And Libya goes on...

[SWJ Blog]

Lost in Libya: The U.K. Does Not Understand Strategy

Entry Excerpt:

Lost in Libya: The U.K. Does Not Understand Strategy by Dr. Patrick Porter, Infinity Journal (free registration required). BLUF: "The limited war of 2011 would refuse to be quarantined. After all other options were exhausted, it could culminate in a land war against Tripoli. Distressingly, we would shoulder the burden of invading, pacifying and administering this country. Occupation would probably lead to resistance – and Libya propelled more foreign-born jihadi volunteers into Iraq than any other nation. A new front in the War on Terror would open up. Idealists now calling for humanitarian rescue would discover that all along they opposed Western imperial hubris."



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Boots on the Ground in Libya

Entry Excerpt:

U.S. Army Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik (Ret.), a senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, argues that "the Obama administration should prepare for the inevitable in Libya. To win this fight and prevent a coming anarchy, it's going to take a lot more than a no-fly zone." See his latest article, Boots on the Ground, at Foreign Policy.



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Kiwigrunt]

You know I was watching some footage of the "rebel" fighters and that article by WILF sprang to mind, you remember, "The Toyota Horde". Toyota's don't seem to be doing the "rebels" much good (yes,I know WILF's argument was framed in a different context). Maybe we could supply them with Land Rovers? (Would that fall into the "arming" the "rebels" box or transporting the "rebels" box?)

It would not be very politically correct to supply them with vehicles that we ourselves no longer use in the sandbox because they 'make like the sand' too easily. No, we MUST supply them with MRAPs. And body armour.

[J Wolfsberger]

It would not be very politically correct to supply them with vehicles that we ourselves no longer use in the sandbox because they 'make like the sand' too easily. No, we MUST supply them with MRAPs. And body armour.

How about giving them vintage Land Rovers? With vintage Lucas electrical systems?

[davidbfpo]

An intriguing FP article on the Libyan rebels, such as this, regarding the Toyota TV elements:

These fighters are a ragtag bunch of men of all ages and degrees of military training riding pickup trucks around the eastern coastal desert.... What you may not have realized.... is that the vast majority of these fighters have never actually arrived at the front and are not contributing to the rebels' effective fighting strength.

Better still:

The units with the highest degree of organization are former Libyan army battalions that were stationed in eastern Libya, also known as Cyrenaica. These units, including those led by former Interior Minister Abdul Fattah Younis al-Abidi, defected en masse in mid-February, retaining their organizational structure. Bizarrely, these units are largely absent from the current fighting. It is unclear why.

The real fighters are:

The most prevalent form of unit organization is ad hoc: a few brothers or friends sharing gas money, a few rifles, a rebel flag, and a pickup truck. Occasionally, whole villages or subsections of tribes have joined the rebels as a semicoherent unit.

Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...ebels?page=0,0

There is more detail within, including the Islamists (LIFG).

[Ken White]

How about giving them vintage Land Rovers? With vintage Lucas electrical systems?

Did you buy that MG I traded in for the Stag, the one that never fully charged the battery (if it charged it at all) -- or the Stag I traded for a plain vanilla Ford that did not need to have the timing set twice a week on a Lucas distributor...

[Pete]

That sounds like my Mitsubishi. If anyone wants a good deal I've got a car for you.

(From those great guys who brought us Pearl Harbor.)

[AdamG]

At the training ground inside a former Gaddafi military base on the edge of Benghazi on Thursday more than 1,000 young men were gathered for instruction in the use of Kalashnikovs, mortars and rockets.

Some of the recruits put on a show of bravado. They claimed to be on the march to Tripoli to topple Gaddafi. But there was a more sober feeling among the bulk of volunteers, and the men showing them how to shoot, not flee.

A few weeks' training only goes so far against a more experienced and better disciplined force. The volunteers know that mostly they are at the camp to learn how to defend their homes if Gaddafi's troops make a push toward Benghazi.

Britain is hatching a plan to send experienced soldiers, such as former members of the SAS, to train the rebel army under the cover of private security companies paid for by Arab states. The revolutionary council's line on the prospect of foreign trainers is diplomatic.

"We will appreciate any friendly nation training our fighters," said Mustafa Gheriani, a council spokesman. "Our preference is for trainers of Arab origin but we appreciate the help from wherever it comes."

But at the training base there is suspicion.

"Why do they want to send trainers?" asked Bejou. "If they are talking about just a few weeks' training what's the point? We are doing that. If they are talking about long-term training they are talking about a long war and more people dying. That could turn this into a civil war. We don't want a long war. If Nato, the allies, want us to be in Tripoli we could be there in seven hours."

