And Libya goes on...

[Fuchs]

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.

And none of them needs to fly into the engagement envelope of any Libyan air defence battery anyway. That's only an issue for strike fighters which engage heavy ground combat systems in order to 'protect civilians'.

[J Wolfsberger]

And none of them needs to fly into the engagement envelope of any Libyan air defence battery anyway.

True, if the loyalists are gracious enough to site the air defense batteries where we'd like them to be. Otherwise, arbitrarily declaring where we do and don't need to fly on the basis of the presence of ADA doesn't strike me as making much sense.

That's only an issue for strike fighters which engage heavy ground combat systems in order to 'protect civilians'.

And - no. It's an issue for air superiority fighters engaging aircraft flying ground attack missions - to get them to break off or shoot them down in order to protect the civilians who might be living in what the loyalists decide to declare a target.

It's also an issue for air superiority fighters engaging the loyalists' air superiority fighters. No, I don't think the Libyan air force would or will pose a serious threat. But I also think that assuming that all the loyalists pilots are stupid, cowardly or lazy is not a Good Idea.

I agree that this whole adventure is poorly thought out, probably shouldn't have occurred and will almost certainly turn out badly (and I would be delighted to have events prove my assessment wrong). But there are a lot of better reasons and ways to challenge it than specious, information free argument by conjecture and supposition regarding whether or not to take out the opponents ADA before flying over his territory. Not doing so is a very stupid risk to run, and arguing that the risk should be taken isn't serious.

[Fuchs]

Neither nor.

Gadaffi has lost enough territory for safely supplying all the major resistance centres by air, far away from the moderately ranged SAMs.

Similar point about the CAP; AMRAAM clearly outranges the air defence sites, so it would be easy and safe to intercept an A/G mission with AMRAAMs even if said A/G mission was taking place on top of a functional SAM site of any kind.

[Steve Blair]

Similar point about the CAP; AMRAAM clearly outranges the air defence sites, so it would be easy and safe to intercept an A/G mission with AMRAAMs even if said A/G mission was taking place on top of a functional SAM site of any kind.

Perhaps, but these days you're not especially likely to see BVR engagements without some sort of visual identification of the target.

[Stan]

And none of them needs to fly into the engagement envelope of any Libyan air defence battery anyway. That's only an issue for strike fighters which engage heavy ground combat systems in order to 'protect civilians'.

Most of us would probably try and see your salient points if:

1. You were a veteran fighter pilot who frequently escaped near-death experiences with vintage SAMs and lived to tell about it
2. You were a senior officer or NCO with years of service on the dark continent (transiting airports does not count)
3. You were an AWAKS driver
4. You were a president or foreign minister with years behind the helm intentionally making decisions that put people in harm's way and prepared to back your Bravo Sierra with your reputation
5. Own and fly a Learjet
6. All of the above

Since you probably are not any of the above, your opinions are not well grounded and putting mucho cash and people at risk defending your opinion is a bit hard to swallow.

[Fuchs]

Hmm, personal background instead of argument?

Maybe I should tell you a tale about the great qualification of some Mr. Udet and some Mr. Göring in air war, both being aces and all - they still got almost everything wrong. Göring was especially known for brushing aside arguments with references to his superior experience.

I think your method is systematically flawed.

- - - - -

Many arguments were held back on my part because they're unlikely to resonate in this environment, but since you refer to lives put at risk, I will -as an observer from a neutral country- nevertheless now pull out some of those arguments:

In worst case a nasty surprise by Libyan air defence effectiveness may cost about five pilots' lives.

Meanwhile, the cruise missile strike has -if the positions weren't abandoned anyway- likely killed about 20-200 men. As a neutral observer, I cannot ignore these costs of war so perfectly as you do.

