Page 6 of 50 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 997

Thread: And Libya goes on...

  1. #101
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    The headline should have been "...versprechen.", not "...sprechen" - entirely different verb.


    The EU has neither the experience nor the budget nor the mission to do what Barroso wants. The European powers are very surprised by the developments, here's a summary:

    Germany
    7% of our oil imports come from Libya and North Africa is popular among German tourists. There aren't much more links.

    UK
    Had close ties to Ghadaffi's regime (dunno why), is embarrassed - Cameron wants to play over this by feigning the resolute contra-Ghadaffi man.

    France
    Had close ties to Tunisian regime and has close ties to Algerian regime. Got caught in the turmoil and embarassed. Sarkozy is unable of strategy and still doesn't seem to have selected a new path.

    Italy
    Had a strange love-hate relationship with former colony Libya, and its almost autocratic Berlusconi is way too close to Ghadaffi. Italy has the advantage of not being embarrassed by such minor issues any more; Berlusconi and the Mafia provide much greater embarrassments all the time.

    Spain
    Really, really busy with economic and fiscal woes.

    Greece
    Same as Spain.

    Eastern EU members and Benelux
    Afaik not really involved.

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

    Barroso would need a broad support from these governments for major actions in this affair, and he's not going to get it. The EU cannot simply go to a bank and get the money for an adventure; it must not have any deficit. It cannot raise taxes either; all its money comes from the member states.

  2. #102
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Fuchs, I suspect your "oil math" is the direct costs and only the tip of the iceberg; with the majority of the true costs to the US, and in turn, the global economy looming beneath the surface in the indirect effects.

    A better point to support your argument is that it is a global market and all of these countries must sell oil to survive. For the even the Saudis to threaten to not sell us oil is like a small child threatening to hold its breath until it gets its way. Either it must soon gasp for air or collapse; or you just turn the impetuous brat over your knee and remind him of his true place in the big scheme of things. Bottom line, is that such disruptions are minor.

    For Germany, the better example is probably your relationship with Russia than your relationship with Libya when we discuss the US and the Middle East as a whole.

    All of this could be solved in short order if the US were a good colonial empire like our similarly situated predecessors. We would have simply colonized all of these places, or carved off the parts that we wanted (ala the Brits all along the gulf coast, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc) and exerted our dominion over the same, taken the resources at cost, and emplaced puppet regimes to guard our interests under the Stars and Stripes.

    But we are in this moral middle-ground. An "Empire without Colonies" is how I see it. We get into all the same messes, but with half the benefit and far less ability to easily smack unruly leaders and populaces back into line when they try to exert some independence as well. We'll just chalk that up as a phase we had to go through.

    Now it is time to move on to the next phase, perhaps a "World Power without Empire"? Who knows, but events such as are unfolding now across the middle east are shaping that transition right now. We miss all of that if all we do is stare into the flames.

    We live in dynamic times, and an new era is emerging. I personally think it will be an era marked my much more conventional warfare, though with new non-state players in the mix in new ways, than this transitionary period has been. We would be foolish indeed if we confuse transition for the new reality and prepare for it rather than what comes next.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  3. #103
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Don't cuss at anyone unless you're prepared to be cussed in return. Do not ever pull a gun on anyone unless you're prepared to use it. Do not employ military force unless you're prepared for the escalation that will almost certainly occur.
    I doubt that truer words have been written.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  4. #104
    Council Member CrowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Haxbach, Schnurliland
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    ...So we're discussing national interests in a trade volume of only 800 million *
    ...
    How much U.S. military spending is being 'justified' with Middle East meddling?
    ...
    I don't see any major U.S. interests in the MidEast region that justify the great expenses people have become accustomed to.
    To me, this appears entirely irrelevant.

    Before the USA invaded Iraq, in 2003, the US "national interests" in that country were even lower than nowadays in Libya. So, that with "present worth of oil bucks" was certainly no issue. But, that with "potential future oil bucks" - definitely was.

    If the US gets involved, and after the regime in Libya is removed, many of commercial cards will be re-distributed. And that offers plenty of entirely new opportunities - so also for the USA.

  5. #105
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    We live in dynamic times, and an new era is emerging. I personally think it will be an era marked my much more conventional warfare, though with new non-state players in the mix in new ways, than this transitionary period has been. We would be foolish indeed if we confuse transition for the new reality and prepare for it rather than what comes next.
    And thus far I see little evidence that we are doing so...

