encouragement of the U.S.

ganulv
03-18-2011, 11:46 AM
I would think that there has been an ultimatum issued to Gaddafi which has given him x hours to pack up and go... or face the consequences.

I think he and his sons should be given 48 hours to leave the country. Everything after that is gravy for the West.

Rex Brynen
03-18-2011, 12:07 PM
I need the exact text on the UN website quick, the news are -as usual- totally useless because they don't offer any of the important details of the resolution.

Full text here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution).

Fuchs
03-18-2011, 12:08 PM
I seriously doubt that the French and the British have the ability to get the Russians and the Chinese to abstain on this quite broad UNSC resolution by themselves.

Why not? What makes the U.S. different here?
It's not like the French would be unable to talk or to offer some bargaining chips.


In fact, it appears to me as if Sarkozy was leading this whole charge. He's erratic, and that leads to a completely different diplomatic game.
He personalises foreign policy to a higher degree than Obama who's got a high profile foreign secretary and two competing political camps in the WH.
Unlike Obama, Sarkozy can make a phone call and really represents France in one person.
You never know what he's up to next, but you know that he's not working in an ideological framework and one action doesn't mean much for the future - thus little potential for troublesome unexpected consequences if he's asking you for something.


Thx @ Rex

Rex Brynen
03-18-2011, 12:10 PM
Disagree with you emphatically on this one. Do you really believe that France and Britain threw together this resolution on the fly? I seriously doubt that the French and the British have the ability to get the Russians and the Chinese to abstain on this quite broad UNSC resolution by themselves. This would not have happened without the U.S.

Only media report I could find on Egyptian military aid to the Libyan rebels (http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFLDE72H0N120110318), which apparently began a few days ago with the knowledge and likely encouragement of the U.S.

There is no doubt that the US played a vital role in shifting the UNSC. Equally, there is no doubt that UK and French played a vital role in shifting the US position in the first place. Credit where credit is due: this is a rare example of European (or, rather, Anglo-French) leadership, even if much will fall to the US.

Surferbeetle
03-18-2011, 12:16 PM
Draft UN resolution can be found at El Pais

http://www.elpais.com/elpaismedia/ultimahora/media/201103/18/internacional/20110318elpepuint_1_Pes_PDF.doc

davidbfpo
03-18-2011, 12:24 PM
Update on Post 268.

The IISS panel noted:

There was very little evidence of planning by the resistance movement, nor any attempt assemble ex-soldiers and use those soldiers who have changed sides.

2. It was not clear if air strikes would be decisive over the Gaddafi forces use of armour and artillery. Forces that were two brigades, mixed composition, with lots of armour and artillery; with one in the east heading for Benghazi and the other in the west. Impacting their morale, coherence and tactics was the key.

3. In the east the centre of gravity was Benghazi, a city of 500-670k over fifty square kilometres; which if defended long enough could get the "Sarejevo effect".

4. Civil wars last longer than expected and on Tuesday 'the government have the advantage, victory is probable not inevitable'.

5. Gaddafi had only forty aircraft available, 20% of his capability; helicopters had not been seen much, perhaps due to the profusion of mobile AA guns held by the resistance.

6. There was already in place an adequate naval presence, from the NATO Standby Force and the UK had already moved AWACS and tankers to Cyprus.

Dayuhan
03-18-2011, 12:30 PM
I think he and his sons should be given 48 hours to leave the country. Everything after that is gravy for the West.

I doubt that he has any intention of leaving. It will be interesting to see what the reaction is... in some ways his best move will be to attack at once, drive the tanks into Benghazi before anyone's ready to move effectively against him. Once the fighting is inside the city air strikes against ground forces will be far more complicated, and if Benghazi falls it's more or less fait accomplii.

My guess is that Gadhafi will see it as bluff, and call the bluff. He'll think he can win on the ground, and he may be right. It will take very substantial and very quick action to convince him that the move is serious, and I'm not sure that will be forthcoming.

In some ways the UNSC resolution could be seen as a substantial accomplishment for the US. I have no doubt that the French and British would have preferred to play to pattern: provide token forces, let the US do the heavy lifting, make noble statements and claim part of the credit if all goes well, go all critical if things go badly. By refusing to play to pattern the US backed the Europeans into a place where they have to stand up and take the lead in pursuing interests that are primarily theirs. Given the traditional European reluctance, that's quite an accomplishment.

That may not have been intentional of course, but it's not a bad outcome for the US... anything that moves the ME toward a more multipolar environment is good for the US, and if intervention can be managed without the US coming off as the big bad oil-chasing neocolonist, that's even better. If the intervention is successful, better still. No problem at all with the French and British taking the credit.

Earlier intervention would have had a better chance of success, but excessive eagerness from the US would have been read as desire to take control, insert a compliant puppet government and gain preferred access to oil... maybe a silly interpretation, but it would have been there and it would have played into the hands of the radical Islamists. Much better for the US to take a supporting role in this one, in both the diplomatic and military sense.

ganulv
03-18-2011, 12:39 PM
I think he and his sons should be given 48 hours to leave the country. Everything after that is gravy for the West.
I doubt that he has any intention of leaving.
I know, I was just being cheeky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/18/iraq.usa1). :p

Video from Benghazi (http://www.globalpost.com/video/5631539), where they apparently have ammunition to burn.

M-A Lagrange
03-18-2011, 12:43 PM
I doubt that he has any intention of leaving. It will be interesting to see what the reaction is... in some ways his best move will be to attack at once, drive the tanks into Benghazi before anyone's ready to move effectively against him. Once the fighting is inside the city air strikes against ground forces will be far more complicated, and if Benghazi falls it's more or less fait accomplii.

Well I tend to agree that G is now trying to negociate a place in the future Lybia. Just after the resolution he was saying: ok let's talk.
Now that air stickes are iminent he is promissing "again": an hell to the westerners and any foreigners.

I believe he is in a rather bad situation. Which is a good news.

I tend to agree that if it happend on a France and UK initiative becked up by US, it's even better for everyone. To face Russia and China growing powers, you need a multipolar world, not an hegemonic puissance.

Fuchs
03-18-2011, 12:44 PM
The resolution is surprisingly far-reaching.
It's also interesting that it bans an occupation explicitly. Someone is learning.

Dayuhan
03-18-2011, 12:48 PM
I tend to agree that if it happend on a France and UK initiative becked up by US, it's even better for everyone. To face Russia and China growing powers, you need a multipolar world, not an hegemonic puissance.

Especially not a bankrupt hegemonic puissance living off loans from its hypothetical rivals.

I don't really buy into the idea that the US and Europe must or inevitably will face off against Russia, China, or any unlikely combination of the two (who are quite likely to face off against each other somewhere down the line), but multipolarity and a Europe that's willing to lead when called for are certainly good things.

Fuchs
03-18-2011, 01:09 PM
I sense a strange emphasis on leadership instead of on cooperation.

The former is mostly a myth, while the latter is everyday occurrence.

Americans call it "American leadership" when U.S. interests happen to be close enough with others' interests and cooperation happens. It's annoying.

This whole leadership idea should have been laid to rest during the GWB foreign policy debacle, for there was no leadership. There was meddling in conflict with most others and with fooling the rest.


The solution of a foreign political problem very rarely requires leadership, but most often cooperation. Better don't hope for a leadership-coined future, it won't happen.


In fact, the EU is more prone to be influenced by leadership than the games in which State Dept plays.
All EU countries are to some extent prisoners of the same cell in European affairs, and few countries (typically Germany+France, less often France+UK or France+Italy) can steer the problem solution path by agreeing on a strategy early on. That comes closer to leadership than almost all of what US State Dept does imo.

tequila
03-18-2011, 01:18 PM
Why not? What makes the U.S. different here?
It's not like the French would be unable to talk or to offer some bargaining chips.


Chips that China, especially, or Russia particularly care for? The French have little to offer other than their influence over EU trade policy, which they must share with the Germans. What chips do they really have?

The U.S., on the other hand, is China's biggest and most important single relationship by far, both economically and in the security realm. It's not even close.

Apparently Gaddafi has now declared a ceasefire (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19libya.html?hp).

davidbfpo
03-18-2011, 01:49 PM
Thanks to Patrick Porter's emailing:
Mr Baroin said the goal of the military action would be to "protect the Libyan people and to allow them to go all the way in their drive for freedom, which means bringing down the Gaddafi regime."

Link to statement within an Australian news report:http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/18/3168059.htm

Norway and Canada plan to contribute, air and naval forces respectively.

Dayuhan
03-18-2011, 01:52 PM
Apparently Gaddafi has now declared a ceasefire (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19libya.html?hp).

I'm guessing that's a charade of compliance aimed at buying a little time, delaying strikes and possibly weakening the consensus behind immediate action.

We'll see.

Entropy
03-18-2011, 02:11 PM
Apparently Gaddafi has now declared a ceasefire (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19libya.html?hp).

and



Mr Baroin said the goal of the military action would be to "protect the Libyan people and to allow them to go all the way in their drive for freedom, which means bringing down the Gaddafi regime."

Those two are related. You'd think the people who drafted this policy would be more cognizant of how easily the "protecting the population" justification could be gamed and manipulated. MQ implemented this ceasefire to take away any justification for attacking his forces. It's the first of many tests for this coalition - does "protecting the population" really mean "bringing down the Gaddafi regime" when that regime isn't engaging in overt military action against the rebels? Do the Europeans realize they've signed up for regime change? I doubt it, so there will not be the political will to "seal the deal" and overthrow MQ as long as he's smart enough not to provoke action and by all accounts he is.

The stage is therefore set for OSW part deux - an enduring, undecisive intervention where a dictator maintains nominal control through manipulation of yet another half-assed UNSC resolution and the wishful thinking of policymakers who should know better.

Ken White
03-18-2011, 02:29 PM
Not as worried as the the US should be. Stand by to have it repeatedly thrown into your faces that it was only the determination of France and Britain (in that order) that shamed the US into action. Another case of a US administration having disgraced the nation in the eyes of the world.Who may have once done something but now do little but carp will carp. They have been throwing things in our faces for years -- hasn't hurt much, hasn't changed much but as long as you're entertained, we're all for it... :D
I like the spin ;) ... you ever thought of a second career at State?Nope, long fully retired after two 'careers,' don't need another and if by spin you mean having to point out the glaringly obvious to people who are supposed to be old enough and smart enough to know better than a lot of the dribble they espouse, why, that sounds sort of bo-ring. It's okay to while away idle hours doing that just for grins but I sure wouldn't want to do it for a career. ;)
Yes, it must be embarrassing to Americans... I sympathize.Uh, actually, what's embarrassing to many American is having to pick up the slack for a lot of people who don't want to pull their weight and who purport to want said 'Merkuns to fix their messes or the messes they left around the world. BTW, how are things going in your neighborhood? Anyway, we're embarrassed for them plus it's really getting tedious...:wry:

Ken White
03-18-2011, 02:36 PM
Do the Europeans realize they've signed up for regime change? I doubt it, so there will not be the political will to "seal the deal" and overthrow MQ as long as he's smart enough not to provoke action and by all accounts he is.

The stage is therefore set for OSW part deux - an enduring, undecisive intervention where a dictator maintains nominal control through manipulation of yet another half-assed UNSC resolution and the wishful thinking of policymakers who should know better.Sad but true...:rolleyes:

jcustis
03-18-2011, 02:51 PM
If we fall in with a plan to deliver airstrikes against anything on the ground, we've just granted Ghadaffi martyrdom, no matter how it ends. He will have fought the bullying great powers that thirst only for oil and cloak it under thw guise of protecting innocent Libyans.

This was a popular movement that seems to have fizzled for all sorts of reasons, and we are casting our support out there to prevent the rebels falling into disarray. It will always go down in the mind of the jihadists that once again we stuck our nose into the Arab world to shape it into sommething the West wants. This half of the Catch-22, in my opinion, is not outweighed by any national interest that I can see. We are going to break another vase, and widen our diplomatic, economic, and military problems in the wake of what happens. I see us as just not having the resources for this, and even if we did, this is not smart.

Being criticized for sitting on the sidelines is the half of the Catch-22 I would have preferred to see us fall in line with. It is easier to mitigate, considering Libya was not an ally nation.

Steve Blair
03-18-2011, 02:55 PM
If we fall in with a plan to deliver airstrikes against anything on the ground, we've just granted Ghadaffi martyrdom, no matter how it ends. He will have fought the bullying great power who thirst only for oil and cloak it under thw guise of protecting innocent Libyans.

This was a popular movement that seems to have fizzled for all sorts of reasons, and we are casting our support out there to prevent the rebels falling into disarray. It will always go down in the mind of the jihadists that once again we stuck our nose into the Arab world to shape it into sommething the West wants. This half of the Catch-22, in my opinion, is not outweighed by any national interest that I can see. We are going to break another vase, and widen our diplomatic, economic, and military problems in the wake of what happens. I see us as just not having the resources for this, and even if we did, this is not smart.

Being criticized for sitting on the sidelines is the half of the Catch-22 I would have preferred to see us fall in line with. It is easier to mitigate, considering Libya was not an ally nation.

Concur. We don't really have a clear interest here, and it's best to stay out of it.

jcustis
03-18-2011, 02:56 PM
and




Those two are related. You'd think the people who drafted this policy would be more cognizant of how easily the "protecting the population" justification could be gamed and manipulated. MQ implemented this ceasefire to take away any justification for attacking his forces. It's the first of many tests for this coalition - does "protecting the population" really mean "bringing down the Gaddafi regime" when that regime isn't engaging in overt military action against the rebels? Do the Europeans realize they've signed up for regime change? I doubt it, so there will not be the political will to "seal the deal" and overthrow MQ as long as he's smart enough not to provoke action and by all accounts he is.

The stage is therefore set for OSW part deux - an enduring, undecisive intervention where a dictator maintains nominal control through manipulation of yet another half-assed UNSC resolution and the wishful thinking of policymakers who should know better.

yup, he just pushed his pawn into check...and...mate.

M-A Lagrange
03-18-2011, 03:04 PM
Do the Europeans realize they've signed up for regime change?

I believe they did, in deed

The Speaker of the French Government:

Quand je disais quelques heures ou rapidement (...), sans donner de lieu stratégique ou de nature de frappes, je ne suis pas sûr que quoi que ce soit puisse faire entendre raison à cette dictature terroriste ou sanguinaire

When I was saying few hours or quickly (...), without giving any strategic locations or strikes configuration, I do not believe that anything may bring to its senses that terrorist and bloody dictature


(C'est) une intervention militaire qui n'est pas, je le rappelle, une occupation du territoire libyen, mais qui est un dispositif de nature militaire pour protéger le peuple libyen et lui permettre d'aller jusqu'au bout de son souffle de liberté

It's a military intervention that is not I remind it, an occupation of the Lybian territory, but it's an operation of military nature to protect the Lybian people and allow them to go up to the end of his freedom will.

Well, G seems to have managed to piss off Sarko who was keen to have his "just war".
Can't say I disagree; on that point only.

tequila
03-18-2011, 03:05 PM
Do the Europeans realize they've signed up for regime change? I doubt it, so there will not be the political will to "seal the deal" and overthrow MQ as long as he's smart enough not to provoke action and by all accounts he is.

I don't know, that seems to be openly contradicted by the earlier part of your post:


Mr Baroin said the goal of the military action would be to "protect the Libyan people and to allow them to go all the way in their drive for freedom, which means bringing down the Gaddafi regime."

Mr. Baroin is a French government spokesman.

People seem to be forgetting that the opposition is now in a position to reconsolidate its positions and build a military force, apparently now with a military supply chain via Egypt and Tunisia. Stratfor is posting on the presence of Egyptian special forces troops in Libya already. Airstrikes to crush Gaddafi's artillery and armored vehicles around Benghazi, combined with a rebel push to recapture the oil terminals, would quickly emasculate the Gaddafi regime's ability to fund its mercenaries and buy support. Given that the regime has only held on through mass arrests and killings in Tripoli and the west, this could embolden more defections from his security forces and more uprisings from people who will no longer fear Gaddafi's tanks.

Fuchs
03-18-2011, 03:11 PM
A few thousand Black African mercenaries are cheap. The possession of oil export facilities is rather of symbolic importance in this conflict imo.

Logistics (and thus organisation), competence and motivation (loyalty, morale) are the keys. A lasting draw would most likely lead to a collapse of the loyalists.


More on the German position:
Our foreign minister drew harsh critique from newspaper comment sections, but chancellor Merkel backs him with the same arguments.
'Behind closed door' she's supposedly more harsh and considers the military actions s not fully thought-out and too risky in regard to escalation.

Keep in mind that until a few days the rule of thumb that it's a bad idea to get involved in a distant civil war was still held in high regard.
Merkel was somewhat pro-Iraq invasion in 2002 and has apparently learned since, becoming less belligerent.

jcustis
03-18-2011, 03:13 PM
I am honestly surprised we haven't seen the employment of several well-placed, simple IEDs, to give the tankers reason for pause.

Fuchs
03-18-2011, 03:34 PM
There's nothing channelling on the terrain. Where should the mines be laid? Almost all vehicles can quite easily travel off-road, especially the military ones. No mountains or hills, thus no narrow valley. No irrigation channels limiting choice of route, nor drainage channels.

A couple wadis and the streets in settlements offer the only canalized terrain afaik.

Mines only played a significant role in Africa during 1940-1942 in the defence of fortified settlements (Tobruk) and at the natural bottleneck El Alamein.

Entropy
03-18-2011, 03:55 PM
I don't know, that seems to be openly contradicted by the earlier part of your post:

Mr. Baroin is a French government spokesman.

People seem to be forgetting that the opposition is now in a position to reconsolidate its positions and build a military force, apparently now with a military supply chain via Egypt and Tunisia. Stratfor is posting on the presence of Egyptian special forces troops in Libya already. Airstrikes to crush Gaddafi's artillery and armored vehicles around Benghazi, combined with a rebel push to recapture the oil terminals, would quickly emasculate the Gaddafi regime's ability to fund its mercenaries and buy support. Given that the regime has only held on through mass arrests and killings in Tripoli and the west, this could embolden more defections from his security forces and more uprisings from people who will no longer fear Gaddafi's tanks.

I was pointing out that not everyone agrees with Mr. Baroin's position on what the resolution authorizes. It's pretty clear it does not explicitly authorize regime change since it is focused on "protecting civilians." The resolution calls on Gaddafi to implement a ceasefire immediately which he has done. He's nominally complying. Maybe I missed something in the resolution, but assisting the rebels in offensive operations against Libyan forces who've declared a ceasefire does not sound like "protecting civilians" to me, especially since a lot of civilians are going to get killed in the fighting. Whatever French officials may say, it doesn't seem likely to me that the public in Europe will support it. Of course, that is an educated guess - I may be completely wrong.


Secondly, if Gaddafi is as weak as you indicate (and on that score I honestly don't know - the Libyan regime is not my area of expertise), then maybe an aggressive NFZ will be enough to enable the rebels to win. What if they don't win? Is the coalition willing to escalate? If not then we've got a recipe for stalemate and an enduring intervention.

In short, it's easy to say that Gaddafi has to go, it's quite another matter to actually accomplish that goal.

jcustis
03-18-2011, 04:12 PM
There's nothing channelling on the terrain. Where should the mines be laid? Almost all vehicles can quite easily travel off-road, especially the military ones. No mountains or hills, thus no narrow valley. No irrigation channels limiting choice of route, nor drainage channels.

A couple wadis and the streets in settlements offer the only canalized terrain afaik.

Mines only played a significant role in Africa during 1940-1942 in the defence of fortified settlements (Tobruk) and at the natural bottleneck El Alamein.

These guys aren't driving across the open expanses of desert. They could, but they don't, and won't. It would only work with the first few dozen or so strikes astride the main roads they are following. After that, it could set them up for other counterattacks that employ other tactics. Again, I'm talking about giving them reason for pause, not necessarily to try to grind them to a halt, although I wouldn't be surprised if a few burning T-72s didn't really wreck a lot of motivation to fight.

Entropy
03-18-2011, 04:14 PM
I am honestly surprised we haven't seen the employment of several well-placed, simple IEDs, to give the tankers reason for pause.

I suspect the two main factors are lack of expertise combined with a lack of time due to the rapid retreat.

carl
03-18-2011, 04:26 PM
- On the military level, how feasible will it be to defend Benghazi without committing foreign ground forces? What is the likely mix between land/air/sea, and between direct intervention and aid/supplies/training?

I would like to ask the guys with experience a technical question. How feasible is it to stop the advance on Benghazi by disrupting the coastal road supply line with multiple small groups of pickup trucks mounted with heavy machine guns? The road is very long and very open to the south so it would seem difficult to protect even if adequate forces are available. The dictator doesn't seem to have a surfeit of reliable troops.

The rebels may be more capable of that kind of action also. It wouldn't involve standing and taking artillery fire and air strikes. It would involve driving through the desert a long way and falling upon supply convoys when they were weak. How much training would it require?

There aren't a whole lot of airplanes to hunt them down, you can't see much from jets anyway.

Anyway, if anybody could comment on that I would be very interested.

jcustis
03-18-2011, 04:26 PM
I suspect the two main factors are lack of expertise combined with a lack of time due to the rapid retreat.


I need a rolling on the floor emoticon, as if I could show you video of how fast the Afghans are able to put them in, you'd be a little shocked.

And as for expertise, a pressure plate is ridiculously simple, in both construction and materials, and emplacement.

Stan
03-18-2011, 04:27 PM
I am honestly surprised we haven't seen the employment of several well-placed, simple IEDs, to give the tankers reason for pause.

JC, good point. Beginning to wonder who and when. The neighbors will eventually help with that though :wry:


There's nothing channelling on the terrain. Where should the mines be laid? Almost all vehicles can quite easily travel off-road, especially the military ones. No mountains or hills, thus no narrow valley. No irrigation channels limiting choice of route, nor drainage channels.

A couple wadis and the streets in settlements offer the only canalized terrain afaik.

Mines only played a significant role in Africa during 1940-1942 in the defence of fortified settlements (Tobruk) and at the natural bottleneck El Alamein.

