And Libya goes on...

[JMA]

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.

I would be interested to hear what the offer is for the information that these "senior officers" are prepared to risk their careers (and possibly their freedom) for. And who made the first approach.

[JMA]

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

France seems to one of the very few who seem to be willing and able.

This article offers a possible explanation: Why France moved forcefully on Ivory Coast, Libya - (would be interested in M-A's comment on this)

Also this from NPR: Why France's Military Is Stepping Up To The World

Personally I don't care what the French motives are, the facts are as it states in the article the French are saving lives.

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

In keeping with my view on intervention in the Ivory Coast the effort should have been carried out by the US/French/British/now NATO so as not to allow an unarmed uprising to grow into a full blown armed rebellion with the potential for a civil war and any number of armed after shocks in the future.

Don't allow them to learn to wage war and resort to violence to solve problems as it is a habit that is difficult to unlearn.

That means Gaddafi's forces need to receive special treatment. Don't spend 500m of sending missiles to take out stuff (what the hell were the Americans thinking?) but focus on the the people who use those things. And perhaps its time for the dogs-of-war (mercenaries) to be shown just how dangerous their trade has become by singling them out for special treatment.

So the effort should be now (or should have been) to break the back of the Gaddafi's armed/military command and control people and the trained soldiers/militias in the first phase and then to supply (on request of the new rebel government) a force to control any Gaddafi loyalists who may still and weapons and mischief in mind.

No the rebels can't win on their own nor should anyone help them to with training or supplying weapons.

[JMA]

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

Wrong again.

The US problem has been that it continues to apply the brute force with ignorance approach to such interventions.

Direct involvement in Afghanistan should have terminated when the Taliban government folded.

The Libyan involvement seems to have been passed to NATO. Even the $500m worth of missiles was overkill and probably largely wasted.

So the approach to Libya is better in that they looked for a short sharp intervention to achieve that mission but the implementation was woeful (probably because of micro management by politicians).

But essentially you are correct in that until the US learns how to intervene in a short sharp (probably very violent) manner to achieve the aim it is better they just stay out of these conflicts as they would tend to do more harm than good.

Sadly often good intentions are spoilt by poor execution. The US military must take some responsibility for this.

[M-A Lagrange]

Despite this week end NATO success and Daffy announcemet he agrees on a cease fire, what strikes me in this Lybia story is our (modern state) incapacity to deal with popular uprising.
It is clear now that we just do not know, want or can deal with non-state actors, even if it's a population and not an armed group.
The main reproch made to the Lybian population is to not be organised as a government. Basically we have not evolved, what ever we say, since cold war. Tactics and technics have but States are still limited by their obligation to deal with a State, is it legitimate or not.
I really think that we (at least this SWJ community) have to start thinking in depth on this.

Mod's Note: a new thread 'Popular rebellion, state response and our failure to date: a debate' has been created at M-A L's suggestion:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=13002

[Bob's World]

One thing I find interesting is the largely conventional approach being employed by the populace. This will evolve over time as they become more organized (who helps to shape that organizing will have an upper hand in post conflict relationships...).

I would expect to see a more amorphous approach, avoiding linear conflict to attack or defend objectives and transitioning to seeking widespread opportunities to create localized strength against selected targets, and taking control of the tempo and putting the government into the reactionary, defensive mode. Cease Fires are always a good time to get better organized.

[JMA]

One thing I find interesting is the largely conventional approach being employed by the populace. This will evolve over time as they become more organized (who helps to shape that organizing will have an upper hand in post conflict relationships...)

I suggest that the strategy should have been to bring the end to the Gaddafi regime without the population getting militarised and gaining war experience in the process. This apart from the future best interests of Libya itself but also in case a western coalition has to return one day it would be better to face the current stumble-bum Keystone Cops than some switched-on and experienced militia or army.

