I can do glib. I can also do focus. Give it a try...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
...especially to the crews of the bird or two,
That's focused...:D
Quote:
especially if the bird was a C-17 climbing out of Kandahar with load of wounded soldiers.
That would be most regrettable. Particularly as I've got a son working out of KAF as we write but unfortunately, things like that happen in wars. It goes with the territory. He knows and accepts that and so do I.
Quote:
Preventing that kind of thing seems a real US interest to me.
Of course it does. Regrettably, while it is a minor interest, it is also virtually impossible to prevent that sort of thing. One should try to preclude things like that but this:
Quote:
The cost benefit ratio you can argue with others.
gets in the way of the precluding effort.
It's a question of priorities and of scale. As I mentioned elsewhere yesterday, we kill more people in automobile accidents OR medical misadventures in the US every year than we've had killed in 10 long years of this so-called war on whatever. Rex Brynen's 747 or your C-17 would be bad and unwanted events but either could happen if all the Grinches were scuffed up and accounted for by the French. Conversely, even if none of the missiles were located, those events might not ever occur. You may not like the cost benefit ratio but it must be considered and will be. No need for anyone to argue it, it is what it is and the decision makers are unlikely to listen to me or to you.
I too worry about thing like loose missiles but I can do the math -- and that does not favor putting US forces on the ground in Libya. It does not preclude it but it certainly doesn't make it desirable...
Quote:
It is a US interest.
As you said, it is -- to you. More correctly, it is a US interest that to you merits our intervention on the ground. The problem with which you're confronted is that the planners and policy maker will look upon that as an ancillary issue if there is a decision to send folks in. It is an item to consider if force are there, it is not significant enough to justify a big effort on its own merits. Add all the potential issue and IMO, there is not adequate interest to send troops to Libya. YMMV.
I do not propose to speak for Fuchs but this merits a response based on your perception of my comment.
Quote:
I really don't understand why you think concern about this is irrational.
it's not irrational, it's sensible but like it or not, you bump into the cost-benefit ratio. You're suggesting certain and relatively easily calculated costs and impacts be absorbed to possibly prevent a possible harm. Two possibles don't outweigh a negative.
And now for something completely different
...and then there is the real reason the NTC won: the secret AQ-NATO alliance:
Quote:
Then, a NATO warship sailed up and anchored just off the shore at Tripoli, delivering heavy weapons and debarking Al Qaeda jihadi forces, which were led by NATO officers.
Fighting stared again during the night. There were intense firefights. NATO drones and aircraft kept bombing in all directions. NATO helicopters strafed civilians in the streets with machine guns to open the way for the jihadis.
I thought this was supposed to be kept a secret, dammit! What is it with all the OPSEC violations these days?
Talking past each other again???
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
Please notice that in post #44 I used a phrase something like "are involved in an important way." That means we already paid our dues and have a lot of clout which will make it easier for us to definitely track those missiles down if that can be done...
Sorry for misunderstanding, I took "I imagine it would be easier for us to do that given that we are involved in an important way" as suggesting possible increased involvement and, more pointedly, that only we could or properly should exercise such control.
Quote:
People tend to underestimate the effect of SA-24s getting out could have... That is a big thing. That is a huge thing.
Perspective again. To a Flyer, it is understandably huge. To a grunt, present or former, it's a "Okay, for your clean sheets at night and decent food, you may get shot at with better weapons. Wow. Poor Baby.." That is NOT being glib, that is perspective, exaggerated perspective, hyperbolic perspective but perspective. Nor is it downplaying the capabilities of the Grinch; similar ground oriented capabilities have been available to many since the 70s.
Perhaps as is often the case, the truth wobbles about somewhere between my possible underestimation and your equally possible overestimation. The crux of the matter, I think is that, hopefully, someone responsible; Libyan NTC, British, French, even the US if we do have folks there now (as You Tube suggests... :D ) get control if it is possible -- I hope we can agree on that. We seem to agree that additional US forces are not necessarily required.
SA-24 maybe not a MANPAD?
Carl,
Being a SWC member whose feet stay on the ground I tried to find the cited [quote]Society of Old Crows, ''Of Arrows and Needles''[/quote and found only a 2002 close match, which does not refer to the SA-24. Have you got a link or pointer please?
