Civil War in Libya

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wait, does this mean that we are in another unfunded, undeclared war? Would it be okay with Europeans if we sat this one out?

-edit-

And could somebody else pick up the tab this time? We're kinda hurting from our last two excursions.

Establishing and taking control of the skies over Libya could cost the Pentagon up to $300 million a week – or around $15 billion a year – under mission scenarios formulated by a top Washington defense think tank. [...] “Assuming an operational tempo similar to that of the no-fly zones in Iraq, the ongoing cost might be in the range of $100 [million] to $300 million per week,” states the report.

The full option would require taking out Libyan air defense systems in what the think tank says would be a “series of coordinated strikes” at a “one-time ... cost between $500 million and $1 billion.”

The northern option would put U.S. aircraft in control of all Libyan turf above the 29th parallel, which includes about 230,000 square miles, according to CSBA. The cost of this kind of mission would fall between $30 million and $100 million per week.

A northern no-fly would also require the U.S. military to deal with Libyan air defense systems, meaning it would still come with a one-time bill of between $400 million and $800 million, CSBA said.

You'll like this article

[TinCow]

A northern no-fly would also require the U.S. military to deal with Libyan air defense systems, meaning it would still come with a one-time bill of between $400 million and $800 million, CSBA said.[/indent]

$800 million? Hell, my agency spends that much on toner every week.

[InsaneApache]

Extraordinary....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12781157

[Lemur]

You'll like this article

No, I really don't. I'm okay with arming and/or feeding the Libyan rebels, but getting into a third Muslim war is too much for my lemurish sensibities. This is not our fight. This is not our cause. This is not worth sacrificing a single airman, sailor or marine. I like this idea much better:

What is actually needed is active military intervention on the ground and in the air by disciplined, well-trained Arab forces, sent by a revolutionary Arab government that is in sympathy with the Libyan rebels. So where is the Egyptian army when the Libyans need it?

Egypt has an open border with the rebel-controlled east of Libya, and just one brigade of the Egyptian army would be enough to stop Gaddafi’s ground forces in their tracks.

The Egyptian air force could easily shoot down any of Gaddafi’s aircraft that dared to take off, especially if it had early warning from European or American AWACS aircraft.

The Egyptian army would probably not need to go all the way to Tripoli, although it could easily do so if necessary.

Just the fact of Egyptian military intervention would probably convince most of the Libyan troops still supporting Gaddafi that it is time to change sides.

[econ21]

It was - and is - looking rather ominous for Benghazi with those TV pictures of Gaddafi's tanks bearing down on them. "We are coming" and "We will show no mercy", were what the great man was reported to have broadcast to them yesterday. I have no idea how this is going to end. Pacifying an armed city of a million was never going to be pretty.

Gaddafi's advance could be stopped by air strikes - take out the armour and the heavy artillery in the desert, then the rebels in the built up areas would have a fighting chance. The long supply lines from Tripoli to Benghazi would be fairly easy to interdict. But that would require a degree of will by the West that has not been evident. Reading the BBC, it sounds like the US will not be involved in any initial air operations. I'm sceptical Britain and France alone could do anything that had more than symbolic value.

And it seems to come too late to topple Gaddafi. Two weeks ago, the regime might have crumbled. But he's subdued most of the country and seems back in control. Even when they had the initiative, the rebels seemed to lack the ability to coordinate a drive on Tripoli. Whatever happens in the air seems unlikely to change that. It looks like stalemate and partition are the best case scenario. Interesting times, unfortunately for the Libyans...

[econ21]

This is not worth sacrificing a single airman, sailor or marine. I like this idea better:

What is actually needed is active military intervention on the ground and in the air ...

Lemur, mate, there's something of a contradiction there. Egyptians are people too!

[PanzerJaeger]

No, I really don't. I'm okay with arming and/or feeding the Libyan rebels, but getting into a third Muslim war is too much for my lemurish sensibities. This is not our fight. This is not our cause. This is not worth sacrificing a single airman, sailor or marine. I like this idea much better:

Yes, yes, and yes. Have we learned nothing from the last decade? This is incredibly shortsighted, hilariously hypocritical (Bahrain, anyone? How about the Ivory Coast?), and sets a very dangerous precedent.