- - - - -

There's also a more general theme about elegance in warfare (sounds weird, but "elegance" is really about reducing something to the necessary extent). The lack of attention to elegance has grossly increased costs of warfare and defence policy in general. I do more than just suspect a very widespread negligence here, and this topic is merely a symptom of it.
To make the point about elegance properly would require a two-page article, though. It's not a good topic for a forum reply and I don't expect anyone to understand this point.



edit:
There was recently a speech of Obama about the Libya crisis. He said "...the U.S. will stand up for ... the dignity of all people."
Well, where I come from, "dignity (in this case apparently meaning ~"Menschenwürde") means a lot, and killing several people in favour of reducing the risk to one or two own people is not understood to being the same as "to stand up for the dignity of all people".

Maybe - just maybe - people here could get away from business as usual with its "victory" focus, accept that this time it's really about being the "good ones", not about pursuit of "interests" - and think accordingly.

[Entropy]

Fuchs,

The problem with your arguments, in my view, is that your credibility suffers when you offer a series of contradictory arguments in support of the same conclusion. Variously you've suggested that the Libyan air defense system is no threat at all, that it's a threat that can be mitigated by ECM and HARM, and finally that it's a threat that can be mitigated by avoidance. The Libyan air defense system cannot be essentially harmless and, at the same time, enough of a threat to require specialized equipment and/or avoidance. Which is it? Please pick one and at least be consistent. It's hard to have a rational debate with someone who changes the supporting "facts" and assumptions of an argument at every turn. FWIW I'm finished trying.

[Stan]

Hmm, personal background instead of argument?

Maybe I should tell you a tale about the great qualification of some Mr. Udet and some Mr. Göring in air war, both being aces and all - they still got almost everything wrong. Göring was especially known for brushing aside arguments with references to his superior experience.

I think your method is systematically flawed.

It’s not an argumentative issue when lives and money are at stake and you, as a self-proclaimed neutral, have no stake in the matter.
Yes, experience generally means you know what you’re talking about. In another thread you quickly concluded some new-fangled device would cure what years of training have already proven to so many of us. If you told me you employed the M2 for 20 years then I would be inclined to believe your statements. At this point I am not, but I do have 23 years that says otherwise.

In worst case a nasty surprise by Libyan air defence effectiveness may cost about five pilots' lives.

Meanwhile, the cruise missile strike has -if the positions weren't abandoned anyway- likely killed about 20-200 men. As a neutral observer, I cannot ignore these costs of war so perfectly as you do.

You first dismiss Libyan defenses and now are willing to dismiss five pilots as if it's a drop in the bucket. It's not out of ignorance that I defend the destruction of AA sites. It is however routine and logical to reduce our casualties.

Maybe - just maybe - people here could get away from business as usual with its "victory" focus, accept that this time it's really about being the "good ones", not about pursuit of "interests" - and think accordingly.

What other focus should a military have other than victory ? Sorry, but the pursuit of interests sounds political in nature, and I am not a political party member.

[Fuchs]

I have several arguments that don't seem to fit together in your opinion because the opposing positions differ and are all not up to the arguments imo.


The SAMs may be unmanned - even if they are manned, the personnel may be incompetent - even if the personnel is competent, the SAMs may still be inoperable due to age - even if they were still (or again) operable despite Gaddaffi's neglect, they have still been obsolete for decades - even if you don't have the self-evident equipment to counter threats from four decades ago, you can still easily avoid their smallish effective firing envelopes.

There's no contradiction, I merely provided a load of arguments for everyone, no matter how much confidence the other person has in regard to Libyan AD effectiveness.
This is based on a normal technique for contact with people about whom you don't know much or who are very heterogeneous; you adapt and serve each of them the appropriate package.
One size fits all packages don't work well.


Coming back to the diversity - isn't it obvious that way too many things must come together in favour of Libyan AD to create a significant AD threat that justifies a (even short) DEAD phase?

[Fuchs]

It’s not an argumentative issue when lives and money are at stake and you, as a self-proclaimed neutral, have no stake in the matter.
Yes, experience generally means you know what you’re talking about. In another thread you quickly concluded some new-fangled device would cure what years of training have already proven to so many of us. If you told me you employed the M2 for 20 years then I would be inclined to believe your statements. At this point I am not, but I do have 23 years that says otherwise.

