And Libya goes on...

[JMA]

According to the french news paper Le Figaro, Gadaffi troops received the order to withdraw from Misrata.

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/80/20110423...s-554568f.html
(Sorry, in French)

Just like in Kosovo, it's when the external powers get up sed and start to send ground troops (so called liaison officers or diplomatic advisers) that air stike operations start to be fruitfull. Not to forget the use of drones with capacity to target precisely mortar and snipers...

Now, let's take it up to the end!

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.

[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,

We have to face the fact that US are limiting their involvement in Africa to places where they can get access to oil and let the roastbeef and the froggies take the lead in places they can limit China access to oil...
They are in Nigeria, South Sudan and Uganda... France is in Ivory Coast and Lybia...
I don't think it's a bad idea to share leadership according to context.
The problem now is to find out how RSA will be able to maintain her claim to be a permanent security council member to represent Africa.

I don't think that is the US strategy, I truly think as a nation they are running out of steam.

They would not be sharing leadership, it would be more like delegating responsibility temporally until they want to or need to get involved then they will take over control again.

Your expectation of South Africa is too great. South Africa has shown little leadership in any African or international initiative. (NEPAD was a failure so you can write that off.) South Africa is no different to any other African country other than it inherited significant commercial and physical infrastructure. The President is a crook no different from so many others in the region and the country is becoming a classic African kleptocracy which means there is little money for service delivery to the poor - as a result we are starting to see riots in the townships - like in the bad old days..

[Dayuhan]

Yes that was true up to the point when the US Administration realised that they had to get involved then in keeping with US practice being if they get involved they are going to run the show - previously described by me as the desire to be the bride at every wedding and the baby at every Christening - they moved in and elbowed the Limeys and the Frogs out of the way.

Remember now?

I remembered before. Of course the US has never expressed any desire or intention to "run the show" in this case: it was clear from the start that the US intended to play a supporting role and relinquish control to the French and British as soon as possible. Ideally the US wouldn't be there at all, but as we do have some capacities that the French and British lack, we helped them out in the early stages. We're still providing help as they request and as we see fit. We're supporting an effort led by allies. How is that so complicated?

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.

Complete load of bollocks. M-A is right, the blood is on MG's hands, nobody else's. Obama and the US have no responsibility whatsoever to provide any help at all to Libyan rebels. They have chosen to provide some, to the extent consistent with perceived US interests, but that's a choice, not an obligation.

[Dayuhan]

We have to face the fact that US are limiting their involvement in Africa to places where they can get access to oil and let the roastbeef and the froggies take the lead in places they can limit China access to oil...

The US has no need or capacity to limit Chinese access to oil. None. Access to oil is a function of money, and China has plenty. They can buy it from anyone who has it, and they will.

[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?

[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 ...

[davidbfpo]

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?

JMA,

From my armchair I'd say he was in his mid-thirties and since Libya has selective conscription he could have been trained. He just poked his rifle out, squinted through the sight and fired a shot.

What did puzzle me was the FN SLR with a scope, which appeared in excellent condition. I had expected to see a standard Soviet-type weapon, as most footage shows. Elsewhere others have commented on old weapons appearing, e.g. a WW2 German SMG, minus a magazine.

I expect, no suspect that Libya has retained every generation of weapon it has purchased or acquired. There has been the widespread looting of state armouries, not just the military and private individuals have legal and illegal weapons.

As I have posted before (from Abu M citing WSJ) the rebels in Misrata do appear to be organised and well-motivated. As for being filmed that was not an issue, they know defeat means death.

[davidbfpo]

Tequila,

Good catch the LAT report.

The capture of a border crossing was reported here without any context or helpful comment; almost as if the rebels had crossed over the border.

I am sure SWC readers have noted the lack of any reporting - except on migrant workers leaving - from the Tunisian border. Where does the new Tunisian government stand? Perhaps our two local observers (Italian & Spanish) can comment.

[jmm99]

JMA, in using the Wiki - Limited War as a doctrinal publication (quoting from it: "This military-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." - go to it, young South African, go to it !!).

That being said, its minimal content does mention Korea and Vietnam - which allows me to segué into what I was going to post anyway.

During and since Korea, US practice has been for civilians to not only intervene in the military decision-making process, but to control it and make military decisions. In short, we have seen a steady increase in the amount of civilian micro-management of military operations. Given today's technology, the President of the United States could indeed be that legendary Strategic Corporal - and a Tactical Corporal as well. (thumbs down)

Sticking within the timeframe of JMA's Wiki, I've known some of the civilian players in the national security civilian-military interface from those conflicts. One could rank their competence in their civilian pursuits over a range to which reasonable people might differ (all were certainly NOT outstanding).

But, one conclusion as to which I have a firm belief, is that none of them that I've known was competent to make military decisions. None of them. FULL STOP. I'm NOT competent to make military decisions; but at least I try to understand them and military doctrines.

Coming back to "limited war", you'd have a ton of paper (if you'd print it out) on US doctrine and commentary on "limited war". Someone else can provide a reading list.

This snip (written by Dave Petraeus in the 1980s) simply illustrates the futility of relying on "limited war" as some sort of "cost control":

Never Again Schoolmates.jpg

Gavin et al speak for themselves.

-------------------------------------

No, I've no definition for "foreign occupation force" as used by the UN in Res. 1973. The language "of any form on any part" seems a strong limitation to me. That, however, is an intuitive, gut reaction and not the product of legal research.

Googling - "foreign occupation force" - yields 590,000 hits. Go ye forth young man and engage the Virtual World. Get some for me.

Cheers

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

JMA:

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

A war, to use a well known author (Clausewitz) is the use of force to impose a political change to an opponent (excuse me if I do not quote word for word).
In deed, in Libya, there is a war. Who does conduct that war is another question and I believe the rebels are fighting a war.

Secondly, about humanitarian military intervention:
I would encourage you to read this:
Humanitarian Military Intervention: The Conditions for Success and Failure
by Taylor B. Seybolt
ISBN 978-0-19-925243-5 (hardback) 978-0-19-955105-7 (paperback)
http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=335

Humanitarian military intervention is controversial. Scepticism is always in order about the need to use military force because the consequences can be so dire. Yet it has become equally controversial not to intervene when a government subjects its citizens to massive violation of their basic human rights. This book recognizes the limits of humanitarian intervention but does not shy away from suggesting how military force can save lives in extreme circumstances.

Contents
1. Controversies about humanitarian military intervention (download sample chapter)
2. Judging success and failure
3. Humanitarian military interventions in the 1990s
4. Helping to deliver emergency aid
5. Protecting humanitarian aid operations
6. Saving the victims of violence
7. Defeating the perpetrators of violence
8. The prospects for success and the limits of humanitarian intervention

About the author
Dr Taylor B. Seybolt (United States) is an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. He was previously a Senior Program Officer at the United States Institute of Peace and Leader of the SIPRI Conflicts and Peace Enforcement Project. His publications include ‘The Darfur Atrocities Documentation Project: a perspective from Washington, DC’, in Genocide in Darfur: Investigating the Atrocities in Sudan (Routledge, 2006, edited by S. Totten and E. Markuson); ‘Humanitarian intervention and communal civil wars: problems and alternative approaches’, Security Studies (2003, with Daniel Byman); and a number of contributions to the SIPRI Yearbook in 2000–2002. He received his PhD in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
And the wiki about military humanitarian intervention which is of quality with numerous links to relevant documents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention

I believe we would like to see small scales wars with limited number of casualties... 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.

The zero casualty theory is a nice dream that does not change the nature of war: use of violence to impose by killing combatants and destruction of properties a political end.

And finally, I would like to flag Save the Children report on Libya which is quite disturbing:

Michael Mahrt, Save the Children's Child Protection Advisor who is currently conducting the assessment, said: "The reports of sexual violence against children are unconfirmed but they are consistent and were repeated across the four camps we visited.
"Children told us they have witnessed horrendous scenes. Some said they saw their fathers murdered and mothers raped. They described things happening to other children but they may have actually happened to them and they are just too upset to talk about it - it's a typical coping mechanism used by children who have suffered such abuse.
"What is most worrying is that we have only been able to speak to a limited number of children - what else is happening to those who are trapped in Misurata and other parts of the country who do not have a voice?"

http://reliefweb.int/node/398089

[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]

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.

[JMA]

No, I've no definition for "foreign occupation force" as used by the UN in Res. 1973. The language "of any form on any part" seems a strong limitation to me. That, however, is an intuitive, gut reaction and not the product of legal research.

Googling - "foreign occupation force" - yields 590,000 hits. Go ye forth young man and engage the Virtual World. Get some for me.

Cheers

Mike

I responded to this that you posted:

"With respect to ground forces, the Res. is definitely a legal constraint on military planning options..."

...I was wondering if I understood you correctly as the how you saw the Res 1973 as being a constraint on military operations?

Here is something from the House of Commons Library, which is good enough for me.

Interpretation of Security Council Resolution 1973 on Libya

[JMA]

JMA, in using the Wiki - Limited War as a doctrinal publication (quoting from it: "This military-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." - go to it, young South African, go to it !!).

That being said, its minimal content does mention Korea and Vietnam - which allows me to segué into what I was going to post anyway.

During and since Korea, US practice has been for civilians to not only intervene in the military decision-making process, but to control it and make military decisions. In short, we have seen a steady increase in the amount of civilian micro-management of military operations. Given today's technology, the President of the United States could indeed be that legendary Strategic Corporal - and a Tactical Corporal as well. (thumbs down)

Sticking within the timeframe of JMA's Wiki, I've known some of the civilian players in the national security civilian-military interface from those conflicts. One could rank their competence in their civilian pursuits over a range to which reasonable people might differ (all were certainly NOT outstanding).

But, one conclusion as to which I have a firm belief, is that none of them that I've known was competent to make military decisions. None of them. FULL STOP. I'm NOT competent to make military decisions; but at least I try to understand them and military doctrines.

Coming back to "limited war", you'd have a ton of paper (if you'd print it out) on US doctrine and commentary on "limited war". Someone else can provide a reading list.

This snip (written by Dave Petraeus in the 1980s) simply illustrates the futility of relying on "limited war" as some sort of "cost control":

Never Again Schoolmates.jpg

Gavin et al speak for themselves.

My post was merely to draw attention FWIW that according to the current Brit doctrine the use of Limited War can be confusing as it is increasingly seen as an anachronism from the Cold War days (for the reasons I mentioned).

I tend to find URLs of items suitable to explain/expand upon what I an saying as much of what supports my comments is on hard copy or personal communication in confidence. Wikipedia often suits that purpose as does a simple Google search.

I have raised the issue of civilian/politician competency in the piracy thread and also in personal correspondence here and elsewhere.

If you have followed my comment on this matter you will have noted that I am in agreement that as fart as civilians/politicians are concerned "none of them that I've known was competent to make military decisions." I would extend that to a question whether any are or have been, hence the problems experienced by the military in say (to keep it simple) the last hundred years.

This is why I am attempting to expose the role of the politicians in the Libyan exercise (and elsewhere) and where and how it affects the military and thereby the outcome of the operation. Bear with me (or contribute) as it may take a little time.