Don't arm or train the rebels... just concentrate on taking Gaddafi out (within the constraints of the UNSC resolutions of course

[Bob's World]

I suggest that the strategy should have been to bring the end to the Gaddafi regime without the population getting militarised and gaining war experience in the process. This apart from the future best interests of Libya itself but also in case a western coalition has to return one day it would be better to face the current stumble-bum Keystone Cops than some switched-on and experienced militia or army.

Don't arm or train the rebels... just concentrate on taking Gaddafi out (within the constraints of the UNSC resolutions of course

I'm not questioning our strategy, or even AQ's strategy. Both are fuzzy and separate issues from this.

What I am intrigued by are the tactics of this unorganized revolution. The lack of leadership, lack of a planned and timed operation, the realities of the terrain and environment in general all combine to make this approach to just go out and grapple in efforts to secure key physical terrain is not surprising; it will be the siezure of key political terrain, foreign and domestic, however that will carry the day.

Good lessons learned for our UW guys as to what we need to be prepared to do when such events erupt, and there will be plenty more of these over the next couple of years. Organizing will have better pay off than mere arming or training.

[Dayuhan]

Wrong again.

I'm not sure a difference of opinion makes anybody wrong.

Direct involvement in Afghanistan should have terminated when the Taliban government folded.

Agreed, though it might have been worth extending slightly if there was a realistic possibility of killing or capturing OBL or other senior AQ figures.

But essentially you are correct in that until the US learns how to intervene in a short sharp (probably very violent) manner to achieve the aim it is better they just stay out of these conflicts as they would tend to do more harm than good.

Sadly often good intentions are spoilt by poor execution. The US military must take some responsibility for this.

Before you can achieve the aim, you have to know what it is. Other than preventing the sack of Benghazi, I'm not sure that the aim was ever very clear. The US of course doesn't want to commit itself to the removal of MG, lest they be held responsible for what comes after. They also don't want to see the rebels wiped out. Knowing what you don't want, though, is not the same as knowing what you do want, and I haven't seen anyone clearly articulate what the actual goal of all this is... other than to hand it over to NATO and back out as soon as possible, which I think is a very excellent course to pursue: wherever this is going, it's not a good idea for the US to be there.

To understand the US perspective it's also essential to place it in context. What happens in Libya is less important to the US than the larger need to reverse the Bush-era perception as an aggressive, eager interventionist power willing to push itself into the affairs of other countries at the slightest excuse, especially when those countries have oil and/or are Muslim. The last thing the US wants to do at this point is intervene preemptively or unilaterally anywhere. This administration campaigned on a platform of prioritizing multilateral action and taking a much more reticent approach to intervention, and it needs to act in ways that are consistent with that stated policy. Jumping into Libya early with aggressive force might have been the fastest way to resolve the Libyan situation, but it would not have served US interests at all.

[JMA]

I'm not questioning our strategy, or even AQ's strategy. Both are fuzzy and separate issues from this.

What I am intrigued by are the tactics of this unorganized revolution. The lack of leadership, lack of a planned and timed operation, the realities of the terrain and environment in general all combine to make this approach to just go out and grapple in efforts to secure key physical terrain is not surprising; it will be the siezure of key political terrain, foreign and domestic, however that will carry the day.

Good lessons learned for our UW guys as to what we need to be prepared to do when such events erupt, and there will be plenty more of these over the next couple of years. Organizing will have better pay off than mere arming or training.

Nothing special or surprising there Bob I can assure you.

Without training they will fall back on what they saw in the Mad Max movies, Schwarzenegger, Rambo and the like. A lot of posing and firing into the air (a very Arab thing). South of the Sahara they are at their best with a machete doing the business on defenceless civilians.

With both groups the common denominator is that they will run at the first sign of danger. With training they seem only to get marginally better.

You watch them advance adorned with machine gun belts and full of bravado until the first shots are fired... What they don't do is let the other side get in close before opening fire for maximum effect (too risky)... but they sure like to make a noise. So in true Keystone Cops style they will keep moving back and forth for weeks until one side runs out of ammo.

Now knowing your enemy it allows you to plan an intervention against these people to the maximum effect. You know what is so sad? All this information is freely available not from foreigners but from (at least a few) State Department/CIA/military people who operated in Africa with their eyes and ears open. Use it or lose it.

