Civil War in Libya

[Viking]

Things going downhill for the rebels now. Still anyone's guess where this is going to end up.

[tibilicus]

A missed opportunity from the West who once again seem to have cold feet. We could end this conflict in a mere week and yet we're so scared of how others perceive our actions we're quite happy to just sit back and let thousands be slaughtered by the mad colonel. The UN has also displayed its complete incompetence in this whole crisis and the whole notion of reaching "international consensus" is void considering China and Russia essentially veto anything that tries to come through the security council.

I guess I kind of miss the days when the West was willing to forcibly impose itself on the world. Sure there were errors but the fact we simply sit back and let these kind of things happen because we want to appear neutral is very sad. We need to grow a pair.

[PanzerJaeger]

Fareed Zakaria, as usual, is very smart:

I disagree. Zakaria is, in essence, channeling Gaddafi here in attempting to influence Western action by hanging the ever-looming specter of al-Qaeda over our heads.

This conflict has nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Just as there is absolutely no evidence that the group is fueling these rebellions as the good colonel would have us believe, there is also no evidence that a lack of Western aid to the rebels will yield an al-Qaeda 'area of strength' (whatever that means). Such arguments are highly disingenuous and while more subtle and sophisticated in tone than Gadaffi's, amount to nothing more than the same scare tactics he is employing.

[Husar]

I guess I kind of miss the days when the West was willing to forcibly impose itself on the world. Sure there were errors but the fact we simply sit back and let these kind of things happen because we want to appear neutral is very sad. We need to grow a pair.

So some of these people can start blaming us for all their problems again and blow themselves up in our cities and airplanes?

Their revolutionary comittee also asked only for air support and specifically said they don't want any soldiers on the ground, so I'm sure they'll be really happy if we land there and win the war for them.

I say we just watch, the middle east complained countless times about our involvement and manipulation, so we should just stop doing that and watch. There's an arab league and all that who can also help if the situation is that bad.

[PanzerJaeger]

As the rebels flee in disarray towards Benghazi, national intelligence director James Clapper goes off script and offers the uncensored US assessment of the situation in a hearing on Capitol Hill.

Muammer Gaddafi’s superior military forces meant his “regime will prevail” in the longer term, the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said in comments that undermined a robust defence by Washington of its Libya policy.

Mr Clapper said in testimony to Congress on Thursday that Colonel Gaddafi was relying on two of his brigades – which appeared to be “very, very loyal”, “disciplined” and “robustly equipped with Russian equipment, artillery, tanks”.

Mr Clapper, who oversees America’s 16 intelligence services, said the rebels faced great difficulties as Col Gaddafi “intentionally designed the military so that those select units loyal to him are the most luxuriously equipped and the best trained”.

He added: “We believe that Gaddafi is in this for the long haul. He appears to be hunkering down for the duration.”

[Populus Romanus]

Dependant on two brigades? That is pretty risky for Qaddafi. After all, if air to ground missiles were to unfortunately land on them, he would be defenseless!

[ICantSpellDawg]

As the rebels flee in disarray towards Benghazi, national intelligence director James Clapper goes off script and offers the uncensored US assessment of the situation in a hearing on Capitol Hill.

They'll have help soon enough.

[Noncommunist]

First let me start off by saying this is utter nonsense. What kind of fictional, fairy tale world do you live in? I mean, I honestly should have guessed this from your name "noncommunist". Noncommunist? Communism hasn't been a threat for decades, but it guess it easier to see the world in black and white.

Actually, that's just a username I've been using over the past couple years. While I am indeed not a communist, I'm not crusading about it or anything.

You seem to envision the United States selflessly crusading around the world, without real allies, spreading hope and "freedom" to millions. You are so naive as this government only cares about itself. Very rarely when we do something it is out of the goodness of hearts. Why exactly do you think we did jack **** in Sudan when they were committing genocide? It gets even worse when you talk about doing it without allies. Haven't you learned anything from Iraq? Going in gungho without help is a BAD IDEA. Why don't you volunteer and go fight with the rebels if you want to help. I really am sick wasting money and American lives in third world ****holes where the locals end up hating us, and we install a government that was just as corrupt as the last.

