And Libya goes on...

[M-A Lagrange]

Have you any idea how many Libyan civilians have died in Misrata, Tripoli and elsewhere since the US decided the military should take their foot of the gas? Keep score, this is blood on Obama's hands.

JMA,

War, as you know it, means killing people. I have never been a supporter of Wilf mentra: victory is measured by nb of ennemy killed but this is the basic reallity.
I believe we would like to see small scales wars with limited number of cusualties... But that happens only in hollywood.

This is blood on the hands of Gadaffi! And his familly! no one else!

And by the way, I was rather thinking of UK and French ground troops. CIA actions on the ground have probably happened but it seems that it was rather limited. Both UK and France have people trained to "paint" objectives.

[JMA]

JMA,

War, as you know it, means killing people.

What we are seeing in Libya is a war? It is merely a very limited military intervention for humanitarian purposes.

I have never been a supporter of Wilf mentra: victory is measured by nb of ennemy killed but this is the basic reallity.

Number of killed? Who soldiers? Militias? Civilians?

There are too many dynamics to be so simplistic. What happened in Ivory Coast? Once the head of the snake was taken out/captured his armed support all but collapsed. (Of course the civil war would not have even reignited if Gbagbo (and his loyal military commanders) had been taken out months ago.)

I believe we would like to see small scales wars with limited number of cusualties... But that happens only in hollywood.

Why not? The modern armies (US and NATO) are trained for "big" wars and their systems and doctrine make just about anything complicated to execute. Maybe its time to look at a simple intervention like the Brits intervention into Sierra Leone in 2000 and then consider some reverse engineering of their systems and doctrine to be able to take on essentially Mickey Mouse Regional Conflicts in the simple terms they require.

This is blood on the hands of Gadaffi! And his familly! no one else!

Him too. But if you stand back and watch people getting butchered when you are there and empowered to prevent just that happening then are you not at least an accessory?

This is close to the Israeli's Sabra and Shatila massacre shame. The Israeli's there and Obama in Liyba cannot avoid charges of complicity or responsibility.

And by the way, I was rather thinking of UK and French ground troops. CIA actions on the ground have probably happened but it seems that it was rather limited. Both UK and France have people trained to "paint" objectives.

You need more than just troops to paint targets for air strikes. You need a bit of muscle to apply at a couple of pressure points to show the Gaddafi forces the futility of their continuing actions against Libyan civilians.

[tequila]

There are too many dynamics to be so simplistic. What happened in Ivory Coast? Once the head of the snake was taken out/captured his armed support all but collapsed. (Of course the civil war would not have even reignited if Gbagbo (and his loyal military commanders) had been taken out months ago.)

Actually I seem to recall the "New Forces" surging across the ceasefire line and overrunning most of the country before Gbagbo surrendered.

Gbagbo had some holdout forces in his bunker and some neighborhoods in Abidjan, but most of the country and indeed Abidjan was out of his control, mostly because his forces had either deserted, surrendered, or gone over to the other side.

[JMA]

Actually I seem to recall the "New Forces" surging across the ceasefire line and overrunning most of the country before Gbagbo surrendered.

Gbagbo had some holdout forces in his bunker and some neighborhoods in Abidjan, but most of the country and indeed Abidjan was out of his control, mostly because his forces had either deserted, surrendered, or gone over to the other side.

And your point is?

[JMA]

Have not seen any obvious difference between the individual soldiering skill between Liberia and Libya.



Anyone seen a photo of someone using their weapon sights?

[davidbfpo]

JMA asked;

Anyone seen a photo of someone using their weapon sights?

Yes, in the BBC TV footage in Misrata in the last week or so. It was an adult male aiming a FN SLR with a scope through a loophole and firing a round. Yes, a film clip taken for TV.

[JMA]

JMA asked;

Yes, in the BBC TV footage in Misrata in the last week or so. It was an adult male aiming a FN SLR with a scope through a loophole and firing a round. Yes, a film clip taken for TV.

David, thanks. I'm trying to get a feeling for what the rebels quality is as they seem to have done pretty well keeping Gaddafi's forces at bay. The advantage of local knowledge in an urban environment is massive but if there are now trained soldiers among the rebels then defending against trained/semi-trained soldiers is a tough ask. Once this is established them one can figure out what the quality of Gaddafi's forces is.

Interesting what you saw. Did he look like a confident trained soldier/sniper? If there are these guys hanging out there with the rebels in Misrata (AQ and the like) then I would have thought they would avoid being filmed or photographed. Your thoughts?

[Bob's World]

Have not seen any obvious difference between the individual soldiering skill between Liberia and Libya.



Anyone seen a photo of someone using their weapon sights?

History is a pretty long list of professional armies and their leadership who had great sport in their assessments of the unprofessional, populace rabbles they confronted.

Right up to the point where they realized that the "rabble" had somehow defeated them.

Often the pursuit of liberty is the powerful cause that elevates such rabble over professionals fighting for 3 hots and a cot; and who believe their own liberty is not at stake in this match.