The talk of training for a longer war only fuels growing suspicion in Benghazi that Nato is abandoning the west's commitment to use air power to protect civilians. It was interpreted by the rebels as meaning western powers would destroy Gaddafi's army and clear the way for them to march into Tripoli.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-camp-training

[tequila]

Gotta wonder if this:

The units with the highest degree of organization are former Libyan army battalions that were stationed in eastern Libya, also known as Cyrenaica. These units, including those led by former Interior Minister Abdul Fattah Younis al-Abidi, defected en masse in mid-February, retaining their organizational structure. Bizarrely, these units are largely absent from the current fighting. It is unclear why.

... has something to do with this:

"The CIA team is there to train them how to shoot, how to fight, how to have military discipline," NPR's Deborah Amos reported from Cairo. "They are joining a team of former Libyan military officers who are now training about 30,000 young Libyans in the rebel stronghold to also improve discipline, improve communications and make it into a more coherent fighting force."

[JMA]

Having watched Rear Admiral Russel Harding's press conference today I must admit to being totally gobsmacked.

Appalling arrogance of the little man to stand there and ignore the fact that the US led force before and the NATO forces now have failed totally and absolutely to protect the people Misrata and get testy refusing to offer an apology or even a regret over a strike on rebel tanks (apparently) out in the middle of nowhere.

An interesting fact to come out of the briefing was that "the alliance's jets had carried out 318 sorties and struck 23 targets across Libya in the past 48 hours".

23 strikes in 48 hours? Little wonder Gaddafi's forces are becoming more bold in their actions. It would be interesting which nations are carrying out the strikes and which are just going through the motions and flying high over Libya under instructions not not to get below 30,000 feet under any circumstances.

This NATO exercise is turning into a pathetic joke made all the worse by the US standing back and making the point that without their active involvement NATO is impotent.

Where is Wikileaks when you need them. There is no chance that NATO will tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Tired of being treated like a mushroom.

[Dayuhan]

"23 strikes in 48 hours" says less than "23 strikes in 318 sorties". Looks like there's a target deficit, and that MG's people are learning to do what they want to do without exposing themselves.

There are limits to what can be done from the air without an effective force on the ground. You're not going to stop house-to-house fighting in Misrata with air strikes, at least not without way more collateral damage than anyone will accept.

Unless the rebel force can gain competence (unlikely in the immediate future) or NATO is willing to put ground troops in (also unlikely, and extremely undesirable) there's going to be a stalemate, and during that stalemate some very unpleasant stuff is going to happen. That's not incompetence, it's coming up against the basic limitations of the approved level of intervention. NATO is there to help, not to settle the matter on their own. There's a limit to what help can do if the party being helped hasn't got the ability to pitch in and do their part.

[jmm99]

Broken policy = broken strategy = broken tactics.

Not to parrot CvC, but ....

Now going back into my non-interventionist shell re: this armed conflict; except to note the BLUF supplied by the WH's OLC that it ain't a "war" - OLCM 1 Apr 2011 (great dating):

We conclude, therefore, that the use of military force in Libya was supported by sufficiently important national interests to fall within the President’s constitutional power. At the same time, turning to the second element of the analysis, we do not believe that anticipated United States operations in Libya amounted to a “war” in the constitutional sense necessitating congressional approval under the Declaration of War Clause. This inquiry, as noted, is highly fact-specific and turns on no single factor. See Proposed Bosnia Deployment, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 334 (reaching conclusion based on specific “circumstances”); Haiti Deployment, 18 Op. O.L.C. at 178 (same). Here, considering all the relevant circumstances, we believe applicable historical precedents demonstrate that the limited military operations the President anticipated directing were not a “war” for constitutional purposes.

Thus, War is Peace; Peace is War; and Ev'r May the Twain Meet (at least in Humanitarian Operations).

So, JMA, does this and the rest of this policy-legal statement pluck your heart strings ? Perhaps as much as a few UNSC Resolutions from 1965 (you know the ones).

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

Having watched Rear Admiral Russel Harding's press conference today I must admit to being totally gobsmacked.

Appalling arrogance of the little man to stand there and ignore the fact that the US led force before and the NATO forces now have failed totally and absolutely to protect the people Misrata and get testy refusing to offer an apology or even a regret over a strike on rebel tanks (apparently) out in the middle of nowhere.[snip]

Note that Nato Chief 'Regrets' Friendly Fire Deaths which shows sanity has prevailed. Now the next logical step is to put that arrogant little man (Russel Harding) on a plane home.

This should be followed by the yank admiral on the next plane for failing to lift the siege of Misrata. Let NATO give the Air Force a chance at command next and if that does not work in a week send them packing as well and let the grunts get on with the business.

[JMA]

Special Forces scandal as officers are held 'for trying to leak secrets'

Two senior Special Forces officers suspected of leaking details of highly sensitive covert operations have been arrested under the Official Secrets Act, ...

Oh boy...

[JMA]

Broken policy = broken strategy = broken tactics.

Not to parrot CvC, but ....