There are other armies with NCOs of decades experience with the not at all new item - and those NCOs are laughing at your approach of attempting to address a 90 y.o. design fault through training instead of spending a electron microscopic amount of the budget on a fix and saving the training for something else.

You first dismiss Libyan defenses and now are willing to dismiss five pilots as if it's a drop in the bucket. It's not out of ignorance that I defend the destruction of AA sites. It is however routine and logical to reduce our casualties.

Why so selectively? I wrote "worst case" and "200" as well. You only focus on "five". This kinda proves your field of view on the topic is too narrow.

What other focus should a military have other than victory ?

After five attempts - all deleted by myself because they would yield infractions - I think I can write this:
You are in really, really evil company with this attitude and just earned a huge load of disrespect by writing that line.

Sorry, but the pursuit of interests sounds political in nature, and I am not a political party member.

I'm sure my text was not ambiguous, yet still you don't seem to have understood that part.

[J Wolfsberger]

What other focus should a military have other than victory ?

After five attempts - all deleted by myself because they would yield infractions - I think I can write this:
You are in really, really evil company with this attitude and just earned a huge load of disrespect by writing that line.

You have been asserting that it was inappropriate to use cruise missiles to eliminate Libyan air defense. You haven't yet presented any coherent justification for the assertion. (And I'm including your critique that it was an inelegant approach under the category "incoherent." I understand the point you wanted to make. You failed to make it.)

Now you have me completely baffled. Would you please explain what focus you think a military should have?

Random slaughter of surplus male population? Economic stimulation? Handing out blankets and field rations? Armed social work? Parades on national holidays?

Somebody is losing respect over this, but it isn't Stan.

[Stan]

There are other armies with NCOs of decades experience with the not at all new item - and those NCOs are laughing at your approach of attempting to address a 90 y.o. design fault through training instead of spending a electron microscopic amount of the budget on a fix and saving the training for something else.

The E2 was only fully tested at APG in May of 2010. Decades of NCOs ? They may very well be laughing... I am !

Why so selectively? I wrote "worst case" and "200" as well. You only focus on "five". This kinda proves your field of view on the topic is too narrow.

Yep, but, those five in my view are in fact our five.

After five attempts - all deleted by myself because they would yield infractions - I think I can write this:
You are in really, really evil company with this attitude and just earned a huge load of disrespect by writing that line.

You already sent me a PM last year to look over your blog and even warned me that it was not pro-American. Why stop now? Considering where I've been, I'll deal with your load of disrespect just fine

I'm sure my text was not ambiguous, yet still you don't seem to have understood that part.

Response was already provided and needs no editing on my part...

... your credibility suffers when you offer a series of contradictory arguments in support of the same conclusion.

[Fuchs]

Stan; the E2 thing was only one in several attempts to fix the issue that should be a non-issue. NIH products have been available for decades.

You have been asserting that it was inappropriate to use cruise missiles to eliminate Libyan air defense. You haven't yet presented any coherent justification for the assertion. (And I'm including your critique that it was an inelegant approach under the category "incoherent." I understand the point you wanted to make. You failed to make it.)

Now you have me completely baffled. Would you please explain what focus you think a military should have?

First; it's not necessary to justify non-violence. Violence requires justification, even in war (which this isn't, by the way - at least not for non-Libyans). I provided many points, the pro-attack side didn't provide any point that I didn't address so far except the zero tolerance fetish that utterly disregards everything but friendly casualties.


So what should be the focus right now (on the level of involved military forces)?

Short story: There was a few years a go a computer gamer who 'won' in every game. Someday he played a new game and found no end. He wasn't able to 'win'. He wrote a letter to the game producer and asked about how to win this. The reply was 'There's no way to win this game. This isn't called everquest for no reason''. The player committed suicide, for he wasn't able to accept that he cannot win.

I don't think you will repeat that, so I tell you: You cannot win this game.
This time it's not about winning (at least not on the military level).
This isn't even a war.

This is more like police work; they go to their job every day, but they cannot 'win' against crime. They can only do their job.

