The new Libya: various aspects

[Rex Brynen]

Instead, I think we're likely to see a lightweight, integrated MILOBS/CIVPOL mission similar to MINUGA...

That should be MINUGUA, of course.

[Dayuhan]

I would go further, Ken--I think putting US forces on ground would actually be counterproductive. The Libyans certainly don't want them (a point that seems to have escaped some recent commentators on the issue).

Agree with you, Rex, on personal pleasure that the Libyans are in process of removing Qaddafi. I'm even happier that Sarko and Cameron -- as well as the Dutch, Qataris and others including you Great White North types, the RCN and the RCAF (think that's the first time I've written that in over 40 years... ) stepped up and aided. I do not object terribly to the fact that we assisted a bit even though I believed and still do that we had no pressing interest there, as opposed to the Europeans who did and do...

I agree with Rex on the counterproductivity of US boots on the ground, and I share the sense of satisfaction at seeing Qaddafi fall to a Libyan resistance. Of course that satisfaction has to be tempered by a realistic assessment of the difficulties that will follow, but those difficulties would be there in any post-Qaddafi scenario. Those with unrealistic expectations will be disappointed, and some will blame NATO or the US or the Libyans. Better to keep the expectations realistic and avoid the need to blame anyone.

Building a functioning government to replace the 40-year absolute rule of a lunatic dictator is extraordinarily difficult, but it was going to happen sooner or later. Doing too much or too little would make matters worse; that was true durting the rebellion and it will be equally true in the phase to come. hopefully the interested outside parties can come in somewhere in between.

[M-A Lagrange]

...and then there is the real reason the NTC won: the secret AQ-NATO alliance:



I thought this was supposed to be kept a secret, dammit! What is it with all the OPSEC violations these days?

Rex,

Reading the article, I realised it was from "Reseau Voltaire". I would like to point out that Reseau Voltaire is extremely controversial, including and mainly about the sources and accuracy of facts related on it.
Just an exemple: in 2001, after 9/11, reseau voltaire supported (And still is) that it was a jewish plot and that Pentagone was a fake attack organised by CIA.
If what is said on that article is partially true, I would recommend great suspicion on the AQ and other interpretation/analyse of the events related on Reseau Voltaire.

[Rex Brynen]

Reading the article, I realised it was from "Reseau Voltaire". I would like to point out that Reseau Voltaire is extremely controversial, including and mainly about the sources and accuracy of facts related on it.

Yes, I do realize that NATO officers weren't leading jihadist troops in Tripoli.

[Fuchs]

Why do I bother to write forum posts on this?

I wrote this text years ago to deal once and for all with this kind of stupid thinking.


Economics is about allocating resources wisely.
####ting your pants at a random fantasy and throwing resources at countermeasures without a coherent and purposeful system for proper resource allocation is a recipe for waste.
A six-year-old can do better.

[ganulv]

I’m watching a reporter on Galavisión tour Gaddafi’s compound and a guy wearing a shirt that said <Strength Through Christ> was just standing in front of the camera yelling, “Allahu Akbar!” As second hand clothing moments go I think that tops even my girlfriend’s story of being at an Eid sacrifice in Burkina Faso where one of the participants was wearing a White Power t-shirt.

[Fuchs]

Why? Jesus is one of their prophets, and not necessarily a lesser one than Mohammed.

[ganulv]

Why? Jesus is one of their prophets, and not necessarily a lesser one than Mohammed.

Jesus is certainly important in Islam but there is no Resurrection tradition in Islam ergo no Christ. But trust a Southerner, it was an über-Evangelical t-shirt. Jesus has a place in Islam but Mohammed has no place in Evangelicalism. Well, Apostate #1, maybe.

There is a great moment in Of Gods and Men that touches on exactly what you’re talking about, though.

[carl]

Ken:

I have to learn to write more clearly. People seem to misunderstand me a lot. I will strive to do better.

Please notice that in post #44 I used a phrase something like "are involved in an important way." That means we already paid our dues and have a lot of clout which will make it easier for us to definitely track those missiles down if that can be done. I did not advocate increasing the level of our involvement escpecially when it comes to putting ground troops down. I don't believe I ever advocated that beyond a very limited number of trainers, log guys and maybe some secret JTAC types, none of which I would be surprised to see we have already done. Next time I will get my words in agreement and use "will" where I used "would".

I actually think that up to now, we have handled this thing pretty well and it is working out well for us. That may change tomorrow but it is looking OK now. We took care of the heavy weapons and the rebels did the rest as they should have. Now come the long frustrating part and it is for them to handle.

People tend to underestimate the effect of SA-24s getting out could have. The Russians use it themselves and have only sold it to two other countries. It is my understanding they generally only do that with things that really work well. A publication of the Society of Old Crows, ''Of Arrows and Needles'', says those things are scary good missiles:http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...es-Russia.html. If they ended up in Afghanistan the impact they would have would be far beyond a morale effect or giving aircrews justification for combat pay. They might threaten the ability of our forces to operate with the help of all the low level slow movers, to include helos, ISR assets, fixed wing gunships and maybe even A-10s. That is a big thing. That is a huge thing.

