Libya

[Loki]

The head of the Arab League has criticised the bombardments.

His comments are significant because the Arab League's support for the no-fly zone was a key factor in getting UN Security Council backing for the resolution authorising the move.

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12798568

The African Union's panel on Libya Sunday called for an "immediate stop" to all attacks after the United States, France and Britain launched military action against Moamer Kadhafi's forces.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/libyaunr...ryafricanunion

That didn't take long.

[GGT]

The US is the only country with the ability to promptly strike at pretty much any target in the world, and the only military able to quickly move a large force to a conflict for a sustained attack. That's pretty much a given, so you'll have to discount other countries right off the bat - including the French and Brits, who still have some limited capabilities in this arena (for a sustained no-fly zone over the entire country, they would almost certainly need US help, let alone quickly putting boots on the ground).

What about the Saudis and Egypt, with their armies and fighter jets?

....but at the end of the day most of the heavy lifting is going to have to be done by the US for any long-term operation. That's expensive and a diversion of resources for an unclear goal.

We enforced a no-fly zone in Iraq for over a decade at significant cost and little reward. I don't find it surprising that a lot of Pentagon officials were leery of setting up another one. I saw one estimate that enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya will cost the US up to $300 million a week. Certainly the Tomahawks shot off in one day cost about $60 million IIRC. That's a huge commitment - 11 warships with a carrier strike group on the way, hundreds of aircraft, etc. Committing such forces willy-nilly is not intelligent governance IMO.

Great. Now who's got the guts to finally impose a War tax, to pay for all our military interventions? Or are we just going to dismantle our public services like Education and Healthcare to 'balance the budget'.

[wiggin]

What about the Saudis and Egypt, with their armies and fighter jets?

Are you serious? The Egyptians are a little busy right now and their air force is not up to the task of a sustained air campaign of the complexity necessary (let alone running the coordination of half a dozen nations' armed forces). For a ground invasion, they would be necessary but not sufficient.

The Saudis hardly have the projection power or command & control capability to do much other than offer some planes.

So far, the crucial US contribution has been in coordination of disparate forces, surveillance/etc. with AWACS/EW assets and the like, and destroying much of the anti-air defenses with Tomahawks and B-2s (the Brits helped, but acknowledged they didn't have anywhere near the capacity to do so quickly). They also had some small role in airstrikes against Libyan forces with 26th MEU Harriers. It's likely they'll get more involved in air sorties as the week goes on as well. Yet the headlines all say 'French jets continue attacks over Libya' or the like. I actually think this is a good thing.

Great. Now who's got the guts to finally impose a War tax, to pay for all our military interventions? Or are we just going to dismantle our public services like Education and Healthcare to 'balance the budget'.

Oddly enough I almost agree with you. Of course I feel that sometimes you have to spend money on military interventions, but this one has extremely unclear goals and no real time frame - with an open-ended commitment of no little expense to the Pentagon.


@Dread: Oh, great. Have to love the Arab League. At least Qatar might be sending a token force. We'll have to see how things develop.

[LittleFuzzy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12798568



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/libyaunr...ryafricanunion

That didn't take long.

We said you could declare a no-fly zone, we didn't say you could actually create one!

[GGT]

Then maybe we should send the bill to the Saudis and Egyptians, or members of the Arab League. They have the money and can afford to reimburse others "intervening" at their request, in their own backyards.

[Flixy]

News here mentioned that the head of the Arab League is also up for election in his own country soon and that this is probably why he is critical now, plus some countries have unrest themselves and fear the same thing could happen to them, but all the other countries still support it.

[Loki]

News here mentioned that the head of the Arab League is also up for election in his own country soon and that this is probably why he is critical now, plus some countries have unrest themselves and fear the same thing could happen to them, but all the other countries still support it.

Except the Egyptians support the Libyan rebels. Seems like he's trying to have it both ways. And Dread wanted us to take an even bigger role...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...y.html?hpid=z3

[Steely Glint]

So, is there any plan here beyond breaking Gadds' stuff to let him no how cross with him we are? The basic aim of stopping the advance on Benghazi was unobjectionable to me, but now it seems that something more fundamental is taking place. BBC is reporting that they put a missile into Gadds' palace/compound/nutjob bunker.

This intervention clearly retro in character, and harkens back to a more innocent time where western military interventions involved cruise missiles, footage of jet fighters taking off at night, and maps with helpful explanatory graphics and little representations of explosions of scud missiles, jet fighters and explosions instead of years upon years of attritional counterinsurgency with nothing to show for it but a rising death toll.

Reminds me of Bosnia.

[RandBlade]

Reminds me of Kosovo.

Is a much simpler intervention.

EDIT: Just read Mousa (Arab League) said he was misquoted and he was simply saying the protection of civilians is the priority, that he remains behind the coalition.