- - - - -

Aside from this, it should be utterly obvious that to focus on 'victory' alone is excessively unethical. Such a focus means to ignore all ethical aspects of life.
If you think that war is only about winning/victory, you put yourself on one level with the most evil henchmen of the most evil bastards - officers who merely did their job and attempted to 'win' the war. Tools of evil.

Is that what you aspire to?

- - - - -

Aside from this ethical aspect, there are many more aspects that prove that a focus on winning/victory alone is *not safe for this forum expression*.

Think of Finland's defense in the winter war 39/40, for example. Their fighting wasn't about victory at all (not victory by the common definition at least). How could it be? They had no, nil, nada chance to 'win'. They had a chance to survive.
People from great powers rarely grasp this, but war isn't about winning/victory. You can hardly ever 'win' anyway, for as soon as you consider your expenses you're pretty much always in a deficit.

A proper definition of victory - for example "to reach a less terrible outcome than possible without organised violence" - would give less importance to other things than victory. It wouldn't change the ethical problem, of course.

- - - - -

Oh, by the way. Neutral or not - to kill 20-200 foreign people in order to mitigate some undetermined risk to 0-5 people of your own group is in my book unethical. Always.
In fact, I'd rate it worse than to push an elderly man in front of a fast subway train.

Again, I experience difficulties to express my disdain politely. This is actually a repeated experience of mine in the SWC forum because of the widespread disdain for foreign human life and foreign sovereignty that's summed up in here.

This forum would clearly be beyond politically incorrect if it was German forum. I won't elaborate on this, for any appropriate description would only deteriorate this thread.

[Coinoperator07]

Libya is in Civil War. What is America's national interest in this conflict (other than the natural resources)?

From my foxhole, this looked to be a more emotional response than a well thought through military action. Again, the US has involved itself in a conflict without asking all the "then what" questions. If there is an endstate to this operation, it has not been clearly defined. Why get involved in Libya and not in Yemen? Bahrain? Syria? Iran?

Also, this is NOT in the pervue of NATO. No NATO nations or partners were attacked. NATO has no mandate, here. If the UN wants to get involved militarily, it's the UN's baby.

I hate to see innocent people killed and I think Qaddafi is a terrible dictator, however, there are laws and rules that must be followed or chaos ensues.

Let's all take a breath, have a strategy, make a plan, and execute violently to an end that is suitable to the betterment of humanity and that's within the Rule of Law as currently exists in the UN Mandate.

[Ken White]

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?

At least as many if not more who think it stupid disagree. I sure do not think it is (a) effective, (b) smart, or (c) likely to achieve the stated goal.

No, it wasn't rather simple -- at least not to judge from all your carping about it. Before we ascribe it to the 'was' column, let's wait until it's over...

BTW any idea why you think the Gaddafi controlled TV and radio is still on the air?

Uh, yeah -- because no one has been told to shut it down. That and a lot of other things are reasons your "was" is premature.

You and I agreed the US was dithering, we both put it down to a lack of knowledge and other problems. While I know the US system is designed to cause that, you chose to ignore it -- which is certainly okay -- but the real difference between us was I disapproved of the whole idea -- and still do. Whereas you were a cheerleader for the action.

That dithering was likely not intended to force others to step up and do things but it fortuitously did just that. Long overdue, too...

So-called humanitarian interventions in my observation and experience generally do more harm than good and arguably rarely if ever change the body count much -- just who the targets were and generally both sides were and are at fault.

Your "three cruise missile" attack presumes accurate targeting info and success. Probably not as certain as you seem to presume and it would have left us attacking yet another Islamic nation for little benefit to anyone including those that were to nominally be 'saved.' Had they all missed, we'd have looked even sillier than we do...

BTW, your post on another thread on that topic, so-called humanitarian intervention, failed to mention the five paragraphs of valid criticism of the concept. To rectify that omission on your part, here are some quotes from those paragraphs and the LINK:

"Some argue that humanitarian intervention is a modern manifestation of the Western colonialism of the 19th century."