[JMA]

History is a pretty long list of professional armies and their leadership who had great sport in their assessments of the unprofessional, populace rabbles they confronted.

Right up to the point where they realized that the "rabble" had somehow defeated them.

Often the pursuit of liberty is the powerful cause that elevates such rabble over professionals fighting for 3 hots and a cot; and who believe their own liberty is not at stake in this match.

Yes did happen Bob.

My interest in this is not to denigrate the Libyan rebels but rather to understand who they are and what they have to offer (see my later comment to David).

Its a "know your enemy" thing ... as in Sun Tzu

Interesting that these people have held Gaddafi's forces and mercenaries at bay in Misrata for weeks now. By knowing the rebels skills and capabilities one learns much about the skills (or the lack thereof) of Gaddafi's forces. McCain is correct, it is the third rate against the fourth rate.

[tequila]

And your point is?

Don't you think that an accurate representation of the history of the crisis is important?

Saying that Gbagbo's forces collapsed due to his capture is not accurate and would seem to indicate that the key to the resolution of the crisis was the removal of Gbagbo. Instead it appears that Gbagbo himself was to a large degree irrelevant - that the important thing was the removal of the false ceasefire line and empowerment of armed gangs aligned with Gbagbo, who were using the protection of said ceasefire line to loot Cote d'Ivoire's cocoa industry for as much as they could get out before the end came. Once the New Forces stopped respecting that line, the only thing stopping them was the distance between their line of departure and Abidjan.

Back on topic:

Libyan rebels firmly in control in mountainous West

Reporting from Beirut— Moammar Kadafi's forces came by the thousands with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers to quell an uprising in the forbidding Western Mountains region of Libya.

They left Zintan last month in a rout, rebels and Western journalists say, running through the woods as residents of the rebellious city pursued them using weapons and equipment seized from troops. It was a decisive battle that exposed the far western flank of Kadafi's security forces.

"What happened here was a beautiful thing," Milad Lameen, a 59-year-old former Libyan Airlines official and businessman who now serves as a political leader in Zintan, said in an interview conducted over Skype. "The equation was absolutely against us. But his troops and his mercenaries did not have a winning cause. We have a good cause."

While international attention has been focused on the rebel-controlled stronghold of Benghazi in eastern Libya and the besieged coastal city of Misurata, tens of thousands of Libyans have taken control of a mountainous region stretching about 100 miles from the Tunisian border toward the capital, Tripoli. The provisional government in the far west is in touch with the rebels in Benghazi but not under their authority.

On Thursday, Kadafi's forces suffered another blow in the Western Mountains region when rebels took over the Wazin-Dehibat border crossing with Tunisia, giving them access to supplies to sustain their enclave. The Libyan government denied that the border post had fallen, even as photographs show protesters there waving the pre-Kadafi flag of Libya ...

[JMA]

Don't you think that an accurate representation of the history of the crisis is important?

I have said a lot of things over on the Ivory Coast thread and I am not concerned about your attempt to score a point and in the process produce a ridiculous interpretation of the events in Ivory Coast.

I will concede that to protect myself from such nit-picking in the future I should be a little more careful in my choice of words.

For example, instead of using "Once the head of the snake was taken out/captured his armed support all but collapsed."

... I should have used "Once the head of the snake was taken out/captured his remaining armed support all but collapsed."

Now if you want to argue over my interpretation of the events in Ivory Coast I am game, so take to it over to that thread.

[Dayuhan]

Maybe its time to look at a simple intervention like the Brits intervention into Sierra Leone in 2000 and then consider some reverse engineering of their systems and doctrine to be able to take on essentially Mickey Mouse Regional Conflicts in the simple terms they require.

Why would the US want to get involved in "Mickey Mouse Regional Conflicts" where no US interests are at stake?

Him too. But if you stand back and watch people getting butchered when you are there and empowered to prevent just that happening then are you not at least an accessory?

Fascinating. The UN Resolution does not just "empower" the US to to prevent what's happening. It empowers all UN member states. Why then do you say the blood would be on Obama's hands? Many UN member states are doing nothing at all... do they have blood on their hands? What about the British and French, who were out front pushing for intervention? By what logic does saving Libya become an American responsibility?

I'm also fascinated by this notion that the US has somehow "lost its steam" because it declines to intervene in regional conflicts. If that's the case, we lost steam decades ago, if we ever had it. Just off the top of my head... did you see US intervention in the Indonesian massacres or the Nigeria-Biafra war in the 60s? In the Cambodian massacres in the 70s? I could go on, and on, as could any of us, but I think any of us who has a third of an eye on history would know that reluctance to intervene in foreign conflicts where the US has no direct interest at stake is nothing new for the US, even when those conflicts are very bloody..

[JMA]

Why would the US want to get involved in "Mickey Mouse Regional Conflicts" where no US interests are at stake?