[Loki]

So, is there any plan here beyond breaking Gadds' stuff to let him no how cross with him we are? The basic aim of stopping the advance on Benghazi was unobjectionable to me, but now it seems that something more fundamental is taking place. BBC is reporting that they put a missile into Gadds' palace/compound/nutjob bunker.

He had an air defense system there.

[Dreadnaught]

I hope he was actually misquoted and not actually playing such a blatant double-game. And if the mission seems open-ended and without a clear goal, that is once again because the US sat on its hands until the last possible minute after intense lobbying by the UK and France.

Though disappointing that France and the UK can't even manage something like this on their own. Whether it's military capability or ideological inability to do anything without the UN, it's really dispiriting that no Western European power can even walk across the street to take a stand on something like this.

[wiggin]

So, is there any plan here beyond breaking Gadds' stuff to let him no how cross with him we are? The basic aim of stopping the advance on Benghazi was unobjectionable to me, but now it seems that something more fundamental is taking place. BBC is reporting that they put a missile into Gadds' palace/compound/nutjob bunker.

This intervention clearly retro in character, and harkens back to a more innocent time where western military interventions involved cruise missiles, footage of jet fighters taking off at night, and maps with helpful explanatory graphics and little representations of explosions of scud missiles, jet fighters and explosions instead of years upon years of attritional counterinsurgency with nothing to show for it but a rising death toll.

Reminds me of Bosnia.

The issue is that there is going to be mission creep. Air attacks alone may stop major armor and artillery advances, and getting rid of Gaddafi's air power helps balance things a little. But he still has tens of thousands of ground troops he can use without armor and do some pretty nasty things. Short of an intervention on the ground, I don't see this stopping any time soon - and a ground invasion is bound to be a mess.

Remember with Kosovo that NATO was gearing up for a ground invasion before they finally managed to convince Milosevic that they were serious. KFOR was almost an invasion force, and it would have been a very nasty business if things had actually gone that direction. Gambling that Gaddafi will fold just from the threat of invasion seems foolish, so we'd better be ready to an escalation in our involvement.

Though disappointing that France and the UK can't even manage something like this on their own. Whether it's military capability or ideological inability to do anything without the UN, it's really dispiriting that no Western European power can even walk across the street to take a stand on something like this.

Well, the French still have an aircraft carrier so they could probably manage a rudimentary no-fly zone in a pinch, especially if they use some bases in Europe as well (they only have ~30 fixed wing aircraft on their carrier IIRC). It just might take them longer since they've only got one carrier, and it wouldn't be comprehensive, but they could get it done. The US capability here was really in volume (who the hell just has 100 Tomahawks sitting around in the Mediterranean?), logistics/communications, and surveillance/electronic warfare. Stealth aircraft help, too, but are probably overkill.

I don't think multilateral defense policy is really a bad thing - it's simply too expensive for every European power, even the big ones, to maintain a full-sized military capable of pretty much anything. The technology is pricey, and there's a lot of duplication. Why not share expensive assets like transport planes, refueling tankers, EW/AWACS, etc. if you have defense policies that are mostly in agreement? There's very little chance that these countries are going to have to 'go it alone' in a major conflict - the best I can think of in recent history was the Falklands War, but even that was bush league.

[Loki]

I hope he was actually misquoted and not actually playing such a blatant double-game. And if the mission seems open-ended and without a clear goal, that is once again because the US sat on its hands until the last possible minute after intense lobbying by the UK and France.

He called for an emergency Arab League meeting for tomorrow, so I don't think there's any misquoting here. It doesn't help that the Muslim Brotherhood is painting this as a grab for oil, which is also the rhetoric coming out of Lebanon (which voted for the use of force resolution), Iran, and the African Union.

[RandBlade]

Though disappointing that France and the UK can't even manage something like this on their own. Whether it's military capability or ideological inability to do anything without the UN, it's really dispiriting that no Western European power can even walk across the street to take a stand on something like this.

I think that's a load of claptrap.

The UK and France have led from the outset on this. The fact we've co-operated both with each other and with the wider world is not a bad thing.

How you can say we've not "taken a stand" on this is beyond me and just not true.

[Dreadnaught]

By taking a stand I mean demonstrate a willingness to involve their/your militaries without Obama.

If your militaries can't even handle a mission like this, it suggests some serious weaknesses in your military.

[Loki]

More likely they can, but it would be more dangerous and costlier. Why risk that just to show independence (on an issue of tangential importance)?

[GGT]

Who comes up with these names, anyway? Odyssey Dawn....?

[agamemnus]

No idea, but Odysseus did travel there.

Winds drove him south to the coast of Libya. Three scouts were sent out from the ships, but they did not return, so Odysseus set out after them. When he discovered their location, he found that they had eaten fruit that had made them forget about going back home. He dragged them back to the ship and continued on the journey.

The UK has its own name.. I forgot what it was, but it's pretty odd.