Fuchs:

You seem a bit testy. Those missiles are actually present in Libya. The situation in Libya is chaotic. It can be reasonably concluded that they may end up here, there, anywhere and should be gotten control of. This is hardly in the realm of contemplating equiping all civil airliners with anti-missile systems which is what I assume you were talking about in your blog post.

[Steve Blair]

Obligatory "keep it civil" warning round, folks.

[Fuchs]

Missiles are in many places. So what?


The concerns about Libyan ManPADS don't even stand a "so what" test.
You can buy ManPADS on the black market. There was one a Chechen warband in platoon strength destroyed by the Russians that had several ManPADS with them as if they were M72s.

To deal with Libyan weapons that got into the hands of irregulars (or whoever) requires idiotic, preventively expensive measures that are in no sane relation to the probability of those missiles actually being put into effective use against an airliner.

The whole 'being concerned' about those tiny missiles is a path to stupidity.

The world is already stupid enough.


edit: I meant this EXACTLY as I wrote it. This is my 'civil' mode. Anyone who disagrees that I gave a factual description can feel free to challenge me on it.

[Rex Brynen]

Missiles are in many places. So what?

The concerns about Libyan ManPADS don't even stand a "so what" test.
You can buy ManPADS on the black market.

It is actually rather harder than you think to buy a working MANPADS with a functional seeker head, coolant, and battery, and it is certainly quite difficult to get a later generation weapon. Moreover, the buyback programs both increase the price and, in some cases, generate useful intelligence on the black market.

AQIM, for example, hasn't deployed them in the Sahel, although they would be very useful. Prior to that, they weren't used in Algeria at all during the civil war (so far as I'm aware--I stand to be corrected). The ones used in Mombassa in 2002 were old, poor quality SA-7s.. indeed, it isn't even clear the attackers had managed to fire functional missiles (see my comment on "working" MANPADS). There has been no confirmed used of them by Hamas, in part because they previously couldn't be easily obtained on the black market (I suspect the Iranians were worried about chain-of-custody, since they largely smuggle through black market intermediaries; now there are reports that Hamas has them via Libya). Neither the Hawthis nor AQIP appear to have used them in Yemen.

No one is suggesting MANPADS be a driver of policy in Libya, nor have they been. Ought it be one of the (many) things the IC and NTC address? Of course.

[carl]

I second what Rex says and would add that missiles are missiles are missiles does not apply to the SA-24. According to the Old Crows, it is a whole 'nother animal.

[Fuchs]

No one is suggesting MANPADS be a driver of policy in Libya, nor have they been. Ought it be one of the (many) things the IC and NTC address? Of course.

Short of having the starship enterprise stored in Area 51, there's still nothing they can do about it without going well over the cliff in terms of resource allocation.

It's neither rational nor good nor advisable nor anything else positive to be bothered by things you cannot change.


This is clearly a no win situation - no matter what you do. Be a man and stand reality. There are some missiles somewhere, someone might get the idea to use them. So what.

It's total hubris to think that this should bother a government on a different continent. There is nothing that you can do about it that is not stupid.

Besides -there are millions of possible concerns with as much (little) 'importance' as this. You can't change that. get over it. Don't spend any valuable attention on such nonsense.
You need the attention for issues that can actually addressed in a 'win' fashion.

[Ken White]

Please notice that in post #44 I used a phrase something like "are involved in an important way." That means we already paid our dues and have a lot of clout which will make it easier for us to definitely track those missiles down if that can be done...

Sorry for misunderstanding, I took "I imagine it would be easier for us to do that given that we are involved in an important way" as suggesting possible increased involvement and, more pointedly, that only we could or properly should exercise such control.

People tend to underestimate the effect of SA-24s getting out could have... That is a big thing. That is a huge thing.

Perspective again. To a Flyer, it is understandably huge. To a grunt, present or former, it's a "Okay, for your clean sheets at night and decent food, you may get shot at with better weapons. Wow. Poor Baby.." That is NOT being glib, that is perspective, exaggerated perspective, hyperbolic perspective but perspective. Nor is it downplaying the capabilities of the Grinch; similar ground oriented capabilities have been available to many since the 70s.

Perhaps as is often the case, the truth wobbles about somewhere between my possible underestimation and your equally possible overestimation. The crux of the matter, I think is that, hopefully, someone responsible; Libyan NTC, British, French, even the US if we do have folks there now (as You Tube suggests... ) get control if it is possible -- I hope we can agree on that. We seem to agree that additional US forces are not necessarily required.