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    I personally think it will be an era marked my much more conventional warfare, though with new non-state players in the mix in new ways, than this transitionary period has been. We would be foolish indeed if we confuse transition for the new reality and prepare for it rather than what comes next.
    Between who and who?

    The problem the US is experiencing in Afghanistan is their inability to fix the enemy. If the US are able to fix the enemy they will kill it with the overwhelming force available to them.

    The Boer Wars are a reminder of how a relatively small force with solid local support were able to run circles around a large conventional army which was too slow to adapt to the conditions on the ground and the tactics of the enemy. It took a policy of scorched earth to finally break the back of the rebellion (a policy which the Brits would rather not talk about even today).

    So maybe your forecast expresses the hope that some bunch of idiots will try to take on a major power in a conventional war rather than any real likelihood.

  7. #107
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Between who and who?

    The problem the US is experiencing in Afghanistan is their inability to fix the enemy. If the US are able to fix the enemy they will kill it with the overwhelming force available to them.

    The Boer Wars are a reminder of how a relatively small force with solid local support were able to run circles around a large conventional army which was too slow to adapt to the conditions on the ground and the tactics of the enemy. It took a policy of scorched earth to finally break the back of the rebellion (a policy which the Brits would rather not talk about even today).

    So maybe your forecast expresses the hope that some bunch of idiots will try to take on a major power in a conventional war rather than any real likelihood.
    JMA,

    I think you are getting your apples mixed in with my oranges a bit here. Rather than agonizing over the tactual inability to "fix" the enemy, it may be more instructive to step back and ask what exactly the Brits were doing in South Africa and what exactly the US is doing in Afghanistan and what they hoped to gain from their respective operations.

    Neither were on their home turf, but my understanding is that the British intent was to stay, setup shop, and establish dominion and governance over the region and all who lived there. Killing off all who opposed such an arrangement works, as was well demonstrated in North and South America.

    The US goals in Afghanistan are quite different. "All" (in quotes, because even this is infeasible) the President has asked us to do is “to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda and to prevent their return to either Afghanistan or Pakistan.” I believe that would make the "enemy" AQ rather than the Taliban, and any earth that gets "scorched" in the process is not going to belong to either the US or AQ, now is it?

    If asked, I would advise the President to back his guidance back a notch or two to something more along the lines of “to disrupt al Qaeda in South Asia without destabilizing either Afghanistan or Pakistan.”

    After all, I believe we can achieve disruption of AQ in concert with Pakistan and Afghanistan in a manner that is acceptable to the Pashtun populace they take their sanctuary among; but that we certainly will not be able contain AQ in the FATA, nor "dismantle/defeat" them by operations that only take place in that one little corner of their global playground.

    No, our problem is not a tactical one, our problem is that we have mischaracterized the nature of AQ in general, and then allowed ourselves to get into a supporting operation of helping the Northern Alliance gain power in Afghanistan and then defending them against the other half of the society that was represented by the Taliban.

    Kind of like cops in hot pursuit chasing a murderer into someone's home, and then getting caught up in a domestic dispute there while the murderer hides out in the house next door, where he ran to with the abusive head of the first household to hide out with his relatives. Here we are attempting to force a resolution of our own making onto someone else's domestic drama, and totally losing sight of why we even ran into this madhouse in the first place. Meanwhile the murderer is still at work, running his global operation, enjoying the support of the abusive husband we threw out into the street, while we are stuck with the crazy wife and her kids back in the house. Probably time to just say our good byes, and get back to the business that brought us here.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  8. #108
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    And thus far I see little evidence that we are doing so...
    We'll see when we attempt to use mortars, MRAPs and Strykers to fight a conventional foe that is more force or terrain oriented than the current internal conflicts we have gotten into the middle of.

    There are still plenty of unresolved and evolving issues in that huge fault line of Eastern European States; coupled with a mix of geo-political realities that could boil up into conventional state on state conflicts in the near future. The US has a habit of getting sucked into these things. Alliances will shift, muscles will flex. It is inevitable.

    In the east the Japan/China dynamic will continue to grind along as well. Hard to say how that could play out, but undoubtedly it will affect the US. We fixate on North Korea and Taiwan, but those are probably low on our list of real worries in that region.