[wiggin]

More likely they can, but it would be more dangerous and costlier. Why risk that just to show independence (on an issue of tangential importance)?

Agreed. There would likely be higher air losses and greater individual country cost if a regional power like France or the UK were to try it alone. It would also probably not be quite as effective.

I'm honestly not sure why any country should plan to be able to enforce a no-fly zone on their own, anyways. Generally, I imagine the French or Brits would be envisioning two real scenarios for their military:

1) A small, limited strike to take out a specific target. This can be done pretty easily with limited resources, though obviously the better your tech the better your odds of success with low casualties.

2) An all-out war against a conventional foe. This requires a distinct but overlapping set of technology and skills as a no-fly zone. Yet a total war wouldn't have the ridiculous restrictions that make it so tough to do a no-fly zone. Presumably you'd have forward air controllers on the ground to direct airstrikes, and a number of different options to incapacitate the anti-air defense grid. Furthermore, you wouldn't need to have complete coverage of the country at all times, but just to protect sorties and to provide CAS for ground engagements.

I think the French and Brits can do both of these options on their own, though obviously location is a critical factor since they no longer have truly global reach.

[Dreadnaught]

It's not about showing independence, it's lamenting a lack of initiative and capability.

On the plus side, MPACUK was stunned into silence for days but this is the best they could come up with: http://www.mpacuk.org/story/210311/l...ge-israel.html

[Loki]

Putin has attacked the UN resolution authorizing the use of force. Now Medvedev called that attack "unacceptable".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12810566

[Hazir]

Putin has attacked the UN resolution authorizing the use of force. Now Medvedev called that attack "unacceptable".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12810566

Now that was the surprise of the day.

[Loki]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12804886

Rather funny how the only Arab newspapers opposing the intervention are the ones headquartered in London.

[Steely Glint]

The issue is that there is going to be mission creep. Air attacks alone may stop major armor and artillery advances, and getting rid of Gaddafi's air power helps balance things a little. But he still has tens of thousands of ground troops he can use without armor and do some pretty nasty things. Short of an intervention on the ground, I don't see this stopping any time soon - and a ground invasion is bound to be a mess.

Yes, but in order to do anything with those tens of thousands he has to move them through the desert to the east. Attempting this with NATO air power in play is general recognized as bad technique. Meanwhile, the rebs don't seem to have the capability to take the road west to Tripoli and evict Gaddafi without much hardware, advice and training from the west. So, I think th most likely outcome to this mess is partition or a prolonged civil war. Which is still a better outcome than doing nothing would have produced.

[agamemnus]

Nope, Gaddafi will be out in days, a few weeks tops. It's only a matter of time before he cannot afford or cannot physically pay more mercenaries to fight for him. And, with his tanks destroyed, I doubt that too many mercenaries would be willing to attack the rebels with technicals when the rebels have tanks of their own.

[wiggin]

Yes, but in order to do anything with those tens of thousands he has to move them through the desert to the east. Attempting this with NATO air power in play is general recognized as bad technique. Meanwhile, the rebs don't seem to have the capability to take the road west to Tripoli and evict Gaddafi without much hardware, advice and training from the west. So, I think th most likely outcome to this mess is partition or a prolonged civil war. Which is still a better outcome than doing nothing would have produced.

Really? A better outcome? It results in extended cost to us, kills more people overall, and doesn't necessarily have a happy ending. Meanwhile, using air power to take out infantry is notoriously difficult (and also very tough to distinguish them from civilians or friendlies). We would only be able to contribute marginally to the rebel cause if this became a protracted engagement.

[RandBlade]

Really? A better outcome?

That a slaughter and genicide? Yes.

[wiggin]

That a slaughter and genicide? Yes.

The death toll might be just as bad. If we want to help things along, we should under no circumstances let this degenerate into a stalemated civil war. That would be awful for the Libyan people and might be just as damaging as letting Gaddhafi win.

Otherwise, we're just implementing the no-fly zone to make it look like we're helping out without significant risk to us, but not to actually help anyone.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The death toll might be just as bad. If we want to help things along, we should under no circumstances let this degenerate into a stalemated civil war. That would be awful for the Libyan people and might be just as damaging as letting Gaddhafi win.

Otherwise, we're just implementing the no-fly zone to make it look like we're helping out without significant risk to us, but not to actually help anyone.

[dr. evil]or.... we could keep it going until no soul is left alive there, then move in ourselves and make it a holiday resort.
[/dr. evil]

[Kazuha Vinland]

What do you think the initiative is originally for? The air strikes have done so that the Libyan opposition has managed to reclaim territory that was previously under Muammar Gadaffi's reign. The surrounding countries have claimed that they are okay with that and appreciative, as there is no conquering force or the likes inland. Hence they see no threat other than what the Libyan opposition can accomplish themselves. An action that they support.