Not mines, Fuchs, but everything else is fair game. How about dead bodies, bicycles, live bodies, animals ? Ever spent a tour in Africa?

Fuchs
03-18-2011, 04:31 PM
I don't get what you mean. Do you suggest to reduce the loyalist morale with graphic displays?

Steve Blair
03-18-2011, 04:40 PM
I don't get what you mean. Do you suggest to reduce the loyalist morale with graphic displays?

I think what Stan means is that they would use anything to conceal an IED.

Stan
03-18-2011, 04:52 PM
I think what Stan means is that they would use anything to conceal an IED.

Exactly !


There's nothing channelling on the terrain. Where should the mines be laid? Almost all vehicles can quite easily travel off-road, especially the military ones. No mountains or hills, thus no narrow valley. No irrigation channels limiting choice of route, nor drainage channels.

A couple wadis and the streets in settlements offer the only canalized terrain afaik.

Mines only played a significant role in Africa during 1940-1942 in the defence of fortified settlements (Tobruk) and at the natural bottleneck El Alamein.

JC made reference to Improvised Explosive Devices, not AT mines. As far as your reference to the use of mines in Africa, I think you should check what happened as late as 2005 in Chad (with some slight German support I might add).

BTW, a mine does not necessarily need to be underground to function effectively. In fact, before the real IEDs were born, most were little more than purpose-build military ordnance used in very unconventional ways. Something like thinking outside of the box !

Regret the confusion ;)

carl
03-18-2011, 05:00 PM
I am honestly surprised we haven't seen the employment of several well-placed, simple IEDs, to give the tankers reason for pause.

How would you keep the wrong people from driving over them and blowing themselves up?

Entropy
03-18-2011, 05:13 PM
I need a rolling on the floor emoticon, as if I could show you video of how fast the Afghans are able to put them in, you'd be a little shocked.

And as for expertise, a pressure plate is ridiculously simple, in both construction and materials, and emplacement.

You're right about Afghanistan, but Afghanistan is not Libya. Afghans have a decade of experience. Afghans have an established training and supply network. Afghans are more organized. The Libyan's are a ragtag bunch who are starting from square zero. Afghans are emplacing in the context of an occupation against a force that largely operates in a predictable fashion from known positions, not as a consequence of retreating from superior forces, etc., etc., etc.

Set your wayback machine to 2001-2003 in Afghanistan. Why didn't we see many IED's (a total of 7 ied fatalities from 2001-2003 and none in 2001) from retreating Taliban forces?

I'm not completely confident in my assessment (hence use of the word "suspect") so if you have an alternative then by all means, let's hear it.

Stan
03-18-2011, 05:20 PM
How would you keep the wrong people from driving over them and blowing themselves up?

Carl,
Sadly, 70% are innocent victims (55% are children).

If we just employed Anti Tank mines, then the worst case scenario of an innocent victim would be a tractor-trailer driver.

The remainder are idiots that place the IEDs, and those are for some strange reason, not counted in the stats :D

Entropy is dead on the money... a very high learning curve for Libya and the consequences for making a single mistake are usually fatal ;)

M-A Lagrange
03-18-2011, 05:28 PM
About IED, I believe the best answer is lack of skills. Don't forget that Lybian army was divided into 2: the regular with old WW2 material and 45 days training. And the special forces that were affected to G and his sons.

Anyways, as planed G is pulling back at the announce of air strikes. Which was the aim of it.
Now he is asking for discussions.
With a crowbar strike on his knees i'll advice!:D

jcustis
03-18-2011, 11:49 PM
How would you keep the wrong people from driving over them and blowing themselves up?

You tell them as you are putting it in the ground,

carl
03-19-2011, 12:35 AM
You tell them as you are putting it in the ground,

In that case you could only lay it if there were people living full time very close to the point of emplacement. If you did that perhaps the dictator's forces would figure it out and tell the people living near all the places they were going that if any of their vehicles were blown up, everybody in a say a 1000 metre radius would be killed. They don't seem concerned about their pr.

I think it an impractical plan.

Ron Humphrey
03-19-2011, 05:29 AM
those with more experience but just curious why explicitly targeted attacks against both kad affi and others seen to be key partners inthe last two weeks crackdown coupled with assistance humanitarian and otherwise would not be a good strategy?
exactly who does anyone think he would actually become a martyr to.
and one last question if history is meant to be a guide to inform not rule why exactly would anyone "have" to do anything. it seems the choices are what to do when and by whom in what manner to what ends.
all of which will only be answered only once something is done?
i realize the past has many examples of how something like this can go wrong, does that have to mean thats what will happen here?

JMA
03-19-2011, 07:08 AM
those with more experience but just curious why explicitly targeted attacks against both kad affi and others seen to be key partners inthe last two weeks crackdown coupled with assistance humanitarian and otherwise would not be a good strategy?
exactly who does anyone think he would actually become a martyr to.
and one last question if history is meant to be a guide to inform not rule why exactly would anyone "have" to do anything. it seems the choices are what to do when and by whom in what manner to what ends.
all of which will only be answered only once something is done?
i realize the past has many examples of how something like this can go wrong, does that have to mean thats what will happen here?

It is already going wrong.

The moment to have acted on a low risk - high return basis has passed.

It is clear the US Administration (I add this because it is the Keystone Cops like Administration who are the idiots and not the American people) got the strategy all wrong... pathetically wrong.

Read the following from the New York Times: Obama Takes Hard Line With Libya After Shift by Clinton (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)

They got this wrong of course:


The shift in the administration’s position — from strong words against Libya to action — was forced largely by the events beyond its control: the crumbling of the uprising raised the prospect that Colonel Qaddafi would remain in power to kill “many thousands,” as Mr. Obama said at the White House on Friday.

This garbage is merely face saving from an Administration who failed to anticipate (or were not so briefed by the less than competent CIA) that Gaddafi could strike back. The world will have to wait to see how many Libyans were killed by Gaddafi in the last few weeks to see how much blood this dithering (and most likely ill-advised) president has on his hands.

This is a case of the US waking up late to the issues at stake and then wanting to push/muscle the French and the Brits out of the way.

Its going to get worse.

JMA
03-19-2011, 07:24 AM
35 hours after the UNSC resolution there is still no action (other than from Gaddafi).

First Mistake: The Brits and French should not have threatened imminent action when they were in no position to do so. (such an elementary error)

Smart Move: Gaddafi announces a cease fire which will give the impression of compliance with the UNSC resolution and will lead the weak and fainthearted to question why armed action is needed if there is a cease fire. He then calls on potentially neutral countries to monitor the cease fire. There is no cease fire (does anyone think there ever was to be one?)

Second Mistake: Instead of a private ultimatum to be followed by non-telegraphed air strikes Obama chose to grandstand and make a public ultimatum on TV. This will now require US action to force compliance with that referendum. Not smart to conduct such negotiations in public.

So 35 hours on the US, Britain and France has a foot in its mouth while Gaddafi forces are attacking Benghazi. Round one to Gaddafi.

Fuchs
03-19-2011, 10:52 AM
The world will have to wait to see how many Libyans were killed by Gaddafi in the last few weeks to see how much blood this dithering (and most likely ill-advised) president has on his hands.

This is more than just a little stretch. There's no obligation to intervene, the U.S. is on a different continent, it has no close relations to the people of Libya.

An intervention is an option, not an ethical obligation.

davidbfpo
03-19-2011, 11:03 AM
The latest BBC report includes:
Our correspondent saw the government tanks on a bridge inside Benghazi at around 1030 (0830 GMT), and reports suggested hundreds of people were fleeing the city eastwards as the fighting continued.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12793919

Plus a reported, wide bombardment and civilians fleeing eastwards:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418

Note the footage of the shot down fighter is reported by the BBC as belonging t the rebels.

jcustis
03-19-2011, 12:40 PM
Ghadaffi is certainly getting a powerful IO message out there that throws this action right back in everyone's face. I think it is fairly effective.

From the Yahoo News article:
"Libya is not yours. Libya is for the Libyans. The Security Council resolution is invalid," he said in the letter to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. To Obama, the Libyan leader was slightly more conciliatory: "If you had found them taking over American cities with armed force, tell me what you would do."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_af/af_libya

Either way, the fabric of Libya has been rent so badly that it will never be the same, and a simmering rebellion seems likely. Shadow government in exile? Does the coalition support it and pick a figure to toss our weight behind? Strange times indeed...

carl
03-19-2011, 01:28 PM
I wonder if we will end up in the very odd position of having to help the dictator in some way. An Egyptian commenter at Tom Ricks' blog raised that point.

If the dictator wins and drives out all the open opposition but does not crush the spirit of the opposition, then an insurgency of some kind might begin. That would require a clandestine organization or assistance to establish one. The people in the region who have the most experience with clandestine organizations are not people we like much but because of their experience, organization and money they might gain a lot power within any continuing anti-dictator resistance. If that happened, then what do we do? (I know there are a lot of ifs there.)

Like jcustis says, this will be very messy. But, by doing nothing but talk for so long, this is what we signed up for.

jcustis
03-19-2011, 01:40 PM
The people in the region who have the most experience with clandestine organizations are not people we like much but because of their experience, organization and money they might gain a lot power within any continuing anti-dictator resistance.

Are you referring to the Iranians?

carl
03-19-2011, 02:00 PM
Are you referring to the Iranians?

I was thinking of the various Jihadi extremists. I didn't think of the Iranians but maybe they would want to get in on it too.

Entropy
03-19-2011, 02:03 PM
If the dictator wins and drives out all the open opposition but does not crush the spirit of the opposition, then an insurgency of some kind might begin. That would require a clandestine organization or assistance to establish one. The people in the region who have the most experience with clandestine organizations are not people we like much but because of their experience, organization and money they might gain a lot power within any continuing anti-dictator resistance. If that happened, then what do we do? (I know there are a lot of ifs there.)


Those are some of the reasons I think this is going to end up like OSW. OSW/ONW had similar mandates - to "protect the population" via the limited means of air power. That is not a mission air power can do very well.

Additionally, if we fail to protect the rebels (as looks increasingly likely), much less enable their rebellion to succeed, we will be reluctant to call it quits for a variety of reasons. In short, what is our "out" if we fail to affect the situation on the ground? IMO, we'll continue to "protect civilians" with an enduring NFZ.

I hope I'm wrong in this, but I don't see many alternatives given the strategy, such as it is, and the limited means assigned to it.

JMA
03-19-2011, 02:32 PM
This is more than just a little stretch. There's no obligation to intervene, the U.S. is on a different continent, it has no close relations to the people of Libya.

An intervention is an option, not an ethical obligation.

Yet at the last minute the US chose to extend and expand the UNSC resolution and hijack the efforts of France and Britain?

Of course there was/is no obligation for the US to get involved in Libya just as there was no obligation to get involved in Rwanda.

Not being obligated to get involved does not excuse half-baked or incompetent action if/when they do.

It is the stop-start, wait-go limitation dominated courses of action finally inflicted upon the military by the smart guys in the WH and at State which lead to a less than optimum resolution of the particular problem of the moment (I am trying to be nice here).

To respond to a SNAFU by saying we didn't need to get involved in the first place is plain ridiculous.

JMA
03-19-2011, 02:46 PM
I wonder if we will end up in the very odd position of having to help the dictator in some way. An Egyptian commenter at Tom Ricks' blog raised that point.

What admitting defeat before the first shot is fired?


If the dictator wins and drives out all the open opposition but does not crush the spirit of the opposition, then an insurgency of some kind might begin. That would require a clandestine organization or assistance to establish one. The people in the region who have the most experience with clandestine organizations are not people we like much but because of their experience, organization and money they might gain a lot power within any continuing anti-dictator resistance. If that happened, then what do we do? (I know there are a lot of ifs there.)

Steady Carl. Defeating Gaddafi's forces will be a lot easier than people are beginning to think. That they are rolling up a rag-tag militia does not mean they will stand up to an intelligent and skillfully planned and executed air campaign.

Gaddafi will position himself and his assets and forces close to the civilian population in the hope of deterring air strikes or banking on the propaganda coup of civilians killed by US/French/British/other planes.

I am absolutely staggered at the gross incompetence of this process so far.


Like jcustis says, this will be very messy. But, by doing nothing but talk for so long, this is what we signed up for.

Yes that sounds familiar. Another case of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Quite frankly I'm surprised the American people are not taking to the streets...

carl
03-19-2011, 03:13 PM
JMA:

I was just wondering what might happen if a lot of "ifs" came to be. It does seem as if there is no real hard core of morale in many of the dictators forces, but then the rebels are a mob. Grounding the dictator's airplanes will have a great effect on the morale of both sides I think, but then the dictators forces have a lot of heavy weapons. Will the Euro airplanes do anything about that? Can they? But then again the dictators forces had a lot of trouble taking a contested city in the past and Benghazi is a big place and contested cities are hard for anybody to take and that supply line is vulnerable. I can't figure it out.

I am inclined to think that it would be best for all concerned at this point if the dictator were to be gone quickly. If he hangs on and a resistance starts that may not end up well not to mention prolonging the uncertainty and suffering.

davidbfpo
03-19-2011, 04:28 PM
Reported by the BBC:
French military jets are preventing forces loyal to Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi from attacking the rebel-held city of Benghazi, French President Nicolas Sarkozy says.

Note the Rafale or Mirage recce aircraft are flying from Eastern France.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971

BBC also report Italy has indicated the NATO Naples HQ will be used.

Tukhachevskii
03-19-2011, 06:53 PM
The problem is in part that it's not sure an intervention will improve the situation - it could also worsen it. UN intervention has extended the Bosnian civil war, for example.

There's reason for mistrusting the usual suspects of military interventions and their ability to aim at military targets only.

There's also a considerable potential for misuse in UNSC resolutions, as evidenced by the U.S. lie that a UNSC resolution somehow legalised OIF although that was an entirely new and counter-factual view for all but two UNSC seat owners.

Finally, keep in mind how the U.S. misused its Iraq NFZ (originating in a cease-fire agreement for a war that had lost its legitimacy when Kuwait was liberated) to bully Iraq for a decade and for no good reason (the Southern NFZ made no sense any more, the Northern one could have been patrolled from the safety of Kurd-controlled territory) without any potential for trouble.

And then there's the strange idea of "self defense" of certain air force's pilots, who fly at 20,000 ft in a Mach 2 jet and claim to have bombed a wedding in "self defense" because they saw muzzle fire.


Obviously, there are many concerns that are not fit for a press release.

I need the exact text on the UN website quick, the news are -as usual- totally useless because they don't offer any of the important details of the resolution.

...but I'll post them anyway...

With all this talk of no-fly zones and what not I am reminded of an Armenian legend I once heard (somewhere, but I forget). In it a young man on a typical hero-quest confronts the giant Azrail. After a brief but reassuringly fantastical fight he slays the giant, chops of his head and then cleaves the head in twain. The two halves of Azrail’s head then plead to be chopped into quarters. Our young hero declines the request knowing that the third blow would restore Azrail. The motto? One must be sure that in attacking one’s enemy we don’t strengthen him.

Ghaddafi has made a number of pronouncements, many of which seem deranged to our all too rationalist mindsets. “He’s mad!”, we say. “Absolutely loopy”, we proclaim. But is he? One of the claims that his has put forward is that internal events in Libya are being manipulated by outside forces. Fair enough. Arab’s love a good conspiracy theory. But there’s no proof because the revolt has, thus far, been indigenous. But what happens if we (UK & US) do, in fact, establish a no-fly zone (say)? And what happens if even one loyalist aircraft makes it into the air and is then shot down? Or even, G-d forbid, he manages to shoot down one of ours? Well, now, that’s a different kettle of fish ain’t it?

I love a good punch up as much as the next fella. But only if I can comfortable predict the outcome (and can live with it). I’m much more averse to getting into a fight that could rapidly escalate beyond whatever my limited goals may have been (usually at any rate though the older I get the more I find myself hankering after a good fight). That simple legalistic act of reinforcing a (hopefully) internationally sanctioned regime could snowball and prolong Ghaddafi if not undercut the revolt. But therein lies my problem. US and American journalists and the media in general (along with the chattering classes) have taken to describing the “revolt” in Libya as a “national” one (let’s call that the underlying tacit premise). In fact, it’s nothing of the sort. It’s inchoate, unstructured and largely leaderless. The revolt snowballed from its original local insurrection to a national conflagration but that doesn’t mean that all Libyans are of one mind about why they’re doing what they’re doing. In 1917 the Russian Revolution didn’t necessarily have to end in a Bolshevik seizure of power, but it did (indeed, they subsequently re-narrated history to record the revolution as Bolshevik through and through). Indeed, Allied intervention during the Russian Civil war helped to strengthen the Reds especially after the Whites’ legitimacy was undercut by association with the Allies and vice verse. Alternative outcomes were always possible. And they are in Libya too.

Many of the people now revolting against Ghaddafi have no real agenda (grievances are, analytically speaking, a different thing entirely). I am concerned that should we get involved in the mix then we merely begin to sow doubts in the minds of many Libyans currently buoyed along and drunk with their own success that, in fact, maybe they are being manipulated by “foreign” powers (Ghaddafi maybe a bastard but he’s their bastard). That may result in Thermidor and the defection of the many back over to Ghaddafi (impossible perhaps, but not beyond the pale; stranger stuff has happened in the Middle East). That doubt is what keeps Ghaddafi’s chances even (in his own mind that is). Intervening, then, even if only in the form of a no-fly zone, may help prolong (though probably not restore) Azrail/Ghaddafi and may have knock on effects elsewhere. Of course if he gets some loot and a plane ticket to a safe haven...well, who knows? (I’ve heard Libyan planes have been flying to Greece, don’t know what to make of it but I doubt Gaddafi would flee to a NATO country. OTOH, I ‘ve herd that Bylo/Russian/Ukrainian arms smugglers operate in Greece with ties to North Africa though they usually ship via Cyprus and Malta, then again Malta’s crawling with NATO naval units...ahhhh speculation, speculation).


My problem with no-fly zones and other interventions against sovereign states (whatever their internal situation) is that domestic forces inevitably want to mould international affairs to suit domestic purposes. I hope Obama doesn’t try and end his presidency with a foreign policy “flourish” that only gets the rest of us into another quagmire (Europe is, after all, closer to Libya than the US is). Cameron may be just as, if not more, foolhardy in wanting to appear “hard” to an electorate that, frankly, reviles him. Military action serves policy and we’ve not done too good a job at formulating policy appropriate for the Middle East. Besides, who ever heard of a limited intervention that remained limited? The risk of blowback or unintentional consequences (sod’s law) are too great. Better, IMO, to let the situation proceed according to its own logic. This may even be to our advantage in that it may stand as a warning to other restive populaces in the region that change (though a wonderful slogan for American politicians and their British acolytes) isn’t always the panacea it appears to be (remember Kant? Order of whatever kind is preferable to chaos. There’s even an Islamic version somewhere.). And although the circumstances and context is different for all countries it may act as a breaking mechanism for a “domino effect” that threatens to snowball out of control (how’s that for mixed metaphors). Of course, if we can pull off any military actions with some finesse (a tall order I know), then we may even be able to send a signal to states we do want to see change in (i.e., Saudi Arabia & Iran, but then again, in the last case the dangers are similar). Just thought I’d put those thoughts out there, off the cuff though they may be.

JMA
03-19-2011, 06:53 PM
JMA:

I was just wondering what might happen if a lot of "ifs" came to be. It does seem as if there is no real hard core of morale in many of the dictators forces, but then the rebels are a mob. Grounding the dictator's airplanes will have a great effect on the morale of both sides I think, but then the dictators forces have a lot of heavy weapons. Will the Euro airplanes do anything about that? Can they? But then again the dictators forces had a lot of trouble taking a contested city in the past and Benghazi is a big place and contested cities are hard for anybody to take and that supply line is vulnerable. I can't figure it out.

I am inclined to think that it would be best for all concerned at this point if the dictator were to be gone quickly. If he hangs on and a resistance starts that may not end up well not to mention prolonging the uncertainty and suffering.

Carl, lets start here:


"In planning any operation, it is vital to remember and constantly repeat to oneself two things: 'In war, nothing is impossible provided you use audacity,' and 'Do not take counsel of your fears." - General George S. Patton

If your planning and preparation has been carried out with professional skill then you must not allow the "ifs" to test your resolve. If you falter you can imagine that the fainted hearted around here will be totally freaked out.

2-3 weeks ago was the time for the targeted cruise missile with Gaddafi's name on it. So yes it will be more difficult from now on. But lets be absolutely honest the delay and the subsequent difficulties have been caused by the dithering of Obama and Clinton. Direct any anger and frustration in that direction.

Presley Cannady
03-19-2011, 07:10 PM
Yes, there is no polling data, but I trust myself to conclude the uprising in Libya is definitely no "al-Qaida-launched insurgency" aiming at establishing some "Qaliphate", as claimed by the regime and some of the media in the West. The essence is the same like that behind the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, as well as unrests in Algeria, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere - i.e. the economy, human rights and power-sharing, not religion.

Isn't picking the rosier of a set of scenarios based nothing more than "trusting yourself" the very definition of whistling in the dark? It's presently impossible to estimate the contribution of religious fanaticism in any of these squabbles, though it is abundantly evident that Islamists stood to benefit--and did, if for no other reason than prisoner releases--in both Egypt and Tunisia. In Egypt, it remains to be seen how Islamists deal with a military leadership historically more hostile to their interests than Mubarak. In Tunisia, where's the downside at all for Ghannouchi and the like?

But if we're going to boiling it down to instinct, then I trust myself to conclude that an Islamic radical with a rifle beats a latte sipping university student with a Facebook wall nine times out of ten.

Ken White
03-19-2011, 07:35 PM
If your planning and preparation has been carried out with professional skill then you must not allow the "ifs" to test your resolve.Yes.