    Don't have a crystal ball, but do think it is best to remain postured for maximum flexibility, and being capable of deterring or dealing with threats that can actually hurt us; rather than getting over fixated and fixed to problems that in the big scheme of things are fairly minor irritants.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  9. #109
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Not really...

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Between who and who?
    Lots of little guys -- think the 1930s, once removed...
    The problem the US is experiencing in Afghanistan is their inability to fix the enemy.
    That's the "Not really" -- it's not an inability, it is unwillingness, two very different things.

    Unfortunately, the problems thus generated are that unwillingness creates excessive own casualties and sends a bad message on ability and / or capability that can lead some to misjudge.

    Alas, we've had that problem for many years and that's why the US should not play an active or overt part in these sorts of wars.
    The Boer Wars are a reminder of how a relatively small force with solid local support were able to run circles around a large conventional army which was too slow to adapt to the conditions on the ground and the tactics of the enemy.
    As Bob's World pointed out the British had reason to stay and do that -- or believed they did. We have no such impetus and we do not need to do these things. There is absolutely no reason for us to play to the strengths of others and hopefully, that will finally dawn on the power structure. My sensing is that it's finally starting to penetrate though there are of course the few odd, old Cold War fighters Bob properly denigrates...

    The point being the British were forced to play to their adversary's strengths. We do not have to do that, yet we continue to try to do so and it's stupid. You'd think the Politicians would learn but they don't seem to do so...
    So maybe your forecast expresses the hope that some bunch of idiots will try to take on a major power in a conventional war rather than any real likelihood.
    Or expresses just the thought that some bunch of idiots may try to take on another bunch and we can either join them or, far better, just watch and be prepared to reject idiocy if it approaches.

  10. #110
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Thumbs up Yea, verily

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    We'll see when we attempt to use mortars, MRAPs and Strykers to fight a conventional foe that is more force or terrain oriented than the current internal conflicts we have gotten into the middle of.
    Yep. Trying to be something one is not always causes one to buy things that are not only not needed but a drain on other things...
    The US has a habit of getting sucked into these things. Alliances will shift, muscles will flex. It is inevitable.
    The US does have a terrible penchant for trying to 'fix' things that aren't ours to fix...
    Don't have a crystal ball, but do think it is best to remain postured for maximum flexibility, and being capable of deterring or dealing with threats that can actually hurt us; rather than getting over fixated and fixed to problems that in the big scheme of things are fairly minor irritants.
    Heh. True -- and some don't even really rise to the minor irritant level...

  11. #111
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    The objections to helping the rebels in a small way are mostly to the effect of "all or nothing"; we land the Marines or we do nothing at all. The logic motivating this is that if there is an immediate critical national interest at stake, we do all and if there is not, we do nothing. A corollary of that position is that if we do anything, we will inevitably do all; all or nothing again.

    This puts us at a huge disadvantage when dealing with a situation that is a national interest, as I believe the Libyan rebels prevailing is, but is not an immediate vital national interest. In those cases we have to stand by and watch. However it may be a national interest that we be able to do something (there's that phrase, go ahead and run with it) in these kinds of situations rather than nothing. There is no reason we can't limit our efforts. We did it in the early part of the 20th century and we are doing it now in the Philippines.

    The nature of the things I suggested might help limit involvement. Ships offshore (probably 25 miles) manned by professional sailors, shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile teams composed people employed by an OGA, A-teams composed of professional warriors. It seems to me that a situation like this is exactly why we have those types of forces, so they can be used in unconventional ways in order to limit the depth of our involvement. The ships are on the ocean, the OGA isn't readily visible and the A-teams would stay back in order to help coordinate a disorganized effort, not be up front leading. All are of great value but none are "all" nor are they "nothing".

    An effort like that may not work out. But that is not a reason to try. If we have the self-discipline required to limit the effort we may gain much while risking little. The ability to do that is a valuable thing. If it doesn't work, we will have lost little. Ken made the point that they may be worse off for us having helped if they fail. That may be true, it is never wise to provoke the god of "it can't be any worse"; but I suspect, suspect mind you, that given the nature of the dictator, the rebels only options are to win or....