I had developed a genuine respect for Obama's pragmatism in the face of the same drumbeat that fooled so many of us into supporting the liberation of Iraq. I wonder what happened.

it's not a waste of money when the indigenous public is actually providing the bulk of the ground force.

That is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. That rebel ground force proved itself completely incompetent in the face of a poorly led, small, dilapidated, Soviet-era military force. Do you really think they'll be able to take Tripoli? If Gadaffi is going to be removed, the West will have to do nearly all the heavy lifting.

Does it even matter what the costs are? whining about it seems rather superfluous when the US is already deep in debt.

Sure. The US is already drowning in debt, why not spend some more on a distant foreign conflict that has nothing to do with us? Just throw it on the pile.

[Noncommunist]

That is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. That rebel ground force proved itself completely incompetent in the face of a poorly led, small, dilapidated, Soviet-era military force. Do you really think they'll be able to take Tripoli? If Gadaffi is going to be removed, the West will have to do nearly all the heavy lifting.

Considering they had less arms and equipment, I'd say taking a few cities in the beginning was pretty impressive. That and they did manage to hold off Gadaffi's forces for a while in several cities. Granted, they had the defensive advantage of a city but still, they were definitely outgunned in those battles. And once we begin removing Gadaffi's advantages, I could see the rebels carrying out serious advances as well as more of Gadaffi's troops defecting.

[CBR]

Hmm lets see:

Getting involved with a regime change in a Islamic country but having other Islamic countries urging the West to do it: check
Using UN SC this time: check
This time no fantastic tales of why to do it and most can see why it needs to be done ASAP: check
An apparent political opposition within the country, although poorly armed: check

I'd say some lessons have been learned.

I have no idea if it will be enough but I admit I'm a sucker for humanitarian bombing.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Astounding. Another stupid war that will almost certainly lead to civilian deaths (sorry, collateral damage) and a completely unpredictable outcome that we will be paying for in blood and treasure for years more.

Even more "amusing" was the endless parroting by Western diplomats that the request had come from the Arab League.

Algeria Bahrain Comoros Djibouti
Egypt Iraq Jordan Kuwait
Lebanon Libya Mauritania Morocco
Oman Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia
Somalia Sudan Syria Tunisia
United Arab Emirates Yemen

Imposing list of heroic democracies there, all lining up to put their pilots on the line.

[Sarmatian]

Well, several last western intervention have been spotless and they have proved that west can keep the peace and ensure human rights are respected. Viva la democracion!

[a completely inoffensive name]

That is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. That rebel ground force proved itself completely incompetent in the face of a poorly led, small, dilapidated, Soviet-era military force. Do you really think they'll be able to take Tripoli? If Gadaffi is going to be removed, the West will have to do nearly all the heavy lifting.

The rebels seem to do just fine when there isn't tanks and airships bearing down on them. Now that the air component is in their (rebels) hands, I think it is too early to say what will happen now. It has yet been a day since the resolution, if the rebels new energy and momentum fail, then they are doomed and we should pull the plug on the operation. If Gaddaffi finds himself in trouble without new mercs coming in (by air at least) and suffers a few strategic bombs of some of his tanks (which you have admitted is small, so there isn't many to destroy), well I think we should continue doing what the western world has been doing so far and play it by ear.

I'm don't want to let the rebels have a fair chance taken away from them because we didn't feel like stopping hordes of foreigners packing guns from influencing the turn out (darn Germans/Prussians almost ruined my country's revolution). If the rebels are screwed, then this will be over in a month, if not then we did the right thing by helping them achieve their dictatorship. As long as we don't put boots on the ground, I am fine with how it is right now.

[al Roumi]

Hipocritical the decision to intercede in Libya -but not Bahrain, Cote D'Ivoire or elsewhere, may be. However, I'm glad that the west IS protecting civilians (the primary condition of the UNSCR) and supporting the opposition -the inevitable consequence of removing the mechanisms of governance (tanks, artillery) of Qadhafi's government.