In searching I found this Aviation Week article:
Quote:
the Libyan Strelets fire Igla-S missiles but they can not be used as man-portable air defense (manpads). “To fire Iglas as a man-portable weapon you need a separate trigger mechanisms that were not supplied to Libya”..
Link:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...f-c98fdf99a7a0
No US boots on the ground at this time...
Post Q-Daffy led Libya has a number of issues, some of which have been covered in the thread to date and some which haven’t. Q-Daffy’s ability to run, hide, and engage the international and Libyan audiences on a number of miso themes speaks to a certain level of internal and external support. Any follow on government will be judged, strength wise, on their ability/inability to capture/judge/exile/kill him and his network. A process limited to the battlefield runs the risk of calling into question the follow on governments commitment to individuals, institutions, and governments being held accountable to law (Sharia, or otherwise). Q-Daffy’s willingness/encouragement to turn off the potable ‘Great Man-Made River’ and disrupt electrical and fuel deliveries speaks to his disregard for the welfare of the people of Libya while simultaneously speaking to the follow-on government’s inability to provide for basic human needs for noncombatants. Where is the GCC or similar with a desalinization plan? Although political instability and certain ideas may be considered catching, while actions taken in Libya might even be judged by actions not taken in Syria, nonetheless there are still a few days of Ramadan left and one would hope the spirit of the times would lead to regional efforts to provide some level of basics to noncombatants. Bodies found of late seem to point to retributionary killings and politically motivated assassinations. Perhaps it not too early to think about, as Rex mentions in a previous post, policing. Partnering with existing forces, vetting, training, and supervising police forces are very political activities that ideally would have civilian (not military if it can be avoided) primacy. Ideally the follow on government needs to provide just policing service; however previous multinational/regional policing models used in Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Cambodia, and El Salvador might be something to look at. The Economist 2011 world in figures provides a figure of 93.2 billion USD for Libya’s 2008 GDP. This estimate covers the legal economy and does not address the magnitude nor the incentives of the illicit economy. As always, there are many more items to think about, but from my armchair the overall trend at this time points toward Libyan civilian primacy being needed to solve Libyan problems.
As to control of Q-Daffy’s armaments, open source reporting seems to indicate that the ‘international community’ have taken the lessons of Iraq to heart; which is a very good thing to see. :D
US Tactics in Libya May Be a Model for Other Efforts
US Tactics in Libya May Be a Model for Other Efforts
Entry Excerpt:
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Libya could be the last place where the West is allowed to intervene
A interesting commentary from RUSI's main expert on the action taken; which ends with:
Quote:
In Paris, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy will find themselves feted by the Libyans. They may even find time for a few self-congratulatory moments. But growing powers have growing vetoes. Further down the road, it is these states that will write the rules of the game and set its tacit expectations. Advocates of full-throated humanitarian intervention should not be surprised if Libya is one of its last hurrahs.
Apart from the theme some interesting points, e.g. the Chinese and Indian presence.
United now, for how long?
A long title 'Post-Gaddafi Libya: a police force trained by Britain; and an Islamist militia backed by Qatar' and just a short article:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ro...cked-by-qatar/
A little detail on the UK's help:http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=6287
Abdel Hakim Belhaj appears
Now you may ask who is this man, who is the commander of the Tripoli Brigade?
Quote:
Mr Belhaj was a leader in the now dissolved Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which sent fighters to Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he was detained in 2004 in Malaysia and sent to a secret prison in Thailand, where CIA agents tortured him. Then he was sent by the United States to Libya and sentenced to death by Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi's regime, before his release last year.
Quote:
Libya is a moderate Muslim country. We call and hope for a civil country that is ruled by the law, which we were not allowed to enjoy under Gaddafi. The religious identity of the country will be left up to the people to choose. The February 17th revolution is the Libyan people's revolution, and no-one can claim it, neither secularists nor Islamists. No-one can make Libya suffer any more under any one ideology, or any one regime.
Link:http://www.scotsman.com/news/Rebel-l...?articlepage=1
The story is on the web, with many similar versions; Wikipedia has a very slim entry.