"Others argue that dominant countries, especially the United States and its coalition partners, are using humanitarian pretexts to pursue otherwise unacceptable geopolitical goals and to evade the non-intervention norm and legal prohibitions on the use of international force."

"Henry Kissinger, for example, finds that Bill Clinton's practice of humanitarian intervention was wildly inconsistent. The US launched two military campaigns against Serbia]] while ignoring more widespread slaughter in Rwanda, justifying the Russian assault on Chechnya, and welcoming to the United States the second-ranking military official of a widely recognized severe human rights violator - the communist government of North Korea."

"During the G-77 summit, which brought together 133 nation-states, the "so-called right of humanitarian intervention" claimed by powerful states was condemned."

Those in order seem to indicate a massive amount of western / European hearth presumed superiority and egos at work; the US is guilty of using 'humanitarian' issues to further its own interests -- so are the others who think it a grand idea; the inconsistency is routinely noted by others whiule the proponents blow those concerns off with various rationales, regardless it appears quite hypocritical to most of the world; one such rationale can be and is applied to the G-77 'Well, of course, they object...'

As I wrote, sneering European condescension and egos.

[Fuchs]

I think it's a good idea to leave this discussion after some final remarks.


I hinted at how it's difficult to express the opinion here. Maybe I found a way that's not going to yield a ban.


Several generations ago, hundreds of thousands of mostly very competent - and in some cases highly experiences - officers were wrong. They fought for victory. They failed their men, they failed their profession, they failed their country and they failed humanity.

This is an experience that added to my country's and our armed services' collective wisdom. It's not about victory alone, not by a long call.
Decades of sitting on a potential battlefield with our very own allies plotting my nation's annihilation with nuclear weapons helped us not to forget this.

Someone (I never really memorise who does such thing) came up with a criticism of my background, asserting that my background is insufficient. He seemed to think that my background wasn't good enough to lend weight to my view.
It was HIS background that wasn't sufficient. It was my country and only very few others which ever -EVER - really learned the most valuable lessons about war.

We have these lessons here, and others don't have them. That's a cultural failure - the failure to learn from others' experiences. We do it a lot, too. In fact, we even begin to forget our own lessons or distort them beyond recognition. Humans are fallible.
The background of whoever criticised me for lack of credentials didn't suffice to teach him about the aspect that made up most of the my motivation in this discussion. His autodidact drive and skill didn't suffice to bridge the gap either.


I joined this discussion telling you about incompetence of Arab soldiers, obsolescence of Arab air force material, missile ranges - stuff that Americans, British, Australians usually understand.
It was a tailored approach, but it failed because arguments - no matter how many and no matter how powerful - do not count much in this discussion (as usual). Backgrounds don't do either. The only thing that counts is the attitude you have when you enter the fray. No matter who's wrong here (maybe all of us?) - cognitive dissonance is clearly at work, and it's more powerful than the Czar bomb ever was.


Think about it (I know, this is pure psychological torture because it forces most readers here to experience cognitive dissonance again):

The U.S. forces were sent into this conflict supposedly to save the Libyan people, Libyan civilians.
The first thing they did was to kill dozens if not hundreds of Libyans who pointed no gun at civilians, and most likely none of them was ever in a position of power.
The U.S. forces decided on this course of action, and I criticised it as a habit or custom. I stick to my position that it was not a smart move based on necessity in this specific case.

A human life is a human life, it has a high value. A uniform does not change that. It's not important what boot camp tells us - all human life is valuable.
You need a really good justification to take it without being evil. Even more so if it's about dozens or hundreds of human lives.

The killing of dozens or hundreds of people can hardly be justified with a reduced level of risk for a handful of other people.
Sure, group think, drill sergeant, culture, nationalism and a lot of other psychological effects and ideas may tell you otherwise, but a free man can see through this veil.



A final provocation (and it's a pity that this is a provocation, for it shouldn't be one):
I told you about my disdain. Now you can guess how great it is and where it comes from.
Many SWC participants are in my opinion on one level with people whom they would gladly fight a "good war" against, like their granddaddies. Their mirror doesn't tell them how they look to me. If they knew, they wouldn't like it.
Right now, they only don't like me for my behaviour is so alien to them.
They don't see what I see.