Note the photo below. Aakrotitiri on 16 March. That aircraft flying above those AWACS didn't just get there... :rolleyes:
If you falter you can imagine that the fainted hearted around here will be totally freaked out.I doubt that the hearted -- faint or stout -- on a discussion board have much effect on anything. :D
2-3 weeks ago was the time for the targeted cruise missile with Gaddafi's name on it.That shows appalling ignorance or malice. individuals are not that easy to target.
...the delay and the subsequent difficulties have been caused by the dithering of Obama and Clinton. Direct any anger and frustration in that direction.Why be angry? To prove one can be? How righteous. Pity the world doesn't operate the way some wish. Others are thankful it does not... ;)

M-A Lagrange
03-19-2011, 07:55 PM
May I remind that it's not like if G had never been defeated in the past by wetern armies.
The French did defeat him in Chad before. :D
So yes it's gonna be messy but mainly because West took its time...

davidbfpo
03-19-2011, 08:32 PM
Ken,

You cited:
Note the photo below. Akrotiri on 16 March. That aircraft flying above those AWACS didn't just get there.

IIRC such US strategic recce aircraft are a regular presence, if not almost permanent, at RAF Akrotiri and usually tasked to Middle East duties. The base is a Sovereign UK base, since 1960 under a long standing treaty with Cyprus; see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Akrotiri).

davidbfpo
03-19-2011, 08:36 PM
BBC News features a Pentagon press briefing and has referred to a twenty cruise missile strike on Libyan air defences, primarily in the west. Fired primarily by the US and a UK submarine.

Link to summary, not press briefing:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972

Note a SWJ thread refers to twenty Libyans targets hit by 110 cruise missiles.

SWJ Blog
03-19-2011, 09:20 PM
Operation 'Odyssey Dawn' begins against Libya (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/operation-odyssey-dawn-begins/)

Entry Excerpt:

United States and British warships launched (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42164455/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/) at least 110 land-attack cruise missiles against 20 Libyan air defense targets. Admiral Samuel Locklear, USN, abaord USS Mt. Whitney, is in command (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63225)of the combined joint task force.

The BBC also reports (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972) that Western aircraft bombed targets in Tripoli. This follows an attack on Libyan armored vehicles near Benghazi by a French aircraft. According to NBC News, there are no U.S. aircraft over Libya.

Nothing follows.



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/operation-odyssey-dawn-begins/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Ken White
03-19-2011, 11:33 PM
IIRC such US strategic recce aircraft are a regular presence, if not almost permanent, at RAF Akrotiri and usually tasked to Middle East duties. The base is a Sovereign UK base, since 1960 under a long standing treaty with Cyprus; see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Akrotiri).Been there -- as a transient -- he may also have been in transit but the quite strong probability is that he wasn't. A lot of such aircraft, EP3s and EC-135s and similar birds, EC-130s, even the WB-57 now and then; and the U2s like the one in the picture are there often. Almost based, as you say and they do work the ME -- and North Africa -- from there. And Sigonella. And Solenzera. And Athens. Even Incirlik. Which base depends on what's going on where. The numbers rise and fall with the mood and activity of the day and the where varies for the same reason....

Dayuhan
03-20-2011, 12:31 AM
The moment to have acted on a low risk - high return basis has passed.

That's only true if you calculate risk and return purely with respect to Libya, which the US is not in a position to do.

The last thing the US wants at the moment is to be seen as eager to intervene in the affairs of another oil-producing Muslim country. Intervention while the rebels were ascendant would have been efficient in terms of impact on the Libyan rebellion, but it would have created the overwhelming impression that the US was trying to take control of the rebellion and the aftermath for its own oil-addicted purposes, which are universally presumed to be nefarious. Whether its true or not is irrelevant, all of the ME and much of the US and Europe would have bought the narrative.

By delaying the US supports the narrative that it sees intervention as a last resort, not a default response (a last resort is what it reasonably should be), that it is reluctant to intervene, and that it does not seek a leadership position that would promote post-intervention control. If we can back out after the early stages and leave it to the Europeans, so much the better.

All that is rough on the Libyans, but we didn't tell them to rebel or encourage them, and they didn't ask our permission or approval. As oft stated here, there's no obligation on our part... and the reality, harsh though it may be, is that dismantling the Bush-era image of the US as aggressive, eager, arrogant intervenor in the affairs of Muslims is more important to US interests than removing Gadhafi.

jmm99
03-20-2011, 12:35 AM
Resolution 1973 (2011) (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement):


p.2:
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,....

Chapter VII provides the broadest legal scope for military action under the UN Charter - "peace enforcement". For example, the UNSC resolution and consequent actions by UN forces in Korea (1950 et seq) were taken under Chapter VII.


p.3:
Protection of civilians

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;.....

This authorization goes well beyond a "NFZ" - and is part of the multi-barreled approach taken by this resolution. As we have seen, "all necessary measures" allows assertion of very broad measures indeed.

However, those are limited - perhaps - by the language "excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory." We shall see whether "occupation" is parsed to mean physical occupation, as opposed to legal occupation. The two concepts of "occupation" are different.

In any event, we (USAians) are being informed by this resolution, and current events, that the Obama administration is following the playbook of Harry Truman and Bill Clinton.

Regards

Mike

tequila
03-20-2011, 12:37 AM
Of note:

Gaddafi Regime Tried to Recruit Me (http://iwpr.net/report-news/gaddafi-regime-tried-recruit-me) - IWPR

Interesting story by IWPR on how Gaddafi's regime in Tripoli is passing out weapons to anyone in the capital willing to defend the regime, including criminals and teenagers. These are for his internal security forces rather than his frontline forces facing the rebels, but I can't imagine this regime having much staying power if the momentum swings against it.

Rex Brynen
03-20-2011, 12:43 AM
Ghaddafi has made a number of pronouncements, many of which seem deranged to our all too rationalist mindsets. “He’s mad!”, we say. “Absolutely loopy”, we proclaim. But is he?

Yes, absolutely he is. That doesn't make him less dangerous, or entirely irrational, but he's quite crazy.


But there’s no proof because the revolt has, thus far, been indigenous. But what happens if we (UK & US) do, in fact, establish a no-fly zone (say)? And what happens if even one loyalist aircraft makes it into the air and is then shot down? Or even, G-d forbid, he manages to shoot down one of ours? Well, now, that’s a different kettle of fish ain’t it?

I don't doubt most Libyans would be cheering if a loyalist plane was shot down by the UK or France--if anything, they seem rather annoyed we haven't done it yet. I certainly think coalition public opinion can withstand losing a Western plane.


That simple legalistic act of reinforcing a (hopefully) internationally sanctioned regime could snowball and prolong Ghaddafi if not undercut the revolt.

It is hard to see how it could prolong Qaddafi. He was clearly within a week or two of winning. Certainly it may take the rebels a long time to unseat him. And we don't know what a post-Qaddafi regime will look like. But everyone knows that, especially those who took the decision to authorize military force.


It’s inchoate, unstructured and largely leaderless. The revolt snowballed from its original local insurrection to a national conflagration but that doesn’t mean that all Libyans are of one mind about why they’re doing what they’re doing.

Actually, I would have said the media and the chattering classes have been amply clear on this.

Rex Brynen
03-20-2011, 12:46 AM
By delaying the US supports the narrative that it sees intervention as a last resort, not a default response (a last resort is what it reasonably should be), that it is reluctant to intervene, and that it does not seek a leadership position that would promote post-intervention control. If we can back out after the early stages and leave it to the Europeans, so much the better.

Exactly right. The diplomatic situation made earlier action impossible (and it must be said that the French and British showed considerable political determination in changing that).

Complaining that something should have been done sooner when it wasn't politically possible to do anything sooner is rather pointless.

JMA
03-20-2011, 01:24 AM
Exactly right. The diplomatic situation made earlier action impossible (and it must be said that the French and British showed considerable political determination in changing that).

Complaining that something should have been done sooner when it wasn't politically possible to do anything sooner is rather pointless.

Define anything in this context please.

The fact is that the actions of the French and the Brits and the increasingly precarious situation of the rebels spurred the US into a frenzy of belated diplomatic action. Thus saying that no action was possible - diplomatic and leading to otherwise - is simply nonsense. The US politicians sat on their hands.

jcustis
03-20-2011, 01:39 AM
Exactly right. The diplomatic situation made earlier action impossible (and it must be said that the French and British showed considerable political determination in changing that).

Complaining that something should have been done sooner when it wasn't politically possible to do anything sooner is rather pointless.

It also may work some way towards restoring the credibility lost by the UNSC in the wake of the previous decision by the Bush Administration to sidestep it in September 2002..

Rex Brynen
03-20-2011, 01:40 AM
The US had good geostrategic reasons not to move on a UNSCR before the Arab League requested a NFZ on 12 March. Even then, it took considerable time to both overcome the initial Russian and Chinese veto threat, and to secure a necessary majority. Sadly, it took the increasing threat to Benghazi for that to happen.

Of course, this could have been done without a Chapter VII "all necessary means" UNSCR. I think that would have involved a series of other long-term costs, however.

Yes, the US could have come onboard earlier. I'm not sure it would have shaved much time off that timeline.

Fuchs
03-20-2011, 01:55 AM
As a German I am irritated by the similarities between the current Libyan case and the Spanish Civil War and Afrika Korps episodes.

Short of a loyalist morale breakdown I don't see the rebels advancing on Tripolis successfully any time soon (without foreign ground troops assistance).

The defeat of the loyalists wouldn't take more than a single brigade, of course. But who's intent on sending such a brigade? the French with their Légion étrangère maybe? Sarkozy surely is impulsive enough for such a move.
It would come close to a declaration of war on the Algerian regime, though.


And what are we supposed to do if the whole anti-dictator (wouldn't call it democracy yet) movement in the Arab world succeeds?
Help the to succeed economically with favourable trade conditions at the expense of the already troubled PIIGS countries?

Who's willing to bet that a possible Arab unification movement along the lines of the EU (or better, with the advantage of hindsight) or even US would not drive too many Westerners crazy and lead to serious troubles?
There are Western mass media outlets that pay good money to hosts who already went nuts on caliphate and sharia fearmongering while the Arab countries were badly dysfunctional!

JMA
03-20-2011, 01:55 AM
Yes.

Note the photo below. Aakrotitiri on 16 March. That aircraft flying above those AWACS didn't just get there... :rolleyes:I doubt that the hearted -- faint or stout -- on a discussion board have much effect on anything. :DThat shows appalling ignorance or malice. individuals are not that easy to target.Why be angry? To prove one can be? How righteous. Pity the world doesn't operate the way some wish. Others are thankful it does not... ;)

Ken, with respect, you are attempting to defend the indefensible.

The actions in Libya prove incompetence on the part of the US President and State.

As to the targeting of individuals is concerned I am on record here as saying that while first prize is to get the person himself it is more important to send the message to the individual - through a demonstration of sincerity - that he is not safe anywhere.

The report is that 110 cruise missiles have been fired on 20 targets leading to claims that the crusaders are bombing Libya. While the targeting report will not make the public domain one must ask whether these targets were vital to the immediate needs and did someone anyone consider the propaganda opportunity such strikes against Gaddafi assets would provide especially with the potential use of human shields that has been heard recently.

I make allowance for the limitations placed on the military by the politicians but who will forget the "shock and awe" demonstration over Baghdad where infrastructure (electricity for example) was taken out only to have to be rebuilt and in the meantime providing massive inconvenience and ill will amongst the population? Did Bush say that the Iraqi people must be hurt in the process or was it a case of brute force and ignorance by the military?

Malice? To state that the dithering of the US politicians has cost hundreds or possibly thousands of Libyan lives is not a statement of malice but of fact. If these actions affected only the US and people in the US then it may be less of anyones business outside the US but when the US tries to "fix" such situations (your term) quite often for a variety of reasons they make matters worse through poor timing and poor planning and poor execution. Sad but true.

Presley Cannady
03-20-2011, 02:00 AM
Exactly right. The diplomatic situation made earlier action impossible (and it must be said that the French and British showed considerable political determination in changing that).

"Impossible" is certainly too strong a word. Precisely what diplomatic groundwork did Reagan require before committing the Navy to duke it out with Libya over navigation in the Gulf of Sidra. Or for that matter, launching El Dorado Canyon a week and a half after the La Belle bombing?

JMA
03-20-2011, 02:14 AM
The US had good geostrategic reasons not to move on a UNSCR before the Arab League requested a NFZ on 12 March. Even then, it took considerable time to both overcome the initial Russian and Chinese veto threat, and to secure a necessary majority. Sadly, it took the increasing threat to Benghazi for that to happen.

Of course, this could have been done without a Chapter VII "all necessary means" UNSCR. I think that would have involved a series of other long-term costs, however.

Yes, the US could have come onboard earlier. I'm not sure it would have shaved much time off that timeline.

I challenged your earlier statement:


Complaining that something should have been done sooner when it wasn't politically possible to do anything sooner is rather pointless.

Quite clearly "something" could have been done sooner (and I my opinion should have) so would you like to amend this statement of yours?

Rex Brynen
03-20-2011, 02:15 AM
"Impossible" is certainly too strong a word. Precisely what diplomatic groundwork did Reagan require before committing the Navy to duke it out with Libya over navigation in the Gulf of Sidra. Or for that matter, launching El Dorado Canyon a week and a half after the La Belle bombing?

A very different era, and missions launched for entirely different purposes.

Rex Brynen
03-20-2011, 02:20 AM
The report is that 110 cruise missiles have been fired on 20 targets leading to claims that the crusaders are bombing Libya. While the targeting report will not make the public domain one must ask whether these targets were vital to the immediate needs and did someone anyone consider the propaganda opportunity such strikes against Gaddafi assets would provide especially with the potential use of human shields that has been heard recently.

Simple answer to that one: yes they did. The target mix was certainly chosen with those considerations in mind. The US could have fired a popgun at a sand dune and Qaddafi would have complained about Crusaders.

Fortunately, in this case, most Libyans and most of the Arab world is disinclined to believe him. It was, after all, an Arab country that introduced the UNSCR in the first place.

JMA
03-20-2011, 02:21 AM
"Impossible" is certainly too strong a word.

Exactly. But it appears the word was chosen to he impression the US politicians had done all they could. Which is of course nonsense.

Dayuhan
03-20-2011, 02:22 AM
The fact is that the actions of the French and the Brits and the increasingly precarious situation of the rebels spurred the US into a frenzy of belated diplomatic action. Thus saying that no action was possible - diplomatic and leading to otherwise - is simply nonsense. The US politicians sat on their hands.

That's perception, not fact. You don't know the facts, because you don't know what was going on behind the scenes. You don't know that the US wasn't "sitting on its hands" precisely for the purpose of forcing the Europeans and the Arab League to get off theirs.

Any conclusion based on that perception is simply seeing what you want to see. Common enough, especially for armchair generals who invariably express disgust at the actions of those who are actually accountable for the consequences of their actions, but not to be confused with fact.


Short of a loyalist morale breakdown I don't see the rebels advancing on Tripolis successfully any time soon (without foreign ground troops assistance).

Nor do I, but nobody committed themselves to remove Gadhafi. One step at a time. There's no clear end game in sight; the rebels probably don't have the capacity to rule, it's not entirely out of line to try and force loyalist forces to withdraw, stabilize, and then try to figure out what comes next.


And what are we supposed to do if the whole anti-dictator (wouldn't call it democracy yet) movement in the Arab world succeeds? Help the to succeed economically with favourable trade conditions at the expense of the already troubled PIIGS countries?

Nominal aid, but basically leave them alone to sink or swim of their own accord.


Who's willing to bet that a possible Arab unification movement along the lines of the EU (or better, with the advantage of hindsight) or even US would not drive too many Westerners crazy and lead to serious troubles?

A very remote prospect, too remote to be seriously feared. Of course it would make some westerners (certainly some Americans) crazy, but that's hardly an abnormal condition.

JMA
03-20-2011, 02:29 AM
Simple answer to that one: yes they did. The target mix was certainly chosen with those considerations in mind.

And you can state this with such certainty because...

Rex Brynen
03-20-2011, 02:29 AM
Someone in the Air Force seems to have a sense of humour--monitoring of Maltese ATC shows that one EC-130H (Compass Call) off Libya at the moment is using the call-sign SHEEN 53. :D

Fuchs
03-20-2011, 02:32 AM
Nor do I, but nobody committed themselves to remove Gadhafi. One step at a time. There's no clear end game in sight; the rebels probably don't have the capacity to rule, it's not entirely out of line to try and force loyalist forces to withdraw, stabilize, and then try to figure out what comes next.

Sounds like strategical incompetence and pre-programmed mission creep to me.

I mentioned the Afrikakorps. That one began as a local barrier division ("Sperrverband" ~ "barrier formation") for the protection of Tripolis in order to help the Italians to rally after they were routed by British Empire forces.
Maybe this explanation makes it more obvious why I am so irritated.


A very remote prospect, too remote to be seriously feared. Of course it would make some westerners (certainly some Americans) crazy, but that's hardly an abnormal condition.

Feared - no, but to be considered. It's called "to think ahead".
I wrote in 2009 about how we shouldn't create popular aversion in case the Arabs got their act together because that would be a grand strategy fauxpax.
To muddle through should be no option for politicians who get paid for doing policy. They should be good enough to think ahead, develop good strategies - and avoid unnecessary troubles. They should be far better than we are in such things.

JMA
03-20-2011, 02:35 AM
African Union demands 'immediate' halt to Libya attacks (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i-8HhcGv5ZC4Cfeq421M_omVVpvA?docId=CNG.1411cd01df64d 8f14a45e3962493fb9a.d1)


The African Union's panel on Libya Sunday called for an "immediate stop" to all attacks after the United States, France and Britain launched military action against Moamer Kadhafi's forces.

Dayuhan
03-20-2011, 02:36 AM
Sounds like strategical incompetence and pre-programmed mission creep to me.

Or recognition that the situation is dynamic, unpredictable, and not under our control.

Or a little of both.

JMA
03-20-2011, 02:38 AM
Sounds like strategical incompetence and pre-programmed mission creep to me.

I would love to see the faces of Obama and Clinton if asked the question (after Gaddafi's gone) OK so what's next?

Dayuhan
03-20-2011, 02:41 AM
I would love to see the faces of Obama and Clinton if asked the question (after Gaddafi's gone) OK so what's next?

Why should they know what comes next? They don't. They can't. Far better to accept that than to proclaim a vast plan that you have no capacity to implement.... like "install democracy".

Pete
03-20-2011, 02:52 AM
I hope that when I grow up I'll know everything there is to know about military affairs the way JMA does. I was never in a war and my service in the post-Vietnam "Hollow Army" apparently don't count for much, except for how to f*ck things up.

Dayuhan
03-20-2011, 03:02 AM
A couple of worthwhile discussions of why the US is acting as it is:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704021504576211311438332144.html


From the start of White House deliberations about how to respond to the crisis in Libya, President Barack Obama set two clear parameters for his top advisers: he didn't want to use military force if the U.S. had to be in the lead and he had no intention of sending American ground troops.

With Saturday's start of airstrikes against Libyan leader Col. Moammar Ghadafi, Mr. Obama appears to be putting into practice a foreign-policy doctrine he first sketched during the 2008 presidential campaign....

In contrast to his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who invaded Iraq in 2003 despite opposition from many allies and Democrats, Mr. Obama is taking pains to receive unambiguous legal authority through the United Nations, getting clear support from Arab states and then letting others—France and Britain —lead the military charge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-actions-may-speak-louder-than-words/2011/03/19/ABVWsZx_story.html


Obama has spent much of his first term seeking to repair U.S. relations with the Islamic world, and his emphasis on the international support for military strikes in Libya is an attempt to allay suspicions over U.S. intentions. And as budget deficits mount at home, the American public is looking for other nations to carry the fiscal burden of the fighting after a nearly a decade of war...

The muted diplomacy and message is a way to play down the conflict to the American public as well. A Pew Research Center survey released last week found that more than six in 10 Americans do not believe the United States has a responsibility to do something to stop the conflict in Libya.

This doesn't sound like dithering incompetence to me, but then again I lack the omniscience displayed by some here.

JMA
03-20-2011, 03:28 AM
I hope that when I grow up I'll know everything there is to know about military affairs the way JMA does. I was never in a war and my service in the post-Vietnam "Hollow Army" apparently don't count for much, except for how to f*ck things up.

Pete, a late night posting?

In this case - I need to repeat this as you obviously missed it - it is the sheer incompetence of the US Administration that is the problem.

There is no doubt the US military can do the job but one must be constantly aware of the politically imposed limitations placed upon military actions which may lead to less than effective outcomes. You get it now?

jmm99
03-20-2011, 03:33 AM
1. Nailing a specific individual on the ground from the air (note, I didn't say a specific individual in the air from the air):


[Three carrier-based naval air officers contemplate an unauthorized bombing raid on Hanoi.]


"Hell, maybe if you don't get the leaders, you might get Jane Fonda or Ramsey Clark."
....
"If I had that kind of luck, I'd have won the Irish Sweepstakes by now and be married to the Playmate of the Year."

Stephen Coonts, Flight of the Intruder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_of_the_Intruder_(novel)), 1986

and 2. "end result" vs. "correctness" (whether in timing or otherwise):


"War is a conflict which does not determine who is right but who is left."

William G. Anderson, Bat-21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat*21), 1980

HT (for both quotes) to Steve Young - from his interview of COL (PAVN) Bui Tin, How North Vietnam Won The War (http://www.viet-myths.net/BuiTin.htm).

And, "No, Virginia", just because we (US) have fired off 100+ cruise missiles, does not mean that I'm suddenly "on board" this African adventure. Nor will I be "on board" this African adventure when our military personnel become personally engaged (whether sea, air or land) within Libya's borders. Yeh, I heard Pres. Obama re: no ground forces - I also heard Pres. Johnson in 1964.

By "on board", I mean that I am not buying into the Politik (policy) that drives this armed conflict. That "it" is "an armed conflict" is already established by Res 1973 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement) and the consequent military actions already taken.

As to our military personnel, they will do what they have done for most all of our history - they will do their best; probably prevail tactically; and perhaps even strategically. In that aspect (and only in that aspect), I am "on board" - with those personnel, whom I distinguish from the political leaders who establish Politik.