Your UW guys would be best advised to find people like Stan who understand this stuff and learn from them. You have the people with the experience and knowledge in these matters, all you have to do is ask them.

[Ken White]

Your UW guys would be best advised to find people like Stan who understand this stuff and learn from them. You have the people with the experience and knowledge in these matters, all you have to do is ask them.

They are asked -- and those knowledgeable people also volunteer their knowledges and skills to the all-knowing. Unfortunately, the all-knowing seem to really believe they are that. Egos do not like to accept greater knowledge from perceived lesser beings. The more senior the all-knowing, the more overweening the ego...

We have had adequate but not great on the ground knowledge available in every war we've been in since 1950 -- and have diligently ignored most of it. My British, Canadian and Korean friends, French, Iranian and Russian acquaintances tell me they have the same problem. The Germans do seem to do a bit better -- they also seem to be the only ones...

I don't know how you fix that.

[Dayuhan]

Now knowing your enemy it allows you to plan an intervention against these people to the maximum effect.

Maximum effect on who?

When western democracies plan interventions (or avoid them), their first consideration is the effect on their domestic political situation, the second is the impact on political perceptions in other counties. The impact on the country being intervened in comes in a distant third.

If you only look at 1/3 of the picture it doesn't seem to make much sense, but that's often the case when you're only looking at part of the picture.

[Presley Cannady]

The US problem has been that it continues to apply the brute force with ignorance approach to such interventions.

Would you mind explaining concretely--in terms of actual events and actions taken--what and what doesn't qualify as "brute force with ignorance?"

Direct involvement in Afghanistan should have terminated when the Taliban government folded.

The Taliban government folded? When?

[Steve the Planner]

Ken:

What was Rory Stewart's quote about being consulted on Afghan Policy? Something about asking whether we should or should not wear seat belts when we drive over that cliff...

Dayuhan:

The lessons of Empire...

My Dad was one of those British Hope and Glory kids, always raised to be ready to run an empire that, by the time he joined the RN for the Great White Fleet victory tour, the places they went (india, etc...) would soon no longer be Empire.

The Sun may not have set on that British Empire, but the curtain went down anyway.

There is a limit to Empire.

Quite frankly, I would be as happy in post Empire USA as UK. Empire does not equal quality of life or prosperity status of the people. May be the opposite.

[Ray]

That is why I said CAS type ground targets to differentiate between what is needed to protect civilians in places like Misrata and Zintan and the destruction of aircraft on the ground and radar installations etc etc.

Clearly to comply with UNSC Resolution 1973 one needs to go beyond interdiction strikes. The failure to strike tactical ground targets (tanks, vehicles, troop concentrations etc etc) decisively in the early stages has allowed the Gaddafi forces to rapidly adapt to a highly mobile insurgent/guerrilla style of operations. The cost of this failure and the inability to protect Libyan civilians through tactical air strikes is depicted in the rising civilian body count.

It now seems that by removing/reducing the air effort ahead of the advancing rebels and thereby allowing Gaddafi to counter attack was a cynical move to prove to the rebels that they need US/NATO aid and to get it they need to subordinate themselves and take orders and accept command from the US/NATO.

To avoid the OPSEC Nazis it needs to be said that the SAS operations in Libya have been reported on in the media. I saw on CBS two ex-military types stating with absolute certainty that the same holds good for US special forces. So instead of looking for tanks hidden under bushes they should possibly be getting a little closer to the action in Misrata and Zintan, yes?

This whole Libyan exercise is turning into a box-of-frogs and will result in another embarrassment for the US military unless someone takes the situation by the scruff of the neck and focuses on the mission.

Someone should form up that smooth taking Admiral in charge of NATO and give him 48 hours to relieve Misrata and Zintan or he is on the next flight home. Now if there is no one in the top military echelons or the WH with enough balls to do this... get Donald Trump to do it.