Now I'll test my self-discipline by promising myself to never look into this thread again. Done.

[davidbfpo]

Fuchs,

The latest series of posts SWC here are IMHO within our ROE:

Small Wars Council is a community of interest for professional dialog by practitioners and students of Small Wars. New and unpopular ideas, contrary viewpoints, and healthy debate are welcome. Personal attacks, threats, intimidation, profanity, and coarse or insulting exchanges are not acceptable. All members are expected to maintain a tone of civility and mutual respect, even in the midst of spirited debate.

Link:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...aq#faq_conduct

Like you I am not an American and it is my strong opinion that non-American members, from around the world, add greatly to SWC whether we are neutral or committed.

Meantime back to the dialogue.

[Surferbeetle]

.... and it is my strong opinion that non-American members, from around the world, add greatly to SWC whether we are neutral or committed.

I fully agree with you David, and I greatly appreciate the wide variety of perspectives and discussion that I encounter here at SWC. This website and format help me to broaden my understanding as well as to think more deeply about a wide variety of subjects.

Stick to the ROE and keep 'em coming Fuchs

[Surferbeetle]

Intervention in Libya, Taking humanitarian justification seriously, Mar 23rd 2011, 14:06 by W.W. | IOWA CITY, at The Economist blog Democracy in America

Nevertheless, despite our natural biases, it remains both possible and necessary to intelligently estimate how much suffering and death we can expect intervention to avoid. When opponents of intervention ask us to consider, for example, how many lives could be saved were we to spend the cost of a military mission on anti-malarial bed nets, I understand them to be insisting that we take the stated humanitarian justification for this intervention seriously. If our foreign policy aims to prevent suffering and death with finite resources, it makes sense to ask whether this war makes sense on those grounds. I grasp the tiresome point that the choice on the table was not a choice between taking out Libya's air defences and buying bed nets. The choice was between taking out Libya's air defences or not. But the question nagging some of us is why this was the choice on the table. Why did this come up as a matter requiring urgent attention and immediate decision? Why is it that the choice to express our humanitarian benevolence through the use of missiles and jets gets on the table—to the top of the agenda, even—again and again, but the choice to express it less truculently so rarely does? If our humanitarian values really set the agenda, how likely is that that the prospect of urgent military intervention would come up so often?

[jcustis]

edit:
There was recently a speech of Obama about the Libya crisis. He said "...the U.S. will stand up for ... the dignity of all people."
Well, where I come from, "dignity (in this case apparently meaning ~"Menschenwürde") means a lot, and killing several people in favour of reducing the risk to one or two own people is not understood to being the same as "to stand up for the dignity of all people".

I think if you had said this at the outset, most folks would have understood where you were coming from, and how that sentiment framed your arguments.

I am going to go out on the limb and speak for what I believe is a quorum and state that the community discusses a variety of hot topics and the best ones are where the participants agree to disagree as necessary.

Some posters enjoy discussing the technical of policy aspects of an issue or crisis, and choose to avoid the ethical, moral, or religious. That they do so doesn't make them ignorant, or slow, or a bad person.

Recognizing restraint when discussing a topic and "letting it go" is an admirable trait that we should all strive to demonstrate. The same goes for having the savvy to read a post for what it is, grasp the point of view, and respond appropriately. I hope you are not surprised that a good number of members here would support our military's actions, and vigorously defend the goings-on when someone without experience in it casts a stone . The same is true for our policymakers and administration.

Letting differences of OPINION grind your gears is neither fruitful nor healthy. If cold, hard facts are at issue, that is one thing, but the subtle nuances of opinion are a killer when trying to debate a point of view. It is often better to simply agree to disagree and move on.

At the end of the day, the brain waves expended typing away at a scathing post are unlikely to impact the policymakers who have sent men and women into harm's way, so we could all remember to take a deep breath every once in a while. Barring the effectiveness of that approach...take it to PMs!!!!!!