[carl]

Ken:

Maybe we were talking past one another again. I find little to disagree with in your last post. The effect of those things getting out is probably somewhere in the middle as you say. I do think it would be more rather than less though if only because there aren't that many of certain critical airplanes available, AC-130s for example. Unlike wars past we only have a handful and there is no fully cranked up production line. If a system that might reliably penetrate its' defenses existed in theatre, I suspect the USAF would severely curtail ops, not because the airman are nervous in the face of danger, but because they just couldn't afford to lose any airplanes that basically can't be replaced. If those ops were curtailed, it would very much effect the ground guys in an important way.

We do agree, more of us aren't needed on the ground. In their own eyes, the Libyan rebels are covering themselves with glory and still like us some, more of us would spoil that.

[davidbfpo]

Carl,

Being a SWC member whose feet stay on the ground I tried to find the cited [quote]Society of Old Crows, ''Of Arrows and Needles''[/quote and found only a 2002 close match, which does not refer to the SA-24. Have you got a link or pointer please?

In searching I found this Aviation Week article:

the Libyan Strelets fire Igla-S missiles but they can not be used as man-portable air defense (manpads). “To fire Iglas as a man-portable weapon you need a separate trigger mechanisms that were not supplied to Libya”..

Link:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...f-c98fdf99a7a0

[TDB]

Sorry to go off trend here, the current sub-topic being missiles and all.

I'm really curious to see what the civil order situation is like Tripoli. Having studied at length policing post-conflict cities (Alice Hills), I'm interested to see if a natural form of order has emerged. People not looting stores etc, the looting seems to be confined to buildings owned by the regime unlike in Baghdad. I'm sure if such looting was going on the media would have seized upon it just to shove it in the face of the international community and say "YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN!". So again unlike in Baghdad, people do not seem to be running amok after years of oppresion, perhaps because the fighting is still ongoing. Or is it just that people have a common understand along the lines of "we nearly have freedom, lets not ruin it". I know they were asking police to return to their jobs, as they did in Baghdad in 2003. These after all are the best people for it, with a little bit of SSR they should be ready to roll. I'm not really versed in the tribal schisms of Lybia, does anyone know if they run as deep as in say Afghanistan?

[Rex Brynen]

I'm really curious to see what the civil order situation is like Tripoli. Having studied at length policing post-conflict cities (Alice Hills), I'm interested to see if a natural form of order has emerged. People not looting stores etc, the looting seems to be confined to buildings owned by the regime unlike in Baghdad. I'm sure if such looting was going on the media would have seized upon it just to shove it in the face of the international community and say "YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN!". So again unlike in Baghdad, people do not seem to be running amok after years of oppresion, perhaps because the fighting is still ongoing. Or is it just that people have a common understand along the lines of "we nearly have freedom, lets not ruin it". I know they were asking police to return to their jobs, as they did in Baghdad in 2003. These after all are the best people for it, with a little bit of SSR they should be ready to roll. I'm not really versed in the tribal schisms of Lybia, does anyone know if they run as deep as in say Afghanistan?

There has been a great deal of spontaneous community organization in Libya, which has offset much of the institutional disorganization (or even lack of institutions, which was a hallmark of Qadaffi's rule). There is also a widespread sense of 'ownership" of the revolution by the people themselves--a sharp contrast to US regime change in Iraq. Most of the "looting" has involved carting off souvenirs from Qaddafi palaces or regime security installations.

In Benghazi, I was struck by 1) how little formal SSR had been undertaken, although by that point the NTC had been in control for 5 months--most of the policing was still volunteer; 2) how well it worked--the place seemed considerably safer than a great many non-conflict cities.

Unlike Egypt (or even Iraq), the regular civil police do not seem to have been associated in the popular mind with domestic repression, which undoubtedly will help in reconstituting them.

[Graycap]

There has been a great deal of spontaneous community organization in Libya, which has offset much of the institutional disorganization (or even lack of institutions, which was a hallmark of Qadaffi's rule). There is also a widespread sense of 'ownership" of the revolution by the people themselves--a sharp contrast to US regime change in Iraq. Most of the "looting" has involved carting off souvenirs from Qaddafi palaces or regime security installations.

In Benghazi, I was struck by 1) how little formal SSR had been undertaken, although by that point the NTC had been in control for 5 months--most of the policing was still volunteer; 2) how well it worked--the place seemed considerably safer than a great many non-conflict cities.

Unlike Egypt (or even Iraq), the regular civil police do not seem to have been associated in the popular mind with domestic repression, which undoubtedly will help in reconstituting them.

Sorry Rex if I ak you again the same question that maybe you have not seen (or maybe you chose to not to reply... ) but since you have been on the terrain (I was in a delegation organizing a visit in Bengazi too but we were sopped) and you say that no widespread looting has taken place.

Do you have any information about Central Bank and banking system?

I think that this kind of critical points are rather overlooked in the coverage. Libyan dinar has always been a currency with a complex history.
Its future value could have a strong influence in reconstruction (and debt settlements for Libyan state)