And Libya goes on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

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.

To be more precise, we don't have a need to be involved, militarily, in the affairs of Libya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

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?

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.

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?

Quote:

---

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, which apparently began a few days ago with the knowledge and likely encouragement of the U.S.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tequila

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tequila

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, 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.

Draft UN resolution can be found at El Pais

http://www.elpais.com/elpaismedia/ul..._1_Pes_PDF.doc

Update on Post 268.

The IISS panel noted:

1. 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.
   

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ganulv

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.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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. :p

Video from Benghazi, where they apparently have ammunition to burn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

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.