One can criticise the US action from the military standpoint. However, waiting for the Arab League to 'plead' for US intervention, notwithstanding the UN go ahead, was a diplomatic coup and was well waiting for, even though it allowed Gaddaffi to advance causing civilian casualties.

I agree that it appear heartless, but then realpolitik is heartless and is only focussed to further the national interests.

By waiting and then acting because of 'requests' and then handing over the ops to NATO, none can complain and whine about 'US imperialism'. The fact that there is no ground troops also goes well that the US is not doing another Iraq and instead is only ensuring that civilians are not killed en masse. And another aspect that goes in favour, having been proved by the delayed action by the US, is that Gaddafi is killing his own people!!

It was essential to indicate to the Islamic world that the US is not on a drive against Islam, as is popularly believed in the Islamic world, and instead was constrained to act to save the mindless slaughter of own civilians by Gaddafi! Another coup of sorts!

Just a thought.

[JMA]

They are asked -- and those knowledgeable people also volunteer their knowledges and skills to the all-knowing. Unfortunately, the all-knowing seem to really believe they are that. Egos do not like to accept greater knowledge from perceived lesser beings. The more senior the all-knowing, the more overweening the ego...

We have had adequate but not great on the ground knowledge available in every war we've been in since 1950 -- and have diligently ignored most of it. My British, Canadian and Korean friends, French, Iranian and Russian acquaintances tell me they have the same problem. The Germans do seem to do a bit better -- they also seem to be the only ones...

I don't know how you fix that.

The Boer Wars in South Africa are a great platform for learning about the difficulties of Empire when the military is required to flit from continent to continent to put out fires. In the process they seemed not to learn a damned thing. For example they had the Zulu wars - where they won the last battle which is always important - then the 1st Boer War in 1880-1881 then took of only to return after their fight in the Sudan in 1899 for the 2nd Boer War. At least they came the second time around in Khaki jackets and not the red ones from the first time - which were a real marksman's delight on the brown veldt of South Africa - but apart from that they had forgotten everything from the first war 20 years before. To be fair they did learn something the second time around.

When they arrived in country there were a number of loyal colonials from the Cape and Natal who knew the country and the Boers but as you would expect their input and advice was largely laughed off by the arriving generals. Arrogant to the end with their know all approach. The rest is history.

Sad that the same criminal folly has taken hold in the US military.

I was taught and did so and later taught it that intel is king. Get all the intel one can from all the available sources before deploying operationally in a new area of operations. Make no across the board assumptions about enemy and terrain and exhaust all options for recce. Those are the basics.

So really no one is telling these mighty generals how to fight the battle but are merely providing the generals with vital intel on which to plan their battles. I personally can't see where the resistance comes in.

One thing that stuck in my mind from the Six-Day-War from 1967 when I was a school boy was the photos of senior Egyptian officers being cashiered as a result of the defeat. Can't think why that has stuck in my mind but I think there is a message there somewhere.

Relieving an officer after operational failure or incompetence is one thing but perhaps the next step should be considered to drive the message home.

[JMA]

One can criticise the US action from the military standpoint. However, waiting for the Arab League to 'plead' for US intervention, notwithstanding the UN go ahead, was a diplomatic coup and was well waiting for, even though it allowed Gaddaffi to advance causing civilian casualties.

Well yes and that is what happened and the military action as it played out thereafter has not been affected by the delay. In fact where the situation stands today was just about where it was on day one with the single exception being that Gaddafi has no air force. So what exactly has the US/NATO action achieved other than to create a stalemate. Is this what the real intention was all along?

I agree that it appear heartless, but then realpolitik is heartless and is only focussed to further the national interests.

Are there national interests at play here? I thought this was a humanitarian intervention?

By waiting and then acting because of 'requests' and then handing over the ops to NATO, none can complain and whine about 'US imperialism'. The fact that there is no ground troops also goes well that the US is not doing another Iraq and instead is only ensuring that civilians are not killed en masse. And another aspect that goes in favour, having been proved by the delayed action by the US, is that Gaddafi is killing his own people!!