Regards

Mike

Dayuhan
03-20-2011, 03:41 AM
It is the sheer incompetence of the US Administration that is the problem.

There is no doubt the US military can do the job but one must be constantly aware of the politically imposed limitations placed upon military actions which may lead to less than effective outcomes. You get it now?

I suppose that in some alternate universe actions consistent with stated policy and civilian control of military action could be called "sheer incompetence".

I'm kind of glad I don't live there.

JMA
03-20-2011, 03:45 AM
Feared - no, but to be considered. It's called "to think ahead".
I wrote in 2009 about how we shouldn't create popular aversion in case the Arabs got their act together because that would be a grand strategy fauxpax.
To muddle through should be no option for politicians who get paid for doing policy. They should be good enough to think ahead, develop good strategies - and avoid unnecessary troubles. They should be far better than we are in such things.

Like in Iraq the problems come after the President announces "mission accomplished".

When the regime collapses there is no doubt that there will be excesses by the rebels and victims of the regime unless there is a mechanism to establish effective policing in the country. What is the plan here? Is there a plan? Who will be involved in such a plan? Who should be involved in such a plan?

It becomes more clear with every passing moment just how poorly the politicians serve their respective nations due to lethal cocktail of arrogance mixed with a superficial knowledge of anything beyond which they can get from Google in 20 minutes. The prognosis is not good.

Oh yes... and why do you think pro-Gaddafi TV and radio are still on the air?

Dayuhan
03-20-2011, 03:51 AM
When the regime collapses there is no doubt that the be will be excesses by the rebels and victims of the regime unless there is a mechanism to establish effective policing in the country. What is the plan here? Is there a plan? Who will be involved in such a plan?

Why must we have a plan for something that is so manifestly Not Our Problem? We're not proposing to occupy, police, govern, colonize, or civilize the place. Quite the explicit opposite. We couldn't do that effectively in any case, and if that's the only thing we've learned from Afghanistan and Iraq, those experiences will be almost worth the cost. An expensive lesson, but we badly needed to learn it.

Dayuhan
03-20-2011, 04:01 AM
Feared - no, but to be considered. It's called "to think ahead". I wrote in 2009 about how we shouldn't create popular aversion in case the Arabs got their act together because that would be a grand strategy fauxpax.

Pan-Arab unification along EU lines is only one of many ways that Arabs, collectively and separately, could get their act together, and it's far from being the most likely way. Do we need a detailed strategic plan for every imaginable contingency?


To muddle through should be no option for politicians who get paid for doing policy. They should be good enough to think ahead, develop good strategies - and avoid unnecessary troubles. They should be far better than we are in such things.

Is it "muddling through", or is it maintaining flexibility in a highly flexible situation? We are in a responsive situation here, and the circumstances to which we respond are changing rapidly. We don't know where they are going. Locking ourselves into a rigid strategic goal is only going to impair our ability to respond as the situation evolves.

I suspect that there are people who are thinking ahead and developing contingency plans for various eventualities. I don't doubt that what actually happens will be incompatible with any of those plans. Sometimes agility is needed more than certainty of direction.

From the US perspective, for example, it would be a huge mistake to commit to the goal of removing Gadhafi (which is likely impossible to achieve without taking steps we don't want to take, like introducing ground forces) or to commit to any specific vision of a post-Gadhafi Libya.

carl
03-20-2011, 04:09 AM
I suppose that in some alternate universe actions consistent with stated policy and civilian control of military action could be called "sheer incompetence".

That may be true and the actions of the US gov may be the result of forethought. We won't know unless Woodward can ferret it out and then we still have to wait for the next book. But if I had to bet, I'd bet that things happened as they have so far because our betters inside the beltway have been wringing their hands hoping the whole thing would just go away until the French forced their hand.

And since I am speculating about things I have no proof of beyond my own unsupported cogitations, I am glad the French seem to be leading the pack on this thing. Decisiveness may be in order.

Bill Moore
03-20-2011, 04:14 AM
I normally don't post on current combat operations due to OPSEC concerns, but since I have absolutely no knowledge on this operation other than what I see in the media I'll offer a couple of thoughts.

The world was slow to react, but not without reason. Good leaders don't commit their nation's treasure to another nation's fight (despite the CNN effect) without first determining what is really happening and if it is in their interest to intervene.

It appears that our actions may be strategically sound, despite the uncertainty.

First we have the support of the Arab League, so Qadhaffi's weak attempt about shaping this as an attack on Islam by Crusaders doesn't appear to be gaining traction. The African Union has benefited from $$$ from Qadhaffi for years (this I know), so I'm suspect when the AU condemns our attack. Who exactly is condemning our attacks? How much are they being paid to do so?

Second, we are standing with the people of Libya (representing our true values, which increases our soft power), as we stood with the people of Egypt and Tunisia. If we don't try too hard to shape events once Qadhaffi falls, and let the people of Libya determine their own future we'll continue to have influence via soft power instead of getting stuck in another quagmire like Iraq and Afghanistan where we tried to create governments and societies in our image based on our values. It will probably be messy, but it is their mess to work through. Every Western nation has its own history of working through similiar messes in their own backyards (the U.S. and France more so than others).

Third and most importantly, as others have mentioned, by taking a seat at the table instead of at the head of the table, we indirectly compelled the Arab League, EU and NATO (or least members of) to take a leadership role in a crisis. There is no reason the U.S. should be the only nation in the West committing its reputation and treasure in response to crises like this.

None of us have an idea on what will happen in Libya, but looking at the bigger picture I think there is some potential good coming out of this beyond saving Libyans from their own government.

Dayuhan
03-20-2011, 04:17 AM
But if I had to bet, I'd bet that things happened as they have so far because our betters inside the beltway have been wringing their hands hoping the whole thing would just go away until the French forced their hand.

Possibly the French and British were wringing their hands hoping the Americans would take the risks and do the hard work (it has become a bit of a tradition), instead of forcing their hands by making it clear that we were not going to do that this time.

I think it's an object lesson to Europe, and to many of the others who have been bitching and whining for so long about America always being the one to take action without going through the process.

I'm sure there was some hand-wringing going on all over. There should be: it's a nasty decision with many unknowns and very negative outcomes possible with any course of action. Anyone who's not wringing their hands a bit while addressing a decision like that shouldn't be in a position to make the decision.

carl
03-20-2011, 04:54 AM
Possibly the French and British were wringing their hands hoping the Americans would take the risks and do the hard work (it has become a bit of a tradition), instead of forcing their hands by making it clear that we were not going to do that this time.

That is quite possible. And we won't know for a while if ever. Either we have hand wringers, and I use that phrase in the pejorative sense, or the genii inside the beltway had it all figured from the beginning. If they be genii, we have nothing to worry about when the next thing happens. If they be hand wringers, we got worries. My own little beetle brow is furrowed more than normal.

Dayuhan
03-20-2011, 06:00 AM
Either we have hand wringers, and I use that phrase in the pejorative sense, or the genii inside the beltway had it all figured from the beginning. If they be genii, we have nothing to worry about when the next thing happens. If they be hand wringers, we got worries.

Most people use it in the pejorative sense. Realistically, though, isn't it possible to have a plan from the beginning, execute that plan, and then have some hand-wringing moments over whether it's actually going to work, or work in time... especially in high-pressure high-stakes situations where any decision and any plan will have strong potential for adverse consequences?

Full points to Obama for sticking with stated principles, but you have to believe there were some questions and concerns and uncertainties along the way. If there weren't, there should have been: an excess of certainty usually indicates a deficit of thought.

We'll have plenty to worry about when the next thing happens; we always do. If there's nothing to worry about it ain't a thing happening...

M-A Lagrange
03-20-2011, 06:33 AM
I would tend to agree with Bill:
There is a large picture benefit for all of us (western nations) for our soft power and image among the arab world. We do tend to forget that populations in the arab world have a VERY critical opinion about their governments. Backing the people in Tunisia, Egypt and now Lybia is in deed a strong message.

Also the fact that Europ was forced to take the lead on this and convince its arab friends is a good thing. US cannot do all the work and has different interrest in the region. We (Europ) were to quick to reabilitate G and take him as our allie for immigration reasons. Tunisia revolution has proven that what the tunisians wanted was to change their government and not "invide europ" as the extrem right wing in France and Itali tried to make believe.
Also providing Lybia with weapons and backing its come back in the international scene for the reason thay are our last wall against african immigration was a very stupid mistake taken by populist government as Berlusconi and Sarkosy.
Now it feel good to be european again! and it's not a small thing on the african continent.

Also, JMA, don't worry about the AU complains. As we both know, it's just a club of dictators who are affraid their populations would be inspired this year. And 2011 is an african electoral year!
It's just part of their stupid cultural differencies tool box to justify that democracy is not meant for Africa. An idea that needs to be tackle down!
If Lybia can send them a message: that's good. Especially for those "president" who look too much at Bagbo as a anticolonial liberation hero.

I believe Lybia will be a good lesson for Africa. Now, responsability get in the hand of african civil opposition to not play with fire if they cannot organise the people and proove they are a credible alternative.

JMA
03-20-2011, 07:14 AM
Third and most importantly, as others have mentioned, by taking a seat at the table instead of at the head of the table, we indirectly compelled the Arab League, EU and NATO (or least members of) to take a leadership role in a crisis. There is no reason the U.S. should be the only nation in the West committing its reputation and treasure in response to crises like this.

OPSEC? There was discussion on operations somewhere in your post?

I note this face saving spin on the actions of the US politicians is becoming standard now.

As Carl said, this we won't know until Woodward or (I would add) Wikileaks clues the world in.

Rather than the current face saving spin I suggest that it is closer to the truth that the foreign policy “realists” (whoever they may be) inside the administration are the ones who put stones under the wheels of progress on this issue.

From the article:


Despite growing pressure by neoconservative and liberal hawks, the administration clearly hopes that a direct military commitment of the kind required by an NFZ will not be necessary.

This naive denial even in the face of this:


The rebels are “in for a tough row”, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Gen. James Clapper told a Senate hearing here Thursday. Given Gadhafi’s greater logistical resources and weaponry, he said, “I think, from a standpoint of attrition …in the longer term that the regime will prevail.”

When the horrible truth finally became obvious there was a mad scramble to play not only catch-up but to hijack the whole initative.

So I really don't blame you for applying this spin. The truth is a little too unpalatable to face it seems.

Dayuhan
03-20-2011, 07:40 AM
When the horrible truth finally became obvious there was a mad scramble to play not only catch-up but to hijack the whole imitative.

I didn't see anyone hijack anything. The US did not act until there was international sanction and insisted that European powers take a leading role, all of which is consistent with stated policy. When those conditions were met the US performed tasks which meet its unique capacity, and has made it clear that it intends to reduce the level of engagement in the future, leaving most of the work to the Europeans.

Reluctance to engage in military intervention and engagement at the minimum possible level when it cannot be avoided seem entirely palatable to me; we could use a lot more of those, especially in cases where others who have the capacity to act have greater interests in play than we do. Intervention is and should be a last resort, not a default recourse. If we intervene without having to be forced into it kicking and screaming for a better alternative, something's really wrong.

JMA
03-20-2011, 07:53 AM
Now it feel good to be european again! and it's not a small thing on the african continent.

And two pictures which tell the story: First the appeal for help which fell on deaf ears:

http://www.pretorianews.co.za/polopoly_fs/copy-of-mideast-egypt-libya-1.1036435!/image/1516346324.jpeg_gen/derivatives/box_300/1516346324.jpeg

...and then the thanks for the first country to step up to the plate:

http://www.acus.org/files/images/ap%203%2016%2011%20France%20Libya.thumbnail.jpg

http://media.scpr.org/images/2011/03/18/Libya-lead.jpg

...this is what will be remembered by Africans and Arabs and not the spin version currently being put out by the US Administration apologists.


Also, JMA, don't worry about the AU complains. As we both know, it's just a club of dictators who are affraid their populations would be inspired this year. And 2011 is an african electoral year!
It's just part of their stupid cultural differencies tool box to justify that democracy is not meant for Africa. An idea that needs to be tackle down!
If Lybia can send them a message: that's good. Especially for those "president" who look too much at Bagbo as a anticolonial liberation hero.

Each of those countries fall into three cruise missile category. But all this proves that for relatively little money Sub-Saharan Africa can be bought. Tiny Rowland (LonRho mining) proved just how easy that was. The Chinese have learned and have a number of countries in their "pocket" while the West is asleep as usual.


I believe Lybia will be a good lesson for Africa. Now, responsability get in the hand of african civil opposition to not play with fire if they cannot organise the people and proove they are a credible alternative.

Before thousands (possibly millions) of Africans are butchered the West needs to learn how to deal with the African dictators and their thugs. Will old Africa hands such as Stan be asked to assit with the benefit of their experience? Never. A new bunch of smart kids will emerge and when the killing starts by the hundreds of thousands they will (like now with Libya) rationalise it all by saying it was important for Africans to sort their own problems out. The clowns are running the circus.

JMA
03-20-2011, 08:22 AM
...in the absence of statesmanship from across the pond maybe young David should step up and repeat something along the lines of Churchill's WW2 broadcast to the French people.

DIEU PROTEGE LA FRANCE (http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/LaFrance.html)
Broadcast
21st October 1940

Bill Moore
03-20-2011, 09:00 AM
Posted by JMA


Before thousands (possibly millions) of Africans are butchered the West needs to learn how to deal with the African dictators and their thugs. Will old Africa hands such as Stan be asked to assit with the benefit of their experience? Never. A new bunch of smart kids will emerge and when the killing starts by the hundreds of thousands they will (like now with Libya) rationalise it all by saying it was important for Africans to sort their own problems out. The clowns are running the circus.

It sounds as though you are making the argument that the West is somehow obligated to intervene? Why? Of course when most people refer to the West they default to the U.S. to provide the leadership and the majority of the resources, and as Dayuhan points out we're tiring of it.

You mentioned before millions of Africans are butchered? We have already seen millions of Africans butchered in Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, DROC, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Equatorial Guinea, etc. and failure for the West to "react" until late in the slaughter had little impact on our interests in the long run. Until we tie the condition of humanity "globally" to our collective national interests we'll continue to drag our feet in responding, and not without good reason. No country wants to get left holding the bag, because after the media runs off to cover the next crisis their citizens will be wondering why they're spending money and expending blood there.

This is not unique to Africa, we also ignored Mao's and Stalin's slaughter of millions of their own people (hell our left worships them). We ignored Hitler's slaughter of the Jews until millions were killed. We ignore the slaughter in Burma today, Cambodia yesterday, and sadly the list goes on, but the fact of the matter is while intervention to stop the slaughter is obviously the humane thing to do, it is hard to stop and even harder to extract ourselves once we're in. After we fail (as we did in Somalia) we tend to the get the blame and have spent millions and billions of dollars and more importantly sacrificed our flesh and blood in the pursuit of a dream that we eventually had to awaken from.

I'm not spinning the situation in Libya, simply stating an alternative view. A month from now I may have another view based on how this plays out, but for now a few photos of civilians holding signs in "English" asking us to help (CNN affect) just doesn't tug at my heart strings.

davidbfpo
03-20-2011, 10:12 AM
The ex-UK CDS, General Dannatt has penned a comment, which opens with:
Headline - Libya crisis: the real task for the world is to remove Gaddafi – but that will be difficult

Military planners will have one key task at the back of their minds, the removal of Colonel Gaddafi's regime.

Ends with:
When Gaddafi's army commanders in the field realise that, like the Wehrmacht in north west Europe in early 1945, they could move nowhere without deadly air attacks upon them, they will think quickly about their loyalty.

Will they want to continue to show loyalty to their manifestly eccentric leader, or will they think about their loyalty to their country, their families, their tribes, their homes and themselves?

As they experience, or hear stories, of what modern combat aircraft can do to their Soviet-era fighting vehicles, the realisation will grow that there is a better way – and the implied task of regime change may well be on the way to being achieved.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8393017/Libya-crisis-the-real-task-for-the-world-is-to-remove-Gaddafi-but-that-will-be-difficult.html

Presley Cannady
03-20-2011, 11:40 AM
That's perception, not fact. You don't know the facts, because you don't know what was going on behind the scenes.

I do know that short of the EU and other UNSC members deploying mind control laser satellites over Washington, the notion that it was "impossible" for the US, the UK and/or France to act in absence of unspecified diplomatic preconditions is bunk.


You don't know that the US wasn't "sitting on its hands" precisely for the purpose of forcing the Europeans and the Arab League to get off theirs.

The only two powers lifting a finger are the two nations that led the US in pushing for intervention. Precisely what does "g[etting] off their asses" mean? While you're at it, which countries actually "got off their asses," and why was it necessary to wait for them to do so?


Any conclusion based on that perception is simply seeing what you want to see. Common enough, especially for armchair generals who invariably express disgust at the actions of those who are actually accountable for the consequences of their actions, but not to be confused with fact.

The decision to act or not to act is the President's alone. Is this office now and forever beyond being held accountable for the decisions issued from it, or does this particular President get a get out of jail free card?


Nor do I, but nobody committed themselves to remove Gadhafi. One step at a time. There's no clear end game in sight; the rebels probably don't have the capacity to rule, it's not entirely out of line to try and force loyalist forces to withdraw, stabilize, and then try to figure out what comes next.

Then what's the point of the intervention? Why not let the belligerents sort it out amongst themselves?


Nominal aid, but basically leave them alone to sink or swim of their own accord.

Same question as above.

Presley Cannady
03-20-2011, 11:45 AM
Why should they know what comes next? They don't. They can't.

They can't know their own objectives? That's new.


Far better to accept that than to proclaim a vast plan that you have no capacity to implement.... like "install democracy".

How is not planning at all even remotely better than planning to achieve a risky objective?

Dayuhan
03-20-2011, 01:27 PM
I do know that short of the EU and other UNSC members deploying mind control laser satellites over Washington, the notion that it was "impossible" for the US, the UK and/or France to act in absence of unspecified diplomatic preconditions is bunk.

I didn't say "impossible, and wouldn't have. I'd have said "very unwise", or maybe just "dumb".


The only two powers lifting a finger are the two nations that led the US in pushing for intervention. Precisely what does "g[etting] off their asses" mean? While you're at it, which countries actually "got off their asses," and why was it necessary to wait for them to do so?

Would those two powers have pushed if the US had thumped its chest and rushed to the front of the intervention line? We don't know, but i suspect not. It would not have been necessary for the US to wait, but it was certainly desirable.


The decision to act or not to act is the President's alone. Is this office now and forever beyond being held accountable for the decisions issued from it, or does this particular President get a get out of jail free card?

Certainly the President is and should be accountable for his decisions, and excellent reason for not making decisions to seize leadership we don't want or need and charge into intervention without suitable international sanction with ambitious goals that we haven't the resources to accomplish. No sane President would want to be accountable for the consequences of that decision.


Then what's the point of the intervention? Why not let the belligerents sort it out amongst themselves?

If control of the end state is the goal of intervention, intervention in this case would be a very bad idea, because we don't want to be responsible for the end state, and any effort to control it would require resources we are not prepared to commit.


They can't know their own objectives? That's new.

They know their objectives. they are very limited objectives and they do not involve long-term control of Libya or any effort to dictate an end state.


How is not planning at all even remotely better than planning to achieve a risky objective?

Who says they aren't planning at all?

You miss the point: limited objectives, limited participation. Sure, that opens up the possibility of mission creep... but it ain't our mission. We're in a supporting role with limited objectives. If the mission creeps to a place we don't like, or if we no longer have the means or inclination to participate, we can scale back without compromising any grand plan or vast objective that we've unwisely committed to... just as many others have done when they played support in missions we led.

Silly to commit yourself to an ambitious end-state plan when the whole point is to minimize involvement. People get attached to plans. Sometimes they get married to them. People expect you to follow them. Much better to pursue a limited objective, then reassess and determine whether it makes sense to go further.

This whole idea of supporting roles and limited objectives is admittedly an odd feeling for Americans, but I for one fond it refreshing and invigorating. We should have done it sooner, and we should do it more often.

Presley Cannady
03-20-2011, 02:39 PM
I didn't say "impossible, and wouldn't have. I'd have said "very unwise", or maybe just "dumb".

Forgive me. "Impossible" was Rex's point.


Would those two powers have pushed if the US had thumped its chest and rushed to the front of the intervention line?

Would it have mattered?


Certainly the President is and should be accountable for his decisions, and excellent reason for not making decisions to seize leadership we don't want or need and charge into intervention without suitable international sanction with ambitious goals that we haven't the resources to accomplish. No sane President would want to be accountable for the consequences of that decision.

And the capability of the US + the UK and France suddenly sum to "enough?" More to the point, if the interests at stake do not justify the single most capable member of the Coalition exerting leadership, then precisely what reason is there for that member to even participate?


If control of the end state is the goal of intervention, intervention in this case would be a very bad idea, because we don't want to be responsible for the end state, and any effort to control it would require resources we are not prepared to commit.

Same question as above. If we do not have any interest in the end state, why intervene in the first place?


They know their objectives. they are very limited objectives and they do not involve long-term control of Libya or any effort to dictate an end state.

You've been very clear on what the White House does not count amongst its "limited objectives," but not so much on what those objectives actually are. At some point, you're going to have to say "Obama committed force to achieve X." That "X," as far as the White House is saying, is at the very least to halt Qaddafi's offensive against the rebels. If you're arguing that either the UK and France have sufficient capacity to achieve such an end state or that Americans have no interest one way or the other, then why are Americans intervening at all? If not, then why did the US wait to act?


Who says they aren't planning at all?

No one. You articulated a principle that foregoing planning was better than accepting the risk that planning may fail.


You miss the point: limited objectives, limited participation. Sure, that opens up the possibility of mission creep... but it ain't our mission.

If it ain't our mission, then once again...why bother?

Rex Brynen
03-20-2011, 02:53 PM
Forgive me. "Impossible" was Rex's point.