For reference, the media reporting on the actual conflict has been wide of the mark. Yesterday was the first time that ex army units were deployed (by the opposition) against their former colleagues. Hence the successes if Brega and Ajdabiya reported yesterday.

Misurata (very close to Tripoli) has held out for weeks, how does anyone really think Benghazi (hundreds of miles away from Tripoli) will/would fall quickly?

[Ronin]

The rebels seem to do just fine when there isn't tanks and airships bearing down on them. Now that the air component is in their (rebels) hands, I think it is too early to say what will happen now. It has yet been a day since the resolution, if the rebels new energy and momentum fail, then they are doomed and we should pull the plug on the operation. If Gaddaffi finds himself in trouble without new mercs coming in (by air at least) and suffers a few strategic bombs of some of his tanks (which you have admitted is small, so there isn't many to destroy), well I think we should continue doing what the western world has been doing so far and play it by ear.

So they are doing fine...as long as the other side doesn´t use it's forces.....now that's quite an achievement.

I'm don't want to let the rebels have a fair chance taken away from them because we didn't feel like stopping hordes of foreigners packing guns from influencing the turn out (darn Germans/Prussians almost ruined my country's revolution). If the rebels are screwed, then this will be over in a month, if not then we did the right thing by helping them achieve their dictatorship. As long as we don't put boots on the ground, I am fine with how it is right now.

what the hell is a fair chance in a war setting?....war is not a game of cricket...."fair" in war means you make the other guy die and your guys come back in one piece.

[Viking]

Ceasefire supposedly declared by the regime. The UN resolution is not about toppling the regime, so if the government tanks and rocket launchers just lurk a bit beyond the front line, there's no real mandate to destroy them, I guess. A new stalemate now?

Anyway, interesting to see that neither Russia nor China put down a veto.

[TinCow]

Ceasefire supposedly declared by the regime. The UN resolution is not about toppling the regime, so if the government tanks and rocket launchers just lurk a bit beyond the front line, there's no real mandate to destroy them, I guess. A new stalemate now?

Definitely won't be a stalemate. The UN resolution covers all of Libya. That means that people inside Gadaffi-controlled cities will be covered by it as well. If they start to protest again and are shot at, the bombing will start. If they start to protest again and Gadaffi does not interfere, the protests will grow and eventually the regime will fall. I do not see a way out for Gadaffi anymore, it's only a question of how many more Libyans are going to die before he leaves or is killed.

[PanzerJaeger]

At Thursday morning's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said that Qaddafi's forces had reestablished control over large swaths of territory and that the Libyan leader had tens of planes and hundreds of helicopters in use.

He called the plan to impose a no-fly zone in a few days "overly optimistic" and said "it would take upwards of a week."

Schwartz was also clear that while the U.S. military can impose a no-fly zone, that's not likely to stop Qaddafi all by itself. He also noted that to do so effectively might require diverting some resources from the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The question is, is a no-fly zone the last step or is it the first step?" Schwartz said.
Asked by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) whether a no-fly zone could turn the momentum, Scwartz replied, "A no-fly zone, sir, would not be sufficient."

Awesome.

But Obama lost longtime supporter Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) who said in Thursday morning's hearing with Burns that any military intervention in Libya should require a formal declaration of war by the U.S. Congress.

Lugar also opposes military intervention in Libya on the grounds that the nation can't afford it at a time of deep fiscal debt and called on Obama to explain why attacking Libya is in America's national interest. The humanitarian argument just isn't enough, he said.

"We would not like to stand by and see people being shot, but the same argument could be made in Bahrain at present and perhaps in Yemen, so if you have a civil war it's very likely people are going to be out for each other," Lugar told The Cable in an interview. "This debate cannot be totally divorced from the realities of what are the contending issues right here and now."

Yes, will the bombing of Yemen commence before or after we regime-change the hell out of Bahrain? The Ivory Coast is full of black africans, so we know they'll be at the bottom of the list for Western intervention.

