The new Libya: various aspects

[Ken White]

Libyan forces possess, or possessed, SA-24s. It is very much in our interest that those missiles be gotten control of. I imagine it would be easier for us to do that given that we are involved in an important way. This may not be a big picture consideration, but if those things showed up in the wrong place it would be bad.

France, Italy and the UK are fairly trustworthy -- in the eyes of many, more so than is the US...

Given the net costs to us thus far even if those Grinches got into the hands of the Evil Enema and were to down a bird or a few, I doubt the cost benefit ratio works out well. That without adding any US efforts on the ground, post conflict (After the screaming about the US getting others to do their dirty work then stepping in at the end to hog glory, credit --and Grinches <--[the eyeroll is for those 'others' folks, not the Grinches...]). As I said, real as opposed to assumed...

[carl]

Given the net costs to us thus far even if those Grinches got into the hands of the Evil Enema and were to down a bird or a few, I doubt the cost benefit ratio works out well.

That is just a tad glib, especially to the crews of the bird or two, especially if the bird was a C-17 climbing out of Kandahar with load of wounded soldiers. Preventing that kind of thing seems a real US interest to me. The cost benefit ratio you can argue with others. It is a US interest.

Fuchs:

That's me, looking at the world through thick lens' of distortion, thinking that a very sophisticated shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile, that was designed by some very proficient people to defeat our countermeasures, in the hands of people who would do us ill, might actually do us ill. Talk of context mystifies me. All I can think of is our ops throughout the world depend on unfettered air ops and that possession of a sophisticated missile in the hands of insurgent forces had some pretty profound consequences in the past.

There now that I've vented my spleen, I really don't understand why you think concern about this is irrational.

[Ken White]

...especially to the crews of the bird or two,

That's focused...

especially if the bird was a C-17 climbing out of Kandahar with load of wounded soldiers.

That would be most regrettable. Particularly as I've got a son working out of KAF as we write but unfortunately, things like that happen in wars. It goes with the territory. He knows and accepts that and so do I.

Preventing that kind of thing seems a real US interest to me.

Of course it does. Regrettably, while it is a minor interest, it is also virtually impossible to prevent that sort of thing. One should try to preclude things like that but this:

The cost benefit ratio you can argue with others.

gets in the way of the precluding effort.

It's a question of priorities and of scale. As I mentioned elsewhere yesterday, we kill more people in automobile accidents OR medical misadventures in the US every year than we've had killed in 10 long years of this so-called war on whatever. Rex Brynen's 747 or your C-17 would be bad and unwanted events but either could happen if all the Grinches were scuffed up and accounted for by the French. Conversely, even if none of the missiles were located, those events might not ever occur. You may not like the cost benefit ratio but it must be considered and will be. No need for anyone to argue it, it is what it is and the decision makers are unlikely to listen to me or to you.

I too worry about thing like loose missiles but I can do the math -- and that does not favor putting US forces on the ground in Libya. It does not preclude it but it certainly doesn't make it desirable...

It is a US interest.

As you said, it is -- to you. More correctly, it is a US interest that to you merits our intervention on the ground. The problem with which you're confronted is that the planners and policy maker will look upon that as an ancillary issue if there is a decision to send folks in. It is an item to consider if force are there, it is not significant enough to justify a big effort on its own merits. Add all the potential issue and IMO, there is not adequate interest to send troops to Libya. YMMV.

I do not propose to speak for Fuchs but this merits a response based on your perception of my comment.

I really don't understand why you think concern about this is irrational.

it's not irrational, it's sensible but like it or not, you bump into the cost-benefit ratio. You're suggesting certain and relatively easily calculated costs and impacts be absorbed to possibly prevent a possible harm. Two possibles don't outweigh a negative.

[Rex Brynen]

I too worry about thing like loose missiles but I can do the math -- and that does not favor putting US forces on the ground in Libya..

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).

Instead, I think we're likely to see a lightweight, integrated MILOBS/CIVPOL mission similar to MINUGA, complemented by bilateral assistance from the French, British, Qataris, Jordanians, and others. Whether the security situation comes together or falls apart will be in large part a function of adroit local politics, not boots on the ground. In this respect, the rather anomalous Iraqi and Afghan cases have rather skewed perceptions of how post civil war transformations are usually facilitated (which is NOT through a large US or NATO presence).

[Rex Brynen]

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

Then, a NATO warship sailed up and anchored just off the shore at Tripoli, delivering heavy weapons and debarking Al Qaeda jihadi forces, which were led by NATO officers.

Fighting stared again during the night. There were intense firefights. NATO drones and aircraft kept bombing in all directions. NATO helicopters strafed civilians in the streets with machine guns to open the way for the jihadis.

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

[Ken White]

Where do you guys find these porn sites???

P.S.

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...

[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.

[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.