Indeed it was. And the comment was made not with the suggestion that it was "impossible" to have done anything at all, but rather that positioning the US as a reluctant, non-hegemonic intervenor acting in the framework of international law couldn't have happened much faster than it did.

It certainly couldn't have occurred before the Arab League decision, since I don't see how the Russians and Chinese could have been moved off a UN veto.

Could the US have done it without the UNSC? Yes, but only at a very heavy and enduring political cost. It is doubtful that anyone beyond Britain and France would have joined--and even Britain and France were reluctant to act without a UNSCR, which is why they had been pushing a NFZ resolution.

Given that everyone knows this might not be over quickly, and could get messy, political sustainability is essential. Building the basis for that requires jumping through some diplomatic hoops.

Entropy
03-20-2011, 02:54 PM
I normally don't post on current combat operations due to OPSEC concerns, but since I have absolutely no knowledge on this operation other than what I see in the media I'll offer a couple of thoughts.


Bill,

Those are all good points, but they rest on the assumptions that Gaddafi will go (one way or another) and that the rebels will win, unite the country and determine their own future.

David notes one of the underlying assumptions:


When Gaddafi's army commanders in the field realise that, like the Wehrmacht in north west Europe in early 1945, they could move nowhere without deadly air attacks upon them, they will think quickly about their loyalty.

Will they want to continue to show loyalty to their manifestly eccentric leader, or will they think about their loyalty to their country, their families, their tribes, their homes and themselves?

As they experience, or hear stories, of what modern combat aircraft can do to their Soviet-era fighting vehicles, the realisation will grow that there is a better way – and the implied task of regime change may well be on the way to being achieved.

This argument is, it seems to me, an article of faith. It may be true that MG is as weak as some suggest and that a demonstration of political will and a little air power is all that's needed to ensure his exit, but as a tautology, it's not very convincing.

So my question is this: What if this assumption is wrong? What if air power isn't enough? How will we escalate when we've already drawn a big red line limiting our actions? And that's really the problem with this "strategy." If the goal is to remove MG, then remove MG. Half measures (air power) along with wishful thinking is very risky. I say this as a strong air power advocate, but I think I understand the limitations of what air power can do when it's divorced from the ground element.

Secondly, assuming MG is overthrown or otherwise killed, what then? Advocates for this intervention are saying that what happens next is up to the Libyans. Well, easier said than done, particularly since we are supposedly there for humanitarian reasons. I find it hard to believe that we would intervene to "protect civilians" against MG and then stand by when/if the country descends into civil war or a retribution by the rebels. How generously will the region's population view our involvement in this case? History suggests there will be a strong pull to increase the intervention into nation-building. The argument that it's all "up to the Libyans" is, IMO, a flimsy mask which attempts to parry questions on the risks inherent in a post-MG Libya. Everything might work out, but then again it might not. What is our plan if things don't work out, if the wishful thinking and rosy assumptions don't materialize? Again, as a tautology, the idea that we will simply leave once MG is gone no matter the circumstances is not convincing.

tequila
03-20-2011, 03:04 PM
In a Field of Flowers, the Wreckage of War in Libya (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/africa/21benghazi.html?hp)- NYTIMES


BENGHAZI, Libya — The attack seemed to have come out of clear skies onto a field of wildflowers.

Littered across the landscape, some 30 miles south of Benghazi, the detritus of the allied airstrikes on Saturday and Sunday morning offered a panorama of destruction: tanks, charred and battered, their turrets blasted clean off, one with a body still caught in its remnants; a small Toyota truck with its roof torn away; a tank transporter still on fire. But it did not end there.

For miles leading south, the roadsides were littered with burned trucks and burned civilian cars. In some places battle tanks had simply been abandoned, intact, as their crews fled. One thing, though, seemed evident: the units closest to Benghazi seemed to have been hit with their cannons and machine guns still pointing towards the rebel capital.

To the south, though, many had been hit as they headed away from the city in a headlong dash for escape on the long road leading to a distant Tripoli.

“They were retreating,” said Col. Abdullah al-Shafi, an officer in the rebel forces which had clamored desperately for the help that arrived on Saturday. “Soldiers had taken civilians cars and fled. They were ditching their fatigues.”

Superb pictures up at the NYTIMES website. Looks like the allies are using the UNSC resolution to the fullest.

Ken White
03-20-2011, 03:28 PM
I note this face saving spin on the actions of the US politicians is becoming standard now.Your superbly orchestrated and certain to be highly effective and important counterspin operation will take care of that! :D
As Carl said, this we won't know until Woodward or (I would add) Wikileaks clues the world in.Or until all the pro-intervention folks who wish to save the world -- at no cost to themselves, of course -- go north, investigate or get involved and report...:rolleyes:
So I really don't blame you for applying this spin. The truth is a little too unpalatable to face it seems.Oh, the truth -- as much as is known, as you say -- is not unpalatable. The fact that a few do not like it doesn't affect most who wonder what is the point of all the acrimony. Dignation, perhaps...

Like the old Yorkshireman said, "There's nowt strange as folk..." :wry:

Fuchs
03-20-2011, 03:29 PM
...this begs the question whether this is still "protecting the civilian population" or something bigger, beyond the UNSC resolution. It reminds me of what once was begun with a simple resolution for the liberation of Kuwait only.


The employment of air power against easy open field targets with no capable battlefield air defences in place will furthermore once again distort the perception of tactical air power. Kosovo had cured some of the desert warfare tactical air power perceptions, now we're going back and see the effect of air power in best case scenarios again.
This is not good news for NATO doctrines and force balance in the future.

Presley Cannady
03-20-2011, 03:50 PM
Indeed it was. And the comment was made not with the suggestion that it was "impossible" to have done anything at all, but rather that positioning the US as a reluctant, non-hegemonic intervenor acting in the framework of international law couldn't have happened much faster than it did. It certainly couldn't have occurred before the Arab League decision, since I don't see how the Russians and Chinese could have been moved off a UN veto.

If "positioning" the country as a "reluctant, non-hegemonic intervenor"--if that's even possible or even relevant--is a precondition for action, then why did the White House call for the regime's ouster almost three weeks ago?


Could the US have done it without the UNSC? Yes, but only at a very heavy and enduring political cost.

The worst case you're even alluding to is the abstention of France and Britain--over a bit of process--from a fairly small role in the narrow set of operations the US has presently agreed to take on. Are our interests in Libya are so aloofly humanitarian--and unimportant--atrocity underway is inconsequential compared to the time it takes to dither in embassy? If so, then why intervene? If not, and if there's no deficit in capability, why wait?


It is doubtful that anyone beyond Britain and France would have joined and even Britain and France were reluctant to act without a UNSCR, which is why they had been pushing a NFZ resolution.

Given that everyone knows this might not be over quickly, and could get messy, political sustainability is essential. Building the basis for that requires jumping through some diplomatic hoops.

The aftermath of the Gulf War and a slew of resolutions preceded a messy decade culminating in the 2003 invasion. Sustainability is a pretty word, but I'd love to know what it if anything concrete emerges from it.

Presley Cannady
03-20-2011, 04:14 PM
The employment of air power against easy open field targets with no capable battlefield air defences in place will furthermore once again distort the perception of tactical air power.

Academically, the paucity of cover should cripple movement of the enemy's heavy weapons. But Gaddafhi's Gaddafhi, and absent evidence to the contrary his people we should assume he's got a whole cadre of dead-enders as ballsy as he is. If he wants to move an armored column east what's stopping him from rounding up a bunch of hostages, throwing them into civilian vehicles interspersed with his formations, and daring the Coalition to strike? If he pushes close enough to his targets, he can resupply himself with hostages from the displaced outflow.

Definitely wouldn't put it past him to try.

carl
03-20-2011, 04:27 PM
In a Field of Flowers, the Wreckage of War in Libya (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/africa/21benghazi.html?hp)- NYTIMES

Superb pictures up at the NYTIMES website. Looks like the allies are using the UNSC resolution to the fullest.

Well at least in this place my fretting about being able or not able to destroy the dictator's heavy equipment was for naught. The French don't fool around.

carl
03-20-2011, 04:35 PM
The employment of air power against easy open field targets with no capable battlefield air defences in place will furthermore once again distort the perception of tactical air power. Kosovo had cured some of the desert warfare tactical air power perceptions, now we're going back and see the effect of air power in best case scenarios again.
This is not good news for NATO doctrines and force balance in the future.

Why? Ground forces caught in the open with no defense have been sitting ducks for airplanes since World War I. If NATO draws the wrong conclusions from this I'd say there is something seriously wrong with the officers responsible for doctrine and force balance. That would be the grave problem, not that airplanes can still do what they have been able to do for the last 93 years.

Ken White
03-20-2011, 05:20 PM
If "positioning" the country as a "reluctant, non-hegemonic intervenor"--if that's even possible or even relevant--is a precondition for action, then why did the White House call for the regime's ouster almost three weeks ago?Because the occupant of the WH is a politician -- they say things. Dumb things. All of 'em...:D

There are several dimensions to reluctance and to that reluctance in particular. They have to do with, in no particular order, getting others to do things without calling for US involvement (not everyone in Washington agrees with that...), Not further antagonizing unnecessarily Muslims worldwide (previous parenthetical applies); getting the Arab nations physically -- and fiscally -- involved, however reluctantly (again...); breaking old habits of willy nilly intervention just because we think we can (ditto). The parenthetical also played -- as designed -- a significant part.

I can understand some -- many, particularly those from elsewhere --not knowing how the system works, have trouble understanding why so many here do not know. Maybe they know but are unwilling to allow the time that it takes to get enough (never everyone) on board with big decisions that can affect millions of people. Unless you're T. Friedman, perhaps, who thinks -- wrongly -- that Hu Jintao doesn't have the same problem. :wry:
If so, then why intervene? If not, and if there's no deficit in capability, why wait?That first is really the question, is it not? As for the second, ponder the 'if.'
The aftermath of the Gulf War and a slew of resolutions preceded a messy decade culminating in the 2003 invasion. Sustainability is a pretty word, but I'd love to know what it if anything concrete emerges from it.Sustainability isn't pretty. Whether anything concrete emerges from it depends on whether you're doing the sustaining or are just talking about it. :wry:

Oh, and on that 2003 invasion -- we're still there and it still costs.

Fuchs
03-20-2011, 05:27 PM
Why? Ground forces caught in the open with no defense have been sitting ducks for airplanes since World War I. If NATO draws the wrong conclusions from this I'd say there is something seriously wrong with the officers responsible for doctrine and force balance. That would be the grave problem, not that airplanes can still do what they have been able to do for the last 93 years.

Officers don't decide about war or peace, or about the mission of the military as a whole.
Officers don't decide on military budgets either.

Ken White
03-20-2011, 05:27 PM
Why? Ground forces caught in the open with no defense have been sitting ducks for airplanes since World War I. If NATO draws the wrong conclusions from this I'd say there is something seriously wrong with the officers responsible for doctrine and force balance. That would be the grave problem, not that airplanes can still do what they have been able to do for the last 93 years.METT-TC...

You're correct -- if that's in the desert or open terrain; urban, woods, jungle, even the Arctic snows, are different. It's not nearly so certain. Far from it.

His point is the same as yours -- people can draw the wrong 'lessons' from flawed perceptions and unique circumstances. See Desert Storm.

People are indeed the actual grave problem. :wry:

Bill Moore
03-20-2011, 05:49 PM
Posted by Entrophy,


It may be true that MG is as weak as some suggest and that a demonstration of political will and a little air power is all that's needed to ensure his exit, but as a tautology, it's not very convincing.

As I stated earlier I have only reviewed very limited open source materials on this, so I don't have a personal assessment on how weak Qadhaffi is, but history indicates that when a bully comes in with an asymmetrical power advantage (air power) and it doesn't quickly achieve its mission it will change the character the fight, and over time we risk making Qadhaffi the good guy in the eyes of the Arab world. I think air power is great is for punative raids, limited fire support, etc., but it has limited value if that is all we're (coalition)using to enforce the UN mandate. Unfortunately our technology advantages have lowered the bar to commit military forces, due to our perceived superiority (less risk), although we have learned repeatedly that air power has serious limitations.

Two questions: The U.S. said it wouldn't put boots on the ground, does that imply that other nations won't? Where are Arab nation's military forces?


So my question is this: What if this assumption is wrong? What if air power isn't enough? How will we escalate when we've already drawn a big red line limiting our actions? And that's really the problem with this "strategy." If the goal is to remove MG, then remove MG. Half measures (air power) along with wishful thinking is very risky. I say this as a strong air power advocate, but I think I understand the limitations of what air power can do when it's divorced from the ground element.

If we clearly articulate and stick to the limited goal of tempoarily stopping the slaughter and state we are not going to take ownership of this problem we may be able to limit the noise coming from blame the West club. Since the West has once again stepped in and did what the Arab countries seem incapable of, we should start asking where are the regional leaders? Where is the Arab world and their recommended solutions and leadership? In some ways we appear to be mercenaries for the oil princes.


Secondly, assuming MG is overthrown or otherwise killed, what then? Advocates for this intervention are saying that what happens next is up to the Libyans.

We won't know until it happens, but we need to stay out of it. We have a long and successful history of non-intervention in internal politics, and a long and unsuccessful history of intervention in other nation's internal affairs.

carl
03-20-2011, 08:01 PM
Officers don't decide about war or peace, or about the mission of the military as a whole.
Officers don't decide on military budgets either.

All very true. But officers are the ones who educate the politicians and officers are the ones who come up with the doctrine and make the force requests. And, officers are the ones who oversell and push things like "effects based warfare". That is how I see it for the most part in the US. i don't know about Germany.

Presley Cannady
03-20-2011, 08:32 PM
Well, that (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3) didn't take long.

Ken White
03-20-2011, 08:33 PM
At least, this LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html) would seem to so indicate...

Also, not to intrude too heavily into some else's discussion but to address the US side of that...
All very true.Yes, it is but I think what you believe you see may not be what is there.
But officers are the ones who educate the politicians and officers are the ones who come up with the doctrine and make the force requests.In my observation, the amount of 'education' politicians are willing to seek is microscopic, the amount which they'll accept is only slightly larger. One cannot educate the unwilling...

Correct on the doctrine and the force requests -- but officers are no better at accurately predicting the future than you or I -- or anyone else. In the US, the force structure requests made, bad and good, are rarely met; the whims of Congress rule.
And, officers are the ones who oversell and push things like "effects based warfare".Some Officers -- most don't buy into such foolishness -- but even those who do oversell it bear generally less responsibility than the politicians who are all too eager to buy it because it seems like an inexpensive way to do business... :rolleyes:

The politicians are the ones who think warfare can be done on the cheap and delightedly buy into the airpower can do it all routine. It will never be cheap and airpower will never do it all -- or even most of it.

Rex Brynen
03-20-2011, 08:34 PM
Well at least in this place my fretting about being able or not able to destroy the dictator's heavy equipment was for naught. The French don't fool around.

It was US F-15s and AV-8s, not the AdA.

Rex Brynen
03-20-2011, 08:40 PM
Well, that (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3) didn't take long.

It should be noted that it wasn't the Arab League condemning the bombing--it was Amr Moussa, the Arab League Secretary-General (not at all the same thing).

I've yet to see a statement from an Arab capital criticizing the attack. Most of the official media outlets I've checked have no official statement, or relatively neutral reporting.

M-A Lagrange
03-20-2011, 08:51 PM
According to Reuters, the Lybian Army decided to decrete a cease fire at 1900 GMT.
The Lybian Army HQ apparently took that decision without the support of MG.

Let's hope that's for real. And if so, this just proove that crazy clowns remain crazy even for their followers. And that sometimes, military officers decide of war and peace. ;)

Also, if this is followed on the ground, it will prove that most of us were wrong: air campaign can be effective and it was much easier than expected.

Never the less, this will mean a regime change that will include actual members of the regime in place, except MG him self and his familly. A situation that still can turn to civil war.

Presley Cannady
03-20-2011, 09:15 PM
It should be noted that it wasn't the Arab League condemning the bombing--it was Amr Moussa, the Arab League Secretary-General (not at all the same thing).

I've yet to see a statement from an Arab capital criticizing Moussa's remarks. The West was more than eager to do the heavy lifting; now that she's committed, what does it cost the Arabs to play the old crusader card? Answer: when you control state media and your population is already prone to conspiracy-mongering, next to nothing.


I've yet to see a statement from an Arab capital criticizing the attack.

Syria and Algeria both dissented, and Syria's reiterated her position in the aftermath of the attacks.

Rex Brynen
03-20-2011, 09:30 PM
I've yet to see a statement from an Arab capital criticizing Moussa's remarks. The West was more than eager to do the heavy lifting; now that she's committed, what does it cost the Arabs to play the old crusader card?

Beware talking about "the Arabs"--they're hardly a cohesive lot. I doubt any of the GCC states will wobble any time soon. The Iraqi parliament is set to recognize the opposition as the new Libyan government. The Egyptian government is currently arming the rebels (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704360404576206992835270906.html).

Presley Cannady
03-20-2011, 10:11 PM
Beware talking about "the Arabs"--they're hardly a cohesive lot.

Since when do you need a lot to be cohesive to have a mere couple of things in common?


I doubt any of the GCC states will wobble any time soon.

They'd have to stand up to wobble in the first place. To date, the only hard commitment is upwards six aircraft from Qatar; and even then, they will operate autonomously. Setting aside the Arab League contribution would at best be symbolic, I'll ask again: what does it cost for their member capitals to turn ingrate?


The Iraqi parliament is set to recognize the opposition as the new Libyan government. The Egyptian government is currently arming the rebels (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704360404576206992835270906.html).

We're a long way from determining whether Arab intentions regarding the eastern rebels and Gaddafhi align with the "limited objectives" of the Western commitment.

Dayuhan
03-20-2011, 11:09 PM
Would it have mattered?

Certainly to the US it would have mattered. We'd have been stuck out front where we don't want to be.


And the capability of the US + the UK and France suddenly sum to "enough?" More to the point, if the interests at stake do not justify the single most capable member of the Coalition exerting leadership, then precisely what reason is there for that member to even participate?

There's enough reason to participate, not enough reason to lead. Participation is an intermediate step between "dominate" and "do nothing". Considering the extent of our commitments elsewhere, I'm not sure the capacity we can actually deploy in the Mediterranean is "single most capable". We're positioned pretty much where we needed to be, seems to me.


Same question as above. If we do not have any interest in the end state, why intervene in the first place?

We have no ability to dictate the end state with an acceptable level of involvement, but we saw sufficient reason to be engaged in the limited objective of preventing a total victory by Gadhafi. Subsequent objectives may or may not be adopted upon subsequent assessments. How is that unreasonable?


You've been very clear on what the White House does not count amongst its "limited objectives," but not so much on what those objectives actually are. At some point, you're going to have to say "Obama committed force to achieve X." That "X," as far as the White House is saying, is at the very least to halt Qaddafi's offensive against the rebels. If you're arguing that either the UK and France have sufficient capacity to achieve such an end state or that Americans have no interest one way or the other, then why are Americans intervening at all? If not, then why did the US wait to act?

That's been made sufficiently clear by many, and I see no need to repeat. No need to make mountains out of mole-hills.


No one. You articulated a principle that foregoing planning was better than accepting the risk that planning may fail.

I articulated no such principle, though you may have interpreted it as such. There's no sense in imposing a long-term plan on a limited involvement that is specifically intended to be short term, it only restricts the flexibility that is the entire point of limited engagement.


If it ain't our mission, then once again...why bother?

Because at times we may see fit to assist in operations that are primarily someone else's responsibility, just as at times we seek the participation of others in missions that are primarily ours. Doesn't have to be all or nothing, control or avoid.

Presley Cannady
03-20-2011, 11:26 PM
Because at times we may see fit to assist in operations that are primarily someone else's responsibility, just as at times we seek the participation of others in missions that are primarily ours.

The canonical case is the mutual defense treaty, the principle feature of which is quid pro quo. Precisely what take do Americans expect from their partners in exchange for "participating?" Why would anyone think of the single largest contributor to the Coalition as anything other than the most interested party in the operation? More importantly, why would they consider themselves in America's debt as a result?


Doesn't have to be all or nothing, control or avoid.

We're not discussing command arrangement here; a pointless exercise given that the "coalition" members are more or less acting autonomously. But since you bring it up, the notion that the United States is "supporting" allied operations is belied by her independence of action.

carl
03-21-2011, 01:13 AM
It was US F-15s and AV-8s, not the AdA.

The news reports I read said it was the French who struck the ground targets near Benghazi and the only American airplanes so far are some B-2s.
No matter, we'll find out for sure soon enough and the heavy equipment got destroyed.

Ken White
03-21-2011, 02:06 AM
LINK (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123247716), LINK (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/LouGots/us-libya-stealth-bombers-fighter-jets_n_838076_81374196.html), LINK (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/marine-jets-involved-in-libya-airstrikes-032011/), LINK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Aa4bb3d5f-354c-4214-99eb-8141ee21406f&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Those that wanted it got it -- they should be happy... ;)

Dayuhan
03-21-2011, 05:03 AM
Why would anyone think of the single largest contributor to the Coalition as anything other than the most interested party in the operation? More importantly, why would they consider themselves in America's debt as a result?

The largest contributor may not be making the largest contribution in this case... and even if we are so far, it's been repeatedly stated that once the initial phase is done we intend to step back and let others carry the weight.


We're not discussing command arrangement here; a pointless exercise given that the "coalition" members are more or less acting autonomously. But since you bring it up, the notion that the United States is "supporting" allied operations is belied by her independence of action.

Why can we not independently choose a supporting role? "Support" doesn't mean "subordinate".