How does this ducking and diving of the US benefit the Libyans? The US has been so politically correct that Misrata is still under siege and Gaddafi is once again almost at the gates of Bengazi. No doubt the politicians think they have been clever but I'm not sure Libya and the Libyans have benefited that much other than a massacre in Bengazi has not taken place.

To follow the "heartless" line why not have let Gaddafi butcher the people of Bengazi then it would probably have been acceptable to target him and go for regime change? Would that not have been more in the "national interest"?

It was essential to indicate to the Islamic world that the US is not on a drive against Islam, as is popularly believed in the Islamic world, and instead was constrained to act to save the mindless slaughter of own civilians by Gaddafi! Another coup of sorts!

Just a thought.

Yes limited objectives are fine and unfortunately the way the US played it the good people of Bengazi are more grateful to the French and British than the US for the intervention (although the effort was probably 95% US and 5% the rest). And because life is a bitch the people of Misrata will probably blame the US for not saving them from Gaddafi.

US political strategy has been poor and has limited the military action to the point of emasculation. Nothing to be proud about.

[JMA]

Maximum effect on who?

When western democracies plan interventions (or avoid them), their first consideration is the effect on their domestic political situation, the second is the impact on political perceptions in other counties. The impact on the country being intervened in comes in a distant third.

If you only look at 1/3 of the picture it doesn't seem to make much sense, but that's often the case when you're only looking at part of the picture.

I suggest you are merely being argumentative.

I am not talking about the impact on the country (as you obviously know) but rather to know where the pressure points are in this case of Gaddafi's military and where to strike with maximum effect.

[JMA]

Would you mind explaining concretely--in terms of actual events and actions taken--what and what doesn't qualify as "brute force with ignorance?"

Libya. Half a billion worth of ordinance later and Gaddafi's forces are where they were on the ground on day one. Where is the smart in that?

The Taliban government folded? When?

Wow! You for real?

I suggest you start here and find that out for yourself: War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

[Dayuhan]

How does this ducking and diving of the US benefit the Libyans?

It's not meant to benefit the Libyans. it's meant to make sure the US is not responsible for removing MG, which would make us responsible for managing the unholy mess that will come after MG goes (whenever that is). It's also meant to avoid contributing to the perception that the US is eagerly pursuing and dominating interventions in Muslim lands, especially those with oil, which is a perception that directly empowers Al Qaeda.

Helping the Libyans is all well and good, but not to the point where we compromise our own interests and take on responsibilities we've no interest in managing.

Yes limited objectives are fine and unfortunately the way the US played it the good people of Bengazi are more grateful to the French and British than the US for the intervention (although the effort was probably 95% US and 5% the rest).

Why is that unfortunate? It's exactly what the US wanted: the perception that they, not the US, are running the show. No skin off our backside if we don't get thanked.

And because life is a bitch the people of Misrata will probably blame the US for not saving them from Gaddafi.

Probably true. We can deal with it. We're blamed for practically everything wrong with the world, and would be no matter what we do. It's not anything new.

I suggest you are merely being argumentative.

I am not talking about the impact on the country (as you obviously know) but rather to know where the pressure points are in this case of Gaddafi's military and where to strike with maximum effect.

I suggest that you're missing the point.

The effect on Gaddafi's military is not the primary consideration: the primary considerations are minimizing US involvement, managing domestic political impact, managing international perceptions of US aggressiveness, and getting out as soon as possible.

[Ray]

Well yes and that is what happened and the military action as it played out thereafter has not been affected by the delay. In fact where the situation stands today was just about where it was on day one with the single exception being that Gaddafi has no air force. So what exactly has the US/NATO action achieved other than to create a stalemate. Is this what the real intention was all along?

Gaddafi maybe a dictator in the eyes of the West, and even a tinpot one at that, but in the Muslim and African world, he is not viewed so. He commands respect and he has done much to project Islam power and African prestige. He is not a Gbagbo of Côte d'Ivoire, that he can be given a shakedown without a whimper from the international community. The UNSC voting pattern would indicate the drift.