    Surferbeetle: It is true the Euros have lots of advanced, well maintained ships, aircraft and well trained soldiers. But it is also true they don't do anything but maintain and train. If anything is to be done, we will be the ones to do it. Because we do. They don't.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  12. #112
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    The objections to helping the rebels in a small way are mostly to the effect of "all or nothing"; we land the Marines or we do nothing at all. The logic motivating this is that if there is an immediate critical national interest at stake, we do all and if there is not, we do nothing. A corollary of that position is that if we do anything, we will inevitably do all; all or nothing again.
    I wouldn't characterize it that way at all. First, what is the objective? Do you know? I sure don't. The use of military force must have a purpose - what is that purpose? "Doing something" without a goal is worse than stupid. The level of force required completely depends on what we're trying to do.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  13. #113
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    It is probably worth noting that the best Qaddafi can likely hope for with his current tact is to restore a state of forced suppression over the insurgency. To reset the conditions of failure. The conditions of insurgency will remain quite high, and having had a whiff of liberty this is not a populace that will quit their pursuit of liberty after a "whiff of grape."

    The people may re-engage violently, or as is often the case, become more organized and pursue more effective non-violent means to better leverage popular support with international legal organizations.

    Qaddafi will likely offer up some lame, inadequate concessions, much as the Saudis are currently doing. My advice to all of these nervous despots is that now is not the time to be tight-fisted. Either have the balls to totally and ruthlessly crush your own populace so that they dare not complain; or in the alternative concede that the royal party is over and that it is finally time to give the people some means to legally affect government, listen to their concerns, and make reasonable concessions on important issues. There is little tolerance in today's information age for option one, so best to go with option two. Most will be able to retain power if this is how they go.

    For American leaders, stop staring at Libya and wringing your hands. Step back, look at the big picture, and act. This is far bigger than Libya, and in that context the US absolutely has interests at stake. But remember that what we do here sets a precedent for when similar events unfold in Yemen or Saudi, etc. As Jim Rome says on his sports radio show "Have a take, and don't suck!"
    Last edited by Bob's World; 03-11-2011 at 05:06 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  14. #114
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Entropy said it well...

    Consider also:
    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    A corollary of that position is that if we do anything, we will inevitably do all; all or nothing again.
    Two issues there. First, the "inevitably do all" isn't exactly right, it is not inevitable -- however, it it is historically what seems to occur. IOW, the precedents are that a commitment of military force, no matter how small tends to escalate, not necessarily to an "all" situation but certainly to be bigger and messier than anticipated (LINK). Often far messier...

    Secondly, one is constrained by the capabilities one actually has -- not that one would like or is working on but that exist at the time of commitment. What you propose is viable -- what we have to actually do that with in the way of trained, competent and sustainable forces (and supporting elements) is not much. That is sad, given the amount of money we spend and the talent that is available but it is a fact and must be considered. We should be able to do things along the lines you suggest, we have not provided ourselves with the capabilities, civilian and military, to do that without committing standard military units and elements that are not really competent to do what's needed; IOW we need a scalpel with a 15c blade and all we have is a Panga. Thus your statement:
    This puts us at a huge disadvantage when dealing with a situation that is a national interest.
    is absolutely correct, need not and should not be -- but it is.
    If we have the self-discipline required to limit the effort we may gain much while risking little.
    That's true -- and we do not seem to have that self discipline. Part of that is engendered by our political system which is clumsy and constantly interferes with itself by design. That gets to be annoying at times -- like on this issue -- but on balance, I wouldn't change it. What it has produced is worth the annoyances.
    ... but I suspect, suspect mind you, that given the nature of the dictator, the rebels only options are to win or....
    Regrettably true. Been that way for thousands of years. It gets a little better each year, there are fewer and fewer of those problems about but I doubt it'll ever go away totally. People...

  15. #115
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southport NC
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    For American leaders, stop staring at Libya and wringing your hands. Step back, look at the big picture, and act. This is far bigger than Libya, and in that context the US absolutely has interests at stake. But remember that what we do here sets a precedent for when similar events unfold in Yemen or Saudi, etc.
    Big picture is these nation states are all different in the nature of the uprising. Mubarak was going to have to go anyway, they are a mixed bag of countries and all have different dynamics. Republic VS Monarchy, Shia VS Sunni, inflation, and the opportunity to challenge current order. Some of these countries must restore order, some may need to fall.

    Libya needs to fall, yet the rebels really are not our friends. We should not put skin in this game. If Europe wants to, whatever. It's their call.
    Few more countries in the middle east, if any, will fall. Tho some other countries are facing this. Azerbaijan, Albania, who knows.