The point that I think is being widely missed here is that from a US perspective, this isn't just about Libya. It's an opportunity to provide a tangible example of the administration's oft-stated desire to reposition US foreign policy, moving away from the aggressive unilateralism of the Bush era but not necessarily to isolationism. The purpose is as much to demonstrate a moderate position between those poles as to achieve any specific end state in Libya, which would e a bit of a fool's errand in any case. The process would have been easier if we'd been able to choose and plan for the time and place for that demonstration, but we didn't have that luxury.

slapout9
03-21-2011, 05:11 AM
Also, if this is followed on the ground, it will prove that most of us were wrong: air campaign can be effective and it was much easier than expected. Bingo! You have my vote. This is NOT a no fly zone operation despite what the spin doctors are saying. This is a straight up Air Campaign right out of Warden's book. And yes Airpower can do it alone, in fact that is the only way to succeed, IF we put our boots on the ground it want work.


Never the less, this will mean a regime change that will include actual members of the regime in place, except MG him self and his familly. A situation that still can turn to civil war.
Again very astute analysis! This is a no Gadaffi Zone operation and as I posted on another thread the real problem is what will happen after Gadaffi. The Rebel forces breaking up into rival gangs and start fighting for power is a real possibility.

Bill Moore
03-21-2011, 05:24 AM
The Arab League says:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12801812


The head of the Arab League, who supported the idea of a no-fly zone, has criticised the severity of the bombardment.

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa.

U.S. Air Force statement, and you tell me what this really means and how it will be perceived.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123247716


"It was a spectacular display of Airmenship watching this coalition come together the way it did to execute the first air strikes on behalf of the Libyan people," said Maj. Gen. Margaret H. Woodward, Operation Odyssey Dawn Joint Force Air Component Commander. "Our bombers and fighters performed magnificently and we are fully behind protecting the innocent Libyan citizens while ensuring the safety of coalition aircraft."

This goes beyond the debate of whether it is right or wrong to get involved, but addresses our desire to conduct to get involved only when we think the risk is low, which too often entails greater strategic risk due to miscalculation. Our superior technical edge may be making the decision to go to war too easy due to unfounded expectations. Our enemies have repeatedly found ways to counter our technology advantages. I also doubt that air attacks alone will achieve what is authorized.


Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn is the U.S. Africa Command task force established to provide operational and tactical command and control of U.S. military forces supporting the international response to the unrest in Libya and enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. UNSCR 1973 authorizes all necessary measures to protect civilians in Libya under threat of attack by Qadhafi regime forces. JTF Odyssey Dawn is commanded by U.S. Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, III.

JMA
03-21-2011, 06:15 AM
LINK (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123247716), LINK (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/LouGots/us-libya-stealth-bombers-fighter-jets_n_838076_81374196.html), LINK (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/marine-jets-involved-in-libya-airstrikes-032011/), LINK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Aa4bb3d5f-354c-4214-99eb-8141ee21406f&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Those that wanted it got it -- they should be happy... ;)

Help me here Ken. The only location specific reference I could find was in the Huffington Post which was:


He would not elaborate on what was hit or where, but said French forces are focusing on the Benghazi area and U.S. forces are focused in the west.

Hope this is not degenerating into a p____ing contest about whose air took out what we see on TV?

M-A Lagrange
03-21-2011, 06:22 AM
With all respect for the head of the arab league:
The actual count down is:
Bombing: 48 KIA may be civilians

G against his people: 8000 KIA mostly civilian.

Who is he trying to abuse?
Arab leaders should stop playing the string of evil westerners trying to kill poor armless civilian. First it is anoying; secondly it's not true this time; third: THEY look bad in the face of their hown people cause arabs are educated and, in the end, know what their leaders do.

M-A Lagrange
03-21-2011, 06:48 AM
Russia, based on G casualties numbers and ignoring insurgents figures, just asked to stop undiscriminated use of violence.

This might be the sign that this operation is far too successfull. Russia was expecting the western countries to fall in an another long war trap.
The announcement of cease fire by Lybian Army top command (despite there still are some fightings on the ground) came too early for them (less than 24hours).
The problem now is to control Egypt which is watching this closely and might feel that they would need to engage deeper changes in their governance than expected. Or that despite air support, rebels may loose and they would have to face G...
I believe that for arab leaders the problem now is that they cannot support G but cannot support changes as they all (most of them) based their grasp on power on the idea that "democracy is an evil western thing that is not meant for them". The failure of the democracies in the middle east in the 70 did give them right. But now situation has change and Al Nada out comes are not exactly what they expected.

JMA
03-21-2011, 07:25 AM
Your superbly orchestrated and certain to be highly effective and important counterspin operation will take care of that! :D

Is that what the truth is called nowadays?


Or until all the pro-intervention folks who wish to save the world -- at no cost to themselves, of course -- go north, investigate or get involved and report...:rolleyes:

Save the world from what? ... think about it.

Have kit bag, will travel... but then no one needs some one who will ask the difficult questions do they? Better to have tame embeds who will report chapter and verse from the spin released at press conferences.

Unfortunately Ken when the US (politicians) screw up criticism will come from all quarters. Nuthin you can do about it. Whining about it is unbecoming.


Oh, the truth -- as much as is known, as you say -- is not unpalatable. The fact that a few do not like it doesn't affect most who wonder what is the point of all the acrimony. Dignation, perhaps...

The simple point is that the dithering of the US politicians has a cost in hundreds, maybe thousands, of Libyan lives. You and others may wish to laugh that off and mock those who won't as being those "who want to save the world" but at the end of the day its going to be yet another example of US foreign affairs failure.

The saving grace of course is that the military will step in, wrap it up in a few days, then hand the lot over to some politically correct structure who is likely to screw it up...


Like the old Yorkshireman said, "There's nowt strange as folk..." :wry:

Strange? Personally I find people entirely predictable.

JMA
03-21-2011, 07:43 AM
If "positioning" the country as a "reluctant, non-hegemonic intervenor"--if that's even possible or even relevant--is a precondition for action, then why did the White House call for the regime's ouster almost three weeks ago?

You are asking difficult questions.

Rex threw in the word "impossible" without due thought and instead of just admitting the error is making it worse with such convoluted sentences.

Yes, it is a good question of yours. That statement was made when it looked as if the rebels had the momentum to roll up the regime in a matter of days.

Seeing that the US Administration had little or no appetite for action Gaddafi brought in the mercenaries and went on the offensive.

Now the Obama/Clinton apologists will tell you that the loss of a few thousand Libyan lives is a small price to pay in order to force Europe to take the initiative in this matter ... but others will sadly recognise yet another serious example of foreign policy incompetence.

The vast majority of Americans I have met in my life have been good, big-hearted and generous people and IMHO deserve better than they get from successive administrations... but as they say, "in a democracy you get the government you deserve." How the military manages to deal with these clowns is truly amazing to me.

JMA
03-21-2011, 08:22 AM
Posted by JMA

It sounds as though you are making the argument that the West is somehow obligated to intervene? Why? Of course when most people refer to the West they default to the U.S. to provide the leadership and the majority of the resources, and as Dayuhan points out we're tiring of it.

What I am tiring of is the manner in which unelected US citizens use the word we with arrogant presumption that they speak for the American people.

Of course the US can turn their back on any conflict or humanitarian crisis. There is a price to pay for that though and that comes at a cost of its humanity. Kind of like in Rome before its collapse.


You mentioned before millions of Africans are butchered? We have already seen millions of Africans butchered in Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, DROC, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Equatorial Guinea, etc. and failure for the West to "react" until late in the slaughter had little impact on our interests in the long run. Until we tie the condition of humanity "globally" to our collective national interests we'll continue to drag our feet in responding, and not without good reason. No country wants to get left holding the bag, because after the media runs off to cover the next crisis their citizens will be wondering why they're spending money and expending blood there.

Cast your mind back to the Cold War era. A lot of today's African political landscape was shaped by the tug-o-war of that era of which the US was very much part. There was no reason to have had millions butchered then and even less reason now.

So there may not be US National Economic Interests involved in most parts of Africa but there are legacy responsibilities and the simple matter humanity. The US seems to be desperately trying to renege on its obligations and responsibilities.


This is not unique to Africa, we also ignored Mao's and Stalin's slaughter of millions of their own people (hell our left worships them). We ignored Hitler's slaughter of the Jews until millions were killed. We ignore the slaughter in Burma today, Cambodia yesterday, and sadly the list goes on, but the fact of the matter is while intervention to stop the slaughter is obviously the humane thing to do, it is hard to stop and even harder to extract ourselves once we're in. After we fail (as we did in Somalia) we tend to the get the blame and have spent millions and billions of dollars and more importantly sacrificed our flesh and blood in the pursuit of a dream that we eventually had to awaken from.

But in the case of the first two your Generals at the time (Patton and McArthur) made the necessary recommendations to deal with them but the political will was not there. Today you live with the consequences and good luck to you. I don't see any value in using past failures to justify today's weaknesses and failures.


I'm not spinning the situation in Libya, simply stating an alternative view. A month from now I may have another view based on how this plays out, but for now a few photos of civilians holding signs in "English" asking us to help (CNN affect) just doesn't tug at my heart strings.

An alternative view? You mean interpretation?

The view that this was all a plan (by the US Administration) to force Europe to step to the front and act is what some are presenting as the facts here. I don't share that view.

Fuchs
03-21-2011, 08:34 AM
The news reports I read said it was the French who struck the ground targets near Benghazi and the only American airplanes so far are some B-2s.
No matter, we'll find out for sure soon enough and the heavy equipment got destroyed.

A German reporter team from Benghazi attributed the damage done to the attackers (some of them were already in the city) to the French, and more importantly; the people of Benghazi seem to do the same.

JMA
03-21-2011, 08:52 AM
Also, if this is followed on the ground, it will prove that most of us were wrong: air campaign can be effective and it was much easier than expected.

Still astounded that some even thought that this would be a long affair. A rats-and-mice force (can't use the word army) like Gaddafi's is no match for "an intelligent and skillfully planned and executed air campaign." Not sure they even needed 112 plus cruise missiles to achieve a real fear based ceasefire. And the "demonstration of sincerity" missile into his compound was two days too late, but better late than never as they say.

A problem can occur if some of Gaddafi's followers (especially those who have committed capital crimes, now or earlier) resort to urban guerrilla warfare once all else is lost. This is why Gaddafi must either be forced into exile or killed or captured to these hardliners have no one to rally around.

SWJ Blog
03-21-2011, 11:00 AM
Blue Birds and Wolverines in Libya: Cinematic Considerations for Military Intervention (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/blue-birds-and-wolverines-in-l/)

Entry Excerpt:

Blue Birds and Wolverines in Libya: Cinematic Considerations for Military Intervention
by Patrick McKinney

On March 17, 2011, the United Nations authorized military force to protect the people of Libya from the forces of its ruler, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Two days later, the United States, France, and England, commenced military action against Libyan air defenses, and command and control sites in preparation for a no-fly zone. As the international community starts action in Libya, words of caution are in order. Seen by some as a lower-cost alternative to ground forces, a no-fly zone intends to protect Libyan civilians and opposition forces from the Qaddafi regime, but such a mission is not without risks. As political and military leaders prepare for action, they should pause for a few hours and watch two films of the 1980s; 1986’s Iron Eagle and 1984’s Red Dawn, and consider the lessons of the Blue Bird and the Wolverines.

Patrick McKinney served as a United States Army field artillery and military intelligence officer, and deployed as a platoon leader in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom IV. He has watched both films since childhood, and they accompanied him on his deployment. He now resides in Alexandria, VA. The views expressed in this piece are his own.



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/blue-birds-and-wolverines-in-l/) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Bob's World
03-21-2011, 12:54 PM
I suspect France appreciates more fully than the US does that this is a pure GWOT operation; far more so than Iraq ever was, and more so than Afghanistan has been since 2002.

France's problems, as I perceive them, come from the North African ties within their own populace. By coming out clearly on the side of the Libyan people in their efforts to liberate themselves from Qaddafi I believe that France can buy some good will and reduce the risk of terrorism at home.

For the US it is a bigger issue. The US also needs to support the people, but for the US this is much more indirect than for France. For the US the main effort is on the Arabian Peninsula. So all of our operations in Libya must support the Libyan populace, but also be applied to the Libyan government in a manner that does not completely freak out the governments still clinging to power elsewhere.

It sounds like we have little control over what the French do, they are seeking what they believe is best for their interests. We should expect that. Therefore we need to be sure to separate ourselves to some degree. This is the problem with Coalitions. We think it spreads responsibility; but it also creates conflicts of national interests. Arab nations have very different interests they seek to manage than either France, UK or the US.

I would recommend that we carefully differentiate those interests and intentions within the coalition effort. If we mash them all together, then no one will communicate what the really mean, and it will be a lost opportunity to leverage Libyan events to help shape a greater stability through evolution of governance across the region.

If we just make other governments fearful and defensive, they will shut down to outside and internal influence and most likely just act instinctively to survive by crushing threats.

slapout9
03-21-2011, 01:33 PM
So there may not be US National Economic Interests involved in most parts of Africa but there are legacy responsibilities and the simple matter humanity. The US seems to be desperately trying to renege on its obligations and responsibilities.


IMO it has more to do with Economic(Oil) interest than anything else. Libya is key Oil producer/exporter. That makes it a New World System Control Point. Humanitarian concerns make for good public relations and pretext for military action but I just don't have much faith in it anymore. But I am becoming more cynical as I get older.

carl
03-21-2011, 03:41 PM
France's problems, as I perceive them, come from the North African ties within their own populace. By coming out clearly on the side of the Libyan people in their efforts to liberate themselves from Qaddafi I believe that France can buy some good will and reduce the risk of terrorism at home.

I wish I had thought of that.:(

Maybe too they want to take the dictator down quick as possible in order to avoid a clandestine insurgency. If one of those started the influence of the regional Jihadis would grow which would redound to France's regret because those guys don't much like France either...which is what I guess you already said.

Fuchs
03-21-2011, 03:53 PM
I doubt that they have domestic motives. Their pro-intervention driver was their minister of foreign affairs. He pushed Sarkozy into war.
Muslims in Europe is as a topic vastly misunderstood by many people (especially North Americans) anyway. For example, they have very real social issues at home - investing the air campaign funds into cheaper flats in the region of Paris would help much more domestically than the air campaign.


The French were embarrassed in Tunisia, the old minister of foreign affairs even resigned. The French government proved to have been too much in bed with North African dictators.

My best guess is that they want to correct that image now, preferably in a country that was not a former colony of theirs, so they don't need to cut remaining relations with the governments of Algeria and Morocco.

They're also eager to lead the whole campaign, which fits into their more general attitude and grand strategy - France as a leading nation in Europe.
They had this attitude since Louis XIV, were just upset a couple times in the meantime. You can be smart in passivity, but you can't lead in passivity.

Rex Brynen
03-21-2011, 03:53 PM
Rex threw in the word "impossible" without due thought and instead of just admitting the error is making it worse with such convoluted sentences.

If you scroll back, you'll see I was commenting on Dayuhan's point that the US was seeking to project "the narrative that it sees intervention as a last resort, not a default response (a last resort is what it reasonably should be), that it is reluctant to intervene, and that it does not seek a leadership position that would promote post-intervention control." While I might have been clearer in my language, yes I think it would have been impossible to have done that before the Arab League NFZ resolution.

The marked lack of criticism coming from the Arab world so far--even AL SG Amr Moussa has now walked back his earlier complaints--suggests that the careful laying of diplomatic foundations is paying dividends. Had the US gone ahead with this unilaterally, without Arab and UNSC support, the mission would be far more precarious, and Qaddafi in a much better political position.

Rex Brynen
03-21-2011, 03:56 PM
IMO it has more to do with Economic(Oil) interest than anything else. Libya is key Oil producer/exporter. That makes it a New World System Control Point. Humanitarian concerns make for good public relations and pretext for military action but I just don't have much faith in it anymore. But I am becoming more cynical as I get older.

If anything, I think oil considerations retarded intervention. Certainly the Italians seemed worried that it would hamper rather than facilitate supplies.

Ken White
03-21-2011, 04:14 PM
Hope this is not degenerating into a p____ing contest about whose air took out what we see on TV?So do I -- certainly not my intent.
Is that what the truth is called nowadays?Your counterspin? Probably not, eye of the beholder, I expect...
Save the world from what? ... think about it.That's the question, isn't it? :D
Unfortunately Ken when the US (politicians) screw up criticism will come from all quarters. Nuthin you can do about it. Whining about it is unbecoming. I've known that since before you were born, haven't whined about then or now. US Politicians have been doing that even before I was born and deserve criticism, I have no problem with honest criticism, indulge in it myself and encourage it from others -- I do have a dislike of flagrant bias; don't whine about it but have no problem pointing it out...:rolleyes:
The simple point is that the dithering of the US politicians has a cost in hundreds, maybe thousands, of Libyan lives. You and others may wish to laugh that off and mock those who won't as being those "who want to save the world" but at the end of the day its going to be yet another example of US foreign affairs failure.Probably so -- and that will change exactly what?
The saving grace of course is that the military will step in, wrap it up in a few days, then hand the lot over to some politically correct structure who is likely to screw it up...I'm dubious but we'll see...
Strange? Personally I find people entirely predictable.So do I and yes you are ... ;)

M-A Lagrange
03-21-2011, 04:30 PM
I doubt that they have domestic motives. Their pro-intervention driver was their minister of foreign affairs. He pushed Sarkozy into war.
Muslims in Europe is as a topic vastly misunderstood by many people (especially North Americans) anyway. For example, they have very real social issues at home - investing the air campaign funds into cheaper flats in the region of Paris would help much more domestically than the air campaign.


The French were embarrassed in Tunisia, the old minister of foreign affairs even resigned. The French government proved to have been too much in bed with North African dictators.

My best guess is that they want to correct that image now, preferably in a country that was not a former colony of theirs, so they don't need to cut remaining relations with the governments of Algeria and Morocco.

They're also eager to lead the whole campaign, which fits into their more general attitude and grand strategy - France as a leading nation in Europe.
They had this attitude since Louis XIV, were just upset a couple times in the meantime. You can be smart in passivity, but you can't lead in passivity.

My friend, you're quite right on the social and domestic issue. On the smartness in passivity... I have some comments. But that's not the subject.

And yes Bob, You're right also. It does have to see with GWOT as France does have troubles with AQMI and need to reaffirm its power in the sub region. Concerning internal insurgency, I would be less paranoid. As Fuch said, the muslims in Europ are very badly understood by northern american (that's the way it is... :o).

Has I said in a previous post, G managed to pissed off Sarkosy by threatening France. He had to expect a reaction, especially as the French have spend long years training to kick his ass. Also, it is a way for Sarkosy to show that France has change and is supporting the people now and not crazy dictators at all cost. But we are back into the immigration debat, especially as this week end the extrem right did win minor local elections.

Graycap
03-21-2011, 04:46 PM
I'm Italian and I'm happy to see my fellow european small warriors in this Thread :)

One of the major problem that President Sarkozy has to eveluate is that of euorpean coesion. Italy is rapidly losing patience. We are threatening to call off our bases if NATO will not be in charge.

This operation, if mismanaged, could cause a real problem for for a future european strategy.

The problem in leading is to know your allies and where you have to halt.

To lose Arab League and Italy after two single days of operation is some kind of a record. For what? What can France by itself hope to achieve without a broad alliance (with arab partners)? I really don't understand the rationale. Libya could easily become a new Somalia, only with oil.
Is France able to sustain by itself the consequences of her action or there is the risko of a new Suez?

J Wolfsberger
03-21-2011, 08:23 PM
From Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752222,00.html):


The US wants to hand over command of Operation Odyssey Dawn to another country within a matter of days, but so far NATO has been unable to reach an agreement on taking control of the implementation of the no-fly zone in Libya. Turkey is leading the objections.

davidbfpo
03-21-2011, 11:10 PM
An IISS Strategic Comment, which ends with:
Political commitments to international interventions have often been undermined by the realities of war and by inevitable civilian casualties. Just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will be important to define the precise objectives and the criteria for success. So too will be the commitment of sufficient military force to achieve whatever goals are set. These tasks remain to be addressed.

Link:http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-17-2011/march/options-in-libya-after-un-vote/

Dayuhan
03-22-2011, 02:06 AM
What I am tiring of is the manner in which unelected US citizens use the word we with arrogant presumption that they speak for the American people.

If you don't think the American people are getting tired of it, you're not paying attention. I assume you're aware of the poll figures on Libyan intervention.


But in the case of the first two your Generals at the time (Patton and McArthur) made the necessary recommendations to deal with them but the political will was not there. Today you live with the consequences and good luck to you. I don't see any value in using past failures to justify today's weaknesses and failures.

If declining to invade Russia and China simultaneously is failure, let's all be glad we failed. Invading Russia hasn't generally proven a good idea over the last few centuries, and China is a rather large place. It seemed a little early for WW3, and in any event, as you say, the political will wasn't there: no American politician could possibly have persuaded the populace to accept continued war on such a scale. Such actions would in any event have had consequences of their own, and it would be very bold (and very speculative) to assume they'd have been any better than the way things worked out.

As far as Libya goes, if you start with the assumption that the US is directly and automatically responsible for protecting and defending everyone, everywhere, all the time, and if you assume that intervention in the internal affairs of other nations is a default option to be pursued at the earliest possible opportunity in all cases, everywhere, all the time, then absolutely, the US response in Libya would look like dithering incompetence. Since those assumptions are invalid - and absurd - the conclusions deriving from those assumptions are... suspect, to say the least.

The US administration acted in accordance with its repeatedly stated policies and principles. You may not like those policies and principles, but the American people voted for them.

jcustis
03-22-2011, 02:47 AM
Man, we need to develop an "Amen!" emoticon.

carl
03-22-2011, 04:19 AM
For better or for worse, the west is in it now. It seems to me that the longer this goes on, the worse things will be and the more unpredictable the outcome. It also seems to me, as several others have suggested, that the best way to end the first stage soon is if the dictator and his family are removed from the stage, upright walking and talking or otherwise.

So the question is, what is the best way to do that, quickly? If the otherwise route were to be chosen, is it doable, and is it within the purview of the various stated missions? Or, can the various stated missions be stretched to cover it?

slapout9
03-22-2011, 04:25 AM
For better or for worse, the west is in it now. It seems to me that the longer this goes on, the worse things will be and the more unpredictable the outcome. It also seems to me, as several others have suggested, that the best way to end the first stage soon is if the dictator and his family are removed from the stage, upright walking and talking or otherwise.