[Ice]

Yes, yes, and yes. Have we learned nothing from the last decade? This is incredibly shortsighted, hilariously hypocritical (Bahrain, anyone? How about the Ivory Coast?), and sets a very dangerous precedent.

I had developed a genuine respect for Obama's pragmatism in the face of the same drumbeat that fooled so many of us into supporting the liberation of Iraq. I wonder what happened.



That is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. That rebel ground force proved itself completely incompetent in the face of a poorly led, small, dilapidated, Soviet-era military force. Do you really think they'll be able to take Tripoli? If Gadaffi is going to be removed, the West will have to do nearly all the heavy lifting.



Sure. The US is already drowning in debt, why not spend some more on a distant foreign conflict that has nothing to do with us? Just throw it on the pile.

yes

Astounding. Another stupid war that will almost certainly lead to civilian deaths (sorry, collateral damage) and a completely unpredictable outcome that we will be paying for in blood and treasure for years more.

Even more "amusing" was the endless parroting by Western diplomats that the request had come from the Arab League.

Algeria Bahrain Comoros Djibouti
Egypt Iraq Jordan Kuwait
Lebanon Libya Mauritania Morocco
Oman Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia
Somalia Sudan Syria Tunisia
United Arab Emirates Yemen

Imposing list of heroic democracies there, all lining up to put their pilots on the line.

yes

Sigh... when will we learn

[Ice]

And so far, Iraq is a developing democracy. Clearly, we can go in "alone"(not counting the rebels as allies) and win against a tin pot dictator. Plus, there have been a number of other conflicts were won by the US without serious allies.

Developing democracy, eh? That's what you call it?

Yes, obviously we can beat up third world countries with outdated soviet made weapons. As you have seen with Afghanistan and Iraq, that wasn't the problem. The problem is spending time and lots of money rebuilding society and the country. Screw that.

We don't. However, with how bad he's been, it's likely that anyone that does arise won't be worse. And with us as allies, we can exert more pressure on them to be more democratic.

So you have no idea who the rebels are, but will support them on the basis that they must be better than Gadhaffi and they will somehow become democratic?

lol

Because they've taken the effort to revolt after getting massacred when they were doing protests. And they're clearly asking for help of almost any sort.

That's what tends to happen when your country has a young population without basic rights, and a third of your workforce is unemployed.

The point was that just because a country has internal problems doesn't mean that it should forever remain fixated on those problems and should be willing to help a fellow country in need.

Once again, why should I care exactly? This country has internal problems and so do various other countries. This is not your business.

But how closely related are you to most Americans? And how many Americans do you know vs how many are strangers to you? And what really is the difference between an American that's a stranger and any other nationality that's a stranger?

Shared

-Culture
-Customs
-Values

[drone]

Haven't looked into the logistics closely, but I'm assuming the no-fly zone will be enforced mainly from carriers, at least at the start. What nearby land bases can the US stage fighters, attack planes, tankers, and AWACS out of? Are we going to run everything from Incirlik and Akrotiri, or do we rent space closer?

And on a completely unrelated note, why is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs a Navy man when we are currently involved in 2 Asian land wars?

[TinCow]

Haven't looked into the logistics closely, but I'm assuming the no-fly zone will be enforced mainly from carriers, at least at the start. What nearby land bases can the US stage fighters, attack planes, tankers, and AWACS out of? Are we going to run everything from Incirlik and Akrotiri, or do we rent space closer?

I doubt the carriers will get the load of it. The US has bases in Italy and Germany that are in-range of Libya. Hell, we bombed Iraq from Alabama.

Relatively little of the air power will be US though. Most is going to be France, UK, and possibly UAE. UK will be operating out of Gibralter and France will be operating out of its own territory. Spain and Italy have also offered to host foreign air power at their bases.

[HoreTore]

Awesome.
Yes, will the bombing of Yemen commence before or after we regime-change the hell out of Bahrain? The Ivory Coast is full of black africans, so we know they'll be at the bottom of the list for Western intervention.

The Ivory Coast is also full of 10.000 UN troops.