Of course, the US government is not selfless but I'm saying that of anyone, it has the power and maybe the will to actually do something to help the Libyan people. Also, we didn't go in alone in Iraq, we brought in a couple allies who helped to bring down Saddam. Regardless, we could have done it ourselves if we wanted to do so, we're clearly powerful enough to handle a tin pot dictatorship anywhere in the globe. And while some locals have hated us in Iraq, some other locals hated us when we didn't left them to be massacred after Desert Storm. While it's likely that any new government would be be corrupt in some way or another, they're still going to be better than Gadaffi.

Finally, I could maybe get on the board if this country was prosperous and we had a balanced budget. Your IPOD comment shows me you are clueless about our current situation. How about we forget the IPOD and talk about basic infastructure, education, our budget, and health care. Many of the roads and bridges in this country are in dire need of repair and are outright dangerous. Our schools, for a developed country, are atrocious. Many kids cannot afford a decent college education, and end up settling for a lesser school, or climbing deep in debt. I could go on and on, but I think you are get the point I'm trying to make.

Certainly, those are problems we're trying to fix at this moment. And they are a big deal for Americans. However, compared to anything the Libyans are going through, I don't see how we have much room to complain.

Libya is none our business. Repeat, none of our business. Let the Libyans deal with Libyan problems, and let Americans deal with American problems. When kids in the city of Detroit can actually get a decent education, when the single mom can provide food and heating for her kids, and when this country is not paying billions in interest a year in servicing a ballooning debt, then we can think about Libya.

We are never going to accomplish all of those goals. Nor will any other country be able to accomplish any similar goals. Should nations be entirely fixated on themselves till forever because they cannot fix every last problem? If that had happened, there probably wouldn't have been an America. France of 1778 was in far worse shape than the US in 2011 and they became our ally which enabled us to become our own nation and helped cause democracy to spread around the world.

And what's so special about any one nation that citizens should only care about fellow citizens? Are we not all human?

[PanzerJaeger]

A more realistic assessment.

The current situation in Libya is reminiscent of the situation in Iraq in 1991. Back then, it was expected that Saddam Hussein would soon be overthrown by a popular revolt.

Saddam used his powerful military forces to crush the uprising. Despite international sanctions, he remained in power for another 12 years.

Turning to Libya, it should be no surprise to anyone with a military background that in a desert environment with few large towns and extended lines of communication, Gaddafi’s sub-standard military forces are managing to contain an over-extended and largely disorganised revolutionary rabble - even though its fighters might number in the thousands.

It is unlikely that a countrywide no-fly zone would make a decisive difference to the course of the conflict. Colonel Gaddafi’s forces have large quantities of artillery and mortars and other indirect fire weapons, as well as thousands of armoured vehicles. While much of the equipment is obsolete by Western standards, it is still effective against the poorly equipped anti-Gaddafi forces. Importantly, Gaddafi’s officer corps understands the logistic demands of deployed forces.

Before the uprising, the total number of Libyan personnel in the defence force was estimated by the authoritative International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) at 119,000, with 45,000 reservists. The army is organised into 11 border defence and four security zones, one regime security brigade, 10 tank battalions, 10 mechanised infantry battalions, 18 infantry battalions, six commando battalions, 22 artillery battalions, four surface-to-surface missile (SSM) brigades and seven air defence artillery battalions. It has over 2,000 tanks.

The main suppliers have been Russia, China and Brazil. This year, additional supplies have come from Belarus.

This substantial military force was reduced by defections after the uprising began on February 15, but it is probably safe to assume that Gaddafi could still field at least half that force.

WikiLeaks revealed that in 2009 that the British SAS was providing training to Libyan special forces so we can reasonably assume they are an effective and reliable element.

Much of the international rhetoric about displacing Gaddafi is unconvincing. Many nation states have an interest in seeing the jasmine revolution dissipate in the sands of the Libyan desert, including the Arab Gulf countries, Iran, Israel and the United States – and, further afield, China. The established order in the Middle East suits powerful strategic and economic interests. A domino-like people’s revolution running out of control could threaten regimes that are important allies of the West.