So the question is, what is the best way to do that, quickly? If the otherwise route were to be chosen, is it doable, and is it within the purview of the various stated missions? Or, can the various stated missions be stretched to cover it?

It was doable, I don't know now, he may have already left town.

slapout9
03-22-2011, 04:35 AM
If anything, I think oil considerations retarded intervention. Certainly the Italians seemed worried that it would hamper rather than facilitate supplies.

Of course, that is why there is no political objective, everyone is haggling behind the scenes about their share of the oil. The way I see it Daffy and Tony Blair start hanging out together after Tony becomes an Oil consultant. All the sudden stuff starts happening, terror bombers get released Blair makes millions and the UK has a bunch of new Oil rights in Libya, Daffy comes to the US and he makes the top of the list as worst dressed person in the world but he gave up his WMD program so everything is cool. Then....people start reading the fine print of the Oil contracts and somebody is going to end up getting the Green Weiner.

Next thing you no.....a humanitarian crisis and we have to do something.

bourbon
03-22-2011, 04:43 AM
If anything, I think oil considerations retarded intervention. Certainly the Italians seemed worried that it would hamper rather than facilitate supplies.
I believe for the U.S., the long-term oil considerations are twofold:

- Maintain Libya and North Africa as sources of energy to Europe, in order to lessen European dependence on Russia;

- Deny the Chinese greater access to Libyan and North African resources.

jmm99
03-22-2011, 04:48 AM
and with the US calling the shots, the better choice requires boots on the ground. Through 2000, see Stephen T. Hosmer, Operations Against Enemy Leaders (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1385.html) (RAND 2001)(free pdf chaps):


Operations targeted against senior enemy leaders have long been viewed as a potential means of shaping the policy and behavior of enemy states. As a result, the United States has launched a variety of overt and covert operations in efforts to attack enemy leaders directly, facilitate their overthrow by coup or rebellion, or secure their ouster through external invasion.

This book examines a number of leadership attacks from World War II to the present to offer insights into the comparative efficacy of various forms of leadership attacks, their potential coercive and deterrent value, and the possible unintended consequences of their ill-considered use.

The book concludes that direct attacks, coups, and rebellions have met with only limited success and, even when successful, have sometimes yielded counterproductive results. Moreover, neither direct attacks nor coups have been of significant coercive or deterrent value, although rebellions have at times provided useful negotiating leverage.

By contrast, external invasions have proved to be more efficacious both in shaping the targeted countries’ policy and behavior and in exerting coercive effects. The book concludes by outlining the likely conditions under which future leadership attacks are likely to be sanctioned and by delineating the prerequisites of effective use of air power in such contexts.

The events since 2000 are more consistent with Hosmer's thesis than any other. But, maybe the attacks will luck out and beat the odds.

Regards

Mike

Dayuhan
03-22-2011, 05:08 AM
I believe for the U.S., the long-term oil considerations are twofold:

- Maintain Libya and North Africa as sources of energy to Europe, in order to lessen European dependence on Russia;

- Deny the Chinese greater access to Libyan and North African resources.

Libya will always sell oil to Europe. Geography demands it. Supply may be interrupted in a period of political flux, but whoever takes power will sell oil and Europe is the logical destination.

Whether the Chinese buy or not doesn't mean squat. The Chinese will buy as much oil as they need; they can afford it. Where they buy doesn't matter. If they shift supply from point A to point B, oil from point A becomes available to other buyers. There is absolutely zero need to deny China access to oil anywhere, even if we could, which we can't.

The long-term oil payoff would come if Libya had a stable government that was willing to do business. There has been almost no significant exploration and little meaningful development of Libya's oil industry in decades: Libya's national oil company hasn't the expertise and foreign investors didn't want to deal with MG. With investment and capable management Libya could certainly expand production substantially and is very likely to have substantial undiscovered reserves.

Of course that's not a unique benefit to the US, to the chagrin of conspiracy theorists, but it would be a good thing for all who buy oil. That benefit would be shared by all consumers even if 100% of the investment was Chinese and every drop went to China (which is really not likely; geography has influence). Increased global supply = less global price pressure.

If Sinopec aand CNPC did come to dominate Libyan oil investment it would actually be more efficient for them to sell that oil to Europe and buy closer oil to send home. Long-haul shipment of oil is most efficient in VLCCs and ULCCs, and they won't fit through canals. That's why despite all the yak about China buying from Venezuela, there's very little actually making the trip: aside from the fact that the Chinese have to retool refining capacity to manage heavy sour Venezuelan crude, nobody wants to ship oil those distances in Panamax tankers. It's good propaganda but lousy business.

JMA
03-22-2011, 09:18 AM
How is it possible that there is doubt whether Gaddafi is a legitimate target or not? Ends up with General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff getting slapped down for stating on TV that:


“Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further.”

The yanks also seem to be a bit vague on the matter.

Fuchs
03-22-2011, 09:25 AM
The UNSC resolution permits the use of force for the protection of civilians and the enforcement of the NFZ. It did not turn the whole of the Libyan military into legitimate targets, or Libyas governemnt.

The attacks on the air defence system are already a (predictable) stretch.

Graycap
03-22-2011, 09:36 AM
In my opinion the future course of actio must will be the direct consequence of a political and strategic definitive agreement (or lack of) of the regional actors involved.

The options could be three:

- a siege like Irak in 1991-2003.
- a Jawbreaker style operation
- a direct assault

I will begin by the last: if the western country are able to attract the regime in a direct offense to their assets (terrorism included) this option could become real. But it could be possible only with robust US involvment.

The "jawbreaker option", within the UN resolution or not, could be the only one possible for the Anglo-French alone. But the Libyans are not afghans.
They are not ready to sustain any kind of military operation even with SOF assistance. The risks could be very high. Anyway this course of action is the only one that could justify the French conduct of the diplomatic relations with their allies. A successful french UW campaign could become a real problem inside the EU. Given the Libyan "human terrain" anyone could be meddling and an Afghan style outcome is possible.

The siege has a lot of problems and , in the end, it will require one of the other two otions. But the siege could help in building a broad alliance and a more clear political landscape for the after-Gheddafi phase.

Bob's World
03-22-2011, 11:51 AM
Hopefully the US keeps (or puts?) its eye on the big picture. For the US, Libya is not about Libya. Once we lose that perspective and get sucked into operations in Libya for Libya's sake we are screwed.

But once we give a problem to the military such "target fixation" and tactical focus becomes inevitable. The primary effects the US needs to shape from our operations in Libya are on the Arabian Peninsula. Those populaces and those governments currently teetering on the edge are the Main Effort effect of this operation.

The main effort belongs to CENTCOM. Who is running Libya operations? AFRICOM? Has AFRICOM been told that they are a main effort (over Iraq and Afghanistan) operation in Libya to produce main effort effects on the Arabian Peninsula??? I highly doubt it. I suspect that AFRICOM is currently all Gung ho to make the best of their opportunity to show what they can do, and are almost completely focused on Libya operations for Libyan effects, and possible glancing at neighbor states, and even less so at the Arabian Peninsula.

AFRICOM intel guys are rolling out grand PowerPoint briefs twice a day for their commander, primary focus on the disposition and status assessed of Qaddafi's forces, and secondary on the main "violent extremist organizations" in the region that they have been shaping and tracking these past few years. Is he getting equal or greater coverage of what effects he needs to be creating among the people and governments of the AP, and how his operations in Libya are assessed to be shaping those effects?? I highly doubt it.

Who coordinates this seam and ensures balance and perspective are maintained? The same people who coordinate the seam between Pakistan and India??? God help us.

But before we can keep our eye on the prize, we must first recognize what the prize is. The big prize is if we can help shape conditions in Libya so as to transition from violent revolution of government to non-violent evolution of government. This is what will communicate to the populaces and governments on the AP the critical message:

1. Continued oppression of populaces and suppression of revolution is no longer acceptable if one is to enjoy the support of the U.S.

2. Current leaders need not fear for their lives or US support of their overthrow; but only if they open doors to true evolution of governance in open talks with Representatives from across their national body of stake holders. Promises of amnesty for the worst, to continuation in power for the acceptable (as measured by their own people, not by any foreign body) must be clearly communicated and enforced.

3. Populaces need not either submit to oppression in fear, nor rise up in violent revolution as their two options. They must develop trust (in a no-trust environment) that they can come forward, engage in reasonable ways IAW their custom, to voice grievances and work toward solutions.


But if we get target locked, and slide into violent regime change of Libya, we need to be prepared to do the same thing in the UAE or Jordan, or Saudi Arabia. I don't think we are, as we know it is inappropriate there. News Flash: It is inappropriate in Libya as well.

This is either a tremendous opportunity to make these three North African revolts into the lever that finally allows us to move the GWOT forward; or it is the pit we fall into trapped by our old ways and make the GWOT worse. That is not something any GCC should hold in their hands, particularly if they don't even realize they are holding it.

Dayuhan
03-22-2011, 11:56 AM
How is it possible that there is doubt whether Gaddafi is a legitimate target or not? Ends up with General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff getting slapped down for stating on TV that:

The yanks also seem to be a bit vague on the matter.

Mike could clarify, but I believe that specifically targeting a foreign head of state has certain legal implications, at least under US law.


The attacks on the air defence system are already a (predictable) stretch.

Essential, and therefore predictable. The Pentagon made it clear from the start that a no-fly zone and the use of air power to protect civilians from ground attack would require attacks on air defenses. Not reasonable to put aircraft and pilots in harm's way without taking the most elementary steps necessary to keep them as safe as possible.

omarali50
03-22-2011, 02:59 PM
Obama has been really snookered on this one. Its a terrible mistake, though the human cost may still be low if someone does shoot Gaddafi in the head soon.
Forget the left wing objections, this doesnt even pass the plutocracy's tests. What money will America's elite make off this half-assed and confused "intervention"?
And of course, its as blatantly unconstitutional as most other wars since forever..

Bill Moore
03-22-2011, 04:15 PM
Posted by Bob's World


Hopefully the US keeps (or puts?) its eye on the big picture. For the US, Libya is not about Libya. Once we lose that perspective and get sucked into operations in Libya for Libya's sake we are screwed.

But once we give a problem to the military such "target fixation" and tactical focus becomes inevitable.

Couldn't agree more, and one more beat on my drum about our inability to develop and implement strategy at the national level. At best national leaders come up with a policy, and then it is developed into a strategy by the GCC (almost entirely military) and as stated it becomes all about target fixation. We can always hope that we'll have desirable 2d and 3d order effects that impact the bigger picture, but after watching this unfold in the open press for a few days now it does appear to be somewhat aimless and confused.

Fuchs
03-22-2011, 05:02 PM
The Pentagon made it clear from the start that a no-fly zone and the use of air power to protect civilians from ground attack would require attacks on air defenses. Not reasonable to put aircraft and pilots in harm's way without taking the most elementary steps necessary to keep them as safe as possible.

I disagree. The DEAD (destruction enemy air defences) phase has become a custom, it was no necessity. Most of those air defence missiles are 1960's vintage, they could probably not even kill civilian aircraft any more.

If someone had challenged me to fly in a Learjet over those air defences in a 1 € : 1 million € bet, I would have accepted. To survive the landing would have been the biggest challenge to me.

Bob's World
03-22-2011, 05:25 PM
I disagree. The DEAD (destruction enemy air defences) phase has become a custom, it was no necessity. Most of those air defence missiles are 1960's vintage, they could probably not even kill civilian aircraft any more.

If someone had challenged me to fly in a Learjet over those air defences in a 1 € : 1 million € bet, I would have accepted. To survive the landing would have been the biggest challenge to me.

Rapid Deceleration can be a bitch. I recall as a cadet some Blackhat sharing that some large percentage, like 95% of airborne injuries are caused by impact with the ground. "no Sh*$", I thought.

but you are right. This is the air version of everyone in 90 lbs of body armor and riding in big fat MRAPs. But what civilian is going to challenge a DOD assessent by a commander who demands these actions to protect his troops? It is a culture internal to Dod that has gotten out of control.

slapout9
03-22-2011, 05:46 PM
Couldn't agree more, and one more beat on my drum about our inability to develop and implement strategy at the national level. At best national leaders come up with a policy, and then it is developed into a strategy by the GCC (almost entirely military) and as stated it becomes all about target fixation. We can always hope that we'll have desirable 2d and 3d order effects that impact the bigger picture, but after watching this unfold in the open press for a few days now it does appear to be somewhat aimless and confused.

Yes, what we appear to be doing is using Airpower to set the conditions of victory for the Rebel forces. We established Air Superiority, relieved pressure on the ground force and now we should pound his(Daffy's) Logistics. All while hoping for Robin Hood to appear and consolidate the Rebels, allow them to kill Daffy and his thugs (not us) and establish some type of future Government acceptable to all parties. Unfortunately as they say "Hope" is not a course of action or much of a Strategy.

J Wolfsberger
03-22-2011, 06:40 PM
If someone had challenged me to fly in a Learjet over those air defences in a 1 € : 1 million € bet, I would have accepted. To survive the landing would have been the biggest challenge to me.

However, you are suggesting we bet the lives of U.S. and allied pilots. Not one many of us are willing to take.

On the other hand, asking us to bet your life would be fine. :D

(And any landing is just a controlled crash you walked away from. :eek:)

Fuchs
03-22-2011, 06:41 PM
However, you are suggesting we bet the lives of U.S. and allied pilots. Not one many of us are willing to take.


Really? Then why are they flying at all?
Even the launch of a cruise missile from a ship entails some risk. Think of circle-running torpedoes...

slapout9
03-22-2011, 06:50 PM
On the other hand, asking us to bet your life would be fine. :D



Yes, he should really go try his theory out:D:D:D

Entropy
03-22-2011, 08:06 PM
I disagree. The DEAD (destruction enemy air defences) phase has become a custom, it was no necessity. Most of those air defence missiles are 1960's vintage, they could probably not even kill civilian aircraft any more.

If someone had challenged me to fly in a Learjet over those air defences in a 1 € : 1 million € bet, I would have accepted. To survive the landing would have been the biggest challenge to me.

Personally, I wouldn't make that bet with you because dead men usually don't pay their debts.

Seriously though, it's a question of degree. If you're suggesting that we can simply ignore the air defenses because they are old, then you'd be flat wrong. However, it's not necessary to completely destroy the entire air defense system either. At a bare minimum you'd have to destroy the SA-5 sites to protect the AWACs and tankers. You'd probably want to take out the other longer-ranged SAMs - otherwise you are going to need SEAD aircraft available whenever you've got aircraft flying in threat envelopes and you're not going to fly certain types of aircraft in those envelopes at all (specifically ISR).

At the end of the day, simply ignoring weapons systems that you know are going to be shooting at you and assuming they can't shoot you down seems both arrogant and dumb.

Stan
03-22-2011, 08:36 PM
I disagree. The DEAD (destruction enemy air defences) phase has become a custom, it was no necessity. Most of those air defence missiles are 1960's vintage, they could probably not even kill civilian aircraft any more.

If someone had challenged me to fly in a Learjet over those air defences in a 1 € : 1 million € bet, I would have accepted. To survive the landing would have been the biggest challenge to me.

There's a few Russian pilots (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/war-is-absurd-says-russian-pilot-shot-down-over-georgia-898991.html) that would disagree with you. Specifically, 1960s vintage (Russian-manufactured) SAMs that in fact challenged much faster and higher-flying aircraft than some Lear 40 or 85.

I somehow doubt our western pilots want much to do with those conditions, and, I really doubt the current OIC wants anything to do with explaining why he/she didn't see it coming. :D


Really? Then why are they flying at all?
Even the launch of a cruise missile from a ship entails some risk. Think of circle-running torpedoes...

BTW, the aircraft are just a tad expensive (to simply entail some "risk") !!!

Entropy
03-22-2011, 08:59 PM
It looks like the DEAD campaign didn't destroy everything. I haven't seen anything to indicate the sites near Sabha were hit, nor the sites in rebel-controlled areas.

Surferbeetle
03-22-2011, 09:16 PM
And Libya goes on Post # 458 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=118004&postcount=458)


But if we get target locked, and slide into violent regime change of Libya, we need to be prepared to do the same thing in the UAE or Jordan, or Saudi Arabia. I don't think we are, as we know it is inappropriate there. News Flash: It is inappropriate in Libya as well.

vs.

And Libya goes on Post # 36 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=116978&postcount=36)


Meanwhile to merely wait and see who wins is the worst coa for the west. If Qaddafi wins, he will repay the lack of support in kind. If the rebels win without the west's help, they are all the more likely to lean toward AQ, MB and other Islamist UW groups who have been working this populace hard for years.

There is no need to launch an air campaign against Libyan government forces, but certainly we should be postured to make that a credible threat to lend support to messages encouraging the military to either remain neutral or switch sides. Mercenaries fight for pay, locking down as much of the government's money and messaging the same may have some effect there. Some degree of UW should also be on the table as an option, be it direct or indirect, physical or virtual, CIA or SF.

Maybe that super PSYOP guy from LTG Caldwell's staff can work some mindbender stuff up as well now that he is no longer employed brainwashing congressional delegates in Kabul...:)

Fuchs
03-22-2011, 09:28 PM
There's a few Russian pilots (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/war-is-absurd-says-russian-pilot-shot-down-over-georgia-898991.html) that would disagree with you.

Georgia used SA-11 (Buk) to down Russian combat aircraft - that's a 1984 introduction system, far ahead of what Libya has. The Georgians furthermore did at least some training - not exactly what the Libyan forces are reputed to have done.

The onboard ESM of all Western combat aircraft should suffice against the most likely ill-maintained, ill-operated 1960's technology monkey model air defence of Libya.
If not - invite the arms industry executives and air force generals to an afternoon of taser product endurance demonstrations.

Stan
03-22-2011, 09:53 PM
Georgia used SA-11 (Buk) to down Russian combat aircraft - that's a 1984 introduction system, far ahead of what Libya has. The Georgians furthermore did at least some training - not exactly what the Libyan forces are reputed to have done.

The onboard ESM of all Western combat aircraft should suffice against the most likely ill-maintained, ill-operated 1960's technology monkey model air defence of Libya.
If not - invite the arms industry executives and air force generals to an afternoon of taser product endurance demonstrations.

The modern day Lada looks different with its sexy rounded fenders and tail lights, but at the end of the day it’s still just a limited and revamped platform from the 60s.
While we can argue that their inventory is constrained by Soviet-era systems and single-engagement radar, it still comes down to risk and cost of conflict.

"Should suffice" doesn't sound like a military term for limiting rules of engagement :rolleyes:

BTW, I believe the SA-11 is circa 1972 high tech and the majority of Georgians fled their posts !

Fuchs
03-22-2011, 10:19 PM
The Georgians used two different SAM systems, both of them originated in the mid-80's and were far ahead fo for example IHAWK, which is far ahead of the crap used by the Libyans.

The crap in the Libyan inventory is the crap that was defeated again and again since the 70's. Every single fighter ECM system in the Western hemisphere is supposed to defeat this crap, especially if the crap is ill-maintained, operated by ill-trained and unexperienced crews, positions are static for decades and thus known etc etc etc.

If Western Air forces really need a DEAD phase first against such so-called "air defences", then it's about time to invite some generals and the arms industry executives and ...

Entropy
03-22-2011, 10:25 PM
Fuchs,

Not all aircraft have ESM suites. ESM suites have limitations which is why they are never used alone. Just because a system is old doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. I seem to recall that the F-117 that was lost over Serbia was shot down by an SA-3.

Libya's air defense is (was) pretty crappy, but the idea that coalition aircraft can simply ignore it is laughable.

Fuchs
03-22-2011, 10:34 PM
The SA-3 was tuned, the operators were competent, the pilot was careless, the F-117 is unable of kinematic evasion manoeuvres, the F-117 stealth concept was not really effective against the wavelength used by the radar, the F-117 had no active ECM, hilly terrain shielded radar emitters against long-range detectors and a MiG was said to have been involved, too.


The Libyan air defence sites on the other hand are likely decoy-grade material.


... the idea that coalition aircraft can simply ignore it is laughable.

You do know that standard strike fighters cane easily carry a HARM or two, right?

JMA
03-22-2011, 10:38 PM
Georgia used SA-11 (Buk) to down Russian combat aircraft - that's a 1984 introduction system, far ahead of what Libya has. The Georgians furthermore did at least some training - not exactly what the Libyan forces are reputed to have done.

The onboard ESM of all Western combat aircraft should suffice against the most likely ill-maintained, ill-operated 1960's technology monkey model air defence of Libya.
If not - invite the arms industry executives and air force generals to an afternoon of taser product endurance demonstrations.

I believe the West has accepted that the human frailties pilots bring to any air war is the reason why the future will be unmanned aircraft.

Whether the current crop of pilots would refuse to fly unless all the air defences have been have been neutralized or not is not certain. I certainly hope it is not the case as it certainly was not for the first sorties the French flew in the East.

Cruise missiles remain the first weapons of use in my opinion.

However it seems we have now reached the point where precision strikes are now needed on ceasefire breaking Gaddafi forces attacking various towns/cities. This is an altogether more difficult air operation.

JMA
03-22-2011, 10:55 PM
The Georgians used two different SAM systems, both of them originated in the mid-80's and were far ahead fo for example IHAWK, which is far ahead of the crap used by the Libyans.

The crap in the Libyan inventory is the crap that was defeated again and again since the 70's. Every single fighter ECM system in the Western hemisphere is supposed to defeat this crap, especially if the crap is ill-maintained, operated by ill-trained and unexperienced crews, positions are static for decades and thus known etc etc etc.

If Western Air forces really need a DEAD phase first against such so-called "air defences", then it's about time to invite some generals and the arms industry executives and ...

Your comments are well noted.

I would add that the announcement of the use of 112 Tomahawk missiles on 20 air defence related sites was clearly a mistake. It freaked the faint hearted out with the scale of it all.