Who, I might add, have been involved in the violence, unlike what happened in Rwanda, with 2 casaulties so far(there have been around 50 deaths on each side so far).

[ICantSpellDawg]

You guys are such turds. I'm a fan of perpetual war in defense of people everywhere. Americans aren't worth a penny more than anyone else - all humans willing to die for justice should be willing to do it anywhere, for anyone suffering injustice. Over the years, I've come to view westerners who aren't prepared to fight for freedom as worth less than those who are prepared to fight for freedom. I'm more allied with the people of Libya than I am with my own waste of space countrymen and women.

Now, to be honest, I am not in favor of the protests in Yemen because I do not believe that people there are interested in Freedom from anything other than the people who prevent them from opressing people even more brutally than the current regime. There is nothing hypocritical about us not sporting that movement, because it does not support freedom. We don't just support "movements", we support "freedom". Libya seems to reflect that, Egypt certainly did, Tunisia did as well. Baharain might. We are not even agaisnt "oppression" per se - in fact we are in favor of oppressing those who would themsleves oppress civilians just trying to live their lives.

A human being is a human being is a human being. We have no more of a right to be free than anyone else. Some would argue that they work harder for their freedoms than we ever have - yet we have a military ready to die for us when we deny that protection for others. If you have the ability to defend those suffering and deny it when you would require the defense yourself, you are scum.

[PanzerJaeger]

You guys are such turds. I'm a fan of perpetual war in defense of people everywhere. Americans aren't worth a penny more than anyone else - all humans willing to die for justice should be willing to do it anywhere, for anyone suffering injustice. Over the years, I've come to view westerners who aren't prepared to fight for freedom as worth less than those who are prepared to fight for freedom. I'm more allied with the people of Libya than I am with my own waste of space countrymen and women.

And when are you leaving for Libya to fight the good fight?

[HoreTore]

And when are you leaving for Libya to fight the good fight?

The Internet Tough Guy, ITG, always leads the good fight from a nearby keyboard, with his almighty e-penis.

[Ice]

You guys are such turds. I'm a fan of perpetual war in defense of people everywhere. Americans aren't worth a penny more than anyone else - all humans willing to die for justice should be willing to do it anywhere, for anyone suffering injustice. Over the years, I've come to view westerners who aren't prepared to fight for freedom as worth less than those who are prepared to fight for freedom. I'm more allied with the people of Libya than I am with my own waste of space countrymen and women.

Now, to be honest, I am not in favor of the protests in Yemen because I do not believe that people there are interested in Freedom from anything other than the people who prevent them from opressing people even more brutally than the current regime. There is nothing hypocritical about us not sporting that movement, because it does not support freedom. We don't just support "movements", we support "freedom". Libya seems to reflect that, Egypt certainly did, Tunisia did as well. Baharain might. We are not even agaisnt "oppression" per se - in fact we are in favor of oppressing those who would themsleves oppress civilians just trying to live their lives.

A human being is a human being is a human being. We have no more of a right to be free than anyone else. Some would argue that they work harder for their freedoms than we ever have - yet we have a military ready to die for us when we deny that protection for others. If you have the ability to defend those suffering and deny it when you would require the defense yourself, you are scum.

Thanks, now go ride off on your wide horse, sword drawn to lead the charge.

[Ice]

The Internet Tough Guy, ITG, always leads the good fight from a nearby keyboard, with his almighty e-penis.

second quote of yours going in my sig :)

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'd pay a big tax increase for it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'd pay a big tax increase for it.

No you wouldn't. Someone would claim they were making a tax increase for your War Department and you'd vote it down for fear the money could be used to make sure poor people have healthcare.

Anyway, "Team America" has a poor track record, the last reasonably successful venture was Korea and you weren't the ones directly running that.

[Xiahou]

I think the west has made a mess of this situation. Obama spoke out early about Gaddafi needing to step down, but we did nothing. Now that the opposition forces are pushed back to the brink, we intervene.

If we were going to, we should have done it earlier and decisively. If not, he shouldn't have taken sides.