[Ice]

Of course, the US government is not selfless but I'm saying that of anyone, it has the power and maybe the will to actually do something to help the Libyan people. Also, we didn't go in alone in Iraq, we brought in a couple allies who helped to bring down Saddam. Regardless, we could have done it ourselves if we wanted to do so, we're clearly powerful enough to handle a tin pot dictatorship anywhere in the globe. And while some locals have hated us in Iraq, some other locals hated us when we didn't left them to be massacred after Desert Storm. While it's likely that any new government would be be corrupt in some way or another, they're still going to be better than Gadaffi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-N...%E2%80%93_Iraq

The British were the only ones who sent in a sizable amount of troops. Everyone else either send in a few thousand or a couple hundred. These troops were often confined to various noncombat roles and often withdrawn years ago. So yes, it basically was just us for the vast majority of the fighting.

How exactly do you know the person put in power will be better than Gadaffi?

Certainly, those are problems we're trying to fix at this moment. And they are a big deal for Americans. However, compared to anything the Libyans are going through, I don't see how we have much room to complain.

The same can be said about most of the world. What exactly makes Libya so special and why exactly should I care?

We are never going to accomplish all of those goals. Nor will any other country be able to accomplish any similar goals. Should nations be entirely fixated on themselves till forever because they cannot fix every last problem? If that had happened, there probably wouldn't have been an America. France of 1778 was in far worse shape than the US in 2011 and they became our ally which enabled us to become our own nation and helped cause democracy to spread around the world.

The French helped us for a variety of reasons. I'm also not seeing the connection between this and Libya. Just because this nation was helped during its birth in the 18th century by a foreign power doesn't mean I'm obligated to help a totally unrelated country 200 years later.

And what's so special about any one nation that citizens should only care about fellow citizens? Are we not all human?

Yes we are all human. I tend to care more about the people I'm more closely related to though. Countrymen < Friends < Family

Would you sacrifice your own family to save 50 Libyans? After all we are all human.

[Ice]

A more realistic assessment.

WikiLeaks revealed that in 2009 that the British SAS was providing training to Libyan special forces so we can reasonably assume they are an effective and reliable element

Haha, opps?

[ICantSpellDawg]

A more realistic assessment.

There will be air to surface strikes, coupled with a no-fly zone in the east and arms transfers if the opposition can hold out a few more days.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There will be air to surface strikes, coupled with a no-fly zone in the east and arms transfers if the opposition can hold out a few more days.

Possible, but not yet likely. Thhe Saudis have thus far refused to sell or transfer arms, and Russia and China re unlikely to agree to a no-fly zone. Even then, if Panzar's source is remotely accurate Gaddafi has thousands of tanks, APC's and artillery pieces where his opposition have mainly AK's and a few RPG's.

Even against older Russian tanks RPG's are not very effective. In order for the Rebels to hold their ground artillery and armoured units would have to defect, that is unlikely as only Gaddafi's loyal troops have tanks and artillery.

[Viking]

They do have a bit of anti-armour actually; see here. The question is how much and whether they are capable of using to a sufficient effect.

[Husar]

Well, those are RPG-7s or so, they seem a bit old, newer versions can penetrate more armour, depends a lot on the tanks that the Libyan army uses as well.

The comments also remind me of this article, not suitable for open combat in the desert but inside the cities the tanks may not be as safe as one would think.

[Hosakawa Tito]

They'll have help soon enough.

Looks like they've enlisted the help of aliens. Check out the pic in this AP report.

[Populus Romanus]

Looks like they've enlisted the help of aliens. Check out the pic in this AP report.

You have got to be kidding me! Aliens? I knew it! I knew they were real!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Looks like they've enlisted the help of aliens. Check out the pic in this AP report.

Aliens? These guys look exactly like Meneldil's neighbours when I visited him.

[Viking]

Brega retaken

[ICantSpellDawg]

The decision by the arab league "makes the imposition of a no-fly zone much more likely to happen, shortly" (Chuck Schumer)

[Sarmatian]

It seems that Al-Qaeda fighters were seen with the rebels and Al-Qaeda was calling for rebels to overthrow Gaddafi and establish Islamic republic in Libya. My opinions of the rebels is deteriorating by the minute...

[Hax]

It seems that Al-Qaeda fighters were seen with the rebels and Al-Qaeda was calling for rebels to overthrow Gaddafi and establish Islamic republic in Libya. My opinions of the rebels is deteriorating by the minute...