Why not just say that "a number" of air defence sites were attacked with "precision munitions". I note they seem to have become more circumspect in what they announce more recently which is a lesson that surely did not need to be re-learned?

Now we have reached the other extreme where today's briefing by a Maj-Gen Lorimer - head of communications for the Brit MoD is so bland as to contain little other than a few propaganda points (about a mosque having been destroyed). (I guess you know your soldiering career is over when you reach the rank of Maj-Gen and get appointed as a government "spin doctor".)

JMA
03-22-2011, 11:05 PM
Libya's air defense is (was) pretty crappy, but the idea that coalition aircraft can simply ignore it is laughable.

Fuchs said that modern ECM would easily defeat the range of missiles Libya has. He said nothing about ignoring them.

How does your Serbian example relate to Libya?

JMA
03-22-2011, 11:15 PM
SAS 'Smash' squads on the ground in Libya to mark targets for coalition jets (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368247/Libya-SAS-smash-squads-ground-mark-targets-coalition-jets.html)


SAS teams are on the ground in Libya with orders to pinpoint and destroy Colonel Gaddafi’s weapons. Dozens of the crack troops have been operating behind enemy lines to identify targets for bombing raids. Highly-trained units, known as ‘Smash’ teams for their prowess and destructive ability, have carried out secret reconnaissance missions to provide up-to-date information on the Libyan armed forces.

JMA
03-22-2011, 11:42 PM
I'm dubious but we'll see.

Dubious about what?

That the No-Fly-Zone and the relief of Benghazi was over in days?

Or that the "structure" to which the US hands over command will screw it up?

Ken White
03-23-2011, 01:05 AM
Dubious about what?

That the No-Fly-Zone and the relief of Benghazi was over in days?Was? No was to it, still going on and likely to be for a while -- so I am dubious about your "The saving grace of course is that the military will step in, wrap it up in a few days..." Quite dubious, in fact. ;)
Or that the "structure" to which the US hands over command will screw it up?No doubt about that at all. Coalitions always do, nature of the beast. Not much sense ever expecting much else. :wry:

Entropy
03-23-2011, 01:22 AM
Fuchs said that modern ECM would easily defeat the range of missiles Libya has. He said nothing about ignoring them.

How does your Serbian example relate to Libya?

On the first point, Fuchs began by saying that Libyan air defenses were so weak, he'd be willing to fly a commercial learjet through them. Then he said that self-protection ECM pods would protect the aircraft, so there's still no need to attack the air defense network. Now he's saying that aircraft can just carry harm. Well, if the air defense system can't shoot down a unarmed learjet, why would coalition aircraft need ecm much less harm? Maybe Fuchs will enlighten us.

The fact is that not every aircraft has ecm and not every aircraft can carry harm. And really, if you're at the point where you find the threat great enough to make it necessary to load every aircraft with a harm for self-defense, then why not simply attack the system and take it out? Especially considering that many aircraft needed for operations over Libya are equal to a learjet in terms of defensive systems.

Regarding Serbia, I was pointing out that the age of a particular weapon system is only part of it's total capability. Dismissing "1960's" technology with a casual hand-wave and making dubious capabilities assumptions is a mistake.

And really, this whole line of argument is silly. The Libyan air defense system is gonna get taken out one way or another. Fuch's argument is that taking out the system is a "stretch" of the UN mandate. I suppose the alternative is to fly aircraft near every radar and SAM site (wild weasel style), wait for the radars to illuminate, invoke the inherent right to self defense, and then blow them all up. Maybe we could use Fuchs in his learjet as bait ;)

Surferbeetle
03-23-2011, 01:30 AM
Dr. March Lynch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Lynch), at NPR, in a 22 March 2011 interview with Terry Gross on the subject, Why Libya Matters To The Middle East's Future (http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=134760674)


If Gadhafi survives, it sends a message to every dictator in the region that force pays, that the way to stay on the throne is to shoot your people if they protest, and the international community really won't do anything about it. And that sends a powerful message both to the dictators and to the people. That's the real stakes in the region.


One of the legacies of Gadhafi's rule is that he almost completely crushed civil society. And that means that we don't have political parties or trade unions or civil society organizations, human rights organizations; the sorts of people and organizations and institutions that we could see as potential leaders in some kind of new post-Gadhafi Libya. So our starting point of knowledge is very, very low.


One of the lines I've heard the most often in the Arab media and talking to people is: No-fly zone over Libya, that's nice. Where was the no-fly zone over Gaza? And all of these things come together into a powerful counter-narrative, which basically says that yes, we want the West to help, but the minute we start seeing American troops on the ground or Western bombs killing innocent Libyan civilians, then all of a sudden that's not acceptable.


When you say Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, flip from supporting the no-fly zone to complaining about the bombing, that's exactly what I'm talking about, where he's looking at it and saying: Well, as long as it was a costless, cheap intervention, that's fine, but when you have Western troops suddenly actually attacking an Arab country, that then brings us back into Iraq territory.

Just today, Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, who has an extremely gifted ear for Arab opinion, and he's become one of the most popular leaders in the Arab world, just today he gave a speech in parliament where he warned about the West going to war for Libyan oil.

And I think that right now, Arab opinion, which was very enthusiastic about an intervention to protect the Libyan people, is already starting to teeter on that edge of having the fears of another Iraq outweigh their desire for helping the Libyan people.


Basically, the big structural change in the region is that the public is far more empowered than it was before - obviously in places like Tunisia and Egypt, where you've had actual changes of the government - but even in the rest of the region.

The leaders are far more attentive now to what the public wants and what the public things. They have to be because there's so much pressure on them from below, and they don't want to do things now which are going to risk triggering more protests or anger the people.


What happened in Bahrain is just another example of how what started as this big, grand narrative of peaceful, popular uprisings against autocracy has been diverted into different kinds of stories.

So if Libya gets turned into civil war and intervention, in Bahrain what's happened is it's turned into sectarianism and a really nasty resurgence of the Iranian-Saudi Cold War.


And once that framing kicked in, you saw this spreading through the entire region so that now you have major Shia figures, like Ali Sistani in Iraq and Hassan Nasrallah in - the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, now weighing in on the side of the Shia in Bahrain; and major Sunni figures such as Yusafa Qaradawi, who is the Islamist figure on al-Jazeera, weighing in on the side of the Sunnis.

Ken White
03-23-2011, 04:17 AM
LINK (http://www.videonewslive.com/view/545064/dissent_in_syria).

Click on the "Launch the Video manually" link up top. It's a CNN Video but CNN in the US doesn't carry it -- which in itself is interesting...

More: LINK (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=668659&publicationSubCategoryId=200).

JMA
03-23-2011, 06:29 AM
Was? No was to it, still going on and likely to be for a while -- so I am dubious about your "The saving grace of course is that the military will step in, wrap it up in a few days..." Quite dubious, in fact. ;)No doubt about that at all. Coalitions always do, nature of the beast. Not much sense ever expecting much else. :wry:

Maybe you missed it but everyone (except you apparently) now agrees that the NFZ is in place and effective (and was from day two). So keeping it that way be expensive and boring (for the pilots). Was rather simple wasn't it?

Maybe not even worth the cost of 130 or so Tomahawk missiles and other ordinance the use of which seems to have drawn criticism from the Arab League, African Union, Russia, China and other odd bods.

Still would have recommended using the three cruise missiles routine right up front. Would have saved a lot of lives and a lot of money.

BTW any idea why you think the Gaddafi controlled TV and radio is still on the air?

Dayuhan
03-23-2011, 06:43 AM
The debate over whether the initial strike were too much or too little, and how they were presented, and what the faint-hearted or the pathologically critical might have thought... well, it all seems pretty pointless to me.

No matter what the US and the other engaged parties did, including nothing, would have gotten somebody, somewhere, very upset. There's no way we could please everybody,and we didn't. Not a huge problem. If people want us to do this stuff, they need to accept that this is the way we do it. If you don't like the way we do it, ask somebody else to do it, or live with the consequences of it not getting done. Obviously we accept that our pilots are taking risks. Obviously we are going to do everything we reasonably can to minimize and control those risks. If there's going be a military intervention in a case like this, stuff will get broken and people will get killed. We will do everything in our power to make sure it's not our stuff and our people.

I agree with the US administration that this dog needs to be turned over to somebody else at the earliest possible opportunity. We did what we went to do in accordance with our stated policies and principles, we have no major interests in play, and there's no further need for us to be involved. There's little indication that either MG or the rebels has the capacity to rule the place, and it's likely to turn into a quagmire of the first order. We've enough of those on our plate already.

JMA
03-23-2011, 06:44 AM
Dr. March Lynch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Lynch), at NPR, in a 22 March 2011 interview with Terry Gross on the subject, Why Libya Matters To The Middle East's Future (http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=134760674)

You quoted:


If Gadhafi survives, it sends a message to every dictator in the region that force pays, that the way to stay on the throne is to shoot your people if they protest, and the international community really won't do anything about it. And that sends a powerful message both to the dictators and to the people. That's the real stakes in the region.

It started before and he is just following the proven example of Mugabe and other thugs. Why does anyone think Gbagbo has decided to flip the UN, the US and the world the finger?

If Libya turns out to be the turning point then the effort for that purpose alone will have been worthwhile IMHO.

What the international community needs to figure out is how to apply the right amount of pressure to force reform or dictators from office and not through ignorance read into many of these situations a greater amount of force and forces needed to shift these dictators. I believe it will be seen that this whole effort in Libya has been hugely over specified (draw criticism from a wide range of countries) and yet there are still towns and cities under attack.

JMA
03-23-2011, 06:59 AM
On the first point, Fuchs began by saying that Libyan air defenses were so weak, he'd be willing to fly a commercial learjet through them. Then he said that self-protection ECM pods would protect the aircraft, so there's still no need to attack the air defense network. Now he's saying that aircraft can just carry harm. Well, if the air defense system can't shoot down a unarmed learjet, why would coalition aircraft need ecm much less harm? Maybe Fuchs will enlighten us.

The fact is that not every aircraft has ecm and not every aircraft can carry harm. And really, if you're at the point where you find the threat great enough to make it necessary to load every aircraft with a harm for self-defense, then why not simply attack the system and take it out? Especially considering that many aircraft needed for operations over Libya are equal to a learjet in terms of defensive systems.

Regarding Serbia, I was pointing out that the age of a particular weapon system is only part of it's total capability. Dismissing "1960's" technology with a casual hand-wave and making dubious capabilities assumptions is a mistake.

And really, this whole line of argument is silly. The Libyan air defense system is gonna get taken out one way or another. Fuch's argument is that taking out the system is a "stretch" of the UN mandate. I suppose the alternative is to fly aircraft near every radar and SAM site (wild weasel style), wait for the radars to illuminate, invoke the inherent right to self defense, and then blow them all up. Maybe we could use Fuchs in his learjet as bait ;)

Yes let him explain further. I read his comments to mean that the real risk from these antiquated ground to air weapons has been overrated. I would tend to agree (in the case of Tripoli) and even more so that the magnitude of the strikes was so widely publicised and that the military airfield runways had been cratered.

So other than for a show of force or to locate radar why would allied aircraft need to over fly Tripoli right now? And if they did they would need to be aware that it would possibly be opposed.

Fuchs said this destruction of air defences was becoming the norm rather than it being a real necessity. In the case of obsolescent weapons this may well be true. If he used a radical example to illustrate his point... humour him and don't let that obstruct from his essential point.

So maybe spending a billion on Tomahawks to make make pilots a little safer when the real risk in the first place (according to Fuchs) was not that great anyway does not make a lot of sense really.

Surferbeetle
03-23-2011, 07:53 AM
Hey JMA,


It started before and he is just following the proven example of Mugabe and other thugs. Why does anyone think Gbagbo has decided to flip the UN, the US and the world the finger?

As an American I sometimes wonder why the African Union and Arab League are not leading the way with regards to COL G and others of his ilk. All of us here at SWJ are aware, however, that the realities of the world often differ from what we might wish them to be...:wry:

Several African Leaders Criticize Air Attacks in Libya (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Several-African-Leaders-Criticize-Air-Attacks-in-Libya-118435599.html), March 22, 2011, Scott Bobb | Johannesburg, at Voice of America


South Africa, one of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, voted for the resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.


South African President Jacob Zuma called for an immediate cease-fire in Libya and said his government would not support any foreign effort to overthrow the government of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, which has been battling an eastern-based insurgency for the past month.

"As South Africa we say no to the killing of civilians, no to the regime-change doctrine and no to the foreign occupation of Libya or any other sovereign state," Zuma said.

FACTBOX-Libyan aid and investment projects in Africa (http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE6AI0ZS20101124), Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:34pm GMT, at Reuters


Libya is using money from oil exports to pour aid and investment into its African neighbours, a policy which diplomats and analysts say gives it increasing political clout on the continent.

The following is a selection of the initiatives Libya has already put in place in Africa, as well as some of the projects it is planning.


Libya is one of the biggest contributors to the budget of the African Union, the 53-country body which is supposed to function along the lines of the European Union. A senior Libyan diplomat told Reuters Libya is one of five countries -- the others are Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa -- which cover 75 percent of the union's budget. "Libya ... makes its full required contribution to AU funds. Not all countries do and that buys it influence," a senior African Union official said.


If Libya turns out to be the turning point then the effort for that purpose alone will have been worthwhile IMHO.

Let's hope for the best, however, we soldiers have an obligation to be clear-eyed and honest about what the probable outcomes are. IMHO the NFZ in Libya has a high probability of escalating into something more costly :cool:


What the international community needs to figure out is how to apply the right amount of pressure to force reform or dictators from office and not through ignorance read into many of these situations a greater amount of force and forces needed to shift these dictators. I believe it will be seen that this whole effort in Libya has been hugely over specified (draw criticism from a wide range of countries) and yet there are still towns and cities under attack.

IMHO the international community has to equally share the burden of policing and fixing our broken world. Continually asking the US to solve the majority of the world's problems is not a realistic solution.

Steve

Dayuhan
03-23-2011, 09:04 AM
IMHO the international community has to equally share the burden of policing and fixing our broken world. Continually asking the US to solve the majority of the world's problems is not a realistic solution.Steve

Agree.

It's easy to wonder why the cops don't do something, and to criticize whatever they do when they do do something, when someone else is sending the cops, and paying for it.

The criticism over the harshness of the initial strike sounds uncannily like the chorus of "why didn't he just shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand, like they do in the movies?" or "why did they have to shoot to kill?" that invariably follows police use of lethal force.

I'm not sure that the use of externally applied force should be a default response to the world's problems in any event. Tends to promote a certain degree of dependence, and does not encourage local solutions. A last resort it should be... IMHO, of course.

PS: It's perfectly natural and predictable for Arab politicians to straddle the fence and try to play both sides, just as it is for the Italians, who will want to buy oil from Libya no matter who wins, to do the same. Their fence straddling does not mean there was necessarily a wrong course of action taken: somebody would have howled no matter what was done.

Fuchs
03-23-2011, 09:59 AM
And really, this whole line of argument is silly. The Libyan air defense system is gonna get taken out one way or another. Fuch's argument is that taking out the system is a "stretch" of the UN mandate. I suppose the alternative is to fly aircraft near every radar and SAM site (wild weasel style), wait for the radars to illuminate, invoke the inherent right to self defense, and then blow them all up.

Those air defences consist of electronic components. They have been out there, in the desert or half-desert, for decades. 20-6°C at day, down to freezing temperatures in the night. The reason why there's only sand and gravel is weathering under such conditions.
The chance that the electronics of search, command, track/illumination AND missile components are still operational after more than three decades of such conditions is marginal. There are too many points for potential failure, and no reason for the assumption that their operators cared enough to track down all defects and compensate for them in the past. Even well-maintained Western air defence systems can become marginally useful after such a long time. The SA-5 even uses a liquid-fuel sustainer rocket. Lybia has no liquid fuel production capacity, right? Those liquid fuels - any guess how long it can be stored? A few months like the similarly old Scud rocket fuel from the same country?

The blindly firing 57mm guns are probably a greater threat than the museum pieces of missile air defences.


On the first point, Fuchs began by saying that Libyan air defenses were so weak, he'd be willing to fly a commercial learjet through them. Then he said that self-protection ECM pods would protect the aircraft, so there's still no need to attack the air defense network. Now he's saying that aircraft can just carry harm. Well, if the air defense system can't shoot down a unarmed learjet, why would coalition aircraft need ecm much less harm? Maybe Fuchs will enlighten us.

Sure. A single jet is less threatening than an air campaign, in fact I could even use the civilian transponder signal for good effect. A taped radio message from a paid exile Lybian would be prepared, too. I wouldn't need to necessarily fly everywhere to win that bet, but could choose a route that doesn't come more close to the known batteries than half their nominal range (or if I did, I'd do it at service ceiling, much above preferred A/G mission altitude), excluding only a few square kilometres of the huge coastal area of Libya.
There are some advantages in flying a Learjet once over a Strike Eagle. Remember Matthias Rust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_rust).

On the other hand, all NATO combat aircraft should have internal radar warning receiver, internal or external ECM, the kinematics to defeat detected 60's missiles and the ability to launch either HARM or Alarm. That's simply standard state of the art. It makes no sense to burden strike fighters like this if you don't trust this equipment to handle the least capable air defences, though.

My point was that the DEAD phase has become a custom and was not necessary. In other words: I accused many, many people to have bought into a playbook and to think that it's the only way to do business.


Now I'll attempt a wake-up call: Tell me the air services you know which have the cruise missiles or the Wild Weasels for a DEAD phase in American style.

My list for cruise missiles:
USAF, USN, RN
to a much lesser degree RAF, Swedish Air Force, AdA

My list for dedicated Wild Weasels:
USN (Growler), Luftwaffe (Tornado ECR), Aeronautica Militare (Tornado ECR)
Not sure about IAF. Not sure whether the Russians still operate MiG-25BM.

All else could not do more than what would be done after a DEAD phase anyway; attach ECM pod (if there's no internal one), attach one or two ARMs (if available, that list isn't much longer!), attach the A/G and A/A munitions and drop tanks, take off.

In fact,that's even what they would be supposed to do in face of serious air defences.

Fuchs
03-23-2011, 10:04 AM
Also let's keep in mind that many Arabs still think "Sudanese fertilizer factory" or "invasion of Iraq" when they hear "Tomahawk cruise missile".

This conflict was not meant to be business as usual, the military didn't get this.

J Wolfsberger
03-23-2011, 12:19 PM
It's perfectly natural and predictable for Arab politicians to straddle the fence and try to play both sides, just as it is for the Italians, who will want to buy oil from Libya no matter who wins, to do the same. Their fence straddling does not mean there was necessarily a wrong course of action taken: somebody would have howled no matter what was done.

Which is why I think we should have sat this one out. Getting screeched at by the usual cast of characters and not spending billions of dollars for the privilege is far more appealing than getting screeched at by the usual cast of characters and spending billions of dollars for the privilege. I would have much preferred a position along the lines of: "We are saddened by the violence in Libya. However, this is a Libyan problem for the Libyans to solve. Regardless of the outcome, we look forward to resuming normal relations with the victor."

As it is now, I have the feeling we've been suckered into a game of "let's you and him fight." We should have known better.

Entropy
03-23-2011, 01:48 PM
Those air defences consist of electronic components. They have been out there, in the desert or half-desert, for decades....

So your argument is these missiles systems can't possibly be operational because Libya is a desert and Libyan's don't do maintenance? You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I would only point out that declaring something to be so does not make it so.


On the other hand, all NATO combat aircraft should have internal radar warning receiver, internal or external ECM, the kinematics to defeat detected 60's missiles and the ability to launch either HARM or Alarm. That's simply standard state of the art. It makes no sense to burden strike fighters like this if you don't trust this equipment to handle the least capable air defences, though.

As I've pointed out several times now, not all aircraft have defensive systems. And, since this is supposedly a humanitarian mission, there presumably will be civilian aircraft bringing in supplies at some point and they don't have defensive systems either.

Also, ECM is not a silver bullet - ECM pods are designed to work as part of a system and are intended to be used in conjunction with certain tactics as well as other systems (like chaff). It is not intended to be a first-line of defense against radar threats - quite the opposite. Combined with the correct tactics (usually hard maneuvering in a specific profile), they are designed to generate miss-distance from incoming missiles and allow the aircraft to exit the threat envelope. They are not designed for, nor are they capable of, allowing aircraft to operate with impunity inside threat envelopes.


Fuchs said this destruction of air defences was becoming the norm rather than it being a real necessity. In the case of obsolescent weapons this may well be true. If he used a radical example to illustrate his point... humour him and don't let that obstruct from his essential point.

Necessity depends on the context. If you plan on doing an El Dorado Canyon type of raid then it isn't necessary to take out all the air defense. In that case the goal is to create a window of vulnerability to allow a strike package to get ordnance on the targets. That is done with a combination of deception, jamming, saturation, tactics, discrete strikes on key nodes, etc. In that case, Fuch's notion of carrying ECM pods and HARM is appropriate. It's also appropriate for some other contexts, like operating near the FEBA or past the FEBA in an area with mobile and tactical SAMs.

Taking out the air defense system IS necessary if one intends to operate aircraft over a country on a continuous basis for weeks or months at a time. That is the case here with Libya since the entire point is to create a NFZ. The reason is that you can't, as Fuch's suggests, use the equipment and tactics designed for raiding operations in that context. You're going to have aircraft overhead 24/7 and a lot of those aircraft have no defense at all from radar SAM's. You can't reasonably plan every mission to deal with a potential SA-2/3/5's without negatively impacting what you're trying to do. It's not nearly as simple as just strapping on some harm and ecm pods.


I read his comments to mean that the real risk from these antiquated ground to air weapons has been overrated.

I haven't heard anyone suggest that the Libyan air defense system is anything to write home about, and I haven't heard anyone suggest that these old systems are very capable. However, they are not something you can simply ignore either given the needs of this particular mission, which is a 24/7 air presence.

All I can say is that based on what I've seen/read, and my previous experience as an air defense analyst for a unit that does SEAD full-time (EA-6b), I think the actions taken here were appropriate.