Fascinating. The UN Resolution does not just "empower" the US to to prevent what's happening. It empowers all UN member states. Why then do you say the blood would be on Obama's hands? Many UN member states are doing nothing at all... do they have blood on their hands? What about the British and French, who were out front pushing for intervention? By what logic does saving Libya become an American responsibility?

I'm also fascinated by this notion that the US has somehow "lost its steam" because it declines to intervene in regional conflicts. If that's the case, we lost steam decades ago, if we ever had it. Just off the top of my head... did you see US intervention in the Indonesian massacres or the Nigeria-Biafra war in the 60s? In the Cambodian massacres in the 70s? I could go on, and on, as could any of us, but I think any of us who has a third of an eye on history would know that reluctance to intervene in foreign conflicts where the US has no direct interest at stake is nothing new for the US, even when those conflicts are very bloody..

Your posts are entertaining.

I have asked before how does anyone know what is the the US's interests at any given time? Any given two Americans will probably not agree on this.

So when in doubt take it from the President of the day.

Suggest you read the Obama Libya statement transcript and let it guide you from here on.

[Dayuhan]

I have asked before how does anyone know what is the the US's interests at any given time? Any given two Americans will probably not agree on this.

We elect people to decide. They may be right or wrong, but they get to decide, until somebody else gets elected.

Suggest you read the Obama Libya statement transcript and let it guide you from here on.

Public statements by elected officials are about putting a noble face on a decision, and say very little about the actual reasons for a decision and the balance of perceived interests that went into a decision. Not a good basis for any assumptions about perceived interests.

I've yet to see any credible argument from anyone, elected or not, suggesting that any US interest, let alone any vital US interest, is at stake in Libya.

[M-A Lagrange]

I've yet to see any credible argument from anyone, elected or not, suggesting that any US interest, let alone any vital US interest, is at stake in Libya.

Dayuhan, this looks rather like a I do not want to get out of my confort zone rather than a good argument to not go there.
And this illustrates my point: Bush administration said we will build a new Middle East and failed cause you cannot impose that from outside. Now people of Middle East are fighting to change it and the US (and others) are saying: do it yourself, not interrested anymore. And when an elected administration is saying let's go for it during an electoral period, the first and louder voice is: NO. Why? BECAUSE!
This is exactly what JMA is criticising: a complete lack of consistency in US foreign policy. US cannot start a fire and then say, I have changed my mind and will not play the firemen anymore now.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan, this looks rather like a I do not want to get out of my confort zone rather than a good argument to not go there.

You don't need a good argument to not go there. Not going there is and rationally should be the default reaction to other people's problems. You need a good argument to justify going there.

US cannot start a fire and then say, I have changed my mind and will not play the firemen anymore now.

How exactly did the US start this fire?

But yes, certainly US policy is inconsistent. That's a consequence of democracy. The Bush administration's policies drove the US into two unpopular and horribly expensive wars, greatly diminished US influence abroad, created all manner of controversy at home, etc. The party that embraced those policies was voted out of office, partly because of those policies. Naturally, those policies changed. Why would anyone want to be consistent with policies that didn't achieve the desired effect and produced all manner of adverse unintended consequences? Why be consistent when something doesn't work?

[JMA]

This is exactly what JMA is criticising: a complete lack of consistency in US foreign policy. US cannot start a fire and then say, I have changed my mind and will not play the firemen anymore now.

Exactly... and the Hungarians are still waiting (since 1956) for the US support to arrive which Radio Free Europe implied would be forthcoming.

It is evident that each successive generation of Americans either doesn't care or does not bother to learn from their own history.

I believe it is this everything is negotiable culture that has developed in the US where they will sell their anyone on the street corner if need be so what chance does a Hungarian or a Libyan have when push comes to shove.

[JMA]

I've yet to see any credible argument from anyone, elected or not, suggesting that any US interest, let alone any vital US interest, is at stake in Libya.

Well your President believes it and I accept that as being the official US position on the matter... and suggest that if you have a problem with that you take it up with him.

[Dayuhan]

Well your President believes it and I accept that as being the official US position on the matter... and suggest that if you have a problem with that you take it up with him.

And you know what the President believes... by telepathy?

The best indicator of the official US assessment of interests in Libya is the level of actual commitment: actions speak a lot louder than words. The very limited US commitment in Libya and the evident desire to avoid further entanglement and withdraw as soon as possible suggest strongly that no significant interests are perceived... no matter what anyone says in a public statement.

[William F. Owen]

I have never been a supporter of Wilf mentra: victory is measured by nb of ennemy killed but this is the basic reallity.

I don't know which Wilf said this, but if it is attributed to me, then I would this is incorrect in absolute terms.... but....

a.) The primary means of breaking enemy will is delivered via lethal force.
b.) Success in battles and engagements is about breaking will to persist in combat.

That puts a primacy on "killing effectively", and not just on killing anything and anyone. Generally speaking, if you are killing more of the enemy than they are killing of you, you are conducting highly effective military activity.... but this may not win you war! Why? Read Clausewitz. It's all in there.