Oh hi, have you been listening to Mr. Gaddafi and sons lately? It's nonsense.

[Sarmatian]

Oh hi, have you been listening to Mr. Gaddafi and sons lately? It's nonsense.

As much nonsense as rebels fighting for truth, justice and democracy? I'm just not a fan of "get the Shah out, get the Ayatollah in" scenarios and I tend to look favourably on dictators in Muslim countries who are actually containing radical Islam, with of course Ataturk being my favourite.

[Hax]

So apparently, rebels can't possibly fight for justice and democracy. Then what happened in Egypt? What happened in Tunisia? I pointed out earlier in this thread that several rebel leaders denied any involvement with al-Qaeda.

I'm just not a fan of "get the Shah out, get the Ayatollah in"

The situation wasn't nearly as black-and-white as you make it out to be. There was a strong undercurrent during the Revolution that didn't necessarily call for a theocratic government, take for example Mehdi Bazargan and his leftist party. Of course, I do not expect people to delve deeply into what happened exactly during the Iranian Revolution, but the situation wasn't really clear-cut. There were a lot of things going on, including Saddam's aggression not a year later.

Y'know what the problem is with reasoning that dictators are better in suppresing radical Islam? It's not really viable anymore. If you take away the right of the people to say what they want in a democratically elected parliament that protects the right to freedom of speech, they will radicalise sooner. If you take away one of the best ways for their opinions to be heard, they'll be quicker to resort to violence. I don't think anyone wants that. I think it's a good thing that Rashid al-Ghannushi can bring forward his statements in a democratically elected Tunisian parliament now, because that way, violent extremists will no longer can justify their horrid behaviour by saying that "they have no other way". I have enough reason to believe that democratic elections will cause a decrease for the support of Islamist parties.

I tend to look favourably on dictators in Muslim countries who are actually containing radical Islam,

Yes, because that worked out totally okay.

[Sarmatian]

No, it's possible that the rebels are fighting for democracy, but I'm not putting any money on it and let's wait and see what happens in Egypt and Tunisia. Also, I have more sympathy for civil disobedience, strikes and demonstrations than armed uprisings.

When a lot of people support shariah laws, they will just democratically elect themselves into a theocracy. Turkey is by far the most liberal and progressive predominantly muslim country and still there were instances in the recent past where army had to put its foot down to curb radical muslim parties.

I just don't share your enthusiasm that radical options will simply fade away as soon as there is a parliament...

[Hax]

When a lot of people support shariah laws, they will just democratically elect themselves into a theocracy.

Is there? And to what extent would Shariah law be implemented? No more than 12% of Egypt's population (to give an example) is interested in a state where Shari'ah law is fully implemented.

I just don't share your enthusiasm that radical options will simply fade away as soon as there is a parliament...

Okay, I can understand this. Perhaps pessimism is one of the safest ways of looking to the future, but I do not expect radical opinions to fade away, I understand that they would remain intact (which would only be logical), but what I said is that if people have the possibility to vote freely, popularity for extremist groups will decline. That's the reason why we should support democracy in the Arab states. As for Libya, I'd rather see non-violent protests. I would not participate in shooting people. But people were getting shot at, and Gaddafi refused to lay down power. Not like Mubarak or Ben Ali. Is it then surprising that a lot of people would take to arms? Add to that the fact that Libya is way more tribal than either Tunisia or Egypt and severe violence was almost expectable.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We're doomed. No western intervention, we are going to let them rot. If they can't turn it around, they are dead in the water.

[rory_20_uk]

We're doomed. No western intervention, we are going to let them rot. If they can't turn it around, they are dead in the water.

So, the worst of both worlds. Gadaffi stays in power, and we've loudly said how much we loathe him and want to get rid of him, but don't have the stones to do anything about it.

Expect more deliveries of Semtex in the near future.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Isn't that sick? Pray for a miracle before a cleansing in Libya.

[Viking]

The only way we could be a 100% sure that this war was won in the favour of the rebels, is to send in troops. But nobody wants that. There is no guarantee for that a NFZ would work out quite as intended, and thus "we" are reluctant.