Now going back into my non-interventionist shell re: this armed conflict; except to note the BLUF supplied by the WH's OLC that it ain't a "war" - OLCM 1 Apr 2011 (great dating):



Thus, War is Peace; Peace is War; and Ev'r May the Twain Meet (at least in Humanitarian Operations).

So, JMA, does this and the rest of this policy-legal statement pluck your heart strings ? Perhaps as much as a few UNSC Resolutions from 1965 (you know the ones).

Regards

Mike

I note with disappointment that when discussing the intervention in Libya seldom is the small scale of the exercise mentioned and it is often presented as a potential Iraq or Afghanistan. (not you Mike)

I maintain my position "that a stitch in time saves nine." Early aggressive action if correctly targeted will often keep the lid on a volatile situation.

You allude to (the then) Southern Rhodesia. Yes there to. The Brits could have brought that little "revolt" to an end pretty quickly (if they had wanted to and public opinion at the time allowed such action). Same principle applies.

Thanks for the reminder of the 1965 UNSC resolutions.

Loved being reminded how the following great bastions of democracy and human rights were invited to debate what to do about the dastardly Southern Rhodesia rebel regime:

Algeria, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Jamaica, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia.

Also resolution 202 speaks of:

(a) The release of all political prisoners, detainees, restrictees,

(b) The repeal of all repressive and discriminatory legislation...

(c) The removal of restrictions of political activity and the establishment of full democratic freedom and equality of political rights.

Hilarious example of pot, kettle, black and standard UN hypocrisy.

But seriously, Mike, can you see the UNSC with Russia, China, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, Lebanon, Gabon and Nigeria currently sitting passing such a resolution against any of those mentioned or more than half the world's nations?

So as the US moves towards drawing back into its isolationist shell the first action required is to give the UN notice to find a new country to parasite off.

[Dayuhan]

I maintain my position "that a stitch in time saves nine." Early aggressive action if correctly targeted will often keep the lid on a volatile situation.

Early aggressive action by who? Who do you think should be appointed to this job of running around the world slapping lids on every volatile situation that threatens to emerge? Sounds like a nasty thankless expensive job, and whoever it is would be very busy: the world is a pretty volatile place.

Whoever it is, I'm glad it's not the US.

[JMA]

Early aggressive action by who? Who do you think should be appointed to this job of running around the world slapping lids on every volatile situation that threatens to emerge? Sounds like a nasty thankless expensive job, and whoever it is would be very busy: the world is a pretty volatile place.

Whoever it is, I'm glad it's not the US.

You are absolutely correct. Given the US performance in Libya it conforms the US (politically and psychologically) is a spent force. Lets wait and see who steps up into the void.

[davidbfpo]

Special Forces scandal as officers are held 'for trying to leak secrets'
Oh boy...

JMA,

Whatever happened is clearly not in the public domain, rightly so for numerous reasons. Why then has someone leaked this reported information now? Instead of clarity we have "smoke & mirrors".

Clearly upon arrest there was not enough evidence to prefer a charge, although my recollection is that an Official Secrets Act charge requires high-level authority (DPP?). That could account for the bail till May.

[motorfirebox]

You are absolutely correct. Given the US performance in Libya it conforms the US (politically and psychologically) is a spent force. Lets wait and see who steps up into the void.

Given Libya and Cote d'Ivoire, it seems like Sarkozy may be trying to push France into that position.

Does anyone think that victory for the rebels is possible without the support of foreign (i.e., NATO) ground troops?

[Dayuhan]

You are absolutely correct. Given the US performance in Libya it conforms the US (politically and psychologically) is a spent force. Lets wait and see who steps up into the void.

The US will certainly be a spent force, and soon, if it doesn't reduce the number and scale of it's interventions abroad. There's no quicker way to become a spent force than to spend your force on fights you don't need to be in and staying in fights long after you need to be there. The US has done way too much of that recently, and paid a high price. Many Americans would argue that any involvement in Libya was too much, and from a purely pragmatic standpoint they have excellent arguments, but keeping the involvement limited and stepping back to a supporting role as soon as possible are steps in the right direction. A lot more great powers and empires have fallen from overreach and overextension abroad than from failure to assert themselves abroad

Given Libya and Cote d'Ivoire, it seems like Sarkozy may be trying to push France into that position.

I wish them luck, but I wouldn't expect them to have much of it. It really isn't a position that serves anyone's interests. Trying to settle other people's fights costs a lot and gains little. You make no friends and lots of enemies, get no thanks and lots of blame, get subverted by many and helped by few, if any.

Does anyone think that victory for the rebels is possible without the support of foreign (i.e., NATO) ground troops?

Has anyone adopted a rebel victory as an irreducible policy goal? That would be a mistake, IMO. Can't see anyone wanting to put ground forces in. Not that the MG forces would be that difficult to defeat, but what do you do after? "Install" a democracy? Whoever goes in and removes MG is going to be stuck with responsibility for what comes after. Ain't nobody wants to be left holding that hot potato.