    The US involvement should be conditional with US interests. In the magik kingdom, we have great interest. Tunisia, not so much.

  16. #116
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    I wouldn't characterize it that way at all. First, what is the objective? Do you know? I sure don't. The use of military force must have a purpose - what is that purpose? "Doing something" without a goal is worse than stupid. The level of force required completely depends on what we're trying to do.
    I stated the purpose in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the post you quoted from, the rebels prevail. The level of force that I outlined, all just ideas from an interested civilian, is I believe comensurate (sic) with that limited goal.

    I think the removal of the dictator will benefit the Libyan people in the short run, us in the short run, stabilizing the oil market, and us and the world in the long run, one less dictator.

    There will be no certainty of course. In a situation this dynamic there never will be a certainty. If a certainty is a pre-requisite for limited action, then that is, I think, just another way of saying "all or nothing."
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  17. #117
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Down the Shore NJ
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Well, Sen. John Kerry wrote an opinion in todays Washington Post that begins with a gratituitous swipe and Bush 41 for the lack of support for marsh arabs and Kurds at the end of GW 1 and ends with no US troops on the ground, but a "No Fly Zone" should be threatened.

    He is still trying to stand on both sided of the arguement. Just a modern version of "I voted for it, before I voted against it!" Kerryesque logic at its most undramatic.

    He wants Hillary's job and is stumbling and bumping into position if she decides to take on President Obama in the 2012 Primary.

    If the Euros want to protect their oil source from Lybia, it is time for them to step up. We remain the biggest dog on the street, but it is time for the bulldogs, shepards and poodles to show their teeth.

    The Dutch have a helo lost and its crew captured by Gadifi and there is a SAS diplomatic protection team under guard in the hands of the rebels.
    There are several different factions in the rebel units engages and they are jockying for position. The ones who hold the SAS troops do not want any outside forces in their AO.
    Last edited by RJ; 03-11-2011 at 07:31 PM.

  18. #118
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,074

    Default Once-Secret Iraqi Documents Offer Lesson for Libya

    Once-Secret Iraqi Documents Offer Lesson for Libya

    Entry Excerpt:

    Once-Secret Iraqi Documents Offer Lesson for Libya by Yochi J. Dreazen, National Journal. BLUF: "An analysis of the documents by the U.S. Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center found that Libya sent more fighters to Iraq on a per-capita basis than any other Muslim country, including Saudi Arabia. Perhaps more alarmingly for Western policymakers, most of the fighters came from eastern Libya, the center of the current uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi."



    --------
    Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
    This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

  19. #119
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    The Dutch have a helo lost and its crew captured by Gadifi and there is a SAS diplomatic protection team under guard in the hands of the rebels.
    There are several different factions in the rebel units engages and they are jockying for position. The ones who hold the SAS troops do not want any outside forces in their AO.
    FYI the British team has already been released. The Dutch have also been let go, but the Gaddafi regime decided to keep the helicopter.

    IMO, there was some decided pros and cons to any intervention in Libya.

    PROS:
    1) Brutal dictator overthrown and U.S. demonstrates commitment to Arab democracy and reform. Avoidance of large-scale atrocities that could follow a Gaddafi reconquest of eastern Libya.

    2) Possible pro-U.S. successor regime in Libya. If stability follows, long-term disruption in the oil markets is avoided as well as any large-scale refugee crisis.

    3) Possible avoidance of further mass bloodshed by Arab regimes against their own opposition movements.

    4) Gaddafi opposition likely incompetent and vulnerable to U.S. airpower. Conquest of Zawiya, a small oil town held by civilians with light weapons, required over a week and a large number of armored vehicles. This means that destroying Gaddafi's military forces will likely not require a large commitment of ground forces.

    5) Wide-scale condemnation of Gaddafi regime across both the European and Arab political scene ensures no diplomatic backlash, at least initially.

    CONS:
    1) Rebel forces are completely undisciplined, lack any heavy weaponry, and mostly amateur. No guarantee the opposition can secure western Libya even if Gaddafi's forces are rendered incapable on the battlefield. A prolonged anti-opposition insurgency could occur in western Libya on tribal lines. The opposition could splinter and begin fighting amongst themselves.

    2) Prolonged instability could occur even in the face of western intervention, likely causing additional pressure for more involvement and mission creep.