Therefore, he has to be handled carefully and his sheen tarnished before the coup.

To believe that the West has no role to play in the rebellions around the Arab world would be naive since it would be a real coincidence that the whole Arab world suddenly is going up in flames with a new found messianic zeal for "Freedom and Democracy". Neither can one take it that the Libyan revolt is totally self generated. The Islamic world is used to authoritarian rule given the authoritarian rules of Islam and history shows that 'freedom' as is understood in the West is alien to them. Pakistan, would not be going down the chute, having inherited freedom and democracy from the British, if religion's authoritarian dictates did not have a greater impact than democracy that the British left as a legacy.

There are SF of western powers operating with the rebels, ostentatiously to ensure that western civilians are safe, when in actuality are said to be guiding the aircraft on their bombing runs and even indicating the FEBA. That there would be more or even guiding the rebels is a moot point.

The African Union is attempting to broker a peace between Gaddafi and the rebels, but one wonders how far it will succeed and how the conflict will pan out, if Gaddafi continues to resist and kill more Libyan rebels.

It is just the beginning and for once, the US is displaying a trait that was conspicuous by its absence - patience and Machiavellian astuteness!!

It appears that the US does not want to soil its hands, and rightly so, and instead allow the Libyans (with a little bit of help from friends) to sort out their internal issues.

Are there national interests at play here? I thought this was a humanitarian intervention?

Which intervention is not for 'humanitarian' reasons?

Iraq was too was a humanitarian cause! Regime change. Save the poor Iraqis from a ruthless dictator!!!!

And yet Mugabwe was allowed to run a riot massacring his people!! Obviously, such massacre was minor and did not require any 'humanitarian' intervention.

Neither did the genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda warrant 'humanitarian' intervention. That too was minor!

That leads me to 'national interests'.

The national interest is OIL. In this world of global recession, oil prices going through the ceiling would be catastrophic and so the control of oil and manipulating the prices is essential. That is the national interest.

It maybe worth noting that China, which panders pious platitudes and homilies abstained in the UNSC vote. Yet, it is the first one to buy and ship out oil from the very rebels that the UNSC vote went ignored! National interest for you. Morality is not the issue.

Rwanda and Zimbabwe did not warrant a 'humanitarian' intervention since there was no Oil to upset national economies.

How does this ducking and diving of the US benefit the Libyans? The US has been so politically correct that Misrata is still under siege and Gaddafi is once again almost at the gates of Bengazi. No doubt the politicians think they have been clever but I'm not sure Libya and the Libyans have benefited that much other than a massacre in Bengazi has not taken place.

Is anyone really worried about the Libyans?

To follow the "heartless" line why not have let Gaddafi butcher the people of Bengazi then it would probably have been acceptable to target him and go for regime change? Would that not have been more in the "national interest"?

Allow genocide and then target Gaddafi?

And have the world in arms over 'US imperialism' and NATO 'neo colonialism'?

Yes limited objectives are fine and unfortunately the way the US played it the good people of Bengazi are more grateful to the French and British than the US for the intervention (although the effort was probably 95% US and 5% the rest). And because life is a bitch the people of Misrata will probably blame the US for not saving them from Gaddafi.

It is only the Americans who feel that they are not 'in the reckoning' since they are not in the forefront going with all guns blazing. That famous macho cowboy image!

No, the French, the British or anyone may appear to be in the forefront, but the world is not ignorant. They know who is behind the driver's wheel. Being a thirdworlder, I may say that the US, for once, is playing a master role, just like it did against the Soviets in Afghanistan, where without the US assistance, the Mujhaideens and the ISI would be mere damp squibs and today, the Soviets have been removed and yet, none can say it was the US which did the damage.

US political strategy has been poor and has limited the military action to the point of emasculation. Nothing to be proud about.

The world is tired of US gung ho, shoot first and talk later cowboy image. This time around, the US appears to be with the world sentiment and yet are firmly in the driver's seat. None can blame the US.

The Americans made not be proud of what the US is doing, but the world cannot and does not grudge what the US has been forced to do!