    3) No U.N. Security Council sanction severely weakens multilateral commitment to any intervention force. No Arab buy-in to intervention force as yet.

    4) Gaddafi could pull back to urban areas in light of Western intervention and use civilians as human shields against airstrikes. Diplomatic support could turn with one bad airstrike that kills civilians.

    5) Opposition cause could be tarnished as Western puppets to a colonization/breakup of Libya. Arab and Iranian dictatorships have without fail attempted to characterize their opposition as foreign-driven plots - Western intervention in Libya would make this charge easier to believe, thus perhaps actually hurting reform and democratization movements.

  20. #120
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default Sitrep

    Libya can be seen as a case study regarding the Rule of Law. When nations depend upon an individual ruler the inhabitants of the nation are hostage to the intentions of the ruler – good or bad. Strong institutions and societies (i.e. divided branches of government, property rights, private enterprise, free markets, media, churches/mosques, universities, guilds, associations, etc) provide for the mitigation of stupid and unconscionable acts committed by centralized and dogmatic leadership. When we think about providing aid to others, we need to carefully consider who (individual or institution) is to receive the aid we offer.

    There are currently four different legal systems providing a framework for actions regarding Libya. All four systems share a common foundation grounded upon the system of economics. COL? Gaddafi is presently favoring the ‘Law of the Gun’, the Arab League-African Union-Gulf Cooperation Council are favoring both Civil and Religious Law, the EU is favoring Civil Law, and the US is favoring Common Law. Stating the obvious, in terms of immediately shaping facts upon the ground, the Law of the Gun is often the quickest of the four systems. It would seem that we here at SWJ are continually interested spectators to Hobbs and Locke’s ongoing discussion regarding the makeup of human nature.

    Here is a quick (and incomplete) SITREP regarding the actions of Libya, the Arab League, African Union, Gulf Cooperation Council, and the EU on the crisis.

    Libya

    Here are select chronologies of Libyan actions:

    The Arms Control Association regarding arms control efforts by Libya

    BBC on Libyan history

    Arab League

    Here are selected chronologies regarding the actions of the Arab League with respect to Libya from:

    BBC Chronology regarding the Arab League

    LA Times report on the 23 March 2011 Arab League summit to be held in Baghdad

    Al Jazeera report on the Arab League’s take on imposing a no fly zone upon Libya resulting from a 2 March 2011 meeting

    The Arab League has said it may impose a "no fly" zone on Libya in co-ordination with the African Union if fighting continues in Libya.
    Wednesday’s Arab League ministers' meeting in Cairo rejected any direct outside military intervention in Libya, where Muammar Gaddafi is trying to put down a revolt threatening his four decades in power. They reiterated their condemnation of his use of force.
    African Union

    The statement resulting from the AU’s 10 March 11, 2011 meeting on Libya

    …and the action items of interest include an expression of concern and support for the Libyan people, formation of more AU committees to study the matter, and a request made to AU members to assist migrant workers wishing to leave Libya.

    Gulf Cooperation Council


    Gulf states back Libya no-fly zone, By Wissam Keyrouz (AFP), 8 March 2011
    ABU DHABI — The six Gulf Arab states expressed support for a no-fly zone over Libya on Monday, amid divisions among the major powers over military intervention in the North African nation.

    "The Gulf Cooperation Council demands that the UN Security Council take all necessary measures to protect civilians, including enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya," the six-nation bloc said in a statement.
    EU

    The statement resulting from the EU’s 11 March 2011 ‘extraordinary’ meeting, regarding Libya and the ‘Southern neighborhood region’

    We welcome UN Security Council Resolution 1970 and the referral of the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court.
    We call for the rapid holding of a summit between the Arab League, the African Union and the European Union.
    The European Union and the Member States have mobilised humanitarian aid and are committed to further assist people in Libya and people crossing its borders, in close cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the International Organisation for Migration, the International Committee of the Red Cross / International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and non governmental organisations.
    From the BBC, 11 March 2011 Last updated at 12:43 ET, Libya: EU leaders say Muammar Gaddafi must go
    Sapere Aude

Similar Threads

  1. Gaddafi's sub-Saharan mercenaries
    By AdamG in forum Africa
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 06:45 PM
  2. Coupla Questions From a Newbie
    By kwillcox in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-09-2007, 07:32 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •